TransitWiki - User contributions [en]

Transit-Ridehail Partnerships

2019-12-13T18:28:00Z

Lauren.craik123: Added details to Boston case study

== Introduction ==
Several public sector transit agencies have begun to partner with TNCs to either augment, assist, or even replace portions of their existing service.

Pinellas County in Florida developed the first US partnership with a TNC, doing so in response to drastic service cuts the agency made due to low ridership. Instead of cutting service to some areas entirely, Pinellas Suncoast Transit began discounting Uber rides $5. Similar partnerships have begun to take shape across the country. While these have been mostly in smaller cities, Boston has begun using Lyft and Uber to provide conventional paratransit service, citing significant cost savings over handling the operation in-agency.<ref>Joseph Schweiterman and Mallory Livingston. "A Review of Partnerships between Transportation Network Companies and Public Agencies in the United States." TRB, 2019. https://trid.trb.org/view/1572575</ref>

=== Target Markets<ref name=":0">TRB Webinar. "Partnerships Between Transit Agencies and Transportation Network Companies." 17 July 2019.</ref> ===
The following are some of the target markets for ridehail-transit partnerships:
* Late night or special events
* Suburban mobility
* Paratransit / Dial-a-Ride
* First/last mile
* Guaranteed ride home

=== Approach to Transit-Ridehail Partnerships<ref name=":0" /> ===
# '''Motivation:''' Find ways to save money, increase ridership, or demonstrate innovation. Focus on core transit service and quality improvements.
# '''Engage:''' Commence informal talks or issue an RFP. Collaboration enables headway on data sharing, solutions for WAV, cash pay, and non-smartphone customers.
# '''Negotiate:''' Focus on data sharing, ADA, and Title VI
# '''Operate'''
# '''Terminate:''' Transit agencies should experiment and terminate the engagement if goals can't be met.

=== What makes a good pilot? ===
To this point, many ridehailing partnerships are pilot programs that transit agencies have conducted. Here are some elements and steps to consider in creating a transit-ridehail partnership pilot:
* '''Function:''' What is the problem we are trying to solve?
* '''Market:''' What areas are hurting for attention?
* '''Mode:''' What mode best suits the capacity needs? A ridehail partnership allows a transit agency to use smaller vehicles without needing to add those vehicles to its fleet.
* '''Market'''
* '''Evaluate:''' Iterate and critique. Some agencies have used third-party consultants to perform this.
* '''Decide:''' Reinvent, scale, or terminate.

== Policy Context ==
The FTA is actively updating its policies on how transit agencies work with ridehailing companies and other new mobility providers. Links to FAQs on website. Awaiting ruling on ridehail trips reporting to the NTD. Important for how funding is distributed back to agencies. As this grows, these trips are important to recognize.

Drug and alcohol testing. Transit operators must be tested. Taxicab exception. As long as a customer has a choice between two providers, the D&A testing is waived.

ADA requires agencies to provide equivalent service. Title VI responsibility to provide cash and phone options in context on ridehail partnerships. Important to FTA because of disproportionate share of low-income customers. (Link to low-income transit use.)

Sunshine laws.

== Types of Partnerships ==

=== First-/Last-Mile Partnerships ===
[[File:Blue at Night logo.png|thumb|Santa Monica Big Blue Bus's Blue@Night program logo.<ref name=":1">TRB Webinar. "Partnerships Between Transit Agencies and Transportation Network Companies." 17 July 2019.</ref>]]
Santa Monica Big Blue Bus is partnering with Lyft to offer a “Blue at Night” service, which discounts up to 20 shared rides at $3 each to and from Expo Line Stations on Friday and Saturday nights from 8:00 PM to 3:00 AM (Big Blue Bus, 2018).

