HOT Lanes on I-77 Widen I-77 March 3, 2015. The Purpose of P3 Legislation Source: I-77 Mobility Partners Brief in Favor of Motion to Strike and In Opposition.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
New Public Transit Alliance (NuPTA) RIPEC Study: Transportation at a Crossroads (2002) Growing Smart with Transit: A Report of the Transit 2020 Working.
Advertisements

Urban Transportation Council Green Guide for Roads Task Force TAC 2009 Annual Conference and Exhibition Vancouver.
Summary of $475 million Bond Issue and Capital Financing Options Practiced By the State System of Higher Education in Oklahoma Practiced By the State System.
Getting Started with Congestion Pricing A Workshop for Local Partners Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations.
Joint Task Force on Local Effort Assistance Staff Presentation June 13, 2002 Bryon Moore, Senate Ways and Means Committee Staff Denise Graham, House Appropriations.
HOT Lanes on I-77 An imminent calamity Jan 14, 2013.
HOT Lanes on I-77 How did we get here and what do we do? October 30, 2014.
Project Construction Update August 30, 2011 I-5 North Stockton Freeway Widening and Pavement Reconstruction Project Between Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
How can we relieve congestion in the I-95 corridor? I-95 Congestion Relief Study.
Tysons 1 Operational Analysis of Dulles Toll Road Ramps to Tysons Board Transportation Committee Meeting September 17, 2013 Seyed Nabavi Fairfax County.
Route 28 South of I-66 Corridor Safety and Operations Study Technical Committee Meeting #2 June 25,
1 Interstate 405 Update. 2 Presentation Overview  Share public perceptions and provide information  Answer frequently asked questions related to express.
Jeffrey F. Paniati Associate Administrator for Operations Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Enabling Congestion Pricing in the.
21 st Century Committee Report Recommendations NC 73 Council of Planning Annual Meeting January 22, 2009.
Less Stop More Go EXPRESS LANES Travel Choices and Strategies to Relieve Congestion Presentation to FDOT’s Annual ITS Working Group Meeting March 2008.
2014 Budget Department Presentations Infrastructure Funding Options.
National Road Pricing Conference June 4, 2010 Jennifer Tsien, PBS&J Angela Jacobs, Federal Highway Administration.
National Road Pricing Conference June 4, 2010 Mark Burris, Texas Transportation Institute Jessie Yung, Federal Highway Administration.
Freight Bottleneck Study Update to the Intermodal, Freight, and Safety Subcommittee of the Regional Transportation Council September 12, 2002 North Central.
Large Starts Issues for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking New Starts/Small Starts Listening Session and Seminar San Francisco, CA February 15-16, 2006.
BPAC. “Congestion management is the application of strategies to improve transportation system performance and reliability by reducing the adverse impacts.
General Purpose Lanes on I-77 The Plan… February, 2015.
Pat Bursaw, Minnesota DOT International Partnership Meeting Washington D.C. January 26, 2012.
Urban Partnership Agreement Summary August 27, 2007.
Briefing on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Operations Coordination (MATOC) Program Presentation to the Transportation Planning Board Michael.
Portland North Small Starts Alternatives Analysis Coordination Meeting June 16, 2009.
OPEN HOUSE #4 JUNE AGENDA OPEN HOUSE 6:00 PM  Review materials  Ask questions  Provide feedback  Sign up for list  Fill out comment.
HOT Lanes on I-77 What we don’t know… Sept 9, 2014.
Modeling HOT Lanes TPB’s Approach AMPO Travel Modeling Group March 21, 2006 I:\ateam\meetings_conf\ampo_tms\ \Hot_Lane_Pres_to_AMPO_Final.ppt.
Interstate 95 Corridor Improvement Program June 20, 2012.
WELCOME! July 31, 2012 ODOT District July 31, 2012 PURPOSE OF TONIGHT’S MEETING Introduce the project –Reconstruct I-75.
