Project Information. Application ID 2015-D11-01 Date Submitted 6/29/2015. County, Route, Section. JEF-Wellsburg Bridge

Transcription

1 Project Information Application ID 2015-D11-01 Date Submitted 6/29/2015 Date Revised Project Name New Ohio River Bridge County, Route, Section JEF-Wellsburg Bridge ODOT District District 11 County Jefferson ODOT PID Project Mode Roadway What is the current TRAC Tier on the Major New Construction Program List? What Tier are you requested as part of this application? Please Identity the work types associated with the project: Tier II Tier I - Construction New Roadway Alingment Other: New Bridge Project Description: This is a WVDOT-sponsored project to provide a new Ohio River bridge south of Wellsburg in Brooke County, WV and near the community of Brilliant in Wells Township in Jefferson County, OH. The project will include construction of the bridge, approach structures and roadway approaches. The bridge section will be 3-12' wide lanes with 6' wide shoulders and a separated 8' wide shared use path. WVDOT intends to award a design-build contract using a Public-Private Partnership agreement. This TRAC application is requesting Construction funding to be paid to WVDOT annually for a period of 10 years, beginning with FY TRAC Funding Application

2 Project Sponsor Information Project Name Sponsoring Agency New Ohio River Bridge BHJ Metropolitan Planning Commission Project Contact Michael Paprocki Phone (740) Address City 124 North Fourth St 2nd Floor Steubenville State OH Zip Code: What Type of Application Are you Submitting? Existing TRAC Project - Tier I, II or III project seeking additional funds to advance to the next stage of project development TRAC Funding Application

3 For New Projects - Please provide a brief Description of significant impact to jobs in Ohio as well as statewide economic impact TRAC Funding Application

4 Existing TRAC Projects Existing TRAC projects are not required to submit the complete application. The information submitted in your most recent application will be used in the evaluation and scoring of the application. However, since the level of project detail continually increases you can choose to update the following sections: Project Development Schedule & Milestones Roadway Segments Local Investments Yes No No Project Schedule New projects are required to supply project milestone information. Please select the status of each milestone below as either Not Yet Started, In Progress or Completed. Additionally please enter the corresponding date for the milestone and status. Status Date Planning Studies Complete 5/1/2003 Interchange Modification Study (IMS) / Interchange Justification Studies (IJS) Not Started 1/0/1900 Preliminary Engineering Studies Complete 11/1/2015 Environmental / NEPA Approval Complete 11/18/2013 Detailed Design Not Started 1/0/1900 Right-of-way Acquisition Not Started 7/1/2016 Utility Relocation Not Started 12/1/ TRAC Funding Application

5 Transportation Information In an effort to understand the complex issues associated with the project TRAC collects a variety of transportation related data and information in the evaluation process including: congestion data, safety data, truck traffic, and model derived transportation values; such as, cost/benefit analysis and air quality. The roadway segments associated with the application is the basis of this analysis. Transit and Freight related projects should identify the roadway segments that will receive the benefit from projects New project applications must identify the primary roadway segment that will be improved by the project and ancillary roadways that will be improved as part of the project. Primary Roadway Segment ODOT NLFID Begin Point End Point Secondary Roadway Segments New Roadways / New Alignment New Ohio River Bridge Begin Latitude Begin longitude End Latitude End longitude TRAC Funding Application

6 Transit Multi-Modal Project Information Transit Type 0 Route/Number 0 Peak Hour Ridership 0 Existing Capacity 0 Existing Peak Hour Ridership / Capacity Ratio 0 Added Peak Hour Capacity 0 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction 0 Freight Multi-Modal Project Information Freight Type 0 Route/Number 0 Existing Freight Volume 0 Existing Freight Capacity 0 Existing Freight Volume / Existing Freight Capacity Ratio 0 Freight Capacity Increase 0 Truck Miles Traveled (TMT) Reduction TRAC Funding Application

