DOCSLIB.ORG

The Facts About Toll Road Privatization and How to Protect the Public

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Facts About Toll Road Privatization and How to Protect the Public The Facts About Toll Road Privatization and How to Protect the Public Appendices B and C: Completed, Underway and Proposed Privatization Projects U.S. PIRG Education Fund Private Roads, Public Costs The Facts About Toll Road Privatization and How to Protect the Public Appendices B and C: Completed, Underway and Proposed Privatization Projects U.S. PIRG Education Fund Written by: Phineas Baxandall, Ph.D. U.S. PIRG Education Fund Kari Wohlschlegel and Tony Dutzik, Frontier Group Spring 2009 Acknowledgments The authors thank Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution, Ellen Dannin of the Penn State Dick- inson School of Law, Dennis Enright of NW Financial, and Michael Likosky of New York University’s Institute for Public Knowledge for their thoughtful review and insightful suggestions. Thanks also to Josh Bogus for his research support in the early phases of this project. Finally, thanks to Susan Rakov of Frontier Group and to Carolyn E. Kramer for their editorial assistance. U.S. PIRG Education Fund thanks the Ford Foundation for making this project possible. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of U.S. PIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided editorial review. Copyright 2009 U.S. PIRG Education Fund With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own nar- row agendas, U.S. PIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Americans meaningful opportunities for civic participation. www.uspirg.org Frontier Group conducts research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. www.frontiergroup.org For additional copies of this report, or to obtain a detailed listing of completed and proposed road priva- tization projects across the country, please visit www.uspirg.org. Cover: Photo by Geoffrey Holman, istockphoto.com; photo modification by Harriet Eckstein Traffic sign images that appear on pages 5, 6, 17, 27, 27, 29 and 37 are from the Manual of Traffic Signs, by Richard C. Moeur (http://www.trafficsign.us/) Copyright 1996-2005 Richard C. Moeur. All rights are reserved. Design and layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Table of Contents Appendix B: 1 Completed Privatization Projects Appendix C: 8 Privatization Projects Proposed or Underway Appendix B: Completed Privatization Projects State: Alabama Contract Type: design, build, finance, oper- Road: Alabama River Parkway/Montgomery ate and maintain Expressway Project Details: A 4.5-mile privately built Concessionaire: Built by United Toll tollway in Montgomery County. Systems, purchased by Macquarie in 2006 Cost/Financing: COSTS - $4 million (U.S. and later by American Roads. DOT) Contract Type: design, build, finance, operate Status: Opened in 1998. Now owned by and maintain American Roads (American Roads). Project Details: A 12.5-mile privately built Controversy: A 50-cent toll hike in 2007 tollway in Montgomery County. triggered a consumer boycott of the road, Cost/Financing: COSTS - $12 million which led to a 50 percent decrease in traf- (U.S. DOT) fic. (Mullinax) Status: Opened in 1998. Now owned by Sources: U.S. Department of Transporta- American Roads (American Roads). tion, Federal Highway Administration, Sources: U.S. Department of Transporta- U.S. Toll-Based Highway Improvements: tion, Federal Highway Administration, 1992-2008, January 2009; American U.S. Toll-Based Highway Improvements: Roads, Emerald Mountain Expressway, 1992-2008, January 2009; American Roads, downloaded from www.emeraldmoun- Montgomery Expressway, downloaded from tainexpressway.com, 29 January 2009; www.montgomeryexpressway.com/, 29 Kenneth Mullinax, “Bridge Boycott January 2009. Taking Toll on Profits,” Montgomery Ad- vertiser, 24 March 2007. State: Alabama Road: Emerald Mountain Parkway State: Alabama Concessionaire: Built by United Toll Sys- Road: Black Warrior Parkway/Tuscaloosa tems, purchased by Macquarie in 2006 and Bypass later by American Roads. Concessionaire: Built by United Toll Appendix B Systems, purchased by Macquarie in 2006 taken over by Orange County Transporta- and later by American Roads. tion Authority. Contract Type: design, build, finance, oper- Contract Type: originally built as a de- ate and maintain sign, build, finance, operate and maintain Project Details: A 7.5-mile privately built project tollway in Tuscaloosa County Project Details: CPTC entered into a lease Cost/Financing: COSTS - $25 million agreement with Caltrans to construct and (U.S. DOT) operate a toll facility in the median of an Status: Opened in 1994. Now owned by existing highway (Lowenthal). American Roads (American Roads). Cost/Financing: (1) COSTS - $126 million. Sources: (1) U.S. Department of Transpor- (2) FINANCING - CPTC provided $139 tation, Federal Highway Administration, million in financing in exchange for a 35- U.S. Toll-Based Highway Improvements: year lease (Lowenthal). 