HOT Lanes on I-77

1. HOT Lanes on I-77 Today vs 2010 May 6, 2013

2. 2010: MUMPO Priority #93 Source: 2035 LRTP

3. 2010: The Initial Solution Source: “I-77 Feasibility Study HOV-HOT Lanes Conversion”, Parsons- Brinkerhoff, May 6, 2010

4. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 • Environmental restrictions • There’s no money • It can only be spent HOT lanes • MUMPO priority • State priority

5. Speaker Thom Tillis on Tolling I-77 "I think the takeaway is that… the choice is (a high-occupancy toll lane) project ... or no improvements to I-77 for 15 or 20 years." Source: “Tillis: Toll Lanes or Wait 20 Years for I-77 Widening”, LKN Citizen, March 27, 2013

6. The Current HOT Lane Proposal 27.5 Miles of HOT Lanes Cost: $550 Million Source: “I-77 HOT Lanes Project Overview NCSITE Lunch N’ Learn”, August 21, 2012; “I-77 Widening Update”, MUMPO (Bill Coxe), Sept 19, 2012; “Billions invested in Roads”, Charlotte Observer, Jan 14, 2013

7. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 • Environmental restrictions • There’s no money • It can only be spent HOT lanes • State priority • MUMPO priority

8. Environmental Restrictions • 2010: GP lanes must have full-blown EA • Today: MAP 21 Legislation… • Grants categorical exclusion to every capacity addition within the existing ROW… • Puts GP lanes on same legal footing as toll lanes Key Enabling Environmental Legislation Now In Place.

9. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 • Environmental restrictions • There’s no money • It can only be spent HOT lanes • State priority • MUMPO priority

10. Cost Breakdown I-77 Toll Lanes -$M Source: “Billions invested in Roads”, Charlotte Observer, Jan 14, 2013

11. A GP Lane Estimate A ballpark cost for two GP lanes from exit 23 to exit 36: $80- $130M Source: “I-77 HOT Discussion with Cornelius Town Board”, email from Bill Coxe to Andrew Grant, Oct. 10, 2012

12. Toll Lanes vs GP Lanes Public Funds: $170M GP lanes: $80- $130M

13. Why the difference? Majority of travel time savings Majority of Cost Source: RFP

14. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 Environmental restrictions There’s no money It can only be spent HOT lanes State priority MUMPO priority

15. HOT Lane Funding- Federal What do the Feds Say? Source: NCDOT

16. From the NCDOT WidenI-77: “Does Federal funding (NHPP) receive a higher priority due to HOT lanes?” NCDOT: ”We are going to get the same amount… from the feds funding regardless of what projects we build.  The feds play no part in the selection process for projects that use NHPP funding.” So the Feds are a non-issue… Source: NCDOT

17. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 Environmental restrictions There’s no money It can only be spent HOT lanes MUMPO priority State priority

18. Speaker Tillis on MUMPO • “Unless the local entity prioritizing roads changes that (prioritization), the only way you could potentially move up is to move other things down.“ - Mar 27, 2013 (emphasis added)

19. MUMPO Criteria Source: LRTP Roadway Project Ranking Methodology, MUMPO

20. MUMPO Tier 1 Impact on I-77 GP Lanes Priority Highly Negative Highly Positive Source: LRTP Roadway Project Ranking Methodology; MUMPO LRTP Roadway Ranking Methodology, approved 11/14/07

21. MUMPO Tier 2 Impact on I-77 GP Lanes Priority Source: Ibid. Highly Positive Highly Negative I-77 General Purpose Lanes Poised to Be Much Higher Priority

22. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 Environmental restrictions There’s no money It can only be spent HOT lanes MUMPO priority State priority

23. State Priority- As Is Priority What if MUMPO Supported GP Lanes? Source: Prioritization Scores for Roads, NCDOT

24. State Priority w/MUMPO Priority Priority With Local Support, I77 Moves to the Top of the List…

25. State Priority Based on Merit Priority Competing on Merit, There’s a Clear Winner…

26. McCrory Plan- Allocation A B C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 E D F G Division(20%) ~$1.2B Regional (40%) ~$2.4B Statewide (40%) ~$2.4B Project Merit (Data) Per capita by region Equally to Divisions Interstates/ NHS/STRAHNET /Tolls/Etc (S) + Hwys, Airport, Rail, Transit (S) + (R) + Local Three-Plus Chances for Funding GP Lanes HB817, Strategic Transportation Investments,

27. McCrory Plan- Criteria Division(20%) ~$1.2B Regional (40%) ~$2.4B Statewide (40%) ~$2.4B • Benefit/Cost • Congestion • Economic competitiveness • Freight • Multi-modal • Pavement condition • Lane width • Shoulder width • 100% • Benefit/Cost • Congestion • Economic competitiveness • Freight • Multi-modal • Pavement condition • Lane width • Shoulder width • 70% • Benefit/Cost • Congestion • Economic competitiveness • Freight • Multi-modal • Pavement condition • Lane width • Shoulder width • 50% • Local considerations • 50% • Local considerations • 30% Much Greater Emphasis on Project Merit

28. Local Participation • 50% bonus allocation for local government funding participation • For projects that serve the local entity providing the funding • 50% bonus allocation for toll revenue bonds • For projects within the county (or counties) of the toll project

29. Environmental restrictions There’s no money It can only be spent HOT lanes MUMPO priority State priority Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010

30. Summarizing All the necessary technical elements are coming together to build GP lanes sooner rather than later Funding ($170M) Federal Legislation (MAP 21) State Legislation The state priority is a function of MUMPO priority With MUMPO priority, the project obtains NCDOT support Completely Different Picture Than in 2010

31. Conclusions & Recommendation • Conclusions • The proposed GP project calls for LESS taxpayer funding • The project will compete favorably on its own merit • Recommendation for MUMPO • Rank I-77 GP lane projects according to new criteria BEFORE amending LTRP for HOT Lanes • Determine project timing for GP lanes under this new paradigm