ILLINOIS CRITICAL BRIDGE ASSESSMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT RELATIVE TO SOYBEAN AND SOYBEAN PRODUCT MOVEMENTS

Transcription

1 ILLINOIS CRITICAL BRIDGE ASSESSMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACT RELATIVE TO SOYBEAN AND SOYBEAN PRODUCT MOVEMENTS Prepared for: ILLINOIS SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION Prepared by: 775 Ridge Lake Boulevard, Suite 400 ~ Memphis, Tennessee Telephone ~ Fax

2 This copyrighted material is intended for the use of clients of Informa Economics, Inc., only and may not be reproduced or electronically transmitted to other companies or individuals, whole or in part, without the prior written permission of Informa Economics, Inc. The information contained herein is believed to be reliable and the views expressed within this document reflect judgments at this time and are subject to change without notice. Informa Economics, Inc., does not guarantee that the information contained herein is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. informa economics, inc. Page i

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 II. INTRODUCTION... 2 III. UPDATE OF ILLINOIS BRIDGE SUMMARY FROM 2010 DATABASE AND OVERALL BRIDGE INFORMATION... 4 A. ILLINOIS FUNCTIONAL ROAD SYSTEM... 4 B. BRIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE... 6 C. BRIDGE SUFFICIENCY RATINGS... 6 A. BRIDGE OWNERSHIP B. BRIDGE DEFICIENCIES IN FOCUS COUNTIES IV. IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET LIST OF BRIDGES FOR CONSIDERATION.. 17 A. SELECTION PROCESS B. INTERVIEWS WITH COUNTY ENGINEERS General Comments on Roads General Comments on Bridges General Comments on Funding General Comments on Factors Impacting Infrastructure Priorities for Bridges C. FOCUS COUNTIES INFRASTRUCTURE PROFILES V. PROFILE OF THE 12 MOST CRITICAL BRIDGES VI. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF EACH BRIDGE VII. COMPETITIVE IMPACT OF SELECT ILLINOIS BRIDGES A. BRIDGE 587 (ADAMS COUNTY, IL) B. BRIDGE NETWORK 353 (ADAMS COUNTY, IL) C. BRIDGE 1094 (BUREAU COUNTY, IL) D. BRIDGE 740 (DEKALB COUNTY, IL) E. BRIDGE 882 (IROQUOIS COUNTY, IL) F. BRIDGE 480 (IROQUOIS COUNTY, IL) G. BRIDGE NETWORK 934 (MACOUPIN COUNTY, IL) H. BRIDGE NETWORK 1301 (MACOUPIN COUNTY, IL) I. BRIDGE NETWORK 405 (MCLEAN COUNTY, IL) J. BRIDGE 963 (PEORIA COUNTY, IL) K. BRIDGE 457 (SHELBY COUNTY, IL) L. BRIDGE 174 (SHELBY COUNTY, IL) VIII. CASE STUDY: BRIDGE 882 AND STOCKLAND GRAIN CO A. CASE OVERVIEW B. ECONOMIC IMPACT IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX informa economics, inc. Page ii

4 A. BRIDGE CRITERIA VALUES & RATINGS B. AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES WITHIN 15 MILES OF FOCUS BRIDGES informa economics, inc. Page iii

5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Bridges by Posting Status for Midwestern States Table 2: Percentage of Bridges Posting Status for Midwestern States Table 3: Bridge Deficiencies in Target Counties Table 4: Bridges Posted for Loads in Target Counties Table 5: Criteria Ratings Table 6: Focus County Population and Infrastructure Table 7: Bridge Economic Measures Defined Table 8: Summary Impact Results for Select Illinois Bridges Table 9: Agricultural Sales and Soybean Sales for Select Illinois Counties Table 10: Estimated Minimum Payback to Upgrade Bridge Table 11: Ranking of Benefit Cost Ratios for Focus Bridges Table 12: Adams County Bridge Criteria Values & Ratings Table 13: Bureau County Bridge Criteria Values & Ratings Table 14: Clinton County Bridge Criteria Values & Ratings Table 15: De Kalb County Bridge Criteria Values & Ratings Table 16: Iroquois County Bridge Criteria Values & Ratings Table 17: Macoupin County Bridge Criteria Values & Ratings Table 18: McLean County Bridge Criteria Values & Ratings Table 19: Peoria County Bridge Criteria Values & Ratings Table 20: Shelby County Bridge Criteria Values & Ratings Table 21: Wayne County Bridge Criteria Values & Ratings Table 22: Agriculture Facilities within 15 Miles of Adams County Bridges Structure Nos and Table 23: Agriculture Facilities within 15 Miles Bureau County Bridge Structure No Table 24: Agriculture Facilities within 15 Miles DeKalb County Bridge Structure No Table 25: Agriculture Facilities within 15 Miles Iroquois County Bridge Structure No Table 26: Agriculture Facilities within 15 Miles Iroquois County Bridge Structure No Table 27: Agriculture Facilities within 15 Miles Macoupin County Bridge Structure Nos and informa economics, inc. Page iv

6 Table 28: Agriculture Facilities within 15 Miles McLean County Bridge Structure No Table 29: Agriculture Facilities within 15 Miles Peoria County Bridge Structure No Table 30: Agriculture Facilities within 15 Miles Shelby County Bridge Structure No Table 31: Agriculture Facilities within 15 Miles Shelby County Bridge Structure No LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Focus Counties within Illinois... 3 Figure 2: Illinois Rural Functional Road System... 5 Figure 3: Illinois Urban Functional Road System... 5 Figure 4: Bridges in Illinois by Year Built in Figure 5: Deficient Bridges by State (2010 Data)... 8 Figure 6: Deficient Bridges by State (2011 Data)... 9 Figure 7: Bridge Ownership in Illinois (2011) Figure 8: Illinois Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings Less than 50 in Figure 9: Illinois Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings less than 50 in Figure 10: Change in Illinois Bridge Status from 2009 to Figure 11: County Comparison of Road Miles to Bridges Figure 12: Illinois Grain Elevators and Focus Bridges Figure 13: Impact of Losing a Single Bridge Figure 14: Impact of Losing Three Adjacent Bridges Figure 15: Adams County Focus Bridges and Agricultural Facilities Figure 16: Bureau County Focus Bridges and Agricultural Facilities Figure 17: Clinton County Focus Bridges and Agricultural Facilities Figure 18: DeKalb County Focus Bridges and Agricultural Facilities Figure 19: Iroquois County Focus Bridges and Agricultural Facilities Figure 20: Macoupin County Focus Bridges and Agriculture Facilities Figure 21: McLean County Focus Bridges and Agriculture Facilities Figure 22: Peoria County Focus Bridges and Agriculture Facilities Figure 23: Shelby County Focus Bridges and Agriculture Facilities informa economics, inc. Page v

7 Figure 24: Wayne County Focus Bridges and Agriculture Facilities Figure 25: Bridge 587 (Adams County, IL) Figure 26: Bridge Network 353 (Adams County, IL) Figure 27: Bridge 1094 (Bureau County, IL) Figure 28: Bridge 740 (DeKalb County, IL) Figure 29: Bridge 882 (Iroquois County, IL) Figure 30: Bridge 480 (Iroquois County, IL) Figure 31: Bridge Network 934 (Macoupin County, IL) Figure 32: Bridge Network 1301 (Macoupin County, IL) Figure 33: Bridge Network 405 (McLean County, IL) Figure 34: Bridge 963 (Peoria County, IL) Figure 35: Bridge 457 (Shelby County, IL) Figure 36: Bridge Network 174 (Shelby County, IL) informa economics, inc. Page vi

8 I. Executive Summary Bridge infrastructure is important to soybean marketing efforts, which is why the Illinois Soybean Association (ISA) commissioned an analysis of Illinois bridge infrastructure impacts on agribusiness focused economic development in ten target counties. The bridge infrastructure in ten target counties in Illinois was evaluated for effectiveness of servicing agriculture needs in those counties. The ten counties selected include Adams, Bureau, Clinton, DeKalb, Iroquois, McLean, Macoupin, Peoria, Shelby, and Wayne. These ten counties represent each Crop Reporting District (CRD) plus Peoria because this county is a central point for grain origination and river staging. There are 407 bridges rated structurally deficient and obsolete in the ten counties, representing less than 2% of all bridges in the state and less than 12% of all the deficient bridges in the state. Compared to the state level, the target counties are faring better because 15% of Illinois bridges are rated as deficient and obsolete. County officials are in a position to help local citizens by gathering and organizing funds for infrastructure projects. In Illinois, these funds are brought forth through a variety of mechanisms including a federal government and county split (for example, 80% federal and 20% county); bond issues; fuel tax; Highway Trust Fund (Highway Fund and a Mass Transit Fund); public private partnerships (PPP); grants to local governments (Economic Development Grants); and stimulus funds in 2009 and However, bridges have become more expensive to maintain and construct while funding levels are nearly the same as they were twenty years ago. County officials, community businesses and farming associations can join forces to gain a larger voice in gaining funding for Illinois Infrastructure. Twelve focus bridges were studied and the results of the findings are in this report. The bridges were evaluated based on the benefit they provide to area businesses and citizens. This benefit was measured by the cost that would be incurred if an alternative route were needed. In addition to these costs, estimation of the indirect and induced impacts was made for each bridge. Indirect and induced impacts are the trickle down impact from citizens keeping their income as a result of efficient roads and bridges. These impacts are possible because detours are essentially income transfers from local citizens and businesses to the revenue streams of the gas and diesel industry. As a result of local citizens and businesses spending a greater portion of their income in the local community than the revenue of the gasoline and diesel sector, there is a net positive impact when bridges create more efficient, fuel saving routes. A simple average of the benefit cost ratios for the twelve bridge analyzed yields 10.24, which means that the combined benefits are over ten times greater than the costs. This can be interpreted as a return of $10.24 for each $1 invested, on average that is added to the local economy as a result of the annualized cost to build and maintain the select bridges. This report will provide details on the analysis of twelve bridges, their impacts, and their relation to agriculture in Illinois. informa economics, inc. Page 1