Portland North Small Starts Alternatives Analysis Coordination Meeting June 15, 2009.
Overview of PPI’s in Georgia April 26, 2006 Earl Mahfuz, Treasurer.
HOT Lanes on I-77 Widen I-77 Goes To Raleigh Apr 3, 2013.
4733 Bethesda Ave, Suite 600 Bethesda, MD (P) Developing Criteria for Project Programming.
FAST Lanes Program Transportation and General Government Policy Committee Association of Metropolitan Municipalities August 16, 2004 Minnesota Department.
SAFETEA-LU Operations, ITS, and Freight Provisions Jeffrey F. Paniati Office of Operations Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation.
HOT Lanes on I-77 What do we do now? July 24, 2014.
SAFETEA-LU System Management and Operations Key Provisions Jeff Lindley Office of Operations Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation.
91 Express Lanes Kirk Avila Treasurer/General Manager.
Review of the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 2007 Urban Mobility Report By Ronald F. Kirby Daivamani Sivasailam TPB Technical Committee October 5,
Analysis of the IH 35 Corridor Through the Austin Metropolitan Area TRB Planning Applications Conference Jeff Shelton Karen Lorenzini Alex Valdez Tom Williams.
THE EL MONTE HOV / BUSWAY: A Policy Driven Experiment in Congestion Management Frank Quon Division of Operations Deputy District Director HOV LANES IN.
1 MnDOT Metro District Proposed Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment Metropolitan Council January 17, 2007.
PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS Good roads creating a great system.
I-680 Value Pricing: A HOT Lane Demonstration Project of “Smart Carpool Lanes” Sponsor: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency 2003 Sponsor: Alameda.
HOT Lane Discussion Sept 4, CA 91 (LA Area) I-15 (San Diego) Some HOT Lane Examples.
Review of the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 2007 Urban Mobility Report By Ronald F. Kirby Presentation to Transportation Planning Board October.
Company LOGO Georgia Truck Lane Needs Identification Study Talking Freight Seminar March 19, 2008 Matthew Fowler, P.T.P Assistant State Planning Administrator.
HOT Lanes on I-77 More Questions Than Answers Feb 22, 2013.
Unit 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (LRTP) LCTCC Educational Program.
1 520 Tolling Implementation Committee Cascadia Center for Regional Development Beyond Oil Conference Thursday, September 4, 2008 Richard Ford, Commissioner.
Garden State Parkway HOT Lanes By Matt Lawson October 14, 2010.
Town of Lincoln Finance Committee 1 FinComm Recommendations Warrant Articles We support Renovation of the Lincoln Schools – With our facility needs,
Using Public-Private Partnerships to Move More People The Story of HOT Lanes in Northern Virginia January 30, 2017 Morteza Farajian, Ph.D.
Integrating Transit and Highway Solutions In High Volume Corridors
Macro / Meso / Micro Framework on I-395 HOT Lane Conversion
Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study
I-77 High-Occupancy Toll Lanes
Overview of FHWA CMAQ & System Performance Measures
Sully District Council of Citizens Associations January 25, 2017 Susan Shaw, P.E., Megaprojects Director Virginia Department of Transportation.
TVTC Impact Fee Update Nexus Study January 30, 2008
21st Century Transportation Committee Finance Subcommittee
San Mateo Countywide Transportation Plan update
HOT Lanes on I-77 Today vs 2010 May 6, 2013.
Undoing the “done deal”
Briefing to HRTAC re: HRBT Expansion Project Cost Estimates, Funding Mechanisms, and Next Steps December 13, 2018.
Joint Committee Meeting: Highway and Finance & Budget
An Easier Commute Coming Soon
Parks Highway Reconstruction: Lucas Road to Big Lake Road
Presentation transcript:

HOT Lanes on I-77 Widen I-77 March 3, 2015

The Purpose of P3 Legislation Source: I-77 Mobility Partners Brief in Favor of Motion to Strike and In Opposition to Preliminary Injunction, p17. Problem: Congested roads. Limited funding. A Solution: Tolls.

