DOTD s Response to House Resolution 178 (2016)

Transcription

1 DOTD s Response to House Resolution 178 (2016) Part I: Feasibility of Tolling Priority A and B Megaprojects 2016 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

2 House Resolution No. 178 Enrolled and signed by the Speaker of the House on June 5, 2016 To urge and request the Louisiana DOTD to evaluate and report on the feasibility of: tolling highways and bridges, and implementing local option motor fuel taxes in Louisiana 2

3 Local Funding Toolbox Sales taxes Property taxes Income and payroll taxes Fuel taxes Vehicle taxes and fees Rental car fees Parking fees Impact fees Meal taxes Hotel occupancy taxes Real estate transfer taxes Tolls Other local taxes Value capture mechanisms

4 Project Initiation Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) Initiated action to carry out the House of Representatives directive Established a project to implement the study Connie Porter assigned as project manager Selected HDR from the public-private partnership (PPP) bench to carry out the study Kicked off the study in December

5 HDR Project Team Overall Project Task HDR Team Members Project Management Public & Agency Involvement Traffic Forecasts Revenue Forecasts Tolling Financial Analysis Special Thanks to DOTD: Dr. Eric Kalivoda, Deputy Secretary Connie Porter-Betts, Project Manager Steve Glasscock, PE Scott Rundell, PE Local Option Motor Fuel Taxes 5

6 HDR Scope Task 1 Conceptual-Level Tolling Feasibility Task 2 Task 3 Task4 Tolling Feasibility of Megaprojects Feasibility of Implementing Local Option Motor Fuel Tax Local Agency Outreach Task 5 Project Management 6

7 HDR Scope Tasks 1 and 2 Task 1 Task 2 Conceptual-Level Tolling Feasibility Review previous toll feasibility studies Document the history of tolling operations in Louisiana Survey of best practices of US toll roads and bridges Screen LADOTD s five year plan - Priority A and Priority B for potential as toll facilities Recommend several projects for further evaluation Tolling Feasibility of Megaprojects Define tolling concept Sketch-level demand analysis Feasibility assessment Financial assessment Summary results combined with previous projects 7

8 Task 1 Conceptual-Level Assessment of the Feasibility of Tolling Task 1.1: Overview of Prior Feasibility Studies Task 1.2: History of Tolling Operations Task 1.3: Best Practices Task 1.4: Screen Priority A and B Megaprojects

9 Review Tolling Feasibility Studies Tasks 1.1 and 1.2 Review of toll feasibility studies in Louisiana over the last 15 years Projects included: Baton Rouge Urban Renewal and Mobility Plan (BUMP) Baton Rouge Loop Baton Rouge Northern Bypass Crescent City Connection LA 1/I-10 Connector LA 1 Toll Road I-49 South Lafayette to New Orleans Ouachita River Bridges Houma-Thibodaux to LA 3127 Connection 9

10 Best Practices Task 1.3 Triangle Expressway (North Carolina) Interoperability agreements with E-ZPass, SunPass, and Peach Pass Multiple financing methods toll revenue bonds, a TIFIA loan, and additional state funds Strong marketing and public education effort focused on transponders 10

11 Best Practices Task 1.3 Mid-Bay Bridge Authority System (Florida) Statewide and regional interoperability is key for ease of use Maintain diversity in revenue streams focusing on tolls only can limit flexibility and options Identify environmental concerns early in the planning and design process 11

12 Best Practices Task 1.3 E-470 (Denver, Colorado) License plate designs need to allow optical character recognition (OCR) to function properly An account-based fee structure (like a monthly credit card statement) lessens customer fines/fees Maintain the toll road at a high level to attract customers Continue marketing and public outreach throughout design, construction and into ongoing operations 12

13 Best Practices Task 1.3 Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project (Kentucky and Indiana) Cost savings from: right-sizing the project doing the roadside and back office system together, separately from electronic toll equipment Upfront marketing and public outreach so public understood the project and knew how to use the toll bridges on opening day Anticipate customer service needs: new users, new systems, new technology, and new facilities 13

14 Best Practices Task 1.3 Georgia Toll Roads (Georgia) Industry standard equipment and systems designed for toll facilities, not highway facilities Network redundancy is critical to managing congestion Dedicated patrol/enforcement helps with violations and safety Soft opening to test the system and educate the public I-85 Express Lanes 14 I-75 South Metro Express Lanes

15 Screen Megaprojects Task

16 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors That Would Affect Project Delivery as a Toll Project: System Interface w v Highly suitable Possibly suitable Stand alone, separable facility; facility with potential dedicated revenue source; extension/expansion of currently tolled facility; or extension/expansion of facility that could be tolled in the future Minor modification to existing facilities, e.g. new interchange u Less suitable Extension/expansion of existing non-tolled facility that cannot be tolled in the future, e.g. upgrade of a city street 16

