USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Value pricing

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Value pricing hot lanes in south Florida : final report, results of survey and conclusions
Physical Description:
1 online resource (v, 158 p.) : ill. ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Cleland, Francis
Winters, Philip L
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
High occupancy vehicle lanes -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Toll roads -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 97-100).
Statement of Responsibility:
principal investigators, Francis Cleland, Philip L. Winters.
General Note:
"Prepared for Department of Transportation, State of Florida."
General Note:
"October 2000."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029197759
oclc - 754851588
usfldc doi - C01-00146
usfldc handle - c1.146
System ID:
SFS0032254:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

VALUE PRICINGHOT LANES IN SOUTH FLORIDA Final Report Results of Survey and Conclusions Prepared for: Department of Transportation State of Florida By: Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering Un i versity of South Florida October 2000

PAGE 2

Florida Department of TransportaUon 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (904) 488-7774 Fax (904) 922-4942 Project Manager: Elizabeth Stutts Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, Flor ida 33620-5350 (813) 974-3120 Suncom 57 4-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Principal Investigators: Francis Cleland Philip L. Winters The opinions, findings and conclus ions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of F lo rida Department of Transportation. Prepared In cooperation with the State of Florida Department of Transportation.

PAGE 3

Table of Contents Executive Summary ... .... 1 Introduction .. .... .. .... ..... ... .... .. ......... ... .. .. ... ... ...... .... ...... ... .. .. ..... .. ........ .. ... .. 3 Literature Review ................... ...... ... .... .... .......... ..... ... . ... ... . . ...... . ..... ... ... 5 Equity Analysis . ..... ........ ........... ..................... ....... .... ... .................... . . . .... 19 General Process for Incorporating Community Values into Transportation Projects ... .... ... ................... ............. ... .............. : ............. 19 Genera l Assessment of Project. . ................... ..... .... .................. ..... ... . 22 Analysis of Potentia l Impacts .................... ........................ .... ........ ......... 25 Survey Resutts .... . ............. ................. ........ ........... .... ....... ..... .... ......... . 37 Introduction ................ ... ..... ...... ................... ........... ... .............. .... .... . 37 Method . ... ............. ... .... . ................ ........ ... ............ . ................... . .... ... 38 Results ........... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... .... ............... ......... ........ .......... .... . 39 Attitudes Towards HOV and HOT Lanes ..... ... . .... ... ..... .... ... ............. 39 Overall ............ .... .......... ... ...... ... . . ... ... ........ ...... ...... .............. . ...... 39 Support for HOT Lanes by County ........... .... ...... ... ... . ......... .... .... .... . 53 Sllpport fe>r HOT Llllles b\f l11c:e>rnet ............... ......... .... ..... ................ Support for HOT La11es by Race ... ................. ......... ............. ............ 55 $upport for HOT Lanes by Number of Worki11g Adul t s in Household 56 Support for HOT Lanets by Use of Carpool Lanes ... ....................... ... 57 Support for HOT Lanes by Petrc:eption of HOV Travel Speed ............. 59 Conclusio11s on Publi c Support for HOT La11es . ........... ..................... 60 Trave l Characteristics on 1-95 ... . . ... ... .... . .... ...... ........... ................ ..... 63 Employment Profile of South Florida Resi dents . ...... ........... ... ... ... ..... 64 Use of 1 .. 95 ............. .............................. ............... .... ........ ........... .... 65 Reasons for Not Using 1 -95 .................. .......... ........... ...... ...... .... .... 66 Use of 1 95 Entrances a11d Exits .......... ..... .... ......... ........ ................ 67 Carpooling and HOV Lane Use on 1-95 ..... .... ... .. ... ............................. 70 County Profiles ..... ............. ..... ............... .................... ..... ... .... .... ...... 75 Employment Profile of Palm Beach County Resi dents ...... ..... ........... 75 of 1 -95 Among Palm Beach County Residents ...... . ..... ... ......... 77 Rel!sons for Not Using 1-95 Amo11g Palm Beach CoiJnty Residents .. 78 Carpooling and HOV Lane Use on 1-95 Among Palm Beach County ........... ....... ...................... ..... .................. ............ ...... 79 Employment Profile of Broward County Residents .... .... . . ... ...... .. ... ... 82 Use of 1-95 Among Broward County Residents ...... ... ............ . .... ... . 84 i

PAGE 4

Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among Browa r d County Residents ...... ... 85 Carpooling and HOV Lane Use on 1 -95 Among B r oward County Residents ...... ...... ................... .... .... .. ... ...... ........... ............. .... .......... 86 E mployment Profile o f Miam i -Dade County Residents .. ..... ......... ...... 89 U s e of 1 -95 Among Miami-Dade County Residents ... ... ........... ... .. ... ... 91 Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among M i ami-Dade County Residents ... 92 Car poo li ng and HOV Lane Us e on 1-95 Among M i ami-Dade County Residents ........ . .... ...... ............. ............ . . ....... ...... . ... ......... .... ..... 93 References ( Lit erature Review) ........ .. .... .... ....... .... . ....... ...... ..... .. .......... ..... .. 97 Append i x A: Survey ............ . ......... .. ... ..... ..... .... ... ...... . .... .. ..... .. ....... ... ... . 101 Append i x B : Opened ended Comments ... ... .... ... ....... .... ....... ............ ..... ... 111 11

PAGE 5

List of Table s Table 1: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions ..................................... .. ... ........ 21 iii

PAGE 6

List of Figures F i gure 1: Propensity to Use 1-95 for Short Trips by Race ... ........ ..... ........... 30 Figure 2: Propensity to Use 1-95 for Short Trips by Age ... .. ........... ..... .... .. .. 31 Figure 3 : Propensity to Use 1-95 for Short Trips Income .... .... ... ....... .. .. .. ...... 32 Figure 4: South Florida Income Levels-Broward and Miami-Dade Versus 1-95 Area .............. .................... ... ... .......................... ....... ... .... ... 3.3 Figure 5: South Florida Age D istribution-Broward and Miami Dade Versus 1-95 Area ...... ... ... ... ............................ ....................................... 34 Figure 6 : South F lorida Race Distribution--Broward and Miami -Dade Versus 1-95 Area . .... ... ... .................... .... ...... .......... . .... ... ...... ..... . ..... 34 F igure 7 : Agreement with Statement, "T raffic congestion on 1-95 is a serious problem." ...... ....... ................................................ .......... ............ 40 Figure 8 : Agreement with Statement, "Carpool lanes are an effective way of relieving congestion." ...... .. .... ........ ... ..... ........... . .. ... .. .. .. ............ 41 Figure 9: Agreement with Statement "HOV lanes should be opened to alltraffic." .. .. : ....... ... .. .. ... ... . .. .... . . ... .. . ...... .......... .. ... ... .... ...... ..... .. ... 42 Figure 10: Ag r eeme n t with the Idea of Converting t he HOV Lane t o a HOT Lane . ....... . .. ... ....... ... ... .. .............. ...... .. .... .. ... . ..... .. ........... .... ... 43 Figure 11: Proportion Giving a '1' ( l owest rat ing) on Statements About HOVLanes ..... ... .. ........... .. ... .. ... .. .. . .... ... ... ............ .... .. ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. ... 44 Figure 12: Proportion Giving a '10' (h i ghest rating) on Statements About HOV Lanes ... ....... ... ..... ........... .. .... ...... ... ... ...... .... .. ..................... 45 Figure 13: Mean Ratings on Statements About HOV Lanes ............. ...... .. ... 46 Figure 14: How Proposed Use of Funds Impacts Support for HOT Lanes .... 47 Figure 15: How Proposed Use of Funds Impacts Support for HOT Lanes by O ri ginal Level of Support ... ......... .......... ... ............................ ... .. ... .... 48 Figure 16: How Proposed Use of Funds Impacts S u pport for HOT Lanes Among Those Actively Opposed ........ ...... ... ....... .. ........ ... ...... .. .. .. . ..... 49 Figure 17: Support for HOT L anes by County .. .... .... ... ... ... .. ... .. .. .... ... ... .. ... 53 Figure 18: Support for HOT L anes by Income ............ .. . . ... .... ..... ...... ......... 54 Figure 19: Support for HOT L anes by Race ... .. ..... .... ....... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..... 55 Figure 20: Suppo rt for HOT Lanes by Number of Working Adults .. .. ........ . 56 Figure 21: Support for HOT Lanes by Use of Carpool Lanes .. ... .. ......... ....... 57 Figure 22: Support fo r HOT Lanes by Perception of HOV Trave l Speed ..... 59 Figure 23: Employment Profile of So uth Florida Residents ... . .. .. .... ....... ... 64 Figu r e 24: Use of 1-95 Among South Florida Reside n ts . ............. ... ..... . .... . 65 Figu r e 25: Reasons for not Usi ng 1 -95 Among South Flor ida Residents ... ... 66 Figure 26: Carpooling Behav ior on 1-95 Among South Florida Residents ..... 70 IV

PAGE 7

Figure 27: Incidence of Carpooling on 1-95 Among South Florida Rush Hour Drivers ......... . .... .... ......... .... .... .... . ..... . . ....... . ............ ...... . 71 Figure 28: Awareness of HOV Lanes Among South F l orida Residents ..... .. 72 Figure 29: South Flor i da 1 -95 Commuters' Perception of HOV Travel Speed lmprovement ...... ...... ... ..... ... .... ............. .... . ..... .... ........... .............. 73 Figure 30: Employment Profile of Palm Beach County Residents ... .... .... ... 75 Figure 1: County of Employment for Palm Beach County Reside nts .. ... . .... 76 Figure 32: Use of 1-95 Among Palm Beach County Residents .. ...... .. ... . ... . 77 Figure 33: Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among Palm Beach County Residents ... ..................... ...... ......... ...... . ... ........ ........ ... .... ....... ......... 78 Figure 34: Incidence of Carpooling on 1-95 Among Palm Beach Cou nty Rush Hour Drivers .... ...... ............ ....... .......... ....... .......... ................. ..... 79 F i gure 35: Awa r eness of HOV Lanes Among Palm Beach County Residents ....... .... .......... ... ... . .... . ............ . ..... .. .. .. .. ... .... .... ... ............ . 80 Figure 36: Palm Beach County 1-95 Commuters' Perception of HOV Travel Speed lmprovement . . ........ ..... .................. ........................ . ........ 81 Figure 37 Employment Profile of Broward County Residents ... .. . .. ..... ....... 82 Figure 38: County of Employment for Broward County Residents ........... .. .... 83 Figure 39: Use of 1-95 Among Broward County Residents ... .... ... ......... .... .. 84 Figure 40: Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among Broward County Residents .. 85 Figure 41: I ncidence of Carpooling on 1-95 Among Broward County Rush our Drivers ......... ....... ........ ...... ... .... ...... ... ......... ............. .... . ......... 86 Figure 42: Awareness of HOV Lanes Among Broward County Residents ... 87 Figure 43: Broward County 1-95 Commuters' Perception of HOV Travel Speed Improvement .... ............... ................ .... ........ .. ........ .... ... 88 F i gure 44: Employment Profile of Miami-Dade Residents .. ... .............. ....... 89 Figure 45: County of Employment for Miami-Dade County Residents ... ....... 90 Figure 46: Use of 1-95 Among Miam iDade County Residents ..... ........ ....... 91 Figure 47: Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among Miami-Dade County Residents ............................................... ... .................. ......... . ..... ... , ...... 92 Figure 48: Incidence of Carpooling on 1-95 Among Miami-Dade County Rush Hour Drivers ........................ ....... ..... ........... ......... ............ ........... 93 Figure 49: Awareness of HOV Lanes Among Miami-Dade County Residents ........ .... ............... ........ ................... ..................... ................... 94 Figure 50: Miami-Dade County 1-95 Commuters' Perception of HOV Travel Speed Improvement .............................................. ...... ......................... .... 95 v

PAGE 8

Value EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to evaluate commuter acceptance and equity impacts of the potential programs to convert High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) lanes into High-Occupancy-Toll (Han Lanes Specifically, the project in question was the HOV lane on 1-95 in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties The project was conducted in the following stages Literature Review Equity Analysis General Public Attitude Survey Implementation and Analysis To conduct the equity analysis of the potential for development _of the HOT Lane, CUTR followed the process outlined in the Community Impact Assessment Manual developed by CUTR for FOOT. There appear to be potential effects from the HOT Lane that could have inequitable impacts, particularly related to race. The main finding from -the survey was that the general public does not believe that implementation of a HOT Lane on the HOV corridor in South Florida would be a particularly good idea On a scale of 1 to 10, over 50% of respondents gave the lowest possible rating, a '1'. Breakdowns by demographic and use characteristics provided groups that varied somewhat in their opposition to the idea but did not identify specific groups that were strongly in favor of the idea. Potential strategies for communicating how funding would be used might increase support somewhat, but much of the increase would come among people who already support the idea. -1-

PAGE 9

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Analysis of open-ended explanatory comments indicated that those actively opposed to the idea of converting the HOV lanes to HOT lanes generally felt that they shouldn't have to pay to drive on the roads, or that the effect on congestion would be minimal, that the plan defeats the purpose of HOV lanes, that they already pay too many taxes and tolls, or that the idea "just won't work." Overall, the finding from this project is that if a HOT Lane were to be imp lement ed along this corridor, it would face strong opposition from local residents. Certainly there would have to be other strong reasons for doing the project that were not related to the public's opinion, since the public is squarely against the idea. If HO T lanes were to be impleme nted in South Florida, strategic public relations would be necessary to assuage some of the negative feelings revealed in this survey. The following issues would need to be addressed: The notion that people should not have to pay for roads. The perception that HOV lanes and potential HOT lanes have no impact on congestion. The perception that putting a toll on the HOV lane and allowing solo drivers to use it would defeat ihe purpose of HOV lanes. -2-

PAGE 10

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing INTRODUCTION The purpose of this project was to evaluate commuter acceptance and equity imp acts of the potential programs to convert High-Occupancy-Vehicle (HOV) lanes into High-Occupancy-Toll (HOT) Lanes. Specifically, the project in question was the HOV lane on 1-95 in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties A thorough literature review was conducted on the topic of HOT Lanes and public acceptance. An equity analysis was also conducted using census data and the results of a prior survey in the area (1995 HOV survey). Commuter acceptance of the concept was tested through a telephone survey process among residents of t he th ree-county South Florida area (Palm beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties). The results of the survey were also used to develop trends of travel behavior on i-95 in South Florida. The 1995 HOV Marketing and Positioning project provided baseline data for 1-95 travel characteristics and attitudes. The survey in the current project contained many questions drawn from the 1995 survey for the purpose of providing trends of travel characteristics data. Each of these areas will be examined in turn in this report -3 -

PAGE 11

for Urban Research Value -4-

PAGE 12

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing LI T ERATURE REV IEW This sect i on of the report is a review of the l iterature available on the research conducted on HOT lane implementations in the United States (as well as some information from Europe). Of particular interest from the literature is the body of results from focus groups that seems to suggest similar patterns in all focus groups conducted Namely, the range of issues raised is: Significant financia l incentives (or disincent i ves) would be required to create any change in travel patterns Pricing may be v i ewed as a double tax on the users since the facilities have "already been paid for," Opinion toward congestion p r icing may be made more favorable if revenues are directly tied to roadway or transit service improvements There may be some question as to whether allowing people to buy in is equitable across all income groups; and Automatic Vehicle Identification (A VI) technology may be seen as an invas i on of privacy These f i ndings suggested that it may be unnecessary to conduct further focus groups, as originally called for in the scope. As an alternative, CUTR suggested analyzing the impact of a HOT Lane in an additional site, so that two sites could be analyzed instead of just one. For instance, HOT lanes could be analyzed for implementation in Orlando and Miami/Fort Lauderdale, or perhaps in Tampa. Ultimately, however, it was determined that a large number of interviews should be conducted in a single site. Recent research also suggests that equity analysis should be broader in scope. The analysis should reflect more than simply impacts on potential users. It may -5-

PAGE 13

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing be more useful to extend analysis to issues of overall congestion and pollution impacts. sources of funding, and uses of revenues. The significant congestion pricing projects that have been undertaken and analyzed in the transportation literature include: The development of SR-91 in Orange County, CA; The development of the 1 15 system north of San Diego, CA The 1-93 Southeast Expressway Sticker Program in Boston, MA The implementat ion of the Quickride program along the Katy Freeway (West Houston 1-1 0) in Houston Texas where 2+ carpools are allowed to buy into a 3+ lane during peak hours; Proposed, but ultimately abandoned attempt to create a HOT lane along 1394 in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area in Minnesota; Tappan Zee Bridge in New York City; An exploratory project in Boulder CO; A project to create a HOT lane along 1-5 in Seattle, WA; and A general Regional Transportation Pricing Program project sponsored by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Reduce Emissions and Congestion on Highways (REACH) Task Force that resulted in an Equity Impact Assessment Report by Wilbur Smith Associates Other projects that are being considered but have not been the source of a significant amount of published research include : Alameda (1-680), Contra Costa (SR 4W), and Sonoma (US 101) Counties, as well as Los Angeles, in CA Dallas, TX-LBJ Freeway Denver, CO Hampton Roads, VA (1-64) -6-

PAGE 14

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing M i lwaukee WI (1-94} Phoen i x AZ (1-1 0 and 1-17) Port la nd, OR (multiple facilities) Washington, D. C. area, actually In Maryland (1-495) The Congestion Pricing Guidelines prepared by K. T. Analytics for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides a good introduction to the main Issues surrou nding the implementation of any conges tion pr i cing program. The major lessons that have been learned In prior implementations are that support for congestion pricing programs within the general public is generally tied to an understanding of the li nkage of congestion pricing revenues to other transportation improvements, such as increased transit service or im proved roadways. It also appears that, in some instances, the automation of the congestion pricing program including the concept of automatic vehicle identification (A VI) may be the source of some concerns regarding privacy among lane users. Focus groups conducted in conjunction with the aforementioned projects have indicated a number of issues related to HOT lanes that are raised in many d iffe rent areas. With all of the resu"s listed below it should be noted that the results are not quantitative i.e. they do not represent a consensus of the popul ation in question, but instead provide a range of issues which shoOid be furthe r i nvest ig ated using quantitative estimat ion tec hniques. Exi sting t olls along the roadways need to be very high (i.e., the savings incurred by complying with the congestion pricing objectives must be large} in order for the program to divert any significant numbers of users to off -peak usage. The pricing is also often viewed as an unnecessary tax. Support tends to increase when the uses of the revenues from the congestion pricing program are made explicit. In particular, public opinion seems to favor those congestion pricing programs where revenues -7-

PAGE 15

Center for Urban Tran sportation Research Value Pricing are programmed to improve either transit service or existing roadway conditions. Other iss ues that focus groups have raised include the potential for the invasion of privacy with A VI's, and, in particular in California, there is so111e issue as to whether the practice of allowing people to buy access to the lane s is equitable. There is some feeling that the conges tio n pricing programs provide a greater boon to those who can afford to pay the price (i.e ., higher income) or to those who have more flexible job hours (and can take advantage of off-peak rates) compared to people in lower-income and/or less flexib le jobs. Some of the suggestions that the Congestion Pricing Guidelines book provides include: congestion pricing program sponsors should present strong evidence to the public for pricing needs and should highlight the successes of the program as they become evident; congestion pricing should be presented as part of a package of improvements, rather than as a solution in its own right; and, potential equity issues may be able to be dealt with through a "needs" pricing program assuming AVI technology is in place and can identify the vehicles of those customers in specia l circumstances. The issues of fairness, the ultimate use of funds, impacts on business and on lowi ncome residents, and privacy may need to be addressed in implementation programs The Hubert H Humphrey Institute conducted a study of public reaction to a congestion pricing plan for 1-494, and 1-35 in the Minneapol is/St. Paul area. The plan for gathering public reaction was a three-step process. First, focus groups were conducted to raise various issues regarding the implementation of congestion pricing. Second, a citizen's jury was convened and presented with alternative viewpoints on the plan and ultimately was asked to vote on its -8-

PAGE 16

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing implementation. F inally, a telephone survey of the public was conducted to obtain a truly quantitative view of the opinions held by the public The focus groups indicated that congestion pricing would not result in traffic reductions because the participants did not perceive that there were viable options for them to avoid using the roadway during the peak hours. The only result would be to divert the congestion problem to side streets and congestion would not be effectively reduced. This program, it was felt, wou ld unfairly affect workers who were on fixed shifts. Congestion pricing would not change the travel behavior of the participants, but would essentially act as a tax The participants had a low level of confidence in how the state would manage the revenues. The group was more positive t owards the plan if the funds generated were to be programmed towards transit service improvements. However a separate group of innercity residents reported that they viewed transit as generally unsafe, and pavement conditions on downtown streets as generally poor. The second part of the investigation was conducted through a citizen's jury mechanism, where a group of area residents had a case for the program and a case against the prog ram presented to them, and they were asked to vote on whether the plan should be adopted, as well as being given the opportunity to provide comments The citizen's jury did not perceive that there was a major problem with traffic congestion within the proposed HOT la nes areas The y concurred with the focus groups i n concluding that the HOT lanes concept would probably not cause any significant changes in travel behavior. The citizen's jury also felt that the HOT lane concept would unfairly impact low-income commuters, a point that was mentioned in the FHWA's publication as well. An alternative solution that was -9-

PAGE 17

Center l or Urban Transportation Research Value Pric ing suggested by the citizen's jury was to increase the gas tax. If tolls were to be implemented they should be set up with a sunset provision to take effect when the improvements had been paid for (i.e., the tolls would then cease to be charged). The quant i tat i ve surveys revealed some interesting contrasts with the smaller groups described above. Most interestingly, low-income commuters favo r ed the HOT lane contept to a greater degree than higher-i n come groups, indicating that they did not share the focus group and citizen jury perceptions about the impact of the plan on l ow-income residents The analysis of travel patterns indicated that the groups most affected would be women with children in the household. Higher-income males and urban residents stood to benefit the most. The improvements i n freeway travel wou l d make transit systems i n the area relatively worse off from a competitive standpoint. S ide streets in the a rea might also be negatively impacted through the diversion of traffic. Considerations of geograph i c equity were also raised by the study in that the disparate benefits might not be so much relegated to low versus high-income residents but r ather to different geographic areas A Ca l ifornia study cited i n the Minnesota project report stated that citizens' groups initially favored a gas tax over other options such as congest i on pricing, emissions fees and parll i ng pricing but after a more thorough consideration of the issues favored congestion pricing as a potential solution to the congest i on p r oblem This finding suggests that. as with reported experiences in Norway the public may need to be given some time to u nderstand the issues and init ia l un f avorable reaction to congest i on pricing approaches should not necessarily be construed as evidence that a congestion pricing plan will ultimately be unsuccessful. 10-

PAGE 18

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing TTl also conducted a study in Houston, Texas, entitled The Feasibility of Priority Lane Pricing The plan was to take a peak-hour 3+ carpool lane (2+ during non peak hours) and make it accessible during peak hours to 2+ carpools for a toll charge. TTl concluded that in order for these types of plans to work, there must be some kind of visible benefit-for example, traffic must be noticeably reduced or the HOT lane must at least look noticeably more crowded. Studies reviewed from Norway's experience in imple menting these programs indicate that public opinion alone does not predict success or failure -it is possible for a concept of this nature to succeed if public education is successfully undertaken. TTl conducted focus groups with users of the Katy Freeway (the western portion of 1-10 in Houston) to determine their reactions to the HOT lane concept. The focus group participants indicated that they would be more likely to adjust their travel times than to add a third person to qualify for the 3+ carpool lane during peak hours but that they might consider using a priority pricing approach. Many of the issues raised i n other areas were not indicated as problem areas by these groups -there was no consideration of social inequity from this project (although it should be noted that Katy Freeway users tend to have higher incomes across the board) and that they did not perceive the "double tax" issue either-that they were paying for something that other taxes were already paying for. There was a neutral reaction to the concept of SOV buy-in to the lanes. A focus group was also conducted with a wider range of residents of the entire area (not just limited to Katy Freeway users). Again income equity was not perceived as major problems for this project. However, with this group, double taxation was considered an issue. Members of this group felt also that some 3person carpools might become 2-person carpools if pricing was available, thus inc re asing traffic and vehicle trips. Safety issues in terms of enforcement and access were the make-or-break problems for this concept. The group assumed -11-

