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 / 44

Mississippi River Bridge An Analysis of Alternatives - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 319 Views
  • Uploaded on

Mississippi River Bridge An Analysis of Alternatives. Expert Panel Review. Sharon Greene & Associates. Agenda. Purpose and Need for New Bridge Existing Conditions Definition of Alternatives Comparison of Alternatives. Purpose of Project.

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

Mississippi River Bridge An Analysis of Alternatives


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
    1. Mississippi River BridgeAn Analysis of Alternatives Expert Panel Review Sharon Greene & Associates

    2. Agenda • Purpose and Need for New Bridge • Existing Conditions • Definition of Alternatives • Comparison of Alternatives

    3. Purpose of Project “The purpose of the proposed action is to relieve increasingly severe traffic congestion and reduce traffic crashes on downtown St. Louis-area Mississippi River crossings, especially on the Poplar Street Bridge (I-55/70/64), thereby avoiding economic stagnation at the core of the region.” Source: Mississippi River Crossing: Relocated I-70 and I-64 Connector, Final Environmental Impact Statement, March 2001.

    4. Need for Project • Improve travel capacity and travel efficiency • Improve system linkages and community access • Reduce traffic crashes • Reduce travel times • Avoid economic stagnation Source: Mississippi River Crossing: Relocated I-70 and I-64 Connector, Final Environmental Impact Statement, March 2001.

    5. Existing Downtown Crossings McKinley Bridge ML King Bridge Eads Bridge Poplar Street Bridge

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

    7. Existing Conditions:Downtown AM Peak Westbound Destinations 3,877 (35%) 1,762 (16%) 10,964 TotalPeak Hour Trips CBD I-70 Mississippi River 3,847 (35%) I-64 I-55 Source: Mississippi River Crossings: Overview of Travel Patterns, East-West Council of Governments, September 2005. N 1,478 (13%)

    8. Existing Conditions:Poplar AM Peak Westbound Destinations 979 (14%) CBD 463 (7%) 6,767 TotalPeak Hour Trips I-70 Mississippi River 3,847 (57%) I-64 Poplar I-55 Source: Mississippi River Crossings: Overview of Travel Patterns, East-West Council of Governments, September 2005. N 1,478 (22%)

    9. Existing Conditions:All Downtown Crossings by Vehicle TypeAM Peak, Westbound Destinations Source: Special Traffic Counts, East-West Council of Governments, December 2006.

    10. Existing Conditions:Poplar Street Crossings by Vehicle TypeAM Peak, Westbound Destinations Source: Mississippi River Crossings: Overview of Travel Patterns, East-West Council of Governments, September 2005.

    11. Existing Conditions:Poplar Street Crossings by Vehicle Type: Off-Peak OnlyWest bound Destinations Source: Mississippi River Crossings: Overview of Travel Patterns, East-West Council of Governments, September 2005.

    12. Alternatives Under Consideration McKinley Bridge Proposed IL-3 Proposed MRB Proposed I-64 Proposed Coupler Bridge ML King Bridge Eads Bridge Poplar Street Bridge

    13. MRB: No Connections • Landside Improvements: None • Capital 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 Proposed MRB

    14. MRB: With I-64 Connector • Landside Improvements: I-64 Connection • Capital 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: $210M • Tolling Considered: Yes Proposed MRB Proposed I-64

    15. MRB: With I-64 and IL-3 Connections • Landside Improvements: I-64 Connection and IL-3 Connection • Capital 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: $210M • Tolling Considered: Yes Proposed IL-3 Proposed MRB Proposed I-64

    16. MLK Coupler Bridge • Landside Improvements: None • Capital 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 Proposed Coupler Bridge

    17. Comparison of Alternatives • Congestion Reduction • Network Connectivity • Travel Time Savings • Regional Economic Development Impacts • Potential for Revenue Generation

    18. Congestion Reduction:2020 Traffic Volume Comparison 391,378 392,079 391,828 391,232 391,346 391,254 391,220 381,755 371,705 246,400 246,248 242,625 234,238 233,609 230,861 230,135 232,368 214,358 Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    19. Congestion Reduction:2020 Traffic Volume Comparison Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    20. Congestion Reduction:2020 AM Westbound Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    21. Congestion Reduction:2020 PM Eastbound Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    22. Travel Patterns MRB: All Connections

    23. Internal/External Trips Analysis:New MRB Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    24. Internal/External Trips Analysis:Poplar Street Bridge Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    25. Internal/External Trips Analysis:Change on Poplar Street Bridge Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    26. Annual Travel Time Savings:All Bridges Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    27. Average Travel Time for AM Westbound Trips:Poplar, New MRB, and MLK Bridges Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    28. Average Travel Time Between Key Origins and Destinations

    29. Average Travel Time Savings Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    30. Average Travel Time Savings Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    31. Average Travel Time Savings Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    32. Average Travel Time Savings Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    33. Regional Economic Development Impacts • Little definitive data is available • Business community forecasts show positive impacts in qualitative terms • Changes in the rate of growth and traffic within the region over the last 10 years raises issues related to economic growth: • Will a new bridge spur new net growth, and hence contribute positively to the region’s economy? • Will the absence of a new bridge hinder potential growth with an inherent negative impacts on the region’s economy?

    34. Potential Toll Revenue Generation • Toll Diversion Rates • Assumptions • Potential Revenue Generation • Potential Funding Scenario

    35. Estimated Toll Diversion Rates:Travel Demand Model Results Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

    36. Potential Toll Bond Revenue Generation: Assumptions • Weekend traffic levels: 0.5 * weekday levels • Annualization Factors • Weekday: 250 • Weekend: 115 • Toll Rate Scenarios: • $1 Auto / $3 Truck • $2 Auto / $4 Truck • Annual O&M Cost:10% of Annual Toll Revenue • Debt Coverage Level: 1.4 • Bond Amortization: 30 years @ 5.75%

    37. Potential Toll Bond Revenue Generation Estimate:Travel Demand Model Results (in millions)

    38. Potential Funding Scenarios:Travel Demand Model Results

    39. Potential Funding Scenarios:Travel Demand Model Results

    40. Potential Toll Bond Revenue Generation: Additional Consultant Assumption • $1 Auto / $3 Truck Diversion Rate = 50% • $2 Auto / $4 Truck Diversion Rate = 70%

    41. Potential Toll Bond Revenue Generation Estimate:Consultant Assumption (in millions)

    42. Potential Funding Scenarios:Consultant Assumptions

    43. Potential Funding Scenarios:Consultant Assumptions

    44. Questions?