Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology

2012 Edition
| Editors: Robert A. Meyers

HOT Lanes/Value Pricing: Planning and Evaluation of Multiclass Service

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_520

Definition of the Subject

Economists have recognized for a long time (and transportation professionals more recently) that congestion on highways indicates that they are being operated inefficiently. The inefficiency stems from a failure to vary the price that drivers face with the level of demand for vehicle travel on the congested facility. In practice, congestion pricing on a transportation facility or service utilizes tolls that vary either by time of day, or directly with demand. Although there are many tolled highway facilities in the USA, including bridges, tunnels, and turnpikes, (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage.htm), few currently vary the toll by time of day (see http://ceprofs.tamu.edu/mburris/pricing.htm). One example is the New Jersey Turnpike and another is the Port Authority Hudson River crossings in New York City that have recently introduced a modest variation for peak periods [2].

Pricing one or more lanes of a facility so as to keep traffic on them moving...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Federal highway administration (2008) Managed lanes: a primer. US DOT/FHWA, Washington, DC. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/pubs.htm#mngd_lns_hov. Accessed 27 June 2011
  2. 2.
    Port authority of New York and New Jersey (2010) Bridges and tunnels, tolls, PANYNJ. http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/tolls.html. Accessed Aug 2010
  3. 3.
    Small KA, Gomez-Ibanez JA (1998) Road pricing for congestion management: the transition from theory to policy. In: Button KJ, Verhoef ET (eds) Road pricing, traffic congestion and the environment: issues of efficiency and social feasibility. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 213–246Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collier T, Goodin G (2004) Managed lanes: a cross-cutting study. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, Texas Transportation Institute, College StationGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sallach M, Vu P, Zhan YJ (2010) Corridor level analysis of potential Managed lanes investment on I-75 South in Atlanta, Georgia. Paper for TRB, Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mirshahi M, Obenberger J et al. (2007) Active traffic management: the next step in congestion management. Prepared for DOT/FHWA, US, Washington, DC. http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl07012/. Accessed 27 June 2011
  7. 7.
    Federal highway administration (2010) Value pricing projects involving tolls. US DOT/FHWA. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/projects/involving_tolls/priced_lanes/index.htm. Accessed Aug 2010
  8. 8.
    Martin PT, Vladisavljevic I, Yusufzyanova D (2007) The I-15 Express lanes evaluation. Prepared for Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, University of Utah. http://www.udot.utah.gov/expresslanes/dld/U%20of%20U%20Express%20Lanes%20Evaluation%20November%202007.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2011
  9. 9.
    Liu X, Zhang G, Wu YJ, Wang Y (2009) Analyzing system performance for Washington state route 167 high occupancy toll (HOT) operations. Prepared for TRB, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DKS Associates (2009) A domestic scan of congestion pricing and managed lanes. Prepared for Administration, DKS Associates in association with PBSJ and Jack Faucett Associates, Federal Highway, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Federal Highway Administration (2008) Technologies that enable congestion pricing: a primer, US DOT/FHWA, Washington, DC. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/publications.htm. Accessed 27 June 2011
  12. 12.
    Goodall N, Smith BL (2009) What drives single occupant traveler decisions in HOT lanes? : an investigation using archived traffic and tolling data from the MnPASS Express Lanes. Paper for TRB, University of Virginia, CharlottesvilleGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brinckerhof P (2003) A guide for HOT lane development. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, Parsons Brinkerhoff with Texas Transportation Institute in partnership with US DOT/FHWA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    PB Study Team (2002) HOV performance program: evaluation report, Los Angeles county metropolitan transportation authority, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    407 ETR (2010) ETR 407 express toll route, 407 ETR Concession Company Limited, Toronto. http://www5.407etr.com. Accessed 27 June 2011
  16. 16.
    Fuhs C, Obenberger J (2002) HOV facility development: a review of national trends. Prepared for TRB, Parsons Brinkerhoff, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burris MW, Lipnicky K (2009) HOV or general purpose lanes? Public Works Manag Policy 14(2):130–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poole Jr RW (2008) The HOT topic: enforcement in the fast lanes. Tolltrans, pp 44–49Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poole Jr RW, Kenneth Orski C (1999) Building a case for hot lanes: a new approach to reducing urban highway congestion. Reason Public Policy Institute, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee DB Jr (2008) Toward the evaluation of value pricing. Transport Res Record 2079:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chang M, Wiegmann J, Smith A, Bilotto C (2008) A review of HOV lane performance and policy options in the United States. Prepared for FHWA, Booz Allen & Hamilton and HNTB, McCleanGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Booz Allen Hamilton, and HNTB (2008) A compendium of existing HOV lane facilities in the United States. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, BAH and HNTB, McCleanGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cervero R (1999) Reviving HOV lanes. Transport Quart 53(4):67–81Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sas M, Carison S, Kim E, Quant M (2007) Considerations for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) to high occupancy toll (HOT) lane conversions guidebook. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, HNTB/Booz Allen Hamilton, McCleanGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Plotz J, Konduri KC, Pendyala RM (2009) To what extent can HOV lanes reduce vehicle trips and congestion?: An exploratory analysis using national statistics on HOV mode use. Paper for TRB, Arizona State University, TempeGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Supernak J, Kaschade C, Steffey D (2003) Dynamic pricing on I-15 in San Diego: impact on travel time and its reliability. Transport Res Record 1839:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Transportation Research Board (2000) Highway capacity manual: HCM 2000. TRB, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barboza T (2009) O.C. Toll road price drops to attract commuters. Los Angeles times, 27 Mar 2009Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arizona Republic (2007) More Arizona drivers disobeying HOV rules. Arizona Republic, 31 Oct 2007Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jang K, Chung K, Ragland DR, Chan CY (2009) Safety performance of high-occupancy-vehicle facilities. Transport Res Record 2099:132–140Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cassidy MJ, Daganzo CF, Jang K, Chung K (2006) Empirical reassessment of traffic of traffic operations: freeway Bottlenecks and the case for HOV lanes. Institute of Transportation Studies, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Anderson T (2007) Car-Pool lanes may be switched to toll lanes. Los Angeles Daily Breeze, 30 Nov 2007Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    AASHTO (2003) A manual of user benefit analysis for highways. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cassidy MJ, Bertini RL (1999) Some traffic features at freeway Bottlenecks. Transport Res (B) 33:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jung S, Wunderlich K (2008) Roadway network productivity assessment: system-wide analysis under variant travel demand. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, Noblis, Falls Church. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/publications.htm. Accessed 27 June 2011
  36. 36.
    Booz Allen Hamilton, HNTB (2008) Policy options evaluation tool for managed lanes (POET-ML) users guide and methodology description. Prepared for Federal highway Administration, BAH and HNTB, McLeanGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yan J, Small KA, Sullivan EC (2002) Choice models of route, occupancy, and time of day, with value-priced tolls. Transport Res Record 1812:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Burris MW, Goel R (2009) Mode choice due to HOV to HOT conversions. Paper for TRB, Texas A&M University, College StationGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zmud J, Bradley M, Douma F, Simek C (2007) Attitudes and willingness to pay for tolled facilities: a panel survey evaluation. Transport Res Record 1996:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Burris MW, Ungemah DH, Mahlawat M, Pannu MS (2009) Investigating the impact of tolls on high-occupancy-vehicle lanes using managed lanes. Transport Res Record 2099:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sullivan E (2000) Evaluating the impacts of the SR 91 variable toll express lane facility. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo. http://ceenve3.civeng.calpoly.edu/sullivan/SR91/final_rpt/finalrep_full.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2011
  42. 42.
    Regan ED (2010) Pricing trade-offs: revenue vs. traffic management. Presentation to the National Road Pricing Conference, Houston TX, Wilbur Smith Associates, Atlanta. http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/nrp10/program/. Accessed 27 June 2011
  43. 43.
    MacGregor ME (2010) How revenue and traffic management are combined in the North Tarrant Expressway (NTE) managed lanes project in Fort Worth, TX. Presentation to the National Road Pricing Conference, Houston TX, Texas Department of Transportation, Dallas. http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/nrp10/program/. Accessed 27 June 2011
  44. 44.
    Patil S, Burris M, Shaw D (2009) A comparison of survey designs for stated choice models: an application to commuting on managed lanes. Prepared for TRB, Texas A&M University, College StationGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Small KA, Winston C, Yan J (2006) Differentiated road pricing, express lanes, and carpools: exploiting heterogeneous preferences in policy design. Brookings – Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, Washington, DC, pp 53–96Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Weiss E (2008) Will drivers pay to hurry up and wait? Washington Post, 25 Feb 2008Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brownstone K, Small KA (2005) Valuing time and reliability: assessing the evidence from road pricing demonstrations. Transport Res (A) 39:279–293Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Joint Transport Research Centre (2009) Improving reliability on surface transport networks, OECD/International Transport Forum, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lam CT, Small KA (2001) The value of time and reliability: measurement from a value pricing experiment. Transport Res (E) 37:231–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Patil S, Burris M, Shaw D, Concas S (2010) The value of travel time savings on managed lanes for urgent situations. Prepared for TRB, Texas A&M University, College StationGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cho Y, Goel R, Gupta P, Bogonko G, Burris M (2011) What are I-394 HOT lane drivers paying for?. Prepared for TRB, Texas A&M University, College StationGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Poole Jr RW (2006) Managed lanes: what should we maximize? Surface Transport Innovations, Dec 2006Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Poole Jr RW (2006) Transportation policy review: competing models of HOT lanes. Public Works Financing, July–Aug 2006, pp 25–26Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stone R (2010) High tolls lure drivers to I-95’s pay lanes, Miami Herald, 31 Mar 2010Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bhatt K, Higgins T, Berg JT (2008) Value pricing pilot program: lessons learned. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, K.T. Analytics and Cambridge Systematics, Washington, DC. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/publications.htm. Accessed 27 June 2011
