The project recently received a $125 million INFRA grant
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/grants/344906/fy2019-infra-fact-sheets.pdf (https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/grants/344906/fy2019-infra-fact-sheets.pdf)
https://www.enr.com/articles/47261-us-dot-picks-20-winners-to-split-856-million-in-new-infra-grant-round (https://www.enr.com/articles/47261-us-dot-picks-20-winners-to-split-856-million-in-new-infra-grant-round)
My question is: why do the I-10 Bayway bridges need to be replaced? I remember seeing them built when I was a kid on a family vacation to Pensacola. That was around 1978, so the bridges are not particularly old. I also drove across it last month and did not notice any imminent need for replacement. I'm thinking maybe it needs to be widened to 3x3, and the existing structure does not have enough remaining life to justify widening.
If Alabama can round up the rest of the money to get this built, it will be a very impressive bridge with a 215-foot vertical clearance. Which leads to my next question: is 3x3 going to be sufficient for the bridge? In Houston, the new Beltway 8 ship channel bridge under construction is 4x4, the existing SH 146 Baytown bridge is 4x4, and the existing Loop 610 bridge is 5x5.
(https://www.enr.com/ext/resources/News/2019/07-July/Mobile-River-Bridge-from-Water---North-c.jpg?1564154732)
QuoteMy question is: why do the I-10 Bayway bridges need to be replaced?
I believe the existing bridges are below the 100-year storm surge level. They want to fix that.
Quoteis 3x3 going to be sufficient for the bridge?
The existing I-10 Wallace Tunnel will remain, so it'll be a net 5x5 in freeway capacity across the river. You mentioned the Baytown Bridge as an example...but that project took out the former tunnel instead of adding to it.
Gov Ivey says the project is dead and she has canceled all future meetings on the project. I of course have always had my own agenda on the project. I didn't care what was done as long as a route was maintained across the bay for non motorized traffic.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on August 28, 2019, 08:42:18 PM
Gov Ivey says the project is dead and she has canceled all future meetings on the project. I of course have always had my own agenda on the project. I didn't care what was done as long as a route was maintained across the bay for non motorized traffic.
So they're not gonna be getting that 125 million INFRA grant they just won?
Is it really dead or they just can't build it with tolls?
I think the entire project is back to square one. This is a good thing, IMO as the toll component was outrageous. Though I do support toll roads in some cases, I am against tolling in many more and interstate tolls are no exception. I believe the interstates should have a blanket standard and no tolls should be part of that. Hopefully this project comes back bigger and better keeping the tunnel portion AND adding another bridge crossing further north as an additional bridge alternative should be had.
Well, Cameron...if you're so dead-set against Interstate tolls, how would you propose ALDOT pay for this? Take from Birmingham/Montgomery projects? That still wouldn't pay for the Bayway portion, let alone the bridge.
The moral of the story is that you shouldn't announce a $6 toll in a state where there aren't any other serious toll bridges and just one other Alabama toll road which gets shunpiked frequently. Set the bar low ($1-2, not the price of a meat-and-three lunch special) and then increase it as needed.
But the magic spacecake fairy declared it "dead" which means everything's just super right now! We'll just wait for the next Category 4-5 to immolate it and Alabama gets Federal funds to start anew.
I've occasionally looked at ALDOT's finances from time to time over the years (having been stationed twice in neighboring Mississippi). I would hazard a bet that the toll was proposed at $6 because the state lacks the capacity to put any meaningful state money into the project to make the toll lower**. That the project was proposed as a P3 probably didn't help things any, either...
** - As an example of this, look at how long it took ALDOT to finish their part of Corridor X (I-22) compared to Mississippi. Mississippi had a full US 78 freeway (albeit not Interstate standard in some parts, especially New Albany) by 1994 because they dedicated a good chunk of state money for finishing the roadway. Compare and contrast to Alabama, who overly relied on Federal highway funding and only got their section finished a couple years ago. Heck, MDOT even beat them to having a full Interstate-grade roadway.
Quote from: froggie on August 29, 2019, 08:44:43 PM
Well, Cameron...if you're so dead-set against Interstate tolls, how would you propose ALDOT pay for this? Take from Birmingham/Montgomery projects? That still wouldn't pay for the Bayway portion, let alone the bridge.
Same way Virginia paid for I-81... same way TxDOT paid for all of their projects previously touted as only possible with tolls yet now U/C toll free.
From that statement, I can tell you don't understand Alabama politics when it comes to taxes.
Would it be nice to pay for it via taxes? Sure. Is that feasibly or politically possible in an anti-tax state such as Alabama? No. Especially considering you have other metropolitan areas in the state that are as large or larger than Mobile that would want their cut.
They did just raise their gas tax but I don't know if it is enough to pay for this project.
I think one of the hopes was to get the non-locals to help pay for it. There's lots of trucks and those just passing through the 67 miles of I-10, to cover a good deal of the cost.
But I can see where those who have to make a commute from Baldwin and Mobile counties wouldn't like to bear that much of the cost, and even so, all revenue should only go to maintenance and projects in those two counties, not spread around the rest of the state.
Quote from: froggie on August 30, 2019, 07:32:39 AM
Would it be nice to pay for it via taxes? Sure. Is that feasibly or politically possible in an anti-tax state such as Alabama?
How many states are "anti-tax"? IOW was all taxation eliminated? Isn't that the literal meaning of "anti-tax"?
Alabama for a Southern State has pretty high taxes, Sales Tax is around 9%, groceries are taxable too, Income Tax is 5%.
The only low taxes are gas and property tax, although I think you still have a pay an annual property on cars in Alabama.
There should be plenty of money to build a bridge in Mobile, the problem is a spending problem in local and county government.
Huntsville can spend half a billion upgrading there highway system, why can't Mobile?
A $2.3 billion project for a bridge and approaches. That is in the realm of where tolls are usually needed to help finance the project thru toll revenue bonds.
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 05:41:13 AM
A $2.3 billion project for a bridge and approaches. That is in the realm of where tolls are usually needed to help finance the project thru toll revenue bonds.
This is more than just the bridge. LA is building a billion plus dollar bridge and no tolls.
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 05:41:13 AM
A $2.3 billion project for a bridge and approaches. That is in the realm of where tolls are usually needed to help finance the project thru toll revenue bonds.
VDOT is constructing a new one mile long 8-lane bridge, two 2-lane tunnels one mile long, and widening 5 miles of interstate from 4 to 8 lanes for $3.6 billion. Two free general purpose lanes and two HO/T lanes in each direction. $3.3 billion is tax dollar funded and $345 million is toll financed.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 31, 2019, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 05:41:13 AM
A $2.3 billion project for a bridge and approaches. That is in the realm of where tolls are usually needed to help finance the project thru toll revenue bonds.
VDOT is constructing a new one mile long 8-lane bridge, two 2-lane tunnels one mile long, and widening 5 miles of interstate from 4 to 8 lanes for $3.6 billion. Two free general purpose lanes and two HO/T lanes in each direction. $3.3 billion is tax dollar funded and $345 million is toll financed.
Mobile metro population is 415 thousand, and Alabama population is 4.9 million.
Hampton Roads population is 1.7 million and Virginia population is 8.5 million.
Hampton Roads also has a regional overlay for sales and motor fuel taxation which functions similar to statewide sales and motor fuel taxation, but for that one region, and in addition to the statewide taxation.
That would have an effect on the funding base available.
States like to institute tolls on highway segments that are highly used by out-of-state traffic. If people in Alabama kept in mind that a toll on this bridge would draw heavily from non-Alabama users, they might advocate the idea of tolls a bit more. You know, as opposed to funding it via in-state Alabama tax increase.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 31, 2019, 09:15:02 PM
States like to institute tolls on highway segments that are highly used by out-of-state traffic. If people in Alabama kept in mind that a toll on this bridge would draw heavily from non-Alabama users, they might advocate the idea of tolls a bit more. You know, as opposed to funding it via in-state Alabama tax increase.
That makes sense, that the new I-10 will primarily be for thru traffic that passes thru the narrow neck of Alabama, while the existing I-10 get relegated to something like I-210 to be used primarily by local and regional traffic.
With a bridge deck some 225-230 feet above the water, the bridge crossing could be sold as a tourist attraction: pay the toll, enjoy the view! :colorful: But seriously, the point about starting with a $6 toll in that state, regardless of the math involved, might be a bit much and result in blowback (which has obviously already occurred to some extent). If it were my decision, I'd find a "happy medium" -- maybe somewhere about $3-$4 to start with, and edge it up a quarter at a time over 8-10 years until an adequate return level is reached (hey, despite the pissing and moaning, it's worked out here by the Bay!).