7 Strategic Transportation System (STS) Connections The Strategic Transportation System (STS), identified as part of Access Ohio ODOT s long range transportation plan - stratifies Ohio s significant transportation corridors and inter-modal hubs across Ohio. Additional information about the STS and Access Ohio 2040 can be view at the Access Ohio 2040 Website Is the project part of an STS corridor? Yes Will the project facilitate a connection between two or more corridors or modal hubs identified on the STS? No Please provide a brief explanation as to how this project will facilitate a connection between two or more STS resources. 0 Will the project connect an STS resource with a local freight or transit facility or resource? Yes Please provide a brief explanation as to how this project will connect an STS resource with a local freight or transit facility or resource This bridge will connect Ohio SR 7 with West Virginia SR 2 along the Ohio River. There is a Northern Panhandle Business Development Corporation (BDC) owned Industrial Development Site along West Virginia SR 2 approximately one mile south of the proposed bridge. The BDC is similar to a port authority in Ohio TRAC Funding Application

8 Local Investment Factors Built Out Local Attributes Local Investment factors analysis and evaluation of the dollar value of existing, local built-out attributes such as streets, water, and land use. For this analysis TRAC has standardized the project area as a onemile "rectangular" buffer around the primary roadway segment. Additionally TRAC also considers percentage of acres served by local services within the rectangular buffer with the the following formula: (Length of the primary roadway segment in miles + 2 miles) x 2 miles x 640 acres) What is the length of the primary roadway segment being improved by the project? 0.2 Estimated Project Area Acerage 2,816 What is the estimated percentage of acres being served by the local services within the estimated project area calculated above? Local Streets and Roadways 100 Electrical Service 90 Water and Sewer Service 90 What is the estimated square footage for the following building types within the calculated project area? Light Industrial 3,407,000 Heavy Industrial 34,808,000 Warehouse 315,000 Commerical 27,000 Insitutional 1,382,000 What is the estimated percentage of road route miles served by transit routes (excluding ADA/Para Transit) within the project area? TRAC Funding Application

9 What is the estimated percentage of existing building square footage that is currently vacant? 8.1 New Local Investments TRAC will consider the monetized value of public investments or commitments for new, non-project infrastructure and private investments within 5-year time horzion prior to and after the date of this TRAC Application. What is the dollar value of committed or recent public investment in new, non-project infrastructure within the project area? (Millions) What is the present value of private investment in existing facilities within the project area? (Millions) Local Investment Factors Economic Distress - Poverty & Unemployment Rates As part of the application scoring process, ODOT collects county level information as the standard measurement for poverty and unemployment factors; however, if a project sponor provides defensible data at a sub-county or census tract level, TRAC can consider that level of geographic analysis for scoring and evaluation. Do you want to enter distress values for a subcounty area to be used in the evaluation of this application? County No - I want to use the information collected by ODOT. Jefferson Sub-County Poverty Rate Poverty Rate Data Source Sub-County Unempolyment Rate Unempolyment Rate Data Source 2015 TRAC Funding Application

10 Project Funding Plan TRAC Funding Reqeust Please indicate the amount of funding being requested by phase and fiscal year. Funding requests should consider the funding that will be needed with the next two fiscal years. Which phase(s) you are requesting new TRAC funding for as part of this application? CO - Construction Amount (Millions) Requested Fiscal Year PE Funding Request 0 DD Funding Request 0 RW Funding Request 0 CO Funding Request $ Total New TRAC Funding Reqeust $ Has TRAC previously committed funding for the development or construction of this project? Yes PE DD RW CO $ 0.60 $ 2.00 $ 0.90 Will additional TRAC funds be needed for future phases of development or construction? No PE DD RW CO 2015 TRAC Funding Application

11 Local Funding Commitments Project Development and construction can be funded with multiple local funding sources. The questions below will help identify the funding sources for this project. Will local funding sources be used in the development or construction of this project? What is the total number of local funding sources for the development and construction of this project? Yes 1 Local funding Source (1) West Virginia DOT PE DD RW CO $ 0.60 $ 8.00 $ 1.50 $ Local funding Source (2) 0 PE DD RW CO Local funding Source (3) 0 PE DD RW CO Local funding Source (4) 0 PE DD RW CO Local funding Source (5) 0 PE DD RW CO Local Funding Totals PE DD RW CO $ 0.60 $ 8.00 $ 1.50 $ TRAC Funding Application

12 ODOT Program or Emark Funding Commitments Will funding from another ODOT program or legislative earmarks be used in the development or No PE DD RW CO OTIC Turnpike Bond Revenue Funding Have Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission (OTIC) Revenue Bonds been committed for the No PE DD RW CO Funding Summary PE DD RW CO Local Funding $ 0.60 $ 8.00 $ 1.50 $ ODOT / Earmark Funding OTIC Bond Funding Previous TRAC Funding $ 0.60 $ 2.00 $ 0.90 New TRAC Funding $ Future TRAC Funding Funding Totals $ 1.20 $ $ 2.40 $ Total Project Cost $ Total Local Total ODOT Total OTIC Total TRAC $ $ % Local % ODOT % OTIC % TRAC TRAC Funding Application

