project information applications received...the project will include construction of the bridge,...

2015 TRAC Funding Application

What Tier are you requested as part of this application?

Tier I - Construction

Please Identity the work types associated with the project:

New Roadway Alingment Other: New Bridge

Project Description:This is a WVDOT-sponsored project to provide a new Ohio River bridge south of Wellsburg in

Brooke County, WV and near the community of Brilliant in Wells Township in Jefferson County, OH. The project will include construction of the bridge, approach structures and roadway

approaches. The bridge section will be 3- 12' wide lanes with 6' wide shoulders and a separated 8' wide shared use path. WVDOT intends to award a design-build contract using a Public-Private Partnership agreement. This TRAC application is requesting Construction funding to be paid to

WVDOT annually for a period of 10 years, beginning with FY 2016.

ODOT PID 79353 Project Mode Roadway

What is the current TRAC Tier on the 2015-2018 Major New Construction Program List?

Tier II

Project Name New Ohio River Bridge

County, Route, Section JEF-Wellsburg Bridge

ODOT District District 11 County Jefferson

Project Information

Application ID 2015-D11-01 Date Submitted 6/29/2015Date Revised


What Type of Application Are you Submitting?Existing TRAC Project - Tier I, II or III project seeking additional funds to advance to the

next stage of project development.

City Steubenville

State OH Zip Code: 43952

Phone (740) 282-3685

Email [email protected]

Address 124 North Fourth St2nd Floor

Project Sponsor Information

Project Name New Ohio River Bridge

Sponsoring Agency BHJ Metropolitan Planning Commission

Project Contact Michael Paprocki


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

0


Right-of-way Acquisition Not Started 7/1/2016

Utility Relocation Not Started 12/1/2016

Environmental / NEPA Approval Complete 11/18/2013

Detailed Design Not Started 1/0/1900

Interchange Modification Study (IMS) / Interchange Justification Studies (IJS)

Not Started 1/0/1900

Preliminary Engineering Studies Complete 11/1/2015

Project ScheduleNew projects are required to supply project milestone information. Please select the status of each milestone below as either Not Yet Started, In Progress or Completed. Additionally please enter the corresponding date for the milestone and status.

Status DatePlanning Studies Complete 5/1/2003

Project Development Schedule & Milestones Yes

Roadway Segments No

Local Investments No

Existing TRAC Projects

Existing TRAC projects are not required to submit the complete application. The information submitted in your most recent application will be used in the evaluation and scoring of the application. However, since the level of project detail continually increases you can choose to update the following sections:


40.26 -80.638 40.253 -80.633

New Roadways / New Alignment New Ohio River Bridge

Begin Latitude Begin longitude End Latitude End longitude

0 0 0

0 0 0

0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Primary Roadway Segment

0 0 0

Secondary Roadway Segments

0 0 0

0 0

Transportation InformationIn an effort to understand the complex issues associated with the project TRAC collects a variety of transportation related data and information in the evaluation process including: congestion data, safety data, truck traffic, and model derived transportation values; such as, cost/benefit analysis and air quality. The roadway segments associated with the application is the basis of this analysis. Transit and Freight related projects should identify the roadway segments that will receive the benefit from projects

New project applications must identify the primary roadway segment that will be improved by the project and ancillary roadways that will be improved as part of the project.

ODOT NLFID Begin Point End Point


Truck Miles Traveled (TMT) Reduction 0

Existing Freight Capacity 0

Existing Freight Volume / Existing Freight Capacity Ratio

0

Freight Capacity Increase 0

Freight Multi-Modal Project Information

Freight Type 0

Route/Number 0

Existing Freight Volume 0

Existing Peak Hour Ridership / Capacity Ratio 0

Added Peak Hour Capacity 0

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction 0

Route/Number 0

Peak Hour Ridership 0

Existing Capacity 0

Transit Multi-Modal Project Information

Transit Type 0


Please provide a brief explanation as to how this project will connect an STS resource with a local freight or transit facility or resource

This bridge will connect Ohio SR 7 with West Virginia SR 2 along the Ohio River. There is a Northern Panhandle Business Development Corporation (BDC) owned Industrial Development Site along West Virginia SR 2 approximately one mile south of the proposed bridge. The BDC is similar to a

port authority in Ohio.

Will the project facilitate a connection between two or more corridors or modal hubs identified on the STS?

No

Please provide a brief explanation as to how this project will facilitate a connection between two or more STS resources.

0

Will the project connect an STS resource with a local freight or transit facility or resource?