=== Route Replacements ===
As substitutes, a shift from a city providing fixed-route, fixed-schedule bus service to on-demand subsidized TNCs can drastically reduce overall ridership. Bruce Schaller cites the situation in San Clemente, where the city contracted with Lyft to provide service on two recently-eliminated bus routes (2018). At last measure, daily bus ridership in those two corridors was 650 passengers. Lyft as a replacement, however, is averaging 70 daily riders, an 89-percent decrease. While this may ultimately be a net savings for the transit agency, it does represent a shift in mode or reduction in mobility for previous bus riders. Schaller argues that TNCs should be used as extensions to transit service, not as replacements.<ref>Bruce Schaller. "The New Mobility: Lyft, Uber, and the Future of American Cities." http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.pdf</ref>

Another form of route replacement is suburban mobility. One example is Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority's (LAVTA) partnerships with Lyft, Uber, and DeSoto Cab Company (for ADA and Title VI). This partnership applied to shared rides only. This partnership included incentives for WAV trip availability and responsiveness. Unlike in San Clemente, fixed route ridership actually increased, which can be possibly explained by the partnership's ability to connect customers to existing rail services like BART.<ref name=":1" />

=== Payment Partnerships ===
Uber in Denver

=== Paratransit Partnerships ===
Boston Paratransit contract: In an effort to test cost-effective ways to provide for demand responsive paratransit the MBTA partnered up with Uber, Lyft and Curb to offer subsidized ride hailing for its paratransit (The Ride) customers.<ref>On Demand Pilot, The MBTA, https://www.mbta.com/accessibility/the-ride/on-demand-pilot</ref>

A smaller paratransit partnership is Greater Richmond Transit Company's (GRTC) agreement with two "hybrid TNCs" for same-day service for ADA paratransit riders. GRTC issued an RFP with a deliberate focus on ADA and Titile VI services. The partnership requires a 2-hour advance notice and can be reserved up to 30-days in advance. Drivers receive ADA and sensitivity training and provide door-to-door service when needed. The agency and companies also have agreed to extensive data sharing.<ref name=":0" />

In San Bernardino, OmniTrans subsidizes Lyft trips by providing seniors and people with disabilities a monthly subsidy of $40 per participant for $80 worth of Lyft service. To provide vehicles with wheelchair-accessible service and trip requests by phone, OmniTrans also partners with a local taxi company. Despite this additional partnership, OmniTrans has seen very little customer utilization of the taxi option.

=== Programs that Indirectly Promote Transit ===
Lyft Complete Streets

Marketing partnerships . co-promotion agreement

Informal (no exchange of funds)

== References ==
<references />

Fare pricing and reform

2019-12-12T21:24:53Z

Lauren.craik123: Added Fare Integration section

[[File:Got-bus-pass.jpeg|right|thumb|300px|A member of the public at a rally for Free/Reduced Student Passes in Oakland, Photo by J. Moses Ceasar 2005]]

[[Category:Finance and revenue]]
[[Category:Market Response]]
==Introduction==
Most transit agencies employ largely flat fare systems, which charge the same price, regardless of time of day, distance or direction traveled, or quality of service. However, they do not reflect the actual costs of providing service, which constantly fluctuate throughout the day. Peak period operation, longer trip routes, and premium service all cost the agency more money to operate, and require more capital investments. Additionally, there is the issue of "cross-subsidization"; since flat fares do not distinguish between time, type, or distance of travel, transit users traveling shorter distances, during off-peak hours, and using non-premium services “cross-subsidize” riders on more expensive routes. There is a considerable body of research that argue in favor of flexible, differentiated fares. There are also other fare strategies that transit agencies can consider, such as using smartcard technology, eliminating fares altogether, or providing group fares or other discounts.

==Differentiated Pricing==
Most transit systems have flat fares, but others use differentiated fares based on time (peak vs. off-peak) or distance traveled. Differentiated fares are more efficient because they better reflect the variable costs of transit service, encourage riders to travel when excess capacity is available, and subsidize all types of riders roughly equally. Some transit agencies worry about losing riders after switching to differentiated pricing, but new fare system can incentivize additional short rides by making them cheaper. More research is needed to draw broader conclusions on the effect on ridership of moving from flat to differentiated fares.

Any new fare system is going to raise concerns about equity; if low-income riders have longer trips then they will be disproportionately impacted by differentiated pricing. This effect is highly dependent on local settlement patterns. One study in Utah found that a switch to differentiated pricing in a certain part of the Utah Transit Authority's service area would be progressive, reducing fares for low-income and minority riders.<ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856414001785 Farber, S. et al. (2014). "Assessing social equity in distance based transit fares using a model of travel behavior." Transportation Research Part A.]</ref> This isn't necessarily transferable to other areas, though; agencies looking to make the switch will have to do their own [[Transit and Civil Rights|Title VI analyses]].

