Bege-101 Assignment Session 2012 Solve
DRAFT Meeting Agenda MEETING TITLE: Project Sponsors Council DATE: Friday, January 22, 2010 TIME: 10 a. m. – 12:30 p.
m. LOCATION: Washington State Department of Transportation, SW Region 11018 NE 51st Circle, Vancouver, Washington 98662 TIME 10:00 a. m. AGENDA TOPIC Welcome Approve Dec. 4, 2009 Meeting Summary 10:05 a. m. Conceptual Finance Plan Overview and Discussion 10:25 a. m. Tolling Study Committee Findings 10:55 a. m. Break 11:10 a. m. Performance Measures Advisory Group Report 11:40 a. m. Performance Measures Application Example 11:55 p. m. Hayden Island Update 12:30 p. . Adjourn TRANSIT DIRECTIONS from PORTLAND: From Downtown Portland, take C-TRAN Express Bus #164 to the Fisher’s Landing Transit Center. Transfer to Bus #80 (Van Mall/Fisher’s) eastbound to 49th and 112th Avenue. WSDOT SW Region Headquarters is 2 blocks north of this bus stop. TRANSIT DIRECTIONS from VANCOUVER: From Downtown Vancouver take C-TRAN Bus #4 (Fourth Plain) eastbound to the Vancouver Mall Transit Center. Other buses to Vancouver Mall are #32, 72, 44 and 78. From the Mall Transit Center, transfer to Bus #80 (Van Mall/Fisher’s) eastbound to 49th and 112th Avenue.
WSDOT SW Regional Headquarters is 2 blocks north of this bus stop. For detailed trip planning, please contact the two transit agencies: C-TRAN, www. c-tran. com, 360-695-0123, or TriMet, www. trimet. org, 503-238-RIDE Meeting facilities are wheelchair accessible and children are welcome. Individuals requiring reasonable accommodations may request written material in alternative formats or sign language interpreters by calling the project team at the project office (360-737-2726 and 503-256-2726) one week before the meeting or calling Washington State’s TTY telephone number, 1-800-833-6388.
Meeting Summary MEETING: DATE: LOCATION: Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Project Sponsors Council December 4, 2009, 10:00 am – 12:00 pm Port of Portland, 121 NW Everett Street, Portland, OR ATTENDEES: Adams, Sam Bragdon, David Garrett, Matthew Hansen, Fred Hewitt, Henry (Co-chair) Leavitt, Tim Pollard, Royce Stuart, Steve Mayor, City of Portland Council President, Metro Director, Oregon Department of Transportation General manager, TriMet Past chair, Oregon Transportation Commission Chair of the Board of Directors, C-TRAN Mayor, City of Vancouver Chair, SW Washington Regional Transportation Council
S TAFF: Brandman, Richard Wagner, Don ODOT CRC project director Regional Administrator, Washington State Dept. of Transportation Note: Meeting materials and handouts referred to in this summary can be accessed online at: http://www. columbiarivercrossing. org/ProjectPartners/PSCMeetingMaterials. aspx Welcome and public comment Co-chair Henry Hewitt thanked attendees for coming and announced that PSC members co-chair Hal Dengerink and Secretary Paula Hammond could not be at today’s meeting. Due to the large number of sign-ups for public comment, testimony will be limited to one minute per person.
The Council will accept written comments, as well. Representative Tina Kotek, Oregon state legislator for House District 44 in north and northeast Portland: I support the project and have submitted written testimony from my comments at the state legislative hearings held Nov. 19 in Salem. If the project has additional questions to resolve, please do it quickly and don’t delay the project at the risk of missing federal funding. I want to thank the residents from Hayden Island and ask CRC staff to listen to them and help solve some of the livability challenges on the island posed by the proposed design refinements.
Ed Garren, citizen co-chair of the Hayden Island Plan: I was always in favor of the bridge as it was proposed. It was a state of the art bridge, like a beautiful Lexis Hybrid. These refinements turn it into a 20year old Oldsmobile that needs a ring job. It’s going to be dirty, with pumps running 24/7 for a hundred years, and will destroy the livability of the Hayden Island community. You’re not following appropriate processes. It’s different from what we were sold by the CRC for two years. People are upset about the lack of input and this bait and switch.
The impacts to Hayden Island are spread throughout the draft environmental impact statement, ambiguous, and difficult to find. Hayden Island is not well-served by this proposal. Shannon Palermo, StopTheCRC. org: My main concern is this continues to ignore environmental and social justice issues. The Coalition for a Livable Future and Bicycle Transportation Alliance recommendations have been completely ignored. There have been no recommendations for environmental justice. We can do this better in Portland. We need to make policy that accounts for peak oil and climate change.
I would like a supplemental EIS that accounts for environmental and social justice issues and includes asthma rates in north and northeast Portland where I live. 1 360/737-2726 503/256-2726 WWW. COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING. ORG 1/25/2010 700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 DECEMBER 4, 2009 | MEETING SUMMARY COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING (CRC) PROJECT SPONSORS COUNCIL Donna Murphy, Hayden Island resident: I just moved to the island in June. We deal with a lot of noise from trains, planes, and autos, but we love living along the river. Mayor Adams, please imagine living there.
We’re senior citizens. I’m going to do all I can to get our voices heard. We need a Safeway, a pharmacy, and our gas station. Roger Staver, chair of Hayden Island Neighborhood Network (HINooN): My group sent the project a letter regarding impacts of the refinement package on Hayden Island. As you consider suggestions in our letter, please remember that Hayden Island is the most impacted area in the project. It’s an island isolated by the channel and the river. The recently approved Hayden Island Plan had as a goal the ability of residents to stay on the island to meet their basic needs.
The project refinements force us off the island. We cannot go to a neighborhood somewhere else; we have to stay on the island. Peg Johnson, Hayden Island resident: I have been very involved in CRC planning since 2005. We continue to support this project for the most part, but the refinement package makes things worse than they were in the first place. I’m asking you to keep Hayden Island and livability in mind, which means sustainability. If you go forward with refinements, please dedicate yourselves to making the most that you can of the situation on Hayden Island.