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 31, 2019, 09:15:02 PM
States like to institute tolls on highway segments that are highly used by out-of-state traffic. If people in Alabama kept in mind that a toll on this bridge would draw heavily from non-Alabama users, they might advocate the idea of tolls a bit more. You know, as opposed to funding it via in-state Alabama tax increase.
Part of the issue is that a significant amount of the traffic on this stretch of I-10 -is- local traffic. AADT counts jump from 35,000 - 40,000 up to nearly 80,000 over the existing viaducts and tunnels. They dwindle back down to 45,000 AADT at the Alabama / Mississippi state line, and that's also taking in account the long-distance traffic coming in from the north from I-65 South to I-10 West
(and vice versa) which doesn't merge until west of the tunnel / viaduct complex. And it's also hard to say that the rural counts are all "long-distance traffic". Some of that traffic could easily be regional as well.
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 08:32:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 31, 2019, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 05:41:13 AM
A $2.3 billion project for a bridge and approaches. That is in the realm of where tolls are usually needed to help finance the project thru toll revenue bonds.
VDOT is constructing a new one mile long 8-lane bridge, two 2-lane tunnels one mile long, and widening 5 miles of interstate from 4 to 8 lanes for $3.6 billion. Two free general purpose lanes and two HO/T lanes in each direction. $3.3 billion is tax dollar funded and $345 million is toll financed.
Mobile metro population is 415 thousand, and Alabama population is 4.9 million.
Hampton Roads population is 1.7 million and Virginia population is 8.5 million.
Hampton Roads also has a regional overlay for sales and motor fuel taxation which functions similar to statewide sales and motor fuel taxation, but for that one region, and in addition to the statewide taxation.
That would have an effect on the funding base available.
The point is is that it can be done if the proper tax increases are made. But obviously, there's opposition to that in Alabama, and also with tolling it seems. The ignorance of people annoys me... they want both low taxes and no tolls and also want a massive multi-billion dollar project completed. Something needs to happen to fund the project, and quite frankly I'd support an overall fuel tax increase enough to pay for the project and have it completed without tolling, very similar to I-81 in Virginia.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 01, 2019, 07:06:55 AM
The point is is that it can be done if the proper tax increases are made. But obviously, there's opposition to that in Alabama, and also with tolling it seems. The ignorance of people annoys me... they want both low taxes and no tolls and also want a massive multi-billion dollar project completed. Something needs to happen to fund the project, and quite frankly I'd support an overall fuel tax increase enough to pay for the project and have it completed without tolling, very similar to I-81 in Virginia.
Not sure that is the case, it might be more like finding the $13 billion to build the CBA 9 Hampton Road Third Crossing, looking at it on a population weighted basis.
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 08:32:16 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 31, 2019, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 05:41:13 AM
A $2.3 billion project for a bridge and approaches. That is in the realm of where tolls are usually needed to help finance the project thru toll revenue bonds.
VDOT is constructing a new one mile long 8-lane bridge, two 2-lane tunnels one mile long, and widening 5 miles of interstate from 4 to 8 lanes for $3.6 billion. Two free general purpose lanes and two HO/T lanes in each direction. $3.3 billion is tax dollar funded and $345 million is toll financed.
Mobile metro population is 415 thousand, and Alabama population is 4.9 million.
Hampton Roads population is 1.7 million and Virginia population is 8.5 million.
Hampton Roads also has a regional overlay for sales and motor fuel taxation which functions similar to statewide sales and motor fuel taxation, but for that one region, and in addition to the statewide taxation.
That would have an effect on the funding base available.
Always an excuse lol... Seriously though continuously narrowing down making Mobile some special case that is unique from other metros isn't a good point. This area along the gulf is a mega region and not one to be underestimated. There are real traffic needs like other metros and other metros have found ways to do it without tolls: Alabama can too.
PS, Alabama is building(or was) a 5 billion dollar road with no tolls. You thank the feds for that and stopping it. That project has stalled but the point they just raised the gas tax, the feds need to start backing more projects up, and waiting until monies are found to do this project right with no tolls is better for everyone. This can be done as tons of other metros have billion dollar projects and no tolls.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2019, 08:47:57 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 08:32:16 PM
Mobile metro population is 415 thousand, and Alabama population is 4.9 million.
Always an excuse lol... Seriously though continuously narrowing down making Mobile some special case that is unique from other metros isn't a good point.
Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.
Money doesn't grow on trees.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaPS, Alabama is building(or was) a 5 billion dollar road with no tolls. You thank the feds for that and stopping it.
PPS: Wasn't the Feds that stopped it. Was Alabama realizing that they could never afford it nor a number of other wish list items they cancelled at the same time.
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 08:54:44 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2019, 08:47:57 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2019, 08:32:16 PM
Mobile metro population is 415 thousand, and Alabama population is 4.9 million.
Always an excuse lol... Seriously though continuously narrowing down making Mobile some special case that is unique from other metros isn't a good point.
Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.
Money doesn't grow on trees.
This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.
Quote from: froggie on September 01, 2019, 09:03:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic PandaPS, Alabama is building(or was) a 5 billion dollar road with no tolls. You thank the feds for that and stopping it.
PPS: Wasn't the Feds that stopped it. Was Alabama realizing that they could never afford it nor a number of other wish list items they cancelled at the same time.
That wasn't how I read it. Funding dried up from the fed end and the state is still actively pursuing that project.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2019, 09:27:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 08:54:44 AM
Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.
This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.
OK, so how much funding is FHWA going to provide for this project?
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 01:46:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2019, 09:27:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 08:54:44 AM
Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.
This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.
OK, so how much funding is FHWA going to provide for this project?
FHWA has limited grant programs (e.g., TIGER). The bulk of FHWA funding is just handed out in normal core apportionments.
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2019, 09:08:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 01:46:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2019, 09:27:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 08:54:44 AM
Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.
This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.
OK, so how much funding is FHWA going to provide for this project?
FHWA has limited grant programs (e.g., TIGER). The bulk of FHWA funding is just handed out in normal core apportionments.
I am just trying to address the complaints here about why it may be difficult to fund this project without tolls.
If it is a "a nationally important project" then the federal government ought provide at least 50% of the funds. Of course as you suggest, FHWA doesn't have the kind of funding even for Interstate highway projects that it did in the past, say before about 1995.
This project may not necessarily receive any federal funding at all, in today's funding environment.
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2019, 09:08:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 01:46:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2019, 09:27:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 08:54:44 AM
Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.
This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.
OK, so how much funding is FHWA going to provide for this project?
FHWA has limited grant programs (e.g., TIGER). The bulk of FHWA funding is just handed out in normal core apportionments.
I am just trying to address the complaints here about why it may be difficult to fund this project without tolls.
If it is a "a nationally important project" then the federal government ought provide at least 50% of the funds. Of course as you suggest, FHWA doesn't have the kind of funding even for Interstate highway projects that it did in the past, say before about 1995.
This project may not necessarily receive any federal funding at all, in today's funding environment.
i see. I completely agree here. The feds need to pay up. It's hard when you don't have a real spending bill to address things. They say 2 trillion but I suspect either the taxes needed to get that money are beyond what most politicians feel comfortable supporting. I think it needs to be one or the other. Either no vehicle or gas taxes and direct user based fees only or the complete opposite. Now I apply that standard to interstates or major cross country projects. I am not against toll roads entirely.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2019, 09:52:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 09:43:20 PM
This project may not necessarily receive any federal funding at all, in today's funding environment.
i see. I completely agree here. The feds need to pay up. It's hard when you don't have a real spending bill to address things. They say 2 trillion but I suspect either the taxes needed to get that money are beyond what most politicians feel comfortable supporting. I think it needs to be one or the other. Either no vehicle or gas taxes and direct user based fees only or the complete opposite. Now I apply that standard to interstates or major cross country projects. I am not against toll roads entirely.
Every state receives an annual allocation amount in FHWA funding, and there are various rules as to how they can distribute it within their state.
A state can't just tell them to "pay up" if it means funding beyond the annual allocations.
The original Interstate system is old enough that it takes a massive portion of the FHWA allocations just for a state to fund projects to rehabilitate and replace old pavements and bridges.