1992-2008, January 2009; (2) American Status: The road is now owned and oper- Roads, Tuscaloosa Bypass, downloaded from ated by Orange County Transportation www.tuscaloosabypass.com, 29 January Authority. 2009. Controversy: The agreement had a non- compete clause that prevented Caltrans from making improvements on compet- State: Alabama ing roadways. When Caltrans needed to Road: Foley Beach Express make safety improvements, it was even- Concessionaire: Built by Baldwin County tually forced to buy out the consortium Bridge Company, later acquired by Ameri- (Lowenthal). can Roads Sources: Testimony of California State Contract Type: design, build, finance, oper- Senator Allen Lowenthal, 24 May 2007 ate and maintain Project Details: The highway includes a 7.5-mile federally funded portion, a 5-mile State: California privately built portion transferred to the Road: South Bay Expressway county and operated free of tolls, and a Concessionaire: South Bay Expressway LP toll bridge over the Intercoastal Waterway. - Macquarie is the primary investor (Toll Roads News) Contract Type: design, build, finance, oper- Cost/Financing: COSTS - $25 million total ate and maintain (Toll Roads News) Project Details: The road extends from SR Status: Opened in 2000. Now owned by 54 in Spring Valley to Otay Mesa Road American Roads (American Roads) near the international border crossing (All Sources: (1) “Investor Pike: Foley Beach Business). Express Opens in Coastal Alabama,” Toll Cost/Financing: (1) COSTS - The project Roads News, 3 August 2000. (2) American cost $840 million (All Business). (2) FI- Roads, Beach Express, downloaded from NANCING - private investment was the www.beachexpress.com, 29 January 2009. main source of financing, in exchange for a 35-year lease (Toll Roads News - San Diego) State: California Status: The road officially opened on No- Road: SR 91 Express Lanes vember 19, 2007 (All Business). Macquarie Concessionaire: The California Private was initially granted a 35-year concession, Transportation Company (CPTC) origi- however they have since requested an nally developed the road. It has since been extension. The legislature has agreed to a 2 Private Roads, Public Costs 10-year extension, subject to local support. in exchange for a 99 year lease (Toll Roads Local governments have indicated that they News). (4) TOLLS - Tolls increased want to relax restrictions on the expansion immediately from $2 to $3, and beginning of parallel roads, so negotiations are under- in 2010 they will increase annually by at way (Toll Roads News - San Diego). least 2% of the CPI or GDP (CoPIRG). Controversy: The project was late and Status: The road opened in 2004 and nego- overbudget, for a variety of reasons. The tiations for a lease began in April 2007. concession was finalized in 1991, but it took Controversy: The Authority must com- 16 years to build the road (Toll Roads News pensate the concessionaire if previously - Schwarzenegger). unplanned road or transit projects are Sources: (1) “South Bay Expressway, San built in the corridor and hurt revenues. Diego’s First Toll Road, Opens,” All Busi- The concessionaire recently stated that it ness, 16 November 2007. (2) “San Diego’s believes a proposed project violates this South Bay Expressway Opened Monday,” agreement (Leib). Toll Roads News, 23 November 2007. (3) Sources: (1) CoPIRG, Northwest Parkway “Schwarzenegger Making New Push for White Paper, 10 December 2007. (2) Ir- PPPs & Union Critic Hits Two Toll Road vin Dawid, “Colorado Toll Road Goes Concessions,” Toll Roads News, 28 November Private,” Planetizen, 18 April 2007. (3) 2007 Jeffrey Leib, “Toll Firm Objects to Work on W. 160th,” Denver Post, 23 July 2008. (4) “Colorado Highways: Public Highway State: Colorado Authority Tollways,” MESalek.com, 4 Road: Northwest Parkway September 2007. (5) “Northwest Parkway Concessionaire: Owned by Northwest Colorado Toll Concession Finalized with Parkway Public Highway Authority, Financial Close,” Toll Roads News, 19 No- representing Broomfield, Lafayette and vember 2007. Weld counties. Leased to companies from Portugal and Brazil - Brisa Auto-Estradas de Portugal SA and Companhia de Con- State: Florida
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TOLL ROAD SIGNS Section 2F.01 Scope Support: 01 Toll Highways Are Typically Limited-Access Freeway Or Expressway Facilities