Our letter reflects our specific points. Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor for district 5, former member of the CRC Task Force: I urge the project to keep working on this. We need to continue problem solving and my letter contains further comments. I give you my support for your work. Kathryn Williams, business and rail manager for the Port of Portland: We have been supportive of the bi-state effort to improve I-5 and the related interchanges. We’re especially interested in how the refinements affect the Marine Drive interchange. We support the refinements in the package and urge you to move forward.
Ginger Metcalf, Identity Clark County, Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, and Columbia River Crossing Coalition: The private sector continues to invest in infrastructure that allows job creation, but a corresponding public investment in transportation has been slower in coming. If we want to compete in the global economy, we must invest in our freight infrastructure. To build a culture of sustainable success, we need to make the economic connection between jobs and how the states spend money. The business community is behind you.
John Mohlis, Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council: The project has been scaled down appropriately. We want to move this project forward, so if there are refinements that need to be made, please do that. The construction industry is in a depression, not a recession. Every month that this project is delayed, more people will lose their homes, their health insurance, their homes, and will cash in their 401k accounts to send their kids to college. Please work together and move this forward. Walter Valenta, Portland resident: I have been working on this project for a long time.
This is an important milestone, but it’s one of many. This is the belt-tightening part. What’s important is that as we tighten it, we don’t sell out the core values of our community. We must make the land use and transportation system on Hayden Island work together. We can’t quit caring about design. We can’t assume that by making it cheaper we’re going to make it ugly. This bridge can represent the values of Portland. Marion Haynes, Oregon Business Association: Businesses around the state depend on this bridge. The need for it has been clearly articulated for a decade.
We appreciate the staff responsiveness to scaling back the project size. There are more details to work out, but businesses around the state are counting on you to move this forward. Ed Lynch, former member of the CRC Task Force: Our forbears paid tolls on the ferry and bridges in the past. Tolls for bridge users ought to be paramount in addition to any other funds. Secondly, if we’re going to build the bridge, let’s build it right. Think of the Sydney, Australia bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge and Transbay Bridge, all built in the 1930s. They’re still in use today because they were done right.
Let’s build to the full width and do it right the first time. Anonymous: I’m against any further spending on the CRC bridge. Why wasn’t the $3. 6 billion cost part of the original proposal if it will accomplish the same thing as the earlier proposal? You seem unwilling to tell the public what it’s truly going to cost. If this is a regional transportation necessity, a regional gas tax is in 2 360/737-2726 503/256-2726 WWW. COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING. ORG 700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 DECEMBER 4, 2009 | MEETING SUMMARY COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING (CRC) PROJECT SPONSORS COUNCIL rder. If you’re going to toll the new bridge to reduce traffic, then tolling the current bridge for that reason should work too. Why not toll the current bridge? Least-cost options should be used first, not last. On I-5 there are approximately 300 cars for every truck. This is not a jobs program. We have lots of community needs that will create long-term sustainable jobs. We shouldn’t borrow more money from Asia. Burdening me with debt does not stimulate jobs. Elson Strahan, president of Fort Vancouver National Trust: I also provided written testimony.
I was pleased to support our final recommendation as a member of the CRC Task Force despite knowing of the impacts to our site and that it would require mitigation. Because of these impacts, mitigation is an absolute federal requirement as part of the National Highway Act and National Historic Preservation Act. We and the City of Vancouver have approved the design concept for the Community Connector. We look forward to it being integrated into the project. Paul Jeffery, Portland resident: I moved to Portland 10 years ago for its reputation as a place that does things differently.
The proposed Mt. Hood expressway was blocked by citizens and that made me feel great about moving here. The CRC wants to turn Portland into another failed city. I don’t want that to happen. This is not a project for the 21st century; it’s rooted in a mid-20th century approach to problems. David Rowe, resident of Battle Ground, Wash. , and former member of the Clark County High Capacity Transit Task Force, speaking as a private citizen: In my letter to Gov. Gregoire, I asked her to imagine a morning commute to downtown Portland in a lounge chair with coffee and a view of Mt.
Hood. You arrive at Portland Union Station. This is possible if the existing Columbia River rail bridge is modernized. This would be much cheaper than the current proposal. This kind of service is already in place with the Westside Express Service commuter rail in Washington County. Chris Rall, citizen of Portland: I am concerned about the resiliency of our transportation infrastructure. We don’t have a system that will handle increases in gas prices very well. This project is going in the wrong direction and is going to double the width of the freeway.
As a taxpayer, I’m concerned about that kind of investment. I’d like to see least-cost options, phasing, and smaller projects that could meet the needs in that area. Todd Coleman, deputy executive director of the Port of Vancouver: The Port supports the refinements package. In Washington, one in three jobs is related to trade. While we prefer a six-lane option, we understand the need for compromise with a five-lane option for now. We’re also a member of the 75member Vancouver Freight Alliance, which supports the refinements proposal, as well.
In the end, both sides of the river will have to compromise, but this option provides 90 percent of the benefits at 75 percent of the cost, so we recommend you move forward with these refinements. Jim Howell, an opponent of the Mt. Hood Freeway: It’s time to stop this one million dollars per month madness. The myth of 15 hours per day of congestion is a disingenuous scare tactic by the Oregon and Washington highway departments. It is based on the ridiculous assumption that nothing can be done to stem freeway traffic. Non-freeway solutions were never seriously considered.
It’s time to go back to the drawing board. Chris Smith, citizen transportation activist: It’s important to get the Purpose and Need Statement right. It leads with congestion and doesn’t mention either global warming or peak oil. State and local governments have adopted strong policy statement regarding these. I urge you to amend the Purpose and Need and then do a supplemental draft EIS. Joe Rowe, Portland resident: I live two blocks from I-5 and Rosa Parks Way. I can see cars bumper to bumper during rush hour at Albina Street because drivers know that getting off the freeway is faster than staying on I-5.
I hear politicians lie and say they’re environmentalists and say we need this project for the jobs. The cost does not include the cost of the bonds to buy this bridge on credit. It will become a $10 billion bridge because the cost of this bridge will double just like the tram. Richard Bullington, Clark County resident: How is light rail to Clark County a good use of public money? For 12 trains an hour, you move maybe 2,400 people per hour in the peak direction. To spend $750 million to serve that number of people seems a bit ideological. I rode the MAX to get here, so I’m a train guy, but please think about this. 360/737-2726 503/256-2726 WWW. COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING. ORG 700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 DECEMBER 4, 2009 | MEETING SUMMARY COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING (CRC) PROJECT SPONSORS COUNCIL Brian Gard, co-executive director of the Columbia River Crossing Coalition: I urge you to approve the refined package. Please see my letter for more detail. Please consider the breadth of support for this project as reflected in our list of members. We ask that you keep this project moving forward. The work done to date is good work.