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 10:15:25 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2019, 09:52:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 09:43:20 PM
This project may not necessarily receive any federal funding at all, in today's funding environment.
i see. I completely agree here. The feds need to pay up. It's hard when you don't have a real spending bill to address things. They say 2 trillion but I suspect either the taxes needed to get that money are beyond what most politicians feel comfortable supporting. I think it needs to be one or the other. Either no vehicle or gas taxes and direct user based fees only or the complete opposite. Now I apply that standard to interstates or major cross country projects. I am not against toll roads entirely.
Every state receives an annual allocation amount in FHWA funding, and there are various rules as to how they can distribute it within their state.
A state can't just tell them to "pay up" if it means funding beyond the annual allocations.
The original Interstate system is old enough that it takes a massive portion of the FHWA allocations just for a state to fund projects to rehabilitate and replace old pavements and bridges.
I am well aware of these things.
Hm. My first reaction was that it would be quite rare for a large project to not be assigned federal funding, but here in NY, NYSDOT and NYCDOT have turned to personal income tax bond funding (state borrowing money) to do a couple of major projects on federal-aid eligible highways. Wonder if Alabama has done the same.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2019, 09:52:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2019, 09:08:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 01:46:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 01, 2019, 09:27:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 01, 2019, 08:54:44 AM
Not unique, but $2.3 billion for a metro of 415 thousand population is an enormous amount of money.
This isn't just about 415 thousand people living in a metro, this a nationally important project for a country of 320 million.
OK, so how much funding is FHWA going to provide for this project?
FHWA has limited grant programs (e.g., TIGER). The bulk of FHWA funding is just handed out in normal core apportionments.
I am just trying to address the complaints here about why it may be difficult to fund this project without tolls.
If it is a "a nationally important project" then the federal government ought provide at least 50% of the funds. Of course as you suggest, FHWA doesn't have the kind of funding even for Interstate highway projects that it did in the past, say before about 1995.
This project may not necessarily receive any federal funding at all, in today's funding environment.
i see. I completely agree here. The feds need to pay up. It's hard when you don't have a real spending bill to address things. They say 2 trillion but I suspect either the taxes needed to get that money are beyond what most politicians feel comfortable supporting. I think it needs to be one or the other. Either no vehicle or gas taxes and direct user based fees only or the complete opposite. Now I apply that standard to interstates or major cross country projects. I am not against toll roads entirely.
Part of the issue is that of the $2 trillion needed, the current administration's proposal is to provide $200 million in traditional funding with the rest being backed up the private sector in the form of P3's - aka tolls. Quite frankly, I'd rather see a national gas tax increase. It's unpopular, including among people I know personally, but it's desperately needed if we are serious about rebuilding our infrastructure and keeping what's toll free now that way in the future. If we ever did a tax increase though, progress would need to be shown all around the country in a 5-15 year period with all these massive improvement projects to prove to people it's being used appropriately and to educate why it's needed. Agreed, I'm not against toll roads either, but I'm against converting a lot of existing free interstates into toll roads simply to fund this infrastructure plan. The interstate system was never meant to include toll roads with the exception of the original turnpikes and a few others, and it still shouldn't become that way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 02, 2019, 06:49:53 AM
Part of the issue is that of the $2 trillion needed, the current administration's proposal is to provide $200 million in traditional funding with the rest being backed up the private sector in the form of P3's - aka tolls. Quite frankly, I'd rather see a national gas tax increase. It's unpopular, including among people I know personally, but it's desperately needed if we are serious about rebuilding our infrastructure and keeping what's toll free now that way in the future.
In a general sense that seems logical, but there have been many calls for getting the federal government out of funding highways for the last 40 years or more, especially in the last 20 years or so, and devolving it to the states and localities.
FHWA still provides about $45 billion per year in federal-aid funding to the states. But by keeping the federal highway user tax rates static since 1992, that has caused a steady devolvement of highway funding to the states and localities.
This is from 2015 and quotes summaries from a few years before, but it shows how heavy is the funding levels from the states and localities.
The revenue collected in 2012 from all levels of government for highways and bridges was $216.6 billion, as illustrated in Exhibit 6-1. Of the total revenues generated, the Federal government contributed $42.8 billion; State governments, $106.3 billion; and local governments, $67.5 billion.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2015cpr/chap6.cfm
Just curious but would anyone here support near European prices for gas?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2019, 04:41:19 PM
Just curious but would anyone here support near European prices for gas?
Yeah when honest politicians can be trusted with the money, so that would be hell no!!
Quote from: Rothman on September 02, 2019, 12:46:59 AM
Hm. My first reaction was that it would be quite rare for a large project to not be assigned federal funding, but here in NY, NYSDOT and NYCDOT have turned to personal income tax bond funding (state borrowing money) to do a couple of major projects on federal-aid eligible highways. Wonder if Alabama has done the same.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Not that I am aware of.
It is a shame that the bridge probably won't be built for a long time, but I also believe the toll was too high for locals to swallow.
Maybe as a start Mobile and Baldwin Counties could institute impact fees for new developments that would go towards the bridge.
I don't think anyone has pointed this out in here, but if you look on the website for the Bayway, it's essentially dead.
QuoteThe Alabama Department of Transportation on August 28, 2019 ceased project development efforts on the proposed Mobile River Bridge & Bayway.
https://mobileriverbridge.com/
What a sad end to a project that could have put a stop to the endless bottle-necking at the tunnel. It's a shame that citizens here in the south don't understand economics.
Quote from: HemiCRZ on October 28, 2019, 10:10:27 PM
I don't think anyone has pointed this out in here, but if you look on the website for the Bayway, it's essentially dead.
QuoteThe Alabama Department of Transportation on August 28, 2019 ceased project development efforts on the proposed Mobile River Bridge & Bayway.
https://mobileriverbridge.com/
What a sad end to a project that could have put a stop to the endless bottle-necking at the tunnel. It's a shame that citizens here in the south don't understand economics.
Why don't they list a reason?
Quote from: Beltway on October 28, 2019, 10:11:41 PM
Quote from: HemiCRZ on October 28, 2019, 10:10:27 PM
I don't think anyone has pointed this out in here, but if you look on the website for the Bayway, it's essentially dead.
QuoteThe Alabama Department of Transportation on August 28, 2019 ceased project development efforts on the proposed Mobile River Bridge & Bayway.
https://mobileriverbridge.com/
What a sad end to a project that could have put a stop to the endless bottle-necking at the tunnel. It's a shame that citizens here in the south don't understand economics.
Why don't they list a reason?
Likely heavy local opposition to the tolling plan, and the lack of ability to get traditional funding.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 28, 2019, 10:32:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 28, 2019, 10:11:41 PM
Why don't they list a reason?
Likely heavy local opposition to the tolling plan, and the lack of ability to get traditional funding.
What about the RE/T groups and the AHA/O groups?
I am glad this project was killed. A new bridge is sorely needed but no tolls on interstates. This, like I-81(VA) and many Texas highways will still happen it will just take longer.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2019, 12:45:53 AM
I am glad this project was killed. A new bridge is sorely needed but no tolls on interstates. This, like I-81(VA) and many Texas highways will still happen it will just take longer.
I-81 in Virginia had its tolls scraped, but it also increased the fuel tax along the corridor + other fees, so the project is still getting done just as fast. Bonds are being issued, etc. except the fuel tax + fees will repay them instead of tolls.
An appropriate approach IMO. It'd be a shame to see tolls on I-81 after it being free for decades.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2019, 06:05:13 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 29, 2019, 12:45:53 AM
I am glad this project was killed. A new bridge is sorely needed but no tolls on interstates. This, like I-81(VA) and many Texas highways will still happen it will just take longer.
I-81 in Virginia had its tolls scraped, but it also increased the fuel tax along the corridor + other fees, so the project is still getting done just as fast. Bonds are being issued, etc. except the fuel tax + fees will repay them instead of tolls.
They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls. Penny wise, pound foolish.
So I guess with this project being canceled, there will be an additional 125 million dollars of INFRA grant money next year?
Had the Interstate 10 toll bridge project gone forward, I wonder if the parallel US 90/98 roadway bridges would have been tolled as well (in order to discourage shunpiking)?
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2019, 07:10:50 AM
They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls. Penny wise, pound foolish.
How about without tolling an interstate highway that has been toll-free since it's opening in the 60s - 80s?
I'd like to see it widened to 6-lanes thruout, but it needs to be done without tolls. The current project is a major step forward, there needs to be more phases to gradually open it to 6-lanes thruout by 2030 - 2035.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2019, 05:19:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2019, 07:10:50 AM
They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls. Penny wise, pound foolish.
How about without tolling an interstate highway that has been toll-free since it's opening in the 60s - 80s?