I-77 Corridor is Heavily Congested “Plaintiff does not dispute the facts that I-77 suffers from severe traffic congestion or that increased lane capacity is needed to improve mobility in the Project Area.” --- I-77 Mobility Partners Brief in Favor of Motion to Strike and In Opposition to Preliminary Injunction, p3 (emphasis added)

Stantec Memos

NB Afternoon Commute- Oct 2011 Charlotte Segment Travel Speed (mph) Mooresville Davidson Huntersville Cornelius Source: I-77 HOT Lanes Technical Memorandum #1, p. 11, Stantec, Mar 8, 2012

SB Morning Commute- Oct 2011 Huntersville Cornelius Charlotte Segment Travel Speed (mph) Mooresville Davidson Huntersville Cornelius Source: I-77 HOT Lanes Technical Memorandum #1, p. 11, Stantec, Mar 8, 2012

The Problem Congested stretch of four lane road from ~mm21 to exit 36 “In both the Northbound and Southbound directions, congestion is attributable to high demand for the two-lane sections of I-77.” Source: I-77 HOT Lanes Technical Memorandum #1, Stantec, Mar 8, 2012; p.11.

A Solution Add a general purpose lane in both directions 13 miles $ M (est) Source: “I-77 Feasibility Study,” Parsons Brinkerhoff, December 7, 2009

The Current HOT Lane Solution Privately Operated Toll Lanes 27.5 Miles $655 M Source: NCDOT Press Release, April 11, 2014

Difference  ~13miles27.5miles  ~$100 million$655 million (All taxpayer funds)($118M taxpayer funds)  2-4 lanesAll of RoW  Able to expandU.R.I.F. Toll Lanes General Purpose Lanes No improvements for 50 years

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

The Cost Of Toll Lanes Source: I-77 JLTCO Report, , WI77 analysis

Taxpayer Obligation  Taxpayer Contribution$88M For private tolling lanes  Taxpayer Bonus Allocation$30M For improving private toll lanes  Taxpayer Subsidy$75M To cover potential revenue shortfalls Private Project Likely Costs Taxpayer More Than Public Project Source: I-77 JLTCO Report, ; CRTPO Meeting Agenda, Feb 18, 2015 Capital Contribution: $118M Taxpayer Exposure: $193M

How the HOT Lanes Work  Built and operated under an exclusive 50 year contract  Vehicles with 3+ occupants use lane for free  Electronic Tolling- no toll booths  Guaranteed minimum speed No limit on tolls  “Congestion pricing” More congestion in “free” lanes = higher price to use toll lanes Business Model Ensures Congestion

Toll project ensures congestion- 1  “One inherent but sobering assumption in all this is that the GP lanes (in any project) are/were congested and for the most part, would remain congested, for this is why the justification for an express lane exists in the first place. No one wants congestion in the GP lanes. So the express lane provides an option, not a full solution. Indeed, if congestion in the GP lanes ever dissolves, than (sic) the incentive to use an express lane would dissolve too.” Neil Spiller Program Manager, Access Management FHWA Office of Operations- Office of Travel Management communication approved by FHWA Public Affairs Office, Feb 4, 2013 (emphasis added)

Toll project ensures congestion- 2  “The analysis included in the (toll project) indicated modest improvements to average travel speed (all vehicles) and person trips processed with minimal impact to the travel speed in the existing general purpose lanes.” -- MUMPO TCC I-77 Task Force Meeting August 8, 2012 RFP Issues memo, August 13, 2012 Bill Coxe, Chair, Technical Coordinating Committee, Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization

Toll project ensures congestion Difference AM Commute (Minutes) PM Commute (Minutes) Total (Minutes) Source: I-77 HOT Lanes Technical Memorandum #6, Stantec, Sept 4, 2012 Commute Time Lengthens By An Hour per Day Average Commute Time In GP Lanes- Charlotte to Mooresville