The work to be done by 27,000 workers who will build the crossing will be good work, as well. Carl Larson, Portland resident: The bridge we have today is inadequate. As a bicyclist, I hate to ride across it. The way I get stuff via freight is stuck in single-occupancy vehicle congestion. But the $4. 2 billion plan to fix it still prioritizes single-occupancy vehicle travel. The cheap knock-off being proposed today does a worse job. We should go back to the drawing board and put our money where our mouth is. Chelsea Wright: I’m opposed to this bridge because there are better options that haven’t been onsidered. I’m a big fan of public transportation. If you have all this technology and the money available, why wouldn’t you consider other options? It’s obvious that a car-oriented culture is a destructive way of life. Please consider the effects to future generations. Mara Gross, policy director with Coalition for a Livable Future: We have long supported a solution to I-5 that supports reliable transit, transportation, supports good land use planning and addresses global warming. Your proposal is a non-solution. You still have 12-lanes capacity and no plan for how to manage demand.
Thank you to Mayor Adams and Council President Bragdon for their comments, and to Mayorelect Leavitt for his comments about low-income communities and communities of color. The refinement plan makes a decision with hundreds of millions in public dollars to avoid environmental review. We need a new plan that puts the values of this community first. Pam Naugle: I’m a 16-year resident on Hayden Island in the mobile home park. Sixty percent of us are disabled and seniors. Our Safeway store is our only source of fresh food and pharmaceuticals. You need to think before you tear down a store that is so vital to our living.
For those of us who don’t own a vehicle and can’t afford lift services, please think this over seriously. Michelle Poyourow, advocate for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance: Our two primary interests in this project are that it include a great walking and biking route and that it foster healthy, bikable neighborhoods on both sides of the river. The CRC plan considered earlier and also today fails on both counts. It was only after two years that the BTA became an opponent of the project. It will take more than refinements of a plan based on flawed assumptions and weakly defined outcomes.
Please start with a new vision for success that is a truly green project we can support. Jonathan Irwin: Those of you who are elected will be accountable for your decisions. Please rethink and redraft this plan with true public involvement and local control. Please keep the departments of transportation at the back burner since they’re just road builders. You need to more carefully consider climate, equity, public transit, walking and biking options. For everyone here today opposed to the bridge in its current form, there are 100 more who have to be at work or didn’t know this was happening.
Ed Barnes, Vancouver resident, former member of the Washington State Transportation Commission and former co-chair of the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership: For the last 15 years, I’ve talked to hundreds of people on both sides of the river about this project. It may have some flaws, but overall it covers all the elements for bicyclists and pedestrians, freight, transit and commuters. You need to do something. Something is better than nothing. This project will also create jobs for the unemployed. Marcela Alcantar: I’m a small business woman.
I’m concerned that there aren’t many people of color in this room today and in the past. I’m concerned about the lack of leadership on that. I believe in this project and that it will create jobs and sustainability. I’ve been asking for opportunities for firms like mine and I haven’t seen it happen. Please consider professional services like mine on this project. Ron Swaren: The problem with the CRC proposal is that it’s not realistic. Our metro area is slated to grow and having one or two crossings is not enough for this region. Our group has advocated a third bridge, which would be cost effective and incorporate solutions.
Andrew Plambeck, Portland resident: I’m concerned about our tax dollars going to this project. Mayor Adams and Councilor Bragdon have released a very thoughtful statement. Redesign this project from the group up to reduce emissions and prioritize alternative transportation. Our city and region depend on it. 4 360/737-2726 503/256-2726 WWW. COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING. ORG 700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 DECEMBER 4, 2009 | MEETING SUMMARY COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING (CRC) PROJECT SPONSORS COUNCIL
Tom Buchele, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center at Lewis and Clark Law School: We represent groups like the Coalition for a Livable Future and others concerned with the NEPA process. The draft EIS was deeply flawed. There needs to be a supplemental draft EIS. Regulation 40cfr1502. 9c requires a SDEIS if there are substantial changes or new information, and we think $650 million is a substantial change. There is new information expected from the tolling study, so this shouldn’t all be dumped in the FEIS, as that would be a travesty of the NEPA process.
David Thompson, Portland resident and retired physician: I encourage people to get their colonoscopies and cholesterol checked. We’re not going to meet our environmental goals with the way this project is designed. I read The Oregonian today saying we’re looking at the next hundred years with this project and I don’t believe it. When I jogged over here I was almost run over by a 16-year old in his brand new car talking on his cell phone. We have too many cars in this city, state and world. This is a good opportunity to figure out an alternative.
Erick Reddekopp, co-chair of Hayden Island Livability Project, a grassroots group: You’re receiving over 600 petition signatures against the refinement package due to the impacts including the Safeway store and other restaurants and businesses on the island. It’s disturbing to hear that money and funding seems to be the biggest reason to do this refinement package now. I’m unemployed so I understand the need for jobs. But this is our chance to be a progressive city again. The refinement package has so many problems with it. Sharon Nasset: Thank you for not limiting public comment to 30 minutes.
The PSC has not had a representative of the community and neighborhoods. You need an environmental justice representative to sit there from each side of the river. You haven’t followed the NEPA process with a full range of alternatives. There must be a supplemental draft EIS with the amount of changes proposed. For those who want to get more involved on a third bridge proposal or to stop this process, 5003 N. Lombard has a huge space and we’re glad to have people come work on this process. Herman Kachold: I’m involved with the Hayden Island Livability Project, a new grassroots group.
We need more crossings, a bridge to the west of the rail bridge and one at 33rd Avenue. Spread the traffic out more. That would be a better approach. Tom Dana, co-chair of the Hayden Island Livability Project and former steering committee member for the Hayden Island Plan: It’s clear the comments here are 10 or 20 to 1 opposed to this proposal. This bridge is for 100 years. Let’s not cave in to immediate pressure just to get it done. Let’s go back and look at what really needs to be done. Kaitlin Hale, StopTheCRC Coalition, resident of SE Portland: I urge you to reconsider the revised plan you might be voting on today.