    2009 Edition Page 237 CHAPTER 2F. TOLL ROAD SIGNS Section 2F.01 Scope Support: 01 Toll highways are typically limited-access freeway or expressway facilities. A portion of or an entire route might be a toll highway, or a bridge, tunnel, or other crossing point might be the only toll portion of a highway. A toll highway might be a conventional road. The general signing requirements for toll roads will depend on the type of facility and access (freeway, expressway, or conventional road). The provisions of Chapters 2D and 2E will generally apply for guide signs along the toll facility that direct road users within and off the facility where exit points and geometric configurations are not dependent specifically on the collection of tolls. The aspect of tolling and the presence of toll plazas or collection points necessitate additional considerations in the typical signing needs. The notification of the collection of tolls in advance of and at entry points to the toll highway also necessitate additional modifications to the typical signing. 02 The scope of this Section applies to a route or facility on which all lanes are tolled. Chapter 2G contains provisions for the signing of managed lanes within an otherwise non-toll facility that employ tolling or pricing as an operational strategy to manage congestion levels. Standard: 03 Except where specifically provided in this Chapter, the provisions of other Chapters in Part 2 shall apply to toll roads. Section 2F.02 Sizes of Toll Road Signs Standard: 01 Except as provided in Section 2A.11, the sizes of toll road signs that have standardized designs shall be as shown in Table 2F-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Order for Professional Services No. T3694 Design Services for Contract No
    OPS No. T3694 Design Services for Contract No. T300.489 Interchange 18E Express E-ZPass and 16E Improvements Page 1 of 34 April 23, 2018 To: ALL CONSULTANTS Subject: REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST ORDER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NO. T3694 DESIGN SERVICES FOR CONTRACT NO. T300.489 INTERCHANGE 18E EXPRESS E-ZPASS AND 16E IMPROVEMENTS The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (Authority) invites Expressions of Interest (EOIs) for a Simple project from engineering firms prequalified and eligible in the following Profile Codes Profile Code(s) Description(s) A250 Fully Controlled Access Highways A256 Toll Plazas (site, islands, tunnels, canopy) Attached (see Section I) is a list of all consultants currently prequalified and eligible to submit an EOI for the above referenced assignment. *Joint Ventures (*Firms interested in submitting an EOI as a Joint Venture must be prequalified as a Joint Venture with the Authority) that meet all of the Profile Code requirements are also eligible to submit an EOI. To qualify as a prequalified consultant, a firm must have on file with the Authority a current “Professional Service Prequalification Questionnaire” (PSPQ) package prior to submission of the EOI. A current PSPQ is one that has been on file with the Authority for no more than 24 months, or in certain cases for no more than 12 months. Only those firms who have been prequalified for the specified profile code(s) this project entails will be considered. Prequalification is not required for subconsultants. Prequalification is required however for Joint Ventures. The Authority shall be seeking participation of Small Business Enterprises (SBE) as subconsultants.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide for HOT Lane Development FHWA
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration A Guide for HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT A Guide for HOT LANE DEVELOPMENT BY WITH IN PARTNERSHIP WITH U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration PRINCIPAL AUTHORS Benjamin G. Perez, AICP PB CONSULT Gian-Claudia Sciara, AICP PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM T. Brent Baker Stephanie MacLachlin PB CONSULT PB CONSULT Kiran Bhatt Carol C. Martsolf KT ANALYTICS PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF James S. Bourgart Hameed Merchant PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF HOUSTON METRO James R. Brown John Muscatell PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Ginger Daniels John O’Laughlin TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Heather Dugan Bruce Podwal COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Charles Fuhs Robert Poole PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF REASON PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE Ira J. Hirschman David Pope PB CONSULT PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF David Kaplan Al Schaufler SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Hal Kassoff Peter Samuel PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF TOLL ROADS NEWSLETTER Kim Kawada William Stockton SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE Tim Kelly Myron Swisher HOUSTON METRO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen Lockwood Sally Wegmann PB CONSULT TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Chapter 1 Hot Lane Concept And Rationale........................................................................2 1.1 HOT lanes Defined .................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Route 832
