Engage in comprehensive planning and coordination of managed lanes projects.

The experience of managed lanes projects in California, Texas and New Jersey.

November, 2004
New Jerse Turnpike,New Jersey,United States; Houston,Texas,United States; Interstate 15,San Diego,California,United States; State Route 91, Orange County,California,United States

Background (Show)

Lesson Learned

As the case studies highlight, successful managed lanes projects have been the cooperative efforts of various agencies, starting from the initial stages of project development and including operations. In addition, managed lanes projects require comprehensive planning, including a consideration of legislative authority and institutional arrangements. The result of such cooperative efforts and planning is seamlessness to the customer.

Based on the experiences in California, New Jersey and Texas, the following lessons learned are offered with regard to the planning and coordination of managed lanes projects.
  • Coordinate with other agencies. Managed lanes projects are generally large undertakings, often crossing jurisdictional boundaries, and thus require the cooperation of multiple agencies. Institutional roles and responsibilities should be identified and documented at the outset with project agreements that define each agency’s role. The agreements should also be flexible enough to allow for unforeseen circumstances.
    • The QuickRide program in Houston, the I-15 Express lanes and SR91 Express lanes projects were undertaken as part of the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pricing Pilot Program. Implementation of these projects required close coordination with FHWA, the departments of transportation and local agencies.
    In addition, the case studies illustrate the importance of including as many stakeholders as possible in the process. Potential stakeholders include: transit agencies, regional transportation authorities, toll agencies, law enforcement personnel, Court personnel, environmental groups, special interest groups, and citizens.
    • The QuickRide program, the I-15 Express lanes and SR91 projects involved a broad range of stakeholders in order to identify issues that may not have been addressed by the planners.
  • Incorporate managed lanes projects in long-range planning. The pricing projects highlighted in this study were not initially developed out of a long-range plan for the community (in the case of the HOT lane projects in California and Texas, implementers had the benefit of having HOV as part of the long range plan). However, now that the projects have been in operation for a number of years, the agencies have been able to incorporate findings from their experiences into updated long-range plans.
    • In the San Diego region, managed lanes and HOV improvements and expansion are important elements of their recent regional transportation plan, Mobility 2030.
  • Engage in corridor planning. To date planners and engineers have relied on experience and careful monitoring of roadway conditions to develop an operational strategy for managed lane facilities. Traffic and revenue studies have provided insights on operations, and surveys and focus groups have been useful in providing information on travelers’ willingness to pay as well as their driving habits. However, the need exists for a more comprehensive tool to address the impacts of managed lanes design, access, and operational strategies on factors such as demand management, revenue generation, and air quality confirmation.
  • Consider legislative authority. Using pricing as a lane management strategy may require the need for legislative changes at both the state and national levels, as tolling is not explicitly allowed on the interstate system. In addition, automated enforcement, a critical component of tolling, may require enabling legislation. Legislation also may facilitate the cooperation between local agencies, state agencies, regional transportation authorities, and private developers.
  • Consider institutional arrangements. Since managed lanes projects may involve a variety of operational strategies, this will result in the involvement of a number of stakeholders, including transit authorities, toll authorities, and possibly private interests. New institutional agreements may be necessary to define the scope and operation of the project.
    • With the SR91 project, for example, the construction and operation of the Express lanes by a private company (California Private Transportation Company, or CPTC), required new institutional arrangements. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and local agencies worked with CPTC to develop a franchise agreement. CPTC designed and built the facility in the median of State Route 91 on right of way owned by the state. However, the non-compete clause written into the agreement (Caltrans was prohibited from making other improvements in the corridor that might reduce traffic in the toll lanes) resulted in frustration amongst all the stakeholders, including the public.
Planning for managed lanes projects requires input and coordinated planning from a number of stakeholders, including federal agencies, the state department of transportation, the metropolitan planning organization, and local agencies, among others. During the planning process, some of the key issues that need to be addressed include institutional arrangements and legislative authority. To the extent that these stakeholders can cooperate in the planning and implementation of the managed lanes project, the result will be a superior level of service offered to the public.

Lesson Comments

No comments posted to date

Comment on this Lesson

To comment on this lesson, fill in the information below and click on submit. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field. Your name and email address, if provided, will not be posted, but are to contact you, if needed to clarify your comments.


Managed Lanes: A Cross-Cutting Study

Author: Collier, Tina and Ginger Goodin (Texas Transportation Institute)

Published By: Operations Office of Transportation Management - Federal Highway Administration

Source Date: November, 2004

Other Reference Number: FHWA-HOP-05-037

URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/managed_lanes/crosscuttingstudy/final3_05.pdf

Other Lessons From this Source

Lesson Contacts

Lesson Analyst:

Margaret Petrella
RITA/Volpe National Transportation Systems Center


Average User Rating

0 ( ratings)

Rate this Lesson

(click stars to rate)

Lesson ID: 2007-00376