Road Pricing

The Politics of Road Pricing: Champions, Coalitions, and Concentrated Costs

Regular readers will know that I am a fan of road pricing for all sorts of reasons. This white paper from the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California examines the successes and failures of road pricing in the United States to inform road pricing in California.

Key Takeaways

• The paper evaluates nine case studies spanning feasibility studies, operational HOT lane programs, and the country's first large-scale cordon pricing zone.
• Programs advance when they have executive champions willing to absorb political risk, state enabling legislation that limits veto points, and benefits that are tangible and visible to identifiable users.
• Public resistance is driven by psychological factors. These include whether peers support the program, whether individuals expect to benefit personally, and whether they believe pricing will actually reduce congestion.
• Pricing creates concentrated, visible costs for identifiable groups while spreading benefits broadly, an asymmetry that systematically advantages opponents over supporters unless program design compensates for it.
• Dynamic pricing produces clearer shifts in travel behaviour than flat fees.
• High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) to High-occupancy toll (HOT) conversions alone do not benefit transit and can harm it if lanes become congested.
• Revenue allocation, not toll structure, primarily determines whether pricing is regressive or progressive.
• Equity concerns are predictable: Programs that address them proactively fare better than those that leave an opening for opponents.
• Income-based assistance, accessible payment systems, and transit investment built in from the start are more effective, politically and socially, than reactive mitigation.
• New York City's Congestion Relief Zone is the clearest national proof of concept available: achieved by tying pricing to a transit funding crisis and embedding enabling legislation in the state budget.
• Advancing road pricing in California will require clear state leadership and supportive coalitions.
• Pricing framed as congestion reduction has proven more politically palatable in California than pricing framed as revenue generation.

Comment

This report paints a positive picture of the potential for road pricing in California. However, it is not clear what the best pathway is to generating state leadership and a supportive coalition. Perhaps a grassroots movement, equivalent to the YIMBY movement, may offer a way forward.

What Next?

How can the case for road pricing be progressed where you live?

Planning

More Congestion, Higher Taxes: Connecticut's Transportation Plan

The Connecticut Department of Transportation has published its Long-Range Transportation Plan to 2055.

Key Takeaways

• The plan focuses on:
  • Balancing multimodal investment needs and priorities
  • Enhancing mobility, efficiency, and quality of life
  • Supporting a longterm vision that serves all of Connecticut
  • Embracing technological innovations that improve safety
• Connecticut 2055’s vision: We envision a safe and accessible transportation system that connects and enhances our communities. We strive for reliable and resilient multimodal transportation options for everyone. Our mission is to improve lives through transportation.

Goals and objectives:

• Connected Communities - Connecticut residents and visitors will experience a multimodal transportation network that connects them to where they need and want to go, fostering prosperity and improving lives.
• Resilient and Sustainable Infrastructure - People in Connecticut will benefit from a transportation network that is resilient and sustainable through planning, design, construction, and operations.
• Innovative Future - People in Connecticut will benefit from the adoption of emerging technology.
• Vibrant Economy - Connecticut communities will thrive with the seamless movement of people and goods, creating greater opportunities and fostering growth.
• "By 2055, congestion is expected to worsen through steady population growth, growth in vehicle miles traveled, and expanding economic activity. Vital corridors such as I-95 and I-84 will be particularly impacted by more frequent bottlenecks and delays. By prioritizing infrastructure upgrades, expanding multimodal options, and leveraging technology to optimize traffic flow, CTDOT can work to reduce congestion, enhance mobility, and support Connecticut’s long-term vitality"

Key technology trends influencing transportation in Connecticut:

• Cybersecurity
  • Tailor CTDOT’s cybersecurity strategy
  • Develop employee training & simulations
  • Establish data backup management
  • Establish cybersecurity task force
• Connected and autonomous vehicles & electric vehicles
  • Evaluate the feasibility of dedicated drone corridors
  • Legal and regulatory alignment of drones
  • Advance drone applications
  • Collaborations and pilot programs
• Drone integration
  • Implement autonomous vehicle pilot programs
  • Publicize connected vehicle data privacy
  • EV infrastructure expansion
• Intensifying flooding, storm surges, and rising sea levels pose risks to Connecticut’s transportation infrastructure, especially in coastal and low-lying areas.
• The baseline scenario forecast was projected through 2055. This anticipated level of state and federal funding would only meet the state’s transportation needs through 2029. By 2030, a funding gap would emerge and continue to grow over time, reaching $1.7 billion annually in 2040 and $5.6 billion annually in 2055.

