View By Application

Freeway Management > Lane Management > Pricing


Traffic sensors, electronic payment, video, GPS, and automated enforcement technologies can support the implementation of congestion pricing strategies, varying the cost of transportation facilities based on demand or the time of day.


Cast a broad net in evaluating traveler behavior: Managed Lanes analysis finds evidence of "theory blindness" that can impact model accuracy.(January 2018)

Future ICM systems will require new technical skill sets. Involve management across multiple levels to help agencies understand each other’s needs, capabilities, and priorities.(06/30/2015)

Continue to promote carpooling and transit services during an incremental deployment of Express Toll lanes.(03/21/2014)

Engage political champions to keep controversial High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane projects on track.(15 December 2011)

For successful implementation of a road pricing program, strive for simplicity in policy goals and strong championing of the program by the executive and legislative leaders.(12/01/2010)

Consider stakeholder outreach and education, transport modes that offer an alternative to driving, performance measurement, and area geography with high importance in the planning phase for road pricing programs.(12/01/2010)

Be prepared to face the opportunities and challenges posed by political timetables, project deadlines, as well as pricing-equity issues for road pricing procurement and implementation.(12/01/2010)

Define clear goals and pay attention to key institutional and technical factors for successful implementation of road pricing programs.(12/01/2010)

Use Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation (AMS) to identify gaps, determine constraints, and invest in the best combination of Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies.(September 2008)

Address toll enforcement issues during the initial phase of planning process; with particular attention paid to the legal structure and potential enforcement technologies. (September, 2006)

Ensure electronic toll collection systems are interoperable with neighboring toll facilities.(September, 2006)

Evaluate pros and cons of different methods for electronic toll collection.(September, 2006)

Avoid privacy concerns by ensuring that protecting legislation is in place prior to implementing tolling technologies.(September, 2006)

Optimize back office tolling operations.(September, 2006)

Consider various toll methods to push traffic demand away from peak hours.(September, 2006)

Consider tolling as a tool for managing travel demand and increasing efficiency, as well as for generating revenue.(2006)

Consider the appropriateness of different lane management strategies.(November, 2004)

Utilize public education and outreach in managed lane projects.(November, 2004)

Consider operational issues of electronic toll collection and enforcement with value pricing projects.(November, 2004)

Engage in comprehensive planning and coordination of managed lanes projects.(November, 2004)

Engage in active management of managed lanes projects.(November, 2004)

Ensure effective public and stakeholder outreach in order to garner support for HOT lanes. (March 2003)

Utilize standard highway project management procedures and tools to successfully implement HOT lane projects.(March 2003)

Set toll prices and vehicle occupancy requirements to maintain favorable travel conditions on HOT lanes. (March 2003)

Enable and enforce managed lane facilities using various ITS tools.(January 2003)

Ensure that privatization agreements for the management of toll lanes retain the right for the public agency to improve upon or build transportation facilities that may potentially compete with the privatized toll lanes.(December 2000)

Strengthen public acceptance of congestion-based pricing of express lanes by preserving the option to use free lanes, maintaining good levels of service, and prioritizing safety.(December 2000)

The cost to evaluate ICM using AMS tools was estimated at five percent of the deployment budget.(12/01/2016)

Agencies that manage multimodal transportation corridors can use AMS methodology with ICM decision support systems to facilitate predictive, real-time, and scenario-based decision-making.(12/01/2016)

Agencies that manage multimodal transportation corridors can use AMS methodology with ICM decision support systems to facilitate predictive, real-time, and scenario-based decision-making.(12/01/2016)

Agencies that manage multimodal transportation corridors can use AMS methodology with ICM decision support systems to facilitate predictive, real-time, and scenario-based decision-making.(12/01/2016)

In San Diego, ICM improves mobility for most commuters on I-15 saving them more than 1,400 person hours each day during peak commute periods.(12/01/2016)

The conversion of HOV to HOT lanes in Los Angeles increased vehicle throughput on I-10 and I-110, however, fuel consumption increased at an estimated cost of $104,566,154 with increased VMT.(08/31/2015)

The conversion of HOV to HOT lanes in Los Angeles increased vehicle throughput on I-10 and I-110, however, net emissions increased by 26 to 82 percent and by 6 to 21 percent, respectively as VMT increased.(08/31/2015)

