Guidelines for Implementing Managed Lanes (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

23 C h a p t e r 2 Overview Planning a managed lane project or system is the first step toward determining if the concept is feasible for implemen- tation. This process helps project sponsors identify the key goals for the project and whether they can be met, determine the roles and responsibilities for those involved, and assess the feasibility of the project to be built and operated. Success- ful planning activities often attempt to address specific policy and legislative issues early on and involve public engagement throughout all stages of development. These steps help ensure a successful project during implementation. This chapter provides guidance on how to appropriately plan a managed lane using experience from past projects and other national guidance. Parts of this chapter are supported by existing guidance contained within the FHWA Priced Managed Lane Guide (2), the FHWA Freeway Management and Operations Handbook (12), the AASHTO Guide for High- Occupancy Vehicle Facilities (6), and NCHRP Report 414: HOV Systems Manual (3). Planning and Programming Overall, the process for planning a managed lane can vary considerably between projects. The reason for the difference usually stems from how a project is financed. The ability for a project to be financially supported can have a major impact on the planning process as well as the design, operation, and maintenance of a project. Project developers should expect a nonlinear process, particularly for project types not previously attempted. Project sponsors should expect to be flexible during planning efforts to adapt to changes in financial support. Therefore, managed lane projects need to consider a num- ber of caveats during development. For these projects, public engagement and agency stakeholder dialogue should occur at the onset. The preliminary design needs to reflect the opera- tional and enforcement needs, and vice versa. Financing is critical at an early stage during the development of the MPO’s long-range transportation plan (6). Planning a managed lane project usually consists of the following components: • Identifying goals and objectives. • Conceptually planning and testing feasibility. • Refining feasibility to define a project or program. • Developing an appropriate concept of operations and pre- liminary design that address the project or program. • Developing an implementation plan. • Developing a financing or funding plan. • Pursuing an environmental review [e.g., National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)], if required. Identifying Goals and Objectives Establishing goals and objectives is a crucial early step in the planning and development of managed lanes. Defining goals should be a collaborative and iterative process between the project sponsor, regional entities, local communities, and key stakeholders critical to the project (e.g., elected officials, busi- ness associations). These goals may be closely aligned with the goals defined by a long-range plan or may be strongly influ- enced by state-based legislation. Additionally, project sponsors should characterize traveler expectations within the goals and objectives. Travelers and adjacent communities typically want benefits that specifically impact them. Common expectations fall in the areas of reliability, safety, mobility, and economic impact. The use of working groups and interagency commit- tees is beneficial during this stage as an engagement tool to help determine the needs of various stakeholders and policy makers. Discussing goal-setting frameworks that have been used else- where can serve as a useful way to start the process (2, 6, 29, 30). After the goals for a project have been identified, the spon- sors and planning organizations draft a set of objectives to assess and measure the effectiveness of each alternative. Agencies usually select a series of objectives with the understanding that a few may conflict. For example, improved traffic performance Planning Considerations

24 and revenue maximization are not directly correlated objec- tives (31). These objectives are used throughout the feasibility analysis. Common objectives include the following items: • Maximizing person throughput. • Maximizing vehicle throughput. • Improving travel time reliability. • Maintaining a minimum speed threshold. • Optimizing revenue (if project is to be priced). • Improving transit serviceability and increasing ridership. • Incentivizing the use of low-emission vehicles. • Improving air quality. • Improving movement of commercial goods and services. • Supporting community land use and development goals, particularly for major areas of employment. Potential Customers Many different users can use a managed lane. These indi- viduals may be grouped into users of specific modes or share common demographic characteristics. Common user groups include the following: • Transit buses (including deadheading buses). • Vanpools. • Private employer shuttles. • Low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles. • Taxis. • Motorcycles. • HOVs (typically with 2+ or 3+ persons per vehicle). • Single-occupant vehicles (SOVs). • Law enforcement and emergency vehicles. • Low-income travelers. • Commercial vehicles and trucks. Managed lane projects often assign priority to select user groups during project development. In many cases, federal and state policies mandate parts of the decision-making process for who should receive priority. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) outlines a number of regulations, and the FHWA provides guidance for ensuring compliance and handling priority for HOV and HOT lanes. Sponsors should work closely with their local FHWA division office for assistance. Otherwise, the sponsor and its partners have the discretion to designate priority. Establishing priorities can help agencies make appropriate decisions about how to operate a facility to meet its stated goals. Sponsors should understand that priorities can change over time and that sponsors should continually reassess the user groups that receive preference. Priority can come in the form of no tolls or reduced tolls, closed access (e.g., HOV-only status), or permission to use special access points (e.g., on- and off-ramps). The groups that typically receive priority are those that constitute the bulk of traffic or are seen as important to the local and regional community (2, 4, 32). Agencies need to consider a number of factors when plan- ning a managed lane that will be used by different customers. The design vehicle should be kept in mind if trucks and other heavy vehicles are permitted. For example, trucks need to have enough space at access points for entering and exit- ing and a wide enough shoulder for breakdowns. The level of existing carpooling and transit programs needs to be con- sidered because alternative mode use can have a significant impact on operation. The proportion of tolled to non-tolled vehicles for dynamically priced facilities can also have a simi- lar impact because toll-exempt vehicles are inelastic to price changes (2, 32, 33). The designation of access points needs to be selected based on the composition of users traveling on the corridor and where they would prefer to exit and enter the lane. A potential means to assess current demand would be to conduct an origin–destination survey to examine where users may start and end their trips on the corridor (34). Regional Planning The planning for managed lane facilities often begins at the regional level and focuses on the needs, goals, and objectives for improving transportation performance within a metro- politan area. Planning for managed lanes is usually a part of the long-range planning process performed by the local MPO, an effort to create a unique system, or a part of another regional or state-based initiative. Regional planning involves representatives from the MPO, state DOT, transit authori- ties, tolling entities, and municipal transportation or county partners (6). If a region has a diverse set of stakeholders that are defined by a broad geography, then special consideration should be given to include all the entities and organizations that are impacted by transportation policy and the planning processes. Early participation from these entities is critical for successful implementation. The components of regional planning focus on an assess- ment of where the implementation of managed lanes would be feasible. The critical question asked at this stage is whether managed lanes could be appropriately applied across a net- work of freeway facilities. Oftentimes, there is a tendency to focus on consistency across a region when considering design and operational elements. However, circumstances on select corridors may cause inconsistencies in operating guidelines that are the result of many factors including facility design, market demand, and local policies. For example, an existing corridor with an occupancy rule of HOVs with two or more passengers (HOV2+) in a region may attempt to convert the rules for all HOV facilities to three or more passengers (HOV3+). Travelers on existing lanes may not comprehend