9 II. Introduction Illinois is a major producer of soybeans. Illinois produced approximately 466 million bushels of soybeans in 2010/11. Infrastructure is the means to realize value for farmers shipping their harvest from a farm to a market position. A crumbling infrastructure will marginalize the economic returns to a farmer through higher costs associated with fuel, lower velocity, light loading of equipment, and excessive wear and tear on equipment. All of these added costs will reduce the farm gate price of soybeans the farmer sells. In 2010, 15.4% of the state s more than 26,000 bridges were deficient and obsolete. Across the state there are 1,200 bridges that are posted for a lower weight limit or closed. Many of these structures directly impact the price of soybeans received by farmers. This report is intended to raise the attention of the value and importance of infrastructure to the soybean industry in Illinois. The bridge infrastructure in ten target counties in Illinois was evaluated for effectiveness on agriculture in those counties. The ten counties selected include Adams, Bureau, Clinton, DeKalb, Iroquois, Macoupin, McLean, Peoria, Shelby, and Wayne. These ten counties represent each Crop Reporting District (CRD) plus Peoria because this county is a central point for grain origination and river staging. These counties are shown in Figure 1. The objective of this study is to focus on the 12 bridges in select counties that impact the soybean industry in Illinois. To accomplish this objective, the following tasks were performed: Comparison of the 2009 and with 2010 National Bridge Inventory Data with focus on Illinois Identify target list of bridges for consideration Profile the 12 most critical bridges Economic impact of each bridge Competitive impact of those bridges informa economics, inc. Page 2

10 Figure 1: Focus Counties within Illinois informa economics, inc. Page 3

11 III. Update of Illinois Bridge Summary from 2010 Database and Overall Bridge Information In March 2011, Informa Economics completed a study entitled Illinois Infrastructure Assessment and Economic Impact Relative to Grain Movements, Biofuels, Livestock and Further Food Processing. Following that study in May 2011, Informa Economics further analyzed 10 potential bridges that are problematic to the soybean industry in a study entitled Illinois Infrastructure Bridges with Potential Impacts to Illinois Agriculture. This report is built upon the previous research done in those two studies. An overview of the changes in the Illinois road and bridge infrastructure from the 2011 studies compared with updated data made available through the National Bridge Index Database (NBI) is shown in this section of the report. A. Illinois Functional Road System The total mileage of highways and roads in Illinois has increased more than 3% since 1980 to 139,519 miles in Local roads in Illinois have not increased substantially, totaling over 100,000 miles, which was 72% of total road miles in Rural roads 2 represent the greatest share of road miles in the state of Illinois with 70% of all miles during These rural roads form the backbone of the agricultural infrastructure for the movement of commodities, livestock, and processed goods to market. Since 1980, rural road mileage has decreased 8% from 106,549 to 98,199 miles. Public roads and street lengths for rural Illinois from 1980 through 2010 are shown in Figure 2. 3 Road mileage in the urban areas increased nearly 46% between 1980 and 2010 to 41,320 miles, representing nearly 30% of the mileage in Illinois. Since 1980 to present, Illinois s local roads in urban areas have ranged from about 19,800 miles to 28,000 miles in Public roads and street mileage in urban areas are shown in Figure 3. 1 Local road is a street this is used primarily to gain access to the property bordering it; one example would be frontage roads. 2 Rural roads are those facilities outside of urban areas (less than 10,000 people) (Department of Transportation). 3 The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration released the miles by functional system for 2010 in December 2011; the previous source used in earlier studies did not have data available after There is missing data for 2008 and 2009 in the figures. There has been very little change in the functional road system in Illinois from 2007 to informa economics, inc. Page 4

12 Other System Miles Local Miles Other Road System Miles Local System Miles Figure 2: Illinois Rural Functional Road System 4 INTERSTATE MINOR ARTERIAL MINOR COLLECTOR OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MAJOR COLLECTOR LOCAL 16,000 14,000 80,000 78,500 12,000 77,000 10,000 75,500 8,000 74,000 6,000 72,500 4,000 71,000 2,000 69, ,000 Figure 3: Illinois Urban Functional Road System INTERSTATE OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL COLLECTOR OTHER FREEWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS MINOR ARTERIAL LOCAL 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, ,000 27,000 24,000 21,000 18,000 15,000 12,000 9,000 6,000 3, Data for 2008 and 2009 not available from the USDOT informa economics, inc. Page 5

13 and earlier Number of Bridges B. Bridge Infrastructure At the end of 2011, the Federal Highway Administration released the number of bridges built by year for each state. The number of bridges built in Illinois from 2007 to 2011 totaled 1,074 while from 1982 to 1986, 2,627 were built as shown in Figure 4. Over 27% of the bridges built in Illinois were built prior to There has definitely been a decrease in the number of bridges being built in four year spans starting in ,000 Figure 4: Bridges in Illinois by Year Built in ,500 2,000 1,500 1, C. Bridge Sufficiency Ratings Bridges across the U.S. are assigned a bridge sufficiency rating (SR) by state and county departments of transportation. The bridge sufficiency rating (BSR) represents a composite rating weighted to assess the following qualities of the bridge: Structural Adequacy and Safety; Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence; and Essentiality for Public Use. The sufficiency ratings vary from 0 to 100, with a lower value indicating a lower degree of sufficiency, but a higher degree of need for either replacement or repair. According to IDOT, to be eligible for Federal-aid funding, a bridge must be both deficient and possess an SR value less than 50 for replacement or less than or equal to 80 for informa economics, inc. Page 6

14 rehabilitation. The term deficient indicates that a bridge is either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. A structurally deficient bridge is closed or restricted to light-weight vehicles because of deteriorated structural components. Structures are functionally obsolete if they have deck geometry, load carrying capacity, clearance or approach roadway alignment that no longer meets the criteria for the roadway system of which the structure is part. The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration says a sufficiency rating equals Structural Adequacy and Safety plus Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence plus Essentiality for Public Use minus Special Reductions. Structural Adequacy and Safety carries a maximum 55 percent of total value and its components include: superstructure, substructure, culvert, and inventory rating. Serviceability and Functional Obsolescence carries a maximum 30 percent of total value and its components include: defense highway, lanes on the structure, average daily traffic, approach roadway width, structure type, bridge roadway width, vertical clearance over deck, deck condition, structural evaluation, deck geometry, under-clearances, waterway adequacy, and approach roadway alignment. Essentiality for Public Use carries a maximum 15 percent of total value and its components include: defense highway, detour length, and average daily traffic. The final part of the sufficiency rating equation is Special Reductions and it carries a maximum 13 percent of total value. Its components include: detour length, traffic safety features, and main structure type. As stated earlier, sufficiency ratings are not the final decision to close a bridge or that it will collapse. It helps determine which bridges may need repair or replacement. Deficient bridges equal the total of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. Based on the 2009 National Bridge Index data, Illinois had 2,239 structurally deficient bridges and 1,763 functionally obsolete bridges. This total ranks Illinois as the fourteenth highest state for the number of deficient bridges. Pennsylvania has the highest amount of deficient bridges with 9,608, representing 43% of their total bridges as shown in Figure 5. However, the District of Columbia has 65% of its 244 bridges labeled as deficient. Based on the 2010 National Bridge Index data, Illinois had 2,319 structurally deficit bridges (increase of 80 from the year before) and 1,742 functionally obsolete bridges (decrease of 21 from the year before). This total ranks Illinois as the twelfth highest state for the number of deficient bridges compared to fourteenth the year before. Pennsylvania remains at the top for the highest amount of deficient bridges with 9,312, informa economics, inc. Page 7

15 representing nearly 42% of their total bridges as shown in Figure 6. District of Columbia still has 65% of its 245 bridges labeled as deficient (one bridge was added from 2009 data). It should be noted that the U.S. as a whole decreased in the number of deficient bridges from 146,633 to 143,889. Kansas deficient bridges decreased the most from 4,899 in 2010 to 4,594 (305 bridges or a 6% improvement), compared with Illinois which increased the most from 4,002 deficient bridges to 4,061 (59 bridges or -1% decline). Figure 5: Deficient Bridges by State (2010 Data) 15 - TENNESSEE 14 - ILLINOIS 13 - INDIANA 12 - MISSISSIPPI 11 - KENTUCKY 10 - KANSAS 9 - NORTH CAROLINA 8 - NEW YORK 7 - OHIO 6 - IOWA 5 - OKLAHOMA 4 - MISSOURI 3 - CALIFORNIA 2 - TEXAS 1 - PENNSYLVANIA 19.4% 15.2% 21.6% 23.6% 31.1% 19.3% 27.5% 37.2% 23.5% 26.7% 28.7% 29.0% 28.9% 17.8% 43.0% 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Number of Deficient Bridges by State and Percentage of State Total Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration; data released Dec informa economics, inc. Page 8