17 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors That Would Affect Project Delivery as a Toll Project: Design and Construction w v Highly suitable Possibly suitable Typical design, at a level where adding toll components does not require significant redesign, and/or additional right of way (ROW) is not required, or not designed at all at this point Some re-design may be required to incorporate tolling, and/or additional ROW is required 17 u Less suitable Atypical, unique design, at a level where redesign is necessary to incorporate toll components, or a significant amount of additional ROW is required

18 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors That Would Affect Project Delivery as a Toll Project: Operations and Maintenance w v u Highly suitable Possibly suitable Less suitable O&M will be accepted by a private party; low-medium risk (new infrastructure, etc.) O&M may be accepted by a private party but more risk involved O&M must be done by the State; a private party will not accept O&M risks of aging infrastructure 18

19 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors That Would Affect Project Delivery as a Toll Project: w Highly suitable Schedule Risks Risks have been identified and are low v Possibly suitable Risks have been identified and are medium u Less suitable High risks or risks have not yet been assessed 19

20 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors That Would Affect Project Delivery as a Toll Project: w Highly suitable Adaptability for Delivery under a PPP or for Tolling Project can be adapted easily v Possibly suitable Project can be adapted but will add significant costs/time u Less suitable Project cannot be adapted easily 20

21 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors Affecting Tolling Viability: w Highly suitable Time/Distance Savings Resulting from the Project Time or distance savings are significant v Possibly suitable Time or distance savings are moderate u Less suitable Time or distance savings are negligible or have not been calculated 21

22 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors Affecting Tolling Viability: w Highly suitable Limits on Access to the Facility within the Project Limits Facility is segregated, can be access controlled or is otherwise ring-fenced (i.e., stand alone facility) v u Possibly suitable Less suitable Facility is not segregated but access can be monitored and/or controlled electronically (i.e., electronic tolling on HOT lanes added to an existing facility) Facility cannot be access controlled, cannot be segregated (i.e., city street or arterial with interchanges) 22

23 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors Affecting Tolling Viability: Alternative Routes Available to Users w v u Highly suitable Possibly suitable Less suitable Alternative routes are not available or are inconvenient options (too far/too long/too expensive) Alternative routes are available and convenient but would cost time or money Alternative routes are available, free, and convenient 23

24 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors Affecting Tolling Viability: w Federal Requirements for Adding Tolls on Existing Interstate Highways Highly suitable Tolls can be implemented under current regulations v Possibly suitable Tolls can be implemented with FHWA approval u Less suitable Tolls cannot be implemented or requires new federal legislation 24

25 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors Affecting Tolling Viability: Anticipated Public Sentiment / Acceptability w Highly suitable Public supports the project and may accept tolling v Possibly suitable Public supports the project or tolling but not both, or public sentiments are unknown, or public opinions are split 25 u Less suitable Public appears to not support project with or without tolling, with a majority actively opposing (acknowledging that organized opposition may not necessarily represent the public as a whole)

26 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Factors Affecting Tolling Viability: User Affordability w Highly suitable User base has been identified and has capacity to pay tolls v Possibly suitable User base has been identified / unsure if will pay u Less suitable Has not been identified / will not pay / cannot pay 26

27 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Other Impacts: Impact on Community / Environment w Highly suitable Likely to have low impact on community / environment v Possibly suitable May have medium impact on community / environment u Less suitable Likely to have high impact on community / environment 27

28 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Screening Matrix Priority A and B Megaprojects (1 of 5) 28

29 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Screening Matrix Priority A and B Megaprojects (2 of 5) 29

30 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Screening Matrix Priority A and B Megaprojects (3 of 5) 30

31 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Screening Matrix Priority A and B Megaprojects (4 of 5) 31

32 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 Screening Matrix Priority A and B Megaprojects (5 of 5) 32