PAGE 19

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing that the pricing would mirror current toll structures on exi sting toll faci lities in the area The group felt it would be acceptable to have SOV s buy access duri n g off peak hours, but definitely not during peak hours. This may have been due to the fact that 2+ peak-hour carpool lanes had proved to be highly congested on Houston f r eeways in t h e past. Also it was felt that these concepts discouraged use of mass transit. It has been found, in fact, that some of the 3+ carpools currently used during peak hours are formed at the transit facilities in a manner reminiscent of the "slug" lines in Washington or the casual carpoolers across the Bay Bridge in San Francisco. A similar project was undertaken in Boulder, Colorado, again with focus groups as the ma i n source of information The groups in Bou lder again said they would not modify their travel behavior without a substantia l inducement and that convenient opti ons should exist for those who did not want to carpool. The Boulder report suggests using one of three methods to analyze equity considerations: Comparison of existing demographic information to equity princ i ples involved Using case studies Demonstration of impacts through modeling projects The Boulder report further suggests that, in addition to time and ability to pay congestion pricing fees ownership of an automobile and price sensitiv ity of the indiv i dual will impact the analysis These variab l es are clearly correlated w i th income issues but not fully determined by them The report concludes the following : Lower income i ndividuals will be less able to pay congest i on pri cing f ees and therefore will be more affected by their implementation Response will be based on ava i lability of a lternatives -12-

PAGE 20

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Business support will be based solely on profitability impacts Wilbur Smith Associates prepared an Equity Impact Assessment report for SCAG and the REACH task force with regards to the development of a regionally preferred transportation pricing program for Southern California. In this project, WSA considered the impacts on nine demographic subgroups likely to be impacted by transportation pricing. WSA's ana lysis reduced these nine groups (Elderly, employment type, trip iype, physically/mentally challenged, household type ethnicity, geography/location, gender, and income) in to esse nt ially three equity categories, which are described as follows: Income equity group, where equity is achieved by minimizing the difference between benefits accruing to the highest and lowest income groups. Geographic equity group, where equity is achieved by minimizing the impact to lower income groups with longer commutes Household-type equity group, where equity considerations must address the additional burden borne by low-income members of groups that make trips related to care-giving, household responsibility, and work-based groups. The typology suggested is perhaps better defined as income related with considerations given to geographic location of and types of trips made by lower income households. Suggestions for mitigation include fee exemptions, rebates, and additional investments in alternatives. The analysis continued along lines suggested by Michael Cameron in Efficiency and Fairness on the Road by assessing share of income, VMT, and Transit Person Miles between income quintiles. Benefrts were.calculated at $79 7 biliion for the area and costs were calculated at $50.1 billion. Costs per person were calculated by using average transit fares per mile, transportation taxes paid, estimated health costs related to emissions, and assumed values of time by -13-

PAGE 21

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing income quintile. The impact of the transportation plan was then calculated by adjusting these figures based on presumed costs incurred and benefrts accrued based on the p ricing plan. The city of Houston has now implemented the HOT lanes pricing for 2+ buy-in on the Katy freeway. Originally the HOY lane was set up as bus only, then 3+ carpools were allowed, then 2+. However, after several years, the volume of 2+ traffic was such that the lane was congested, particularly at the exit poi nts METRO was forced to re-adopt the 3+ policy. The Quickride program was initiated on January 26, 1998. The authors visited the Houston facilities t o obtain more information on the progress of the project. It was found that: Enforcement was difficult Quickride participants had dramatically changed their travel habits Enforcement of the Quickr id e policy was a particularly difficult problem, due to multiple factors. Enforcement officers are expected to: Conduct occupancy counts Verify transponder presence & validity with handheld gun Verify hangtag presence The transponder verification has been problematic, as relatively low-grade and low-expense technology is being used for this task. Since the officers have a very short time window to conduct the verification at the Post Oak exit from the HOV lane), they are hard-pressed to adequately conduct their entire verification procedure Quickride participants were surveyed by LKC Consulting Services. A mailback survey was sent to all Quickride participants. Approximately 50% responded -14-

PAGE 22

Center f o r Urban Transportation Research Value Pric ing I t was found that respondents had reduced their drive alone and carpool-on-freeway activities in all time periods greatly increased peak-hour 2 person carpooling on the freeway 3-person carpoo l ing remained relatively stable Use of METRO bus on the HOV lane had declined cons i derably, particularly in the AM peak hours. Abo u t 250 trips/week in each direction had been converted to 2-person peak . period carpools in the HOV l anes. Of these, about 40% came from drive-alone conversions, 15% from 2-person carpools that had been on the freeway, and 10% from fonmer bus riders. There may also have been some conversions from non-peak back i nto peak period travel due to the availability of the Quickride option. I n fact, there is anecdotal evidence from a public meeting that METRO held in October of 1998. Horan Chang and McMurra n conducted a study of the impacts of HOT lanes in Southern California. They conclude that the study of equity issues cannot be limited to traditional aggregate approaches focusing particularly on income as well as gender and other demographic characteristics. Traditionally, groups identified for study have included divisions by income, gender, geography and locat i on, ethnicity, mode, trip purpose o r type, age, type of employment type of household, type of vehicle (commercial vs non-commercial); and existence of physical or mental d i sabil i ties . F rom a theoretical perspective, thi s report identifies the potential benefits and costs under plans to convert existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes as the following: Benefits Reduction in traffic from SOV's willing to pay to use the lane, Improved traffic flow for those SOV's will i ng to pay the toll

PAGE 23

Cente r for Urban T ransportation Research Value Pricing Potential enhancement of enforcement and resulting reduction in HOV la ne violations Less environmental impact than building new la nes Costs I f a 3+ requirement is imp le mented for free use, 2-person carpoolers lose because they must pay. 2-person carpools may wind up sp l itt ing into two SOV's if the incentive to carpool is removed. Instead, groups within these larger d emographic categories, such as sections by vehicle occupancy and time of vehicle use can and should be used to more accurately determine the impacts of HOT lane implementation Furthermore t he authors suggest an expanded approach to equity analysis which is based on the concepts of facility design, operational and management design, and administrative design. Facility design refers to the decisions made about the type of HOT lane to be implemented and may specifically relate to both the characteristics of users and the imp lementatio n of the facility on a conversion versus-creation basis. Operational and management design reflects the concerns about the use of the HOT lane: which can relate both to the characteristics of users as well as the ultimate impacts of the lane in term s of both congestion and pollution relief. Administrative design issues relate to maintenance and oversight issues including uses of the revenues of the HOT lanes and how the financing for the project is handled. This perspective provides a broader viewpoint and allows for a fuller consideration of various aspects of equ ity issues. -16-

PAGE 24

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Using this framework, the authors identify a number of issues that can potentially have equity implications for a Hdi iane J:)ro)ect. These include: Facility Design: considerations of geography (where will the lane be implemented) and vehicle occupancy requirements, as well as the location of exits and entrances and enforcement issues. Operational/Management Design: Toll collection approach vehicle occupancy requirement, use of demand sensitive pricing, and the ab ility of the project to pay for itself. Administrative Design: Use of excess reven ues type of financing u sed for implementing the project, integration of the HOT lane with the existing transportation network, and the type and character of the public outreach and education process used. There is a major consideration that must be made in light of the nature of the projects under consideration. Where projects being assessed from an equity standpoint relate to conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes, and additional access is being granted to SOV's but no access is being restricted, there remains some question of to what extent equity considerations are relevant. The public would conceivably bear the cost of facility installation to collect the tolls involved, but there rema ins some question as to whether the payment of the tolls is in fact subject to equity considerations. The analysis conducted by WSA for REACH, for instance, assumed imp osition of fees on all drivers. Clearly the conversio n plan would not operate in this fashion. The question that must be answered is, does provision of a facility at virtually no additional cost to the public which provides 17-

PAGE 25

Ce nter for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing additional access to SOV's {for a price) but does not restrict existing access in any way warrant consideration from an equity standpoint? -18-

PAGE 26

Center for Urban Transportatio n Research Value Pricing EQUITY ANALYSIS To conduct the equity analysis of the potential for development of the HOT Lane CUTR followed the process outlined in the Commun ity Impact Assessment Manual developed by CUTR for FOOT. This involved two steps : incorporation of Community Values into projects General Assessment of the project The procedure and the steps taken are outlined below: General Process for Incorporating Community Values into Transportation Projects (p.4) 1 Definition of problem The HOV lane is theoretically under utilized, therefore utilization the HOV lane needs to be improved. 2. Identify community/agency i ssues and objectives for consideration a. increase mobility b. reduce congestion c. reduce travel time d. implementation cost e. more effective use of lane (effective meaning putting more vehicles into the lane) -19-

PAGE 27

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 3 Possib l e al t ernative solutions a. open to all traffic b create HOT lane c. leave as is i n conjunction to new, more effective programs to increase access to HOV l ane d. make HOV lane available to other groups (such as the elder l y or those w i th certain o r igin/destination patterns) 4. Translate community/agency issues and objectives (#2) into evaluation cri teria a increase mobility: cars per hour trans f erred during peak hours or passengers transferred during peak hours b. reduce congestion: average travel speed or number of vehicles per hour c reduce travel time: speed d imp l emen t ation cost cost factors e. more effect i ve use of lane number of vehicles in lane per hour 20-

PAGE 28

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 5. Evaluate and compare alternative solut i ons (rank ordered on a 1-3 scale whene 1=most attractive and 3=1east attractive) based on available data and subjective assessments Table 1: Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Increase Cost Reduce Reduce More mobility Congestion Travel effective Time use of lane Open to all 1 3 Short term Short term 1 traffic 1 1 Long term Long term 3 3 HOT Lane 2 1 2 2 2 HOV lane 3 2 2 2 3 with new programs Available 2 2 depends 2 depends 2 depends 2 to other on groups on groups on groups groups 6. Select an alternative Based on the chart, HOT lane option is the best alternative although the importanCe of various factors may impact this. -21 -

PAGE 29

Center for Urban Transportation Research s Genera l Assessmen t of Project Value Pricing Having selected the HOT Lane as a logical alternative to pursue, the assessment process continued with a general assessment of the project A Describe project and study area (p. 13) 1 project located on 1-95 2. no conceptual design yet 3. no land required 4 time frame is unknown 5 deadlines/milestones The community was defined as those living in the area around 1-95 and users of 1-95. B. Scenarios that may trigger a more extensive community impact assessment (Table 2-1, p.15; as presented in the Community Impact Assessment document) 1. Right-of-way: this project does not require la rge amounts of right a way or would displace any people 2. Increase traffic : it might lead to a substantial increase in traffic (increased traffic volume because smoother sailing) and perhaps in certain areas (such as on/off) but not outside the lane itself. 3. Property Access: it will not involve major changes to property access 4. Local comprehensive plans: we don t know if it is in conflict with local comprehensive plans 5. Community facilities: no impact on community facilities -22-

PAGE 30

Center for Urban Transporta t ion Researc h Value P ricing Impact on historic districts or community landmarks: none or negligible 6 Aesthetic features: uncertain whether it will affect aesthetic features -depends on the design but most like l y not 7. Disruption/division of neighborhoods: will not cause a disruption/d i vision to t h e neighborhood Based on preceding scenarios, the key potential impact of the project is traffic volume due to increased capability of holding more traffic C. Screening criteria for assessing impact significance (Table 2-2 p 16; as presented in t h e Community Impact Assessment document) 1 Nature of the activity a substantial probability there will be some increase in traffic volume but difficult to quantify the increase b. people affectedunable to answer this Need analysis of users and potential users data from 1995 c. how widespread is the impact? Throughout 1-95 but greater at the access points. Some unknown here depending on the structure d The impact is expected to be permanent 2. Severity a local sensitiv ity-There has been no discussion of this project within the community, therefore there is no awareness. b : In order to determine the magnitude of the project, a traffic assessment model, a volume increase estimation and assignment mode l woul d be needed. -23-

PAGE 31

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 3. Po t ential for mitigation a. The impact is reversible (but there would be impacts?) b The cost is unknown -until the assignment is complete c. The state/loca l government would be able to address the impact without external assistance -24-

PAGE 32

Center for Analysis of Potential Impacts Typically, the analysis continues by identifying the groups that may be impacted by the project. However, since the potential traffic impact is not immediately assignable to a particular group, CUTR detennined that the best way to proceed was to develop traffic impact scenarios and to identify the groups that would be impacted under the traffic impact scenarios. Using a Delphi technique using the project investigators as the source of potential traffic impacts, the following impacts were identified: The following scenarios are considered to have potential relevance to the implementation of a HOT Lane in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties: A. Current carpoolers utilizing the HOV lane because with conversion to HOT lane it will now be more congested B. People making short trips (most likely those living in those areas) on 1-95 would be affected-egress will be highly congested C. Businesses on side roads currently used as alternatives may be negatively affected D. People living around the access points will be negatively impacted because there would be an increased amount of vehicles in those areas (access points must be well placed) E. Emergency vehicle response time could be slowed down (to the extent that they currently use HOV lane) -25-

PAGE 33

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing F Depending upon whether there are varied hours according to peak times, off-peak travelers lose a lane with HOT lane conversion, if off peak travelers fall into a minority group, this poses a problem G. Everyo ne benefits but to varying extents-those in carpools and those willing/able to pay for the HOT lane will most l ikely benefit more than those in the other lanes. Ideally the HOT lane will decrease traffic in regular lanes but to what extent is unknown. H. If HOT lane is barrier separated, accidents in HOT lane would be problematic I. Negatively affect those businesses at no-egress/access points J General congestion from additional commuters crossing all lanes K. Those who accidentally get on the HOT lane and cannot exit (only an issue if lane is barrier separated) l. Those living around the area (as well as users of 1-95) would be impacted by possible construction and there could be back ups but the extent of this impact is to be detemnined and beyond scope M. Risk involved concerning financing of project; ideally the tolls will pay for it but initially public funding will be used. N. Negatively affect those who currently use HOV lane illegally 26

PAGE 34

Center for Urt>an Tra n sportation Research Value Pricing 0. Businesses advertising on billboards on side roads adversely affected The Delphi technique continued to provide a rank-ordering of the issues to determ i ne probable level of significance of the issues in order to facilitate prioritization of investigation. The resul ting rank ordering was: 1. General congestion from additional commuters crossing all lanes 2. Current carpoolers utilizing the HOV lane because with conversion to HOT lane it will now be more c ongested 3. If HOT lane is barrier separated, accidents in HOT la ne would be problematic 4 People liv ing around the access points will be negatively impacted because there would be an increased amount of vehicles in those areas (access points must be well placed) 5. Those living around the area (as well as users of 1-95) would be impacted by possible construction and there could be back ups but the . extent of this impact is to be determined and beyond scope 6. People making short trips (most likely those living in those areas) of 1-95 would be affected-egress will be highly congested 7 Emergency vehicle response time could be slowed down (to the extent that they currently use HOV lane) 2.7-

PAGE 35

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 8. Businesses on side ro ads currently used as alternatives may be negatively affected 9 Negatively affect those businesses at no-egress/access points 10. Depending upon whether there are varied hours according to peak times, off-peak travelers lose a lane with HOT lane conversion, if off peak travelers fall into a minority group, this poses a problem 11. Everyone benefits but to varying extents-those in carpools and those willing/able to pay for the HOT lane will most likely benefit more than those in the other lanes. Ideally the HOT lane will decrease traffic in regular lanes but to what extent is unknown. 12. Risk invo lved concerning financing of project; ideally the tolls will pay for it but initially public funding used. 13. Those who accidentally get on the HOT lane and cannot exit (only an issue if lane is barrier separated) 14. Businesses advertising on billboards on side roads adversely affected 15. Negatively affect those who currently use HOV lane illegally The current study is not designed to handle issues of traffic impact resulting from other traffic coming over from the HOV lane or from accidents in the HOV La ne. These are issues that would need to be studied if the project progresses into further stages. -28-

PAGE 36

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Howeve r it i s within the scope of the current study to examine the characteristics of those who currently ca r pool and take short trips on the freeway, as well as those who live in the area of the freeway and might be impacted by traffic pattern changes and any necessary construction. To those ends the HOV Marketing and Positioning study conducted by CUTR in 1995 and the 19g7 updates to census data were used to provide the data relating to those issues. The analysis of the survey data focused on 1) the composition of those who use 1 -95 for trips less than ten m i les due to the possibility that those who make short trips on 1-95 will be negatively impacted due to i ncreased traffic volume and congestion at accessfegress points and 2) the composition of carpoo l ers on 1-95 using the HOV lane A ten-poi n t d i fference was defined as a s i gnificant impact. -29-

PAGE 37

Ce nt e r for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Analys i s of the composition of those who use 1-95 for tri ps less than ten miles reveals t h at 13% of those who do not use 1 95 for short trips are African Americans wh i l e 22% of those using 1-95 for short trips a r e African Americans Propensity to use 1-95 for short trips by race 40% 30% 20% IA---------10% 0% 13% Figure 1: Propensity to Use 1-95 for Short Trips by Race. 30-6'7%

PAGE 38

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Analysis of the composition of people who carpool on 1-95 and use the HOV lane in comparison with all others shows that there is a significant difference between people ages 18-34 who carpool and use the HOV lane with total people surveyed. 35% of the those polled are age 18 to 34 while 48% of people carpooling and using the HOV lane are between the age of 18 to 34. Propensity to carpool on I-95 by age Figure 2: Propensity to Use 1-95 for Short Trips by Age 31.

PAGE 39

Center for Urban Transp ortation Research Value Pr ici ng There is also a significant d i fference in income level between those who carpool and use the HOV lane and all others polled. 46% of those who carpool and use the HOV l ane have incomes l ess than $30,000 while o nl y 24% of all others fall into this income level range. Propensity to carpool and use HOV lanes on I-95 by income 80% 60% 40% 20% Figure 3: Propensity to Use 1-95 for Short Trips by Income. It can be concluded that if there were an adverse effect on those making short trips (defined as less than ten miles) due to the HOT lane conversion, then African Americans would be more dramatically impacted. A second pote n tia l negative impact due to the HOT lane convers i on would be on carpoolers currently using the HOV lane who a r e between the ages of 18 to 34 and those with an i ncome leve l of less than $30,000. -32

PAGE 40

Center for Urban T ransportation Research Value Pricing .. For the analysis of characteristics of thos e living in the area of 1-95, U. S Census data from 1997 was used. Income age and race distributions for people liv ing in the 1-95 area in Miami-Dade and Browa r d counties were compared to the populat i on characteristics of Broward and Miami-Dade counties as a whole. These results are presented in the charts below: South Florida income levels (1997) Combined Broward & Miami-Dade Counties versus 1-95 area 100o/Ar---------------------------------. 0% .. j Figure 4: South Florida Income Levets-Broward and Miami-Dade Versus 1-95 Area : -33-

PAGE 41

Center for Urban Transportation Research South Florida population ages (1997) Combined Broward & Miam i -Dade Counties versus 1-95 area Value Pricing Figure 5: South Florida Age Distribution-Browar d and Miami Dade Versus 1-95 Area. South Florida population by race (1997) Combined Broward & Miami -Dade Counties versus 1-95 area Figure 6: South Florida Race Distribution-Bro ward and Miami-Dade Versus 1 -95 Area. -34-

PAGE 42

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing These charts show that while there is little difference between the 1 -95 area and the counties as a whole from the perspective of income and age levels, there is a tremendous disparity by race. In summary, there appear to be potential effects from the HOT Lane that could have inequitable impacts particularly related to race. -35-

PAGE 43

Center for Urba n Transportation Research Value Pricing -36-

PAGE 44

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing SURVEY RESULTS Introduction Commuter acceptance of the HOT LanesNalue Pricing concept for 1-95 in South Florida was tested through a telephone survey process among residents of the three-county South Florida area (Palm beach, Broward, and Miami -Dade counties}. The results of the survey were also used to develop trends of travel behavior on 1-95 in South Florida. The 1995 HOY Marketing and Positioning project provided baseline data for 1-95 travel characteristics and attitudes. The survey in the current project contained many questions drawn from the 1995 survey for the purpose of providing trends of travel characteristics data. 37-

PAGE 45

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Method CUTR conducted 1,192 interviews with residents of the three-county South Florida area (Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties) were interviewed by telephone. Respondents were asked about their current commuting habits, their awareness and use of HOV Lanes and their opinions about the i dea of implementing a HOT lane to replace the HOV lane. Sample for this survey was developed using a Random-Digit-Dialing technique, and should, therefore, be adequately representative of the region's comml.!ter population. A Spanish language version of the survey as prepared, and available for nonE nglish speaking respondents. One hundred interv iews were conducted in Span i sh. Western WATS of Orem, Utah conducted the interviews The cooperation rate (analogous to a response rate) was approximately 66% of eligible respondents. Also, 320 poten t ial respondents were invalidated due to living in the wrong county working for a media company or transportation agency, or not having any working vehicles in their household The survey instrument used to conduct the interviews is included as appendix A. -38-

PAGE 46

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Results The results from the survey will be presented in two major sections: the overall attitude towards HOV lanes, and characteristics of current use of 1-95. Much of the data collected was similar to data collected in a 1995 survey on HOV lanes in South Florida. Thus trends from 1995 to 2000 are shown in the results. Attitudes Towards HOVand HOT Lanes Overall A series of questions were asked to gauge people's attitudes towards traffic congestion on 1-95 and the effectiveness of the carpool lanes. These questions were also asked in 1995, which allows for the examination of trends between the two surveys. The first question was an overall rating of agreement with the statement, "Traffic congestion on 1-95 is a serious problem." The response to this question was given a 1-1 o. scale, where 1 indicated the respondent completely disagreed with the statement and a 1 0 indicated that they completely agreed with the statement. -39-

PAGE 47

Center for Urban T ransportation Research Value Pricin9 T hree out of four survey respondents strongly agree that traffic congestion is a serious problem. The results are shown in the chart below: Overall attitudes about HOV lanes Congestion is a serious problem 100% 60% 1....1-------------------------40% 20% 0% Figure 7: Agreement with Statement, "Traffic congestion on 1-95 is a serious problem. -40-

PAGE 48

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 0 There is a much lower level of agreement on how HOV lanes should be used to help relieve congestion. People were asked if they felt that HOV lanes should be opened to all traffic and if they felt that carpool lanes were an effective way of relieving congestion. The responses to those questions are shown in the charts below: Overall attitudes about HOV lanes Carpool lanes are an effective of relieving congestion 60% 20% Figure 8: Agreement with Statement, "Carpool lanes are an effective way of relieving congestion. -41-

PAGE 49

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Overall attitudes about HOV lanes Open HOV lanes to all traffic 60% 40% 20% Figure 9: Agreement with Statement, "HOV lanes should be opened to all traffic." Opinions are split on these issues and not surprisingly the results for the two questions are negatively correlated (r=-.1) at a 99 .7% leve l of confidence that the result is not different from zero due to sampling error. While opinions are split on whether HOV Lanes are effective or if they should be ope ned to all traffic, they are decidedly not split on the issue of whether creating a HOT lane from the HOV lanes is a good idea Respondents were asked the following question: One idea used in some parts of the country i s to allow single-occupant vehicles, that is, vehicles with only a driver and no passengers, to use the 42 -

PAGE 50

. Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing carpool lanes during rush hour i f they pay a toll of (vary price poi nt -ask 1/3 $0 50, 1/3$1, and 1/3 $2) to use ili e lane. Still using the same scale of 1 to 10, to what extent do you agree that this would be a good idea to use on the 1-95 carpool lanes? The r esponse to this question was decidedly not in favor of the proposal, as demonstrated i n the charts below: Overall attitudes about HOV lanes Creating a HOT lane is a good idea 100% _,.----------------, 80%.1.-l----------------l 60% 20% 0% Figure 10: Agreement with the Idea of Converting the HOV Lane to a HOT Lane. 43-

