1. Mississippi River Bridge An 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 Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run MRB Poplar

19. Projected Congestion Levels: 2020 AM Westbound Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run CONGESTION MRB w/out tolls MRB with tolls MLK Coupler

20. Projected Congestion Levels: 2020 PM Eastbound Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio Source: East-West Gateway Council of Government Travel Demand Model Run CONGESTION MRB w/out tolls MRB with tolls MLK Coupler

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 Toll Revenue Bond Range Percent of Total Project Costs MRB 70/64/3 $1 auto / $3 truck $100-$150 M6-9% MRB 70/64 $1 auto / $3 truck $100-$150 M7-9% MRB 70 $1 auto / $3 truck $80-$110 M8-11% MRB 70/64/3 $2 auto / $4 truck $80-$160 M5-9%

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 75-Year Concession Value Percent of Total Project Costs 99-Year Concession Value Percent of Total Project Costs MRB 70/64/3 $1 auto / $3 truck $235-$335 M13-19%$325-$470 M18-27% MRB 70/64 $1 auto / $3 truck $235-$330 M15-21%$330-$460 M21-24% MRB 70 $1 auto / $3 truck $185-$250 M19-25%$260-$350 M26-35% MRB 70/64/3 $2 auto / $4 truck $180-$360 M10-20%$254-$490 M14-28%

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 Toll Agency Approach Public-Private Partnership Concession Approach: 75-Year Period Public-Private Partnership Concession Approach: 99-Year Period $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. Choices for the Future 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

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

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