    Pennsylvania Route 832 Pennsylvania State Routes. < PA 832. PA 839 >. Legislative. Pennsylvania Route 837 is a state route located in western Pennsylvania. The southern terminus of the route is at Pennsylvania Route 88 in the Carroll Township hamlet of Wickerham Manor. The northern terminus is at U.S. Route 19 and Pennsylvania Route 51 in downtown Pittsburgh at the junction of the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongahela rivers. Image File history File links PA-837. Pennsylvania Route 5 (PA 5) is a westward continuation of New York State Route 5 in Pennsylvania. It runs from North East, Pennsylvania at the New York-Pennsylvania border to near Erie, a total of 44.85 miles (72.18 km). The highway is called the Purple Heart Highway and mostly called Lake Road. PA 832 (Sterretania Road) ⓠPresque Isle State Park. Category:Pennsylvania Route 832. From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Pennsylvania Route 832. highway in Pennsylvania. Media in category "Pennsylvania Route 832". The following 2 files are in this category, out of 2 total. Pennsylvania Route 832 map.svg 1,204 × 708; 181 KB. Pennsylvania State Route 98 at State Route 832.jpg 1,600 × 1,200; 489 KB. The park is reached by PA Route 832 or by boat. The road system within the park forms a loop approximately 13 miles in length. As Pennsylvania's only "seashore," Presque Isle offers its visitors a beautiful coastline and many recreational activities, including swimming, boating, fishing, hiking, bicycling and in-line skating.
    [Show full text]
  • South Bay Expressway (Sr 125 Toll Road) Fact Sheet
    Transportation SOUTH BAY EXPRESSWAY (SR 125 TOLL ROAD) FACT SHEET The Project Lower Tolls Opened in 2007, South Bay Expressway (SBX) In December 2011, after a thorough due toll road is a ten-mile stretch of State Route diligence process and public review, SANDAG 125 (SR 125) that runs from Otay Mesa Road completed the acquisition of the lease to near State Route 905 to SR 54. The highway operate the toll road. To improve mobility provides quick and convenient travel choices in the South Bay, SANDAG implemented a between eastern Chula Vista, Downtown San business plan that reduced tolls by as much Customer Service Center Hours of Operation Diego, East County, Sorrento Valley, Interstate as 40 percent on June 30, 2012. Phone: Monday – Friday 8, State Route 94, Otay Mesa, and Mexico. Tolls now range from 50 cents to $2.75 for 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. On- and off-ramps are available at Birch Road, Walk-In: Monday – Friday FasTrak users and from $2 to $3.50 for cash/ 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes Road, East H credit card users. Previously, tolls were 85 (619) 661-7070 Street, and San Miguel Ranch Road. 1129 La Media Road cents to $3.85 for FasTrak users and $2.50 San Diego, CA 92154 Travelers who use South Bay Expressway have to $4 for cash/credit card users. FasTrak account several payment options. FasTrak customers management is available Also effective June 30, 2012, the minimum online at SBXthe125.com do not need to stop at toll booths; tolls monthly toll usage requirement was lowered are automatically deducted from a prepaid from $7 to $4.50 for FasTrak customers with account using a transponder mounted one transponder ($3.50 per FasTrak account inside the vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Roads in the United States: History and Current Policy
    TOLL FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES Bridges - Roads - Tunnels - Ferries August 2009 Publication No: FHWA-PL-09-00021 Internet: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tollpage.htm Toll Roads in the United States: History and Current Policy History The early settlers who came to America found a land of dense wilderness, interlaced with creeks, rivers, and streams. Within this wilderness was an extensive network of trails, many of which were created by the migration of the buffalo and used by the Native American Indians as hunting and trading routes. These primitive trails were at first crooked and narrow. Over time, the trails were widened, straightened and improved by settlers for use by horse and wagons. These became some of the first roads in the new land. After the American Revolution, the National Government began to realize the importance of westward expansion and trade in the development of the new Nation. As a result, an era of road building began. This period was marked by the development of turnpike companies, our earliest toll roads in the United States. In 1792, the first turnpike was chartered and became known as the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike in Pennsylvania. It was the first road in America covered with a layer of crushed stone. The boom in turnpike construction began, resulting in the incorporation of more than 50 turnpike companies in Connecticut, 67 in New York, and others in Massachusetts and around the country. A notable turnpike, the Boston-Newburyport Turnpike, was 32 miles long and cost approximately $12,500 per mile to construct. As the Nation grew, so did the need for improved roads.