Yes

Strategic Transportation System (STS) Connections

The Strategic Transportation System (STS), identified as part of Access Ohio 2040 - ODOT’s long range transportation plan - stratifies Ohio’s significant transportation corridors and inter-modal hubs across Ohio. Additional information about the STS and Access Ohio 2040 can be view at the Access Ohio 2040 Website

Is the project part of an STS corridor? Yes


What is the estimated percentage of road route miles served by transit routes (excluding ADA/Para

Transit) within the project area?0

Warehouse 315,000

Commerical 27,000

Insitutional 1,382,000

Water and Sewer Service 90

What is the estimated square footage for the following building types within the calculated project area?

Light Industrial 3,407,000

Heavy Industrial 34,808,000

Estimated Project Area Acerage 2,816

What is the estimated percentage of acres being served by the local services within the estimated project area calculated above?

Local Streets and Roadways 100

Electrical Service 90

Local Investment FactorsBuilt Out Local Attributes

Local Investment factors analysis and evaluation of the dollar value of existing, local built-out attributes such as streets, water, and land use. For this analysis TRAC has standardized the project area as a one-mile "rectangular" buffer around the primary roadway segment. Additionally TRAC also considers percentage of acres served by local services within the rectangular buffer with the the following formula: (Length of the primary roadway segment in miles + 2 miles) x 2 miles x 640 acres)

What is the length of the primary roadway segment being improved by the project?

0.2


Poverty Rate Data Source

Sub-County Unempolyment Rate 11.22Unempolyment Rate Data Source

As part of the application scoring process, ODOT collects county level information as the standard measurement for poverty and unemployment factors; however, if a project sponor provides defensible data at a sub-county or census tract level, TRAC can consider that level of geographic analysis for scoring and evaluation.

Do you want to enter distress values for a sub-county area to be used in the evaluation of this

application?

No - I want to use the information collected by ODOT.

County Jefferson

Sub-County Poverty Rate 21.78

What is the dollar value of committed or recent public investment in new, non-project

infrastructure within the project area? (Millions) $ -

What is the present value of private investment in existing facilities within the project area? (Millions)

$ -

Local Investment FactorsEconomic Distress - Poverty & Unemployment Rates

What is the estimated percentage of existing building square footage that is currently vacant?

8.1

New Local InvestmentsTRAC will consider the monetized value of public investments or commitments for new, non-project infrastructure and private investments within 5-year time horzion prior to and after the date of this TRAC Application.


PE DD RW CO-$ -$ -$ -$

0.60$ 2.00$ 0.90$ -$

Will additional TRAC funds be needed for future phases of development or construction? No

Total New TRAC Funding Reqeust 36.77$

Has TRAC previously committed funding for the development or construction of this project?

Yes

PE DD RW CO

RW Funding Request -$ 0

CO Funding Request 36.77$ 2016

PE Funding Request -$ 0

DD Funding Request -$ 0

Project Funding PlanTRAC Funding Reqeust

Please indicate the amount of funding being requested by phase and fiscal year. Funding requests should consider the funding that will be needed with the next two fiscal years.

Which phase(s) you are requesting new TRAC funding for as part of this application?

CO - Construction

Amount (Millions) Requested Fiscal Year


0.60$ 8.00$ 1.50$ 88.68$

-$ -$ -$ -$

Local Funding TotalsPE DD RW CO

Local funding Source (5) 0

PE DD RW CO

PE DD RW CO-$ -$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$ -$



PE DD RW CO

PE DD RW CO-$ -$ -$ -$

0.60$ 8.00$ 1.50$ 88.68$


Local funding Source (1) West Virginia DOT

PE DD RW CO

Local Funding CommitmentsProject Development and construction can be funded with multiple local funding sources. The questions below will help identify the funding sources for this project.

Will local funding sources be used in the development or construction of this project? Yes

What is the total number of local funding sources for the development and construction of this project? 1


% Local % ODOT % OTIC % TRAC71 0 0 29

Total Local Total ODOT Total OTIC Total TRAC98.78$ -$ -$ 40.27$

Funding Totals 1.20$ 10.00$ 2.40$ 125.45$

Total Project Cost 139.05$

New TRAC Funding -$ -$ -$ 36.77$

Future TRAC Funding -$ -$ -$ -$

OTIC Bond Funding -$ -$ -$ -$

Previous TRAC Funding 0.60$ 2.00$ 0.90$ -$

Local Funding 0.60$ 8.00$ 1.50$ 88.68$

ODOT / Earmark Funding -$ -$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$ -$

Funding Summary

PE DD RW CO

OTIC Turnpike Bond Revenue Funding

Have Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission (OTIC) Revenue Bonds been committed for the No