Survey of HOT lane toll transponder holders found deployment of HOT lanes did not change carpooling habits of 66 percent of respondents; 65 percent of respondents who drove alone continued to do so.(08/31/2015)

Deployment of HOT lanes reduced travel times by 10 minutes during A.M. peak and 19 minutes during P.M. peak.(07/14/2015)

HOV to HOT lane conversions can improve travel times and travel time reliability in Express Lanes although impacts on general purpose lanes are mixed.(05/01/2015)

Deployment of variable rate, all-electronic, open road tolling on SR-520 Bridge near Seattle yielded $55 million of revenue in 2012.(12/02/2014)

Data indicates that total saved value of travel time on variable tolling lanes can reach 11 percent of the total value of time spent travelling compared to uniform tolling rates.(03/02/2014)

HOV to HOT Lane conversion results in 22 percent reduction in annual vehicle hours of delay.(06/01/2013)

Conversion of HOV facilities to HOT facilities finds a benefit-cost ratio of 2.19, with benefits primarily derived from improved safety.(02/01/2012)

The conversion of HOV to HOT lanes on I-394 reduced mainline crashes by 5.3 percent.(23-27 January 2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Conversion of an HOV lane to a HOT lane in Washington State allowed for a 3 to 19 percent increase in speeds in general purpose lanes despite a 2 to 3 percent increase in volumes in the general lanes.(November 19, 2010)

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) on the I-15 Corridor in San Diego yielded an estimated benefit-to-cost ratio of 9.7:1.(September 2010)

Benefit-to-cost estimates for dynamic pricing applications on freeway shoulder lanes ranged from 1.1 to 8.2.(September 2010)

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies that promote integration among freeways, arterials, and transit systems can help balance traffic flow and enhance corridor performance; simulation models indicate benefit-to-cost ratios for combined strategies range from 7:1 to 25:1.(2009)

Traffic volumes doubled from 10,000 trips per week to 20,000 trips per week in HOT lanes without negative effects on speeds.(November 2006)

Speeds in general purpose lanes slightly increased with the implementation of HOT lanes.(November 2006)

Value pricing has been shown to increase revenue, reduce congestion by maximizing lane capacity and reduce travel time of highway transportation.(27 February 2003)

Transit improvements, carpooling campaign, and HOV to HOT conversion demonstration project cost $70,460,779 for capital and $55,896,725 for ongoing maintenance.(03/21/2014)

Capital costs of HOV conversion to HOT lanes total $8,716,000 with annual operating costs beginning at $1,294,922.(02/01/2012)

Between 2003 and 2007, annual operating costs and revenues at 15 tolling agencies averaged $85.825 million and $265.753 million, respectively.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Implementing Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies on the I-15 Corridor in San Diego, California is estimated to cost $1.42 million annualized and a total 10-year life-cycle cost of $12 million.(September 2010)

Economies of scale reduced projections for MnPass managed lanes operations & maintenance costs to $50,000 per mile.(September 2010)

The total 10-year project cost of implementing Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies on the U.S. 75 Corridor in Dallas, Texas is estimated at $13.6 million with annualized costs of $1.62 million per year.(September 2010)

Capital cost estimates to implement MnPASS dynamic pricing on freeway shoulder lanes ranged from $6 million to $23 million per mile.(September 2010)

Planning-level studies indicate that an effective combination of ICM strategies can be implemented for $7.5 Million per year (annualized capital and O&M).(September 2008)

Cost estimates of operational concepts for converting HOV lanes to managed lanes on I-75/I-575 in Georgia range from $20.9 million to $23.7 million.(April 2006)

In San Diego County, the cost to implement ETC with managed lanes on a 26 mile section of I-5 was estimated at $1.7 million.(April 2006)

Value pricing is proposed to cost $32,625,000 over 3-years on a congested North Texas freeway(June 2005)

The cost to convert two reversible high-occupancy vehicle lanes on an eight-mile stretch of the Interstate-15 in San Diego to high-occupancy toll lanes was $1.85 million. Evidence also suggests that costs to build new high-occupancy toll lanes are substantially higher, but financially feasible.(Spring 2000)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)

High-Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT lane) - Capital cost/unit - $9500000 - O&M cost/unit - $50000 - Lifetime - 20 years(September 2010)