    [Show full text]
  • Congestion Relief Toll Tunnels
    Policy Study No. 164 July 1993 CONGESTION RELIEF TOLL TUNNELS by Robert W. Poole, Jr. and Yuzo Sugimoto EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Changing urban land-use patterns have reduced the importance of traditional downtowns as the origin and destination of numerous vehicular trips. Much traffic on downtown-area freeways seeks merely to get past downtown, thereby worsening the level of congestion for those seeking access to downtown. A number of European cities have begun to develop a new type of transportation facility: congestion-relief toll tunnels in downtown areas. These projects appear to be economically feasible largely or entirely from premium-price tolls paid by users. Hence, they are being developed by private consortia, operating under long-term franchises from government. Other keys to the feasibility of such projects are peak/off-peak pricing structures (congestion pricing), nonstop electronic toll collection, and restriction of use to auto-size vehicles only (to reduce tunnel dimensions and therefore capital investment). Preliminary analysis indicates that congestion-relief bypass tunnels for downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco would be economically feasible as private business ventures, if developed along European lines. Similar approaches might be applied to other controversial freeway projects in both cities, and to restructuring Boston's huge and controversial Central Artery/Tunnel project. Congress has already authorized public-private partnerships of this type, permitting private capital and private owner/operation to be used, both for new projects and to rebuild existing highway, bridge, and tunnel facilities. Six states and Puerto Rico have enacted private-tollway legislation under which such projects could be developed and operated.
    [Show full text]
  • High Occupancy Toll Lanes in the Houston Area DESCRIPTION
    High Occupancy Toll Lanes in the Houston Area DESCRIPTION Communities in the United States use high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes as a way to maximize the capacity of existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. The attached paper describes the concepts and benefits of HOT lanes. ISSUES The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) has approached the department with a request to operate HOT lanes on portions of five existing HOV lanes in the Houston/Harris County area. REFERENCES See attached description and background information. DESIRED ACTIONS The Commission will be asked to act on a proposed Minute Order authorizing the operation of HOT lanes on approximately 83 miles of existing HOV lanes in Harris County at the January 27th meeting. OTHER None. High Occupancy Toll Lanes in the Houston Area Under agreement with the department, the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) currently operates six high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in the Houston area. These traditional HOV lanes expand the ability of these highways to move more people through the corridor by providing dedicated lanes to carpools, vanpools, and transit vehicles. Currently, the HOV lanes in Houston require a minimum of two or three passengers1 before a vehicle is eligible to use the lane. METRO has approached the department with a request that METRO be allowed to begin operating five of the HOV facilities as high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes: I-45 North Freeway: From downtown Houston to north of FM 1960 (19.9 miles); I-45 Gulf Freeway: From downtown Houston to Dixie Farm Road (15.5 miles); US 59 Eastex Freeway: From downtown Houston to Loop 494 (20.2 miles); US 59 Southwest Freeway: From downtown Houston to West Airport Boulevard (14.3 miles); and US 290 Northwest Freeway: From Northwest Transit Center to south of FM 1960 (13.5 miles).
