Ginger Goodin

Examining Incentives and Preferential Treatment of Carpools on Managed Lane Facilities

As managed lanes (MLs) are considered throughout more than 25 North American cities, there is a need for guidance in defining the role of carpools in tolled MLs and the trade-offs between carpool exemptions and other project objectives. Increasingly, project objectives are reflecting not only mobility concerns but the need to generate revenue as well. As a result, allowing exempt or discounted users, such as carpools on priced-MLs, requires an evaluation of revenue impacts as well as mobility interests such as person movements, operations, and emissions. This paper highlights the existing body of knowledge regarding carpooling, facilities, and incentives designed to encourage carpooling and related contributions to society. Following a review of literature, state and regional entities involved in either operating existing ML facilities or planning for new facilities were interviewed to determine the rationale for setting their carpool policies.

Automated Vehicle Occupancy Verification Systems: Policy and Legal Implications

Managed lanes require effective vehicle occupancy enforcement policies and programs to operate successfully. Several semi- and fully automated techniques for determining the number of persons in a moving vehicle, including operator-monitored video cameras and infrared composite imaging, have undergone limited field testing. The technical merits of invehicle and roadside systems for automated vehicle occupancy verification systems have been examined extensively. This paper complements those efforts by providing the policy and legal implications of automated systems for occupancy enforcement. The primary form of automated enforcement technology currently used in the United States is photographic imagery recorded by automated violation detection systems. For moving violations, these systems almost exclusively take the form of red light and speed enforcement, unlike toll evasion, which is typically punishable as an infraction. Principal objections to automated enforcement for occupancy purposes have involved privacy and due process concerns. Under an automated occupancy enforcement tool, the occupancy enforcement regime would likely face the same legal and privacy challenges as automated enforcement cameras and similar devices. This paper examines the current legislation related to automated enforcement practices, as well as an illustration of the arguments against their use. These arguments raise questions about the legality of automated enforcement systems and the perceived invasion of privacy some drivers may associate with such systems. The three primary privacy issues associated with an automated system for occupancy enforcement concern the photographic record of occupants, vehicle infrastructure integration barriers, and the legal definition of a high-occupancy vehicle infraction.