We need transportation options for people, not more single occupancy vehicles. I urge you to solve traffic congestion, climate change, and the lack of employment in our region, and social and environmental justice by not rushing through with this plan and going back to the drawing board. Transportation infrastructure doesn’t just happen but exists in our cities and region and needs a bigger picture viewpoint. Dan McFarling, Portland resident: When this project was first initiated, the focus was on how to accommodate more motor vehicles. That’s a major flaw.
Instead, how can we meet our community and transportation needs? If you would read the proposals in the Smarter Bridge brochure, you’d see that it provides better options for a phased, affordable project and a stronger economy. Pam Ferguson, resident of Hayden Island manufactured home community and member of the Hayden Island Livability Project: Thank you for allowing more time for public comment. I represent a group with over 1,700 residents, 60 percent of whom are seniors. They don’t drive off the island, which is a good thing. Please give Safeway or a grocery retailer special dispensation.
Co-chair Hewitt thanked the commenters. 5 360/737-2726 503/256-2726 WWW. COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING. ORG 700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 DECEMBER 4, 2009 | MEETING SUMMARY COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING (CRC) PROJECT SPONSORS COUNCIL Draft refinement recommendation Mayor Adams inquired whether PSC will be asked to vote on a recommendation at today’s meeting. Cochair Hewitt said he doesn’t foresee a vote and cannot anticipate outcomes of the meeting. Discussion may require more time and another meeting. Hewitt introduced the CRC presenters. Staff presentation
Richard Brandman, CRC project co-director, said the project has been working hard for the last six months to refine the project design, reduce costs, and address issues raised previously and again this morning in public comments. The project wants to achieve nearly the same benefits as the previous proposal, and still meet the purpose and need goals, but at a lower cost. The refined design has been reviewed with the CRC’s senior staff advisory group, the CRC Performance Measures Advisory Group, the freight community, and others. There is a lot of technical documentation behind the proposals and staff can share those with PSC if desired.
Staff has analyzed the five-mile project area from one end to the other using the purpose and need goals — such as transit, freight and safety — as well as standard value engineering techniques and a consideration of what elements can be deferred or reused. The revised cost estimate range is $2. 6 to $3. 6 billion, with a likely cost of $3. 2 billion. Kris Strickler, deputy project director, gave an overview of the proposed design refinements, starting from the Marine Drive interchange at the south and going north. Marine Drive is the largest freight access interchange.
The staff recommendation still includes a single-point urban interchange with one traffic signal. Moving north, the North Portland Harbor bridge would be reused and the highway mainline profile would be lowered on Hayden Island. For the river crossing, Strickler said, some of the cost savings came from having more information about soil conditions and liquefaction characteristics. Other savings come from a proposed 10-lane bridge with standard shoulders, rather than a 12-lane bridge. It’s smaller than the original proposal by 16 feet total (eight feet per bridge).
In Vancouver, two areas would be refined: The northbound lane from SR 14 to SR 500 would be reduced and the SR 500 north ramps would be eliminated. In the future, SR 500 has several intersections that would be converted to full interchanges. There are elements that staff proposes not be included in the project’s initial capital investment; a discussion about that would happen for future prioritization. Patricia McCaig, CRC communications, said staff has presented information on the design refinements to many audiences over the last several weeks.
A key theme staff heard was the desire, especially from Hayden Island residents, for an opportunity to provide comments directly to the PSC, which is why an extended public comment session was included in today’s meeting. For the freight community, the proposals for the Victory Blvd. braid and Marine Drive interchange were cause for concern; they were afraid it would impede traffic performance for freight. But, she said, they ultimately understood that the refinements meet the initial needs and urged the project to move forward. Mayor Adams, she added, has been very clear about the importance of Marine Drive and Hayden Island.
The intent of the Hayden Island Plan and the CRC’s involvement has been to improve the livability, safety, and access on the island. The refinement was hard for many people to hear because they had spent so much time working on the Hayden Island Plan. But there is a growing appreciation for the benefits of the refinement coupled with real concerns about the potential for losing the Safeway grocery store and effects to access on and off the island. Today, connectivity on the island is very difficult. Staff believes that the refinement proposal improves this by including the new east/west Tomahawk Island Drive connection.
There is support for this new road but concern that the refinement proposes recessing it below grade in a way that might discourage that connectivity. There is also concern about potential detrimental effects to commercial and retail space on the island. Hayden Island residents also want to see improved bike and pedestrian connectivity. McCaig directed members to their packet of materials, which contains about 20 letters and emails with a mix of views, from those who support the refinements to those who don’t, and those in the freight community who accept the refinements but believe that moving from 12 to 10 lanes is shortsighted. 6 60/737-2726 503/256-2726 WWW. COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING. ORG 700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 DECEMBER 4, 2009 | MEETING SUMMARY COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING (CRC) PROJECT SPONSORS COUNCIL There is widespread understanding, she concluded, of the fundamental need to reduce the project cost and still protect its function and benefits. Discussion The discussion below touched on the project schedule in relation to federal funding deadlines, as well as each PSC member’s views of the proposed design refinements. In addition, a guiding policy statement proposed by Mayor Adams and Council President Bragdon on Dec. (see appendix) informed the discussion. Co-chair Hewitt said some PSC members are ready to adopt the refinement and others are not. He suggested scheduling a meeting in January for a fuller discussion not only of the refinement but also of the performance measures, effects to Hayden Island, and more. He added that the right partner agency staff should be co-located at the CRC project office and integrated with CRC staff to work on issues that need to be addressed. But, he said, we should applaud the work completed to date. Mayor Adams said that is a very useful suggestion.
The issues PSC needs to discuss merit more frequent meetings for a period of time. Mayor Pollard said he would like to remind everyone of the constraints from federal funding deadlines. Richard Brandman clarified that the project is on course to complete the final environmental impact statement in summer 2010 and have a record of decision by the end of 2010, which would allow final design in 2011, followed by transit funding, and the start of construction as early as 2012. Mayor Adams said the Obama administration has pushed back by 18 months the federal transportation funding reauthorization.