In recent decades [[automated fare media]] has greatly simplified the process of collecting differentiated fares. However, many agencies are still wary of the perceived complexity and unpopularity of time- and distance- based fares, and if anything in recent years more agencies have returned to flat fare systems. <ref>[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_94.pdf Multisystems, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Inc., & Simon & Simon Research Associates, Inc. (2003). "Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update." Transit Cooperative Research Program.]</ref>

*'''Los Angeles MTA Study'''
:In 2010, Los Angeles Metro looked at the potential for time and distance-based fares for the MTA bus and rail system<ref>[http://media.metro.net/board/Items/2010/09_september/20100915OPItem10.pdf Evaluation of Time and Distance-Based Fare Policies]</ref>.

:The time-based system would give riders a window of time during which subsequent boardings would not require payment. Transfer fees would be eliminated during that time period. A simple way to implement this would be to use the TAP cards, although the agency would have to look into additional hardware to vend receipts if it wanted to accommodate cash-paying riders as well. One important implication is this system would encourage riders to use the fastest services available, since they would be granted a narrow time window of free transfers. Base fares may have to be increased, since transfer fare revenues will be lost.

:The distance-based system could apply to Rapid and Express buses, to heavy rail, or to all rail lines. Fares would be based on increments of distance, with corresponding fare zone boundaries identified for each route. While existing hardware and fare media could be used, the agency might have to install fare gates or hire additional people for fare enforcement. An overall concern with a distance-based system is some riders may choose slower, cheaper parallel services because they cannot afford to pay a premium fare.

==Group Fares==

Transit agencies can offer [[Deep Discount Group Pass|deep discount group passes]] to employers and universities. In a 2004 dissertation, Cornelius Nuworsoo explores the benefits of discounted fare programs for groups and summarizes the outcomes of unlimited-ride pass programs in Berkeley and Denver.<ref>[http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2004/DS/UCB-ITS-DS-2004-2.pdf "Deep Discount Group Pass Programs as Instruments for Increasing Transit Revenue and Ridership."] </ref> There is an associated Access Magazine article that can be found on the Access website at http://www.accessmagazine.org

==Fare Integration==

Another key component of modern fare reform is fare integration. This is particular equity concern as city housing prices rise, pushing people further away from the center. This poses an extra burden on low-income commuters who often have to pay multiple different agencies' fares for their commute.

This has been a particularly pressing issue for the Bay Area where there are 27 transit operators with " a dizzying array of fare structures". <ref name=":1">Roger Rudick, San Francisco Streetsblog, "Breakthrough on Fare Integration",

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/09/17/breakthrough-on-fare-integration/
</ref> In September 2019 the Clipper Executive Board, representing major transit operators in the Area, approved funds to study the possibility of fare coordination. <ref name=":1" />

'''Toronto Case Study:'''

As of 2018, Toronto and surrounding municipalities signed into a number of fare integration agreements, leading to discounted transfers from the Go System ( commuter rail) and TTC (Toronto subway) and free transfers between key municipal operators outside Toronto. This was largely facilitated via the use of Presto Cards, a payment card that works across numerous transit agencies Ontario. <ref>Metrolinx Fare Integration,

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/fareintegration/default.aspx
</ref>

==Fares Based on Ability to Pay==
The SFMTA is currently conducting a study on developing a fare system that takes into account passengers' ability to pay, rather than simply on their ages. The SFMTA does have a Lifeline pass program, which provides a 50 percent discount on the monthly pass for residents whose incomes are below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, fewer than 20,000 people use the Lifeline system, since it is burdensome and requires a lot of paperwork for all parties. <ref>[http://www.planetizen.com/node/59552 Bay Area Considers Basing Transit Fares on Need] </ref> The proposed fare system would ideally cut down on red tape and provide discounts for those in financial need.