PE DD RW CO

PE DD RW CO-$ -$ -$ -$

ODOT Program or Emark Funding Commitments

Will funding from another ODOT program or legislative earmarks be used in the development or No


Date of Inflated Estimate 6/25/2015

Year of Inflation Estimate FY 2019

Railroad $ -

Contingency $ 20,708,882

Total Estimate $ 125,444,203

Traffic Control $ 214,364

Structures $ 69,457,444

Retaining Walls $ 3,537,002

Tier I Construction Estimate

Projects requesting Tier I status are required to submit a budgetary construction estimate. Additionally estimates must be inflated to the anticipated year of construction using ODOT's 2014-20818 Business Plan Inflation Estimator Excel worksheet.

Roadway $ 30,651,191

Drainage $ 875,320


MPO Contact Email [email protected]

Date of District Contact 6/19/2015

District Contact Waseem Khalifa

MPO Contact Phone Number (330) 308-7873

MPO Contact Email 0

District Acknowledgement

Has the appropriate ODOT District Planning Office been contacted about the development and construction of this project?

Yes

Has the ODOT District Office provided a letter or support or acknowledgment for this project? Yes

Date of MPO Contact 1/0/1900

MPO Contact 0 0

MPO Contact Phone Number 0

Is this project within the boundaries of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)? Yes

Please identify the respective MPO. BHJ

Has the MPO provided a letter or support or acknowledgment for this project? No

MPO & District AcknowledgementMPO Acknowledgement

0 5,0002,500 Feet

PROPOSED OHIO RIVER BRIDGE

E:\GIS\WV\wellsburg_bridge\map_docs\mxd\ea_figures\201203\Figure 1-1.mxd

REGIONAL BRIDGE SYSTEMBROOKE COUNTY, WV AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, OH STATE PROJECT: S205-2/23-0.00 00; FEDERAL PROJECT: HPP-0223(003)D;

PID:79353

Market Street Bridge

US 22 (Veteran's Memorial Bridge)

Former Location of Fort Stueben Bridge(Demolished in February 2012)

Study Area

ESRI ARCGIS ONLINE AND DATA PARTNERS INCLUDING USGS AND © 2007 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY

DateJob No. Exhibit83938 3/29/12 1-1

Study Area

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000Feet

Ü

2015 TRAC ApplicationWellsburg Bridge - Location Map

Brilliant

Mingo Junction

Wellsburg

Beech Bottom

Wellsburg BridgeOne Mile Area of Influence

Follansbee

LOCAL FUNDING COMMITMENT WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION LETTERS OF BHJ TIP APPROVAL

LETTERS & RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT

Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Regional Bridge System Study

Phase II Final Report

Prepared For:

Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission

Prepared By:

5533 Fair Lane

Cincinnati, OH 45227 513.272.5533

Subconsultant

Columbus, Ohio

September 2003 This project was funded through the cooperative effort of the

U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the Ohio Department of Transportation, and the West Virginia Department of Transportation.

Final Report

Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Regional Bridge System Study i

Table of Contents

Page Executive Summary ................................................................................................................1

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................5

Description of Study Area .....................................................................................................9

Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................22

Public Involvement Process ...............................................................................................24

Planning Process ...................................................................................................................27

Final Recommendations and Project Priority ................................................................55 List of Tables Table 1: Daily Volumes on Ohio River Bridges.........................................................................32 Table 2: Daily Volumes by Direction on Ohio River Bridges....................................................32 Table 3: Vehicle Trip River Crossings .......................................................................................33 Table 4: Alternative Scenarios....................................................................................................35 Table 5: Alternative Scenarios Evaluation .................................................................................43 Table 6: Cost Estimate for Traffic Operations Improvements....................................................54 List of Figures Figure 1: Regional Location ......................................................................................................10 Figure 2: Study Area..................................................................................................................11 Figure 3: Manufacturing Activity ..............................................................................................14 Figure 4: Commercial Activity ..................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Manufacturing Employment Centers 2025 ................................................................16 Figure 6: Commercial Employment Centers 2025 ....................................................................17 Figure 7: Other Employment Centers 2025 ...............................................................................18 Figure 8: Employment Growth Centers 1994 to 2025...............................................................19 Figure 9: Selected Gateways to River and Rail Ports ................................................................29 Figure 10: Alternative Scenarios ................................................................................................36 Figure 11: Traffic Operations Study Area ..................................................................................45 Figure 12: Washington Street Bridge Intersection Analysis.......................................................47 Figure 13: Traffic Operations Freedom Way Improvements .....................................................51 Figure 14: Recommended Project Priority .................................................................................57 Appendix Appendix A: Bridge System Study History Prepared by BHJ Staff

Final Report

Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Regional Bridge System Study 1

Executive Summary The Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission (BHJ), in both their 2020 and 2025 Regional Transportation Plan, states their #1 priority as “promote a regional Ohio River bridge network that maintains and expands metropolitan activity.”