16 Figure 6: Deficient Bridges by State (2011 Data) 15-MISSISSIPPI 14-TENNESSEE 13-INDIANA 12-ILLINOIS 11-KENTUCKY 10-KANSAS 9-NORTH CAROLINA 8-OHIO 7-NEW YORK 6-IOWA 5-MISSOURI 4-OKLAHOMA 3-CALIFORNIA 2-TEXAS 1-PENNSYLVANIA 22.5% 19.3% 21.1% 15.4% 30.5% 18.2% 27.1% 23.3% 37.0% 27.0% 27.7% 28.6% 28.0% 17.5% 41.7% 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Number of Deficient Bridges by State and Percentage of State Total Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration; data released Dec Comparing bridge posting status among Midwestern states indicates Illinois has the second most open bridges with 25,122 (this does not include posted bridges), which is slightly behind Ohio which has 25,514. Iowa had the largest amount of bridges to be closed from 2010 to 2011 with 44 compared with Illinois which had an additional 34 labeled as closed in 2011 as shown in Table 1. Kansas has the highest amount of posted for load bridges with 6,673, a decrease of 229 from Posted for load bridges in Kansas represent 26% in 2011 while Illinois was 4%, the lowest of all Midwestern States as shown in Table 2. Nebraska s Other category represents 9% of its total bridges. This is due to 1,315 bridges are labeled as open, posting recommended but not legally implemented (all signs not in place or not correctly implemented). informa economics, inc. Page 9

17 Table 1: Bridges by Posting Status for Midwestern States Open to All Traffic Bridge Closed Posted for Load Other State Ohio 26,041 25, ,668 1, Illinois 25,035 25, ,034 1, Iowa 19,310 19, ,321 4, Missouri 17,893 18, ,539 5, Kansas 16,814 17, ,902 6,673 1,430 1,331 Indiana 16,313 16, ,601 1, Wisconsin 13,305 13, Kentucky 12,821 12, Minnesota 12,179 12, Nebraska 10,585 10, ,783 2,875 1,572 1,360 Michigan 9,749 9, South Dakota 4,691 4, ,062 1, North Dakota 3,191 3, ,064 1, Subtotal 187, ,490 1,776 1,777 29,217 28,295 5,789 5,634 U.S. 525, ,991 3,538 3,578 63,072 61,575 12,757 11,890 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Notes: Other includes the following bridge categories: Open, posting recommended but not legally implemented (all signs not in place or not correctly implemented); Open, would be posted or closed except for temporary shoring, etc. to allow for unrestricted traffic; Open, temporary structure in place to carry legal loads while original structure is closed and awaiting replacement or rehabilitation; New structure not yet open to traffic; and Posted for other load-capacity restriction (speed, number of vehicles on bridge, etc.) Table 2: Percentage of Bridges Posting Status for Midwestern States Open to All Traffic Bridge Closed Posted for Load Other State Ohio 93% 93% 0% 0% 6% 5% 0% 1% Illinois 95% 95% 1% 1% 4% 4% 0% 0% Iowa 78% 78% 1% 1% 17% 17% 4% 4% Missouri 74% 75% 1% 1% 23% 21% 2% 3% Kansas 66% 68% 1% 1% 27% 26% 6% 5% Indiana 88% 88% 1% 1% 9% 9% 3% 3% Wisconsin 95% 95% 0% 0% 5% 5% 0% 0% Kentucky 93% 93% 0% 0% 6% 6% 1% 1% Minnesota 93% 93% 1% 0% 6% 6% 1% 0% Nebraska 69% 70% 3% 3% 18% 19% 10% 9% Michigan 89% 90% 1% 0% 9% 9% 1% 1% South Dakota 80% 80% 0% 0% 18% 17% 2% 2% North Dakota 72% 72% 2% 3% 24% 23% 1% 2% Subtotal 84% 84% 1% 1% 13% 13% 3% 3% U.S. 87% 87% 1% 1% 10% 10% 2% 2% Source: Informa Economics based on U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration informa economics, inc. Page 10

18 Number of Bridges Number of Bridges Number of Bridges Number of Bridges A. Bridge Ownership Different agencies are responsible for the maintenance of bridges. There are 29 categories of bridge ownership; however, four account for over 96% of the bridges in the U.S. These four categories include State Highway Agency (State), County Highway Agency (County), Town or Township Highway Agency (Township) and City or Municipal Highway Agency (City). In Illinois, Township accounts for 45.9% of the bridges followed by State, County and City as shown in Figure 7. Unlike most other states, Illinois has a large percentage of its bridges categorized as Township instead of County. The U.S. average of township bridges is 4.9% while Illinois is 45.9% and the average of county bridges in the U.S. is 37.7% whereas Illinois is 15.5%. Nearly 30% of the township bridges in the U.S. are from Illinois followed by Pennsylvania with 24%. The state of Illinois has mandated that the counties take care of the transportation needs of the townships within the county, in exchange for state funding for the townships. The caveat is the level of funding given to the county for the townships has not increased since the late 1970s. Not surprisingly the township bridges are deteriorating. Figure 7: Bridge Ownership in Illinois (2011) 14,000 12,000 14,000 State County Township City Total Bridges Deficient Bridges 1, % 45.9% 1,600 10,000 1,400 1, % 8, % 1,000 6, ,000 2, % 6.9% % 13.0% 0 0 1,200 1,000 Structurally Deficient Bridges 48.9% Functionally Obsolete Bridges 41.1% % % % % 10.8% % 0 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2011 NBI Database 0 informa economics, inc. Page 11

19 The number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges equals the number of deficient bridges. In Illinois, state owned bridges have the highest percentage of functionally obsolete bridges followed by township bridges while township owned bridges have the highest percentage of structurally deficient bridges. B. Bridge Deficiencies in Focus Counties Shelby County has the highest number of deficient bridges among the target counties with 93 followed by Iroquois with 69. DeKalb has the least amount of deficient bridges with 14. The county with the highest percentage of deficient and obsolete bridges is Shelby with 26% followed by Macoupin with 23%. DeKalb had the lowest percentage of bridges that are deficient or obsolete at 1% followed by Peoria and Wayne each with 6% as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Bridge Deficiencies in Target Counties % Deficient and County Number of Bridges Structurally Deficient Functionally Obsolete Total Deficient Obsolete Adams % 8% Bureau % 11% Clinton % 13% DeKalb % 5% Iroquois % 12% McLean % 7% Macoupin % 23% Peoria % 7% Shelby % 26% Wayne % 6% Sub Total 3,539 3, % 12% State Total 26,263 26,431 2,373 1,845 1,792 1,579 4,165 3,424 16% 13% Notes: 2009 data is based on the information from however, the 2010 data was not available at the time of this writing. The 2010 data in this table was estimated by Informa using the 2010 NBI database. Bridges posted for load weight restrictions have impacts on farmers and agricultural facilities. The weight restrictions on the bridges do not allow tractor trailers or in some cases other grain trucks, to traverse the bridge. The impact leads to additional truck mileage and time to move grain. Typically, the bridge s weight restriction is such that a school bus or an ambulance is able to pass. Using the 2010 NBI Database for the target counties, Shelby has the highest number of posted bridges with 54 (60 in 2009 data) followed by Macoupin with 29 (19 in 2009 data). Clinton County has the least number of posted bridges with 4 (5 in 2009 data) followed by DeKalb with 6 (2 in 2009 data). The average age of the posted bridges in the target counties is over or near 100 years. In Macoupin County, the average age is 99 years old (107 years old in 2009) for its posted bridges. For all Illinois bridges, the average age is 40 years. The average bridge sufficiency rating for the posted bridges in the target counties is 39. A summary of bridge postings for 2009 and 2010 in the target counties is shown in Table 4. informa economics, inc. Page 12

20 Table 4: Bridges Posted for Loads in Target Counties County Posted Bridges Posted Bridge Average Daily Traffic Average Year Built of Posted Bridges Average Year Built of All Bridges Average Sufficiency Rating Adams Bureau Clinton DeKalb Iroquois Macoupin McLean 8 7 1,205 1, Shelby Wayne Sub Total State Total 954 1, Notes: The NBI database indicated that in 2010 the state of Illinois had 1,034 posted bridges; however, national data released in December 2011 indicated that the state had 1,012 posted bridges. For this table and the consistency of the counties, the 2010 NBI database is used. A graphical depiction of the Illinois bridges with sufficiency ratings less than 50 for 2009 is shown in Figure 8 and 2010 is shown in Figure 9. In addition, a map of Illinois bridges that have changed status during 2009 to 2010 from posted to closed is shown in Figure 10; further details of the bridges that changed status is shown in Appendix E. informa economics, inc. Page 13

21 Figure 8: Illinois Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings Less than 50 in 2009 informa economics, inc. Page 14

