University of California Institute of Transportation Studies

This white paper examines the successes and failures of road pricing strategies in California and the United States, with implications for congestion pricing across California. It evaluates nine case studies spanning feasibility studies, operational HOT lane programs, and the country's first large-scale cordon pricing zone. We address the conditions that favor pricing, barriers, outcomes, and how costs and benefits are distributed using case studies in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo County, Alameda County, New York City, and Northern Virginia. We find that successful pricing programs have sustained political champions, state enabling legislation, and benefits visible to identifiable users. Revenue allocation, not toll structure, is the primary determinant of whether pricing is regressive or progressive. No pricing program reviewed was repealed after implementation. We conclude that advancing road pricing in California will require clear state leadership and supportive coalitions.

This white paper reconsiders the equity of road pricing by distinguishing between fairness and affordability—two concepts that are otherwise often conflated. A fair price assigns costs in proportion to the burdens a user imposes on others; an affordable price is one that users can pay without hardship. While both are important, these are distinct objectives, and treating them as interchangeable can obscure judgments about whether pricing is morally or ethically correct. Applying this framework suggests congestion pricing is more equitable than flat VMT charges because it better aligns payments with the social costs of driving. While congestion pricing may raise affordability concerns for some users, these concerns can be addressed through targeted redistribution of toll revenues. By contrast, unpriced roads and poorly targeted charges allow drivers to impose substantial external costs on others, undermining fairness even as they appear more affordable.

California’s ability to achieve its climate and mobility goals depends on addressing the growing gap between transportation infrastructure needs and the declining effectiveness of traditional fuel tax revenues. As electric vehicle adoption rises, fuel efficiency improves, and demands for resilient, multimodal systems expand, new approaches to transportation funding and demand management are required. This paper examines a range of mobility pricing strategies—including tolling, managed lanes, congestion charges, vehicle-based fees and feebates, distance-based user charges, and parking pricing—to evaluate their potential for enhancing financial sustainability, reducing congestion, and internalizing the environmental and social costs of driving. Particular attention is given to dynamic pricing, which can flexibly manage demand for both road and parking space, and to distance-based charges that offer a more equitable and efficient alternative to fuel taxes. The analysis highlights the importance of revenue allocation to ensure that pricingstrategies not only generate funds but also support equitable investments in sustainable mobility options. While some approaches are well established, others require pilot testing and policy innovation. Given its policy leadership and commitment to climate action, California is well positioned to advance and integrate these strategies, shaping a comprehensive pricing framework that strengthens the state’s fiscal resilience while promoting a cleaner, more efficient, and more equitable transportation system.

“Major transit stop”: how these three words are defined determines what can be built where, throughout much of California. In order to address housing supply constraints, the state legislature has enacted a number of laws that streamline approval and remove zoning constraints in areas close to high-quality transit. But what, exactly, is a “major transit stop”? Planners, developers, and elected officials construe the sparse definition in state law in many ways — though genuine interpretive disagreement, due to modeling and data constraints, and/or in order to serve political goals of encouraging or stymying development. Differences in interpreting the definition of “major transit stop” collectively make a big difference in what areas are covered by state zoning incentives. A maximal approach to defining “major transit stop” grows the eligible area by over three times more than a minimal approach. The area within half a mile of a major transit stop has generally increased over time. But areas with low vehicle travel are doing more to drive affordable housing eligibility than areas with quality transit. Finally, tying transit service to land use regulations has created a perverse incentive to cut transit service in order to avoid state housing mandates.

The Vehicle Weight Safety Study provides supporting analysis for the California Transportation Commission’s study on therelationship between vehicle weight and road user injury and roadway degradation required by Assembly Bill (AB) 251, which was signed by the Governor in October 2023. To inform the work of the CTC, this report summarizes trends of road user injuries and fatalities in California and potential factors contributing to these trends (Chapter 2); summarizes trends in vehicle weight, size, and height for registered vehicles in California (Chapter 3); documents the landscape of policy solutions focused on vehicle size that might address California’s road user injuries and fatality challenge (Chapter 4); analyzes the impact of potential weight-based fees on consumer vehicle purchasing behavior (Chapter 5); and, analyzes the relationship between shifts in passenger vehicle weight and degradation of road infrastructure (Chapter 6).