PAGE 51

Center f or Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing The extremely low level of agreement with this idea is highlighted more clearly by comparing the proportion of respondents who completely agree with the statements (i.e., provide a '10' response on a 1-10 scale) and the proposition who completely disagree (i.e., provide a '1' response on a 1-10 scale). Overall attitudes about HOV lanes Proportion giving a '1' (lowest rating) 2000 HOT Lanes survey 30%11--------20% J..I---1011/oJ..l-Figure 11: Proportion Giving a '1' (lowest rating) on Statements About HOV Lanes. -44-

PAGE 52

Center for Urban Transportation Research Overall attitudes about HOV lanes Proportion giving a '10' (highest rating) 2000 HOT Lanes survey Value Pricing Figure 12: Proportion Giving a '10' (highest rating) on Statements About HOV Lanes A majority (i.e., over hall) of the respondents gave a '1' rating to the HOT lanes, idea regardless of the price point. There is no way to interpret this other than outright rejection of the idea from the general public standpoi nt. The remaining ratings were fairly evenly distributed from 2 to 10. -45-

PAGE 53

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing The mean level of agreement scores on each of the above statements is compared in the next chart: Overall attitudes about HOV lanes Mean ratings Figure 13 : Mean Ratings on Statements About HOV Lanes. Because the distribution of responses, as well as the mean support ratings, was not greatly affected by the price points used in asking people about their support for the Hot Lanes concept, the responses were combined together to form a larger database of support ratings for HOT lanes. Price is quite evidently not a major issue in determining level of support. -46-

PAGE 54

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Support for the idea of converting the HOV lane to a HOT la ne is clearly very limited. A follow up question was asked to determine if communicating how the funds were to be used might increase (or decrease) responde nt's support for the concept. T hese results are summarized in the next chart: How proposed use of funds impacts support for HOT lanes 60% SOo/o 30% 20% 10% 0% lmpron Tnnsit Improve Roads Figure 14: How Proposed Use of Funds Impacts Support for HOT Lanes. Generally, most of the ideas had a moderately positive impact but still left over 60% saying that the proposed use of funds would have no impact or would decrease their level of support. -47-

PAGE 55

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Even more telling, however, is a distribution of where the increased support would come from. In these charts, the original level of support is characterized in the following manner: Anyone who responded with a '1' on the question about whether implementing the HOT lane is a good idea was categorized as 'Actively opposing' the idea (53%); Anyone responding with a 2-6 was categorized as 'Little or no support' (28%); Anyone responding with a 7-10 was categorized as 'High support.' (19%) How proposed use of funds impacts support for HOT lanes by ori nal level of su rt 60% SOo/o 1-+--------------------------30% 20% 10% -48-

PAGE 56

Center for Urban Transportation Reseljrcll Value Pricing What this shows is that most of those who said the proposed use of funds would increase their level of support already support the idea to an unus ually high degree. Only 19% of those who 'actively oppose' the idea said that the proposed use of funds would increase their level of support. Just looking at those who 'actively oppose' the idea shows the following pattern of increased support: How proposed use of funds impacts support for HOT lanes :::r-:-' 40o/o 20% 10% 0% Figure 16: How Proposed Use of Funds Impacts Support for HOT Lanes Among Those Actively Opposed. This suggests that allocating funds to improving transit service might be the best way to build support for this idea among those least supportive if the proposal were to be implemented -49-

PAGE 57

Center for Urban Transportation Research Va lue Pricing A follow-up question ab out why peopl e felt the way they felt about the HOT lanes q u es ti on was also as k ed. The responses were completely open-ended and t he analysis of t hose resu l ts improves the understanding of why the results came out the way they did. The table below shows t he dis tribution of responses among those who don' t support the co n c ept. A few people gave more tha n one response so t h e totals may add up t o over 1 00% Active ly Oppose ( 1 ) Littl e /No Support (2-6) Shouldn t have to pay 32% 19% No effec t on c o nges t ion 2 0% 2 3% De f eats purpose of HOV 13% 8% Al r eady pay to man y taxes/t o lls 12% 6% Just won't work 12% 9% Need more i nfo 3% 13% People won't use 3% 8% T o o expensive 4 % 5% Don't want to give government money 4% 4% All other 4% 8% Th o se th a t support the ide a to some deg ree (tha t is, rat e d the concept a 7 or g r eater) give the following reasons fo r their support: Good idea I would help w"h cong e stion 62% Need mor e in f o 1 1% Would maintain curre n t congestion 7% Shou l d charge to use roads 6% All o ther 20% -50-

PAGE 58

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing A few differences appeared in a demographic of the reasons for opposition. For instance, those aged 35-44 were more likely to comment unprompted that they believe there would be little impact on congestion ( 16% versus 10% of those of other ages) but less likely to say that they felt they "shou l dn 't have to pay (14% vs. 20% of those of other ages). Whites were more like ly to say the idea could not be enforced and less likely to say that HOT lan es were "generally a good idea" (see section on Support for HOT Lanes by Race below). Men were more likely to say that HOT lanes were "generally a good idea" but women were more likely to say that they shouldn't have to pay. Finally, the idea that the HOT concept defeats the purpose of HOV lanes broad-based but has somewhat more weight among those aged 35-54 (10% versus about 6.5% of all others), among whites and Hispanics (8.5% versus 4% of African Americans), and among men (10% of men say this versus less than 7% of women). Several variables were examined to see if opposition to HOT lanes could be tied to demographic, attitudinal or experiential conditions (i.e use of 1-95 or carpool lanes). Several of these variables were found to be significantly related to support for HOT lanes. These variables were: County Income Race Number of working adults in household Use of carpool lanes Perception of improvement in travel speed from use of HOV lanes No other variables were found to be significantly related to support for HOT lanes. -51-

PAGE 59

Center for Urban Transportatio n Research Value Pricin g Each of these variables will be examined in turn Other variab l es that might be expected to have an impact (such as overall carpooling behav i o r education levels ma r ital status and p r esence of children, etc.) were e x amined but did not show significant diffe r ences between groups 52.

PAGE 60

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Support for HOT Lanes by County Support for the HOT la ne concept varies somewhat by county, as demonstrated in the chart below: Support for HOT lanes by county 80% 60% Figure 17: Support for HOT Lanes by County. Opposition is higher in Palm Beach and Broward counties than in Miami-Dade County. However, in none of the three counties is there a particularly high level of support. -53-

PAGE 61

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Support for HOT Lanes by Income T here is a large amount of variation in support for the HOT Lanes concept by income as shown in the chart below: Support for HOT lanes by income SO% Figure 18: Support for HOT Lanes by Income. As w it h the b r eakdown by counties there is more support for HOT Lanes among lower-income residents but there is still not a great deal of support in any income bracket. Those with h ousehold i ncomes under $40K we r e the most supportive of the concept, and even in that group 40% gave a 1' rating, the lowest possible rat ing of support. So while there i s a difference by income bracket, there is no i n dicat i on that any specific income bracket strongly supports the HO T Lanes concept. -54-

PAGE 62

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Support for HOT Lanes by Race There is also some variation by race, but it is along the same lines as the variation by income. The results are shown in the chart below: Support for HOT lanes by race Figure 19: Support for HOT Lanes by Race. As with the i ncome results, no specific group actually supports the HOT lanes concept some are just a bit less opposed than others. For African Americans and Hispanics, about 40% gave a '1' rating compared to 60% of whites. Over 30% of African-Americans strongly support the idea. This is very int eresting since in the equity analysis section it is the lower-income, non-white population for whom inequities were inves tigated, and as it turns out these are the groups -55-

PAGE 63

Center f o r Urban Transp ortatio n Research Value Pricing most in favor of the conceptalthough it must again be stressed that it would be very misleading to characterize any group as actually 's upporting' the idea of HOT lanes. Support fo r HO T Lanes by Number of Work i ng Adults in Household Support for HO T lanes does vary somewhat by number of working adults i n the househo l d The results are shown in the chart be l ow: Support for HOT lanes by number of working adults in household Figure 20: Support for HOT Lanes by Number of Working Adults As with the other demographic variables, no g ro up t r u ly supports the concept. The households with t he higher numbers of working adults oppose the idea less tha n other hous e holds -56-

PAGE 64

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Support for HOT Lanes by Use of Carpool Lanes It might be expected that when experiential variables (rather than demographic variables) are used to segment the population, it might be possible to define a group that really supports the concept. One of the variables with highest potential to do so is use of carpool lanes on 1-95. This variable will be more thoroughly examined in the second section of this report on travel characteristics of 1-95 users. There is variation, but it does not define a group that supports the concept, as shown in the chart below: 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Support for HOT lanes by use of carpool lanes on 1-95 Ac:-tMty oppose (1) Litt1e/No support (2-6) Hip support(1) Figure 21: Support for HOT Lanes by Use of Carpool Lanes. What is fascinating about this result is that it would seem more likely that the users of carpool lanes would be the ones most dead-set against the concept. In -57-

PAGE 65

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing fact they favor the idea somewhat more than do the people who don't use the carpool lanes As with other analyses, in no way can either of the groups examined be characterized as supporting the concept. -58-

PAGE 66

Ce nter for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Support for HOT Lanes by Perception of HOV Travel Speed The last variable identified as potentially imp acting support for HOV lanes was the perce ption of travel speed Improvement offered by HOV lanes. Again, it would seem likely that those who see the most travel speed im provement would be those most against the concept. In practice the results worked out differently: Support for HOT lanes by perception of HOV travel speed 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 22: Support for HOT Lanes by Perception of HOV Travel Speed. Those most in favor of the HOT lanes concept are those who perceive the travel speed improvement of HOV lanes to be the highest. As with other groups, even they cannot be characterized as supporting the concept only as opposing it less than other groups. 59.

PAGE 67

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Concl us ions on Public Support fo r HOT Lanes The results of this survey clearly indicate that there is very little support for the HOT Lanes concept within the general public in South Florida. In fact most residents seem to be strongly opposed to the idea. It is extremely difficult to even ide ntify any demographic or other sub-group that can be characterized as supporting the concept. Were this concept to be implemented, it would have to be for reasons completely unrelated to any public approval of or desire for the project. Such a project would in fact face an enormous hurdle of contrary public opinion, and, therefore, po litical and media support. If HOT lanes were to be implemented in South Florida, strategic public relations would be necessary to assuage some of the negative feelings revealed in this survey The following issues would need to be addressed: The notion that people should not have to pay for roads It is likely that people have very little understanding of the enormous amount of public tax funding that is used to support transportation. This may be an opportunity for people to be educated on what are the true costs of maintaining the leve l of mobility we enjoy, and to understand that tolling may represent the fairest way to dis tribute those costs among users. This attitude is significantly more prevalent among women and somewhat more prevalent among respondents aged 18-34 and 55 and over, suggesting that targeting of the message should be towards those groups. -60-

PAGE 68

Center for Urban Transporta t ion Research Value Pricing The perception that HOV lanes and potential HOT lanes have no impact on congestion This is a very understandable viewpoint given that many drivers sit in rush hour traffic and see an empty HOV lane or see people violating HOV regulat i ons and driving s olo in the lane. Commun i cations that explain the potentia l number of people moved through (or the potential pe r centage of traffic that goes through) HOT l anes may help people to understand that the lanes do make a difference This attitude is more prevalent among those aged 35-54. The perception that putting a toll on the HOV lane and allowing solo drivers to use it would defeat the purpose of HOV lanes Here the message would have to i ndi c ate that the maximum flow of the lane where desired speeds are ma i ntained is st i ll higher than what is current l y being accomplished, and what's more the funds generated will be used to improve aspects of local transportation (assuming that that is in fact the case ) This attitude is broad-based but has somewhat more weight among those aged 35-54, among whites and Hispani c s and among men. No demographic group was identified as being very supportive of the concept. Messages to increase support will need t o be broad-based. There remains no evidence that HOT lanes are a popular concept in South Florida. Quite the opposite is in fact true. As mentioned earlier, a dec i sion to move forward would need to be based on other factors. If that course is followed, no one should be under the illusion that a publ i c relations campaign will swing the tide in favor of this concept. The best that can be hoped for is a reduction in the leve l of active opposition to the concept and perhaps an increase in l ukewarm support. The public relations approach will be necessary to at -61

PAGE 69

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing least address the population's concerns, but will not create a positive feeling for the concept among a majority (or even large minority) of the public. -62-

PAGE 70

Center for Urban Transpo rtation Research Value Pricing Travel Characteristics on 1-95 This section of the report will detail trends of travel characteristics on 1-95. The 1995 HOV Marketing and Positioning project contained a great deal of data on lg5 travel characteristics. Many of the questions in that survey were repeated In this survey to provide trends on travel characteristics. Overall, trends have been extremely stable-characteristics of use of 1-95 have changed very little over the past 5 years, as will be demonstrated in the following analysis. It should be noted that the 1995 study was conducted during the summer of 1995, and the current survey was conducted in November of 2000. A somewhat larger proportion of respondents in the current survey lived in 'retir ed' households. Some of the trend findings may be due to differences in travel patterns of these r esidents. Re-weighting the sample to equalize the number of retirees is a possible additional analysis that could be conducted. However, it .is highly unlikely that such a re-weighting will produce markedly different results Differences between the g roups are not huge (for example, 63% of retirees who don't use 1-95 say they would use it if it were less congested, versus 55% of full-time employees} and so re-weighting would not really change the overall resu lts by much. Also, the consistency of data between this study and the 1995 study is reserved, thus reducing potential confusion. Also, with the aging of the population of the United States it is likely that the overall employment profile of the area has changed somewhat and an increase in the number of retirees is likely. Thus there would be a further diminishment of any impact that reweighting to a 'truly comparable' level might have. An analysis of trends broken down by county will follow the analysis of all South Florida residents. -63-

PAGE 71

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Employment Profile of South Florida Residents Clearly an important issue is the difference in timing of the surveys. However, while there are significantly more retirees in the sample than in the 1995 study, changes are still not so dramatic as to Invalidate comparisons between the studies. Some caution must be used in interpretation of the results (such as any decreases in proportion of residents using 1-95 during rush hour, if applicable). The employment profile comparison is summarized in the chart below Employment Profile of South Florida residents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Figure 23: Employment Profile of South Florida Residents. As noted earlier, the increase in number of retirees is probably at h:iast partially due to the different timing of the surveys 1995 in the summer, 2000 in Novem ber. It is also likely, however, that the proportion of retirees in the full-time resident population has increased. -64-

PAGE 72

Center for Urban T ransportatio n Research Value Pricing Use of 1-95 South F lorida residents were characterized by their use of 1-95. The breakdown is summarized in the chart below: Use of 1-95 among South Florida residents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Figure 24: Use of 1 -95 Among South Florida Residents. Over 40% of all residents use 1-95 for at least two trips per week Approximately 13% carpool once per week or more on 1 -95 and 7% use the HOV lanes. There has been a statistically significant increase in the proportion of people who say they are using the HOV lanes, but other changes are not statistically significant from the prior survey conducted in 1995. -65-

PAGE 73

Center for Urba n Transportation Research Value Pricing Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Respondents were asked what their reasons were for not using 1-95 if they didn't use it regularly The main responses are summarized below 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Reasons for not using 1-95 among South Florida residents Figure 25: Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among South Florida Residents. Interestingly, in spite of population growth and expansion of businesses into areas of South Florida away from the 1-95 corridor, there has an increase in the proportion o f those who don't use 1-95 that say they would use it i f it were less congested. and a corresponding decrease in the number of people that say it is not the best route. -66-

PAGE 74

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Use of 1-95 Entrances and Exits In contrast to prior surveys, respondents in this survey were asked to identify which exits they used get on and off 1-95. l>revlously respondents had been asked what distance they traveled on 1 95. Forty-eight percent of South Florida residents use 1-95 at all Of those, about one-third either did not know what exits they used (20%) or did not provide useab l e dat a (unidentifiable exit names, provided the same exit as both entrance and exit, did not answer the question, etc -a total of 13%). As it tums out, only about 400 respondents gave us valid entrance/exit data for where they got on and got off 1-95. There were a large number (about 100 respondents) who didn't know where they got on and off or gave us the same exit for both on and off. Th e re are also about 600 who said they don't regularly travel 1-95. With only about 400 respondents there was not a great deal of consistency In entrance/exit data. Only 5 entrance/exit combinations were mentioned by more than 2 respondents They were: Atlantic Blvd to Copans Road SW 8th/7th street (Miami) to State Road 934 Hollywood Blvd to 1-595 1-595 to Commercial Blvd Commercial Blvd to Sample Road -67-

PAGE 75

Center tor Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing In addition, 4 respondents mentioned downtown M i ami (US1 I Miami Avenue I NW 2nd I 1-395) to the 1-195 I Airport Expressway, and 3 respondents mentioned SR 8361 NW 8th to downtown Miami (US 1 I Miami Avenue I NW 2nd 11-395) For purposes of simplicity the new proposed exit number i ng system (mileage based) as reported on the DOT website was used to code the responses. Hence all the downtown Miami exits are variations on exit '2' . 68.

PAGE 76

Center fo r Urban Transpo rt ation Research Value Pricing As f a r as use of i ndividual exits and entrances, t he most common mentions were: ENTRANCES: 1-595 SR826 24 responses 22 Downtown Miami (as above) 21 SR 8161 Oakland Park 16 Atlantic Blvd 16 SW 1Oth Street (SR 869) 16 SR 836 I NW 8 th street 15 Sample Road 13 Hollywood Blvd 12 Palmetto Park Road 11 EXITS Downtown Miami 24 1 595 21 Broward Blvd 17 SR 836 I NW 8th street 16 1-195 I Airport Expwy 16 G l ades Road 16 Hollywood Blvd 14 Oakland Park 13 Commercial Blvd 13 -69-

PAGE 77

Center for Urban Transportation Research Val ue Pric i ng Carpooling and HOV Lane Use on 1-95 A series of questions were asked to determine the extent of carpooling and HOV l ane use o n 1-95 among those who used 1-95 during rush hour. These responses are again compared to the 1995 survey in the following charts: Carpooling behavior on 1-95 among South Florida residents 60% 40% 20% 0% Figure 26: Carpooling Behavior on 1-95 Among South Florida Residents. A much higher proportion of residents report that they carpoo l on 1-95 now compared to 1995 Thi s results, howeve r is rather heavily skewed by the numbe r of reti res (67% of retirees who use 1 -95 say they carpool at least sometimes' on 1-95 compared to 35% of working residents). For that reason the proportion of working residents only who say they carpool on 1 95 is also shown a n d this chart i n dicates n o change in carpooling behavior This finding is -70-

PAGE 78

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing completely in line with national statistics that show carpooling is much more prevalent for non-work trips. The next chart shows carpooling just among rush hour drivers. 100% Incidence of Carpooling on 1-95 among South Florida rush hour drivers 60% 40% 20% Figure 27: Incidence of Carpooling on 1-95 Among South Florida Rush Hour Drivers. This chart shows that even among rush hour drivers, the incidence of carpooling is up. Although this result may also be due to more carpooling being done among retirees who drive during rush hour (but still have a non-work trip purpose), it is a good sign that carpooling during the rush hour, regardless of trip purpose, is higher in the 2000 survey than it was in the 1995 survey. -71-

PAGE 79

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Awareness of HOV lanes in South F l orida is basically stablejust over 80% are aware of the la nes. There is now a greater proportion of people who are aware 'una i ded that is that they name HOV lanes as an advantage that exists for carpoolers on 1 -95 A ide d awareness means the respondents actually had to be prompted as to whether or not there are HOV l anes on 1 -95. Overall awareness leve l s are v i rtually identica l to 1995. Awareness of HOV Lanes among South Florida residents 100% 80o/o1r---------------------------60% u-------0% Unaided Ofthoseawareo fHOV Lanes Aided Unawart Know lanes rtsentd certain times of day" Figure 28: Awareness of HOV Lanes Among South Florida Residents . 72.

PAGE 80

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Perceptions of differences in travel s peeCl fo r HOV Lanes are summarized in the next chart South Florida commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOV lanes 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CS = Com.rnuter Services Figure 29: South Florida 1-95 Commuters' Perception of HOV Travel Speed Improvement. The 1999 Commuter services evaluation study (general public portion) contained a question about these perceptions, and that data is also i nclude d here for additional trending value. There has been a substantial decrease in the proportion of commuters who felt that HOV travel speed is 'about the same' or 'slower' than travel in regular lanes. Overall trends show litt le change in behavior other than a large r proportion of commuters perceiving that HOV travel speeds are faster than regular lane travel. -73-

PAGE 81

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing -74-

PAGE 82

Value County Profiles The following is an analysis of 1 -g5 usage in the three-co unty area, including an employment profile of each county. Employment Profile of Palm Beach Coun!'f Res i dents The employment profi l e comparison is summarized in the chart below. 1 0 0% Employment Profile of Palm Beach County residents 60% 40% 20% Ofth ose aware o fHOV Lanes Figur e 30: Employment P rofile of Pa l m Beach County Residents. As noted earlier the increase in number of retirees is probably at l east part i ally due to the different timing of the surveys 1gg5 in the summer, 2000 in November It is also l i kely however that the proportion of retirees in the ful l-time resident population has increased -75-

PAGE 83

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Destination counties of Palm Beach commuters are summarized in the following chart. 100% 60% 40% 20% County of employment for Palm Beach County workers OflhoscawareofHOV Lanes Figure 31: County of Employment for Palm Beach County Residents. Palm Beach County remains the county of employment for most commuters, although there has been an increase in other counties (Miami-Dade County is the destination for 3% of the 9% who do not work in Palm Beach or Broward counties) as places of employment. -76-

PAGE 84

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Use of 1-95 Among Palm Beach CountY Residents Pa lm Beach County residents were characterized by their use of 1-95. The breakdown is summarized in the chart below: Use of 1-95 among Palm Beach County residents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Figure 32: Use of 1 -95 Among Palm Beach County Residents. There have been no statistically significant changes from the prior survey conducted in 1995. -77-

PAGE 85

Center for Urban Transportat ion Research Value Pricing Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among Palm Beach County Residents Respondents were asked what their reasons were for not using 1-95 if they didn't use it regularly. The main responses are summarized below Reasons for not using 1-95 among Palm Beach County residents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Figure 33: Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among Palm Beach County Residents. As with the results for the entire region, there has an increase in the proportion of those who don't use 1 -95 that say they would use it if it were less congested, and a correspondi ng decrease in the number of people that say it is not the best route. -78-

PAGE 86

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Carpooling and HOV lane Use on 1 -9 5 Among Palm Beach County Residents A series of questions were asked to determine the extent of carpooling and HOV lane use on 1-95 among those who used 1-95 during rush hour. These responses are again compared to the 1995 survey in the charts below: 100% Incidence of Carpooling on 1-95 among Palm Beach County rush hour drivers so;. 60% 40% 20% Figure 34: Incidence of Carpooling on 1-95 Among Palm Beach County Rush Hour Drivers. A much higher proportion of rush hour drivers report that they carpool on 1-95 now compared to 1995. -79-

PAGE 87

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Awareness of HOV lanes in Palm Beach County is stable, just as for the region as a wholejust about 2/3 are aware of the lanes. There is now a greater proportion of people who are aware 'unaided', that is that they name HOV lanes as an advantage that exists for carpoolers on 1-95. 'Aided' awareness means the respondents actually had to be prompted as to whether or not there are HOV lanes on 1-95. Overall awareness levels are virtually identical to 1995. Awareness of HOV Lanes among Palm Beach County residents 100% 80/o 60o/o lA---------------------------40% u-------0% UnaMled Ofthoseaw.&reofHOV Lanes Aided Unaware reserved certain tlmu of day* Figure 35: Awareness of HOV Lanes Among Palm Beach County Residents. -80-

PAGE 88

Center tor Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Perceptions of differences in travel speed for HOV Lanes are summarized in the next chart. Palm Beach County commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOV lanes SO% 40% 30% 20% 10% Figure 36: Palm Beach County 1-95 Commuters' Perception of HOV Travel Speed Improvement. The 1999 Commuter services evaluation study (gene ral public portion) contained a question about these perceptions and that data is also included here for additional trending value. As in the region as a whole there has been a substantial decrease in the proportion of commuters who felt that HOV travel speed is 'about the same' or 'slower' than travel in regular lanes. -81-