  56. 56.
    Cuff D (2009) MTC approves plan for toll lanes, Contra Costa Times, 23 Apr 2009Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Small KA (1992) Using the revenues from congestion pricing. Transportation 19(4):313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ng CF, Small KA (2008) Tradeoffs among free-flow speeds, capacity, cost, and environmental footprint in highway design. University of California, IrvineGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sullivan E, Burris M (2006) Benefit-cost analysis of variable pricing projects: SR-91 express lanes. J Transport Engin 132(3):191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Light T (2009) Optimal highway design and user welfare under value pricing. J Urban Econ 66(2):116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Loudon WR, Synn J, Miller H (2010) Consideration of congestion pricing and managed lanes in the metropolitan transportation planning process. Prepared for TRB, DKS Associates, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Federal Highway Administration (2008) Economics: pricing, demand, and economic efficiency, a primer. US DOT/FHWA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mohring H (1976) Transportation economics. Ballinger, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Vickrey WS (1963) Pricing in urban and suburban transport. Am Econ Rev 53:452–465Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Walters AA (1968) The economics of road user charges. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mohring H (2006) Congested roads: an economic analysis with twin cities’ illustrations. In: Roth G (ed) Street smart. Transaction Publishers for the Independent Institute, New Brunswick, pp 141–170Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kidd B (2006) Multimodal optimization of urban freeway corridors. Prepared for Arizona Department of Transportation, Lee Engineering, PhoenixGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Poole Jr RW (2010) Managed lanes: networks vs. individual facilities. Prepared for TRB, Reason Foundation, PlantationGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Craig T (2007) Deals clinched on HOT lanes, Washington Post, 21 Dec 2007Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Verhoef ET, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (1996) Second-best congestion pricing. J Urban Econ 40(3):279–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Small KA, Yan J (2001) The value of “value pricing” of roads: second-best pricing and product differentiation. J Urban Econ 49:310–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Celik S, Maglaras C (2005) Dynamic pricing and leadtime quotation for a multi-class make-to-order queue. Columbia University Business School, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Federal Highway Administration (2008) Income-based equity impacts of congestion pricing: a primer, US DOT/FHWA Washington, DC. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/publications.htm. Accessed 27 June 2011
  74. 74.
    Cassidy WB (2010) Congestion pricing advances in virginia. J Commerce, May 27. http://www.joc.com/government-regulation/congestion-pricing-advances-northern-virginia
  75. 75.
    Buckeye KR, DeCorla-Souza P, Lari A, Aultman S (2009) User perceptions of fee lane concepts in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gulipalli P, Kalmanje S, Kockelman K (2008) Credit-based congestion pricing: expert expectations and guidelines for application. J Transport Res Forum 47(2):5–20Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Billheimer JW (1978) The Santa Monica freeway diamond lanes: evaluation overview. Transport Res Record 663:8–16Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Fielding GJ, Klein DB (1993) “High occupancy/toll lanes: phasing in congestion pricing a lane at a time”, Reason Foundation Policy Study 170. Reason Foundation, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Poole Jr RW (2010) Pricing and Fiscal implications of different types of HOT Lanes. Presentation to the National Road Pricing Conference, Houston TX, Reason Foundation, Santa Monica, CA. http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/nrp10/program/. Accessed 27 June 2011
  80. 80.
    Klein L (2010) 2010 bay area express lane network. Presentation to the National Road Pricing Conference, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Houston, Oakland. http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/nrp10/program/. Accessed 27 June 2011
  81. 81.
    Stone C (2010) SR 520 Lake Washington Project: Seattle’s urban partnership agreement. Presentation to the National Road Pricing Conference, Houston, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia. http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/nrp10/program/. Accessed 27 June 2011
  82. 82.
    Swisher M, Eisele WL, Ungemah D, and Goodin GD (2003) Life-cycle graphical representation of Managed HOV lane evolution. In: 11th International HOV conference, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Copeland L (2010) States turn to tolls to fund roads. USA Today, 2 Aug 2010Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Adams T (2010)Toll concession model for the I-495 beltway HOT lanes. Presentation to the national road pricing conference, Transurban, Houston, Washington, DC 2–4 June 2010. http://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/nrp10/program/). Accessed 27 June 2011
  85. 85.
    Weiss EM (2008) Money spent vs. time saved debated for HOT lanes. Washington Post, Aug 25. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/24/AR2008082402559.html
  86. 86.
    Miles M (2007) Tolling & value pricing: the California experience. In: ITE – Technical Conference 2007, California Department of Transportation, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Turner M (2008) Officials look to toll lanes to solve traffic, funding issues. Sacramento Bus J, Feb 22. http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/02/25/story1.html

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Department of TransportationVolpe National Transportation Systems CenterCambridgeUSA