This precedent created funding and this BHJ Regional Bridge System Study. The study, through a rigorous public involvement process and strong quantitative review, provides a best management approach to the region’s declining bridge infrastructure (i.e., two of the three bridge crossings in the 18 mile river corridor are near 100 years of age and are rapidly approaching the end of their life cycle).

The following study is Phase II of a two part study. Phase I, submitted in May 2000, initiated answers to the purpose and need for a new river crossing. The Phase I study provided the following facts.

• The Fort Steuben Bridge and Market Street Bridge are past their design life.

• A circumstance in which only one river crossing exists within the metropolitan area would create an unacceptable emergency response time situation.

• Due to inherent design characteristics, neither the Fort Steuben Bridge nor Market Street Bridge can be updated to modern standards.

• Due to weight limits on the Market Street Bridge, the closing of the Fort Steuben Bridge would leave the region with only one crossing capable of carrying commercial truck traffic.

• Access to and from the Veterans Memorial Bridge is vulnerable to accident blockage and deficient intersection design.

• The concentration of all river crossing capacity within a small geographic area constrains the overall flexibility of the regional transportation system.

Phase II, through a publicly-approved quantitative matrix, walked the community through logical constraints and benefits. It concludes with a consensus priority statement for bridge location and access improvements. In May 2003, the priority statement was formally adopted by the Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission, the federally recognized council for regional transportation.

To validate the quantitative decision matrix, key regional goals and objectives were agreed to through public meetings and interviews. General goals include the following items.

• Maintain and enhance transportation capacity. • Safety and reliability for existing businesses, their employees and all residents.

Final Report


Evaluation criteria specific to these goals include the following measurable factors.

• Effectiveness in minimizing environmental impacts

• Cost effectiveness

• Effectiveness for improving safety

• Effectiveness in supporting regional economic growth.

To complete this Phase II study, various alternatives for bridge crossings were developed based on preliminary engineering analysis. Locations were identified that could facilitate east-west movements or to serve population and employment centers on each side of the River. These include replacing the existing bridges in their current location as well as two options for a new bridge in the southern portion of the planning area. These options initially formed seven Scenarios including a Baseline, or “no-build,” option. Four additional Scenarios were developed using a combination of bridge locations with northern and southern alternatives.

More detailed engineering and environmental studies will be needed in the next Phase to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These studies will establish a specific location and configuration for the new bridge.

The preferred Scenario 8, described later in this report, provides the benefits of both the preferred northern and southern Scenarios as well as maintaining a high benefits to cost ratio and the highest reduction of user costs. When Scenario 8 is reviewed in comparison to both the Baseline Scenario and other alternatives, it is found to provide maximum benefit for minimum cost in all categories of mobility, environmental impacts, safety, cost effectiveness and regional economic growth.

The recommendations of the Consultant Team are premised upon the assumption that two of the three bridge crossings (i.e., the Fort Steuben Bridge and Market Street Bridge) will not be in service for the planning year 2025.

After sixteen (16) Bridge Advisory Committee meetings and five (5) public information meetings, the Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission made a three-point priority recommendation. The Phase II study was the guide document for their recommendation. Total cost for these recommendations is estimated at about $102 million in FY 2003 dollars.

Final Report


Priority #1: Construct roadway and intersection capacity improvements to better access the region’s most modern bridge crossing, Veterans Memorial Bridge. These improvements are as follows.

• Realign and improve the Freedom Way and Birch Drive intersection in Weirton.

• Improve the alignment and widen the intersection of Freedom Way and West Virginia Route 2 in Weirton.

• Upgrade and improve the existing three lanes on Freedom Way in Weirton.

• Improve access to Veterans Memorial Bridge at Steubenville through the realignment and widening of adjacent connecting thoroughfares State Route 7 (Dean Martin Boulevard) and University Boulevard.

Priority #2: Construct a new Ohio River bridge crossing south of Wellsburg to connect West

Virginia State Route 2 and Ohio State Route 7. Priority #3: Construct a new Ohio River bridge crossing to connect West Virginia State Route 2

and Ohio State Route 7 in Steubenville at Washington Street.

project information applications received...the project will include construction of the bridge,...

Documents