I'd like to see it widened to 6-lanes thruout, but it needs to be done without tolls. The current project is a major step forward, there needs to be more phases to gradually open it to 6-lanes thruout by 2030 - 2035.
There is a tradeoff. I am opposed to general tolling of Interstate highways that were built without tolling.
But I am open to the idea of having a small number of Interstate highway "super corridors" being considered for a tolling that is only in support of expanding the highway with more lanes, and which would be detolled after the bonds have been paid off.
There is a traffic and economic benefit to having a highway project complete 20 to 40 years earlier than via conventional funding.
Given all the unfunded highway needs today and those coming in the near future, getting all of it done by 2030 to 2035 may be overly optimistic.
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2019, 05:29:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2019, 05:19:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2019, 07:10:50 AM
They could have widened the whole 325 miles to 6 lanes by 2011 if they had accepted one of the ISRRPP proposals, which would have included tolls. Penny wise, pound foolish.
How about without tolling an interstate highway that has been toll-free since it's opening in the 60s - 80s?
I'd like to see it widened to 6-lanes thruout, but it needs to be done without tolls. The current project is a major step forward, there needs to be more phases to gradually open it to 6-lanes thruout by 2030 - 2035.
There is a tradeoff. I am opposed to general tolling of Interstate highways that were built without tolling.
But I am open to the idea of having a small number of Interstate highway "super corridors" being considered for a tolling that is only in support of expanding the highway with more lanes, and which would be detolled after the bonds have been paid off.
There is a traffic and economic benefit to having a highway project complete 20 to 40 years earlier than via conventional funding.
Given all the unfunded highway needs today and those coming in the near future, getting all of it done by 2030 to 2035 may be overly optimistic.
I'd generally agree, but I-81 could generally wait off another 10-15 years to find traditional funding if the current funding method proves successful. The major choke points are getting widened, and the rest of the corridor generally has no congestion issues except on peak weekends. The trucks are an issue, and while it's frustrating getting caught behind lines of them in both lanes, at least it's generally moving 65 - 70 mph. It's not something like I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond, or I-95 between DC and Richmond which are bottlenecks any day.
With the $151 million projected per year, plus the opportunity for bonds to pay for these projects and the additional tax revenue paying them off over decades, it could get done within 10-15 years.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2019, 05:55:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 29, 2019, 05:29:48 PM
Given all the unfunded highway needs today and those coming in the near future, getting all of it done by 2030 to 2035 may be overly optimistic.
I'd generally agree, but I-81 could generally wait off another 10-15 years to find traditional funding if the current funding method proves successful. The major choke points are getting widened, and the rest of the corridor generally has no congestion issues except on peak weekends. The trucks are an issue, and while it's frustrating getting caught behind lines of them in both lanes, at least it's generally moving 65 - 70 mph. It's not something like I-64 between Williamsburg and Richmond, or I-95 between DC and Richmond which are bottlenecks any day.
My "20 Fri-Sun weekends per year" rule, it all definitely needs 6 lanes then.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 29, 2019, 05:55:36 PM
With the $151 million projected per year, plus the opportunity for bonds to pay for these projects and the additional tax revenue paying them off over decades, it could get done within 10-15 years.
The $2.2 billion program was covered at the last CTB meeting, and due to engineering and permitting, it will be more like 2030 or beyond when they are completed, and even then it will take bond assistance to accelerate the work. From CTB presentation --
Two scheduling options presented
Existing revenue stream (pay-go) -- 48 out of 64 projects completed by 2028
Bonding/TIFIA option -- 60 out of 64 projects completed by 2028
The whole 325 miles could have been 6-laned by 2011. That would mean that money would not have to be spent now to widen it, and given the high volumes the bonds may have been paid off by 2030 and the highway detolled.
Like I said there is a tradeoff, and a rather large one at that.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2019, 04:46:02 PM
Had the Interstate 10 toll bridge project gone forward, I wonder if the parallel US 90/98 roadway bridges would have been tolled as well (in order to discourage shunpiking)?
The Wallace Tunnel would have been tolled, but the causeway would remain free.
Froggie went to a meeting on the I-10 Mobile River Bridge proposal in 2001 and I did in 2003. Approaching the 20 year mark and nothing accomplished...
Had Hurricane Ivan or Katrina wiped out portions of the Bayway, it would have been replaced (see I-10 across Escambia Bay in Pensacola and I-10 across Lake Pontchartrain in New Orleans). Unfortunately that seems to be the only way something will be improved across Mobile Bay.
Until 2013, I drove across the Bayway routinely, and it already got to the point to where I would have to look at Google Maps for traffic before heading out. With the increasingly rapid development along the Eastern Shore and Baldwin County, having just four lanes between Mobile and Spanish Fort/Daphne will eventually make I-10 look just like I-275 across the Howard Frankland Bridge in Tampa (if it has not already). The Howard Frankland is guaranteed congested both morning and evening peak hours northbound. It also backs up on weekends at times as well. I-10 was generally not like that when I lived in Mobile, but congestion at the Wallace Tunnel eastbound became an issue from the mid 2000s onward.
A gas tax increase was just passed in Alabama. An increase in gas taxes within proximity of this project or corridor seem like a decent solution but I suspect are a non starter in Alabama. The government needs to come together on infrastructure reform and invest more money in our infrastructure. It is that simple and it's not at the same time.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 30, 2019, 02:33:23 PM
A gas tax increase was just passed in Alabama. An increase in gas taxes within proximity of this project or corridor seem like a decent solution but I suspect are a non starter in Alabama. The government needs to come together on infrastructure reform and invest more money in our infrastructure. It is that simple and it's not at the same time.
The gas tax increase has been very unpopular across Alabama, and the sad thing is that the increase isn't going towards many big ticket projects. It is funding a few $20M+ projects here and there.
I honestly wished there was some way that the different municipalities along the I-10 corridor between Pensacola and New Orleans could come together and fund an I-10 Mobile River bridge and Bayway replacement. It is a project of regional importance.
New proposal for the Mobile River Bridge surfaces. Doesn't replace the current bayway and has no exits to the bayway. No real details as far as tolls except that Wallace Tunnel wouldn't be tolled. We'll see how far this gets.
https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2020/01/north-bay-express-surfaces-as-an-alternative-to-the-i-10-project.html
I don't like that one either. They need to do the original project with no tolls.
Send them a couple billion and they might.
Wouldn't this new proposal still require a new crossing of the Bay?
It reads like it would be a third crossing in addition to the Causeway and current I-10.
Quote from: bdmoss88 on January 16, 2020, 07:15:14 AM
It reads like it would be a third crossing in addition to the Causeway and current I-10.
So how does it end up costing -less-?
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2020, 12:40:22 PM
Quote from: bdmoss88 on January 16, 2020, 07:15:14 AM
It reads like it would be a third crossing in addition to the Causeway and current I-10.
So how does it end up costing -less-?
The old plan was to build a new, wider bridge and then demolish the existing one. The new plan is to build a new, narrower (than the old plan) bridge, and then keep the existing one. It also wouldn't have the intermediate exit.
The old was great except one thing: tolls. These new plans don't seem like they will do much to reduce traffic on I-10.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2020, 04:08:31 PM
The old was great except one thing: tolls. These new plans don't seem like they will do much to reduce traffic on I-10.
It sounds like an express route from Daphne to Mobile to allow folks from the Eastern Shore to bypass I-10. It does little for through I-10 traffic.
Quote from: codyg1985 on January 16, 2020, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2020, 04:08:31 PM
The old was great except one thing: tolls. These new plans don't seem like they will do much to reduce traffic on I-10.
It sounds like an express route from Daphne to Mobile to allow folks from the Eastern Shore to bypass I-10. It does little for through I-10 traffic.
Right and it sounds like something that could be beneficial to Mobile but not a suitable alternative for the needs of I-10, the focus of this initiative. If such a project happens it should be completely separate from anything project aimed at easing traffic and modernizing I-10.
https://www.al.com/news/2020/02/i-10-toll-war-heads-to-montgomery.html
The tolling debate in Alabama is endemic of the root cause of the issue: people want new roads, but they don't want to pay for them.
Quote from: froggie on February 18, 2020, 12:08:22 PM
The tolling debate in Alabama is endemic of the root cause of the issue: people want new roads, but they don't want to pay for them.
I think they would rather stick with the existing toll-free bridge / tunnel rather than widening / replacing it with a toll.
Also, they do pay for them at the gas pump.
