It is critical that the region deploy a consistent and coordinated approach for its performance-driven tolling network to deliver fair and equitable benefits, including for those without the financial means to afford the tolls—regardless of where the facility is located. As outlined in Tackling the Capital Region’s Roadway Congestion: Performance-Driven Tolling, six principles should be deployed for all new tolling facilities and, where appropriate, on existing tolling facilities as changes are considered and facilities are increasingly connected. These are important projects that, if delivered correctly, will provide tangible benefits for the region’s transportation system for decades.

Benefits

Analysis conducted by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board’s (TPB) Long-Range Plan Task Force in 2017 found that a performance-driven toll network would directly address several of the Washington metropolitan region’s most significant roadway bottlenecks, including the American Legion Bridge.⁵ Expanding and connecting the toll network using performance-driven tolling would produce the largest congestion benefits of all direct-infrastructure investments outlined in the TPB plan—reducing peak period congestion by 11 percent.⁶

Virginia also recently opened high-occupancy tolling (HOT) on all I-66 lanes inside the Virginia portion of the I-495 Beltway to the District’s border for morning and evening peak directions. Based on data from the early months of operation, the tolls have delivered increased travel speeds and new predictability for consumers using the highway, while not creating serious congestion on nearby roadways.⁷ Virginia expects to achieve similar results with its project to convert two existing reversible high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to HOT lanes for eight miles along I-395 to near the District’s border.

Barriers

The U.S. Congress will need to authorize the sale or lease of the 19-mile section of National Park Service-owned Baltimore-Washington Parkway between MD-175 and the New York Avenue/U.S. Route 50 split at the Prince George’s County/District of Columbia border in order to implement performance-driven tolling on that section. This adds additional complexity because this is not standard practice for the National Park Service or the U.S. Congress. Strong intra-regional collaboration and policy alignment between all government and private stakeholders will be challenging to achieve given decentralized control, with the existence of various tolled facilities in Maryland and Virginia. Despite this challenge, it is necessary to ensure roadway tolling policies are complementary and seamless for consumers regardless of where their trip starts or ends.

Next moves

As new tolling facilities are considered and implemented—and as existing facilities evolve and connect—the coordination and alignment of policies and principles in Maryland, Virginia, and the District will be key for reducing roadway congestion and improving our regional transportation system.

Next moves are:

• The Capital Region should apply the Partnership’s performance-driven tolling principles to all future toll roads and when modifying existing toll facilities
• Public agencies should conduct robust and broad public engagement to develop goals, performance metrics, and public benefit assessments for each tolling project—whether delivered by the public agency or a public-private partnership
• Maryland should establish regionally coordinated performance-driven tolled lanes on I-495 between the American Legion Bridge and Woodrow Wilson Bridge, on I-270 between I-495 and I-70, and apply revenues to replacing the American Legion Bridge and enhancing public transportation options
• Congress, supported by the Maryland congressional delegation, should direct the National Park Service to lease, to Maryland, the federally-owned segment of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, with provisions requiring performance-driven tolling on any expanded capacity
• The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) should study the implementation of a performance-driven tolling system on the Baltimore Beltway and I-97

Costs

Maryland estimates the total cost for adding express toll lanes on I-495, I-270, and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway will be $9 billion.⁸ The money to pay for construction, private financing of the project, and ongoing operations and maintenance is expected to come from fees paid by toll lane users. However, these estimates have not yet been publicly analyzed. For comparison, Virginia’s project to add nearly 23 miles of tolled express lanes along I-66 outside of the Beltway is estimated to cost $3.7 billion and includes the price of interchange improvements, more than 4,000 new park-and-ride spaces, new and improved transit options, and 11 miles of new bike and pedestrian trails.⁹

Benefits

In its moveDC long-range transportation plan, the District included a $10 decongestion charge for drive-alone vehicles that enter the downtown business district. This decongestion pricing would have generated approximately $330 million in annual revenue and would have encouraged 17,000 vehicle trips to shift to transit.⁸

Decongestion pricing programs in other cities have sustained congestion reductions over time. In 2015, London had nearly 10 percent less traffic volume compared with 2000, despite a nearly 20 percent growth in the city’s population during that time.⁹ By reinvesting all revenues into the transportation system, London’s decongestion pricing program also delivered 300 new buses and corresponding service, established 8,500 park-and-ride spaces, and added significant bicycle infrastructure.