For the public’s benefit, he said, there isn’t a firm deadline that would block the funding application. He asked for clarification whether there is any agency deadline. The urgency is real, he said, but we do have more time than today or next month to address these issues. Director Garrett responded by saying it’s a very fluid conversation and we can’t rely on that 18-month time frame. We need to continue communicating with the federal delegation. While there’s not a specific calendar, he said he would be very nervous to say we have 18 months. The project needs to move forward.
The federal government is going to move forward, we just don’t know when. Mayor Adams said he is not suggesting a delay of 18 months, but he does not think a decision about refinements is needed in January. Director Garrett said there is time to engage this issue. He highlighted the importance of articulating what outstanding questions still need to be answered. There are jobs, he said, not only through the laborers but also the design work. Mayor Adams said there are opportunities for more jobs in the short run with professional service firms.
Metro Council President Bragdon said that when the project does move forward, there needs to be broad support. Let’s look at a budget, he said, in terms of fiscal capacity, not just a specific price tag. What’s a realistic assessment of the funding prospects in the two state legislatures? We should start with what’s our foreseeable revenue, he said. Co-chair Hewitt: We’ll include financial information on the next agenda. Mayor Adams said he provided half a dozen questions via email to CRC staff regarding design refinements and still needs some follow up.
Mayor Adams provided PSC members with copies of the project’s initial written responses to these questions and an internal memo written by the city attorney’s office (see appendix). Mayor Pollard said sometimes staff doesn’t know what PSC members want and that members need to make it clearer to staff. Regarding decision making, he said PSC wants staff to keep doing analysis that moves the project forward. For the proposed design refinements, he can accept the ones in Vancouver, but hopes some accommodations can be made for Hayden Island. He said he has been working on this bridge for more than 10 years.
The Vancouver City Council voted unanimously over a year ago for a 12-lane bridge. Anything other than that is unacceptable for the City of 7 360/737-2726 503/256-2726 WWW. COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING. ORG 700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 DECEMBER 4, 2009 | MEETING SUMMARY COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING (CRC) PROJECT SPONSORS COUNCIL Vancouver. There is a letter dated Jan. 27, 2009 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), outlining the agency’s support for a 12-lane bridge. The bridge isn’t being built for single-occupancy vehicles from Vancouver.
It’s for the economy of the entire region and the West Coast. Please look beyond the short term. Everyone in this room has an agenda, but our positions should be based on the future needs of the region. Through all these meetings, he said, we agreed on certain things: Portland wants light rail and tolls, Vancouver wants highway lanes. What does Vancouver get out of this deal? A 10-lane bridge that doesn’t meet the needs of the future. I understand it could be striped for 12 lanes in 10 or 15 years. But who is going to give that exception? Probably FHWA. How do we know they’ll look favorably upon it?
That exception is needed now for the future. If it can’t be provided, the Vancouver City Council probably won’t support it. Who in this room is looking out for those people not born yet? We talked about making the most environmentally correct bridge. We can do that. General manager Fred Hansen said there are obviously going to be studies forthcoming regarding performance measures. TriMet has embedded staff at the project office. The Hayden Island Plan is very important. TriMet staff has been working very hard to preserve and enhance the island’s livability.
The refinements make that a challenge; we must wrestle with that. How can we use transit-oriented development funding tools to create the vision for a whole range of services on the island, including grocery stores and pharmacies? Station area development around the light rail station is a catalyst to achieve that. We all recognize that any large project like this is difficult to move forward without consensus and I trust that we’ll get there, he said. Director Garrett thanked Mayor Pollard for his leadership and long-time participation in the project.
He said there is staff embedded at the office but it’s incumbent upon PSC members to be specific with their concerns because their questions have a cost. He said he has told Council President Bragdon that he is struggling with concerns about the pathway for funding because the project is walking down the same pathway as any other project. Director Garrett said he appreciates the passion and concerns of the Hayden Island residents; none of that is lost on ODOT or the CRC project. He said the CRC project can help to grow a community with transit-oriented development on Hayden Island, which will happen only because of the project.
He said he wants something to bloom there and that the catalyst is the CRC project. Councilmember Leavitt said that from the C-TRAN perspective, they’re trying to meet the needs of the 21st century. He doesn’t see lanes getting widened south of the project area. But he’s very optimistic about the project. Over a year ago, the C-TRAN board of directors agreed that public transit is a vital part of the project. C-TRAN is committed to improving transit access, including with express buses. The project needs to achieve social, environmental, and fiscal equity.
We want to be ready to jump when federal funding is ready, he said. Today is another step forward in a dynamic and evolving process and he is looking forward to staff working closely together. Commissioner Stuart said there is a reason why he’s wearing his University of Oregon shirt today. He has lived in both states and cities of this project. He said we talk about a vision for the future, but a lot of times it’s a different vision. We’re trying to bridge not just two states but two visions. With the proposed design refinements, there is a path to success.
It involves a lot of what Council President Bragdon and Mayor Adams have put forward with the use of performance measures to guide the process. If we can show that it’s from a sense of priority and the parts of the vision we share, he said, it’s going to require us agreeing on key performance measures. We let the experts do their work to run the data. If we can get to that, he said, he sees a good chance of moving forward in a way that is right for both sides of the river. He said he sees the path forward; it’s just going to take a lot of work to get there.
Co-chair Hewitt said he has letters from Co-chair Hal Dengerink and Secretary Paula Hammond, endorsing the design refinements and asking the project to move forward. Council President Bragdon said he thinks the group agrees on some common goals, but the flaws in the design refinements are the same flaws he sees in the original proposal. The common goals have not been applied in the refinements. In the case of Hayden Island, the project is supposed to make it a better place, but that objective has not been met. We have to be very sophisticated and look to new methodology, not that which was state of the art 20 years ago.
Going forward, he said, let’s link hands on the broader values we agree on. He said he respects the discipline of traffic engineering as much as he 8 360/737-2726 503/256-2726 WWW. COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING. ORG 700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 DECEMBER 4, 2009 | MEETING SUMMARY COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING (CRC) PROJECT SPONSORS COUNCIL does physicians or accountants, but we need to bring more to bear on it. He said he cannot vote for any more blank checks on this project. He has asked for information and independent audits. We need to work much more closely together.
