400 likes | 674 Views
Mississippi River Bridge An Analysis of Alternatives. DRAFT Final Report Presentation January 31, 2007. Overview. Study Objectives Alternatives Considered Comparison of Alternatives Key Findings Choices for the Future. Study Objectives. Provide common understanding
E N D
Mississippi River BridgeAn Analysis of Alternatives DRAFT Final Report Presentation January 31, 2007
Overview • Study Objectives • Alternatives Considered • Comparison of Alternatives • Key Findings • Choices for the Future
Study Objectives • Provide common understanding • Existing and projected traffic conditions • Bridge alternatives • Capital costs • Committed funding • Potential funding shortfalls • Identify options for moving forward
Fact vs. Fiction • Fiction: “…the cost of an 8-lane bridge – last year estimated at $910 million – is now $1.76 billion…partly due to inflation…” • Fact: The cost of an 8-lane bridge – last year estimated at $910 million – is now $999.2 million…entirely due to inflation…”
Existing Daily Crossings Source: Mississippi River Crossings: Average Daily Traffic History, Illinois Department of Transportation.
There is no question that additional capacity is needed across the Mississippi River between Illinois and Missouri in the East-West Gateway region.
Bridge Alternatives: Components • Proposed MRB (I-70) • Proposed MLK “Coupler” • Proposed I-64 Connector and “Tri-Level” Interchange • Proposed IL-3 Relocation & Connector
“Build” Alternatives Considered • New Mississippi River Bridge (MRB: I-70) • Current EIS/ROD pending • Capital cost (YOE): $999.2 million • New Mississippi River Bridge with all connectors and ramps (MRB: I-70/I-64/IL-3) • Capital cost (YOE): $1,762.5 million • New Mississippi River Bridge with principal connectors and ramps (MRB: I-70/I-64) • Capital cost (YOE): $1,561.5 million • Proposed Martin Luther King Bridge “Coupler” • Capital cost (YOE): $545.9 million
Other Alternatives Considered • Improvements to Existing Network (“TSM”) • Connectors, ramps, geometric improvements • Capital cost: $450 million (+/-) • “No Build” • Reference point or “datum” • Capital cost: $0
MRB: I-70 • Components: • I-70 Bridge • Cost Estimate: $999.2M (YOE) • Proposed Schedule: 2009-2014 • NEPA Status: ROD proposed 2007 • Potential Committed Funding: • SAFETEA-LU Earmarks: $239M • Additional IDOT Funding: $210M • Tolling Considered: Yes
MRB: I-70/ I-64 / IL-3 • Components: • I-70 Bridge • I-64 Connection • IL-3 Relocation & Connection • Cost Estimate:$1,762.5M (YOE) • Proposed Schedule:2009-2014 • NEPA Status: ROD proposed 2007 • Potential Committed Funding: • SAFETEA-LU Earmarks: $239M • Additional IDOT Funding: $226M • Tolling Considered: Yes
MRB: I-70 / I-64 • Components: • I-70 Bridge • I-64 Connection • Cost Estimate: $1,561.5M (YOE) • Proposed Schedule: 2009-2014 • NEPA Status: ROD proposed 2007 • Potential Committed Funding: • SAFETEA-LU Earmarks: $239M • Additional IDOT Funding: $226M • Tolling Considered: Yes
MLK Coupler Bridge • Components: • I-70 Bridge • Cost Estimate: $545.9M (YOE) • Proposed Schedule: 2012-2014 • NEPA Status: Not Analyzed • Potential Committed Funding: • SAFETEA-LU Earmarks: $239M • Additional IDOT Funding: $210M • Tolling Considered: No
Comparison of Alternatives • Enhance network capacity • Improve local, regional, and national movement of people and goods • Reduce congestion and traffic delay • Provide redundancy for periods during which one or more of the other bridges are partially or fully closed for repairs and rehabilitation
Forecasts and Projections • Utilized updated EWG modeling system • Based on comprehensive household surveys done in 2002 • Validated “on the ground” with 2002 traffic
Travel Forecasting: Toll Facilities • How many drivers will use a toll bridge, and how many will choose free alternatives? • Time saved through congestion avoidance • Financial considerations (household income, etc.) • Diversion is based on travel time savings, toll amount, and availability of “free” alternatives
Projected Traffic:2020 Downtown Bridges Traffic Volume Comparison MRB Poplar Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run
Projected Congestion Levels:2020 AM Westbound Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio MLKCoupler MRBw/out tolls MRBwith tolls CONGESTION Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run
Projected Congestion Levels:2020 PM Eastbound Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio MLKCoupler MRBw/out tolls MRBwith tolls CONGESTION Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run
Local and Regional Travel Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run
Projected Annual Travel Time Savings:All Bridges Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run
Key Findings • MRB 70 does not optimize transportation benefits without the I-64 connection • MRB 70/64 connection is the most cost-effective “MRB” alternative, with a capital cost of $1.56 billion • MLK Coupler provides some 60% of the user benefits of MRB 70/64 at about 35% of the cost • Tolling reduces the effectiveness of all MRB alternatives
Funding Sources • Committed Sources • SAFETEA-LU Earmarks ($239 million) • IDOT Funding ($210 million) • Potential Sources • Local/regional taxes/assessments • Additional federal support • Tolls • Public Tolling Authority • Public-Private Partnership/Concession
Potential Supplemental Funding: Toll Revenue • Public Toll Agency • Public-Private Partnership Concession
Public-Private Partnership Concession • 75-Year Concession Period • 99-Year Concession Period
What is the Funding Potential? (Order of Magnitude Estimates) Public-Private PartnershipConcession Approach:99-Year Period Public-Private PartnershipConcession Approach:75-Year Period Public Toll Agency Approach $80 - $160 M $180 - $360 M $250 - $470 M
Key Findings: Financing the Project • Tolling significantly reduces the effectiveness of all alternatives • However, in the absence of other viable sources, tolling and PPP/Concession could provide funding to partially offset shortfall • Remaining shortfall for MRB 70/64 is in the range of $700 M • Concession approach could create difficulty in improving existing free bridges, approach ramps, and connections • Funding shortfall for MLK Coupler is approximately $100 M
Choices for the Future • Can all parties agree on numbers and forecasts? • Can Missouri and Illinois find common ground? • If there are insufficient sources of funds, will Illinois accept “discounted” tolls for Illinois residents to achieve equity? • If a toll authority or concession cannot be achieved, will Missouri accept the MLK Coupler alternative? • Is the St. Louis business community willing to “pitch in?” • In the absence of consensus, should the committed funds be used for early action projects, and defer building the bridge?
Choices for the Future Option 1: • Move forward with most significant components of new bridge: MRB 70/64 • Close funding gap • Identify additional funding sources – public/private • Achieve consensus on tolling
Choices for the Future Option 2: • Move forward with MLK “Coupler” • Initiate design and environmental studies • Close funding gap • Identify additional public funding sources
Option 3: Move forward with improvements to the existing bridges I-70/I-64 “tri-level” interchange Connections from Poplar Bridge to Interstates Leaves open the possibility for future new bridge Choices for the Future
Option 4: Do nothing Reprogram federal earmarked funds Choices for the Future
Mississippi River BridgeAn Analysis of Alternatives Final Report Presentation January 31, 2007 Sharon Greene & Associates