==Fare-Free Transit==
Cities provide a variety of services, such as parks and libraries, to everyone with no direct fee. Proponents of fare-free transit argue that public transportation should be provided in the same way.<ref>[http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/167498.aspx Volinski, J. (2012). "Implementation and Outcomes of Fare-Free Transit Systems." Transit Cooperative Research Program.]</ref> Fare-free transit would be beneficial to low-income riders, especially to people of color who are more likely to be stopped for farebeating. Fare-free transit is also seen by supporters as a way to reduce dwell times, lower administrative costs, and grow transit ridership. Opponents of of fare-free transit argue that the lost revenue, when coupled with additional demand, would stretch agency resources too thin and harm service quality. There are also concerns about loitering and vandalism, though the extent to which this is a serious problem is a matter of debate.

The practicality of fare-free transit seems to be tied in part to the size of the system. There are multiple possible reasons for this, but farebox recovery ratios play a role. Large transit systems like those in New York City or the San Francisco Bay can have farebox recovery ratios of more than 40%, meaning that switching to fare-free service would represent a huge loss in revenue.<ref>[http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/15/07/05/the-list-the-10-u-s-transit-agencies-that-rely-most-on-fare-revenues/ Rinde, Meir. (2015). "The List: The 10 U.S. Transit Agencies that Rely Most on Fare Revenues." NJ Spotlight.]</ref> On the other hand, for small systems that number might be less than 10%. Given the cost of collecting fares (fareboxes, payment processing systems, increased dwell time), it's possible that moving fare-free could actually improve system finances. Successful fare-free system are typically in small areas dominated by either universities or resorts.

===Fare-Free Case Studies===
''United States''
* '''Corvallis Transit System''' - CTS serves a Corvallis, OR, a city of 55,000 people (including 20,000 Oregon State University students). In 2011 CTS made the decision to go fare-free as a way to reduce car dependency. Funding, which had previous come from fares and student fees at OSU, was replaced with a $2.75 a month charge to Corvallis Utility customers. The program has been seen as a success; ridership grew nearly 38% in the first year and schedule performance improved. The program is relatively new, but seems to be performing well.
* '''Breckenridge Free Ride''' - Breckenridge, CO is a ski resort town with a population of just a couple thousand people, but 50,000 visitors a weekend during peak season. The city set up a fare-free transit system to ease tourist congestion and help residents get around. Free Ride had 670,000 riders in 2009. Operational expenses come out of the town's general fund. This has worked so far but is susceptible to economic downtown, so the town is looking for new funding mechanisms. Ridership is steadily growing, and strict anti-loitering rules keep the buses moving smoothly.
* '''Link Transit''' - Washington State's Link Transit is a larger rural system serving 105,000 people over and area of 3,500 miles. It currently operates 55 buses and 22 paratransit vehicles with a budget of $11 million per year. It was established in 1989 and had no problems operating fare-free for the next decade. However, in 1999 voters eliminated the motor vehicle excise tax that had provided Link Transit with most of its funding. The agency lost 45% of its operating revenue and was forced to charge fares. The conservative area had never fully embraced the fare-free system. The current fares account for 6% of operating expenses and disproportionately effect minorities and the elderly.
* '''San Francisco Municipal Railway''' - In 2008, San Francisco Muni conducted a study on the cost-effectiveness of a fare-free system. The study concluded that Muni would see increased operating expenses and capital investments, even though the costs of fare collection would be eliminated. Muni would need an additional $184 million a year for operations, as well as an additional $519 million to procure the vehicles, facilities, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the ridership increase. The city abandoned its fare-free plan after seeing the results of the study.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Free-ride-Fat-chance-Muni-fares-will-stay-3229342.php Gordon, R. (2008). "Free Ride? Fat Chance: Muni Fares Will Stay." SFGate.]</ref>
* '''Kansas City''' - In 2019, city officials announced that bus service will be free starting in 2020. The City Council has required that the City government make up the $9 million estimated will be lost due to the elimination of fares.<ref>[https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/12/09/kansas-city-moves-ahead-with-free-buses/ Short, Aaron. (2019). "Kansas City Moves Ahead With Free Buses." Streetsblog USA.]</ref>
''Globally''
* '''Tallinn, Estonia''' - Tallinn eliminated all fares for transit taken by registered city residents in 2013. Although this fee elimination did not significantly impact congestion, research suggests that mobility may have particularly improved for lower-income residents (measured in terms of the number of trips), although not necessarily leading to greater access to employment.<ref>Oded Cats, Yusak O. Susilo, and Triin Reimal, “The prospects of fare-free public transport: evidence from Tallinn,” ''Transportation'' 44, no. 5 (2017): 1083–104.</ref> There is some evidence that the introduction of fare-free transit caused a reduction in average trip length (of roughly 10%), which could suggest that riders are replacing trips previously made by walking or biking with transit.<ref name=":0">[https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190128-the-cost-of-luxembourgs-free-public-transport-plan Auxenfants, Marc. (2019). "The cost of Luxembourg's free public transport plan." BBC.]</ref>
* '''Luxembourg''' - The nation of Luxembourg will make all public transit free starting as of March, 2020. Fares currently represent a small part of the overall operating costs of the system, totaling 41 million Euros, or less than 10% of the 491 million Euro operating costs. Although the nation does expect some benefits with respect to reduced congestion and emissions, the Minister for Mobility and Public Works, François Bausch, has said that the initiative, "is primarily a social measure...the objective is to stop the deepening gap between rich and poor. For people on low wages, transport expenses matter. Therefore it is easier to make it free for everyone."<ref name=":0" />