Using the Partnership’s performance-driven tolling principles, decongestion pricing can deliver results for all users of our transportation system. It is important that any scheme take into account where lower-income residents live and work—and how best to mitigate impacts from the charge and improve mobility options for these residents. For example, a proposed decongestion charge for New York City showed it could improve mobility options and enhance transit service for low-income residents on a nearly 40:1 basis when compared to those that would likely be assessed a fee to enter the decongestion zone.¹⁰

Reducing congestion using decongestion pricing also achieves larger environmental and health benefits. Since establishing its decongestion pricing program, Singapore has decreased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions by 10-15 percent within the inner city. After implementing decongestion pricing, Stockholm reduced CO₂ by 14 percent in the inner city and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 2.5 percent outside the charged zone. Air pollution modelling estimates that, as a result, Stockholm will have 25-30 fewer premature deaths per year in the city’s metropolitan area.¹¹

Barriers

While decongestion pricing has been studied in some U.S. cities, it has never been implemented. The Capital Region could lead the country and bring best practices of decongestion pricing from cities around the world to the United States.

To be most effective, the Capital Region’s decongestion pricing program must span political boundaries—particularly those of the District and Virginia. It should also be clear about how this approach would be applied to lower-income residents. This will require significant coordination of the region’s jurisdictions, including a clear articulation of how the entire region would benefit from a decongestion strategy.

Next moves

In many areas of the region, roads cannot be expanded—particularly in central business districts. Reliable and rapid access to and from these thriving areas of the region is essential to the region’s economic health and prosperity. Decongestion pricing is a proven tool to reduce congestion in these areas, enhance non-driving transportation options for the entire region, and reduce negative health impacts from the transportation system. A strategy should be pursued to investigate if decongestion pricing is a viable tool for the Washington metro area to implement.

Next moves are:

• District Department of Transportation (DDOT) and Arlington County—in consultation with Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)—should study and make recommendations on the feasibility of decongestion pricing zones in the Washington metro area
• DDOT and Arlington County should provide a report and recommendations to Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and MWCOG within 12 months that addresses the following issues:
  • Whether it is feasible for the region to establish a multi-jurisdiction decongestion zone;
  • Identification of transportation investments to improve non-vehicle access into, out of, and within a multi-jurisdiction decongestion zone;
  • Recommendations for dynamic fee structures to measurably reduce congestion from single-occupant vehicles, taxis, delivery trucks, and transportation network companies (TNCs) accessing the decongestion priced zone(s);
  • What approaches could be used to minimize impacts on low-income residents;
  • Whether a new regional entity should be created or existing entities should be given new responsibilities;
  • Recommendations for performance measures to assess a decongestion pricing mechanism; and
  • Additional steps the Washington metropolitan area can take to coordinate congestion reduction strategies in its congested business districts

Costs

The Seattle Department of Transportation is spending $200,000 to study decongestion pricing for its downtown area.¹² The cost for conducting a regional study in the Capital Region could be similar.

As evidenced in other cities, the up-front costs to establish a zonal pricing area are recouped through the revenues generated. Over time, cities have also found ways to reduce operating expenses.

Stockholm’s zonal pricing area required an initial investment of approximately $236.7 million—all of which was recouped after four years. In the first 10 years of operation, the city decreased operating costs by nearly 40 percent and was supported by the public to increase congestion prices, in part by moving to a dynamic pricing system in 2016. Annual net revenues from the inner-city congestion program are approximately $155 million and directly support improvements to the transportation system.¹³

Baltimore City has more than 25 miles of existing trails. However, 10 miles of new trail in four key corridor gaps will connect the 35-mile Baltimore Greenway Trails network.¹ The planned network will better connect more than 60 diverse neighborhoods—many of which are isolated from upward social and economic mobility opportunities due to limited transportation connections, whether by vehicle, transit, bike, or walking.² This network will also connect residents to major transit hubs, employment centers, anchor institutions, cultural amenities, and recreational opportunities by connecting park space, residential neighborhoods, and the downtown core. This investment in active transportation connectivity should then be connected to existing and planned regional trail assets to better connect the metro area—including the BWI Airport Loop Trail, the Baltimore & Annapolis Trail, the Torrey C. Brown Trail, and the Patapsco Regional Greenway.