PAGE 89

Center for Urban Trans porta tion Research Value Pricing Employment Profile of Broward County Residents The employment profile comparison is summa rized in the chart below. 100% Employment Profile of Broward County residents so;. 60% 40% 20% Of those sv.'afC of HOV Lanes Figure 37: Employment Profile of Broward County Residents. As noted earlier, the increase in number of retirees is probably at least partially due to the different t iming of the surveys 1995 i n the summer, 2000 in November It is also likely, however, that the proportion of retirees in the full-time resident population has increase d -82-

PAGE 90

Ce n ter for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Destination counties of Broward commuters are summarized in the following chart. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% County of employment for Broward County workers Oftbose-a"''ateOfHOV Lanes Figure 38: County of Employment for Broward County Residents. Broward County remains the county of employment for most commuters. There has not been any major shift in counties of employment fo r Broward residents. 83

PAGE 91

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Use of 1-95 Among Broward County Residents Broward County residents were characterized by their use of 1-95. The breakdown is summarized in the chart below: Use of 1-95 among Broward County residents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Figure 39 : Use of 1-95 Among Broward County Residents. There have been no statistically significant changes from the prior survey conducted in 1995. -84-

PAGE 92

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Reasons for Not Using 1 -95 Among Broward County Residents Respondents were asked what their reasons were for not using 1-95 if they didn't use it regularly. The main responses are summarized below 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Reasons for not using 1-95 among Broward County residents Figure 40: Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among Broward County Residents. As with the results f or the entire region, there has an increase in the proportion of those who don't use l-95that say they would use it if it were less congested, and a corresponding decrease ih the number of people that say it is not the best route. -85-

PAGE 93

Center fo r Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Carpooling and HOV Lane Use on 1-95 Among Broward County Residents A series of questions were asked to determine the extent of carpooling and HOV lane use on 1-95 among those who used 1-95 during rush hour. These responses are again compared to the 1995 survey in the charts below: 100% Incidence of Carpooling on 1-95 among Broward County rush hour drivers 80/o 60% 40% 20% Figure 41: Incidence of Carpooling on 1-95 Among Broward County Rush Hour Drivers. A much higher proportion of rush hour drivers report that they carpool on 1-95 now compared to 1995. -86-

PAGE 94

Center for Urban Transportatio n Research Value Pricing Awareness of HOV lanes in Broward County is stable, just as for the region as a wholej ust about 213 are aware of the lanes. There is now a greater proportion of people who are aware unaided' that is that they name HOV lanes as an advantage that exists for carpoolers on 1-95. 'Aided' awareness means the respondents actually had to be prompted as to whether or not there are HOV lanes on 1-95. Overall awareness levels are virtually identical to 1995. Awareness of HOV Lanes among Broward County residents 100% 60% lA-----Aided Unaware Oftho$cawareofHOV Lanes Figure 42: Awareness of HOV Lanes Among Broward County Residents. -87-

PAGE 95

Center for U rban Transportation Research Value Pr i cing Perceptions of differences in travel speed for HOV Lanes are summarized in the next chart. Broward County commuters perception of travel speed improvement when using HOV lanes 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 43: Broward County 1-95 Commuters' Perception of HOV Travel Speed Improvement. The 1999 Commuter Services evaluation study (general public portion) contained a question about these perceptions, and that data is also included here for additional trending value. As in the region as a whole, there has been a substantial decrease in the proportion of commuters who felt that HOV travel speed is 'about the same' or 'sl ower' than travel in regular lanes. -88-

PAGE 96

Center for Urban Tra nsporta ti on Research Value Pricing Employment Profile of Miami-Dade County Residents The employment profile comparison is summarized in the chart below. 100% Employment Profile of Miami-Dade County residents 80o/o 60% 40% 20% Of those aware of HOV Lanes Figure 44: Employment Profile of Miami-Dade County Residents As noted earlier, the increase in number of retirees is probably at least partially due to the different timing of the surveys -1995 in the summer, 2000 in November It is also likely, however, that the proportion of retirees in the full tim e resident population has increased. -89-

PAGE 97

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Destination counties of Miami-Dade commuters are summarized in the following chart. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% County of employment for Miami-Dade County workers Oft hose aware of HOV Lanes Figure 45: County of Employment for Miami Dade County Residents. M iami Dade County remains the county of employment for most commuters. There has not been any major shift in counties of employment for Miami-Dade residents. -90-

PAGE 98

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Use of 1-95 Amo ng Miami-Dade County Residents Miami-Dade County residents were characterized by their use of 1-95. The breakdown is summarized in the chart below: Use of 1 among Miami-Dade County residents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Figure 46: Use of 1 -95 Among Miami-Dade County Residents. There have be en no statistically significant changes from the prior survey conducted in 1995. -91 -

PAGE 99

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among Miami-Dade County Residents Respondents were asked what their reasons were for not using 1-95 if they didn't use it regularly. The main respo n ses are summarized below Reasons for not using 1-95 among Miami-Dade County residents 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Figure 47: Reasons for Not Using 1-95 Among Miami-Dade County Residents As with the results for the entire region, there has an increase in the proportion of those who don't use 1-95 that say they would use i t if i t were less congested, and a corresponding decrease in the number of people that say it i s not the best route -92-

PAGE 100

Center for Urban T ransporta ti on Research Value Pricing Carpooling and HOV Lane Use on 1-9 5 Among Miam iDade County Res i dents A series of questions were asked to detemnine the extent of carpooling and HOV lane use on 1 -95 among those who used 1-95 duri ng rush hour. These responses are aga i n compared to the 1995 survey in the charts below : 100% Incidence of Carpooling on 1-95 among Miami-Dade County rush hour drivers 80% I J---------------------------------------1 60% 40% 20% 0% Figure 48 : Incidence of Carpooling on 1 -95 Among Miami-Dade County Rush Hour Drivers A much higher proportion of rush hour drivers report that they carpool on 1-95 now compared to 1995 -93'

PAGE 101

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Awareness of HOV lanes in Miami-Dade County is stable, just as for the region as a wholejust about 2/3 are aware of the la nes There is now a greater proportion of people who are aware 'u na ided', that is that they name HOV lanes as an advantage that exists for carpoolers on 1 -95 'Aided awareness means the respondents actually had to be prompted as to whether or not there are HOV lanes on 1-95. Overall awareness levels are virtually identical to 1995 Awareness of HOV Lanes among Miami-Dade County residents 100% so;. 60%.U-----0% Unaided Of those aware <>fHOV Lanes o\idtd Unawart Know lane-J' rt-ttn'td eertain timt s of day Figure 49: Awareness of HOV Lanes Among Miami-Dade County Residents. -94-

PAGE 102

Cente r for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Perceptions of differences in travel speed for HOV Lanes are summarized in the next chart. Miami-Dade County commuters perception oftravel speed improvement when using HOV lanes 50% 40% 30% 20% Figure 50: Miami-Dade County 1-95 Commuters' Perception of HOV Travel Speed Improvement. The 1999 Commuter services evaluation study (general public portion) contained a question about these perceptions, and that data is also included here for additional trending value As in the region as a whole, there has been a substantial decrease in the proportion of commuters who felt that HOV travel speed is 'about the same' or 'slower' than travel in regular lanes . 95

PAGE 103

Center for Urban Tran sportation Research Value Pricing -96-

PAGE 104

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing References (Literature Review) !) Collier, Cheryl and Torben Christiansen. 1991 State of the Commute A report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration 1991 2) Ungemah, David, and Samuel Seskin, Who Pays? Equity and Income Issues in Marl
PAGE 105

Center for Urban Transportatio n Research Value Pricing 6) Fielding, Gordon J., and Daniel B. Klein. High Occupancy/Toll Lanes: Phasing n Congestion Pricing a Lane at a Time. The Reason Foundation, November 1993. 7) Fielding, Gordon J., and Daniel B. Klein. "HOT Lanes" ITS Review. Vol. 18, No. 2 (February 1995), 2-8 8) Dahlgren, Joy, "HOV Lanes-are they the best way to red u ce congestion and air pollution?" ITS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (February 1995), 4-7 9) Orski, Kenneth "Rethin king High Occupancy vehicle Lanes" in ITS Online (bttp://www.itsonline.com/). September 13, 199 6. 10) Annual Report of the California Private Transportation Company, 1996. I I ) Texas Transportat ion Institute and LKC Consulting. Feasibility of Priority Lane Pricing on the Katy HOV A report prepared for the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County and the Texas State Department of Tra nsport ation October, 1996. 12) Benuska Matthew, Matthew Hansen and Cy Ulberg. HOV Monitoring and Evaluation Tool-Final technical report. A report prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation. February, 1994. 13) K. T. Analy1ics, Inc. Congestion PricingGuidelines for Project development. Interim Report. A report prepared for the Federal Highway Administration August, 1996. -98-

PAGE 106

Center for Urban Transportat io n Research Value Pricing 14) Metropolitan Transit Au thority of Harris County. Quickride 6-month Status Report. An internal report prepared for the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County. August, 1998. 15) LKC Consulting Services, Inc. Quickride Evaluation Plan Participant Survey Results-Technical memorandum. A report prepared for the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County. July, 1998 16) Wilbur Smith Associates. Minnesota Congestion/Road Pricing Study. A report repaired for the Minnesota State department of Transportation. August, 1997. 17) ITE. "Hig h Occupancy!Toll (HOT) Lanes and Value pricing: A Preliminary Assessment." ITE Journal, (June 1998) 30-40. 18) Horan, Thomas Lucille Chang and Grant McMurran. A Compositional Analysis of Five Corridor Markets in Southern California with an Exploration of the Equity Considerations for High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes. A paper prepared for the Congestion Pricing Research Study November, 1997 19) Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs Buying Time: A Guidebook for Those Considering Congestion relief Tolls in Their Communities A report prepared for the U S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. October, 1996 20) Lari, Adeel Z. and Kenneth R. Buckeye. "Measuring Perceptions of Road Pricing Aliernatives: Minnesota Public Outreach Effort." Transportation research record 1555 (1993) 90-98. -99-

PAGE 107

Cente r fo r Urban T ransportat i on Research Value Pricing 21) Harrington Winston and Alan Krupnick Public Support for Congestion and Pollution Fee Policies for Motor Vehicles: Survey results A report prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments. 1996. 22) W i lbur Smith Associates. Development of a Regionally preferred Transportation Pricing Program for Southern California-Equity Impact Assessment Report (appendix B). A r eport prepared for the Southem California Association of Governments and the Reduce Emissions and Congest i on on Highways Task Force. January 22, 1997. 100-

PAGE 108

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Appendix A: Survey Time Began: ____ AM/PM H01' LANE STUDYRESIDENTS Hello. My name i s and I am calling on behalf of the University ofSoulh Florida's Center for urban transportation Research \Ve are co nducting a public opinion survey on issues of concern to Florida residents for the Florida Depanmen t of Transportation We are not attempting to sell you anything, we are only interested in your opinions. We are conducting a survey of males aged 21 or older. Is there a mal e over age 21 in ybur household I could speak to? I IF NOT A VAJLIIBLE We are conducting a separate survey o f females aged 21 or older. Is there a female over age 21 in y o u r h o usehold I could speak to? REPEA T INTRODUCTlON AS NECESSARY (RECORD SEX quota 50/SO) I Male 2 Fem a le I. Do ypu or does anyone in your household work f o r a television station. newspaper. radio Station, or o ther media company? yes ( t enninate) 2 No-contlnue 2 Do you or does anyone in your household work for the Florida department of transportation or a local transit or transportation agency? I yes (tennin ate) 2 No-continue 3. What county d o you live in ? -101-

PAGE 109

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing Palm Beach -, I 2 Broward I I-I CONTINUE -, Dade ....J 4 All other THANK AND TERMINATE 4. How many working vehicles do you have in your househo ld ? (RECORD NUMBER) (IF 0 OR DON'T KNOW THANK AND TERMINATE) 5. How would you describe your present employment status? 1 Ret i red SKIPTOQ. 8 2 Employed full-time -, 1CONTINUE 3 Employed part-time 4 Temporarily out o f work (unemployed) SKJPTOQ.S 5 Self-employed CONTINUE 6 Student SKIPTOQ.7 7 Homemaker SKIPTOQ.8 0 Other (SPECIFY : ) SKIP TO Q.8 8 Don't know/refused SKIPTOQ.8 6. And in wha t county is your place of employment? Palm Beach I I 2 Broward I I f-SKIP TO Q.S 3 Dade I -102-

PAGE 110

Center fo r Urban Transportation Research 0 All other 7 And in what county do you go to school? I Palm 2 Broward 3 Dade 0 All other 8 Do you r egularly travel on 1-95 in a car, or not? I 2 Yes No CONTINUE SKIPTOQ.IS 9 And are you usually going to or from work when you are on 1-95, o r not? I Yes 2 No 10. How many days out of the week, on average, do you travel on 1-95: Between 6 and 9 am? Between 4 and 7 pm? -____ days _ _ days IF NONE TO BOTH, SKIP TO Q.IS II. On average, abou t how far do you travel one-way on 1-95, per day, in miles? -103-Value Pricing

PAGE 111

Center for Urban Transportation Research _ Miles __ Don't Know ask: II a. Thinking about the trip you make most often on 1-95, At what entrance or on -ramp do you get on 1-95? I I b And at what exit do you get off of 1-95? Response list: Value Pricing 12. Thinking about the destination you have in mind most often when you travel on 1-95 on weekdays, about how long does it take you to get there? (ONE WAY TRIPS) (IF DON'T KNOW, PLACE A CHECK('/) NEXT TO DON'T KNOW) __ Hours and __ Minutes __ Don t Know 13. And when you travel on t-95, how frequently do you have substantial unexpected delays? Would you say that you have these delays: Everyday 2 1-4 times per week 3 1-3 times per month 4 once every 2 months 5 2 3 times per year 6 or once per year or less? 7 Other responses (DO NOT READ) 14. And when t his happens. is it usually because of: Accidents Weather 2 Special events, such as football games or parades? 3 Or other reasons (specify 4 SKIP TO Q.18 I IS. Wou l d you use 1 95 more often if the traffic were Jess congested or no t ? -104-

PAGE 112

Center for Urban Transporta t io n Research I 2 Yes No SKIPTOQ.J8 CONTINUE Value Pri c ing 16. Is that because 1-95 just isn't the best route to go where you want, regardless of traffic, o r is t here some other reason? 2 3 4 5 1 isn't the bes t route Poor road conditions Unsafe driving conditions (other drivers) Other safery consideration Traffic/driving to o stressful --, t I L I I I I SKIP TO Q 18 Skip to Q 18 0 All other reasons 17. And wbcn you travel on 1 -95, how frequently do you have substantial unexpected delays? Would you say that you have these delays: 8 Every day 9 1 times per week 10 I -3 times per month II once every 2-3 months "12 2-3 times per year 13 or once per year or less? 1 4 Other responses (DO NOT READ) 18. As far as you )
PAGE 113

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 2 Diamond Lanes 3 Carpool Lanes 4 HOV or 11huv11 lanes 5 Other responses CONTINUE 19. Ooes 1-95 have any lanes t h a t are reserved for carpools, that is, for use only by vehicles that have more than one passenger? I Yes CONTINUE 2 No SKIPTOQ.21 20. Are those lanes reserved for carpools a t certain times of day, or are they restricted all the time? Certain times 2 All day IF Q.8 = 2 THEN SKIP TO Q.24 21 Do you travel in a vehicle with anyone else, when you are traveling on 1-95? "Yes' or "sometimes" CONTINUE 2 No SKIPTOQ.24 22. About how many days per week or per month do you travel on I-95 with someone else? (RECORD NUMBER EITHER PER WEEK OR PER MONTH) __ Per week or _ per month 23. When you travel with other people on 1-95, do you use the carpool lanes? I Yes 2 No 24 And thinking about the carpool lanes or dianlond Janes on freeways, that is, lanes which can only be used by vehicles with more than one passenger, in general, do you believe that people who use carpool lane. s during rush hour get where they're going: 106-

PAGE 114

Center for Urban T ransportation Research Value Pricing Twice as fast or more as they would if traveling i n non-carpool lanes 2 Significantly faster, bu t no t twice as fas t 3 At about the s ame time 4 Or less quickly 8 Don't know (DO NOT READ) 25. How well do each of the following statements describe your attitudes to commuting? Please use a seale of I to I 0, where l 0 means you COMPLBTBL Y AGREE with the statement and l means yo u COMPLETELY DISAGREE with the sta t ement. There are no right or wrong answers we are interested in your honest opinions. (SCA'ITER) a. The public would be better served if carpool lanes were opened to all vehicles during peak commute Hour s b Traffic congesti o n on I-95 is a serious probl em c. Carpool lanes are an effective way of relieving traffic congestion Completely Disagree Completely Agre e I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12345678910 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 26 One idea used i n some parts of the country is tO allow single-occupant vehicles, that is vehicles with only a driver and no passengers, to use the carpool lanes during rush hour ifUtey pay a toll of(vary price point-ask 1/3 $0.50 1/3 $1, and 1/3 $2) to usc the lane. Still using the same scale of I to 10, to what exten t do y ou agree that this would be a good idea to use on the 1-95 carpool lanes? I 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 (dkskiptoQ28) 27. Cou l d you explain why you feel this way? 107. 98 98 98

PAGE 115

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 28. And i f such a n option were made available, how likely would you be to pay t he toll to use the carpool lanes at least once per month? Would you be Very likely Somewhat likely somewhat unlikely or Very unlikely to use the toll lanes? (Record response) I. Very likely 2. S omewhat likely 3. Somewhat unlikely 4. Very unlike l y 29. And i f you knew the revenue from the toll lanes would be used to (randomly select ONE of following questions); used to improve local transit service used to improve local roadways. used to increase local government spending programs reduce gas taxes would you (Record response): I. Support the idea more strongly 2. Support the idea Ieos 3. or would this make no diffe .reneeto your support for the idea The fol lowing questions are for statistical and classification purposes only. Please be assured that your answers will remain confidential and that the information will be handled with the utmost discretion. Dl. What is your marital status? (DO NOT READ LJ$1) Single 2 Married 3 Divorced/Separated 4 Widowed 9 Refused D2. liow many adults in your household, including yourself, are employed outside of the home? (RECORD NUMBER) (IF DON'T KNOW, PLACE A CHECK{'>") NEXT TO DON'T KNOW) __ Don't Know DJ. Do you have any children under the age of6 in your household? 1 Yes 2 No 108-

PAGE 116

Center for U r ban Transportation Research Value Pricing 04. Do you have any children aged 6-16 in your houschoid ? I Yes 2 No 05. What is the highest level of education you have acbieved? (DO NOT READ LIST) I Did not comp l ete high s chool 2 High school graduate Trade/technical school 4 Attended college/associate d egree 5 College graduate 6 Post graduate degree 9 Refused 06. What is your race? (DO N OT READ LIST) I While 2 Blaclc or African-American 3 Hispanic 4 Asian 5 American Indian 6 Other, (SPECIFY: 9 Refused 07. Please stop me when I re a d the category that contains your age. 0 18-24 years old 25-34 2 35-44 3 4 5-54 -109-

PAGE 117

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pric ing 4 55 5 65 or older 9 Refused (DO NOT READ) 08. And please srop me when I read the range which contains your household's total income, including yourself and anyone else in your household that worked, for 1999. Under $10,000 2 $10,000 to under $20,000 3 $20,000 to under S30,000 4 $30,000 to under $40,000 5 $40,000 to under $50,000 6 $50,000 to under $60,000 7 $60,000 to under $70,000, or 8 $70,000 or more 9 Refused (DO NOT READ) Thank you very much. That concludes our survey Verify phone numb
PAGE 118

Center fo r U r ban Transportation Research Value Pricing Appendix B: Open ended comments, responses t o question "Why d o you feel this way" (i.e. about whether the HOT lanes concept is a good i dea for the HOV l ane on I -95) 1 Q270J!! 1 Q270E 2 Q270E 3 Q270E 4 Q270E 5 Q270E 6 Q 270E 1 Q270E 8 Q270E 9 Q270E 10 Q 270E l l Q 270E 1 2 Q270!! 13 Q270E 1 4 Q270E I DON I T KNOl\'. I 'H ALREADY PAYING TAXES, WHY SHOULD 1 PAY EXTRA >I HEN 1 ALREADY PAYING E:XTRA I THE CONGESTION IS DUE TO TRE TRUCKS. I DON'T THINK I T CAN BE ENFORCED. I DON'T KNOW. I SEE PEOPLE OOT AND THERE' S ONLY ONE PASSENGE R IN THE CAR POOL LANES AND THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. l FEEL LIKE THEY TRY TO TRAVEL IN THE CARPOOL LANES ANtllAY I PAY SO MUCH IN GASOLINE TAXES FOR THESE ROADS AND TAXES ARE A LREAD Y SO HIGH IT'S LUDICROUS. I 95 I S TAX FREE, THEY DON'T NEED TOLLS ON IT I IT'S THE TURNPIKE IS FOR PEOPLE SHOUL D HAVE TO PAY MORE TO USE 'l'l!E LANE. T li E GOVERNMENT COLLECTING l10NEY HAKES !10RE i'ROBLI>l'lS I 'l'HERE SHOULD BE 'l'RANSIT I l 'D USE TRANS I T BOT NO ONE I S GOING >!HERE I GO I IT'S A REAL L Y BAD IDEA TO CHARGE PEOPLE TO GO IN. A FASTER LANE, IT PEOPLE FEEL THEY HAVE TO GO FASTER I IT'L L CREATE PROBLElIPLEMENT IT AND IT BE STUPID. IT WOULD BE MORE DIFF ICULT TO ENfORCE IT WE ALL PAY FOR THE ROADS NITH OUR TAXES I THE HOV LANE I S AN OLD IDEA AND SHOULD SE GOTTEN RID OF I I T CAUSES DELAYS, ACCIDENTS AND ROAD RAGE I I'D LIKE TO SEE IT CHANGED IMMEDIATELY 111

PAGE 119

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 1 5 Q210E 16 Q270E 1 1 Q210E 21 Q270 E 20 Q270E 23 Q 210E 24 Q270E 24 Q270E: 27 Q 270E 29 Q 210E 30 Q270E 31 Q210E 32 Q210E 34 Q 27 0E 3 5 Q 27 0E 36 Q270E 37 Q27 0E 3 8 Q 270E 3 9 Q27 0E 4 1 Q270E: I DON' T I F I'D USE I T t10RE PEOPLE l1IGHT BE STAYING I N I T AND THE LANE WILL GE" t CONGESTED. I DON T A LOT OF PEOPI,E \10ULD DO IT AND PAY THE DOLLAR. PAYING THE DOLLAR ISN'T GOING TO HELP THE TRAFFIC. WHY SHOUL D PEOPL E PAY TO USE THE CARPOOL LANE, I T DOESN'T t1AKE SENSE I PAY ENOUGH IN TAXES I THERE'S NOT ENOUGH CONTROL IF I WERE TRAVELING BY MYSEL F I DON'T WANT TO PAY. I 95 IS OVE R N0'1l. I DRIVE IN THE CARPOOL LANES BY MYSEL F EVERYONE SHOULD PAY BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS TO GET T ilER. I!' 1 L L B AS CROiiDE.D AS THE RES T OF THEM. WE PAY ENOUGII IN TOLLS. IF THEY TO GO FASTER THEY CAN THE IDEA IS TO L E T THOSE PEOPLE CARPOOL GO FASTER. THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THEM IS TO HAVE EVERYONE DRIVING TOGETHER AND IF EVERYONE COULD DO THIS I T WOULD BE CRO'ilDED. I F THE:Y' RE COI1HOTING AND CARPOOL IN G THEY HAVE THE RIGI!T IF THEY HAVE PEOPLE PAY F IFTY CENTS I T MIGHT ANGER SOME BUT CONVINCE PEOPL E TO CARPOOL MORE. IT'S RIDICULOUS TO PAY F IFTY CENTS T O DRIVE T O \10RK. T WOULD A FE"E C T POCKE T 8001<. I DON' T KNOW. 112 -