22 Figure 9: Illinois Bridges with Sufficiency Ratings less than 50 in 2010 informa economics, inc. Page 15

23 Figure 10: Change in Illinois Bridge Status from 2009 to 2010 informa economics, inc. Page 16

24 IV. Identification of Target List of Bridges for Consideration The goal of this section was to identify bridges in the state of Illinois that had the most impact to the soybean industry in Illinois. Informa started by identifying the 10 bridges in the supplemental report entitled Illinois Infrastructure Bridges with Potential Impacts to Illinois Agriculture submitted in May Informa s goal was to build upon that list with 10 more bridges or to establish a completely new set of bridges given the updated bridge database for During the interview and analysis stage of this study, it was discovered that some of the 10 bridges from last year s study had been replaced or sufficiency ratings had improved while some of the bridges no longer fit into the top tier of bridges to focus upon based on declines of other bridges. However, two bridges remained in the top 12 bridges to focus upon for this report that were in last year s study. Bridges from last year s top 10 study that have been replaced or updated include: Structure No in McLean County Structure No in McLean County Structure No in Bureau County Structure No in Macoupin County Structure No in Macoupin County Bridges from last year s top 10 study that remained in this report include: Structure No in Shelby County Structure No in Shelby County A. Selection Process The following describes how the list of Illinois bridges was prioritized. The full list of state bridges was first narrowed down by filtering out only those with a sufficiency rating less than 25, or bridges listed as posted or closed. Cook County was also excluded from the analysis because there is no soybean production in this urban county. Each bridge within this filtered list was then assigned a weighted average rating of 1-10 based on the following four criteria and weights. The lower the rating, the greater the priority given to the bridge when considering the target list. 5 The 10 bridges from supplemental study were based on the 2009 NBI database. Those 10 bridges were to be analyzed again as to not assume they would automatically be focused upon for this study. informa economics, inc. Page 17

25 o Sufficiency rating (weight = 10%) A sufficiency rating of 1-10 was assigned to each bridge based on the initial sufficiency rating value and the percentile of that rating relative to the state bridge list. The lower the sufficiency rating value, the greater the priority and the lower the assigned rating. Table 5 defines how the ratings were assigned based on the initial sufficiency rating value. The weighting of this variable is lower than the other criteria, as the initial list of bridges was already filtered by this value. Additionally, it was noted that there were a number of instances where the sufficiency rating was above 25 but the bridge was closed. Therefore, the operating status was given greater emphasis. o Operating status (weight = 30%) An operating status rating of 1-10 was assigned to each bridge based on the operating status code value (e.g., status code 1 = closed ) and the percentile of that value relative to the state bridge list. The lower the status code value, the greater the priority and the lower the assigned rating. Table 5 defines how the ratings were assigned based on the status code value and defines the status codes. o Average daily traffic count (weight = 30%) A traffic rating of 1-10 was assigned to each bridge based on the average daily traffic count 6 and the percentile of that value relative to the state bridge list. The higher the traffic count, the greater the priority and the lower the assigned rating. Table 5 defines how the ratings were assigned based on the average daily traffic count value. o Grain throughput (weight = 30%) An assumed grain throughput rating of 1-10 was assigned to each bridge based on the total annual grain throughput capacity of grain facilities (i.e., ethanol, grain elevators, crushers, and wet milling) within 15 road miles of the bridge and the percentile of that value relative to the state bridge list. 7 6 Not all bridges average daily traffic was calculated in the same year. 7 A list of the agricultural facilities within 15 miles of each of the 12 focus bridges is shown in Appendix B. Initially it was assumed that the selection criteria would use a 40-mile draw area but after conversations with grain elevator managers and industry officials, it was decided that using a 15-mile draw area would provide more accuracy when focusing on individual or networks of bridges relative to grain elevators. informa economics, inc. Page 18

26 The higher the assumed grain throughput value, the greater the priority and the lower the assigned rating. Assumed grain throughput was calculated based on the assumed turns per grain facilities; country elevator 3, shuttle elevator 6 and river elevator 20. Table 5 defines how the ratings were assigned based on the grain throughput value. The average weighted ratings of the bridges were then used as a guide to prioritize the bridges. See the Appendix A for criteria values and ratings of bridges within each of the 9 focus counties (from above referenced study) plus Peoria. Approximately 8-10 bridges were selected for each county. From that list, Informa conducted in person and telephone interviews with county engineers to get their perspective on the bridges that the study should focus upon. In some cases, focus bridges had been fixed or will be fixed in the near future and it was suggested to focus upon another bridge. Table 5: Criteria Ratings informa economics, inc. Page 19

27 B. Interviews with County Engineers In person interviews were conducted with county engineers in Adams, Bureau, Clinton, McLean and Shelby Counties. Telephone interviews were conducted with engineers in DeKalb and Peoria counties. The following section summarizes the interviews, and includes Informa s impression from site visits to the representative bridges. 1. General Comments on Roads Federal highway and state highways are in adequate condition. County highways for the most part are in decent condition. Township roads are in various degrees of decay (some poor and some good). o Many bridges along township roads were left to decay giving the farmer (or individual household) an extended driveway. The road is extended only to the individual s home to allow them access to and from their home. o Engineers stressed that the greatest need for repair on bridges among all the counties are those on the township road network. Most of the county highways were not designed to support 80,000 pound vehicles. o Many roads did not appear to have much of a right-of-way; i.e., road widening would mean relocating of utility lines that are currently near the road. 2. General Comments on Bridges Timber pile bridges are an area of focus for county engineers. o Most were built from o At the time, these bridges were less expensive o Timber is the support and concrete is on top to form the structure vehicles drive on. o This is an example of saving money on the front end that is costing a large amount of money in the future. Precast concrete bridges received both good and poor reviews depending on the county engineer. o Precast structures have not had problems since the manufacturers started coating the concrete. Bridges have to be longer than 20 feet to be included in the NBI database. 3. General Comments on Funding Funding for bridge repairs depends on the specific bridge getting repaired, and there is a difference of allowed funding between repairs and rehabilitation or replacement. Some funds are only allowed for rehabilitation or replacement on township bridges (Township Bridge Program fund). Some funds are only allowed for rehabilitation or replacement on federally approved routes (such as Highway Bridge Program). Some bridges are wholly or partially funded locally (Motor Fuel Tax or county bridge fund, which can also be used for repairs). Most of the informa economics, inc. Page 20

28 county engineers stated that they had encountered few to no instances where a private entity paid for a bridge repair; the only time was mining or quarrying operations. Farmers in Illinois do not have to pay certain taxes on diesel fuel for their farming operations. o In order to get low priority roads and bridges repaired, some individual farmers provide the materials required to enable the county engineer to update and maintain a specific road or bridge. County equipment and labor is used to finish the project. Cities, populations over 15,000 people, primarily pay for their own roads and bridges. For a growing city, roads and bridges are considered to be part of economic development that will have a large revenue enhancement from property and sales taxes. For populations less than 15,000 people, counties have to repair township bridges and in return the state of Illinois provides the county with funds or the Township Bridge Program (TBP). TBP is administered by the state and is funded with motor fuel tax funding. o Since the 1970s, the level of funding has not increased for this program, but over the last 10 years, the price of repairing a bridge has doubled while the cost of liquid asphalt has increased from $0.80 per gallon to $2.40 per gallon 8. From 2003 to 2007, the cost of highway and road construction increased by an average of 10% annually compared with the average annual increase of 2.4% the two decades before 9. Roads that were chip sealed every other year are now chip sealed every sixth year. The two largest funding programs for the construction and maintenance of bridges is the state bridge program (SBP), and the federal bridge program (FBP). o The state bridge program allocates funding to the counties based on the miles of roads within the county. This provides incentive to the county to register obsolete roads in order to get additional funding. The federal bridge program allocates funding to the counties based on the square footage of bridges in the county. o Federal money can help fund a project but it takes longer to meet all the federal requirements. For example, an environmental program to save pigmy rattle snakes resulted in a one year delay in the building of a bridge in one of the focus counties. o Federal assistance to repair a bridge is available when the rating is 80 or less, while replacement funds are available for a rating of 50 or less. For both these conditions, eligibility criteria must be met as well. One county 8 Liquid asphalt is a product from the petroleum refining process that is the main ingredient in asphalt. 9 Congressional Budget Office, Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, November 2010 informa economics, inc. Page 21

29 engineer stated that a law mandating funding of this program at a level that could keep up with the increasing demand for repair and replacement would be the best option. Some engineers explained that there is an incentive to be aggressive in the bridge evaluation process that creates the bridge sufficiency rating, because of the time lag between the county engineer inspection and federal engineer inspection. The state of Illinois imposed a six percent sales tax on gasoline that is used in general funding. o Citizens of Illinois are keenly aware that they pay a higher price for fuel than their neighboring states but they are not aware that this money does not necessarily pay for transportation projects. The general feeling by the citizens of Illinois is they, already, under existing fee and revenue programs pay enough for infrastructure which limits the ability to raise funds. o The consensus among the engineers is a portion of the gasoline sales tax should specifically be spent on infrastructure in Illinois. o The Road Fund and the Construction Fund are both funded with Motor Vehicle Registration fees and the Motor Fuel Tax. Both of these funds are used for infrastructure improvements in Illinois. o The General Revenue Fund (GRF) is not used for highway infrastructure improvements. However, the GRF pays the debt service on bonds issued for transit, aeronautics, and other state infrastructure. o The sales tax is only one of the sources that go into the GRF the other main sources are the personal and corporate income tax and the public utility tax. 4. General Comments on Factors Impacting Infrastructure As roads deteriorate, county engineers and road commissioners have to make decisions as to which roads have priority. For counties that lack the funding to properly manage the infrastructure, they are effectively deciding which roads become gravel. So it is imperative that soybean growers understand the criteria used to determine priority. o The two major goals are public safety and schools. Public safety includes a clear route to hospitals and individual households. o The movement of agriculture products is not a priority. For example, a bridge posted to 50,000 pounds is not considered a priority because school buses that weigh up to 36,000 pounds can still cross the bridge. The size of farmers crops has increased over the years and the increased truck weight is increasing the deterioration of roads and bridges. o The U.S. interstates, state highways and most county highways are designed to be able to withstand 80,000 pounds trucks. o County roads and township roads were not designed for 80,000 pounds trucks. informa economics, inc. Page 22