25 the rationale for increasing an occupancy requirement, espe- cially when some facilities appear to be underused. Careful consideration and analysis should be done with effective public engagement to understand user behavior and what changes could be readily accepted. Creation and adoption of policies supporting project devel- opment are good—up to a point—for consistency and guid- ance. Too much policy development can restrict the flexibility needed for the design, operation, and procurement processes. Performance monitoring can help to streamline the policy development process and help to flag critical issues that are highly sensitive. Common sensitive issues have included toll- ing, access design (e.g., placement of direct-connect ramps), lane separation treatments, and construction phasing. Corridor-Level Planning Corridor-level planning requires a greater level of detail than regional planning. Planning at this scale is commonly done through specific studies that identify and evaluate suit- able improvements. The overall elements of a corridor study include identifying the problem, developing alternatives, and assessing the alternatives. The evaluation criteria should be based on general guidance treatises that are tailored to the region and the preferences of the affected agencies. At a mini- mum, criteria addressing feasibility need to reflect the key goals common to most managed lanes: safety, reliability, travel time savings, person and vehicle throughput, cost-effectiveness, and constructability. Different design concepts should be assessed for practicality and be based on the specific corridor charac- teristics. Trade-offs should be defined from the safety, cost, constructability, and impact perspectives. Not all corridors are feasible. The projects that are not feasible should be dropped from consideration or potentially reconsidered in the future when factors influencing the project change (6). The planning scope must address each component of feasi- bility to some extent, and the decisions made during this step are often subjective. The scale of planning a project should be customized to either the local or regional setting. In other words, managed lane systems can either be conceptualized as individual projects applied to a single corridor or be an inte- grated network of facilities that attempt to function and operate in the same manner. Conceptual Planning The conceptual planning part of developing a managed lane project helps to evaluate alternatives through a defined lens or framework (12). This process entails asking questions about specific traits of feasibility that will guide the refine- ment of a comprehensive managed lane plan. That plan, in many cases, may be part of a larger process. Common ques- tions asked during conceptual planning include: • What are the goals and objectives? • Who should be provided preferential access? • How does this concept fit into existing regional and corridor- planning efforts? • Do managed lanes make sense? • Is there enough demand to warrant managed lanes? • If so, what types of managed lanes make sense? • How should they look and operate? • Can they be constructed, and if so, how? • What delivery approach is appropriate? • What are the costs, revenues (if any), benefits, and impacts? • Do key stakeholders support the concept? Based on the findings generated from the conceptual plan- ning analysis, an implementation plan will emerge that should be in concert with regional or local planning efforts. Each suc- cessive question needs to be affirmatively addressed for the plan- ning study to proceed. If applicable, the environmental review (e.g., NEPA, CEQA) process may be undertaken specifically for a project or each project in a network that has independent utility. Other projects may have to consider unique population or user characteristics, such as freight if the managed lane will primarily serve trucks. Managed lane planning includes many feasibility consider- ations, including the following: • Institutional feasibility—assessing whether the project sponsor or other partner entities could support the actual implementation. • Design feasibility—testing whether a managed lane can be physically built and operated in the selected corridor. • Operational feasibility—assessing the practicality of a func- tioning managed lane, which is usually scoped in a concept of operations. • Implementation feasibility—determining the practicality of constructing and maintaining the overall design and operational concept. • Financial feasibility—assessing the predicted fiscal perfor- mance of a managed lane, with respect to funding and financ- ing, to support construction, maintenance, and operation. • Public and political support—evaluating the potential acceptance of a project to be supported by the public and political stakeholders, often defined as a separate feasibility assessment. Good planning incorporates an iterative decision-making process. During the feasibility phase, it is beneficial to reach out to all affected parties, agencies, and entities. Gaining sup- port during early stages on broad-reaching goals and basic design and operational elements can ease the implementation process. Public engagement throughout the planning phase should also be actively pursued, with meaningful opportunities

26 to provide input for those who are not principally involved (2). Conceptual planning may also benefit from planning and environment linkage (PEL) studies. PEL studies are a type of assessment that enables partnering entities to build relation- ships early in the development process and to improve project delivery timelines. The approach enables sponsors to minimize duplication of efforts during the environmental review pro- cess, if required, by creating one cohesive flow of information. Some states and regions have specific guidance that out- lines additional steps to determine feasibility. Caltrans issued Updated Managed Lane Design: Traffic Operations Policy Direc- tive 11-02 (35), which focuses on engineering study require- ments for managed lanes. The guidance states that a traffic study should be conducted for all managed lane projects and include an operational and safety analysis. Caltrans states that a traffic study has to be completed early, within reason, in the project development process. Specific requirements outlined in Policy Directive 11-02 include the following: • Volumes are to be estimated for the managed lanes, adja- cent general-purpose lanes, and corresponding ramps. • The entire freeway facility has to be incorporated into the analysis, including both the managed lanes and general- purpose lanes. • A 20-year design year is to be used, based on the date of expected completion. • Different types of design vehicles, including trucks, are to be considered in the analysis. • Geometric constraints have to be considered, including loca- tions where bottlenecks and queues are expected to form. • A merge/diverge analysis has to be completed for associ- ated drop ramps and direct connectors. • The operational impact of intermediate-access openings for limited-access managed lanes has to be evaluated. • A safety analysis that focuses on the safety impacts of the pro- posed improvements on operating conditions and collision potential has to be performed. Institutional Feasibility Institutional feasibility is the determination of whether a sponsor agency, including its partners, could support the actual implementation of a managed lane project. In this con- text, the sponsor agency leads the development of the project, and supporting agencies assist in this task. The assessment for institutional feasibility focuses on the capabilities of sponsors and partners to implement, operate, maintain, and enforce the project. A key question in this process is whether the involved entities have the appropriate authority to be involved in the development of a managed lane. The answer comes from under- standing each agency’s roles and responsibilities, mission, and legal authority. This evaluation should emphasize resource capacity, financing ability, and tolling authority and organiza- tional structure (if the facility is tolled). Additionally, to ensure consistency, an assessment should examine the policies and busi- ness rules that may need to be vetted at the regional or state level. Design Feasibility Completing a preliminary design can be seen as offering an early assessment of whether the managed lanes can be physi- cally built and operated. The main activity during this stage is evaluating the different design concepts and making a determi- nation for viability and estimating overall project costs. If the basic concept can work, producing a synopsis of how the lanes function can help during later parts of the development pro- cess. If specific trade-offs need to be made in the design, then a framework listing the positive and negative aspects of each should be developed. For example, providing additional access points on a limited-access facility would allow more users to travel on the lanes; however, trips would become shorter, and enforcement could become more difficult. Specific thought should be given to trucks because the design vehicle requires additional consideration for lane access, turning radii, and breakdown shoulders. Truck facilities, based on studies to date, typically need to have two or more directional lanes unless the facility is an access ramp or other isolated design treatment. Other notable design considerations should address the following: • Physical lane separation. • Direct-access ramps (e.g., ramps to other corridors and park-and-ride lots). • Active traffic management treatments. • Signage. • Toll gantries and equipment. • Intelligent transportation systems and associated conduit. • Enforcement provisions (e.g., pullout areas). • Mitigation treatments (e.g., sound walls). • Incident management and emergency response. • Maintenance. • Overall and order-of-magnitude costs. Operational Feasibility Sponsors need to conduct a feasibility assessment at some point in the implementation of managed lanes to test a wide range of operational and policy decisions (2). Planners need to understand how geometric design affects the operation of a managed lane facility. This process should be done in tandem with assessing design feasibility since both areas are interrelated. The assessment for operational feasibility should begin with determining the operational needs of the facility. The key ques- tions asked during the process should include the following: • How are these needs best addressed within the constraints of the existing facility (if the project is retrofitting an exist- ing roadway design)?