If we do that, we’ll have something we can be proud of. Co-chair Hewitt disagreed with Council President Bragdon about abandoning the goals and said the refinements are consistent with them. But, he said, we’ll have to discuss this more in forthcoming meetings. Mayor Adams said he wants to lay out why now is the right time to pursue what he and Council President Bragdon have put on the table in the form of their guiding policy statement (see appendix). Since March, Adams said, he has been part of a climate action planning process and has become smarter about what it means to plan for climate action.
As a result, some of the questions have become more compelling in the last 7-8 months. He looks forward to working with Mayor-elect Leavitt, but the question of tolls is on the table and it’s a fundamental part of the project’s purpose and need. Mayor Adams said he is accountable to bringing the right project to his city council, and if future trips gridlock in the City of Portland, we’re in big trouble. Because of his work on the Sellwood Bridge, he also fears that CRC could consume future available funding for other projects. He said CRC will have to be the most actively managed transportation system in the U. S. it’s the least-cost approach. Lastly, Hayden Island is a feisty, wonderful group of Portlanders who have worked with the City on the Hayden Island Plan. There will be no net loss of local services on the island, he said, and whatever we move forward with must have a solution. Co-chair Hewitt clarified some of the PSC’s next steps: To reconvene in January and possibly more frequently; to continue integrating staff in the project office so there is a transparent relationship; to continue working on details of the design refinements and performance measures and how they connect; to have a more specific understanding about how refinements fit nto a realistic budget; and to talk about Hayden Island, the environment, and livability issues; and to continue the discussion in a collegial and positive way. He said Councilmember Leavitt will be attending the next PSC meeting as the Mayor of Vancouver. Cochair Hewitt thanked Mayor Pollard who, he said, is a man of great character. He has always been constructive and has held the best interest of the community in mind. Tolling study update This agenda item was not covered and will be discussed at a future meeting. Performance measures update
This agenda item was not covered and will be discussed at a future meeting. Next meeting Friday, January 22, 2010 | 10:00 a. m. – 12:30 p. m. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 11018 NE 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA Appendices Appendix A Columbia River Crossing: Road to Construction, December 2, 2009 Policy Statement from Council President Bragdon and Mayor Adams Appendix B Email correspondence between Catherine Ciarlo of Mayor Adams’ office and Richard Brandman, CRC project director, November 30, 2009 Appendix C Memorandum from Terence Thatcher, Deputy City Attorney, o Catherine Ciarlo, Office of Mayor Sam Adams, December 4, 2009 9 360/737-2726 503/256-2726 WWW. COLUMBIARIVERCROSSING. ORG 700 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 300, VANCOUVER, WA 98660 APPENDIX A Columbia River Crossing: Road to Construction Policy Statement for Council President Bragdon and Mayor Adams December 2, 2009 I. Guiding Policy Statement A change in direction is needed for the Columbia River Crossing Project to be successfully accomplished. The current proposal is mired in financial challenges, and the region risks missing critical federal deadlines unless we change course.
The project refinement recommendation before the PSC would defer or remove certain elements of the proposed project and result in a cost reduction of $515 – $650 million, or roughly 15% of project capital costs. We believe that this is a step in the right direction, but more fundamental change is required to: • match the scope and scale of the project to realistic federal, state and local revenues (including tolls), essentially designing the project to budget • design the project to achieve specific performance measures • make essential, urgent project decisions in collaboration with members of the Project Sponsors Council and their staffs daylight the project’s internal decision making to ensure an unrestricted flow of information to make all of the above possible In addition, it is important to underscore that we reject calls from project opponents to cancel or “restart” the project, as too much solid work has already been done. II. Refinement Action Requested at December 4th PSC Meeting We believe that an informed endorsement of any project changes by the PSC is critical to advance the project However, the materials provided for the December 4th meeting do not include adequate analysis of “refinement” impacts to support a decision.
The PSC has previously requested that the project team use the performance measures being developed by the Performance Measures Advisory Group to guide the project refinement process and assess the effect on key interests and stakeholders, such as the freight industry and the ports. We have not yet seen analysis of potential refinements according to those specific measures. While we understand the need to move the project forward, the likely 18-month delay in federal transportation bill reauthorization gives us a window to make sure we get the project right.
We believe the current proposal contains incomplete and potentially flawed assumptions underlying the original proposal, particularly assumptions about demand forecasts, tax and toll revenues available for the project, and what those revenues can buy. In addition, we need to see performance-based criteria used to guide reconfiguration of the project, as the PSC has requested. The Project Sponsor Council needs to see clearly how the project – and proposed refinements – stack up against those criteria, including cost. APPENDIX A
We are proposing that PSC agency staff work directly with CRC project staff in a short, defined window to continue the current refinement work to create a realistic road to construction that includes: 1. A reliable budget based on realistic revenue projections; 2. A realistic assessment of the relationship between tolls, updated demand forecasts, desired land use patterns and size of the CRC facilities 3. Project elements that are firmly based in performance outcomes 4. Recognition that the interstate system must function in concert with local ystems In short, we believe the Project Sponsors Council needs to make decisions about the many attributes of the project based on how different options perform, for the goals we all agree on. We need to have that information before us so we can realistically evaluate options and buy the best product which available resources can buy. APPENDIX B APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX C APPENDIX C The conceptual finance plan below shows a range of CRC Project cost estimates based on the proposed project refinement recommendations and the latest results of the Cost Estimate Validation Process (CEVP).
Costs and revenues are shown in year -ofexpenditure dollars. The finance plan is preliminary; refinements are in process based on the recent results from the toll sensitivity, CEVP, and other analyses. The finance plan may be adjusted based on legislative, DOT, FHWA/FTA, public, and PSC reviews. Preliminary Finance Plan Scenarios In Billions of Year-of-Expenditure Dollars 60% Probability 90% Probability Highway Transit $2. 40 $0. 79 $2. 65 $0. 89 Total $3. 19 $3. 54 $1. 15-$1. 29 $0. 75-$0. 85 $1. 15-$1. 19 $0. 40 $0. 75-$0. 79 $1. 25-$1. 49 $0. 90-$1. 00 $1. 15-$1. 39 $0. 40 $0. 75-$0. 89 $3. 19 $3. 54 Cost Revenues
Tolls ODOT and WSDOT Federal Highway Transit (New Starts) Total The plan calls for securing $400 million in Projects of National and Regional Significance funding from the upcoming federal transportation reauthorization act. While the toll rate structure for the CRC Project will not be established until after tolling is authorized by the Washington legislature, the range of financial capacity from tolls that are shown above are based on the Tolling Study Committee analysis, which found a variety of rate structures capable of providing the amounts shown; no specific toll rate structure is assumed in the finance plan.