13 Tier I Construction Estimate Projects requesting Tier I status are required to submit a budgetary construction estimate. Additionally estimates must be inflated to the anticipated year of construction using ODOT's Business Plan Inflation Estimator Excel worksheet. Roadway $ 30,651,191 Drainage $ 875,320 Traffic Control $ 214,364 Structures $ 69,457,444 Retaining Walls $ 3,537,002 Railroad Contingency $ 20,708,882 Total Estimate $ 125,444,203 Date of Inflated Estimate 6/25/2015 Year of Inflation Estimate FY TRAC Funding Application

14 MPO & District Acknowledgement MPO Acknowledgement Is this project within the boundaries of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)? Yes Please identify the respective MPO. BHJ Has the MPO provided a letter or support or acknowledgment for this project? No Date of MPO Contact 1/0/1900 MPO Contact 0 0 MPO Contact Phone Number 0 MPO Contact 0 District Acknowledgement Has the appropriate ODOT District Planning Office been contacted about the development and construction of this project? Has the ODOT District Office provided a letter or support or acknowledgment for this project? Yes Yes Date of District Contact 6/19/2015 District Contact Waseem Khalifa MPO Contact Phone Number (330) MPO Contact waseem.khalifa@dot.state.oh.us 2015 TRAC Funding Application

15 Former Location of Fort Stueben Bridge (Demolished in February 2012) US 22 (Veteran's Memorial Bridge) Market Street Bridge Study Area Study Area 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Job No. Date Exhibit E:\GIS\WV\wellsburg_bridge\map_docs\mxd\ea_figures\201203\Figure 1-1.mxd PROPOSED OHIO RIVER BRIDGE BROOKE COUNTY, WV AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, OH STATE PROJECT: S205-2/ ; FEDERAL PROJECT: HPP-0223(003)D; PID: /29/ REGIONAL BRIDGE SYSTEM ESRI ARCGIS ONLINE AND DATA PARTNERS INCLUDING USGS AND 2007 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY

16 2015 TRAC Application Wellsburg Bridge - Location Map Mingo Junction Follansbee Wellsburg Brilliant Wellsburg Bridge One Mile Area of Influence Beech Bottom Ü 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Feet

17

18

19

20

21

22 LOCAL FUNDING COMMITMENT WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LETTERS OF BHJ TIP APPROVAL

23

24

25

26

27 LETTERS & RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT

28

29

30

31 Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Regional Bridge System Study Phase II Final Report Prepared For: Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission Prepared By: 5533 Fair Lane Cincinnati, OH Subconsultant Columbus, Ohio September 2003 This project was funded through the cooperative effort of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the Ohio Department of Transportation, and the West Virginia Department of Transportation.

32 Final Report Table of Contents Page Executive Summary...1 Introduction...5 Description of Study Area...9 Goals and Objectives...22 Public Involvement Process...24 Planning Process...27 Final Recommendations and Project Priority...55 List of Tables Table 1: Daily Volumes on Ohio River Bridges...32 Table 2: Daily Volumes by Direction on Ohio River Bridges...32 Table 3: Vehicle Trip River Crossings...33 Table 4: Alternative Scenarios...35 Table 5: Alternative Scenarios Evaluation...43 Table 6: Cost Estimate for Traffic Operations Improvements...54 List of Figures Figure 1: Regional Location...10 Figure 2: Study Area...11 Figure 3: Manufacturing Activity...14 Figure 4: Commercial Activity...15 Figure 5: Manufacturing Employment Centers Figure 6: Commercial Employment Centers Figure 7: Other Employment Centers Figure 8: Employment Growth Centers 1994 to Figure 9: Selected Gateways to River and Rail Ports...29 Figure 10: Alternative Scenarios...36 Figure 11: Traffic Operations Study Area...45 Figure 12: Washington Street Bridge Intersection Analysis...47 Figure 13: Traffic Operations Freedom Way Improvements...51 Figure 14: Recommended Project Priority...57 Appendix Appendix A: Bridge System Study History Prepared by BHJ Staff Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Regional Bridge System Study i