Toll project ensures congestion- 4 “A result of increasing tolls with the objective of maximizing revenue is that the HOT lanes would operate under a condition where their utilization would be well below capacity thus by definition, not providing the maximum congestion relief in the corridor.” Source: I-77 HOT Lanes Technical Memorandum #4, p 12, Stantec, May 21, 2012 (emphasis added) Private Toll Lanes Are Not a Solution for I-77

Project Purpose “2.2 Summary of Project Purpose The purpose of the proposed action is to provide immediate travel time reliability along I-77 from Uptown Charlotte to the Lake Norman area. Because the project is designed to address an immediate need, the opening and design years are both proposed for 2017.” (emphasis added) I am unable to find “travel time reliability” in any NCGS

Toll Rates 2015 Source: I-77 HOT Lanes Technical Memorandum #6, Stantec, Sept 4, 2012 $20 Round Trip When Toll Lanes Open (2011 dollars)

Toll Rates 2035 Source: I-77 HOT Lanes Technical Memorandum #6, Stantec, Sept 4, 2012 $40 Round Trip In Twenty Years (2011 dollars)

Total Toll Revenue (50 Yrs) $13,688,380,000 Or $91,250 for every LKN resident Source: I-77 HOT Lanes Technical Memorandum #7, Stantec, Sept 5, 2012

Debt Service & Operating Expense Source: Financial Plan, (Comprehensive Agreement),Cintra, June 26, 2014; WI77 Analysis; “Managed Lane Pricing Guide”, FHWA, 2012 Historically high tolls required from second smallest metro area CA 91 I-95 MIA HOU, DEN, MSP, SAN + 6 OTHERS

A New Funding Paradigm: STI  Passed summer 2013 HB 817  Replaces Equity Formula  More data-driven Using objective criteria

The Legislature has determined congestion mitigation is a priority  GS Transportation Investment Strategy Formula The P3 Toll Project Fails This Priority

NCDOT STI Scores for Hypothetical I- 77 GP Projects How Does This Rank Against Other Statewide Projects? Source: “STI & I-77” press release, NCDOT, July 24, 2014

 I77 GP Project Lowest I77 scores higher than 25 funded projects Projects to be funded Projects unfunded I-77 GP project through Lake Norman 73 “Statewide” funded projects 377 Unfunded Projects Highest scoring funded project Lowest scoring funded project A General Purpose Lane Project Would Likely Be Funded Under STI… Source: STI STI 3.0 Total Score  I77 GP Project

Short time to wait for answer  “Under the STI law all projects that were projected for construction after July 1, 2015 are subject to scoring under the new funding formula.”  “Because the I-77 North Managed Lanes (North of I-277) project is scheduled to begin construction before July 1, 2015 it is not subject to the new law and was not scored under STI.” NCDOT has discussed tolling I-77 since Source: “STI & I-77” press release, NCDOT, July 24, 2014

Conclusions  The I-77 HOT Lane Project Does not solve the congestion problem Burdens middle and low income commuters with high tolls or excessive, increasing congestion- it’s a rich man’s road Siphons $13.6B out of our local economy Essentially eliminates the possibility of improvements for 50 years Involves substantial taxpayer obligation for a private project from which a private company will profit Costs the taxpayer more than a public project Carries significant risk of default Does not serve the public interest 50 years of tolling can wait another four months.

In Summary  The private toll lane project does not serve the public interest  It does not alleviate congestion… it ensures it. 50 years of tolling can wait another four months.

STI Corridor Cap  “No more than 10% (or about $200 million) may be assigned to any one project or group of projects within the same corridor during a five year period.”  …”I-77 South projects would out score, and use all of the corridor funds available for at least the next ten years….”  “Right of way purchase for the I-77 South projects begin in 2024, with actual construction still further out.” Rather than a 10 year wait, we have a 9 year window to widen I-77 Source: “STI & I-77” press release, NCDOT, July 24, 2014