33 Screen Megaprojects Task 1.4 NO. SCORE 33 MEGAPROJECT PRIORITY - ID No. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Screening Results SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDY 1 34 B-8b 18 mile extension of LA 1 toll road studied in 2012 No study of revenue potential of the extension - May consider studying in the future 2 34 B-54 Baton Rouge - I-10 to LA 1 Connector; toll study in 2013 No need to study - done in B-99 New interchange on I-10 with access road to new terminal at MSY Should study now 4 34 B-101 New I-10 Mississippi River Bridge in Baton Rouge Should study now 5 33 A-29 Widen I-10 through Baton Rouge Information being gathered as a PPP. May not want to study now A-26, A-27 Lake Charles - I-10 new bridge over Calcasieu River Should study now 7 32 B-60 Shreveport -New freeway extension of I-49 N. Should discuss with MPO 8 32 A-79 Container Terminal - Port of New Orleans Would require more resources to study 9 31 B-14 Monroe - Ouachita River Bridge Toll study completed in 2014 No need to study - done in A-31 New Orleans - Widen I-10 to eight lanes Stand-alone managed lanes, would not study now A-44 New Orleans - LA 23 new bridge to replace tunnel May be feasible when tunnel is abandoned; should discuss with MPO A-78a, A-78b Deepen Mississippi River Would require more resources to study A-34 Slidell - I-12 widening Connects to segments widened without tolling. Would not study now A-64 St. Tammany - LA 3241 New Freeway Should discuss with MPO B-57 Baton Rouge North Bypass. Toll study in 2015 No need to study - done in A-65 St. Bernard - New Florida Avenue Bridge Should discuss with MPO A-1, A-4, B-3, B-5d I-49 South - Toll feasibility study in 2014 No need to study - done in B-9a Houma - Toll feasibility study in 2006 & 2010 No need to study - done in A-23b, A-23c Shreveport - I-20, widen bridge and approaches Should discuss with MPO A-30a, B-30b Ascension - I-10 widening Connects to segments widened without tolling. Would not study now B-50 Shreveport - LA 511 new bridge Should discuss with MPO A-25 Lake Charles - I-10 widening Not in congested area. Would not study now B-33 Hammond - I-12 widening Connects to segments without toll lanes. Would not study now A-73b Alexandria - Upgrade beltway to freeway Rural area. Would not study now B-84 Intercity passenger rail Not likely to generate funds - would not study B-100 St. Tammany - I-12 interchange upgrade Only feasible as an extension of Causeway tolling. Would not study now A-28 Lafayette - I-10 widening Not in congested area. Would not study now B-85 Rail Gateway Project Would require more resources to study A-24 Monroe - I-20 widening Not in congested area. Would not study now B-40 E. Central LA - US 84 widening Not in congested area. Would not study now B-32 New Orleans, I-10 ITS and auxiliary lanes No new capacity to toll. 32 N/A B-51B Already funded by tolls No need to study

34 Task 2 Feasibility of Tolling Priority A and Priority B Megaprojects Task 2.1: Sketch Level Demand Analysis Task 2.2: Feasibility Assessment Task 2.3: Financial Assessment

35 Sketch Level Demand Analysis Task

36 Sketch Level Demand Analysis Task 2.1 MPO Surveys Key input into defining the final megaprojects for further tolling feasibility analysis: A-26: I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge, Lake Charles B-50: LA 511 Jimmie Davis Bridge, Shreveport-Bossier Metro Area B-60: I-49 Inner City Connector, Shreveport B- 99: Loyola Drive/I-10 Interchange, New Orleans Metro Area B-101: Mississippi River Bridge LA 1 to LA 30, Baton Rouge Metro Area Source: DOTD, Louisiana Statewide Transportation Plan, December

37 Sketch Level Demand Analysis Task 2.1 Define Projects and Assumptions Megaproject features including current implementation phase of project, conceptual geometry, and programmed cost General assumptions for all projects Toll system capital cost assumptions Toll system operating and maintenance cost assumptions Traffic and revenue forecast assumptions Financial assumptions 37

38 Sketch Level Demand Analysis Task 2.1 Traffic and Revenue Forecasts Travel demand modeling to determine existing and projected roadway capacity Traffic composition by vehicle classification Existing and projected travel time estimates Toll rates associated with travel time savings Traffic diversion with tolling Toll revenue Forecasts derived from projected traffic on the tolled facility multiplied by the appropriate toll rates for each vehicle classification Daily revenue converted to annual revenue Annualized revenue estimate used in the financial feasibility analysis 38 *AVI (toll tag) toll rates are 70% of total transactions and are discounted 50%.

39 Feasibility Assessment Task 2.2 Capital Cost Estimates Toll Collection System Included all electronic toll collection equipment including: Readers Antennas Scanners Loops/treadles Cameras Lane/zone controllers License plate image capture system Host Uninterruptible power supply (UPS), UPS Back-up generator Installation, testing, commissioning, warranty and maintenance Rehabilitation and replacement costs System software design, development, testing, installation, and technical services 39

40 Feasibility Assessment Task 2.2 Capital Cost Estimates Roadway and Bridge Infrastructure Programmed roadway/bridge capital cost from various LADOTD sources: Louisiana Statewide Transportation Plan, and Project-specific environmental and feasibility study documents Estimated infrastructure capital costs added where necessary (e.g., two additional interchanges associated with I-49 Inner City Connector) Capital costs escalated to 2017 dollars (2017$) Conservative assumption of 15% cost savings applied to design-build-finance-operate and maintain (DBFOM) PPP projects Project Component Estimated Capital Cost (2017$, in millions) Toll System Infrastructure $9.3 I-49 Inner City $825.5* Connector Programmed Cost Total Capital Cost $834.8 *15% cost savings with PPP project delivery 40