PAGE 120

Center for Urban Transportation Researc h Value Pricing Q270E. 43 Q270 E 44 Q 270E 4 6 Q270E 47 Q270E 48 Q270E 49 : Q270E 5 1 Q 270E 52 Q27 0E 53 Q210E 54 Q270E 55 Q270E 56 Q 270E 57 : Q270E 58 : Q270B 59 Q 270E 60 Q270E 61 Q210E 6 2 Q27 0E I DON'T THINK THEY COUL D ENFORCE IT. IT BE A LOT FASTER. PEOPLE ARE ALREADY PAYING ENOUGH WITH TOLLS AND TAXES . DORING RUSH HOURS THERE'S A LOT O F CARS AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. CHARG ING PEOPLE WOULD HOLD O P TRAFFIC. I DRIVE AND I SEE A BUNCH OF HOTHERS NITH THEIR KIDS AND THAT'S NOT COMIJUTING. IT'S UNDE R USED AND IT NOULD A LLOW PEOPLE TO USE IT. I COMHUTE AND I DRIVE BY l1Y SO I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY. IF IT'LL HELP THE THEN WHY NOT I I L L PAY TAXES ON THE TOLL ROADS SO IT WOULD BE GOOD ON I 95 TOO. A LOT OF PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE AN EXTRA $2 TO PAY OUT EVERY DAY. THERE ARE E NOUGH TOOLS ON THE ROADS. THERE ARE ENOUGH TOLLS FOR TNO LANES, SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY MONE Y PASSENGERS THAT ARE TRAVELING B Y THEMSELVE S ARE USUALLY SINGLE AND DON' T HAVE A LOT OF HONEY T O SPEND ON IT. IT WOULD !lAKE T HE: CARPOOL LANE SLOWER. THERE'S NO OF ENFORCING IT I THE IDEA BEHI N D THE CARPOOL LANE IS TO BE ABLE TO GO FASTER AND GET OUT OF TRAFFIC. PEOPLE T USE THE TOLL IT'L L STI L L BE AS CONGESTED. I T'S A TO RAISE MONE Y AND I DON'T SEE IT'LL HELP. NO ONE WILL pAY THE TOL L. NO ONE WOULD USE THIS, THEY RATHER OSE THE -113-

PAGE 121

Cen t e r for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 63 Q270E:. 64 Q210E 66 Q 210E Q270E: 69 Q270E 71 Q270E 72 Q270E Q270E 74 Q270E 75 Q270E: 76 Q270E 77 Q270E 78 Q270E 79 Q270E 80 Q270E 81 Q270E 82 Q270E TURNPI K E IT BE HARD ro TELL WHICH CARS HAVE !>AID AND ONES HAVEN'T. THERE STI L L BE A TRAFFIC STOP. IF THEY WANT TO CHARGE PEOPL E IT' S FINE BUT IT'S A LITTI.oE: TOO MUCH. NO ONE WILL PAY THE MONEY. T H ERE WOULD BE NO A DVANTAGE. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO DRIVE ON THE ROADS ALREADY PAY ENOUGH I N TAXES. I'D HAVE TO PAY t10RE TO G E T TO WORK AND IT WON'T SAVE TIME.. IT S NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE LANE I IF YOUR GOING TO DO THAT OPEN I T FOR EVERYONE IF IT'S A CARPOOL LANE I T SHOULD BE A CARPOOL l.oANE: AND IT SHOUL D BE THERE FOR CARPOOLING. I SOME:TIHE:S TRAVEL BY MYSELF SO IT MIGHT BE GOOD. IT'S NOT fAIR BECAUSE THEY BE IN THE LANE AND THEY WOUL DN'T PAY THE TOLL I THERE ARE TO MANY TOL L S ALREADY. IF YOUR GOING T O HAVE PEOPLE: l'AY PE:Oi'LE USE THE CARPOOL SYSTEM AND THERE mLL BE: THE SANE AMOUNT OF CONGESTION. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO USE: I 95. IT'S A RIP OFF I I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO USE THE LANE I THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT T H E TRAFFIC. l'EOPLE: SHOULD l'AY I f THEY'RE GOING TO USE TO CARPOOL LANES. THERE IHLL BE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD PAY IT IF THEY'RE. GOING TO GET AHEAD Of ANOTHgR CAR AND GET SOMEWHERE FASTER I THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT A DOLLAR A DAY. 1 14 -

PAGE 122

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 84 Q270E 85 Q270E 86 Q270E 87 Q270E 88 Q 210E 90 Q270E 92 Q210E 93 Q210E 94 Q210E 95 9 6 Q270E 9 7 Q2 10E 98 Q270E 100 Q210E 101 Q210E 102 Q270E 1 0 3 Q270E: 104 Q2 10E 105 Q270E 101 Q270 108 Q270E I FEEL UNSAFE I DON'T LIKe THe ROAD I S TOO OLD I THEY SHOULD DO SOHETHING ABOUT IT, IT'S TERRIBLE. IT BE FASTER. PE OPLE HAVE SUCH DIFFERENT SCHEDULES I DON'T THINK IT roULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS. I DON'T HAVE TIME. IT'S A GOOD IDEA BUT NO ONE NOlJLD RE:ALLY GO FOR IT. I DON'T SEE PEOPLE PAYING A DOL LAR TO USE IT. !T SHOULD BE FREE FOR ANYONE TO USE. I DON' T LIKE THE IDEA. IT'S NOT FAIR. I D O N T NEED TO PAY. I T SUPPORT ANYTHING FOR THE H IGHNAYS I THE H IGHiiAY IS THE REASON IVHY I CAN'T DRIVE. THERe'S TOO NANY CARS ON THE ROAD. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR CARPOOL LANES THE ROAD IS ALREADY THE R E RIGHT NON THERE AE\E NAY 1 '00 PEOI?LE ON 1"HE HIGHWAYS. I DON'T THINK IT WILL AL LE VIATE ANY PROBLEHS AND I DON'T IOANT TO PAY ANYHORE TOLLS. IT SHOULD B E A LA W AND NOT A !10NEY ISSUE. WHY SHOULD I HAVE HAVE TO PAY ADDITIONAL TAXES, I ALREADY PAY ENOUGH I I SHOULD RAVE T H E SA!1E: RIGHT TO USE THE LANE AS ANYONE ELSE. THEY COULD GET NHERE THEY'R E GOING FASTER. IT lqOUL D SLON DO'IIN TE\1\FFIC TO PAY THE TOLL. $ 2 IS A LOT I IT'S NOT A GOOD I D EA. IT W OULD BE DEFEATING T H E WHOLE PURPOSE OF CARPOOL LANES BY MAKING PEOP L E PAY 115.

PAGE 123

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 109 Q270E: 110 Q270E 111 Q210E 112 Q210E 113 Q270 E 114 Q210E 115 Q270E 116 Q270E 111 Q210E 118 Q270E 119 Q 210E 120 Q210E 121 Q210E 122 Q210E 123 Q210E 124 Q210E 125 Q270E 126 Q270E 121 Q210E 130 Q270E 131 Q210E 132 Q270E: THERE'S NONE. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECE:SSARY TO CHARGE: ONE PERSON. I'D GET THERE FASTER. IT fll\KE THE TRIP FASTER. I DON'T HAVE ANY THING TO SAY. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY. PAYING TO DRIVE I S STUPID. T H E TOL L IS TOO MUCH AND SINGLE PERSONS SHOULDN'T US THAT LANE. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO USE THE HIGHWAY. I DON'T THINK THEY WANT TO PAY. I DON T KNOrl. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY TO DRIVE ON THE IT T HELP TOO flUCH WITH TilE TRAFFIC. I DON'T FEEL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY TO DRIVE WHEN THERE'S AN EflPTY LANE. I T NOULDN' T HELP AND IT WOUL D fll\KE IT I WE PAY ENOUGH TOLL'S IT T 110VE I I T f!OVS BETTE R LIKE rr IS NON. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT WOULD WORK. I HAVE A FREE LANE AND I'D GET THERE FASTER. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE. IT WOUL D DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF CARPOOL LANES. DON'T PAY OUR TOOLS I THEY WOUL D RUN THE ?AY TOL L ANYWAY. SOME OF THE PEOPLE ARE TO PAY WILL HELP A LITTLE. 116-

PAGE 124

Center for Urban Transporta tion Research Value Pricing 133 Q270E 134 Q2 70E 137 Q270E 138 Q270E 139. : Q270E 140 Q270E 142 Q270E 144 Q270E 145 Q270E H 6 Q270E 149 Q270E: 150 Q270E 1 5 1 Q270E 152 Q270E 153 Q270E 154 Q210E 155 Q270 156 Q270E 1 5 7 Q270E 159 Q270E I DON' 'I' KNOW HOW THE. NOULD KO:E P 'I'AACK OE" NI!O PAID AND WHO DIDN'T. IT BE A LOT QUICKER. NO ONE DO IT. IT'S A WAY TO GET llONEY AND I DON'T AGREE tnT H IT. FOR E NVIRONHENTAL REASONS. THEY SHOULDN' T CHARGE PEOPLE T O USE I 1 IT DEFE A T THE PURPOS E OF THE LANE / 'l'HE:RE SHOULD SE: MORE: THAN TWO PASSENGERS IN THE CAR TO BE I N THE LANE. I DON'T T HINK THE:Y SPEND THE HONEY WISE LY. I T HELP THE TRAF FIC OUT. THERE ARE PEOPLE liHO REALLY USE IT FO R THE RIGHT RE ASONS. T H E Y CAN'T EFFECT IVELY TAKE TOLL AND KEEP TRACK OF VEHICL E:S. THE1( SHOULON T CHARGE HONE Y T O DRIVE ON T H E INTERSTATE BECAUSE PEOPLe ARE BUY THeNSELVES. I T'LL B E HORE COI-lPLICATED AND PEOPLE T PAY TO D RIVE. PEOPL E HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE NHA'l:EVER LANE THEY PEOPLE ARE PAYING ENOUGH FO R TOLLS, THEY DON'T NEED TO PA Y ANY MORE. I T WON'T HAPPE:N, NO ONE WI L L PAY IT. IT NOU L D DEFEAT THE: PURPOSE OF A CARPOOL LANE. IF THERE'S ONLY .ONE PERSON IN THE CAR I T ISN' T NORTH IT. I LIKE THEN AND I IJSE THEM. GIVING THE GOVERNHENT IIOR E HONEY ISN'T GOOD PEOPLE USE IT. -117-

PAGE 125

Center tor Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 160 Q270E 1 62 Q270E 1 63 Q270E:. 164 Q27Qg 165 Q210E 1 6 6 Q2lOE 1 67 Q270E 1 69 Q270E:. 170 Q 270E 171 Q 2lOE 113 Q270E 174 Q210 E 1 "15 ,. Q 2 10E 117 Q270E 178 Q210E 179 Q270 180 Q210E 1 81 Q270 E 182 Q210 E 184 Q 27 0E 185 Q270E THE ROADS HAVg ALREADY BEEN PAI D FOR B Y Fg DgRAL AND LOCAL TAXES. EVERYONE PAY THE TO L L AN D IT WOULD BE CROWDED. THE.Y SHOULD ONL Y BE USED <'OR PEOPLE PASSENGERS. THEY WOUL D HAVE TO CLOSE:. THE LANES OFF I F PEOPLE HAD TO PAY A TOLL, IT'S NOT A PRACTICAL SOLUTION AT ALL. IT'S NOT FAIR THAT THE PEOPLE TRAVEL ALON E HAVg TO PAY. THERE'LL BE MOR E PEOPL E ON THE CARS COULD GE:.T THEY'RE GOING FASTE:.R I ALREADY PAY E:.NOUGH TAXES TO TAKE:. CAR E O F IT. THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED HORg TO DRIVE. IT'S LIKE HAVING A L L THE LANE:S AVAILABL E AND IT'S GOING TO BE Jl\!1!-tED. IT DEFEATS THE: PURPOSE. IT SHOULD ONLY BE FOR PEOPLE. NITH PASSE:.NGERS. IT MIGHT BE QUICKER. I T S A BAD I D EA I DON'T THINK IT'L L WORK / 'iliL L THEY BE ABLE TO STOP EVERY CAR TO PAY THE FEE I IT Ml\l(g MORE CONGESTION. I D ON'T EVERYONE WOULD GET UPSET BECAUSE ALREAD Y PAY gNOUGH ON T H g ROAD. THERE' S ENOUGH TRAFFIC ALREADY. IT'S A BAD I DEA BECAUSE I'D HAVE TO STOP AND PAY THE 'l'OLL WHICH WOULDN'T lW
PAGE 126

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 186 Q270E 187 Q270E 188 Q270E 189 Q 270E:. 190 Q2101): 191 Q270E 192 Q270E 193 Q270E 194 Q270E 196 Q270B 197 Q270E 1 98 Q270E 199 Q270E 200 Q270E 201 Q210E 202 Q270E 203 Q270E 206 Q270E 207 Q210E THE TAX PAYERS ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE HIGHWAYS. THERE NOULD BE TOO MANY DRIVERS IN THE CARPOOL LANg AND TOO MANY S INGLE DRIVERS. ANYONE: IS TRAVELING IS PAYING l10RE TAXES / I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY MORE TAXES FOR A CONVENIENCE I THE ROADS SHOOLD BE OPEN AND EVERYONE. IT SHOULD EITHER BE OPEN TO ALL VEHICLES OR LEAVE IT THE IT IS: I COULD OSE IT TOO. THEY SHOULD OPEN ALL T H E LANES AND NOT HAYE A SPECIAL LANE SET UP. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE WOULD PAY THE FIFTY CENTS. I T S CRAZY, IT l
PAGE 127

Center for Urban T r a nsportation Research Value Pricing 208 Q270E. 2 0 9 Q270E 2 1 0 Q 2 70E 211 Q 27 0E 212 Q270E 213 Q27oe; 214 Q270E: 215 Q270E 216 Q270E 217 Q270E 218 0 2 7 0 21 9 0270E 220 Q270E 221 Q 270I:: 222 027 0 E 22 4 0270E 225 0270 226 Q270E 227 Q270E: 231 Q 270E 232 Q270E IF A PE:RSON TO PAY THE MONEY THE:Y GE:T TO USE I 1' BUT IT' S NOT ANY GOOD AS A CARPOOL LANE IT'S WPOSSI BLE THERE'S T OO MANY CARS. IT GIVES OTHER PE:OPLE THE CHl\NCE TO BE GOOD DRI VE:RS. IT SHOU L D BE FREE. IT SHOULD B E FREE. I DON T I SHOU LDN'T HAVE TO PAY. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY, IT'S FOR PE:OPLE CARPOOL THEY'RE GOING TO DRIVE WHERE THEY TO AND IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A D I FFERENCE I A FEE ISN'T GOING T O CORRECT THE: PROSLE:HS. I DON' T THINK THERE SHOULD BE A L ANE fOR THAT I DON T I DON'T NEE D TO PAY PEOPLE OR NOR E I S l10 R E CONITE:NIENT FOR SAVING ON GAS. AL READY PAY TO DRIVE ON THE ROADS SHOULON' T HAVE TO PAY T H E Y WOULD BE DRIVING AND THEY DON''f HAVE A WAY TO TELL IF THEY HAVE PAID OR NOT IF E:VERYONE USE:O THE LANE:S T HERE WOUL D BE THE: SANE ANOUNT OF CONGE:STION. SOME PE:OPLE HAVE TO D RIVE: AT CERTA I N HOURS AND HAVE NO ONE TO CARPOOL mTH. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY. IT'S FREE TRAFFIC AND nE SHOULDN'T HAVE'. T O PAY I PAY ENOUGH IN TAXES I CAN GET INTO THE LANE AND G O OWN PACE -120-

PAGE 128

Center for Urba n Transportation Research Value Pricing 233 Q270J': 234 Q270E 235 Q210 E 236 Q210E 237 Q210E 238 Q270E 240 Q210& 241 Q270E 242 Q270E 243 Q210E 215 Q210E 2 H Q270E 247 Q210 E 248 Q2 10E 249 Q 270 E 250 Q270E 252 Q210 E 254 Q210E GETTING IN A ITHER. I OON'T KNON. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY. I DON T REALL Y THEY'RE VERY UNDER USED I I'D PAY $2 TO RELIEVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION. 1' 1 S A BAD IDEA I THE TOLL BOOTHS CAUSE !10RE: CONGESTION. THE:Y SHOULDN'T CHARGE PEOPLE TO USE THE LANE I EVERYONE SHOULD B E ABLE TO USE THE LANE I A LOT OF ALREADY USE THE LANE WITH ONE IN THE CAR I I'D PAY $2 TO DRIVE IN I T AND SOMEONE: ELSE BE USING IT FOR FREE. -121-

PAGE 129

Center for Urt>an Tr ansportation Research Value Pricing 255 Q270E 258 Q 270E 259 Q270E 260 Q 270E, 261 Q270E: 262 Q210E; 2 63 Q270E 264 Q270E 265 Q270E:. 26 6 Q270E: 267 Q270E 268 Q270E 2 70 Q270E 271 Q270E 2 72 Q 2 70E 2 73 Q270E 2 75 Q270E 2 76 Q270E 277 Q270E 279 Q270E CARPOOL LANES ARE E'OR CARS MORE THAN ONE PERSON. IF MORE PEOPLE WHO CARPOOL THERE'LL BE LESS CARS ON THE ROAD I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY i\ TOL L BE STUPID. I S HOULDN'T HAVE T O PAY I PEOPLE PAY, T H EY'L L SAY THE LANE I S ALREADY THERE. I'r ISN'T F A IR TO !lAKE:. PEOPLe PAY. IF THEY BUILD NORE THEY NOULD ALSO GET CONGESTED. I DON'T KNON. THE:. PURPOSE:. OF CARPOOL ING IS SO THE:.RE'S LESS CARS I IF ONE PERSON VEHICLES USED IT, I T WOULD HAVE MORE TRAFFIC SO THOSE CARPOOL !IREN' r HELPING I IT D EFEATS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING CARPOOL LANES. I DON' T KNOW. I WOULDN'T PAY A DOLLAR. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY. I'D GET TO MY DE:.STINATION QUICKE:.R. Ic I CAN'T CAR POOL I SHOULDN'T HAVE:. TO P A Y TO DRIVE:. ON THE:. ROAD. DON'T NEED CARPOOL OTHER PEOPLE COULD BE IN T ROUBLE. IF I PAY MONEY SO I GET THERE Q U ICKER IT S GOOD. I H A S NOT H ING TO D O MONEY. THERE !IRE WAY TOO MANY CAR S AND TOO LITTL E SPACE IN MIAMI. DON' T THINK I SHOUL D HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. I'M ALREADY PAYING FOR DRIVING, I SHOULDN' T HAVE TO PAY MORE. -122-

PAGE 130

Cen ter for Urban Tran sportation R esearch Value Pricin2_ 281 Q2 70E: 282 Q270E 283 Q270E 284 Q270E 286 Q270E 287 Q270E. 2BB Q270E 289 Q270E 290 Q270E 291 Q270E 292 Q 270E 294 Q270E 298 Q270E 300 Q270E 30 1 Q270E 302 Q 270E 303 Q270E 305 Q270E 306 Q270E 3 0 7 Q270E 308 Q270E IF PE:OPLE HAD TO PAY EVE:RY TIME: TRE:Y NANTED TO USE: THIS LANE, THEY USE: IT NEAR AS MUCH. I DON'T KNOW. MIGHT ANT TO DRIVE ON THE I 9 5 AND S HOULD I RAVE TO PAY TO USE IT. I PAY ENOUGH. THE PE:OPL E NHO CARPOOL HAVE MORE ADVANTAGE WHILE: REGULAR DRIVERS HAVE: TO BE STUCK I N TRAF FIC SOVJETIHES I NE:ED TO GET THROUGH TRAFFIC AND I 'D LIKE TO BE: ABLE: TO GET THROUGH. I T DEFEATS THE PURPOSE, SHOULD HAVE ONE LJ'-NE CLEAR. THE CARPOOL LANES ARE FOR MULTIPLE: PEOPLE / IF THEY DON' T PAY IT, IT DEFE:ATS THE PURPOSE. I'VE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT I T I DON'T THINK ANYONE NOOLD PAY IT SO IT NOUL D DEFEAT THE PURPOSE. IT'LL BE MORE OF A HASSLE I DON'T TRINK I SHOUL D HAVE TO PAY: I DON'T TO PAY THE TOLL. WHEN B I G BUSES ARE THERE IT WOULD BE HARD. SINGLE PASSENGE R CARS ARE USING THEM ANYWAY AND NOT GETTING CAUGHT. THE GOVERNl1ENT HAS ENOUGH HONEY. THE CARPOOL LANES GET TOLL S MAKE MoRE TRAF FIC CARPOOLI N G IS NOT AN ErFECT!VE WAY TO GET AROUND. THE LANES SHOULD BE USED FOR HIGH CAPACITY VEHICLES AT THOSE TilIES. I T '?AY ON I95 BUT I'D PAY ON THE TURNPIKE. 1 23 -

PAGE 131

Center for Urt:>an Transportation Research Value Pric in g 309 Q270E 310 Q270E 311 Q270E 3 1 2 Q270E 313 Q270E 314 Q 270E: 316 Q270E 311 Q270E 3 1 B Q270E 3 1 9 Q210E 320 Q270E 3 2 1 Q270E 3 22 Q270E 323 Q270E 324 : Q270E 325 Q270E 326 Q270E 327 Q270E 329 Q270E 330 Q270E 331 Q270E: 332 Q270E I DON'T IT'S MUCH FASTER. IT'S NOT FAIR AND IT COST MORE TO ENFORCE IT. THE CARPOOL LANE IS THERE FOR A PURPOSE. IT BE VOLUNTARY I F THEY COULD AFFORD IT THEN I T BE A GOOD IDEA BUT IF NOT THAT'S ALRIGHT TOO. THERE T BE LESS TRAFFIC JAMS. I SHOULDN'T BE CHARGED TO USE PUBLIC ROADS. I DEFINITEL Y RESENT IT. NO ONE CARPOOL, THEY DON'T DESERVE TO DRIVE THERE. IT WOULD BASICALLY BE OPEN T O EVERYONE. I DON'T LIKE STOPPING FOR TOLLS, IT CREATES t10RE CONGESTION. THEY S HOULDN' T CHARGE TO USE THE LANE. I DON'T PAY TO USE ROADS. ONE DRIVER SHOULDN' T STOP THE TRAFFIC. THE PURPOSE SHOULD BE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CARS ON THE: NOT TO GAIN MONEY OUT OF THE D EAL. THE: PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY PAI D FOR THE ROADS. IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF CARPOOL LANES. IT DOESN'T MAK E ANY DIFFERENCE. THE:Y KNO W SOMEONE PAID. IF IT'S A WAY TO BRING IN TAX MONEY THEN THEY CAN IHPROVE THE ROADS. I'r WOULD MAKE IT t10RE CONGESTeD FOR PEOPL E lVHO ARe CARPOOLING. IT lVOULD CAUSE MORE CONGESTION AND NOT BE FAIR. -124-