The tolling of the Downtown Tunnel in Norfolk / Portsmouth, VA that added no capacity and is heavily congested to this date was a major controversy that was nearly blocked, but ended up proceeding. People still feel the impacts and burden of that to this day, and there's still calls to eventually buy out the contract and remove the tolls. Only problem though is where are we going find $2.5 billion, especially with there's other pressing needs in the region. It would be nice and a relief, but certainly a low priority in the grand scheme of things.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 18, 2020, 09:06:20 PMI think they would rather stick with the existing toll-free bridge / tunnel rather than widening / replacing it with a toll.
IOW the Mobile crossing will not be expanded if they follow that policy.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 18, 2020, 09:06:20 PM
The tolling of the Downtown Tunnel in Norfolk / Portsmouth, VA that added no capacity and is heavily congested to this date was a major controversy that was nearly blocked, but ended up proceeding.
Half truth. It got major renovation and it helped fund the $1.1 billion Parallel Midtown Tunnel and $200 MLK Freeway Extension which added major capacity to the complex of tunnels between Portsmouth and Norfolk, provided alternatives in major incidents, and expanded bus transit options.
Actually 3 old tubes got major renovation in the ERT Tunnels Project.
QuoteIOW the Mobile crossing will not be expanded if they follow that policy.
Which is what the locals who would be impacted the most directly want, and what will likely happen until funding can be found for a toll free replacement.
QuoteHalf truth. It got major renovation and it helped fund the $1.1 billion Parallel Midtown Tunnel and $200 MLK Freeway Extension which added major capacity to the complex of tunnels between Portsmouth and Norfolk, provided alternatives in major incidents, and expanded bus transit options.
Actually 3 old tubes got major renovation in the ERT Tunnels Project.
Except the Downtown Tunnel corridor is a bottleneck that is still heavily congested (it almost seems to get worse each year IMO) and really didn't see much or little relief and the tolls have placed a burden on many, notably on lower income people which is more prevalent in that general area, that just keep creeping up every year. Toll diversion increased, congestion on the I-64 and US-13 corridors saw a sudden increase once tolling started and remain bottlenecks today. The HO/T lane should help some, but it won't eliminate the problem.
The project did have its benefits, mostly everywhere else except the Downtown Tunnel, but there were also many negative impacts that can't be ignored
You can't just add tolls to an existing roadway and expect it to have little impact on people, especially to locals. The Dominion Blvd expansion is another example, and while it has had less impacts overall, still has caused diversion, choking VA-168 Business and US-17 Business further.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 18, 2020, 11:51:52 PM
QuoteIt got major renovation and it helped fund the $1.1 billion Parallel Midtown Tunnel and $200 MLK Freeway Extension which added major capacity to the complex of tunnels between Portsmouth and Norfolk, provided alternatives in major incidents, and expanded bus transit options.
Actually 3 old tubes got major renovation in the ERT Tunnels Project.
Except the Downtown Tunnel corridor is a bottleneck that is still heavily congested (it almost seems to get worse each year IMO) and really didn't see much or little relief and the tolls have placed a burden on many, notably on lower income people which is more prevalent in that general area, that just keep creeping up every year. Toll diversion increased, congestion on the I-64 and US-13 corridors saw a sudden increase once tolling started and remain bottlenecks today. The HO/T lane should help some, but it won't eliminate the problem.
The project did have its benefits, mostly everywhere else except the Downtown Tunnel, but there were also many negative impacts that can't be ignored
Do you want some crackers with that whine? Volume on the Downtown Tunnel is about 88,000, down from over 100,000 before the new tunnel opened. Major relief and alternate capacity now exists on the Midtown Tunnel. Data doesn't support your claim about I-64. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and this project was not financeable without tolls. Actually there was a proposal in 2000 to build it for $600 million, but the locals said no tolls, and what happens but it is financed in 2012 when the cost has ballooned to $1.4 billion. Blame the "no tolls" faction.
2013 vs. 2018 Volumes -
Downtown Tunnel - 86,000 to 84,000
Midtown Tunnel - 36,000 to 28,000
I-64 between Great Bridge Blvd and US-17 Business - 83,000 to 93,000
US-13 between Canal Dr and Bainbridge Blvd - 17,000 to 35,000
Where did the traffic go?
Traffic volumes decreased on -both- tunnels and increased significantly on free routes.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 18, 2020, 09:06:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 18, 2020, 12:08:22 PM
The tolling debate in Alabama is endemic of the root cause of the issue: people want new roads, but they don't want to pay for them.
I think they would rather stick with the existing toll-free bridge / tunnel rather than widening / replacing it with a toll.
Also, they do pay for them at the gas pump.
Not enough. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that what drivers pay in gas tax is not even close to being enough to cover road costs.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 19, 2020, 08:18:05 AM
2013 vs. 2018 Volumes -
Downtown Tunnel - 86,000 to 84,000
Midtown Tunnel - 36,000 to 28,000
I-64 between Great Bridge Blvd and US-17 Business - 83,000 to 93,000
US-13 between Canal Dr and Bainbridge Blvd - 17,000 to 35,000
Where did the traffic go?
Traffic volumes decreased on -both- tunnels and increased significantly on free routes.
Those figures don't add up. A drop of 10,000 on the tunnels and an increase 28,000 on the other routes?
BTW I always did question the published counts on the 2-lane Midtown Tunnel as being way too high. That was also before it had a freeway connection to I-264.
Also the new Gilmerton Bridge opened in 2014 and provided a big improvement on that part of US-13. The old bridge had low clearance and opened something like 40 times per day for marine traffic, which limited the usage. Also it was carrying 35,000 per day according to a ASHE presentation on the project that I have.
Since I was stationed there at the time and using it regularly, I can very much believe the 36K figure for the Midtown Tunnel in 2013.
Quote from: Beltway on February 19, 2020, 09:59:14 AM
Those figures don't add up. A drop of 10,000 on the tunnels and an increase 28,000 on the other routes?
BTW I always did question the published counts on the 2-lane Midtown Tunnel as being way too high. That was also before it had a freeway connection to I-264.
Also the new Gilmerton Bridge opened in 2014 and provided a big improvement on that part of US-13. The old bridge had low clearance and opened something like 40 times per day for marine traffic, which limited the usage. Also it was carrying 35,000 per day according to a ASHE presentation on the project that I have.
I'm simply posting what VDOT's AADT publications from 2013 and 2018 indicated.
Looking at AAWDT (Annual Average Weekday Daily Traffic)...
2013 vs. 2018 Volumes -
Downtown Tunnel - 93,000 to 91,000
Midtown Tunnel - 40,000 to 34,000
I-64 between Great Bridge Blvd and US-17 Business - 82,000 to 98,000
US-13 between Canal Dr and Bainbridge Blvd - 19,000 to 39,000
I-64 between US-13 and US-17 Business - 77,000 to 90,000
I-264 between Portsmouth and I-64 - 56,000 to 65,000
Hard to say the Tunnels was the only cause for the major spike in traffic on I-64, I-264, and US-13, as you also have to factor traffic naturally increasing annually with more growth, population increase, etc, but there was most certainly a -decrease- in traffic on both tunnels after the implementation of tolling, and if the AAWDT vs. AADT volumes are only indication, the decrease is more evident during weekends. During the weekday, the decrease was less noticeable, only 2,000 on the Downtown and 6,000 on the Midtown, but still there nonetheless. Had tolling not been implemented, that 93,000 AADT figure could easily be close to or at 100,000 AADT today.
But what is certainly true - the Midtown Tunnel being expanded was -not- the cause for the traffic decrease on the Downtown Tunnel, otherwise volumes would be higher on the Midtown than previously, not lower.
Traffic (AAWDT) volumes spiked between 2013 and 2018 on the pre-existing MLK Freeway segment between VA-141 and VA-164 from 37,000 to 58,000, though the majority of that new traffic is bound towards VA-164, as the new route now acts as a short-cut from Portsmouth to I-664 North. Traffic volumes (AAWDT) as a result increased on VA-164 from 54,000 to 64,000 between US-58 and West Norfolk Rd, and from 52,000 to 60,000 near the Suffolk line.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 21, 2020, 10:27:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 19, 2020, 09:59:14 AM
Those figures don't add up. A drop of 10,000 on the tunnels and an increase 28,000 on the other routes?
BTW I always did question the published counts on the 2-lane Midtown Tunnel as being way too high. That was also before it had a freeway connection to I-264.
Also the new Gilmerton Bridge opened in 2014 and provided a big improvement on that part of US-13. The old bridge had low clearance and opened something like 40 times per day for marine traffic, which limited the usage. Also it was carrying 35,000 per day according to a ASHE presentation on the project that I have.
