Mississippi River Bridge An Analysis of Alternatives

1. Mississippi River BridgeAn Analysis of Alternatives DRAFT Final Report Presentation January 31, 2007

2. Overview • Study Objectives • Alternatives Considered • Comparison of Alternatives • Key Findings • Choices for the Future

3. Study Objectives • Provide common understanding • Existing and projected traffic conditions • Bridge alternatives • Capital costs • Committed funding • Potential funding shortfalls • Identify options for moving forward

4. 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…”

5. Existing Network

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

7. There is no question that additional capacity is needed across the Mississippi River between Illinois and Missouri in the East-West Gateway region.

8. Bridge Alternatives: Components • Proposed MRB (I-70) • Proposed MLK “Coupler” • Proposed I-64 Connector and “Tri-Level” Interchange • Proposed IL-3 Relocation & Connector

9. “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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Forecasts and Projections • Utilized updated EWG modeling system • Based on comprehensive household surveys done in 2002 • Validated “on the ground” with 2002 traffic

17. 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

18. Projected Traffic:2020 Downtown Bridges Traffic Volume Comparison MRB Poplar Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

19. 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

20. 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

21. Local and Regional Travel Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run

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

23. 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

24. 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

25. Committed Funding and Funding Gap

26. Potential Supplemental Funding: Toll Revenue • Public Toll Agency • Public-Private Partnership Concession

27. Public Toll Agency Approach:Potential Bond Issue

28. Public Toll Agency – Funding Scenario

29. Public-Private Partnership Concession • 75-Year Concession Period • 99-Year Concession Period

30. Public-Private Partnership Concession:Potential Bid Value

31. Private Concession: 75-Year Funding Scenario

32. Private Concession: 99-Year Funding Scenario

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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?

36. 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

37. Choices for the Future Option 2: • Move forward with MLK “Coupler” • Initiate design and environmental studies • Close funding gap • Identify additional public funding sources

38. 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

39. Option 4: Do nothing Reprogram federal earmarked funds Choices for the Future

40. Mississippi River BridgeAn Analysis of Alternatives Final Report Presentation January 31, 2007 Sharon Greene & Associates