27 • What operational periods meet demand? • What are the optional plans for operation? • What management tools are required: eligibility, access control, or pricing? • How will the facility be enforced? • What is the best mix of these tools? • What are the likely impacts to adjacent general-purpose lanes? • What are the likely impacts on parallel arterials and sur- rounding communities? • Are trucks included or excluded, and why (most operation plans exclude trucks on single-lane facilities, particularly where lane widths are below standard)? The operational assessment usually results in the creation of a concept of operations document that specifies how the man- aged lanes will operate. Oftentimes, this document is presented to stakeholders and other decision makers as a way to solicit their input on the project and to improve the operational plan (2). The concept of operations will likely be amended as the concept is refined through the project development process. Chapter 6 of this report provides detailed guidance on how to draft a concept of operations. Overall, the scope of the docu- ment should include the following characteristics: • Demonstrate consistency between project goals and objec- tives and the operating plan. • Able to be used to help plan operations and maintenance early in project development. • Start as an overarching flexible framework that constantly evolves as planning and design work progress. • Apply to a single corridor or a region, such as a regional concept of operations, if necessary. • Consider the system architecture, variable pricing structure (if proposed), incident management, and enforcement of the managed lanes. The concept of operations is a critical tool for the develop- ment of a successful project, particularly for a design–build or a public–private partnership project. The document can help formalize the roles and expected responsibilities of dif- ferent partnering entities on a project. It can also help serve as a timeline for handing off key components to other partners. For example, the lead agency may be very familiar with geo- metric design and construction but may not be familiar with tolling or financing. The concept of operations can specify the roles of specific project partners and the dates by which project partners must fulfill certain responsibilities to ensure on-time project delivery. Implementation Feasibility Implementation feasibility is the determination of whether the proposed design and operational concept can actually be put into place. This aspect addresses how the project should be delivered, the associated costs for each delivery alterna- tive, and the issues associated with construction. The concept of project phasing is often brought up, and a determination is made regarding whether different components should be built and operating before the entire project is complete. In the case of a managed lane network, this aspect could be expanded to evaluate which corridors should be planned and constructed first. Project funding and financing are often a major consideration during this phase. In the case of priced facilities, toll revenue can be used to support an expansion of the system and corresponding network, but only after the existing priced managed lanes are deemed to be properly maintained according to 23 U.S.C. Section 129 (36). Concern should also be given to mitigation strategies during construc- tion, including provisions for handling existing traffic and staging areas for materials and equipment. Financial Feasibility When planning a managed lane facility, the topic of finan- cial feasibility is often a major factor in the development of a project. Financial feasibility is the ability of a project to be self- supported through dedicated monetary contributions or gener- ation of revenue from users of the facility. Restricted or limited funding for construction is an increasing trend for all roadway projects, including managed lane projects. Commonly, lead agencies have had to collaborate with other entities to obtain sources of funding or develop financing agreements. Each part- ner that brings a source of funding also typically requires a set of additional rules or stipulations for operating a managed lane. For example, a transit agency that provides funding may want special access for buses, or a private partner may require that a portion of the toll proceeds be dedicated for reimbursement. Project developers should expect a nonlinear financing process, particularly for project types not previously attempted. Financ- ing arrangements from prior projects may not be practical due to statewide or regional policy changes (e.g., restrictions from select funds) and market changes (e.g., financing rates). The financial evaluation should include all of the costs and any savings expected to occur during the life cycle of the project, including initial capital and ongoing operational and mainte- nance costs. Conducting an estimate of the cost–benefit ratio may be beneficial to emphasize the benefits of a project to stake- holders. The FHWA Priced Managed Lane Guide (2) and NCHRP Report 722: Assessing Highway Tolling and Pricing Options and Impacts, Volume 1: Decision-Making Framework (34) provide a comprehensive overview for planning the funding, financ- ing, and pricing components, with a focus on tolled systems. Financing and Funding Considerations A wide array of revenue sources, financing tools, and agree- ments can be used to support the construction, operation, and

28 maintenance of a managed lane facility. Some projects may use a combination of support from the federal-aid program and state funding programs, or be partially or principally backed by toll revenue bonds. In a few cases, private-sector participation may be sought for the delivery of public–private partnerships. Managed lane facilities can differ from other traditional trans- portation projects in that toll revenue can be generated. The quantity of revenue that can be generated can depend on the project’s demand characteristics, the number of managed lanes provided, and the policies regarding payment by users of the facility. Geometric design factors that affect the location of toll gantries may also play a role. Revenue Sources Revenue sources for managed lanes can include designated federal and state funding, discretionary grants, tolls, private equity payments, and other revenue sources. Traditional fed- eral and state funding is typically supported by federal and state motor fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, driver license fees, and sales taxes. Federal and state revenue sources usually follow a prescribed process that allocates resources based on metrics such as roadway mileage and population. In urban areas, MPOs are responsible for the decision-making process to allocate funding for transportation projects. State DOTs are often responsible for areas that are outside of urban regions. In the future, other non- toll methods may become a revenue source for managed lanes, including road user charges and weight-based cargo fees. Discretionary grants have provided financial support to a number of managed lane projects. In the past, projects were sup- ported under the Value Pricing Pilot Program, but the program is not anticipated to be a substantial source of future funding because additional federal funds were not authorized beyond fiscal year 2012 (37). Recent programs in Miami, Minnesota, Atlanta, and Los Angeles were supported through Urban Part- nership Agreement/Congestion Reduction Demonstration (UPA/CRD) grants. The programs were all initiated in 2007 or 2008, and the last project opened for operation in early 2013. The UPA/CRD programs were one-time discretionary grants appropriated outside of the traditional surface transportation reauthorization legislation (38). Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recov- ery (TIGER) began as a discretionary grant program in 2009 under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The TIGER program awarded grants to recipients based on compet- itive criteria that focused on whether the project had significant national, regional, or local impact. Virginia (I-95 HOT lanes), Denver (US-36 managed lanes), and Riverside County, Califor- nia (expansion of the SR-91 express lanes), host examples of managed lane projects that received TIGER grants (2). Priced managed lanes have the capability of generating revenue through tolls, if any users pay a toll to use the facil- ity. Segments 1 and 2W of the North Tarrant Express (NTE) within the Dallas–Ft. Worth region generated $43 million in toll revenue during the first year of operation (from October 2014– September 2015). The NTE was a project with a 52-year private concessionaire agreement that cost $2.05 billion to construct, with an anticipated $1.18 million annually for operation and maintenance costs (39). Federal law (23 U.S.C. Section 129, 36) requires that public authorities use toll revenue only for select purposes. Toll revenue can be used to service project debt; pro- vide a reasonable rate of return for private investors; and sup- port improvement, operation, and maintenance. States may also have additional laws that place restrictions on the use of toll revenues. Based on the U.S. Code, agencies have the option of applying toll revenue for any purpose for which federal funds may be obligated by a state, but only after adequate maintenance is certified for the managed lane. For example, revenue from existing priced managed lanes can be pooled together to sup- port the expansion and creation of additional facilities under a managed lane network—a method that is sometimes referred to as system financing. In other cases, tolls can provide support toward an equity payment to make a project financially feasible. For projects that are principally supported by toll revenue, special consideration should be given to the number of toll- exempt users who are expected to travel on the facility. These projects pose a greater financial risk if a large percentage of users do not pay tolls. In addition to HOVs, transit vehicles, and motorcycles, exempt users may also include enforcement personnel, emergency vehicles, and veterans. Identification and verification of exempt users is a challenge that can lead to additional toll revenue loss, referred to as leakage. Project sponsors may not have exclusive control over some exempt groups due to federal and state statutes. State and local sales taxes have also been used as finan- cial support. Sales taxes have typically been used after voters pass a special initiative in an election. California is an exam- ple of a state where voters have passed many measures that impose taxes at the local level. The items referred on the ballot usually incorporate a list of specific transportation projects. The I-580 express lanes, I-680 express lanes, and I-15 express lanes are managed lanes funded, in part, with local sales taxes (2). Value capture is a method of generating revenue that is based on the value of land surrounding a transportation proj- ect. Examples of this method include special assessments, tax increment financing, development impact fees, and developer contributions. Special assessments are defined as taxes that are levied on specific parcels within a zone. The amount of the tax is based on the estimated benefit for each unit of development. Tax increment financing allows for a percentage of future prop- erty tax increases to be diverted toward transportation projects. Development impact fees are one-time fees paid by developers near a project to help recover the additional burden that is placed on public services due to the growth of the development. Managed lanes are not typically financed though value capture,

29 but future projects may seek to use this method as an alternative as more traditional sources become unsustainable. Financing Tools Priced managed lanes can leverage additional financing to help pay part of the implementation costs of a project. Financ- ing is common with large capital projects that require signifi- cant construction costs. The viability of financing is dependent on the amount of revenue that is expected to be generated by or allocated to the project. Some managed lanes do not generate enough revenue to support toll-revenue-backed bonds. Proj- ects that are expected to generate millions of dollars per year can attract the participation of private-sector partners, who can provide equity payments in return for future toll revenue. Numerous bond and debt arrangement options are available to project sponsors. Different instruments include municipal revenue bonds, Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds supported by future federal funds, private activity bonds, state bonding programs (e.g., state infrastructure banks), and commercial bank loans (in cases with a private partner arrang- ing for project financing). Credit assistance through the federal government is possible through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Inno- vation Act (TIFIA), which offers lines of credit, loan guarantees, and direct loans to projects that are classified as having regional or national significance. TIFIA helps to provide better access to the capital markets, adjustable repayment terms, and more favorable interest rates. Many managed lane projects have been financed under TIFIA, including the LBJ Express near Dallas, the North Tarrant Express near Ft. Worth, and the I-495 Express Lanes in Northern Virginia (2). Revenue bonds are considered a valuable tool for state and local governments to finance public works projects. The income earned from revenue bonds can come from tax receipts, tolls, transit fares, or other sources of repayment. Municipal bonds have the advantage of being exempt from federal taxes as well as state and local taxes if the investor lives in the same local- ity as the grantee. This benefit incentivizes investors to accept lower interest rate payments as opposed to other instruments of comparable risk. GARVEE bonds are debt instruments that are backed by the future promise of proceeds that are expected to be received by states under 23 U.S.C. Section 12. In order for a project to receive financing with GARVEE bonds, state-enabling legisla- tion must be passed to ensure that financing can occur on a pro- grammatic basis. These bonds are considered general obligation state bonds, despite being supported by federal funds. GARVEE bonds can cover the entire cost of a project or can be combined with other instruments to help finance a larger project (2). State and local governments that have significant involve- ment from a private partner use private activity bonds (PABs) to help finance and deliver a project. PABs are a low-cost option that can be used for varying transportation projects, including water and sewer facilities. For the first time, the Safe, Account- able, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) permitted the use of PABs to go toward privately developed highway and freight-related projects. A cap of $15 billion limits the amount of PABs that can be used to finance projects nationally, and this cap was unchanged by MAP-21. These bonds are attractive to investors because they are tax exempt and reduce the overall costs of borrowing compared to standard issued commercial debt (2). Availability payments are an attractive financing option because project sponsors are able to capitalize on private-sector involvement while retaining control over toll rates and the collec- tion process. By definition, availability payments are payments made to a private partner that are based on project milestones or specific performance measures. They can be used to support the costs of design, construction, operation, and maintenance, and federal-aid grants can be used to support capital-related costs. Availability payments can be reduced in the event that standards or project goals are not met. The I-595 Express Lanes in Miami is an example of a managed lane project financed by using availability payments (2). Forecasting and Pricing If a project is planned to be tolled, then pricing should be con- sidered as part of the financial feasibility analysis. This compo- nent should, at a minimum, be included within the concept of operations. Travel forecasting models are used to determine the demand for a project under a number of different traffic con- ditions and alternatives. These models are mathematical tools that estimate performance using population and employment data, land use patterns, roadway and transit network files, travel cost, and traffic conditions. The demand estimations can then be used to generate a financial forecast. Practitioners should have a firm understanding of user value of time and the basic equation used to set toll prices. Most financial models are proprietary, and their owners are unlikely to divulge key details. Applying traditional forecasts for managed lanes is a chal- lenge because common techniques that are used for tradi- tional toll roads are simplified and limited. These approaches do not account for how travelers will respond to different design characteristics, mode options, operating rules, and pric- ing structures. The operation of managed lanes is very sensi- tive to demographic changes and macro-economic shifts (e.g., an increase in fuel prices). The complexity is enhanced when considering that managed lane performance is closely associated with traffic conditions in the general-purpose lanes. Addition- ally, HOT lanes are different from traditional tolled facilities because of the potential for high demand from toll-exempt vehicles, particularly HOVs and alternatively fueled vehicles for facilities that provide for toll exemption (34).

