Boundaries & Interface 

Many public owners are exploring adding Express Lanes to existing corridors. Typically, the design-build scope includes: 

• Installation of tolling infrastructure. 
• Widening or adding pavement and structures to the inside/outside or above. 
• Shifting lanes. 
• Reconfiguring barrier walls. 
• Upgrading sign gantries. 
• Installing flexible plastic delineators to separate the Express Lanes from the general-purpose (“GP”) lanes. 

In these circumstances, the final project is usually a mix of new and existing assets. For the operating period, the public owner must consider whether the developer’s O&M limits should include fence-to-fence (including GP lanes) or only the Express Lanes. Based on the market, some Developers are willing to take on both additional inventory and the risk of a fence-to-fence approach. The following advantages and disadvantages should be considered when defining the optimal limits. 

• Fence to Fence: 
  • By including the GP lanes, the cost per lane mile often decreases. Developers have an appetite for more extensive inventories and can provide certain economies of scale when managing a more extensive inventory. The public owner can incentivize the developer to take on more risk by providing relief in the contract, such as reduced performance specifications and reduced residual life requirements at Handback for existing assets. 
  • When a corridor is split longitudinally, it requires duplication of resources from the developer and the public owner. For example, a 20-mile corridor would need duplicate resources for operational activities such as litter removal, incident and emergency management, patrols, surveillance, inspections, etc. These items usually scale easily for the developer. By including GP lanes, there could be an overall cost reduction of operations. 
  • By handing over an entire corridor, the asset can potentially be removed from the public owner’s general maintenance budget, clearing up resources and personnel for other programs in the state. 
  • Developers build flexibility into their long-term plans, allowing for the assumption of certain risks that may not be feasible under a traditional DBB. The developer often addresses early interventions or other unplanned maintenance due to the long-term view and approach. They may also tap into financial resources related to project revenue to better manage the corridor as a whole. 

• Express Lanes only: 
  • An incident along the delineator poles, whether in the Express Lanes or GP lanes, would likely require a response from both the developer and the public owner. Over 50 years, this can add significant costs for the public owner. 
  • P3 requirements have become more prescriptive than statewide O&M requirements and even performance-based maintenance contracts in other states. By splitting the corridor, the public users may observe a higher level of service in the Express Lanes, which could have a negative perception for the public owner. 
  • In certain configurations, in order to add Express Lanes, the GP lanes are widened to the outside, and the Express Lanes become a mix of existing and new assets. This complicates the rehab program for the developer and adds certain interface risks for shared structures maintained by both the developer and the public owner. 
  • Inconsistent maintenance schedules between developer assets and public owner assets could lead to additional closures, traffic, and reduced levels of service for the public, which in turn may also affect revenue.