==References==
<references />

==Additional Reading==
Cervero, Robert. [http://www.springerlink.com/index/r52126220g7t501.pdf| "Flat versus differentiated pricing: What's a fair fare?"] 1981.
: Cervero explores the efficiency and equity of different pricing structure by comparing transit fares and the cost to provide service. He finds that flat fare structures generally result in short-distance, off-peak riders subsidizing long-distance, peak hour customers. A subscription is required to access this article.

Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_94.pdf| "Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update."] 2003.
:The Federal Transit Administration commissioned this report to identify and evaluate different approaches to fare policy, structure, and collection technologies, with special consideration given to the customer benefits and challenges and equity concerns of each approach.

Transit Cooperative Research Program. [http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf| "Transit Pricing and Fares: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes."] 2004.
: This document summarizes literature on ridership changes in response to different fare adjustments, including the introduction of variable fares and differentiating peak and off-peak fares. Few studies explore the relationship between transitioning to differential pricing and ridership levels.

Congestion pricing

2019-12-12T20:42:42Z

Lauren.craik123: Added economics and updated categories based on latest research

[[Category:Investment and planning]]
[[Category:Finance and revenue]]

[[Image:hotlane.jpg|right|thumb|500px|High-occupancy toll lanes are one form of congestion pricing seen in the US. Source: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47400327 Famartin (CC BY-SA 4.0)]]]
==Introduction==
Most roads are completely free to use. This leads to high demand and, as a result, traffic congestion. Congestion pricing attempts to reduce congestion, decrease travel times, and increase reliability by forcing drivers to pay for using roads. Rather that simply levying flat tolls, congestion pricing works by varying the cost of driving depending on traffic levels. When traffic is high prices rise in an attempt to curb demand. Drivers unwilling to pay the high price will potentially adjust their travel behavior to avoid the congestion, leading to more efficient use of road space.

While congestion pricing is meant to reduce traffic, it also generates revenue. This money can be used put towards improving public transportation so that people have a realistic alternative to driving.

==Congestion Pricing Basics==
Congestion pricing encompasses several different strategies for applying a price to heavily traveled road networks. True "congestion pricing", as opposed to basic tolling, is based off the economic principle of Pigovian taxes whereby consumers pay a fee equal to the negative externality they inflict onto society. <ref>The Economist, Pigouvian Taxes,

https://www.economist.com/economics-brief/2017/08/19/pigouvian-taxes
</ref> Negative externalities of congestion can be seen in the extra "cost" of travel time and unreliability, as well as the negative environmental impacts from excess pollution. By increasing the price the market should respond by decreasing demand and easing congestion.