PAGE 132

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value P ricing 3 3 3 Q270F. 334 Q270E 335 Q27 0E 336 Q27 0E 3 37 Q270E 338 Q 2 70E 339 Q27 0E 3 4 0 Q270E 341 Q270E 342 Q27 0E 344 Q270E 345 Q270E 346 Q270 E 3 47 Q27 0 E 348 Q270E 349 Q270E 351 Q210E I DON'T SEE THE ADVANTAGE. THE SLOWER VEHICLES SHOULD !ILNAYS HAVE A LANE FOR T HEHSELVES. I DON' T THINK THEY RESPECT THE LANES ENOUGH I THE CARPOOL LANES ON I 95 ARE ALWAYS EMPTY. THEY SPENO !IL L O U R TAxES TO BUILD THE HOV LANE AND IT'S RIDICULOUS I EVERY COHNUTER SHOULD BE ABL E T O USE I T B ECAUSE IT'S RIDICULOUS TO BE ABLE TO CARPOOL I N FLORIDA. IT'S THERE FOR THE PUB L IC TO USE A CERTAIN NAY AND IF IT S NOT THE N I T 1 1 0RE PROBLEHS T H E N HAVING THAT CAR LANE. THERE BE E V E N HORE CHAOS. I DON'T THERE'S NO SPECI FIC REASON. NHY SHOULD SOHEONE PAY, IT GETS THEH TO T H E SJ\ME PLACE. IT PEOPLE TO CARPOOL . PEOPLE CHARGE TOO MUCH FOR EVERYTHIN G ANYWAY AND I T'S ONE ADDITION!IL CHARGE W E HAVE TO NORRY ABOUT. THERE ARE LOTS OF S I N GLE D lUVERS WOULD L IKE TO USE !1. THERE'S NO EXPANSION. IT'S DEFEATING THE PURPOSE. IT'S BASICALLY A TURN PIKE I E H E R E'S SO!! E WHICH RES T R ICTED BUT I'D S TILL HAVE TO PAY A TOL L AND IT'LL STI L L BE CONGESTED. IF THEY O PEN UP THE LANE TO EVERYONE THEN EVERYONE I S GOING TO GO I N THAT LANE I IF THERE'S A TOLL ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PEOPLE GO I N THE LANE. I DON'T THINK THE CARPOOL LANE NORI
PAGE 133

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 352 354 Q270E 3 5 5 Q270E 356 Q270E: 357 Q 270E 356 Q270E 359 Q270E: 360 Q2 7 0 E 361 Q270E 364 Q270E 366 Q270E 3 6 7 Q270E 369 : Q270E 370 Q2 70E 371 Q270E 372 Q2 70E PAY ENOUGH TOL L S I I USUAL L Y PAY AT THE TURNP I KE. $2 IS TOO MUCH I IE" IT FIFTY CENTS I T !l AGREEABLE I PEOPLE CONMUTE A L L THE TniE AND FIFTY CENTS BE AGREEABLE. IT'S ABOU'l' THE SAIIE AS PEOPL E I N THf:. CARPOOL LANES, THEY DON'T G ET THERE V ERY MUC H FAS TER I 9 0 PER CENT IS S INGLE PEOPLE AND THERE'S GOING T O BE TRAFFIC NO 111\TTER WHAT I PEOP L E WIL L STILL STOP AND BE NOSEY. NOT V ERY 111\NY PEOPLE OIOU LD PAY T H E NONEY BUT I F THEY WANTED TO THEY COUL D AND IF NOT THEN T HEY NOULDN'T. THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE T O PAY ONE PENNY TO TRAVEL ON I95 T!IERE ISN'T ANY REASON 1 0 PAY B ECAUSE IF I TRAVELE D A SHORT D I STANCE 'AND I TO Gt; T OfF I'D HAVE TO PAY TO LLS. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY AT ALL TO TRAVE L ON I95 I I'D TAKE THE TURNPIKE IF IT COST ANYTHING. THEY SHOULD COfiE UP N I T!! A BET T ER I DEA AND PEOPLE SHOULDN'T TRAVEL I N THOSE: LANES I TOIO IS THE MINII1Ul1 FOR PEOPLE TRAVEL I N G IT DEfiNITEL Y WOULD HELP. I T WOULD JUST EAS IE:R. THERE NOULD LESS TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD. TRAofi C IS TRAFFIC, THEY CAN'T PREDICT If IT'L L CHANGE OR NOT. I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT TO CHARGE PEO P L E TO USE THAT LANE. THERE S NOTHING. IT DOESN'T HATTER I THERE ARE TOO HANY PEOPLE ON THE ROADS I T HERE ARE ALSO TOO 111\NY OLD PEOPLE ON THE ROADS WHO DON'T KNON H Oi! TO DRIVE I OLD PEOPLE C A USE 99 PERCENT OF THE ACCIDENTS. TH E ROAD RAGE / IF I S EE A G U Y I N A LANE HOW AM I ACTUALLY GOING TO KNON H E PAYED THE FEE -126-

PAGE 134

Center f or Urban T r ansportation Research Value Pricing 313 Q270E 314 Q 270E 375 Q270E 376 Q270E 371 Q 2 70E: 379 Q270E 380 Q270E 381 Q270E 383 Q270E 385 Q270E 386 Q270E 3 8 7 Q270E 389 Q270E 390 Q270E 391 Q2?0E 392 Q270E 393 Q270E 395 Q2 70E 396 Q270E 398 Q270E 399 Q 270E PEOPLE IN FLORIDA GET NAILED TAXES, l i E DON'T NEED MORE TAXES TAKE ANAY THE INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO CARPOOL CARPOOL ING IS NOT GOING TO I CARPOOL ING IS A BURDEN TO THE PERSON WHO HAS TO DO THe CARPOOL ING. I R E A LLY CAN'T EXPLAIN. I DON'T T H INK IT N IL!.. HELP WIT H THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION. I T IIOULDN' T BE 'tlORTH IT. THE ROADS ARE I N POOR CONDITION. PAYIN G NON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM I liE: SHOULD USE MORE TRANSPORTAT IONAL SO L UTIONS. THE CARPOOL LANES ARE FOR THOSE GOING TO AND FROM NORK. I F I WANT TO G ET QUICKE R THAN I SHOULD PAY FOR IT. PAYIN G HONEY I S GOING TO TURN THE PE OP L E MJA Y FROM USI N G THE LANES THEY DON' T GET THER E ANY FASTER. SOME PEOP L E CHEAT AND USE I T I T S N O T UNDE!olOCRATI C I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH A DOLL AR. I HAVE NO I DEA. I DON' T THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR THIS TOLL FEE WE SHOULD BE PAYING T O US E THE I DON'T R EALLY CARE. IT'S NOT AN E X PRESS LANE. I DON T THI S IJOULD MAKE: THE HIGHWAY A lIESS TO DRIVE ON, IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO DRIVE: ON IT 127.

PAGE 135

Cente r for U rban Transportat ion Research Value Pricin g 400 Q270E 401 Q270E 402 Q270E 403 Q270E 404 Q270E 405 Q270E 407 Q270E 408 Q270E 409 Q270E 410 Q270E 411 Q270E 412 Q270E U3 Q 27 0 E 415 Q 270E 416 Q270E 4 1 7 Q270E: 418 Q270E: 420 Q270E 423 Q270E 424 Q270E 427 Q270 428 Q270E IT t-lAKES SENSE, IT NOULD SPEED THINGS UP. THE COST IS PROHIBITED AND ONLY PEOPLE WHO PAY CAN USE THE CARPOOL LANES. $2 I S A LOT OF MONEY. IT WOUL D ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO CARPOOL. IT WOULD DEfEAT THE PURPOSE Of HAVING A CARPOOL LANE. I DON T KNOO! SHOULD PEOPL E BE PENALIZED AND HAVE TO PAY A TOLL. I DON' T KNOW, IT MIGHT WORK If PEOPLE COULD AFFORD IT. IT WOULD ALLEVIATE THE TRAFFIC THE IDEA IS TO RELIEVE TRAffiC CONGESTION AND IMPROVE THE TRAVELING SPEED. PIWPLE SHOULDN'T BE AI)LE TO BUY THEI R WAY OUT O F THEIR PROBLEMS. IT'S ANOTHER FOR T il E GOVERNMENT TO A DOLLAR. I'D HAVE TO PAY THE HONEY AND IT'S TOO HUCH. WHY SHOUL D I HAVE T O PAY roR A ROAD THAT' S ALREADY PAID roR THEY WANT l10RE MONEY. I DON'T TO PAY ANY MONEY TO USE ROADS THAT I PAY TAXES TO BUILD. THERE'S NO NEED TO PAY A TOLL. IT WOULDN'T HERE. I T SOUND S LIKE A GOOD I DEA. I DOESN'T FUL LFIL MUCH OF A PURPOSE. PAYING T O LLS OIOUL D CONGEST THE ROAD EVEN l10RE. THERE'S NO NEED TO USE THE TOLL. 126-

PAGE 136

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 429 Q270E 430 Q270E Q270E 433. : Q270E 4 3 5 : Q270E 436 Q270E 437 Q270E 438 Q270& H O Q2?oe 441 Q270E 442 Q270E 443 Q2?0E. 144 Q270E 448 Q270E 449 Q270E 450 Q270E 451 Q 270E 452 Q270E 454 Q270E I DON'T THINK TH&'l SHOUL D TAKE TilE TAX PAYERS t10NEY. ALtJOST EVERYONE ON THE R IGHilAY DRIVE:$ BY THEHSELVES. IT D&FEATS TRE WHOLE PURPOS& BUT &VERYSODY HAS TO GET WHERE THERE GOI NG. WHY SHO ULD I HAVE TO PAY T O USE A CERTAIN LANE. I DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD BE CHARGED TO DRIVE ON THE HIGI*lAY I I T'S A FRE& llHY SHOU LD ANYON& B E CHARGED FOR DRIVING. IF WE'RE PAYING TAXES, SHOULD liE PAY 110RE TO USE A PUBLIC HIGHWAY. TH& CARPOOL LANES ARE FASTE R THE ONE PERSON IN THE CAR SHOUL D STAY FROH THERE, IT'S FOR THE f'AST HANIACS. THERE'S A TORNPIKE PEOPLE HAVE T O PAY A FEE TO USE. EVERYONE S H OULD BE ABLE TO GE r OUT QUICK WITHOUT PAYING. EITHER 'tiAY THER& ARE STILL ACCIDENTS OR NOT PEO P L E PAY 10NEY OR NOT RE PAYWG FOR IT AS IS. IT WOULD MAKE I T MORE COl1PLICAT ED I IT'S SUCH A TIP O F THE ICE BER G PLAN IT T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCe. I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA. TH ER E'S NO NEED TO HAVE A CARPOOL LANE IF OT HER PEOPLE CAN USE I T IIHO AREN'T CARPOOLING. E:VERYONE WILL WANT TO PAY THE 'l'OL L AND USE 'l'I!E: LANE AND THEN NO ONE WILL GET ANYWHERE. HAVE TO PAY ENOUGH TO LLS AS IT IS. HOW ARE THEY GOING 'l'O CONTROL IT I I T W ILL COST MORE TO CONTROL I T THEN IT'S I PAY ENOUGH TAXES. -129-

PAGE 137

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pric i ng 455 Q270B 456 Q270E 457 Q270E 458 Q270E 459 Q270E 460 Q270E Q270E 163 Q270E; 464 Q2708 165 Q270E 469 Q270E 4 7 0 Q270E 41l Q270E 472 Q270E 474 Q270E 475 Q270E 476 Q270E 477 Q270E 479 Q270E IT SHOULDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I DON'T SEE 11HY SHOULD PAY A TOL L NE PAY ENOUGH TAXES AS IT IS. THE T O LLS NOUL D BACK THE LANES. A LOT OF PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD IT. I DON'T KNOW HON t:FFt:CTIVE IT'L L BE, THERE mLL PROBABLY BE MORE CONGESTION. I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS GOING TO PAY ANY AMOUNT OF TO TRAVEL IN THE LANE. PAY ENOUGH TOLLS A LREADY> INTt:RSTATES SHOULDN'T BE CONTROLLED WIT H TOLLS. IT BE FASTER. IT WOULD Rt:DUCE ACCIDENTS. I DON'T THINK IT'L L WORK I THEY'RE TRYIN G A STOP LI GHT IN ORLANDO ON OFF AND ON RAMPS SO THt:Y WOULDN'T HAVE SIX CARS TRYING T O CO THE SAMe: THING I THERE'S TOO MANY PEOPLE AND TOO MANY CARS, NO ONE EXPECTED IT TO BE LIKE THIS NO ONE WOULD KNOW NHO PAID AND WHO DIDN'T WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO USE THE PUBLIC ROAD NAYS. THEY NOULD PAY THE DOLLAR AND THEN THERE WOULD BE NO ADVANTAGE TO USING THE LANE AND DOUBLING UP I I T WOULDN'T BE A FOR DOUBLING UP IF lvE HAD TO PAY TO USE THE LANE, IT NOULD RUIN THAT I DON'T KNON I SHOULD PAY A DOLLAR WHEN OTHER PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO PAY. 1 DON'T KNON I'D PAY TO USE A LANE, I ALREADY PAY FOR EVERYTHING I NO CHARGE SHOULD BE PAYED, WE ALREADY PAY FOR EXPRESS I I 0 NEVER USE IT IF I HAD TO PAY THE MONEY I IT'S A VER Y STU P I D IDEA. I'H NOT SURE. IT'S GOING TO BE TO CONGESTE D I I T lH L L CAUSE -130-

PAGE 138

Center for U r ban Transportation Resea rch Value Pricing 481 Q270E 482 Q210E 483 Q270E 484 Q270E 485 Q270E 488 Q 270E 489 Q270E 490 Q270E 491 Q270E 492 Q270E 493 Q270E 494 Q270E 497 Q270E 4 98 Q270E 499 Q270E 500 Q270E 502 Q270E 503 Q 270E 504 Q270E TOO HANY ACCiDENTS. NOT A LOT O F WOULD PAY THE TOL L I DON'T I D PAY FOR BEING IN THE LANE I IT ISN'T ALL RIG H T FOR I 95 I THEY SHOU LDN'T DO IT BECAUSE WE ALREADY PAY FOR ENOUGH T H INGS. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE ON I 95. THEY'LL BACK THE TO L L BOOTH I THERE'S HORE: CONGESTION I F THEY POT PE:OPLE IN ONE LANE $2 IS A LOT. THER E WOULD BE NO TO t-!ONITOR '!:HAT. IT'S STUP ID. ALREADY PAY TOO l-!ANY TAXES. PEO P L E ARE USED TO PAYING TOLLS DONN HERE. MOST PEOPL E WOULDN'T USE IT, BOT I WOULD I THE:N I COULD DRIVE FAST. '!:HEY TRY TO SELL SOMET H ING I I WANT TO KNml IF IT'S FOR CARPOOLING OR MAKING I THE LANE SHO UL D BE FOR A CARPOOL LANE, NOT FOR MAKING r-IONEY. IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BOT I DON'T THINK PEOPLE >JILL PAY. T HEY'RE HOLDING BACK THE O THE:RS liHO ARE TRAVELING >liTH SOMEONE ELSE. EVERYONE WOULD DO I T AND IT NOOLDN' T BE AN ADVANTAGE TO CARPOOLERS SOHET lME S I' 1)1 I N A HURRY, AND I NEED TO GET THERE FASTER I IF I COULD PAY I'D GET THERE FASTER, BUT THEN EVERYONE NOULD PAY. IF THEY liANT, I'D GIVE 50 CENTS, BUT NOT I)IQRE THAN THAT. IT'S TOO HUCH TO PAY. IT WOULD BE TOO CONGESTED. I I?AY ENOUGH TAX DOLLARS HAVING TO PAY A 1

PAGE 139

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 50 5 Q 2 70E 506 'Q270 E 507 Q270 508 Q 270E 509 Q270E 5 1 0 Q210E 5 1 4 Q27 0E !H5 Q 2 70E 516 Q270 E 511 Q210E 518 Q270E 519 Q270 E 5 21 Q2'70E 522 Q270E 523 Q210E 524 Q 27 0E 5 2 6 Q27 0E 527 Q27 0E F INE I IT ISN'T A SOLUTION TO THE P ROBLEM I THERE f!OUL D STILL BE AS MANY PEOPLE ON THE ROAD I DON'T KNOW. THAT fiOULD DE!i'E:AT THE PURPOSE OF HAVING A CARPOOL LANE I DON' T THINK THEY CAN GET THE FEE FROl1 THE PEOPL E I STOPPING THE PEOPL E TO GET THE FEE WOULD CAUSE MORE TRAF!i'IC PROBLEHS THAN THERE ARE R IGHT NOW. I DON'T T H INK THEY SHOUL D CHARGE PEOPLE li'OR USING THE LANE. THE PEOPLE ON THE DIAMOND LANES R IGHT NOf1 ARE ONL Y D RIVERS, NOT PASSENGERS / THEY'RE GOING TO USE THAT LANE I I DON'T THEY'LL KNOW IF THEY PAID OR NOT. I DON'T THINK THAT ONE PERSON SHOUL D USE THE CARPOOL LANE. I '11 NOT INVOLVED IN TijAT PROBLEl1 EVERY DAY I I DON'T EVEN THINK OF' IT. THE HIGJW1AY IS FASTER I IF I PAY I T WILL BE A BETTER HIGHWAY. I T WOULD SAVE GAS. I DON' T KNOW WHAT THE MONEY HAS TO 00 W IT H IT I IT I SN'T G O ING TO HELP 'tHE TRAFFI C. THERE' S A CONGESTION PROBLEM. I DON' T KNOW. I T ISN'T FAIR FOR US I I DON'T THINK PAYING WILL HELP. IT WOULD COST THE PEOPLE WHO COHMUTE MORE MONEY TO GO TO NORK, IT SHOULD BE OPENED TO ALL I I SHOULDN' T B E PENALIZED FOR HAVING ONE P ERSON I N M Y CAR. I'M NOT PAYING THEII TO DRIVE A CAR. IT ISN' T FAIR T O PAY $2 TO USE THE LANE. IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE AS TO HON -132-

PAGE 140

Center for Urba n Transportation Research Value Pricing 5 29 Q270E 530 Q270& 532 Q270E 533 Q270E 535 Q2 70E 536 Q2 70E 537 Q270E 536 Q270E 5 3 9 Q270E 540 Q270E 541 Q270E 54 2. : Q270E 543 Q270E 545 Q270E 546 Q270E 547 : Q270E o21o;;: 54Jl : Q270E t'IANY PEOPLE ARE IN THE CI\.R / I F IN A HURRY WE SHOULD SHIPLY BE ABLE TO GO. THE CARPOOL LAN& SHOULD BE USED FOR MULTIPLE PERSON VEHICLES AND NOBODY ELSE. I DON'T T HIN K THAT'S fAI R I I'D HAVE TO PAY A DOLLAR ON A SO CAL L ED FREE NO ONE WOULD PAY $2 TO DO THAT I IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO GET THE!! TO PAY THE TOLL I I DON'T WHAT PURPOSE THE LANE HAVE. I DON'T KNOW WRY I SHO UL D PAY TO USE THAT LANE IT lvOULD EVERYT HING DOWN I THE COST NOULD I'D HAVE TO CLOSE OFF 1\LL LANES I I COUL D ONLY CHANGE LANES AT SPECIFIC T i lIES. I DON'T I SHOULD I?AY FOR A ROAD THAT I'M ALREADY PAYING FOR I TOLLS ARE STUPID. I'M SICK TO DEATH OF TOLLS I THEY TOLL US TO DEATH. IT I HLL ONLY CONGEST THE CARPOOL L ANE. IT'S R I DICULOUS TO CHARGE MONEY I IT SHOULD BE FREE. IT'S A FREE HIGHWAY. IT BE TOO HARD TO COLLECT THE: TOLLS. I T ISN'T FOR SINGLE OCCUPANTS I IT BE HARDER TO PATRO L 1 ALReADY PAY FOR THAT ROAD I THE TOLL BOOTH WOUL D SLON IT I WOUL D HAVE TO SEE I T IN ACTION. IT T WORK I WE HAVE A LOT OF TOLL ROADS BOT THE ADVANTAGES AaE LOST BECAUSE OF THE Til1E I HAVE TO NASTE GOING THROUGH THE TOLL. I T NOULD BE GOOD TO HlWE THEN PAY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT LANE: MAKES !T THA T FASTER IT DOESN'T l1AKE IT FASTER. IT 't!OOLD BE LIKE AN EXTRA Tl\X, NHICl! IS BAD I IT DOESN'T SEE!1 VERY PRACTICAL BECAUSE IT BE -133-

PAGE 141

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 550 Q270E 551 Q270E 554 Q270E 555 Q270E 556 Q270E. 558 Q270E: 560 Q 27 0E 561 Q270E 562 Q270E 563 Q270E 564 Q270E 5 6 5 Q270E 566 Q270E. 567 Q270E 568 Q270E 569 Q270E 570 Q270E 571 Q270E HARD TO MAKE: E.VERYONE E'AY. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HELE' THE: TRAFFIC SITUATION TO KEEE' THE. LAN&S OPEN I THEY ALRE;ADY CHARGE TOO MANY TOLLS. I DON'T T HINK THEY NOUL D PAY IT I I DON'T THEY'D DO SOME.THING ABOUT TRUCKS AND BUSES. S0t1ETIMES I'M LATE fOR WORK I THEY DON'T LET OTHER CARS ON. I'D HAVE TO STOP TO PAY THE TOLL I IT WORK I I DON'T KNOW Wt\Y Tll&Y WOULD HAVE THE CARPOOL LANE THEN. TOLLS TAKE. tim:. IT'S BOLOGNA, THAT'S RIDICULOUS. A CAR POOLING LANE IS FOR CARE'OOLING. I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT I A RULE. IS A RULE., AND I T SHOULD BE fOL LONED. IT WOULDN'T BE WORTH IT. IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY D IFFERENCE I IT AGGRAVATE PEOPLE MORE. T H E CARPOOL LANES SHOULD BE USED ONL Y CARfOOLERS. I'M NOT REALLY SURE THAT IT WOULD MAKE A DifFERENCE ONE OR THE OTHER I I DON'T LIKE: THE I DEA OF PAYING MONEY ON A PUBL IC FREEWAY. I KNOW IT'S A WAY TO GENERATE. REVENUE I I F THEY HAVE TO E'AY TO TAKE THE. CARPOOL LANE, IT'S DEFEATING THE PURPOSE. A DOLLAR FOR CARPOOLERS WOULDN'T HELP. IF THEY TO SAVE MONEY AND TIME, ARE THEY LETTING EVERYBODY USE THE LANE. WE SHOUL DN'T HAVE. TO PAY TO USE THE CARE'OOL LANE. I T HIGHT HEL P 11ITH MONE.Y. IT WOULDN'T -134-

PAGE 142

Center for Urban Transportation Resea rch Value Pricing 572 Q270E 573 Q270E 574 Q270E 575 Q270E 577 Q270E 579 Q210E 580 Q210E 581 Q270E 583 Q270E 585 Q270E 586 Q210E 587 Q210E 588 Q270E 589 Q270E 590 Q270E 592 Q210E 593 Q270E 594 Q270 E 595 Q270E 598 Q270E 602 Q270E I 'T PAY IT. I DON'T BELIEVE I N ANY l10RE TAXES. THAT DEFEATS T H E PURPOSE OF HAVING CARPOOL LANES. IT ISN'T GOING TO SOLVE THE NUIIBER OF CARS. SHOULDN'T BE PAYING. I ALREADY PAY fOR A LOT OF THINGS. MORE PEOPLE WOULD USE I T RATHER THAN TAKE THE CHANCE OF GETTING POLLED OVER I AN EXTRA LANE OPEN I T UP. I' D flAKE IT $5. THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE MULTIPLE PERSONS SHOULD BE THE ONLY ONES ALLOWED TO USE IT I IT NOULD MA!
PAGE 143