30 New structures can carry 80,000 pound vehicles. However, many of the older structures were designed to a much lower standard, or were constructed for an unknown design load. On the local system, roads were designed for 73,280 pound vehicles for many years. The 80,000 pound designation was for truck routes only. Illinois recognized the need for these special truck routes on the local system by implementing the Truck Access Route Program (TARP) to encourage the design and construction of roads for 80,000 pounds. However, TARP only funds a small portion of the actual cost needed to upgrade a road to 80,000 pounds, and the remaining local match is at the expense of the road jurisdiction agency. o In another example, it was suggested that the lack of weight distribution on manure spreaders has caused damage to roads and bridges. Plus wide equipment having to drive on the edge of roads has caused damage to the roads and bridges. A priority of the agriculture community is an infrastructure that can handle 80,000 and 100,000 pound trucks. This will require a well thought out separate plan that includes additional funding through a new program specifically designed to meet the needs of agriculture. If funding is increased through the current infrastructure programs, agriculture concerns may not be met. Spring thaw is a time period when roads are vulnerable to higher truck weights. Roads are posted for a number of reasons and at different times during the year. For example, bridges can be posted up to 90 days during the winter and spring, January 15 to April 15. o Some counties do not post during the spring due to warmer temperatures or because of drivers not obeying the posted rules. So, rather than post and have low compliances the county opts not to post the bridge. The geographical location of a county can play a major role in the condition of its roads and bridges. o If a county is located between two metropolitan areas, the county will likely benefit from an interstate or state highway that will provide a backbone to the county infrastructure. County vehicle traffic will be diverted to these well-constructed four lane roads, which will effectively reduce the wear and tear on the county roads. Likewise for a county with little to no interstate or state highway mileage, all the traffic will travel on county roads which are paid for out of the county budget. o A county without cities with populations above 50,000 people will have to fund all the road maintenance within the county. Cities above 50,000 people receive Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to pay for transportation and maintenance. By law, any urban area of over 50,000 must undertake a process to develop transportation plans and programs formulated on the basis of transportation needs and with due consideration to comprehensive, long-range land use plans, development informa economics, inc. Page 23

31 objectives, and social, economic, environmental, and energy conservation goals 10. Cities smaller than 50,000 people have the option to fund their own transportation projects. For example Carlyle, IL, has over 15,000 people with approximately 9 miles of road and has a vested interest in insuring the infrastructure is able to handle the tourism season. o Due to county funding being primarily based on miles of road, those counties without cities with population over 15,000 people and federal and state funded roads have less funds available for county and township road and bridge infrastructure. o A comparison of road miles to county population is shown in Figure Priorities for Bridges The Illinois Department of Transportation calculates and dictates to local agencies the load posting they are to place on bridges. The posting is a factor of the capacity of the bridge and not to the convenience of the potential users. Local agencies alert schools and first responders when a load limit is placed on a bridge. Load postings do not consider who the user is and apply to all vehicles regardless of the user. However, it was mentioned that some county engineers do access the repair or rehabilitation of bridges among a number of priorities, including: Public safety and schools goal is to keep the roads open to accommodate emergency equipment and school buses. o Schools the largest buses weigh up to 36,000 pounds o Hospitals o Emergency personal o Snow plowing Postal services Agriculture o Loaded grain trucks can weigh up to 80,000 pounds in Illinois. o The goal is to have a set of roads that can handle agriculture commodities from farm to market; i.e. heavy corridor. Trying to make heavier roads a priority. Farmers working within heavier road context, place on-farm storage on these corridors. Concluding thought from a county engineer One suggestion is a percentage of check off dollars or some form of increased revenue percentage goes towards helping rural infrastructure. Some of the county engineers feel that a major collision is about to occur as larger production of crops creates additional truck moves that will further deteriorate the roads and bridges much faster than designed. This will leave areas that cannot afford to upgrade or fix infrastructure with minimized access to market position. These events are already happening in areas like Shelby County but will spread to other parts of the state in the near future. With 10 Bureau of Local Roads and Streets: Loads Roads and Streets Funding Dec page 4-1(3) informa economics, inc. Page 24

32 increased yields expected, farmers will be limited to smaller loads to move the grain instead of using current truck configurations let alone larger equipment if the infrastructure is going to hold up. C. Focus Counties Infrastructure Profiles Summary statistics of the 10 focus counties infrastructure profiles is shown in this section. Discussion earlier in the report identified that funding and population play a critical role in maintaining roads and bridges. Understanding the dynamic between population, type of road mileage and bridge status helps to explain the infrastructure situation in each county. Peoria County has the highest population of the counties analyzed in this report with over 186 thousand followed by McLean with nearly 170 thousand while Wayne has the lowest population with nearly 17 thousand. Wayne has the second highest percentage of its roads dedicated to gravel with 36% trailing only Adams which has 47%. The county with the most people per bridge is Peoria with 518 while Iroquois is the least with 52 as shown in Table 6. Peoria has the highest average daily traffic counts with 4,919 while Shelby has the least with 447. However, the percentage of the traffic counts that are on county and township bridges is highest in Shelby with 38%. This shows that counties that do not have state and federal roads have higher percentage of traffic counts on county and township bridges within their boundaries. Higher mileage of state and federal roads diverts traffic away from county and township roads that the county is responsible for maintaining. It should be noted that the average person in Shelby County passes over 3 county and township bridges per day while in Bureau County it is less than one. Bureau County contains several state highways and Interstate 80 that are maintained by the state and federal governments. The fund allocation process for counties does not take into account the amount of traffic per county bridge. informa economics, inc. Page 25

33 Table 6: Focus County Population and Infrastructure County & Township Paved Roads Source: Illinois Department of Transportation % Traffic County and Township County Population 2010 Gravel Roads State Paved Roads Number of Bridges People per Bridge Average Daily Traffic Counts Adams 67, ,072 15% Bureau 34,978 1, ,455 1% Clinton 37, ,076 13% DeKalb 105, ,359 28% Iroquois 29,718 1, % Macoupin 47,765 1, % McLean 169,572 2, ,021 4% Peoria 186,494 1, ,919 7% Shelby 22,363 1, % Wayne 16, % Notes: Roads are in miles. Average Daily Traffic Counts is the average traffic counts for bridges in that county. Percent Traffic County and Township is the percentage of total county and township bridge traffic counts divided by total bridge traffic counts. The number of people per bridge plays a pivotal role in funding infrastructure projects. More people equal more tax dollars to help fund maintenance and construction of local roads and bridges. Wayne County has a low population but a large amount of gravel road miles. This has allowed Wayne to spend less money on roads and more on bridge maintenance and repairs. While doing field work analysis on select bridges, Informa representatives noticed that many of Wayne s bridges were repaired or newly constructed. The comparison of counties when combining the road miles with bridge infrastructure is shown in Figure 11. The number of deficient bridges is shown in three of the four figures. Shelby is an example of a county with a high number of deficient bridges, low mileage of roads and low population. On the other hand, Clinton County has a lower number of deficient bridges, the lowest mileage of roads and a growing population 11. Counties with the least number of deficient bridges, total road miles and a larger population should have more adequate infrastructures. Peoria, DeKalb, Clinton and Wayne are in the bottom left quadrant of the figures comparing deficient bridges to paved and gravel road miles as shown in Figure 11. It appears Wayne County has found a way to turn paved roads into gravel to lower maintenance cost and increase funding for their bridges. Shelby County is a low population county that has not aggressively turned paved roads into gravel and has a large number of deficient bridges. Low population counties in rural areas that do not have federal and state funded roads have to choose between gravel roads or deficient bridges. There is a high correlation between the number of road miles and the number of bridges in a county which means allocating state bridge funds by total miles in a county is acceptable as shown in the bridges, road miles and population by focus county chart in Figure Clinton County is near St. Louis and includes many residents who commute into the metropolis. informa economics, inc. Page 26

34 Total County and Township Paved Road Miles Gravel Road Miles Total Road Miles Total Road Miles Figure 11: County Comparison of Road Miles to Bridges 3,500 1,200 Adams Bureau Clinton DeKalb Iroquois Macoupin McLean Peoria Shelby Wayne Bridges, Road Miles and Population Deficient Bridges, Road Miles and Population 3,500 3,000 3,000 2,500 2,500 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 1,000 1, Number of Bridges Number of Deficient Bridges 3,000 Deficient Bridges, County and Township Paved Miles and Population 1,200 Deficient Bridges, Gravel Miles and Population 2,500 1,000 2, , , Number of Deficient Bridges Number of Deficient Bridges informa economics, inc. Page 27