30 Traffic and revenue forecasts are toll studies that primarily assess the effectiveness of using pricing on managed lanes to manage demand and generate revenue. These reports are com- monly referred to as traffic and revenue studies. A traffic and revenue study is different from a traditional state DOT trans- portation forecast since a formal analysis has to be acceptable to the financial market. Each tier of the traffic and revenue report is defined by the level of analysis used and provides increasingly refined forecasts: • Level 1 studies—studies performed in an introductory, or sketch-level, analysis. These can be completed within a 1- or 2-month time frame using existing data sources and are used to screen different alternatives during an early stage of the planning process to provide high-level estimates of potential revenues. • Level 2 studies—studies that are still preliminary in nature and use existing travel demand models to create new fore- casts. Level 2 studies usually take 3 to 6 months and incorpo- rate data elements from sources such as origin–destination surveys, stated-preference surveys, toll sensitivity analyses, and economic reviews. • Level 3 studies—investment-grade traffic and revenue studies that provide a certified forecast to bond rating agencies and potential investors. Level 3 studies can take up to a year to complete and are essential for projects that are dependent on using toll revenue for financing (34). A number of key insights could be helpful when reviewing a traffic and revenue forecast during the planning process: • The assumptions used in the traffic and revenue study can be similar to those used in other projects. However, each man- aged lane project is unique, so careful consideration should be given when determining which aspects are replicable. • Forming a peer review group may be helpful to assess whether the assumptions being used are valid. • The willingness to pay for priced users tends to vary across an entire population, so there are limitations to using a single value of time in the analysis. Value of time is also not solely dependent on traffic conditions and can be influenced by changes in seasonal demand (e.g., school schedules), traf- fic reports on the radio, trip purpose and importance, and other factors. • Using traffic and revenue forecasts is not advised for envi- ronmental review. Oftentimes, traffic and revenue studies generate conservative results that are not appropriate for inclusion in either a noise or air quality study. Environmental Review (NEPA) Leading to Project Development Federal and state environmental reviews are not mandated for all managed lane projects. Federal regulations specify that states have the sole authority to set occupancy requirements and exemptions. However, many managed lane projects involve the use of federal-aid funding or amend previous NEPA com- mitments, which requires FHWA approval and a NEPA evalu- ation. Other managed lane projects may require federal action if that project is part of meeting certain air quality conformity requirements within a region (36). The basis for environmental review is derived from NEPA and, in some cases, regulation from the state where the proj- ect is located (e.g., CEQA). The environmental review docu- mentation can include subject matter that is pertinent to air quality, noise, endangered species, and environmental justice. A project is defined at the beginning of the environmental review as needing one of the following categories of environ- mental review: environmental impact statement, environmen- tal assessment, finding of no significant impact, or categorical exclusion (3). The challenge for managed lane projects centers on the issue of timing and coordination because undergoing an envi- ronmental review can be lengthy. Interaction with the MPO planning process is crucial, as is preparation of long- and short-range transportation plans. Regional and statewide planning is often cyclical in nature (3). PEL studies can be used as a technique to improve the NEPA approval timeline by reducing duplication of effort and better managing the flow of information. NEPA can be either applied to specific projects or optionally prescribed to a more general corridor analysis to help determine the location and extent of changes. The details of a project scope can be identified through the NEPA process, including specif- ics related to access points, interconnected transit facilities, and direct-access ramps. Design is typically done to a preliminary level (30% or less) when the final review documentation is submitted. However, NEPA documentation is not required for camera installations, some access treatments, changes in sepa- ration type (e.g., barrier or buffer with pylons), or changes in operational policy (e.g., increased occupancy requirement from HOV2+ to HOV3+). Planners should consider the scale of the proposed change before defaulting to a detailed, NEPA-based planning process. FHWA has provided Interim Guidance on the Application of Travel and Land Use Forecasting in NEPA (40), which cites the issues related to evaluating managed lane and pricing strategies. In its guidance, FHWA notes the difference between investment- grade forecasts to support project financing and NEPA forecasts to address environmental clearance. Both types of studies use different methodologies and produce different results. FHWA suggests that if investment-grade forecasts are released during the NEPA process, the project team should explain the differ- ences inherent with each. For projects larger than $500 million in total costs, FHWA has issued the Memorandum on Interim Major Project Finan- cial Plan Guidance (41), which describes how a phasing plan is supposed to be outlined and offers guidance on how to con-

31 duct an assessment of the appropriateness for public–private partnerships. The phasing plan should include components that describe each phase, including the scope, cost estimate, and schedule. The plan also has to demonstrate that each phase can be opened to the public without other phases being com- pleted, have dedicated funding through the Statewide Trans- portation Improvement Program, and show consistency with the NEPA decision document. For public–private partnerships, FHWA will only approve of a financial plan if an assessment of appropriateness is submitted. The assessment has to include a review of all cost estimates and evaluate the allocation of risk throughout project delivery. Additionally, the AASHTO Practitioner’s Handbook: Manag- ing the NEPA Process for Toll Lanes and Toll Roads (42) provides guidance that relates to the implementation of priced managed lanes. The handbook provides useful insight for handling toll- ing during the NEPA process. Some key suggestions from the handbook include the following: • The concept of tolling can be included within the purpose and need of a document. • Tolling can be included for all of the alternatives. • It is possible to issue a request for proposal (RFP) for a design–build contractor, or private-sector partner, and select a contractor based on that RFP before the NEPA process is complete. • The timing of an RFP and the announcement of the preferred alternative needs to be considered. An RFP that is issued and awarded may require the modification of alternatives. Incorporating Equity Equity and environmental justice are important factors to consider when planning a managed lane. Successful proj- ects typically address several dimensions of equity, includ- ing geographic, income, racial/ethnic, and access equity. Each dimension is formed by varied concerns and requires different mitigation approaches. This is especially true for priced facili- ties because of the public and political concern that tolls may impose an unjust burden on low-income and underrepresented groups. Some managed lanes designate priority access specifi- cally to low-income groups, such as the I-10 and I-110 Metro ExpressLanes in Los Angeles. Those facilities have a program in place that allows low-income users (defined by household income thresholds) to apply for an equity plan that provides $25 in toll credits every month. Only residents from Los Angeles County are qualified to participate in the assistance program, financially supported by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) (43). Access equity is a particular concern with managed lanes because the locations of specific entry and exit points to the managed lane have a sociological impact beyond the operation of the facility. Local communities have an interest in ensuring that traffic does not intentionally bypass commercial businesses. In particular, equity impacts are a sensitive area for reconstruc- tion