The basic concept is to raise the price of travel as the number of travelers increases, especially when the level of traffic begins to decrease the time and reliability of travel. In the United States, the "high occupancy toll" (HOT) lane is one of the most common forms of congestion pricing<ref>[http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08039/cp_prim1_00.htm Federal Highway Administration. (2008). "Congestion Pricing: A Primer."]</ref>. HOT lanes are typically converted from existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, retaining the basic concept of free travel by carpools and buses while adding the option for solo drivers to pay to use the lane. This strategy allows motorists who value a faster and more reliable trip on the highway to pay for such an alternative. HOT lanes do not replace general travel lanes, meaning people can continue to drive for free on the same roadway. True congestion pricing on HOT lanes requires that the price paid by solo drivers increases as the volume of cars increases. If so many vehicles are buying into the HOT lanes that traffic begins to back up, the price may climb significantly, or in some cases, the HOT lanes may revert temporarily back to HOV-only.

Other congestion pricing tools besides HOT lanes include zone pricing, tolls across an entire roadway, and area-wide driving charges.
* '''Area pricing''' - In an area pricing system, motorists must pay to drive into a certain area. This has never been implemented in North America, but can be seen in some European cities. It was introduced in London in 2003; most motorists entering the central city between 7:00am and 6:30pm Monday through Friday must pay a fee to do so<ref>[http://www.vtpi.org/london.pdf Litman, T. (2011). "London Congestion Pricing: Implications for Other Cities."]</ref>. The revenues from the zone pricing have been directed towards improved public transport, and together have reduced traffic by as much as 15% without significant increases on surrounding local roads.
* '''Cordon pricing'''- Cordon pricing is very similar to area pricing however drivers must pay every time they cross a boundary, whereas area pricing schemes typically charge once per day. Cordon charges also typically exclude trips that stay within the boundaries as enforcement is only done along the boundary. The best known example of a cordon pricing scheme is Stockholm, Sweden. <ref>Stockholm's Congestion Pricing, Tools of Change Landmark Case Study, https://www.toolsofchange.com/userfiles/Stockholm%20Congestion%20Pricing%20-%20FINAL%202014.pdf</ref>
* '''Tolls across an entire roadway''' - The concept of a toll road is not unfamiliar to Americans, but these tolled facilities usually have a fixed fee. More modern systems adjust the charge to meet demand, which can encourage off-peak travel.
* '''Time/Distance and/or Place-based pricing''' - The most experimental system of congestion pricing involves charging drivers on a per-mile or minute basis for all driving within a certain area. Some have even proposed adjusting the price based on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. Oregon is currently piloting a project that would use this sort of pricing to replace the fuel tax, which is becoming less and less effective as a funding mechanism as fuel efficiency increases. n 2005, Germany adopted a distance-, place-, and emission-based pricing system for all heavy-duty trucks operating on its 12,000-kilometer national highway system, but there are no time-of-day congestion charges involved.<ref>Ecola, Liisa and Thomas Light, Equity and Congestion Pricing: A Review of the Evidence. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2009. <nowiki>https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR680.html</nowiki>.</ref>

Of all the strategies for congestion pricing, converting HOV lanes to HOT lanes is by far the most common and best-studied. As such, it is was the one we will focus on going forward.

==Implementing HOT Lanes==
Getting a HOT lane project off the ground can be difficult. Motorists are used to driving for free, so any new plan to charge them for it is likely to be challenged. Starting a project requires strong leadership that can carry implementation through setbacks. The organization pushing for the lane needs to find allies in three groups: the legislature, other organizations, and the public.
* '''Legislature''' - Because HOT lanes are relatively new, they are vulnerable to legal challenges. Working with the legislature to build trust is an important step to getting permission to move ahead. This can be done by clearly outline the authority structure and goals of the project.
* '''Other organizations''' - Plans for HOT lanes generally have multiple stakeholders. Successful implementation requires clear coordination, often in the form of legal agency agreements.
* '''Public''' - In order for the public to accept any congestion pricing plan, they need to know what the money is going towards. Educational campaigns can help explain the benefits of the program. In addition, pledging to use money for public transit or other improvements can be beneficial.

Once a project has been approved, it is time to actually implement it. It’s important to have a thorough plan in place at this step, as any issues can be very costly and eliminate forward momentum. Pilot projects are a low-risk way to start. Before the full project begins, make sure to clarify what vehicles are exempt (emergency, transit, HOV, etc.) and coordinate with law enforcement on their responsibilities. If using mitigation strategies like improved transit, roll them out before tolling starts. Once the project is moving, constant monitoring is necessary to keep it on the right track.