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 603 Q2 7 0 t: 605 Q270E 606 Q2 10E 6 0 9 Q270E 611 Q270E: 6 1 2 Q270E 613 Q270E 614 Q270E 617 Q270E 618 Q270E 619 Q210E 620 Q270E 623 Q270E 62 5 Q270E 626 Q270E 627 Q 270E 628 Q270E 631 Q270E TRAf' F I C I CON' T TO PAY THE TOLLS. I CON' T THINK WE SHOULD PAY ANY MORE TOLLS I I' AGAINST ANY NEW TAXES. WE HAVE ENOUGH TOLLS AND TAXES. tHE.Y RESERVE THE LANES I DURING THE MORNING WE NEED THE LANES. NO ONE SHOULD BE: PAY ING FOR THE LANES I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR TO PAY TO DRIVE ON A LANE WHE.N I'VE ALREADY PAID TAXES FOR T HE HIGHWAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED I THEY SHOULD HAVE BETTER TRANSPORTATION. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO USE TilE: CAR POOL LA N E I THEY SHOULD INCREASE TAXES IN OTHER AREAS I NSTEAD. I D HAVE TO STOP AND PAY THE TOLL THE:RE:BY CAUSING TRAFFIC TO DOWN. IT WILL DEFEA T THE PURPOSE OF THE: HOV LANE. IF I 'M D R I V ING BY flYSELf, I S HOULDN'T PAY !10RE THAN THOSE DRIVING W I TH LOTS OF PEOPLE I THAT ISN'T FAIR. IT ISN'T THAT FAIR I THAT'S TOO MUCH OF A P RICE TO PAY TO BE: IN A CARPOO L LANE: TWICE A DAY. T H E RE'S NO REASON FOR ONE P ERSO N TO GO ON THE LANE WHE N OTHER PEOPLE CAN'T. I CON' T THINK SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT. I HATE PAYIN G TOLLS AND FOR IT. E I THER T H EY CAN USE IT OR THEY CAN'T I IF THEY'RE GOING T O US E IT, I DON'T SEE !.>EOI?L E SHOULD HAVE TO I T SHOULD ONLY BE USED FO R THOSE WHO HAVE OR MORE HAVE TO PAY, THEY THINK TNICE ABOUT WHAT THEY RE GOING TO DO. CARPOOLING IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR MORE THA N ONE 136-

PAGE 144

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 633 Q270E 634 Q270E. 636 Q270E 6 3 8 Q270E. 639 Q270E 640 Q270E 642 Q270E 645 Q?70E 646 Q 2 70E 647 Q270E 649 Q270E 650 : Q270E 652 Q270E 655 Q270E 6 5 6 Q270E. 657 Q 270E PERSON, THEY PAY A TOLL O R NOT. I T SHOULD ONLY FOR B U S ES AND TRUCKS. I N FL ORIDA THE:RE ARE TOO l'IANY DRI VERS ON THE. ROAD / '1'00 l-1ANY PEOPLE WOOLD BE WILLING '!'0 PAY THE T OLL, SO I T WOULD STILL BE AS CONG ES TED. I'M USUALLY THE. ONLY ONE IN THE CAR I I DON'T NANT T O HAVE TO PAY A DOLLAR I IT'S BAD ENOUGH PAYING TOLLS. IT DEFEATS THE P URPOS E O F HAVING CARPOOL LANES. SOME SHOULDN'T HAVE T O PA Y I I F PEO PLE TO PAY, THEY CAN I PEOPLE NHO ARE CARPOOL ING SHOULD PAY. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. THAT LANE B ECOME A LANE FOR THE PEOP LE N H O CAN AFFORD IT, AND NOT FOR THE G ENE.RAL IT CA US E LESS TRAFii'IC AND I DON'T THINK ANY WAY T HEY COULD POLICE: IT. 1 l !ERE ARE MANY PEOPLE AREN'T USED TO THE H IGHiTAY, IT' 5 A SUNDAY DRIVE FOR T HEM. I DON'T THINK THAT 5 T H E TO THE PROBLEH iTHE N T HE;RE'S ONLY ONE LANE. A CARPOOL LANE THE TRAFFIC SHORTE:R I N THE OTHER LANES I OTHER PEOPLE COULD USE THIS LANE AND R E LIEVE TRAF F I C IN ALL OTHER L ANES I DON'T THINK IT:S A SOLUT ION I I COME: F I\OH ARGENTINA AND THERE ARE EXCEL LEN T TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. liE ALREADY PAY FOR THE ROAD, I DON'T KNOW WHY iTE HAVE TO PAY l IORE T OL L S I TOLLS CAUSE HORE DELA YS I I DON'T THINK THAT A CARPOOL LANE IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO R E LIEVE TRAFFIC. I T SHOULD BE USED FOR THOSE WHO HAVE TWO OR MORE PEOPLE I N T H E CAR. I T NOUL D CAUSE HORE PRO B LEMS WIT H THE TRAFFIC I T H ERE BE !!ORE TIE OPS, EVEN IF THE PEOPLE H A D A PASS. -137-

PAGE 145

Center for Ur ban T ransportation Research Value Pricing 658 Q270E 660 Q2 70E 662 Q270E Q270E 665 Q270E 667 Q270E 668 Q270E 670 Q270E 671 Q270E 672 Q270E 675 Q270E 676 Q 270E 677 Q270E 678 Q270E 679 Q 270E 680 Q2 70E 681 Q 270E PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO DO I T I THEY AR EN'T BRING ING ENOUGH THROUGH HERE I THERE S TOO l JUCH TRAFFIC. I PAY ENOUG H TAXES I DON' T THINK ANYBODY SHOUL D HAVE TO PAY A NICKEL FOR DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAYS. I DON' T THINK I T NOULD BE REASONAB L E I IT'S ONLY A WAY TO MAKE MONEY. I T S LOW l1E DONN I F I HAD T O STOP AT THE TOLL. P E OPLE BE STOPPING AND STARTING TO PAY THE TO LL, AND THAT WOULD C R E ATE MORE OF A JAM. NE' RE PAYING FOR THE ROADS SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY EXTRA TO USE THE L ANE. I DON'T WANT T O PAY FOR THAT LANE. IT'S RIDICULOU S I IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONA L FOR THEM T O CHARGE T O USE THE LANES I NE:XT T IME WE'L L HAVE T O PA Y T O GO UNDER THE I HOV LANES ARE A OF TIME, THEY HAVE ENOUGH TOLLS A L READY. T H ERE ARE NO TOLLS I I T MAKE T HINGS WORSE TO PUT IN TOLLS I'D S TILL HAVE AN OPTION EVEN IF I CAN'T CARP OOL IF I 'Jo! IN THE CARPOOL LANE T O P ASS SOMEONE, I SHOUL DN'T HAVE TO PAY. CARPOO L ING EASES CONGEST ION SO IT SHOU L D BE FREE I WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THE TURNPIKE SOME PEOP L E ARE IN A RUSH AND WI L L HAVE T O GO IN THAT LANE. THE PEOPLE COULD A FFORD IT GET TO WORK QUICKER I THEY SHOUL DN' T BE: ABLE T O GET TO NORK MORE QUICKLY S IMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN PAY I IT DOESN'T HELP THE ENVIRONMENT . THE P O I NT O F CARPOOL LANES IS FOR MULTIP L E PEOP L E TO TRAVEL. -138-

PAGE 146

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pr icing 682 Q270E 684 Q270E: 685 Q270E 687 Q270E 689 Q2./0E 690 Q270E 691 Q270E 692 Q270E 693 Q270E 694 Q270E 696 Q270E: 697 Q270E 6 9 8 Q2"/0E 6 9 9 Q270E 7 0 0 Q270E 701 Q270B 702 Q270E 703 Q270E THE NONEY CAN B E USED TO BUILD ROADS. IN SOME AREAS, THEY ALWAYS CHARGE F OR EVERYTHING f IT'S FUNDING FOR THE ROADS BOT THERE NOOI.D BE N O DIFFERENCE/ IT WOULDN'T BE RIGHT. IT MAKES NO DIFrERENCE. THEY'RE S U PPOSED TO BE ENCOURAGING. PEO PLE T O USE THEIR VEHICI.ES LESS OE. T EN. I HAVE KIDS AND IT TAKES TAKE TOO LONG B ECAUSE O F T RAF FIC I DOING THAT SAVE TINE. l OON "l: TO PAY THE FE E CARPOOLING IS SUPPOSED TO KEEP MORE VEHICLES OFF THE ROAD. I DON'T WANT TO PAY A DOLLAR EVERY TIME I GO ON I 95. I DON'T L I K E TO PAY ANY HORE TAXES THAN I HAVE TO f A TOLL I S A TAX I I DON'T BELIEVE THAT LETT ING ONE PERSON R IDE I N A DIANOND LANE WOULD REDUCE CONGESTI ON. THAT NOULD CAUSE TOO HOCH TRAE"FIC IN THE: CARPOOL LAN E THEY SHOULDN' T CHARGE. THEY'LL BE HOLDING UP TRAFFIC T O COLLECr TOLL E"EES. IT WOULD CAUSE MORE CONG ESTION MAKE VdiTTERS H ORSE. THERE ARE PEOPLE NHO HAVE TO GO TO EARN A LIVING. THE:RE WOULD BE FEI.rER PEO P LE BECAUSE THEY BE L ESS L I KELY TO USE IT. I TO GET TO ON TIHE, B U T THE ROADS ARE BLOCKED I NON E:VE:N THE ALTERNATE ROUTES NILL BE BLOCKED OP IT NOULD RAISE HONEY TO BUILD MORE ROADS. I DON'T AGREE W ITH I T 139.

PAGE 147

Center for Urban Transportatio n Research Value Prici n g 7 0 4 Q270E 707 Q 270E 708 Q270E 709 Q270E. 710 Q270E 711 Q270E 712 Q270E: 113 Q270E 716 Q270E 720 Q270E: 722 Q270E 723 Q270E 725 Q270E 726 Q270E 727 Q270E 728 Q270E 729 Q270E 730 Q270E: I T BOTCHE:S THINGS UP I I T WOUL D JAH THE ROAD EVEN MORE I TO L L BOOTHS CREATE !>lORE TRAFFIC. I DON'T !
PAGE 148

Center for Urba n Transportation R esearch Value Pricing 731 Q270 E '/32 Q270E 733 Q270E 735 Q270E 736 Q270E 739 Q270E 740 Q270E 74 1 Q270E 742 Q270E 744 Q270E 745 Q270E 746 Q270E 747 Q270E 748 Q270E 749 Q270E 7 5 0 Q270E 75 1 Q270E T HE: LANES ARE SPECIFIED FO R TWO OR MORE PEOPLE I N A CAR, NOT FOR ONLY ONE I IT SHOULDN'T MATTER IF T HEY PAY THE TOLL OR NOT. IT WOULD BECOME BECAUSE;: EVERYONE mLL USE IT. I DON'T T H INK I SHOUL D BE CHARGED TO USE THE LANE I THE LANE S ARE ALREADY !'AI D FOR BY OUR TAXES. THERE SHOULDN'T BE A CARPOOL LANE. I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM I I CAN GO ON THE TURNPIKE FOR LESS MONE Y AT FIRST GLANCE, HOW WOULD THEY I F SOHEONE PA I D $2. I DON'T WHY PEO PLE SHOULD PAY EX"fRA THEY' R E ALREADY PAYING S O MUCH FOR INSURANCE AND T AXES I I DON'T AGREE THAT, IT I SN'T FAIR. I T DEFEATS THE WHOLE PURPOS E I THE DOESN'T SOLVE fHE PROBLEM. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY CHARGE P EOP L E FOR D RIVING BY THENSELVES IT lSN' T FAIR TO CHAR G E tIE IF I H THE ONLY ONE USING l'r. I
PAGE 149

Center for Urban Tran sportation Resear ch Value Pricing 752 Q270E 753 Q270E 756 Q270E 757 Q270E 759 Q270E 760 Q270E 761 Q270E 763 Q270E 764 Q270E '166 Q270E 767 Q270E 768 Q270E 769 Q270E 770 Q270E 771 Q270E 772 Q270E 774 Q270E 775 Q270E 777 Q270E 778 Q270E D HAVE LESS TAAF<'IC. I CAN SAY FROl 1 PAST EXPERIENCE THAT IT H!Gf\T HELP. l DON'T BELIEVE IN H AVING TO PAY TO USE A ROAD AT ANY TIME. I'D PAY MORE I IT WOULD RELIEVE TRAFFIC. THE: ONES DO USE IT DON'T USE IT TO THE FUL L EXTEN T I IF Tf\ERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE IN OTHER LANES NHO TO PASS, THEN Tf\EY SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE IT. I DON' T THINK I SHOUL D RAVE TO PAY / THE CARPOOL LANE IS A J OKE. IT l1IGHT BE HELPFUL I IF I HAVE TO STOP TO PAY A TOLL, IT WOULD BE: A NAJOR i'AlN IN THE NECK. THE COLLECTING OF TOLLS OIOUL D ONLY MAKE I t 1 DON'T THINK I SHOULD HAVE TO PAY TO D RIVE IN A C ERTAIN LANE. I 95 IS BUSY EITHE R WAY I IT !-lAKE NO DlFF'ERENCE. CARPOOLING IS GETTING RID OF TRAFFIC, BUT SINGLE RIDERS WON'T HEL P ANY. 1 PAY POR EVERYTHING ELSE I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD ADD ONE MORE Tf\ING ONTO IT. THEY SHOULD PAY A L I TTLE EXTRA TO USE THE CARPOOL LAN I'D REACH l 1 Y DESTINATION MORE QUICKLY I'D HAVE TO PAY 110NEY. ALL THE LANES SHOUL D DE THE SAME. I !lAVE. TO PAY. 1 DON'T NANT TO PAY FOR A LANE. I HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL. I DON'T KNOW I SHOULO PAY A TOLL 142-

PAGE 150

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing ,719 Q210E 180 Q270E 781 Q270E 782 Q270E 783 Q210E 784 Q270E 785 Q270E 786 Q270E 787 Q270E 788 Q270E 789 Q270E 790 Q270E 791 Q270E 792 Q2 70E 793 Q270E 795 Q270E 796 Q270E 797 Q2 70E 798 Q270E 1 9 9 Q270E 800 Q270E 'tO GS'J: r o I 'M GOING I 0 Tlll< E THE ALTERNATIVE. IT NON'T A OlFE'BRENCE. IF I 'l'J l\IILLING TO PAY I NIGHT GET THERE FASTER / TRAFFIC BACK U P IF THERE'S A BOOTH. I HATE TOLLS I T DONN TRAFFIC, IT ONLY AP P L I ES TO THE ONES WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY THE TOLL. IT GETS TOO CROWDED IT SERVE NO PURPOSE I I'D PA Y THE DOLLAR, SO IT BE GOOD FOR 1E. I DON'T KNOW. I Hl\ VE NO CONMENT I CAN'T EXPLA IN IT. IT'S A BAD IDEA I I'D HAVE TO STOP AND PAY THE TOLL, WHICH NOULDN' T I T ANY F ASTt:R. I DON'T KNOW S0l1EBODY SHOULD PAY I IT'S T H E SI\Mt: PLACt:. I HAVE NO I'M NOT suRE. I'VE ALREADY PAID FOR IT. NO ONE WOULD PAY $2 TO DO THA'r I IT'S HARD ENOUGH TO Gt:T TO PAY THE TOLL I THE LANE HAVE NO PURPOSE. I OON' 'l' KNOn WHY TREY HAVE A CARPOOL LANE I r COULD ALL USE IT. l DON'T THINK I SHOUL D PAY ANY MORE TOL LS I I '!1 AGAINST ANY NEN TAXES. IT ALL DEPENDS ON I T WOULD BE ENFORCED. DON'T NEED TO !?AY TO USE A FREE IT'S A GOOD IDt:A. I DON T WHY -143-

PAGE 151

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 801 Q270E: 802 Q270E 803 0270E 804 Q270E 80S 0270 806 Q270E 807 Q270E 808 0 2 7 0 E 809 0210E 8 1 0 0210E 811 0210E 812 Q270E 813 Q270E 814 Q270E: 8 1 6 0270 8 1 7 Q270E 819 Q2 10E 820 0270E 8 2 1 0270 823 0270 824 0270E 825 Q270E 826 Q270E ONLY A SELE CT USE IT. I'D BE OPPOSED I NE COULD MAKE SOliE HONEY AND THE TRAFFIC NOULD GO 11UCH FASTER. FEWER PEOPLE WOULD PAY THE TOLLS. IT WIL L BE IMPOSSIBLE T O DO THAT. I SAY THAT BY 11!\TTER O F DEDUCT ION I I PAY A FEE TO USE AN EXPRESS LANE I THE EXPRESS LANE SHOUI. D BE: LIMITED. THE R E ISN'T ENOUGH INCENTIVE TO USE THEM I THE POINT I S TO CA RPO OL HORE. I DON' T KNOW I'D GET THE DOLJ..AR FROH IT DOES N T 11!\KE SENSE I DON'T FEEL THAT B E VERY EFFECTIVE. I'D PAY $ 2 TO US E THE LANES. IT HELP BUILD MORE ROADS. IT'S TOO MUCH MONEY. I DON'T TH INK THAT'S RIGHT I IT ISN'T FAIR TO O T HER PEOPLE:.. I DON'T THINK !'1: MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BUT IT NOULD. IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THE PAY TOLL IS I I DON'T REALLY KNOW HON I FEEL ABOUT IT. I DON'T THINK I T'S FAIR TO PAY A DOL LAR. I DON'T NHY I SHOULD HAVE TO PAY E'DR I T IT'S A LREADY THERE. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE A COST IF I PAY I T WOULDN' T MAKE ANY D I FFERENCE. IT FIL L UP, SO THERE'S NO ADVANTAGE. I SHOULDN'T BE TO L LED FOR ANY USE ADDING A TOL L WILL SLON TRAFFIC DOWN FURTHER. THERE ARE CRAZY DRIVERS. -144-

PAGE 152

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value P rici ng 827 Q270E 828 Q270ii: 629 Q 2 70E 830 Q270E 831 Q270E 8 32 Q210E 833 Q 27 0E 834 Q27 0E 836 Q270E 831 Q270E 836 Q210 E 839 Q270E 84 0 Q 27 0E 841 Q210E Q270E 84 3 Q270E 844 Q270E 84 5 Q21 0E 846 Q 2 70E 841 Q270E 848 Q 210E 850 Q270E SOtIEBODY' S HAKING MONEY. CARPOOLING SHOULD B E IHTH THREE OR MOR E IN THE CAR WE ALREADY PAID E'OR THE ROADS. HAVE ENOUGH TOL L ROADSAS IT IS. I DON' T HAVE TO DRIVE FAST. THEY SHOULDN'T STOP TRAFFIC TO DO THAT. ALREADY PAY ENOUGH TAX MONEY TO HAVE THE ROADS REBUI L'F. nE PAY ENOUGH IN TOLLS. IT I SN'T GOING T O ELIMINATE THE SITUATIO N / THERE AREN'T ENOUGH ROADS I N THIS COUNTY. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT. IT W ILL DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE RIDING THERE I F THEY HAVE TO PAY. I DON T I T SHOULD BE FOR EVERYONE. I DON'T TRAVEL LIKE THA T. I T WOULD N'T HELP THE S ITUATION. THERE ISN'T MUCH OF AN ADVANTAGE. I F ANYONE CAN USE I T, THEN I T WON'T RELIEVE THE: CONGESTION I SOI1EONE WOUL D GET RICH, BUT IT WOULDN'T REL IEVE THE PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK IT NOULD IT WOULD CAUSE TRAFFIC. IT WOULD OPEN CARPOOL LANES. I DON'T SBE THE: NEE D FOR A CHAR G E I THE LANE I S SIMPLY WASTED I T HERE AREN' T ENOUGH CARS TO BE ON I T WE ALREADY PAY TAXES E'OR T H E ROAD -145-

PAGE 153

Center for Urba n Transportation Research Value Pricing 852 Q210E 853 Q270 854 Q 2 10E 855 Q270E 8 5 6 Q21 0E 858 Q270E 859 Q 270E 860 Q270E 861 Q210E 863 Q270E 865 Q210E 866 Q 2 70E 867 Q270 E 868 Q270E 869 Q 270E 870 Q270E 871 Q210E 873 Q 2 70E 814 Q270E 876 Q 2 70E 811 Q210E 878 Q270E IT SHOULD B FREE. SAY THA T BECAUSE OE' HY PAST DRIVING NOT EVERYONE COULD GET ON, ONLY IN A HURRY. IT GETS M E NHERE I' H GOING I I DON'T HAVE T O ABOUT TRUCKS OR OTHER Vt:HICLES. THAT N OULD HOLD UP TRAFFIC EVEN MORE, I DISAGREE W ITH tHAT. I DON'T THIN K IT'S THE CARS THAT CAUSE THE PROBLEM, IT'S THE TRUCK THAT CAUSE THE ACCIDENTS. I SHOULDN'T BE PAYING. ANYBODY SHOULD BE ABL TO U S E T H A T I DON'T KNOW I F ANYTHING WILL I 95. I LOSE TIME PAYING THE TOL L. MONEY ISN'T THE ANSWER. WE ALREADY PAID E'OR IT I REALLY DON'T THINK THEY COULD HONITOR THIS. I WANT TO KNOW HOW I'D PAY T H E TOLL. I DON'T WANT TO PAY $2. I'D HAVE T O PAY AT THE TOLL. IT'S RIDICULOUS / IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF CARPOOLING I D HAVE TO PAY TO GET THERE FASTER. IT BE MORE CONGESTED. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE WOULD BE WIL L ING TO PAY. I DON'T KNOW HONEY !lAS TO DO NITH I'!' I IT L IMITS IT TO PEOPLE:. C A N AFFORD IT I I T NOULDN' T BENEFIT VERY HANY PPLE I MANY PEOPL E FEEL THAT IT'S DISCRIHINATION BECAUSE OF 146-

PAGE 154

Center for Urban Transportat io n Research Value Pricing 879 Q270E 800 Q270 E 881 Q270E 882 Q270E 884 Q27CE 085 Q270E 8 86 Q270E 887 Q270E 888 Q270E 889 Q270E 890 Q270E 891 Q270E 8 9 2 Q270E 893 Q270E 894 Q270E 895 Q270E 896 Q270E. 897 Q270E 900 Q270E 901 Q270E THE HONEY. THAT'S PREJUDICE, IT'S UNFAIR. THERE ARE STILL TOO CARS. I'D LIKE IT RESERVED FOR CARPOOLING. I IIAVE NO IDEA. THERE ARE ENOUGH rOLL LANES. I T BE ABLE TO PAY TO USE THE LANE. I DON'T Kll0r1 GOOD IT DO I IT JqQOLD CONGEST THE CARPOOL LANES. THAT WOULD CREATE ANOTHER BUREAUCRACY. I DON'T T HINK I SHOULD PAY. THEY ALREADY TAX US FOR THE ROAD I THE TAXES WERE RECENTLY RAISED, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY EXTRA I THE TAXES ARE R ISING, AND PAYCHECKS AREN'T GETTING LARGER. THEY SHOULD KEEP THE PEOPLE COT OF THE LANE DON'T BELONG IN IT. THE HONEY WON'T GO NHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO. I COULDN'T GIVE ENOUGH REVENUE. IT NOULD BE REALLY GOOD I THEN CARS lHTH ONLY ONE PERSON COULD ALSO USE THE LANE. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO CHARGE PEOPLE A DOLLAR TO USE THE LANE I I T NOULDN' T CHANGE THE PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE IDEA. IT FREE UP THE OTHER LANES I I THINK IT'S FAIR T O CHARGE THE R ICH PEOPLE NOULD BE ABLE TO DRIVE ON THE LANES I THERE NOULD BE HORE CONGESTION. I SN'T GOING TO HEL P. I SEE PEOPLE IJSING CARPOOL LANES THEY SHOULD PAY. -147-