I'm simply posting what VDOT's AADT publications from 2013 and 2018 indicated.
Got it, but I don't think the Midtown Tunnel figures are accurate, given the inherent limitations of a 2-lane 2-way tunnel compared to a modern 4-lane twin tube tunnel that is now connected to the regional freeway system.
Plus those figures for the Downtown Tunnel showed only a very small decline.
Also re-note the effects of the major upgrade on the US-13 Gilmerton Bridge -after- 2013.
[remainder read and snipped]
The new South Norfolk Jordan Bridge was opened for use in October, 2012. The old bridge closed in 2008. This is something else that needs to be factored into the mix for changes in traffic distribution on the Elizabeth River crossings.
Reported traffic volumes for 2018 are 7,900 AADT and 8,600 AAWDT.
Current toll for 2-axle vehicles is $2.55 each way.
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2020, 10:34:52 PM
The new South Norfolk Jordan Bridge was opened for use in October, 2012. The old bridge closed in 2008. This is something else that needs to be factored into the mix for changes in traffic distribution on the Elizabeth River crossings.
Reported traffic volumes for 2018 are 7,900 AADT and 8,600 AAWDT.
Current toll for 2-axle vehicles is $2.55 each way.
The traffic volumes on the South Norfolk Jordan Bridge were 6,400 AADT and 6,800 AADT in 2013. There has been an increase of 1,500 AADT or 1,800 AAWDT, so certainly a factor indeed.
Offers a congestion-free link from Portsmouth to I-464, though needs to traverse 2-lane road to reach it, and has a higher toll than the tunnels ($0.70 higher during off-peak hours, $0.22 higher during peak hours). Having used it during peak hours, I'd say it's certainly worth it over the tunnels when congested. Off-peak though, it's a no brainer to use the tunnels or I-64 High Rise Bridge depending on where coming from.
An update:
https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2020/11/no-tolls-only-a-vision-mobile-baldwin-officials-reassure-i-10-opponents.html
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 24, 2020, 10:24:14 PM
An update:
https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2020/11/no-tolls-only-a-vision-mobile-baldwin-officials-reassure-i-10-opponents.html
At least the conversation stays in the forefront with this project.
If there are concerns with the cost of the entire project, then built it in phases. Build a higher and wider bayway in one phase. If the bayway piece by itself is still expensive (which I figure it will be, perhaps in the $1 billion range), then since the bayway was going to be expanded to eight lanes, build one of the two required structures at a time at a cost of $500 million each and squeeze the existing four lanes onto the first structure, then build the second bayway structure. Finally, build the Mobile River bridge in another phase.
For whatever reason, the replacement southbound AL 35 bridge across the Tennessee River ended up being built in three separate phases I guess due to not having enough cash on hand to build it all at the same time. This state has done it before.
If the feds see that progress is being made, then perhaps Alabama will get some infusion of cash to speed up things.
The I-10 Mobile River bridge project is back. Under the new plan, ALDOT will build a new 4-lane toll bridge over the Mobile River that will be for trucks only. The existing byway will also be restriped to 6 lanes. From the project website https://www.mobilerivertruckbridge.com/ (https://www.mobilerivertruckbridge.com/)
Phase one of this project will construct a dedicated four-lane bridge over the Mobile River for large trucks only. All trucks over 46 feet — class 4, 5 and 6 — would be required to use this new bridge. This will eliminate all large truck traffic from the existing passageways resulting in smoother traffic flow and fewer accidents through the Wallace Tunnel. All current routes would remain toll-free.
Projections show that construction of the Truck Bridge will decrease average passenger car delays by approximately 60 to 90 minutes during peak times.
In addition to the new bridge, the existing Bayway will be restriped and converted from two to three lanes in each direction. This will increase traffic flow by an estimated 40% and increase highway safety.
Finally, as part of this project, the signed hazardous truck route will no longer pass through the Africatown community.
This seems like a decent enough plan. At least new infrastructure is being built. Any opposition from the trucking lobby?
It seems like if it successful then they could potentially rehabilitate and maybe expand the tunnel one day.
PS, what an impressive timeline! Something like that even in rural California would just be impossible. Starting construction by 22-23!? They're going to have to get on the ball with EIS pronto.
^I wondered a couple of years ago if they would have had to return that INFRA grant award they got for this project since the toll bridge got cancelled back in 2019. I agree that it seems like a good plan. It will be interesting to see what the truckers will say.
Oh boy, a representative with a national trucking association said the truck only toll could be unconstitutional.
https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2021/03/truck-toll-pitched-for-new-i-10-bridge-in-alabama-is-it-constitutional.html
Why not just allow any traffic to use a new six lane bridge for a toll and keep the tunnel free. Come back later and pay for a new, widened tunnel when the money is available.
Wouldn't restriping the Bayway eliminate the shoulders entirely? Just a safety consideration to keep in mind on a high traffic corridor.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 07:16:05 PM
Wouldn't restriping the Bayway eliminate the shoulders entirely? Just a safety consideration to keep in mind on a high traffic corridor.
I was literally about to say this. And that's quite a few miles of no shoulders on top of that
I wonder what the implications for route designations are. Would the new bridge get an interstate number (either Truck I-10 or a 3di), rendering the interstate system unclinchable for anyone who isn't a truck driver? Would it get a state route number?
Not really a fan of re-striping the bridges. You'll still have a jam with the tunnels, so you're eliminating the shoulders and possibly narrowing the lanes for not much gain.
Quote from: vdeane on March 22, 2021, 09:41:41 PM
I wonder what the implications for route designations are. Would the new bridge get an interstate number (either Truck I-10 or a 3di), rendering the interstate system unclinchable for anyone who isn't a truck driver? Would it get a state route number?
Not really a fan of re-striping the bridges. You'll still have a jam with the tunnels, so you're eliminating the shoulders and possibly narrowing the lanes for not much gain.
I'll still drive it. It's not like they're going to arrest me. Might have to pay a fine but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Pun intended.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 07:16:05 PM
Wouldn't restriping the Bayway eliminate the shoulders entirely? Just a safety consideration to keep in mind on a high traffic corridor.
Correct. So the claim that it would "increase highway safety" is complete bullshit.
I sent the project an email saying about as much but with nicer words.
The bridge deck is only around 36 ft wide, so cramming 3 12 ft lanes wouldn't even give you the sometimes acceptable 4 ft shoulder, it would be a mere line shoved up against a wall with no room for error. That's only going to decrease safety and increase accidents. And it's not like it's a small overpass that you'll cross in seconds. It's over 6 miles long, one accident, one breakdown, and you're shutting down lanes. Would the FHWA even approve such a project?
Unless the other solution is to pull a Texas and reduce lane sizes to 11 ft, leaving a mere 1.5 to 2 ft on either side, still no better, especially given high truck volumes.
With high traffic volumes, truck traffic, and safety concerns, the only viable solution is to completely replace the viaduct with one that has six lanes with full shoulders on both sides, or at minimum widen the existing Bayway to have a minimum of a 10 ft right shoulder.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 07:51:32 AM
Unless the other solution is to pull a Texas and reduce lane sizes to 11 ft, leaving a mere 1.5 to 2 ft on either side, still no better, especially given high truck volumes.
With high traffic volumes, truck traffic, and safety concerns, the only viable solution is to completely replace the viaduct with one that has six lanes with full shoulders on both sides, or at minimum widen the existing Bayway to have a minimum of a 10 ft right shoulder.
You keep talking about trucks. Did you miss the part where they would also build a new four-lane, truck-only bridge, and make the existing bridge cars-only?
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2021, 02:20:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 07:51:32 AM
Unless the other solution is to pull a Texas and reduce lane sizes to 11 ft, leaving a mere 1.5 to 2 ft on either side, still no better, especially given high truck volumes.
With high traffic volumes, truck traffic, and safety concerns, the only viable solution is to completely replace the viaduct with one that has six lanes with full shoulders on both sides, or at minimum widen the existing Bayway to have a minimum of a 10 ft right shoulder.
You keep talking about trucks. Did you miss the part where they would also build a new four-lane, truck-only bridge, and make the existing bridge cars-only?
Driving the reduced lane width is far less onerous with the truck traffic removed.
Quote from: barcncpt44 on March 22, 2021, 06:39:44 PM
Oh boy, a representative with a national trucking association said the truck only toll could be unconstitutional.
https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2021/03/truck-toll-pitched-for-new-i-10-bridge-in-alabama-is-it-constitutional.html
The simple way to do this is not for it to be a "truck only" bridge, but to restrict heavy trucks from the free bridge due to safety (perhaps weight) restrictions. It would not restrict autos from the new bridge, but there would be little incentive for cars to use the new bridge.