The amount shown for the DOTs is subject to an intergovernmental agreement between the DOTs allocating cost responsibility and legislative approvals of the required funding, and could vary depending on final disposition of other elements of the f inance plan. The New Starts funding presumes the recent statutory language secured by Senator Murray, and requires FTA approval of a Full Funding Grant Agreement based on the New Start rating regulations. Appendix C – CRC Tolling Study Committee Report
Travel Demand Forecasting, Revenue Projections, Determination of Net Revenues, and Financial Capacity Analysis Travel Demand Forecasting Regional travel demand models are used to forecast how people may choose to travel in the future given projected growth patterns for population and employment as well as future transportation facilities. The Portland-Vancouver area regional travel demand model used for the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project was developed jointly by the Portland-area Metro Regional Government (Metro) and the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC).
The model, run by Metro and peer-reviewed by a national panel of experts in October 2008, applies a four-step process in estimating future travel demands: Step 1: Person-trips are estimated from adopted regional growth projections and adopted regional transportation plans. Growth projections include population and employment forecasts throughout the metropolitan region. Transportation plans include future transportation facilities, including roadways, transitways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Step 2: Predicted person-trips are then distributed to zones across the metropolitan region. Over 25,000 network routes, or “links,” are used in the model, as well as over 2,000 transportation analysis “zones. ” The model predicts how many people will want to travel from one zone to another via different links. Step 3: Person-trips between each of the zones are broken down by mode of travel (drive alone, carpool, transit, bicycle, walking) based on each option’s attractiveness when considering travel time and cost, as well as each traveler’s socioeconomic characteristics.
Travel costs include parking fees, transit fares, tolls, and automobile operating costs. Step 4: The model assigns each trip to a specific routing in the model’s network. For the CRC’s tolling analysis work, the model predicts how many people are projected to cross the Columbia River on I-5 and I-205 via automobile and transit. The model is used to predict weekday peak period vehicle volumes across each bridge, which are later used to develop daily traffic demands.
The regional travel demand model is appropriate for comparing the relative weekday effects of travel across the Columbia River for different tolling scenarios. The model used for tolling analysis purposes allows relative generalizations to be made about I-5 and I-205, including vehicle and transit trips, and the duration of vehicular congestion experienced along each river crossing. Daily and hourly traffic volumes in 2030 would vary for the I-5 bridge and the I-205 bridge with different tolling levels.
Based on information included in the model regarding how much people value their time for different types of trips, lowering or raising toll rates affects how many people choose to pay the specific toll, divert to the alternative bridge, travel during another time of the day, take transit, or travel to a different destination altogether. The scenario analysis found: CRC Tolling Study Committee Report Appendix C 1 January 2010 • For most of the I-5 only toll scenarios, the majority of drivers would not change their travel patterns.
Some would choose a new destination or a non-tolled route. Diversion to transit is minimal due to the already increased ridership associated with project improvements. • Route diversion tends to increase as toll rates increase; however, the percentage of diversion tends to be lower during peak periods when travelers’ willingness to pay tolls may be higher and/or alternative routes are congested, and thus, time consuming. • For scenarios that toll both the I-5 and I-205 bridges, traffic levels would be higher on I-5 and lower on I-205 compared to tolling only the I-5 bridge.
However, compared to the No Toll project scenario, total cross-river traffic demand would be less on both the I-5 and I-205 bridges as many trips would divert to transit or not be made across the Columbia River. See the attached spreadsheet titled Traffic Effects for Tolling Scenarios for more detailed information about traffic diversion, average daily traffic volumes and hours of congestion predicted for each of the tolling scenarios. Additional work refining one or two likely scenarios will be undertaken to inform financial planning and final rate setting prior to issuing toll revenue bonds.
That analysis would independently review and refine many key assumptions, including land use projections, and also examine parts of the network beyond the I-5 and I-205 river crossings, such as key interchanges with these highways, and critical roadways and intersections. An updated and detailed toll traffic and revenue report is warranted before issuing debt, and would be required by the credit rating agencies if any of the bonds were to be backed solely by toll revenues. Revenue Projections
The annual traffic and revenue projections produced for the CRC project are derived from outputs of the Metro regional travel demand model. The Metro model employs inputs for users’ values of time as a surrogate for the relationship of time and cost reflecting the potential toll on the I-5 bridge crossing. The regional model was further supplemented by the development of a corridor level traffic model (VISSIM) which provided traffic operation capabilities to estimate the effect of future congestion in the corridor.
This became the basis for “post-processing” the model results to refine traffic demand projections. The traffic and revenue projections show both the annualization of the direct Metro model results and the refined post-processed results, the latter of which bracket the mid-range of anticipated traffic and revenue impacts. Ten toll scenarios that vary toll rates and toll locations (I-5 only or both I-5 and I-205 bridges) were developed by the CRC team for analysis, in conjunction with the Oregon and Washington departments of transportation.
Toll rates were assumed to vary by time of day according to a fixed schedule that applies higher toll rates in peak periods and lower rates during off-peak times when demand is less. Toll rates were originally specified in constant year 2006 dollars in the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); however the actual tolls paid are assumed to increase with expected inflation, projected at 2. 5 percent per year. See Exhibit 1 for information about each scenario. CRC Tolling Study Committee Report Appendix C 2 January 2010
It is expected that the toll collection will be all-electronic, which allows tolls to be collected without toll booths causing drivers to slow down to pay tolls. Thus, drivers would either have a transponder, paying the rates noted in Exhibit 1, or the vehicle would be identified via the license plate, in which case a $1. 00 “pay-by-plate” processing fee would be added to each transaction. For example, a vehicle traveling during the peak period (6 am to 10 am) without a transponder would be charged $2. 00 plus the $1. 00 processing fee, or $3. 00 for their trip in one direction.