projects that take additional right-of-way away from com- mercial interests. However, allowing more access limits the ability to provide benefits for longer-distance trips. Successful projects have attempted to address the needs of different user groups or markets that travel in the corridor. An example would be to classify long-distance travelers as a market for managed lanes and local travelers as a market for general-purpose lanes. Specific geometric features such as collector–distributor roads and frontage roads can improve access. Collector–distributor roads may improve overall traffic operation, or may shift weav- ing and place additional demand on signalized arterials. Creat- ing an access treatment plan can help formalize the partnership that a managed lane operator has with the community and with the different markets that use the facility. The Guidebook for State, Regional, and Local Governments on Addressing Potential Equity Impacts of Road Pricing (44) is a document published by FHWA that offers guidance on how to address equity concerns when planning priced facilities. The basic principles presented in the document can also be applied for non-priced facilities. The guidebook provides examples for completing an equity analysis through an outline of the scoping process, identifying the potential for impacts, and determining actions for mitigation. Analytical frameworks and geographic information system (GIS) based tools are referenced as mechanisms to help guide the process. Overall, the guidebook presents five steps to conducting an equity evaluation: 1. Consider any potential equity impacts of pricing early in the project development—during the planning and design phases. 2. Determine who may potentially be impacted by the proj- ect and what kind of equity is important. 3. Evaluate potential equity impacts of the base case or no- build alternative to compare against the equity impact of the road pricing project. 4. Consider a variety of perspectives and impacts. 5. Measure effects. Sponsors should consider the long-term implications on equity when planning a project. The original goals and pur- pose of a managed lane project could change due to shifting user perceptions after a project starts operating. For example, a priced managed lane may plan to operate with a limit on how high the tolls charged to users can be. A limit may be placed to mitigate concerns about the effects that high tolls will have on low-income users. The inability to raise tolls for high-demand facilities can lead to congestion, cause restricted mobility benefits for carpools, and worsen transit service per- formance. Additionally, degraded HOV facilities, and most HOT lanes, can subject the state DOT to loss of funding from the federal government.

32 Operating agencies should proactively alleviate the risk of negative public reaction concerning high toll prices. For priced projects, sponsors should spend considerable effort on explaining how tolling can meet the goals and objectives of the project. Agencies that have stated that users can “buy their way out of congestion” have not been successful. WSDOT had some moderate success when communicating that pricing enables more people and vehicles to move in HOT lanes. WSDOT supported that claim by regularly reporting on managed lane performance and on the greater impact to the transportation system (e.g., adjacent general-purpose lane, parallel arterials). In contrast, a poor strategy of communicating the impact to congestion is to emphasize the number of users who acquired toll transponders. The number of travelers does not show the managed lane is improving congestion. Project Delivery Project delivery refers to the process of how transportation projects are implemented from inception to construction. Different procurement options that specify distinct roles for the design, operations, maintenance, ownership, and finance of a project have been used for managed lanes. A traditional type of contract that has been used historically is the design– bid–build contract. A design–bid–build is a type of arrange- ment where a state DOT enters into different contracts for each component. At times, the project can be designed within the agency. The construction contract follows, with prequali- fied contractors submitting their bids to work on the project. A newer type of arrangement that is becoming more com- mon is the design–build contract. In comparison, a design– build contract differs by combining the design and construction activities into a single contract. This type of contract is often a fixed-fee contract and is usually awarded based on a best-value approach that considers total estimated costs and the qualifi- cations of the bidders. The sponsor may prefer a design–build option because the arrangement transfers the risk from the pub- lic sector to a private contractor (2). The 95 Express in Miami was implemented using a design–build–finance arrangement that was very similar to a design–build approach but included additional financing risk to the contractor during the procure- ment process. Project managers from Florida DOT (FDOT) learned that every project requires unique attention and securing of outside experts, and based on their experience, they recom- mended comparing delivery options for cost-effectiveness and value for money early in the development process. Additionally, FDOT managers noted a belief that a properly structured deal can be financed, even during tough market periods (45). The design–build–operate–maintain (DBOM) and design– build–finance–operate–maintain (DBFOM) contract arrange- ments are other delivery mechanisms that increase the involvement and responsibilities of private-sector entities. A DBOM contract integrates the operations and maintenance components into a design–build contract. It incentivizes a private partner to make capital investments up front during construction—thereby accelerating project implementation and reducing the risk of making costly repairs in the future. A DBFOM contract adds a finance component to a DBOM contract, with the private partner being required to secure financing for the project. All DBFOM projects are financed by leveraging debt from dedicated revenue streams, such as tolls or availability payments (2). The I-635 LBJ Express in Dallas, Texas, is an example of a successfully implemented DBFOM project. A lesson learned from the LBJ Express was the critical importance of discussing toll servicing agreements, transaction costs, and interoperabil- ity early and often during the development process. Sponsor agency representatives from the LBJ Express project strongly recommended making a decision about who should carry the risk for revenue generation early in the development process. Sponsors who do not transfer revenue risk will likely have an entirely different relationship with the DBFOM partner (46). Managed lane projects can be delivered in different ways. The method selected for project delivery can depend on the scale of the project, the entities involved, the scope of the project goals, and legislative authority. The type of funding and financing arrangement also plays a significant role in determining deliv- ery model. Smaller projects are typically delivered by using a conventional funding process, and larger projects commonly seek the participation of additional or private partners. Some agencies try to define the type of delivery method when evaluat- ing the implementation plan. The sponsor can be responsible for a majority of activi- ties during the development and planning phases, including conducting feasibility studies, submitting environmental documentation, and overseeing construction. For priced managed lanes, a project sponsor (or partner) has to have the legal authority from the state to collect tolls from the facility. All sponsors must be able to gather public and political back- ing to ensure that a project can be realized. State DOTs, tolling and/or regional mobility authorities, transit agencies, MPOs, county governments, and cities could serve as project sponsors. State DOTs are often seen as a logical sponsor because they have experience with planning, design- ing, and operating limited-access facilities. They are currently the owners and/or operators of a great majority of managed lane systems throughout the country. For priced facilities, the involvement of the appropriate local or state toll authority may be beneficial in gaining public understanding and acceptance of the project. In areas where toll roads exist, motorists are typically familiar with paying tolls to existing establishments, and the appropriate authorities usually have experience in the design, implementation, and operation of toll systems. MPOs and local entities (e.g., counties and cities) have been logical sponsors, in some cases, of implementing managed lane proj-