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Harris County, Texas
    RULES OF HARRIS COUNTY, INCLUDING THE HARRIS COUNTY TOLL ROAD AUTHORITY, A DIVISION OF HARRIS COUNTY, AND THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY AND THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT RIGHTS-OF-WAY JOHN R. BLOUNT, P.E. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEER GARY K. TRIETSCH, P.E. HCTRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RUSSELL A. POPPE, P.E. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT Formatted: Normal, Left, Border: Top: (No border), Bottom: (No border), Left: (No border), Right: (No border) Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, Not Bold, Not Expanded by / Condensed by 1 AS AMENDED: EFFECTIVE: 2 I N D E X SECTION 1 AUTHORITY SECTION 2 JURISDICTION SECTION 3 PURPOSE SECTION 4 CONSTRUCTION OF RULES SECTION 5 DEFINITIONS SECTION 6 RIGHT-OF-ENTRY TO COUNTY OR HCFCD ROW SECTION 7 CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SUBMITTALS SECTION 8 TRAFFIC CONTROL SECTION 9 SEALING OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SECTION 10 CERTIFICATES, FEES AND BONDS SECTION 11 EMERGENCY REPAIRS SECTION 12 INTERFERENCE WITH USE OF THE ROW SECTION 13 TRENCHING SECTION 14 USE OF THE ROADWAY SECTION 15 NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO WORK SECTION 16 UTILITIES SECTION 17 UTILITY POLES SECTION 18 PERMANENT UTILITIES SECTION 19 HIGH PRESSURE PIPELINES SECTION 20 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL SECTION 21 PAVING SECTION 22 MONUMENTS SECTION 23 SOIL BORING AND MONITORING WELL REQUIREMENTS SECTION 24 DAMAGE TO HARRIS COUNTY OR HCFCD ROW SECTION 25 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SECTION 26 LIABILITY SECTION 27 VARIANCES SECTION 28 CONSTRUCTION PER DRAWINGS SECTION 29 INSPECTIONS SECTION 30
    [Show full text]
  • Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Manual Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Manual
    Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Manual Managed Lanes and Ramp Metering Manual Part 2: Im Part 2: Impplleemmeennttaattiioonn PPllaann PPrreeppaarreedd fffoorr::: NNeevvaaddaa DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn DDeecceemmbbeerr 22001133 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 319 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89119 TEL: 702.938.5400 FAX: 702.938.5454 Table of Contents 1.0. MANAGED LANES ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Prerequisite Conditions ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2. Operational Options for Managed Lanes ............................................................. 1-2 1.2.1. Concurrent-Flow Lanes ..................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1.1. Limited Access versus Continuous Access ................................................. 1-3 1.2.2. Reversible-Flow Lanes ....................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.3. Contraflow Lanes .............................................................................................. 1-6 1.3. Queue Bypass Lanes ................................................................................................. 1-7 1.4. Access Options (At-Grade versus Direct-Access Ramps) ................................... 1-8 1.4.1. At-Grade Access ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation
    Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation BDK85 977-21 Final Report December 2011 i Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation BDK85 977-21 Final Report Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation Research Center 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Project Manager: Amy Datz Prepared by: Victoria A. Perk Joseph S. DeSalvo, Ph.D. Tara A. Rodrigues Nina M. Verzosa Steven C. Bovino Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT-100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 December 2011 i DRAFT October 2011 ii DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. iii iv Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More December 2011 Effective Transportation Project Evaluation 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Victoria A. Perk, Joseph S. DeSalvo, Tara A. Rodrigues, Nina M. Verzosa, Steven C. Bovino 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT-100 11. Contract or Grant No. Tampa, FL 33620 BDK85 977-21 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Florida Department of Transportation Final Report Research Center March 2010 – December 2011 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Facilities in the United States
    TOLL FACILITIES US Department IN THE UNITED of Transportation Federal Highway STATES Administration BRIDGES-ROADS-TUNNELS-FERRIES February 1995 Publication No. FHWA-PL-95-034 TOLL FACILITIES US Department of Transporation Federal Highway IN THE UNITED STATES Administration Bridges - Roads - Tunnels - Ferries February 1995 Publication No: FHWA-PL-95-034 PREFACE This report contains selected information on toll facilities in the United States. The information is based on a survey of facilities in operation, financed, or under construction as of January 1, 1995. Beginning with this issue, Tables T-1 and T-2 include, where known: -- The direction of toll collection. -- The type of electronic toll collection system, if available. -- Whether the facility is part of the proposed National Highway System (NHS). A description of each table included in the report follows: Table T-1 contains information such as the name, financing or operating authority, location and termini, feature crossed, length, and road system for toll roads, bridges, tunnels, and ferries that connect highways. -- Parts 1 and 3 include the Interstate System route numbers for toll facilities located on the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. -- Parts 2 and 4 include a functional system identification code for non-Interstate System toll bridges, roads, and tunnels. -- Part 5 includes vehicular toll ferries. Table T-2 contains a list of those projects under serious consideration as toll facilities, awaiting completion of financing arrangements, or proposed as new toll facilities that are being studied for financial and operational feasibility. Table T-3 contains data on receipts of toll facilities.
    [Show full text]