Exhibit 1. Tolling Scenarios Evaluated Min/Max Toll Rate (2006$) Tolling I-5 Only Scenario 1D Additional Price Points Scenario 1E 1. 5x DEIS Toll Rate Scenario 1F 2x DEIS Toll Rate Scenario 1G 3x DEIS Toll Rate $2. 69 / $5. 38 $3. 00 / $6. 00 Flat Toll Rate $2. 02 / $4. 03 $2. 00 / $4. 00 Scenario 1C $1. 34 / $3. 36 $1. 50 / $3. 00 Lower than DEIS Toll Rate $2. 22 $1. 00 / $2. 50 Scenario 1B $1. 34 / $2. 02 $1. 65 DEIS Toll Rate $1. 34 / $2. 69 $1. 00 / $1. 50 Scenario 1A Min/Max Toll Rate (2018$) $1. 00 / $2. 00 Scenarios Analyzed Tolling I-5 and I205 DEIS Toll Rate 1. 34 / $2. 69 Scenario 2A DEIS Toll Rate $2. 00 / $4. 00 $2. 69 / $5. 38 Scenario 2B Lower than DEIS Toll Rate $2. 00 / $3. 00 $2. 69 / $4. 03 Scenario 2C Lower I-205 Toll I-5: $2. 00 / $4. 00 I-205: $2. 00 / $3. 00 I-5: $2. 69 / $5. 38 I-205: $2. 69 / $4. 03 1 2 Toll Schedule Type Symmetric Variable Toll Schedule Symmetric Fixed Toll Schedule July 1, 2018 (FY 2019) Each Way Symmetric Variable Toll Schedule 1 Pre-Completion Tolling Tolling Start Date $4. 03 / $8. 07 $1. 00 / $2. 00 Tolls Collected Each Way Symmetric Variable Toll July 1, 2013 Schedule (FY 2014)
Southbound Symmetric Variable Toll July 1, 2018 2 Schedule (FY 2019) Only Pre-Completion Tolling to be added to any other scenario A round-trip toll is collected on scenarios tolling Southbound only The rates for commercial vehicles are assumed to be proportionately greater than passenger cars, roughly as a function of the number of axles for a commercial vehicle. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that commercial vehicles will pay on an N minus one basis based upon axles, that is, a five-axle truck would pay four times the passenger car rate (five minus one times the passenger rate).
Model volumes were provided for medium (three-axle) and large (five-axle) trucks. The exact commercial toll schedule will be a function of the future development of the electronic toll collection system. Toll schedules assumed for each scenario are shown on the attached spreadsheets, Toll Rate Schedules for I-5 Scenarios and Toll Rate Schedules for I-5 and I-205 Scenarios. CRC Tolling Study Committee Report Appendix C 3 January 2010 Determination of Net Revenues To arrive at the portion of revenues available to support financing via the repayment of debt, several eductions must be made from gross toll revenues and fees. Key among these deductions is the obligation to pay for toll collection and facility operation and maintenance (O) costs for the bridge and roadway. The deductions from gross revenues include the following: • • • • Potential toll revenue lost due to uncollectable accounts Credit card and banking fees associated with toll payment and accounts Toll collection operations and maintenance costs, including maintenance, periodic replacement of equipment, back office costs and bridge insurance
Routine operations and maintenance of the bridge and roadway facilities Facility O costs include routine maintenance of the bridge and all roadways within the project area as well as incident response for the project area. After gross revenues have paid all of the above deductions, including toll collection and facility O costs, the remaining net revenue is available for debt repayment. The net revenue stream represents the cash flow that can be used directly for financing to repay bonds, or to directly pay for construction if pre-completion tolling is implemented.
In addition to bond repayment, there will be a periodic need for renovation and rehabilitation activities for the project. These costs are assumed to be funded out of excess net revenues after annual debt repayments that result from the debt service coverage requirement placed on net revenues. A reserve account may be created that would be funded from these excess net toll revenues. Financial Capacity Analysis Tolling the I-5 bridge does not have the financial capacity to yield a funding contribution equal to the $2. 38 billion cost in year of expenditure dollars for the highway portion of the project.
Rather, a number of funding sources will likely be needed to build the project, including federal and state (Oregon and Washington) funding sources combined with funding from tolls. For the purposes of this analysis, the bridge is assumed to be substantially completed by the end of fiscal year 2018, with revenue operations beginning on July 1, 2018 (state fiscal year 2019). Toll bond proceeds are assumed to be received in the middle and latter years of construction to maximize their funding contribution, and other funding CRC Tolling Study Committee Report Appendix C 4 January 2010 ources are assumed to cover construction costs in the initial years. Other project improvements to the highway and interchanges would continue into 2019, and the last bonds needed to fund these completion activities are assumed to be issued after tolling has commenced. The CRC toll bonds were assumed to be backed by other revenue sources, and the full faith and credit of one or both states to provide the bonds with a credit rating and interest costs equivalent to that of general obligation debt of either state. The use of toll bonds will increase the total costs paid during and after construction due to the added interest and issuance osts. However, these financing costs are treated separately from the project capital cost during construction. Increased use of toll bonds will increase the total costs paid due to added interest and issuance. The construction cost does not increase as a result; rather it adds a financing cost both during and after construction. State-backed bonds are limited by Washington State Constitution to a 30 year repayment period. Accordingly, debt with the maturity of up to 30 years was assumed to maximize the total proceeds that can be generated by the forecasted net toll revenue stream.
A minimum debt service coverage factor of 1. 25 was assumed for state-backed debt whereby net toll revenues were maintained at 1. 25 times the projected annual debt service. The intent of this is to provide some protection against draws on the revenue sources pledged to backup toll revenues, such as motor vehicle fuel tax revenues, in the event of lower-than-projected toll revenue performance. Interest rates on state-backed bonds are assumed to be 6. 00 percent for current interest bonds (“CIBs”) and 6. 50 percent for capital appreciation bonds (“CABs”), based on the current double-A credit ratings in both states.
Issuance costs are assumed to be 0. 2 percent of the total par amount of bonds issues for state-backed bonds. Additional costs would include 0. 5 percent of the par amount for current interest bonds for underwriting (underwriter’s discount) and 1. 0 percent of the par amount for capital appreciation bonds. Interest is assumed to be capitalized through the year before the project comple