PAGE 155

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 903 Q 2 70E. 904 Q270E 905 Q270E. 906 Q270E 907 Q2'10E 908 Q270E 909 Q270E 910 Q270E 911 Q270E 913 Q270E 914 Q270E 9 1 5 Q270E 9 1 6 Q2?0E 917 Q270E 919 Q270E 920 Q270E: 921 Q270E IT' S GOOD BECAUSI> THE MONEY NIGHT GO TOWARDS SOHETHING IHTH THE ROADS, loiKE MORE t.ANES I $2 IS A loOT TO SPEND EVE:RY HORNING TO GET TO WORK ON TIHE. I DON' T THINK I SHOULD BE CHARGED TO DRIVE ON IT. THE Y SHOULD USE THE. CARPOOL LANE S B Y T HE I ISELVES I DON'T THINK I SHOULD HAVE TO I THERE ARE ENOUGH ROADS THAT NE'RE PAYING FOR RIGHT NOW I I SHOULD BE Allt.E TO RID E LANE.S. MOST C ARS HAVE SINGLE I PEOPLE DON'T CARPOOL, IT'S REAL L Y HARD. I HONES'r L Y DON'T THINK A CARPOOL LANE WILL CHANG E ANYTHI NG. I USE THE CARP OOL, MY D I STANCE IS VERY SHORT I US 1 IS VERY SHORT I S0!1ETIMES I SEE ACCIDE:NTS IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF MONEY. THERE SHOULD BE A CARPOOL LANE. PAY OUR TAXES I NE ALREADY PAY TOLLS PAYING THE TO L L WIL L BUILD UP MORE TRA FFIC I IT NILL TAKE TOO MUCH TH!E OVERALL. I DON'T NANT TO PAY A TOL L I THE STATE SHOULDN'T REQUIRE TOLLS. IF 1 'HEY TO PAY THE FEE, THEN GO AHEAD I THE MONEY !'OR THE TOLL N I LL IM PROVE THE TRAFFIC I THE: DRIVERS WHO WANT TO PAY CAN USE THE LANE. I T'S A BIG TICKET IF I GET CAUGHT I IT'S BE:TTER TO PAY THE 50 CENT S THAN GET CAUGHT US ING THE. CARPOO L LANE$ I DON'T TH INK ANYONE SHOULD PA Y EXTRA FOR CARPOOLING I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD CHARGE I RE A LREADY TAXED FOR EVERYTHING. THEY COULD M INIMIZE THE CONDITION ON THE 1 48-

PAGE 156

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 923 Q270E 924 027011. 925 Q210E 927 Q270E 928 Q270E 929 Q270E 930 Q270E 931 Q2 .70E 932 Q270E 931 Q 270E 935 Q270E 937 Q270E 940 Q270E 941 Q270E Q270E 945 Q270E 946 Q270E 947 Q270E 948 Q270E 950 Q270E I PUTT:(NG A !?!>,ICE TO IT N IJ.L ELIMINATE TRAFFIC NOBODY 't10ULD BENE F I T FRON I T I TRAFFIC STIL L BE CONGESTED I DON'T T H INK I SHOULD HAVE TO R IDE IN THE CARPOOL LANE I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD I CARPOOLERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE LANE, AND IF TREY AREN'T CARPOOLING THEY SHOULDN'T USE IT. IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN I EVERYONE IS GOING TO U SE THE LANE, R E GARDLESS I f THEY PAY OR HOW NANY OCCUPANTS ARE I N THE VEHICLE. IT'S PUNISHING PEOPL E I l?l\Y ENOUGH HONEY TO GO THROUGH THE TURNPil,IVEN IN IT, I HAVE FIRST HAND I T NANT TO PAY TO USE THE LANE I I PAY TOO NAN'! TOL LS NOn. I DON'T THINK I T WOULD lIA!, PEOPLE OFF THE ROAD. THAT'S A GOOD TO ORGANIZE TRAFFIC. I DON'T TRINK SHOULD BE CHARGED. -149-

PAGE 157

Cente r for Urban Transportation Research Va l ue Pricing 951 Q270E 952 Q270E 953 Q210E 954 Q210E 955 Q210E 956 Q210E 958 Q210E 959 Q210E 961 Q270E. 962 Q270E 963 Q210E 964 Q 270E 9 6 5 Q270E 966 Q270E 961 Q270E 968 Q210E 969 Q270E: 970 9'71 Q270E I BOUGH'!' A LICENSE PLATE I I SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE ALL THE ROADS LIKE ANYONE ELSE. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO PAY t10NEY. PEOPLE. IN F LOR IDA DON'T KNOW HOW TO DRIVE I 'I'HE.RE BE MORE ACCIDENTS THIS I I'l' ISN'T A GOOD WAY TO REGULATE I T I I T CAUSES MORE CONGESTION GETTING ON AND OFF I THERE S NO TO KNOW IF THEY PAID THE TOL L .I T GIVES AN ADVANTAGE TO THOSE ARE tIE:L L OFF I IT'S UNFAIR TO THOSE VIJ:TH LOWER SALARIE;S. IT WOULD ONLY PARTIALLY HELP, THEY'RE ALREADY CHARGING ENOUGH FOR ROADS. IT CUT 'l'HE PURPOSI> OF THE CARPOOL LANES WE SHOULDN'T BE USING I T BECAUSE: IT'S RE:SERVED. I tl SPENDING 'l'OO MUCH TAX MONEY FOR THAT. IF I HAVE A BUSINE:SS MEETING AND THE TRAFFIC IS BACKED UP, I T G I VE AN OPPORTUNITY 'l'O GE:T THERE'. QUICKLY I THAT'S REALLY 1'00 CHEAP, IT SHOUL D BE'. AT LEAS T $5 T O USE'. THE LANE.S. PEOP L E PAY IT. I'VE A LREADY HAD TICKE:TS FOR DRIV ING I N HOV LANES I OlE DON' T PAY STATE TAXES HERE:. S THE USE OF HAVING CARPOOL LANE IF OTHER PEOPLE CAN DRIVE IN I T I THAT DEFEATS THE OF CARPOOL IF THE:.Y CHARGED 50 A WT OF PEOPLE US I T I IT BE:. MORE CONGESTE.O. NOTHING THESE GUYS DO NIL L CHANGE ANYTHING l'EOPLE HAVE ROAD TAXES I PEOP L E AVOID USING THE LANE UNLESS IT OlliS AN E:.MERGENCY. I DON'T THINK IT WIL L THEY SHOULD LE.T THEM PAY It' THEY'RE NILLING TO DO I T IT WOULD CAUSE HORE JAMS. 150-

PAGE 158

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 912 Q210E 913 Q270E 914 Q270!!: 915 Q270E 976 Q270E: 977 Q270E 978 Q270E 979 Q270E 981 Q270E 982 Q210E 983 Q270E 984 Q270E 985 Q270E 986 Q270E 987 Q270E 989 Q270E 990 Q210E 991 Q210E I SAY THAT BECAUSE OE' lfY E.XPERIENCE. I'M TOTALLY AGAINST THE TOLL I THE 'rOLL SLOWS DONN ANY ADVANTJI.GE GA INED. THE P EOPLE NHO COULD AFroRD IT BENEFIT, BUT I DON' T AGREE NITH THE PH I LOSOPHY I THEY NEED TO GET THE BIG TRUCKS OFF THE ROA D THAT'S A LOT OF THE PRoBLEM I IF THEY USE THE SYSTE!1 TO TRANSFER THEIR GOODS, 'rHEN TRAFE"IC NOULDN' T BE AS BAD BECAUSE THERE BE NO BIG TRUCKS. I SHOULDN'T HAVE T O PAY TO GO FASTER. THE TURNP IKe IS FJi.STER I 140ST OF THE Til1E THE CARPOOL LANE IS OPEN. THE CAR POOL LANE: BE MORE CONGESTED. THERE ARE TOO MANY PROBLEIlS ON I 95 I IF THEY CHARGE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A HIGHER QUALITY H I GHNA'l W ITH LESS TRAFFIC. THEY NEED TO OPEN I T UP FOR EVERYONE I THOSE PEOPLE IN CARS ARE NOT CARPOOLERS. MY TIME IS liORTH HORE THAN THAT DOLLF\R. WE PAY ENOUGH IN ALREADY IT WOULD TAKE !401\E TIME. THEY WOULD MON EY. VANS AND TRUCKS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE IT, BUT OFFICE PEOPLE SHOULD CARPOOL OR LANES I'VE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT I T I I LACK INFOR!o!ATION. IT'S FREE, SO NHY NOULD I PAY A TOLL I I COULD USE THE TURNPIKE. IT l'IAKE EVERYTHING THERe ARE TOO PEOPLE IN THIS PLACE I THERE AREN'T ENOUGH LANES FO R EVERYONE BECAUSE OF THE THE RAl!PS ARE SET UP. IT'S A GOOD NAY TO GET SOME HORE 1-!0NEY FOR THB TRANSPORTATION DEPARTHENT. -151-

PAGE 159

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 9 92 QZ70F; 993 Q270E 994 Q270 995 Q 2 70E 996 Q270E 997 Q270E 998 Q27 0E 999 QZ70E 1 0 0 0 Q270 1001 Q270E 1 002 Q270E 1003 Q270E: 1004 Q2.70E 1005 Q 270E 1 0 0 6 Q270E 1007 Q270E 1008 Q 270E 100 9 Q270E 101 0 Q270E 1012 Q270E I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO CHARGE PEOPLE U S E A LANE:. I NEED TO THE Y PUT THE TOLL BOOTHS. I'D HAVE PAY. THEY SHOULD OPEN ANOTHER LANE fOR fREE. I Sit-J PLY E'EEL THAT I DON'T WHY I S HOULD PAY AGAIN TO USE A ROAD THAT I 'VE ALREA D Y P A I D TO BUILD. THEY USE THEM ANYNAY, SO THEY MIGHT A S WELL PAY THE FEE. CARPOOL LANES ARE HARDLY U SED I I'' S A WASTE, NOBODY USES THEIL MOST OF THE Tlt1E PEOPLE CHEAT AND GET I N T O THAT LANE AWAY I IT D EFEAT T H E PURPOSE. IT'S THERE FOR CARPOOLERS I IT SHOUL D ONLY BE USED BY CARPOOLERS. I PAY ENOUGH FOR TAXES ALREADY I I CAN'T CARPOOL I'M A TRUCK DRIVER AND I S E E EVERYBOD Y THAT USES THE. LANES. PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO PAY TO USE THE CARPOOL LANE I N THEOR Y IT WOU L D GENERATE REVENUE, BUT IT W OULD OPEN IT UP TO TOO M UCH TRAFF I C I NO ONE WILL PAY A DOLLAR TO GET IN T HE: LANE IT TAK ES LONGER TO G O THROUGH THE T OLL. COLLECTING A TOLL WOULD SLON I T DOWN EVEN < ORE. I DON'T KNOW. EVERYBODY NOULD B E D RIVIN G IN THOSE LANES. ONE PER SON SHOULDN' T DRIVE IN THE HOV LANES. I DON T 152.

PAGE 160

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 1 0 1 3 Q270 E 1014 Q270 E 1 0 1 5 Q210E 1016 Q270E 1018 Q27 0E 1 0 1 9 Q270E 1 0 20 Q270E 1 021 Q270E 1 022 Q270E 1024 1025 Q2"10E 1026 Q270E 1028 Q270E 1029 Q270E 1030 Q270E 1 033 Q 270E 1034 Q270E 1 0 35 Q270E 1037 Q270E 1038 Q270E THERE WOULD BE NO OF THE LANE. IT'S TOO HIGH I IT COSTS 50 CENTS I DON'T KNO'i'l WHY SONEONE SHOULD PAY $2 HEN THE GOVERNMENT SHOUL D B E TAKING CARE OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION. TAX PAYERS ALREADY PAY ENOUGH. I'K A TAX PAYER, I SHOUL DN'T HAVE TO PAY A PRE!11UH TO USE THE LANE. EVERYONE SHOULD PAY THE SAHE AHOUNT. THE HOV LANES ARE A JOKE I THEY AREN'T ENFORCED I PEOPLE l1ISUSE THESE LANES. THERE'S NO ADVANTAGE. TO CARPOOLING. THERE WILL BE DELAYS WHEN PEOPLE ARE PAYING TOLLS. I DON'T KNOW WHY 1 SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR A LANE THAT EVERYONE GETS, SIMPLY BECAUSE I DON'T CARPOOL L IKE EVERYONE ELSE. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TO USE THE CARPOOL LANE. I DON'T THINK I SHOULD BE PENALIZED. THAT'S DISCRIHINATION I IT DOESN'T HATTER I F THERE'S ONE PERSON OR TEN PEOPLE I IF ONE PERSON PAYS TO USE THE OPEN ROAD, T HEN THEY ALL SHOULD. l DON'T KNON MUCH, BUT IT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA. I SHOULDN'T I!AVE TO PAY TO USE THE REGULAR HIGHWAY THE FAST LANE SHOULD BE USED FOR TRUCKERS WHO HAVE DEADLINES TO IT NOULD BE EXPENSIVE. IT NOULD ONLY COST l10RE FOR THE PEOPLE;. 1 BELIEVE CARPOOL LANES ARE A GOOD IDEA I I F SOl1EONE IS IN A HURRY TO GET THEN THEY CAN DO IT. THEY SHOULDN'T PENAL! ZE US FOR USING TH.E LANE. -153-

PAGE 161

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 1 039 Q270E: 1040 Q270E 1041 Q270 1042 Q270E: 1043 Q270E 1044 Q270E 104 7 Q270E 1048 Q270E 1050 Q270E 1052 Q270E 1 0 5 3 Q270E 1054 Q 270E: 1055 Q270E 1056 Q270E: 1059 Q270E 1060 Q 2 70E: 1061 Q270E I DON'T THINK THAT THE CONCEPT Of HOV NIXES WELL >liTH TAXING COl-IMUTERS. IT WON'T ENCOURAGE CARPOOLS. I'M NOT SURE CHARGING WIL L ACTUALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE I IT MEAN ADDING ADDITIONAL CAR S ONTO A LANE THAT'S l-IEANT FOR FEWER CAR$. IT >lOULD DEFE:AT THE PURPOSE I THOSE LANES SERVE A PURPOSE I T RUCKERS ESPECIALLY SHOULD BE KEPT OUT OF THE CARPOOL LA NE MY WIFE TRAVELS IN CARPOO L S I I COULD USE THE CARPOOL LANES AT LEAST HAL!?' Til& TH!E. I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORt1ATION. I F A PERSON I S >liLLING TO PAY, THE Y SHOULD LET Hlt1 USE IT I IT WON'T WORK, BUT THA't'$ OKAY. THEY NEED T!l LANE fOR EMERGENCIES, OR FOR PEOPLE WHO GO TO WORK. I DON' T THINK I SHOU L D PAY WHEN THOSE IN A CARPOOL DON'T HAVE TO P AY. THERE'S NO REASON TO CHARGE OS FOR USING THE CARPOOL LANE. IF TIIE:Y WANT TO CHARGE US TO USE THE: LANE:, THE:N I 95 >JI L L BE MORE CONGE:STE:D. SPENDING MONEY DOE:SN 'T MAKE: ME WANT T O TRAVEL ON THE ROAD I I DON'T THINK IT'S JIL L THAT GOOD OF AN IDEA. I F SOMEONE CAN'T CARPOO L STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE LANES I DON'T T H I N K THAT THEY HAVE ANY OCCASION TO PAY ON I 9 5 NOT EVERYONE m L L USE IT, BUT If I T GETS 1 'H EH THERE T>liCE AS FAST, S0l1E mLL. THE COL LECTION OF I T WOULD BE A PROBLEM. WHY WOULD TH!:Y CHARGE SOMEONE 50 CENTS fOR ONE PERSON I IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE. -154-

PAGE 162

Cen t e r for Urban Transportatio n Resea rch Value P r i c ing 1062 Q270E 1 063 Q270E 1064 Q270E 1 065 Q270& 1 0 6 6 Q270E 1068 Q270E 1069 Q270E 1 070 Q 270E: 1 011 Q270E 1074 Q 270E 1075 Q270E 1076. : Q27 0e: 1077 Q270E 1078 Q270 E 1079 Q270E l080 Q270E 1 082 Q270E l083 Q27 0E: TO SET BOOTHS UP NOULD CAUSE HORE DELAYS I IF TH E Y ADD HORE CARS IT CA USE HORE: DE L P.YS. I DON'T THIN K A DOLLI.NOTI!ER LANE HORE CONGESTED I IT DISCOUAAGE C ARPOOLING. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COLLECT THE DOLLAR AND THAT l U LL HOLD THE TRAFFIC UP MORE. 155-

PAGE 163

Center for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 1084 Q27 0E 1085 Q270E 1086 Q 270E 1 08 7 Q270E 1 088 Q270E 1090 Q 270E 1 0 91 Q270E 1 092 Q270E 1093 Q270E 1 0 9 4 Q 270E 1095 Q 210E 1 096 Q270E 1099 Q270E 110 0 Q210E 1101 Q 270E: THERE BE NO PURPOSE OF HAVING CARPOOL LAN ES. IT OEPENOS Ol>! I F THE HONEY IS USED FOR CONSTRUCTIVE. I SHOULDN' T HAVE T O PAY TO USE THE CARPOOL LANES I SO MANY PEOPLE ALREADY ABUSE IT THAT I T WOULD BE POINTLESS T O CHARGE. THERE SHOULD BE NO TOL L I I'D USE THE TURNPIKE. SOME PEOPLE CAN USE THE CARPOOL LANE AND GET THERE FASTER. I DON'T THINK I T COULD B E IMPLEMENTED I A TOLL WOULD A BACKUP. I T WOULO THE TRAfFIC BECAUSE EVERYONE WOULD B E USING THE CARPOO L LANE. I DON'T WANT TO EXPLAIN. I HAVE TO PAY TO DO ANYTHING THESE OAYS. THE CARPOOL LANES GET BOGGED DOWN AS MUCH AS ANY OTHER IN RUSH H O U R I IT DOESN'T I STILL GET STALLED IN T RAFFIC. N01" ENOUGH PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM. I WANT TO PAY ANYTHING, BUT I F I HAD TO I WOUL D I PREFERS TO S!t1PLY D RIVE ON THEM. I D ON'T THINK SHOULD PAY FOR THE TOLL I THEY KNOW WHO'S P A lO OR N O T I IT'S A WASTE. IT SHOULD SOMETHING OUT. -156-

PAGE 164

Center for Urban Transportation Res e arch Va lue P r icin g 2SPAN 0270E WHEN THERE ARE MORE LANES, IrS BETTER. 6SPAN Q270E IrS MORE SECURE FOR THE TRAFFIC I THERE SHOULD 7SPAN Q270E EVERYONE SHOULD ENJOY THE OPPORTUNITY /IF T HEY 9SPAN 0270E IT WOULD BE BETTER THERE'S LESS RUSH 10SPAN Q270E I DON'T KNOW. 11SPAN Q270E I GO EARLY IN THE MORNING SO THERE ARE NO MAJOR 1 2SPAN Q270E IT WOULD BE BETTER IF EVERYBODY USED I T. 1 4SPAN Q270E I DO N'T TH I N K I SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR DRIVI NG 15SPAN Q270E I SHOULDN'T PAY TO HAVE TO GO TO WORK AND TO USE 16SPAN Q270E WHY WOULD I NEED TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT I 18SPAN Q270E WHOEVER WANTS IT PAYS FOR IT WHOEVER DOESN'T 19SPAN Q 270E I DON T WANT TO EXPLAIN. 20SPAN Q270E I DON'T K N OW. 21SPAN Q270E SOMEONE HAS TO PAY. 22SPAN Q2 70E I D ON'T KNOW. 2 3 S PAN Q270E THERE ARE MORE ACCIDENTS WHEN THERE' S MORE 25SPAN Q270E I FEEL THAT IrS. NECESSA R Y. 26SPAN 0270E PEOPLE MAKE LITTLE MONEY AND WHATEVER AMOUNT 29SPAN Q270E THIS WILL HELP ME A LOT. 30SPAN Q270E IT'S A G OOD IDEA I THE MONEY WILL GO TO THE 32SPAN Q270E WE ARE ALL HEADED IN THE SAME DI RECTION A ND IT 33SPAN Q270E I WOULD N'T LIKE ONE PERSO N BEI N G IN THE CAR 35SPAN Q270E I FEEL THAT THE MONEY SHOULD COME FROM OUR 37SPAN Q270E I CAN'T EXPLAIN. 39SPAN Q270E I DON'T KNO W. 41SPAN Q270E THEY GET TO THEIR DESTINATION FASTER BECAUSE 42SPAN Q270E WHY PAY WHE N IT SERVES FOR TWO PEOPLE OR MORE 44SPAN 0270E IrS EASIER FOR EVERYBODY. 46SPAN 0270E I HATE IT WHEN THE Y MAKE ME PAY O N CERTAIN 48SPAN Q270E I DON'T K N OW. 51 SPAN Q270E IrS A G O OD WAY TO RESOLVE THE TRA FFIC PROBLEM 52 SPAN Q270E I'T'S A STUPID IDEA/ HAVING TO PAY A TOLL IS 54 SPAN Q270E I DON'TTHINKITWOULD BE FAIR TO PAY EXT RA. 55 SPAN Q270E THIS WOULD RUIN THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE CARPO O L 57 SPAN Q270E THE EXTRA MONEY COULD BE USED F O R SOMETHIN G : 58 SPAN Q270E I DON'T SEE A N Y REASON FOR ME TO HAVE TO PAY. 59 SPAN Q270E I T WOULDN'T BE F AIR FOR S O MEONE T O HAVE TO PAY 62SPAN Q270E YOU SHOULDN T HAVE TO PAY FOR S O METHING THArS A 65SPAN Q270E EVERYONE S ALREADY TIRED OF PAYI NG FOR OTHER 67SPAN 0270E THE SAME ROUTE WITH LESS CARS O N THE STREETS AND 68SPAN Q27 0 E ITS A GOOD IDEA 70S PAN Q270E THERE COULD BE AN EMERGENCY AND THE R E MIGHT BE -157-

PAGE 165

Cen ter for Urban Transportation Research Value Pricing 7 1 SPAN Q270E IT' S MORE FAVORABLE FOR THE PACE OF TRAFFIC. 72SPAN Q270E THE BUS DOESN'T STOP THIS WAY I YOU COULD MAKE 73SPAN Q270E I DON'T K NOW. 76SPAN Q270E I DON'T K NOW WHY I SHOULD PAY A WHOLE LOT OF 77SPAN Q270E I T ISN T NECESSARY BUT IT W OULD BE LOGI CAL. 78SPAN Q270E THERE S WAY TOO MUCH TRAF FIC. 79SPAN Q270E I F I HAVE A CAR AND ON L Y O N E PERSON IT WOUL D BE BOSPA N Q270E I ALWAYS C ARPOOL. 82SPAN 0270E IT'S A GOOD IDEA /I CAN GET THERE MORE QUICKLY 83SPAN Q270E WITH THE WORK SCH E DU LES I SHOULD BE ABL E TO PAY 84SPAN Q270E WE PAY ENOUGH TO RIDE THE LANES I THEY NEED T O 90SPAN Q270E IF THERE S A CO$T. PEOPLE CAN DO THAT IF THEY 'RE 91SPAN 0270E WE ALREADY PAY TOO MUCH. 93SPAN Q270E I 'D HAVE TO PAY 94SPAN Q270E IT'S VERY BUSY WITH THE HOUR OF THE DAY AND THE 95SPAN Q270E ONE GOES FASTER /IT'S WORTH IT. 96SPAN Q270E I T DEPENDS ON THE PEOP L E /IF I WANT TO GO FAST, 98SPAN 0270E I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE SOLUTION. 99SPAN 0270E THE MAI N PEOP L E TRAVELING ARE ONE PERSON DRIVERS 100SPAN Q270E I T WOULDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF THEY WIERE OPEN 101SPAN Q270E I F THEY D OPEN THE LANES UP DURING RUSH HOUR, -158-


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200373Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029197759
005 20110927173609.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110927s2000 flua obt 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00146
035
(OCoLC)754851588
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE336.B8 (ONLINE)
1 100
Cleland, Francis.
0 245
Value pricing
h [electronic resource] :
b hot lanes in south Florida : final report, results of survey and conclusions /
[principal investigators, Francis Cleland, Philip L. Winters].
260
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
2000.
300
1 online resource (v, 158 p.) :
ill.
500
"Prepared for Department of Transportation, State of Florida."
5 FTS
"October 2000."
FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references (p. 97-100).
588
Description based on print version record.
650
High occupancy vehicle lanes
z Florida.
Toll roads
Florida.
700
Winters, Philip L.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
776
i Print version:
Cleland, Francis.
t Value pricing.
d Tampa, Fla. : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, 2000
w (OCoLC)46463663
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.146
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001969398;
FTS