Comment

I have previously said that transport plans fall into 3 buckets: the car-centric, the all things to all people and the truly multimodal.

Most plans fall into the middle category as politicians try to avoid the hard trade-offs required to deliver really good transport systems. This is one of those.

The sad thing is that the report makes clear that Connecticut cannot afford to maintain its existing transport system. The funding gap will grow, and so will congestion. However, rather than rethink the transport system to deliver a more efficient system that doesn't rely on large subsidies for motor vehicles, the plan is more of the same and hopes that more funding shows up.

There is little real attempt to move away from a predict and provide transport paradigm to a vision-led approach. Indeed, there is no mention of demand management at all.

In fairness, the challenge of moving away from the car-centric paradigm is facing the vast majority of places, and most have so far shown little ability to undertake the changes required.

What Next?

Are your future transport plans going to genuinely deliver a better transport system or just one that will deliver increased congestion with higher levels of taxpayer funding?

Active transport

Beyond the Map: What Pedestrian Accessibility Measurement Leaves Out

The concept of a 15-minute city relies on pedestrian accessibility. However, researchers widely debate how to measure this and what to consider. This research undertook a systematic review.

Key Takeaways

• Existing accessibility studies predominantly rely on map-based methods and non-pedestrian-focused mobility assessments.
• Within the 15-minute city framework, pedestrian accessibility measurement (PAM) has become increasingly common.
• There is growing recognition that existing pedestrian accessibility measurement (PAM) underrepresents the perceptual and emotional components of walking.
• Studies range from micro-scale units such as street blocks to meso-level neighbourhoods and city-wide assessments at the macro scale. City-level analysis is the most frequently adopted.
• Multi-scaled approaches represent a growing methodological trend that aims to bridge macro-level accessibility assessment with more detailed neighbourhood- and street-level analysis.
• The reviewed studies commonly use four major data categories:
  • The most frequent are location and service data, referring to the spatial distribution of amenities and their functional availability.
  • These are followed by demographic and socioeconomic data, which capture population attributes and enable equity-oriented analysis.
  • Network and path data, often derived from OpenStreetMap, are widely applied to model pedestrian mobility routes.
  • Geospatial and coverage data define urban boundaries and assess spatial extent.
• Pedestrian-focused accessibility models rely heavily on geospatial data but incorporate limited perceived urban attributes, such as visual environments, travel impedance, and street-level experiences.
• A large set of indicators comes from network-based reachability analysis, which measures how far or how quickly pedestrians can access destinations through the street network.
• Several indicators focus on service usability and opportunity availability, examining whether facilities within reachable areas adequately support daily needs.
• Integrating perceptual indicators into accessibility assessments could bridge the gap between urban infrastructure and pedestrian experience

Comment

Although walking has been at the top of widely adopted transport hierarchies for some time, it has received far less focus than it should.

The 15-minute cities concept has begun a welcome corrective, and it is good to see more thinking taking place around walking.

However, that thinking now needs to be translated into on-the-ground practice in how we measure walkability and make decisions.

What Next?

Do your walkability measurement methods need updating?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• ​Congestion pricing in Auckland - A blog about the options being considered for congestion pricing in this New Zealand city.
• ​How Kansas City quietly built one of the best streetcars in America - A Planetizen article on this clever approach to improving transit.
• ​New parking charges and size-based permits set to start - The UK city of Bath is introducing size-based charges for residents' parking permits.

Tool

The Parking Reform Atlas project aims to collect rich examples of noteworthy parking policies and parking reforms from all over the world.

Hopefully, it will inspire more parking reforms.

Enjoying this? Here's how you can help keep it going.

If this newsletter has given you something useful (or just made your inbox a little better), here are three easy ways to support it:

📤 Forward it to a friend​
Know someone who'd get value from this? Forward this email their way. Word of mouth is still the best way for a newsletter like this to grow.

🔁 Repost on LinkedIn​
If you're on LinkedIn, take a look at this post. If it resonates, a like or repost helps get it in front of people who'd probably never come across this newsletter otherwise.

💛 Chip in, if you're able​
If this newsletter has been useful to you and you'd like to support it financially, you can do that here. Totally optional, always appreciated.

Whichever you choose (or if it's none of the above, no pressure!), thank you for reading. It means a lot.