35 V. Profile of the 12 Most Critical Bridges After the interviews with county engineers, grain elevator managers and in-person viewing of bridges, Informa was able to narrow down to twelve bridges for this analysis. This section will profile those 12 bridges. Informa visited each bridge to prepare the profiles and capture pictures for illustrative purposes. The profiles that follow are organized onto one page apiece in order to have easy reference. The twelve critical bridges (shown in alphabetical order by county): Structure No in Adams County (Reference No. 587) Structure No in Adams County (Reference No. 353) Structure No in Bureau County (Reference No. 1094) Structure No in DeKalb County (Reference No. 740) Structure No in Iroquois County (Reference No. 882) Structure No in Iroquois County (Reference No. 480) Structure No in Macoupin County (Reference No. 934) Structure No in Macoupin County (Reference No. 1301) Structure No in McLean County (Reference No. 405) Structure No in Peoria County (Reference No. 963) Structure No in Shelby County (Reference No. 457) Structure No in Shelby County (Reference No. 174) The focus bridges and grain elevators in Illinois are shown in Figure 12. The dots on the map represent each elevator and the size of the dot is based on the static storage capacity. The top 12 bridges did not include bridges in Clinton and Wayne County. Photographs of bridges were taken in these two counties and an interview with the county engineer in Clinton was completed. However, none of the bridges justified being placed as one of the 12 focus bridges. The number of farm input services in each of the counties that included a focus bridge are shown in the profiles below. Farm inputs represent chemical, fertilizer and seed companies as provided in Reference USA. The status of bridge number shows it posted since 2000 and in 2009 became temporary shoring. The temporary shoring is a culvert and additional limestone. Prior to 2000, bridge data in the NBI database is coded in different formats; as a result, no bridge data is shown in this report before Captive farm area is an Informa calculation. Almost all of the focus counties in this study have quarries located within in their boundaries; however, Macoupin has two coal mining companies operating within their boundaries. These private industries use heavy trucks similar to agricultural operations. It may be important to work with the coal mining and rock quarrying industries in order to have a larger voice improving infrastructure throughout the state of Illinois. informa economics, inc Page 28

36 Figure 12: Illinois Grain Elevators and Focus Bridges informa economics, inc Page 29

37 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in Adams County (Reference No. 587) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1900 Year Reconstructed 1984 Inspection Date Dec-09 Status Posted Since 2000 Category Structurally Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost $109,000 Road Improvement Cost $11,000 Total Improvement Cost $164,000 Ownership Township Deck Structure Type Wood or Timber Structure Length 80 Feet Roadway Width 15 Feet Feature Intersected Oak Creek Facility Carried Township Road 77 Detour 3.1 Miles Captive Farm Area 640 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 3 Farm Input Services in County Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The photos above in order from right to left depict a side view of the bridge 587, a view of Oak Creek from the center of the bridge, and an underneath view of bridge 587. informa economics, inc Page 30

38 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in Adams County (Reference No. 353) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1922 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date Dec-09 Status Posted Since 2000 Category Structurally Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost $205,000 Road Improvement Cost $21,000 Total Improvement Cost $305,000 Ownership Township Deck Structure Type Concrete Cast-in-Place Structure Length 145 Feet Roadway Width 16 Feet Feature Intersected Bear Creek Facility Carried TR 124 Detour 3.7 miles Captive Farm Area 2,560 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 3 Farm Input Services in County Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show bridge 353, the posting for the bridge, and the surface of the subject bridge. informa economics, inc Page 31

39 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in Bureau County (Reference No. 1094) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1964 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date Dec-09 Status Posted Since 2000 Category Not Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost Not Available Road Improvement Cost Not Available Total Improvement Cost Not Available Ownership Municiple Deck Structure Type Concrete Precast Panels Structure Length 107 Feet Roadway Width 32 Feet Feature Intersected CRI&P Railroad Facility Carried Marquette Street Detour 3.1 Miles Captive Farm Area 0 Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 13 Farm Input Services in County 3 2,700 2,650 2,600 2,550 2,500 2,450 2,400 2,350 Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show bridge 1094, underneath bridge 1094 and the posting for the subject bridge. informa economics, inc Page 32

40 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in DeKalb County (Reference No. 740) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1976 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date Nov-08 Status Closed Since 2009 Category Structurally Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost $246,000 Road Improvement Cost $25,000 Total Improvement Cost $369,000 Ownership Township Deck Structure Type Concrete Precast Panels Structure Length 130 Feet Roadway Width 28 Feet Feature Intersected S BR Kishwaukee RV Facility Carried Keslinger Road Detour 16.7 Miles Captive Farm Area 640 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 15 Farm Input Services in County Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show warnings the bridge is out, the void from bridge removal, and the shoring on remnants of the bridge. informa economics, inc Page 33

41 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in Iroquois County (Reference No. 882) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1907 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date Jan-10 Status Posted Since 2010 Category Structurally Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost $54,000 Road Improvement Cost $5,000 Total Improvement Cost $81,000 Ownership Township Deck Structure Type Concrete Cast-in-Place Structure Length 50 Feet Roadway Width 15 Feet Feature Intersected Trib to Sugar CR Facility Carried TR 396 Detour 1.9 Miles Captive Farm Area 30,010 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 5 Farm Input Services in County Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show a side view of bridge 882, the surface of bridge 882, and the grain pit near the railroad tracks that is serviced by bridge 882. informa economics, inc Page 34

42 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in Iroquois County (Reference No. 480) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1955 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date Apr-09 Status Posted Since 2007 Category Structurally Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost Not Available Road Improvement Cost Not Available Total Improvement Cost Not Available Ownership Township Deck Structure Type Concrete Cast-in-Place Structure Length 28 Feet Roadway Width 20 Feet Feature Intersected Prairie Creek Facility Carried TR 175B Sec 102 Detour 3.1 Miles Captive Farm Area 3,360 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 12 Farm Input Services in County Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show bridge 480, the side of bridge 480 and the agricultural operations in the background behind the bridge. informa economics, inc Page 35

43 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in Macoupin County (Reference No. 934) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1932 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date Dec-09 Status Posted Since 2010 Category Structurally Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost $72,000 Road Improvement Cost $7,000 Total Improvement Cost $108,000 Ownership County Deck Structure Type Not Available Structure Length 34 Feet Roadway Width 21 Feet Feature Intersected Sugar Creek Facility Carried 9 MI. Lane Detour 5.0 Miles Captive Farm Area 7,114 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 9 Farm Input Services in County Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show bridge 934, Sugar Creek under the bridge, and a side view of bridge 934. informa economics, inc Page 36

44 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in Macoupin County (Reference No. 1301) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1900 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date Jun-09 Status Posted Since 2000 Category Not Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost Not Available Road Improvement Cost Not Available Total Improvement Cost Not Available Ownership Township Deck Structure Type Wood or Timber Structure Length 40 Feet Roadway Width 15 Feet Feature Intersected Creek Facility Carried TR 65 Detour 1.9 Miles Captive Farm Area 12,034 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 9 Farm Input Services in County Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show the bridge and the posting for bridge 1301, a side view of the bridge, and the creek that flows beneath the subject bridge. informa economics, inc Page 37

45 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in McLean County (Reference No. 405) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1958 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date May-07 Status Posted Since 2010 Category Structurally Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost Not Available Road Improvement Cost Not Available Total Improvement Cost Not Available Ownership Township Deck Structure Type Concrete Cast-in-Place Structure Length 80 Feet Roadway Width 22 Feet Feature Intersected Kings Mill Creek Facility Carried TR 94 Detour 3.7 Miles Captive Farm Area 2,438 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 11 Farm Input Services in County Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show bridge 405, the side of bridge 405, and the weight restriction for the road that leads up to the bridge informa economics, inc Page 38

46 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in Peoria County (Reference No. 963) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1950 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date Jan-08 Status Posted Since 2010 Category Structurally Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost $546,000 Road Improvement Cost $55,000 Total Improvement Cost $819,000 Ownership County Deck Structure Type Concrete Cast-in-Place Structure Length 214 Feet Roadway Width 24 Feet Feature Intersected Kickapoo Creek Facility Carried Creek Road-CH R51 Detour 0.6 Mile Captive Farm Area 128 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 9 Farm Input Services in County 5 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show bridge 963, the side view of bridge 963 and a worn section of bridge 963 that was covered by a steel plate which was removed for this picture. informa economics, inc Page 39

47 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in Shelby County (Reference No. 457) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1961 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date Mar-09 Status Posted Since 2008 Category Structurally Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost $265,000 Road Improvement Cost $44,000 Total Improvement Cost $309,000 Ownership County Deck Structure Type Concrete Precast Panels Structure Length 84 Feet Roadway Width 24 Feet Feature Intersected Angel Branch Facility Carried CH 18 Detour 3.7 Miles Captive Farm Area 1,754 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 9 Farm Input Services in County Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show bridge 457, the weight posting for bridge 457, and the stream that flows beneath the subject bridge. informa economics, inc Page 40

48 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Structure No in Shelby County (Reference No. 174) GIS Coordinates Year Built 1909 Year Reconstructed Not Available Inspection Date Mar-08 Status Open Temporary Shoring Since 2009 Category Structurally Deficient Bridge Improvement Cost $146,000 Road Improvement Cost $17,000 Total Improvement Cost $162,000 Ownership Township Deck Structure Type Concrete Cast-in-Place Structure Length 25 Feet Roadway Width 16 Feet Feature Intersected Wolf Creek Facility Carried TR 399 A Detour 3.7 Miles Captive Farm Area 3,840 Acres Ag Facilities Within 15 Miles 10 Farm Input Services in County Daily Vehicle Traffic Counts Note: The pictures from left to right show bridge 174 (the bridge is a covered culvert), nearby agricultural operations, and Wolf Creek, which is serviced by bridge 174. You can also see a nearby bridge downstream from bridge 174. informa economics, inc Page 41