The Mobility 10x Summit convened more than 200 leaders from state agencies, regional governments, academia, and industry to accelerate California’s transition toward a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable transportation system. As the capstone event of the Resilient and Innovative Mobility Initiative (RIMI)—a four‐year UC ITS research effort launched in 2021—the summit synthesized extensive research and practitioner insights across ten priority transportation topics, ranging from public transit to automation and carbon-neutraltransportation to equity, safety, and resilience.Across the opening and closing plenary discussions and nine breakout sessions, participants examined the structural challenges facing California’s transportation system: declining gas tax revenues, climate‐driven infrastructure damage, uneven public transit ridership recovery, inequitable access to mobility options, and rapid technological change. These challenges are converging at a moment when California must simultaneously meet ambitious climate goals, modernize its transportation funding model, and ensure that mobility systems work for all communities.

The magazine features 10 stories that highlight the breadth and impact of RIMI’s work across the UC ITS campuses— Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and UCLA. It also draws on related research funded through the UC ITS SB1 program, established by California’s Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, along with additional studies by UC ITS scholars and the broader research literature. Together, these efforts demonstrate how targeted research can achieve a 10x impact— shaping policy, influencing practice, and scaling solutions to California’s complex transportation challenges, from decarbonization to bolstering public transit and road safety. For policymakers, planners, and agency leaders, this magazine provides a roadmap for translating research into long-lasting, system-level improvements.

At present day, there are little to no policies around the use and implementation of micro-mobility in many cities. At the national level, there are no specific guidelines that outline how micro-mobility parameters should be implemented in a city. The National Transportation Board has left it up to metropolitan districts to decide on how to gauge the decision to install micro-mobility systems in their cities. However, best practice guidelines have been identified by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA).The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides a Shared Mobility Primer as a practical guide for local governments and public agencies as they seek to implement emerging services or manage existing shared services. The FHWA suggests to public agencies that the government should be consulted in the process of integrating shared mobility. The government should play a role in considering health, safety, consumer protection, taxation, insurance, parking and rights of way, signage and advertising, multimodal integration, planning processes, data sharing, data privacy and standards, and accessibility (Shared Mobility Current Practices and Guiding Principles, n.d.).

Recent studies suggest that there could be significant value to electric vehicle (EV) drivers and power companies from incorporating EVs into the state’s electrical power grids, known as Vehicle-Grid Integration (VGI). However, the benefits could be highly variable depending on the location of the utility territory, vehicle type and battery capacity, the relevant timeframe, and whether the connection involves only managed charging or includes bidirectional charging permitting vehicle to grid (V2G) power transfer, and other factors. Various studies conducted to date generally conclude that the opportunities for V2G could have two to three times the value of managed (or “smart”) charging. However, there are considerable additional complications for grid integration, including variable and site-specific implementation costs. Some savings such as deferring distribution system upgrades can be very significant but are also site-specific and depend on the level of curren and projected demands for electric power on the individual distribution feeder lines, and are therefore difficult to predict.

In California, transportation plays a key role in community college access because many community college districts have satellite campuses, have limited transportation options, and tend to not have on-campus housing. To better understand the mobility challenges students face accessing community colleges and provide potential policy strategies to overcome these challenges, the researchers interviewed local transportation agencies, community college administrators, and students at five California community colleges between September 2022 and October 2023. Participants were asked about available transportation options for community college students, typical student travel patterns, and the resources needed to support improved community college transportation access. Small group discussions with students focused on student travel patterns, mobility challenges, and opinions on potential strategies to improve access. In addition, we reviewed state legislation on student transportation to understand current and past policy attempts to address community college transportation challenges. Together, the findings inform a set of policy options, such as student transit passes, public transit enhancements aimed at meeting the needs of students, and transportation pilot programs.