41 Feasibility Assessment Task 2.2 O&M Cost Estimates All O&M costs were identified For design-build-finance-operate and maintain (DBFOM) PPP projects, cost to operate and maintain the entire project included, i.e., I-49 Inner City Connector New Mississippi River Bridge between LA 1 to LA 30 in the Baton Rouge Metro Area 41 O&M Cost Component Number of toll transactions Assumption 70% of all transactions will be by toll tag / automated vehicle identification (AVI); toll fees would be discounted 50%. Number of image based toll transactions 30% of all transactions Number of toll tag accounts Based on Louisiana historical data of 55 toll transactions per year per account Number of toll tags Each account is estimated to have 3 sticker tags based on Louisiana historical data Account management $21.00 per account per year Staff 1 supervisor and 2 CSC representatives. Customer service center Lease of customer service center space (CSC) (approximately 3,000 square feet), utilities and cleaning services. Toll enforcement contract with state or local police. Third-party contracts Financial services; collection services, bank fees, accounting and audits Insurance Image based Processing cost: $0.08 per transaction. transactions (IBT) Invoice mailing cost: $1.00 per mailing. Opening year marketing costs $100,000 in the first year Warranty and annual maintenance of toll collection equipment 25% of capital cost of toll equipment; $122,500

42 Financial Assessment and Tolling Feasibility Task 2.3 Summary Results of Tolling Feasibility B-50: LA 511 Jimmie Davis Bridge, Shreveport-Bossier Metro Area B-60: I-49 Inner City Connector, Shreveport B- 99: Loyola Drive/I-10 Interchange, New Orleans Metro Area A-26: I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge, Lake Charles B-101: Mississippi River Bridge LA 1 to LA 30, Baton Rouge Metro Area 42

43 Financial Assessment and Tolling Feasibility Task 2.3 LA 511 Jimmie Davis Bridge New 4-lane bridge $132 million capital cost Peak tolls: $1.70 to $ % construction cost financed by toll revenues 43

44 Financial Assessment and Tolling Feasibility Task 2.3 I-49 Inner City Connector New 3.6-mile segment $553 million capital cost Peak tolls: $1.34 to $4.40 Tolling not feasible 44

45 Financial Assessment and Tolling Feasibility Task 2.3 Loyola Drive/I-10 Interchange One-lane ramp to new airport terminal access road $99 million capital cost 77% construction cost financed by $2.00 shadow toll revenues 100% construction cost financed by $2.75 shadow toll revenues 45

46 Financial Assessment and Tolling Feasibility Task 2.3 I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge New 6-lane bridge $504 million capital cost Peak tolls: $2.00 to $ % construction cost financed by toll revenues 46

47 Financial Assessment and Tolling Feasibility Task 2.3 MS River Bridge LA 1 to LA 30 New 6-lane bridge $634 million capital cost Peak tolls: $3.00 to $ % construction cost financed by toll revenues 47

48 Summary of Findings Task 2 48

49 Summary of Findings: Comparison to Previous Studies Financial Model Parameters (in $Millions) A-26: I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge Lake Charles Megaprojects in this Tolling Study B-50: LA 511 Bridge Shreveport- Bossier B-60: I-49 Inner City Connector Shreveport B-99: Loyola Dr/ I-10 Interchange New Orleans Metro B-101: Mississippi River Bridge Baton Rouge Metro Baton Rouge Northern Bypass (Phase 1) Baton Rouge Northern Bypass (Entire project) Previous Tolling Studies Houma- Thibodaux Interstate 49 South Baton Rouge Loop Baton Rouge Urban Renewal and Mobility Plan (BUMP) 1 Estimated total capital cost 2 (2017 dollars or other year dollars as shown) $503.9 $131.6 $834.8 $99.2 $634.0 $296 (2004 $) $1,100 (2004 $) $194-$238 (2010 $) $2,940 (2014 $) $4,049- $4,877 (2008 $) $775-$877 Estimated total capital cost 2 (YOE dollars) Net toll revenue or bond proceeds 3 (YOE dollars or other year dollars as shown) $628.9 $156.9 $1,023.6 $120.4 $771.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $585.0 $50.5 $0 $90.2 $113.3 $110.8 (net toll revenue) $243.5 (net toll revenue) <$0 $6,600 (net toll revenue) $ (gross toll revenue for opening year only in 2007 dollars) $480-$593 % total construction cost financed by 96% 33% 0% 77% 17% 37% 22% 0% 26-51% 29-64% 55-68% project revenues 4 Total public agency funding required (YOE dollars or other year dollars as shown) $23 $105 $1,024 $27 $641 $185 $857 $194-$238 (2010 $) n/a $69- $3,925 (for all scenarios) $

50 Thank You! Kent Olsen Principal Consultant Strategic Consulting Practice HDR Engineering, Inc D M Kent.Olsen@hdrinc.com

51 Questions? 51