49 VI. Economic Impact of Each Bridge The economic impact of each bridge is related to the economic activity supported by three categories. The categories that represent each bridge s annual impact, and the definitions of those categories, are listed below. Direct Agricultural Impacts This is the impact from agricultural producers, primarily farmers from having to re-route around a failing bridge. This applies to farm activities that require inputs to be delivered to the field as well as when crops are harvested. Additionally, a case study has been analyzed in which a bridge is critical to the origination and delivery of grain or especially oilseeds, namely soybeans, to the site where the company loads railcars. The direct impact to that site has been further analyzed as the business would be crippled without a functioning bridge. Direct General Commerce Impacts The general commerce impact is estimated using the average daily traffic counts over the bridge and then calculating the additional expense required to use an alternative route. Since the location of the focus bridges are in rural locations, and are surrounded by farmland, it is assumed that much of the daily traffic is linked to the agricultural sector. Indirect and Induced Impacts There are short term winners and losers in the local economy when a bridge fails. Additional fuel consumption used to take an alternative route is an expense for users of the bridge, but equal additional sales for the fuel retailers. This impact will explore what the net impact to the community is from bridge insufficiencies. Typically, a large portion of the fuel revenues leave the state, which means that the net indirect impact is expected to be a negative impact to the local economy. The economic impacts are negative when a bridge fails. However, to the extent the bridges do not fail, these are the positive impacts that the bridges provide to the local community. The cost to receive the benefits from a well maintained bridge can be summed by the capitalized cost to maintain bridges and the cost to replace a bridge that is at the end of its useful life. The annual benefit/cost ratio for maintaining the bridge can be defined as: Illinois has an extensive network of roads and bridges, with over 26,000 bridges in the state inventory. An aerial view of the state will show that much of the rural landscape informa economics, inc Page 42

50 has a road around every section 12 of land, with some areas having roads that traverse within sections. As a result, most bridges are seldom more than a mile up or downstream from an alternative route. This network of bridge infrastructure minimizes the economic loss of a bridge failure because the risk is spread out over several bridges in any one area. If bridges were allowed to fail, the risk will heighten because there are less alternative routes. Individual bridge impacts will increase if the alternative routes also become unavailable. To illustrate the importance of the bridge network, five of the focus bridges are in a network and the network value is presented. Consider the simplified Figure 13: Impact of Losing a Single Bridge example of a network of five bridges shown in Figure 13. In the example, a farmer wanting to travel from point A to point B will be negatively impacted by the cost of the alternative route (25 miles) resulting from a bridge failure, less the cost of the original route (5 miles) or in this case a net loss of 20 miles. Figure 14: Impact of Losing Three Adjacent Bridges All bridges in this example have equivalent alternatives and are assumed to be identical in structure so they all have the same impacts. However if three adjacent bridges in the network fail, the impact is not the sum of the individual impacts. In fact, the impact is greater, because the impact to the middle bridge increases. The alternative route for the middle bridge, as shown in Figure 14, increased by 10 as a result of the unavailability of the original alternative route. The loss of the three adjacent bridges also puts more risk on the two remaining bridges, which if either were lost would add not just their own economic losses but also change the routing of other misplaced bridge users. 12 A section is an area measurement that is 1 square mile or 640 acres of land. informa economics, inc Page 43

51 Section VII (Competitive Impact of Select Illinois Bridges) will report the economic impact of bridges as shown in Figure 13 and also provide the amount of income that is generated from the impacts of functional bridges in a specific region. This report uses a standardized set of economic numbers for each bridge and bridge network. Several bridges are not considered part of a network in which case, there will not be a network total. Definitions of the measures used can be found in Table 7. Measure Benefit of the network from agriculture & general commerce Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge network Total network benefits Less Annualized Network Costs Net benefit of the network Net benefit of the focus bridge Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge Table 7: Bridge Economic Measures Defined Description The direct benefit of a bridge network is equated as the cost incurred if the network was closed and an alternative route had to be used. This was calculated for general commerce using alternative costs route costs for the annualized average daily traffic counts. It also includes additional traffic that would be incurred during the harvest season. Although the title is agriculture & general commerce much of the general commerce is believed to support the agricultural sector. The number presented is the total annual direct benefit of having the bridge network in place. The indirect and induced impacts are calculated using spending patterns from the input-output IMPLAN model. When traffic is rerouted from a bridge closing the additional expense is a loss to household income, but a gain to the revenues of the gasoline and diesel industry. However, households have different spending patterns than the gasoline and diesel industry and the dollars are accrued to different geographic regions both within Illinois and beyond its borders. As a result the net trickle down impact of having the bridge network is estimated to be $0.65 for every $1 of direct savings. This accounts for the positive impact of keeping income within household budgets and the negative impact of not stimulating the gasoline and diesel industry. Total of the agriculture and general commerce impacts and their trickle down effects. Summation of the bridge costs divided by their useful lives for all bridges in the network plus the annual estimated maintenance costs to maintain the bridge network. Total network benefits minus annualized network costs. This number tells us how many dollars, after annual costs are subtracted, will be added to area households and tax revenues each year. The individual impact of the single focus bridge if it was closed but other bridges in the network were still available This ratio can be described as how many dollars of income and indirect business tax are generated per the annualized cost and maintenance for the bridge. (Note that if the estimated costs of the bridge increase, this number will decrease.) informa economics, inc Page 44

52 The table in Table 8 shows the results of the bridge analysis. The table provides the positive impact from keeping each of the twelve bridges or bridge networks open as well as other summary information. More detailed results are provided on a bridge by bridge basis in the next section. Bridge or Table 8: Summary Impact Results for Select Illinois Bridges Total Bridges Captive Gross Portion of Benefits Directly Linked to Benefit Cost Ratio of the the Focus Network ID in Network County Farm Acres Benefits Agriculture Bridge Only Adams 640 $ 7,303 $ 1, Adams 2,560 $ 112,159 $ 7, Bureau - $ 895,274 $ DeKalb 640 $ 1,118,037 $ 1, Iroquois 30,010 $ 125,387 $ 87, Iroquois 3,360 $ 63,988 $ 9, Macoupin 7,114 $ 891,017 $ 20, Macoupin 12,034 $ 92,236 $ 35, McLean 2,438 $ 256,980 $ 7, Peoria 128 $ 760,956 $ Shelby 1,754 $ 86,907 $ 5, Shelby 3,840 $ 134,231 $ 11, Total 25 64,518 $ 4,544,475 $ 188, * * The total for the Benefit Cost Ratio is represented as an average. The average only reflects the 12 focus bridges and thus excludes the 13 additional bridges that made up portions of the bridge networks that were analyzed. Note: Bridge 1094 serves a community and doesn t directly benefit agriculture. However, it was included in the analysis to show the benefits it provides to the local community, which undoubtedly is indirectly tied to the local agricultural sector. Source: Informa informa economics, inc Page 45

53 VII. Competitive Impact of Select Illinois Bridges The benefit cost ratio for each of the 12 bridges is presented in this section. Also presented are a summary of the benefits and costs for each bridge network, or in the case that there is no bridge network, the benefits and costs are for the focus bridge only. Each impact profile also provides the amount of captive farmland. The captive farmland is defined in this analysis as the farmland that is estimated to rely on the subject bridge and would otherwise require a longer route to reach its probable destination. Some areas have a relatively small agricultural impact because there are many equivalent routes available to reach the market. In addition to the captive impacted farmland, data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture presenting value of production by county and value of soybean production by county have been summarized in Table 9 below to illustrate the magnitude of the farm and soybean sector in each of the counties where the focus bridges of this report are located. Table 9: Agricultural Sales and Soybean Sales for Select Illinois Counties Total Agricultural Sales Total Soybean Sales (Millions of US$) Adams Bureau DeKalb Iroquois Macoupin McLean Peoria Shelby Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture, 2007 Census, Informa Note: Clinton and Wayne Counties are excluded as they did not yield a bridge in the top twelve Bridges with sufficiency ratings less than 25 or that are posted or closed for the focus counties relative to agriculture facilities are shown in Figure 15 through Figure 24. The highlighted bridges are the ones analyzed in this study. informa economics, inc Page 46

54 Figure 15: Adams County Focus Bridges and Agricultural Facilities informa economics, inc Page 47

55 Figure 16: Bureau County Focus Bridges and Agricultural Facilities informa economics, inc Page 48

56 Figure 17: Clinton County Focus Bridges and Agricultural Facilities informa economics, inc Page 49

57 Figure 18: DeKalb County Focus Bridges and Agricultural Facilities informa economics, inc Page 50

58 Figure 19: Iroquois County Focus Bridges and Agricultural Facilities informa economics, inc Page 51

59 Figure 20: Macoupin County Focus Bridges and Agriculture Facilities informa economics, inc Page 52

60 Figure 21: McLean County Focus Bridges and Agriculture Facilities informa economics, inc Page 53

61 Figure 22: Peoria County Focus Bridges and Agriculture Facilities Note: Since the 2010 NBI Database was released, Peoria County has replaced 5 (Todd School Ref #765, Elmore Ref #766 (rehabilitated), Krause Ref #222, Tiber Creek Not on map, and McCullough Ref #593) since informa economics, inc Page 54

