mississippi river bridge an analysis of alternatives l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Mississippi River Bridge An Analysis of Alternatives PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Mississippi River Bridge An Analysis of Alternatives

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 40

Mississippi River Bridge An Analysis of Alternatives - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 212 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Mississippi River Bridge An Analysis of Alternatives' - liam


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
mississippi river bridge an analysis of alternatives

Mississippi River BridgeAn Analysis of Alternatives

DRAFT Final Report Presentation

January 31, 2007

overview
Overview
  • Study Objectives
  • Alternatives Considered
  • Comparison of Alternatives
  • Key Findings
  • Choices for the Future
study objectives
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
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
Existing Daily Crossings

Source: Mississippi River Crossings: Average Daily Traffic History, Illinois Department of Transportation.

slide7

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
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
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Local and Regional Travel

Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

projected annual travel time savings all bridges
Projected Annual Travel Time Savings:All Bridges

Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

key findings
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
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
Potential Supplemental Funding: Toll Revenue
  • Public Toll Agency
  • Public-Private Partnership Concession
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
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
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
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 future36
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 future37
Choices for the Future

Option 2:

  • Move forward with MLK “Coupler”
  • Initiate design and environmental studies
  • Close funding gap
    • Identify additional public funding sources
choices for the future38
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
choices for the future39
Option 4:

Do nothing

Reprogram federal earmarked funds

Choices for the Future
mississippi river bridge an analysis of alternatives40

Mississippi River BridgeAn Analysis of Alternatives

Final Report Presentation

January 31, 2007

Sharon Greene & Associates