Yeah count me against 11ft lanes if it can be avoided. I can understand it in places like LA but there is land widely available in Alabama.
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2021, 02:20:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 07:51:32 AM
Unless the other solution is to pull a Texas and reduce lane sizes to 11 ft, leaving a mere 1.5 to 2 ft on either side, still no better, especially given high truck volumes.
With high traffic volumes, truck traffic, and safety concerns, the only viable solution is to completely replace the viaduct with one that has six lanes with full shoulders on both sides, or at minimum widen the existing Bayway to have a minimum of a 10 ft right shoulder.
You keep talking about trucks. Did you miss the part where they would also build a new four-lane, truck-only bridge, and make the existing bridge cars-only?
Did
you miss the part that the new truck only bridge covers the Mobile River part of the crossing and not the rest of the Bayway?
Quote from: froggie on March 23, 2021, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2021, 02:20:44 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 07:51:32 AM
Unless the other solution is to pull a Texas and reduce lane sizes to 11 ft, leaving a mere 1.5 to 2 ft on either side, still no better, especially given high truck volumes.
With high traffic volumes, truck traffic, and safety concerns, the only viable solution is to completely replace the viaduct with one that has six lanes with full shoulders on both sides, or at minimum widen the existing Bayway to have a minimum of a 10 ft right shoulder.
You keep talking about trucks. Did you miss the part where they would also build a new four-lane, truck-only bridge, and make the existing bridge cars-only?
Did you miss the part that the new truck only bridge covers the Mobile River part of the crossing and not the rest of the Bayway?
There are separate rivers there!? This is suddenly looking like a much smaller project than what I imagined (though that does answer the question of why bother to re-stripe the bridges if the tunnels would still be two lanes each). Where would that even go? Or would it not be a freeway?
Quote from: vdeane on March 23, 2021, 09:54:33 PM
There are separate rivers there!? This is suddenly looking like a much smaller project than what I imagined (though that does answer the question of why bother to re-stripe the bridge if the tunnels would still be two lanes each). Where would that even go? Or would it not be a freeway?
Yes, there's the Mobile River which the tunnel goes under, then there's the Mobile Bay which the 7.5 mile Bayway viaduct crosses. The new bridge would be a high level bridge just over the River, not the Bay, located to the south of the tunnel and tie into I-10 on either end.
One thing to keep in mind is that any rebuild of the bayway would require much higher structures in order to withstand future storm surges. So they can't just widen it in place. That's part of why the former plan was so expensive, in addition to it being four lanes in each direction with shoulders.
Quote from: codyg1985 on March 23, 2021, 10:02:05 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that any rebuild of the bayway would require much higher structures in order to withstand future storm surges. So they can't just widen it in place. That's part of why the former plan was so expensive, in addition to it being four lanes in each direction with shoulders.
For long term sustainability, they need to find someway to get the old project design constructed, either with the toll or somehow without, perhaps more federal funding, etc Because even if they go forth with the current plan, the Bayway is eventually going to have to be replaced at some point.
The I-10 Mobile River Bridge is back on the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) after the Eastern Shore MPO (which voted down the original bridge project) unanimously voted to add the Phase 1 truck toll bridge proposal to the TIP. The Mobile area MPO also added it to their TIP on a unanimous vote last week. This paves the way for ALDOT to continue work on the proposal and makes the bridge eligible for any new federal dollars that may come out in the coming months. Apparently none of the no-toll folks showed up to the meeting at all according to a couple news sources. Phase 2 would build a duplicate span of the Phase 1 bridge next to it and improve the western entrance to the Wallace tunnels. Phase 3 handles the total reconstruction of the Bayway/Jubilee Parkway to the 4-lanes each direction and shoulders portion of the original bridge project. Link to the AL.com article on the matter: https://www.al.com/news/2021/06/coastal-alabama-officials-solidify-plans-to-advance-i-10-truck-bridge-project.html
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 10:12:30 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on March 23, 2021, 10:02:05 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that any rebuild of the bayway would require much higher structures in order to withstand future storm surges. So they can't just widen it in place. That's part of why the former plan was so expensive, in addition to it being four lanes in each direction with shoulders.
For long term sustainability, they need to find someway to get the old project design constructed, either with the toll or somehow without, perhaps more federal funding, etc Because even if they go forth with the current plan, the Bayway is eventually going to have to be replaced at some point.
Couldn't agree more. Keeping the tunnels as well is a very smart move for increased reliability in the region.
^
The current phased approach appears to eventually end up at the original proposal with a replaced Bayway in the ultimate build.
Hopefully, by the time that last phase comes around, some sort of funding method can be identified to eliminate the tolls from the project altogether.
I don't expect much from the current infrastructure proposals at the national level as of current, in terms of large scale funding that would negate tolls on many projects that they are necessary today.
Biden just announced he is ending talks with the Republican senate on infrastructure as he says it's going nowhere. I'm not sure what that means at this point but I too was not overly thrilled on the new infrastructure proposal Biden put out.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2021, 08:04:30 PM
Biden just announced he is ending talks with the Republican senate on infrastructure as he says it's going nowhere. I'm not sure what that means at this point but I too was not overly thrilled on the new infrastructure proposal Biden put out.
Because the vast majority of the Democrats proposal was not infrastructure in the form of bridges and roads... only a small portion was and it was nothing of any sort of significant spending.
The Republican proposal focused more on that... but with significantly reduced spending, and potentially using tolls / P3's to fund it. It's safe to say no large scale investment on roads and bridges alone will be happening any time soon, unfortunately. It will continue to be up to the states to slog along on.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 09, 2021, 08:55:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2021, 08:04:30 PM
Biden just announced he is ending talks with the Republican senate on infrastructure as he says it's going nowhere. I'm not sure what that means at this point but I too was not overly thrilled on the new infrastructure proposal Biden put out.
Because the vast majority of the Democrats proposal was not infrastructure in the form of bridges and roads... only a small portion was and it was nothing of any sort of significant spending.
The Republican proposal focused more on that... but with significantly reduced spending, and potentially using tolls / P3's to fund it. It's safe to say no large scale investment on roads and bridges alone will be happening any time soon, unfortunately. It will continue to be up to the states to slog along on.
We'll see. I don't think Biden is as anti road and bridge as Buttigied comes across. I bet some pet projects like this get thrown a bone in the infrastructure bill. It even says the proponents of this project are going to DC to support the infrastructure bill and lobby for this.
Update on this project:
https://mynbc15.com/news/local/aldot-provides-update-on-mobile-river-bridge-project-considers-two-toll-options
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2021, 05:41:24 PM
Update on this project:
https://mynbc15.com/news/local/aldot-provides-update-on-mobile-river-bridge-project-considers-two-toll-options
Confusion reigns supreme in this article.
Quote from: plain on July 28, 2021, 09:28:57 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2021, 05:41:24 PM
Update on this project:
https://mynbc15.com/news/local/aldot-provides-update-on-mobile-river-bridge-project-considers-two-toll-options
Confusion reigns supreme in this article.
Yeah I agree I was wondering how the purchase retiny and scalpel but anyone's guess is better than mine would be. We'll likely have to wait until 2024, the 5th quarter that is the year it'll be added. It will all become clear soon what happens to this project and the greater mobile, AK-FL area.
I have to wonder if the infrastructure bill becomes law if Alabama could use those extra funds towards the I-10 Mobile River bridge? Kentucky is considering using its share to fund the I-69 Ohio River bridge and a new I-71/75 span across the Ohio River in Cincinnati.
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 13, 2021, 04:49:45 PM
I have to wonder if the infrastructure bill becomes law if Alabama could use those extra funds towards the I-10 Mobile River bridge? Kentucky is considering using its share to fund the I-69 Ohio River bridge and a new I-71/75 span across the Ohio River in Cincinnati.
I wasn't aware of the new 71/75 bridge in Cincinnati. That will be so welcome so as long as they make sure to incorporate a cool design. I just hope they don't shift the alignment and create a curve on the future bridge to keep the original span open during construction.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 13, 2021, 09:51:51 PM
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 13, 2021, 04:49:45 PM
I have to wonder if the infrastructure bill becomes law if Alabama could use those extra funds towards the I-10 Mobile River bridge? Kentucky is considering using its share to fund the I-69 Ohio River bridge and a new I-71/75 span across the Ohio River in Cincinnati.