With 436 miles of trails in the Washington metro area, the proposed Capital Trails Network would add more than 300 miles of trails, including a connected 45-mile circumferential trail.³ If completed as proposed, millions of residents would live within two miles of a trail, connecting households to jobs, metro stations and regional activity centers.⁴ The Capital Trails Coalition has identified the 40 most critical trail projects to advance the network.⁵

The Richmond metro area has two of the oldest national bike routes (U.S. Bike Route 1 and 76) passing through,⁶ and more than 40 miles of paved trails.⁷ The Virginia Capital Trail, completed in 2015, connects Richmond to Jamestown, the former capital.

Benefits

Investing in trail networks can change the way the Capital Region’s consumers work, live, and play—in ways similar to the Atlanta BeltLine Trail or the Indianapolis Cultural Trail. The BeltLine plans for 33 miles of multi-use trail (which includes a 22-mile circumferential loop with transit) and will provide bike and walk connections between neighborhoods previously cut off by highway and rail lines.⁸ As of September 2018, 11 miles of trail are open to the public, including completed permanent segments and temporary interim trails.⁹ The investment strategy has generated great economic benefit—an 8:1 return on investment, with over $4 billion in private development occurring over the past 10 years, including growth of development during the Great Recession. The investment that has occurred in the Atlanta BeltLine Planning Area is a development benefit for not only the City of Atlanta, but the entire metro region.¹⁰

In 2013, Indianapolis completed its eight-mile Cultural Trail, which connects to 40 miles of the existing trail system and six cultural districts spread across the city.¹¹ To complete the $63 million project, Indianapolis leveraged $35.5 million in federal transportation funding and $27.5 million in private funding.¹² As a result, the trail has generated an estimated $864.5 million in economic benefits—more than a 13:1 return on investment.¹³

Active transportation options have also been linked to improving community health outcomes. Research and data modelling conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Nashville metropolitan planning organization (MPO) found that 13 minutes a day of active transportation could reduce rates of 12 chronic diseases.¹⁴ By increasing how frequently the average Middle Tennessee resident chose to bike or walk, the Nashville region could save $116 million annually due to reduced direct health treatment costs and gains in productivity.¹⁵

Barriers

Each trail corridor is different and offers different challenges. To increase trail usage, barriers to safe and efficient access to the trail entry points by walking, biking, or using transit should be removed. Common barriers faced by other trail projects in the country include competing uses, access to private lands, issues of liability, privacy concerns, local opposition, and funding for planning, construction, and maintenance of the system.

Next moves

The projected benefits from completion of the Baltimore Greenway Trails Network and Capital Trails Network are expected to far exceed costs. Realization of the benefits will not occur until all links of the trail network are connected for these projects, which will require visionary civic leaders; committed elected officials at the federal, state, and local levels; and leadership from private business to deliver success in the near term.

Next moves are:

• Baltimore City, the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC), the Baltimore Greenway Trail Coalition, and the philanthropic community should work with private landowners and neighborhoods to identify timelines and funding sources to complete the Greenway within five years
• The National Park Service, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), local jurisdictions, and the Capital Trails Coalition should include the Capital Trails Network in the region’s long-range transportation plan and seek funding for priority trail connection projects in annual regional and federal funding grant cycles
• Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RRTPO), and local governments should study and identify a preferred trail route connecting the Virginia Capital Trail in downtown Richmond to points as far north as Ashland with points as far south as Petersburg

Costs

Building regional trail networks requires funding and financing for planning, design, construction, and maintenance. However, building a trail generally costs far less than constructing a mile of additional road lanes. Local and regional governments should prioritize investments in trail networks in their capital programs.