33 ects if the project goal is to retain local control. The I-10 Katy Freeway Managed Lanes (branded as Katy Tollway), sponsored by the Harris County Toll Road Authority in Houston, is an example of a local county supporting a project. Policy and Legislative Considerations Sponsors and partnering agencies need to have the appro- priate authority from federal, state, and local legislation to implement managed lanes. Unique legislative issues arise from managed lanes because these facilities are distinctly dif- ferent from freeways. Oftentimes, legislation that is specific to managed lanes is tied to specific goals. Other considerations may address vehicle occupancy requirements, enforcement, and tolling authority. Federal Policies Various federal guidelines, legislation, and codes authorize the construction and operation of HOV lanes. The term “man- aged lanes” does not appear in federal legislation or codes, but the terminology for HOV lanes and tolling is mentioned and has a direct influence on the implementation of managed lanes. FHWA has provided guidance on the implementation of HOV lanes as it pertains to the Federal-Aid Highway Program (36). Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance on High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) Lanes outlines the concept of HOV lanes, rele- vant legislation, implementation issues, and additional resources. Before implementing a managed lane, the agency should review all of the appropriate federal codes and regulations pertaining to HOV lanes and tolling, and consult FHWA representatives. Title 23 U.S.C. Section 166 lists the regulations that are the most pertinent for operating HOV facilities in the United States. The authority and jurisdiction for state agencies to have HOV facilities and to undergo HOV-to-HOT lane con- versions can be derived from Section 166. The federal code states that agencies have to give priority on existing HOV lanes to motorcycles and bicycles (unless a safety exemption is granted), public transportation vehicles, and HOVs. How- ever, that same principle is not in place for express toll lane systems that require both SOVs and HOVs to pay a toll. States are granted the option of permitting preferential treatment for low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles. A major requirement stipulated in Section 166 is that HOV facilities cannot operate under degraded conditions. Degrada- tion is defined as an HOV facility operating below 45 mph for facilities with a speed limit of 50 mph or higher, or not more than 10 mph below the speed limit for facilities with a speed limit below 50 mph. The standard for defining degradation is the amount of time that an HOV facility operates above the speed threshold (e.g., 45 mph for a 60-mph speed limit) at least 90% of the time during a 180-day period. FHWA guidance describes, in detail, that degradation is based on how users travel on the HOV lanes (whether they take short or long trips) and the location of congestion (36). For example, if many trips taken on the HOV lane are short and occur near a commonly congested bottleneck, then the facility is degraded. However, an HOV facility with many long trips and congestion on only a small portion is not degraded. Under Section 166, states must annually certify that HOV facilities in their jurisdiction are not degraded, must meet vehi- cle eligibility requirements, and must maintain enforcement. As part of this process, state agencies have to establish and sup- port a performance monitoring system to ensure that facilities are conforming to standards. If facilities are degraded, agencies have to submit a plan to implement mitigating measures to improve performance. Some of the measures recommended include increasing the occupancy requirement, varying the toll for priced facilities to reduce demand, discontinuing exempt vehicles (e.g., low-emission vehicles), and increasing capacity. FHWA imposes sanctions (e.g., withholding federal funds or delaying project approvals) on states that do not address deg- radation on HOV facilities (36). This is a stronger mandate that MAP-21 put into place. Title 23 U.S.C. Section 129 applies to provisions for toll roads and has some policy items that directly influence the develop- ment of managed lanes. Most particularly, this section states that the number of toll-free lanes cannot be decreased when HOT or priced managed lanes are added onto a corridor. Sec- tion 129 also grants a public entity the authority to charge tolls on an HOV facility and includes provisions related to the own- ership of toll facilities, the use of excess revenues, and project financing. State, Regional, and Local Policies Policies and legislation that are established by state, regional, and local authorities must be considered when developing a project. Existing policies that could impact project develop- ment focus on areas such as tolling, enforcement, and alter- natively fueled or other exempt vehicles. A good reference to review when assessing how vehicle exemption policies impact operation is the FHWA report Impact of Exempt Vehicles on Managed Lanes (47). This document provides case studies of how 13 different states handle vehicle exemption and summa- rizes the key issues and considerations with hybrid use. Topics that tolling policies and legislation tend to address include authorizing legislation, processing violations, and enforcement. State-based authorizing legislation permits agen- cies to start tolling in their state and to toll on selected facilities. State legislatures may also permit certain vehicles and user clas- sifications to have priority in using the managed lanes. The user groups tend to include emergency services, military branches, and veterans. In some cases, these users tend to receive un- restricted access and no tolls. Policies can also be formed to

34 direct specific agencies to enforce managed lanes and specify which policies should be handled by each agency (or if multiple agencies should be involved) (4). States have the option of granting special priority treat- ment for low-emission and alternatively fueled vehicle classes, as outlined in 23 U.S.C Section 166. The U.S. Code states that vehicles in this group have to be chosen using a meth- odology approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since EPA has not made a final decision regarding this rule, FHWA guidance (36) states that agencies can fol- low the fuel economy requirements, as stated under Sec- tion 166. These include having less than a 50% increase in city fuel economy or a 25% increase in the combined city– highway fuel economy. States have given different levels of priority for low-emission and alternatively fueled vehicles. California has an extensive and popular low-emission priority incentive with a clean air vehicle sticker program. As of July 2015, the California Air Resources Board allowed 85,000 vehicles to participate in the green sticker program, and all decals were issued to vehicles by the end of 2015. Common vehicle makes and models that are eligible for green stickers include the Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf, and Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid (48). In contrast, Texas has no managed lanes that permit priority access for low- emission and alternatively fueled vehicles. Public Involvement and Support Public outreach and engagement are critical components in the implementation of managed lanes. Outreach helps to raise public awareness of the concept of managed lanes and assists in garnering popular and political support. Testing concepts with the public is a good way to gauge public support; meth- ods to engage the public can include focus groups and surveys. These strategies can also help planners get an early indication of the willingness of users to pay tolls and how many might potentially carpool or use transit. Agencies can use public out- reach and engagement before a NEPA decision to inform the public about traits of managed lane projects. Examples of appropriate outreach include defining a managed lane facility and how a managed lane could work. Attempts at marketing may be prohibited by law because of activities that advocate for specific alternatives. However, project sponsors can market and promote facilities after a NEPA decision to encourage use of the facility. FHWA has developed guidance on how to market the concept of priced managed lanes to the public in the High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Marketing Toolkit (49). Additionally, NCHRP Report 686: Road Pricing: Public Percep- tions and Program Development (50) provides a planning and decision-making guide for handling public perceptions of tolling and road pricing programs. The outreach program can promote understanding of the concept to existing and potential new users. It is critical that engagement activities help the sponsor manage expectations for the project. Typically, a managed lane cannot and will not reduce long-term congestion for all users in the corridor. Therefore, project goals need to be aligned with the proposed concepts and public expectations. Outreach should also be conducted throughout the entire implementation process, from the start of problem and solution identification to the testing of operational and design concepts. Public outreach activities can be separate from the NEPA review process. Components of a separate program can include telephone or mail surveys, stakeholder interviews, focus groups, social media, public workshops, and open houses. If public outreach is done before the NEPA review, the activities can be documented and kept to help with the actual environmental review (2, 3, 6). Common Messages and Public Education The outreach for managed lanes needs to be conducted differently from that for more traditional transportation projects because of the complexity of explaining the concept and how it impacts a diverse set of user groups. The public is very sensitive to system changes and usually reacts negatively toward restrictive access and tolling (51). There is a signifi- cant amount of pressure for the lanes to perform well after the opening of a new managed lane or the alteration of the operating rules for an existing facility. If the lanes appear to be empty or congested, the project sponsor will face severe scrutiny from political leaders who believe their constituents are not being served. At times, leaders have reduced tolls or changed occupancy requirements immediately after opening because of poor performance. It is critical to conduct mar- ket research and education throughout the development of a project. Additionally, special attention should be given to emphasizing the project goals and explaining how the system could work to meet those goals (2, 49, 52). Project Champion Having the support of a champion is very helpful when gath- ering support to implement a managed lane. A champion could be an elected official, community leader, or individual from the private sector who expresses support and organizes others to back the project. The champion’s role can be to establish a very public persona or be influential behind the scenes. Having numerous champions can be useful during different stages of development. Some individuals may be more effective on the local level, whereas others can be persuasive with governors and legislators. While state DOTs, regional authorities, and MPOs might be publicly known project sponsors, it can be very help- ful to have figures who are not transportation professionals to speak positively and influence the project (2).

35 Engaging Policy Makers and Stakeholders The engagement of elected officials can be a very sensi- tive topic when developing a project, but it is often critical for success. Elected officials tend to evaluate a project from a variety of different angles as they consider the impacts to con- stituents and financial budgets. Elected officials’ support or opposition may depend on specific project circumstances or other factors that are unrelated to the project. Therefore, out- reach with elected officials, and their respective staffs, should be conducted early during the project development process. As part of the outreach process, the sponsor should discuss a wide array of issues that could be pertinent to the elected officials (2, 3). Other stakeholders may have a vested interest in the project. These entities may include local towns, county governments, neighborhood groups, chambers of commerce, transit rider groups, newspaper editorial boards, and think tanks. Sharing information with these groups is helpful to inform individu- als who are not intuitively engaged with the transportation planning processes. Creating citizen advisory committees or a community task force may be a beneficial medium to engage stakeholders through a more formal body. Advisory commit- tees allow a diverse set of stakeholders to understand how others may view the project. Additionally, a project sponsor can show elected officials and potential critics that the viewpoints of an outside advisory committee were considered during project development (2, 3). Engaging the Media and General Public Successful facilities typically have an outreach plan that helps guide the media and educational activities of an engagement program. A good outreach plan should establish key objectives that define actions to be responsive and effective when com- municating. Worthy points to consider include understand- ing the project from the user’s perspective, articulating all key issues clearly, and nurturing credibility. Sponsors should estab- lish partners with other entities to collaborate on a common message. A key component of a successful outreach plan is to have a timeline for both engagement and marketing activities, which should be separate. Before a NEPA decision, sponsors can engage the public to inform them about the managed lane concept and appropriate trade-offs within an alternatives anal- ysis. Actively marketing and specifically advocating for man- aged lanes may be prohibited by law during the environmental review. Marketing is usually acceptable after a NEPA decision to promote use of the managed lane and to inform travelers of new and additional options. Outreach plans benefit from research about customers and their awareness and knowledge of managed lanes. Research is vital to understanding the customers who are using or could use the facility and why users select differ- ent transportation options (e.g., carpooling versus driving alone). The information gleaned from research can then be used to determine what media outlets would be beneficial to incorporate into the marketing plan. Insights from research can also be used to gauge the level of an educational cam- paign and to tailor outreach material for a general audience. Surveys and focus groups are good instruments for assessing public engagement (2). Effective branding is a component of successfully imple- mented managed lanes. When determining a brand, the agency should define what the user’s experience will be when traveling on that facility. Components of a brand include the designa- tion of a name, term, symbol, or design pattern. A slogan can also be integrated with a brand. Nationally, the MUTCD has specific labels and symbols for types of managed lane facilities. These names include a designation for express lanes (facilities that charge any group of users a toll) and a diamond symbol for HOV lanes. However, sponsor agencies have, at times, modified these terms, given local and political pressure when implement- ing a project. For example, the word “toll” can be included to create the term “express toll lanes” because stakeholders believe users need to distinctly know which facilities are tolled. Other entities have branded entire networks of managed lanes across a region, such as the Bay Area Infrastructure Financing Authority Express Lanes in the San Francisco Bay region and the TEXpress Lanes in the Dallas–Ft. Worth region. Engaging in paid advertising to communicate the key aspects of a project may be advisable depending on the out- comes from market research. Paid advertising can be effective by using knowledge about the customer base to pursue the most critical issues of concern to the general public. Using this approach helps to maintain a reasonable and efficient advertising budget. Additional added-value items can also be included during the negotiation for buying media, including prize giveaways or other promotions (2). Social media is a newer form of media that needs to be carefully monitored and managed because information can disseminate at a faster rate than other, more traditional medi- ums. Sponsors should note that while social media sites can communicate the benefits of managed lanes, others can use it to start a grassroots campaign against a project. Social media can take the form of blogs, websites, and popular sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. Sponsors should be aware that new media outlets keep emerging, so establishing policies that are specific to single sites or media formats will likely be ineffec- tive. Social media technology rapidly changes and evolves, so an individual, or a group of people, should maintain and monitor a social presence.