===HOT Lane Technology===
Unlike traditional toll roads, HOT lanes typically do not involve tollbooth payment. Instead, drivers pay the toll with electronic transponders placed in their cars. The transponders are loaded with money (online, over the phone, or at an office) and communicate with overhead electronic scanners on the roadway. Cameras are often used alongside the scanners in order to record the license plate numbers of drivers trying to use the lanes without paying.

===Equity questions===
One of the most frequent arguments against HOT lanes is that they disproportionately hurt low-income motorists; the term “Lexus Lanes” has been used to paint the lanes as being only for the rich.

While it is true that the lanes can be expensive to use, studies have shown that drivers of all income levels use them. And because HOT lanes do not replace general travel lanes, they should not have a negative impact on free traffic. Lastly, road pricing is a less regressive way to pay for road maintenance than fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, or sales taxes<ref>[https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08040/fhwahop08040.pdf “Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing.” Federal Highway Administration.]</ref>.

This is not to dismiss equity concerns, however. There are certainly equity issues that must be addressed. Credit card-based transponders are inaccessible to the unbanked, so some programs are starting to accept cash payment. In cases where pricing is deemed to be unreasonable for low-income drivers, toll exemptions and rebates have been enacted<ref>[http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/expresslanes/images/low_income_draft_final_report.pdf LACMTA. (2010). "Metro ExpressLanes Project: Final Low-Income Assessment."]</ref>. Lower tolls for low-income drivers are especially important if entire roadways are tolled and easy alternatives do not exist, such as in the case of a toll bridge.

Congestion pricing is fundamentally aimed at reducing demand for driving. Some of this reduction comes from eliminating trips, but people do still need to get around. One way to deal with some of the equity problems arising from HOT lanes is to use a portion of the revenue to fund transit improvement.

==Case Studies==
* '''San Diego''' - San Diego’s I-15 moved to a congestion pricing system in 1998. City of Poway Mayor Jan Goldsmith championed the project, rallying support in the region. The toll varies as often as every six minutes and raises about $2 million a year, half of which is spent on transit. Bus ridership along the corridor has risen 25% since the program started.
*[[File:LA HOT Lanes.jpg|thumb|Map of Los Angeles County HOT Lanes, existing and programmed. (Data source: Caltrans, Map: Sam Speroni)]]'''Los Angeles''' - Metro initially struggled to get legislative approval for HOT lanes on I-10/110, but succeeded with the support of State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas. The project got off the ground when Metro promised to study the effect on low-income commuters and closely monitor the program.
* '''Orange County''' - Four variably priced express lanes were opened on State Route 91 in 1995. The tolls are changed every three months to account for traffic volumes. Average peak-hour speeds on the express lanes is 60-65 miles per hour, as opposed to 15-20 miles per hour in the general lanes. Not only has the project been financially successful, but it has allowed drivers to travel much more quickly.
* '''New York City (Manhattan) -''' In March 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo approved a state budget that included the approval of congestion pricing in Manhattan, with an expected start date in 2021. New York City will use a cordon pricing scheme that will charge drivers to enter Manhattan below 60th Street. Governor Cuomo deferred decision on many of the other details, including the pricing scheme, to the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, which is part of the Metropolitan Transportation Administration (MTA).<ref>Hu, W. (2019, April 2). [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/nyregion/what-is-congestion-pricing.html "Over $10 to Drive in Manhattan? What We Know About the Congestion Pricing Plan]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> Revenue generated from the program will go 80 percent to the MTA's subway and bus network, and 10 percent each to the Long Island Railroad and the Metro-North Railroad.<ref>McKinley, J. and V. Wang. (2019 March 31) "[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/31/nyregion/budget-new-york-congestion-pricing.html?module=inline New York State Budget Deal Brings Congestion Pricing, Plastic Bag Ban and Mansion Tax]." The New York Times.</ref>

==References==
<references />

==Additional Reading==
[https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop13007/fhwahop13007.pdf Perez, B.G., Fuhs, C., Gants, C., Giordano, R., & Ungemah, D.H. (2012). "Priced Managed Lane Guide." Federal Highway Administration]
: This document provides an extensive guide to the details of all the stages of implementing a lane pricing program.