62 Figure 23: Shelby County Focus Bridges and Agriculture Facilities informa economics, inc Page 55

63 Figure 24: Wayne County Focus Bridges and Agriculture Facilities informa economics, inc Page 56

64 A. Bridge 587 (Adams County, IL) The bridge is in Adams County and is labeled Bridge 587 in Figure 25. Bridge 587 does connect a captive area of farmland to the local elevator by crossing Oak Creek, but it is a rather small area, with little other traffic. Farmland directly impacted by the bridge totals 640 acres. Annual Bridge Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the bridge from agricultural & general commerce: $ 4,426 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge: $ 2,877 o Total bridge benefits: $ 7,303 o Less annualized costs: $ 22,500 o Net benefit of the bridge: ($15,197) Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge: ($15,197) o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge: 0.32 o The net benefit is negative and the ratio is less than 1. This implies that every dollar of the estimated costs only generates 32 cents of income and indirect taxes. Figure 25: Bridge 587 (Adams County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 57

65 B. Bridge Network 353 (Adams County, IL) Network 353 crosses Bear Creek and consists of two bridges that serve Adams County. The focus bridge is labeled Bridge 353 in Figure 26. Farmland directly impacted by the bridge network totals 2,560 acres. Annual Bridge Network Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the network from agricultural & general commerce: $ 67,975 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge network: $ 44,184 o Total network benefits: $ 112,159 o Less annualized network costs: $ 52,500 o Net benefit of the network: $ 59,659 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge: $ 1,648 o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge: 1.07 o The focus bridge has a very low individual impact, but its partner bridge, 353A, has an even lower net benefit (loss) of ($5,467). This is because they are each suitable substitutes for each other. When combined as a network, the impact of both bridges is greater at $59,659 for a benefit cost ratio of This example illustrates the increased value that sometimes occurs by having two bridges that support a local area. Figure 26: Bridge Network 353 (Adams County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 58

66 C. Bridge 1094 (Bureau County, IL) Bridge 1094 serves a local community in the vicinity of the city of De Pue, by crossing a rail line and connecting the community. The focus bridge is in Bureau County and is labeled Bridge 1094 in Figure 27. No farmland has been assigned to this bridge, but the bridge is vital for an agriculturally focused community. As a result of serving within a community the traffic volumes are substantially greater than other focus bridges. This factor increases the economic value of the bridge. In addition, this bridge has 13 grain elevators within 15 miles, the second highest total among the focus bridges but the most elevator static capacity. Annual Bridge Network Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the bridge from general commerce: $ 542,590 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge: $ 352,684 o Total benefits: $ 895,274 o Less annualized costs: $ 30,000 o Net benefit of the bridge: $ 865,274 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge: $ 865,274 o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge: Figure 27: Bridge 1094 (Bureau County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 59

67 D. Bridge 740 (DeKalb County, IL) Bridge 740 is currently closed, but at one time this structure served the area s community and farmland in DeKalb County, by crossing the south branch of the Kishwaukee River. The structure is labeled Bridge 740 in Figure 28. Farmland serviced by Bridge 740 is 640 acres. This is a low level of farmland compared to other focus bridges, but similar to bridge 1094, this bridge, prior to closure, handled a significant amount of local commerce traffic, much of which is assumed to have been influenced by agriculture. Annual Bridge Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the bridge from agriculture & general commerce: $ 677,598 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge: $ 440,439 o Total bridge benefits: $1,118,037 o Less annualized bridge costs: $ 30,000 o Net benefit of the bridge: $1,088,037 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge,: $1,088,037 o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge: Figure 28: Bridge 740 (DeKalb County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 60

68 E. Bridge 882 (Iroquois County, IL) Bridge 882 is a single bridge that is critical for sourcing grain at a local elevator. The bridge is in Iroquois County and is an area that is divided by a tributary to Sugar Creek and a railroad with limited road crossings. An in depth look at the impact of Bridge 882 is described in section VIII. The bridge is labeled Bridge 882 in Figure 29. Farmland directly impacted by the bridge totals 30,010 acres. Annual Bridge Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the bridge from agricultural & general commerce: $ 75,992 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge $ 49,395 o Total bridge benefits: $125,387 o Less annualized bridge costs: $ 15,000 o Net benefit of the bridge: $110,387 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge: $110,387 o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge: 8.36 Figure 29: Bridge 882 (Iroquois County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 61

69 F. Bridge 480 (Iroquois County, IL) Bridge 480 is a single bridge that is between two grain elevator locations. The bridge is impacted by being nearly equidistant between the two elevators as farmers may deliver to one elevator over the other. The bridge crosses Prairie Creek in Iroquois County and is labeled Bridge 480 in Figure 30. Farmland directly impacted by the bridge totals 3,360 acres. Annual Bridge Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the bridge from agricultural & general commerce: $ 38,781 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge: $ 25,207 o Total bridge benefits: $ 63,988 o Less annualized bridge costs: $ 22,500 o Net benefit of the bridge: $ 41,488 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge: $ 41,488 o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge: 2.84 Figure 30: Bridge 480 (Iroquois County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 62

70 G. Bridge Network 934 (Macoupin County, IL) Network of 5 bridges that provide service over Sugar Creek in Macoupin County. The map in Figure 31 shows the network. The focus bridge is labeled Bridge 934 and is supported by four other nearby bridges (934A-D). All bridges are public and intact. Farmland directly impacted by the bridge network totals 7,114 acres. Annual Bridge Network Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the network from agricultural & general commerce: $540,010 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge network: $351,007 o Total network benefits: $891,017 o Less annualized network costs: $ 82,500 o Net benefit of the network: $808,517 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge: $209,972 o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge: Figure 31: Bridge Network 934 (Macoupin County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 63

71 H. Bridge Network 1301 (Macoupin County, IL) Network of 3 bridges, crossing a creek and has nine agricultural facilities within 15 miles. The bridge network is in Macoupin County and can be viewed in Figure 32. The focus bridge is labeled Bridge 1301 and is supported by four other nearby bridges (1301A-B). Access can be obtained directly, although not necessarily as efficiently, to the city of Girard by farming areas to the upper left of the map using the routes shown. This limited the impact of the bridge network. Farmland directly impacted by the bridge network totals 12,034 acres. Annual Bridge Network Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the network from agricultural & general commerce: $ 55,901 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge network: $ 36,335 o Total network benefits: $ 92,236 o Less annualized network costs: $ 60,000 o Net benefit of the network: $ 32,236 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge: ($11,748) o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge: 0.47 o The focus bridge shows a negative return, as do all bridges in the network. However, when analyzed together, the network shows a positive return. Figure 32: Bridge Network 1301 (Macoupin County, IL) Alternate Route Alternate Route Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 64

72 I. Bridge Network 405 (McLean County, IL) Network of 5 bridges that service the local area and allow passage over the Middle Fork of Sugar Creek in McLean County. The map in Figure 33 shows the network. The focus bridge is labeled bridge 405 and is supported by four other nearby bridges (405A-D). One bridge is not listed in the inventory and appears to service a private farm access road. As such no benefits were estimated for this bridge (405b). Farmland directly impacted by the bridge network totals 2,438 acres. Annual Bridge Network Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the network from agricultural & general commerce: $155,746 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge network: $101,235 o Total network benefits: $256,980 o Less annualized network costs: $ 89,250 o Net benefit of the network: $167,730 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge: $ 97,551 o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge: 5.34 Figure 33: Bridge Network 405 (McLean County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 65

73 J. Bridge 963 (Peoria County, IL) Bridge 963 serves a local community and nearby farmland in Pottstown, Illinois by crossing Kickapoo Creek. The bridge is in Peoria County and labeled Bridge 963 in Figure 34. Farmland serviced by Bridge 963 is 128 acres. This is a low level of farmland compared to other focus bridges, but similar to Bridge 1094 and Bridge 740, this bridge handles a significant amount of local commerce traffic, much of which is influenced by agriculture. Annual Bridge Network Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the bridge from agricultural & general commerce: $ 461,185 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge: $ 299,771 o Total network benefits: $ 760,956 o Less annualized bridge costs: $ 60,000 o Net benefit of the bridge $ 700,956 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge: $ 700,956 o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge: Figure 34: Bridge 963 (Peoria County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 66

74 K. Bridge 457 (Shelby County, IL) Bridge 457 crosses Angel Branch in Shelby County, Illinois and can be viewed in Figure 35. The focus bridge is labeled Bridge 457 and is not supported by other bridges to form a network. Farmland directly impacted by the bridge totals 1,754 acres. Annual Bridge Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the bridge from Ag & general commerce: $ 52,671 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge: $ 34,236 o Total bridge benefits: $ 86,907 o Less annualized bridge costs: $ 22,500 o Net benefit of the bridge: $ 64,407 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge, bridge 457: $ 64,407 o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge, bridge 457: 3.86 Figure 35: Bridge 457 (Shelby County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 67

75 L. Bridge 174 (Shelby County, IL) Bridge network 174 consists of two public bridges that provide service over Wolf Creek in Shelby County, Illinois and is shown in Figure 36. The focus bridge is labeled Bridge 174 and is supported by another public bridge in its vicinity. Farmland directly impacted by the bridge network totals 3,840 acres. Annual Bridge Network Benefit Analysis: o Benefit of the network from agricultural & general commerce: $ 81,352 o Indirect and induced impacts of the bridge network: $ 52,879 o Total network benefits: $134,231 o Less annualized network costs: $ 37,500 o Net benefit of the network: $ 96,731 Focus Bridge Analysis o Net benefit of the focus bridge, bridge: $106,506 o Benefit cost ratio of the focus bridge, bridge: 5.73 Figure 36: Bridge Network 174 (Shelby County, IL) Map captured from Google Earth informa economics, inc Page 68