33 Final Report Executive Summary The Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission (BHJ), in both their 2020 and 2025 Regional Transportation Plan, states their #1 priority as promote a regional Ohio River bridge network that maintains and expands metropolitan activity. This precedent created funding and this BHJ Regional Bridge System Study. The study, through a rigorous public involvement process and strong quantitative review, provides a best management approach to the region s declining bridge infrastructure (i.e., two of the three bridge crossings in the 18 mile river corridor are near 100 years of age and are rapidly approaching the end of their life cycle). The following study is Phase II of a two part study. Phase I, submitted in May 2000, initiated answers to the purpose and need for a new river crossing. The Phase I study provided the following facts. The Fort Steuben Bridge and Market Street Bridge are past their design life. A circumstance in which only one river crossing exists within the metropolitan area would create an unacceptable emergency response time situation. Due to inherent design characteristics, neither the Fort Steuben Bridge nor Market Street Bridge can be updated to modern standards. Due to weight limits on the Market Street Bridge, the closing of the Fort Steuben Bridge would leave the region with only one crossing capable of carrying commercial truck traffic. Access to and from the Veterans Memorial Bridge is vulnerable to accident blockage and deficient intersection design. The concentration of all river crossing capacity within a small geographic area constrains the overall flexibility of the regional transportation system. Phase II, through a publicly-approved quantitative matrix, walked the community through logical constraints and benefits. It concludes with a consensus priority statement for bridge location and access improvements. In May 2003, the priority statement was formally adopted by the Brooke- Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission, the federally recognized council for regional transportation. To validate the quantitative decision matrix, key regional goals and objectives were agreed to through public meetings and interviews. General goals include the following items. Maintain and enhance transportation capacity. Safety and reliability for existing businesses, their employees and all residents. Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Regional Bridge System Study 1

34 Final Report Evaluation criteria specific to these goals include the following measurable factors. Effectiveness in minimizing environmental impacts Cost effectiveness Effectiveness for improving safety Effectiveness in supporting regional economic growth. To complete this Phase II study, various alternatives for bridge crossings were developed based on preliminary engineering analysis. Locations were identified that could facilitate east-west movements or to serve population and employment centers on each side of the River. These include replacing the existing bridges in their current location as well as two options for a new bridge in the southern portion of the planning area. These options initially formed seven Scenarios including a Baseline, or no-build, option. Four additional Scenarios were developed using a combination of bridge locations with northern and southern alternatives. More detailed engineering and environmental studies will be needed in the next Phase to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These studies will establish a specific location and configuration for the new bridge. The preferred Scenario 8, described later in this report, provides the benefits of both the preferred northern and southern Scenarios as well as maintaining a high benefits to cost ratio and the highest reduction of user costs. When Scenario 8 is reviewed in comparison to both the Baseline Scenario and other alternatives, it is found to provide maximum benefit for minimum cost in all categories of mobility, environmental impacts, safety, cost effectiveness and regional economic growth. The recommendations of the Consultant Team are premised upon the assumption that two of the three bridge crossings (i.e., the Fort Steuben Bridge and Market Street Bridge) will not be in service for the planning year After sixteen (16) Bridge Advisory Committee meetings and five (5) public information meetings, the Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission made a three-point priority recommendation. The Phase II study was the guide document for their recommendation. Total cost for these recommendations is estimated at about $102 million in FY 2003 dollars. Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Regional Bridge System Study 2

35 Final Report Priority #1: Construct roadway and intersection capacity improvements to better access the region s most modern bridge crossing, Veterans Memorial Bridge. These improvements are as follows. Realign and improve the Freedom Way and Birch Drive intersection in Weirton. Improve the alignment and widen the intersection of Freedom Way and West Virginia Route 2 in Weirton. Upgrade and improve the existing three lanes on Freedom Way in Weirton. Improve access to Veterans Memorial Bridge at Steubenville through the realignment and widening of adjacent connecting thoroughfares State Route 7 (Dean Martin Boulevard) and University Boulevard. Priority #2: Construct a new Ohio River bridge crossing south of Wellsburg to connect West Virginia State Route 2 and Ohio State Route 7. Priority #3: Construct a new Ohio River bridge crossing to connect West Virginia State Route 2 and Ohio State Route 7 in Steubenville at Washington Street. Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Regional Bridge System Study 3

36

37