I wasn't aware of the new 71/75 bridge in Cincinnati. That will be so welcome so as long as they make sure to incorporate a cool design. I just hope they don't shift the alignment and create a curve on the future bridge to keep the original span open during construction.
My source for the Brent Spence bridge is https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2021/08/13/senate-infrastructure-package-could-pay-brent-spence-interstate-69-bridges/8123241002/
^^^ I missed this post. Very cool.
I came to share the infrastructure package passed. Build the original proposal with no tolls. Bam.
Doesn't look like currently the bridge and bay project will receive any funding but there's a slim chance. Next meeting is December 15th:
QuoteIn June, leaders in both Mobile and Baldwin counties, restored a revised I-10 project back into its plans. An update on the overall project will take place at 10 a.m. December 15 at Daphne City Hall.
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/aldot-federal-infrastructure-law-tremendous-benefit-but-not-enough-for-mega-projects.html
Rebuilt and free Wallace tunnel along with tolls reduced to 2.25 each way. I'm start to listen. I'd prefer *no* tolls but I'm open to this proposal:
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-to-reconsider-21-billion-i-10-project-with-lower-tolls.html
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-unveil-framework-for-21-billion-i-10-project-with-250-toll.html
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2021, 12:41:01 PM
Rebuilt and free Wallace tunnel along with tolls reduced to 2.25 each way. I'm start to listen. I'd prefer more tolls but I'm open to this proposal:
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-to-reconsider-21-billion-i-10-project-with-lower-tolls.html
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-unveil-framework-for-21-billion-i-10-project-with-250-toll.html
You'd prefer the tolls to be higher? :confused:
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2021, 12:46:21 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2021, 12:41:01 PM
Rebuilt and free Wallace tunnel along with tolls reduced to 2.25 each way. I'm start to listen. I'd prefer more tolls but I'm open to this proposal:
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-to-reconsider-21-billion-i-10-project-with-lower-tolls.html
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-unveil-framework-for-21-billion-i-10-project-with-250-toll.html
You'd prefer the tolls to be higher? :confused:
The proposed toll rate went from $6 each way down to 2.15 which is cheaper
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2021, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2021, 12:46:21 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2021, 12:41:01 PM
Rebuilt and free Wallace tunnel along with tolls reduced to 2.25 each way. I'm start to listen. I'd prefer more tolls but I'm open to this proposal:
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-to-reconsider-21-billion-i-10-project-with-lower-tolls.html
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-unveil-framework-for-21-billion-i-10-project-with-250-toll.html
You'd prefer the tolls to be higher? :confused:
The proposed toll rate went from $6 each way down to 2.15 which is cheaper
Aren't cheaper tolls better for motorists? I'm not sure why you would prefer the toll be $6 rather than $2.15...
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2021, 09:00:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2021, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2021, 12:46:21 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2021, 12:41:01 PM
Rebuilt and free Wallace tunnel along with tolls reduced to 2.25 each way. I'm start to listen. I'd prefer more tolls but I'm open to this proposal:
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-to-reconsider-21-billion-i-10-project-with-lower-tolls.html
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-unveil-framework-for-21-billion-i-10-project-with-250-toll.html
You'd prefer the tolls to be higher? :confused:
The proposed toll rate went from $6 each way down to 2.15 which is cheaper
Aren't cheaper tolls better for motorists? I'm not sure why you would prefer the toll be $6 rather than $2.15...
I'm happier with the cheaper toll. Am I speaking Chinese lol. I like the new proposal which is a cheaper toll than the last one.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2021, 09:08:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2021, 09:00:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2021, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2021, 12:46:21 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2021, 12:41:01 PM
Rebuilt and free Wallace tunnel along with tolls reduced to 2.25 each way. I'm start to listen. I'd prefer more tolls but I'm open to this proposal:
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-to-reconsider-21-billion-i-10-project-with-lower-tolls.html
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-unveil-framework-for-21-billion-i-10-project-with-250-toll.html
You'd prefer the tolls to be higher? :confused:
The proposed toll rate went from $6 each way down to 2.15 which is cheaper
Aren't cheaper tolls better for motorists? I'm not sure why you would prefer the toll be $6 rather than $2.15...
I'm happier with the cheaper toll. Am I speaking Chinese lol. I like the new proposal which is a cheaper toll than the last one.
Well, you said you'd "prefer more tolls", which generally means either more things tolled and/or larger tolls (generally more the former, granted).
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2021, 09:22:09 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2021, 09:08:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2021, 09:00:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2021, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 16, 2021, 12:46:21 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2021, 12:41:01 PM
Rebuilt and free Wallace tunnel along with tolls reduced to 2.25 each way. I'm start to listen. I'd prefer more tolls but I'm open to this proposal:
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-to-reconsider-21-billion-i-10-project-with-lower-tolls.html
https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/officials-unveil-framework-for-21-billion-i-10-project-with-250-toll.html
You'd prefer the tolls to be higher? :confused:
The proposed toll rate went from $6 each way down to 2.15 which is cheaper
Aren't cheaper tolls better for motorists? I'm not sure why you would prefer the toll be $6 rather than $2.15...
I'm happier with the cheaper toll. Am I speaking Chinese lol. I like the new proposal which is a cheaper toll than the last one.
Well, you said you'd "prefer more tolls", which generally means either more things tolled and/or larger tolls (generally more the former, granted).
I see. The wonders of autocorrect. I meant to say I prefer *no* tolls. My bad I will edit it.
Here is an update to this project (https://www.eng.auburn.edu/atap/files/2022-trans/20-perry-update-on-the-mobile-river-bridge-and-bayway-project.pdf) from the Alabama Transportation Conference.
Essentially, design-build will be underway soon for the main cable-stay span with an notice to proceed with activities in late 2022, and a design-build will be underway in 2023 for the bayway portion with an NTP near May 2023.
Looks like a good plan. $18 tolls for semis is a bit high but I'm glad they are keeping the Wallace tunnel option free and a fully controlled access corridor as I thought they were going remove that element.
They ought to at some point build a tolled non freeway bridge from Fort Morgan to Dauphin Island.
^ Such a bridge would be a minimum 4 miles long (after factoring in the beaches/parks in the way of the shortest route). And you'd need either a very tall bridge or a tunnel to account for the shipping channel. I've looked at that before but I just don't see it being viable for the relatively low level of traffic that would use it. Nevermind that you'd either be dumping additional traffic onto Dauphin Island or would need to build additional bridges to get the traffic around.
Quote from: froggie on March 17, 2022, 04:48:52 PM
^ Such a bridge would be a minimum 4 miles long (after factoring in the beaches/parks in the way of the shortest route). And you'd need either a very tall bridge or a tunnel to account for the shipping channel. I've looked at that before but I just don't see it being viable for the relatively low level of traffic that would use it. Nevermind that you'd either be dumping additional traffic onto Dauphin Island or would need to build additional bridges to get the traffic around.
Plus the lanes would need to be at least 30 feet in the air to be over the storm surge from hurricanes. Similar to the I-10 bridge between New Orleans and Slidell or the US 90 bridges at Biloxi and Bay St. Louis in Mississippi, all of which had to be rebuilt and raised after Katrina.
"Local leaders call for federal funding ahead of Causeway traffic study"
QuoteBALDWIN COUNTY, Ala. (WPMI) – A timetable for the Mobile River Bridge Project to start is undetermined, but state transportation officials along with local MPO's are committed to a framework that will include a free route, and that route starts with the Causeway.
Steps are now being taken to make sure the Causeway isn't overwhelmed with traffic when the time comes. Thursday, members of both the Mobile and Eastern Shore MPO's signed a letter requesting money for a detailed traffic study of the Causeway. That letter was sent to Congressman Jerry Carl.
Read more here: https://mynbc15.com/news/local/local-leaders-call-for-causeway-traffic-study-before-mobile-river-bridge-project-starts
Back on track again?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/aldot-s-new-i-10-plan-2-7-billion-project-40-unlimited-use-toll-rate-completion-set-for-2028/ar-AAYQ2vM?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=c3ed0b5f8b4741bba50112d7075449f5
A $2.50 toll seems cheap for that plan. At least the tolls would come off once the bonds and loans are paid off. Who knows when that would be though.
Quote from: codyg1985 on June 24, 2022, 06:24:25 PM
A $2.50 toll seems cheap for that plan. At least the tolls would come off once the bonds and loans are paid off. Who knows when that would be though.
Not to mention the unlimited usage pass for 40$ a month sounds great for the locals. Now they just need to make this "ALGO Pass" interoperable with the Sunpass, Peach Pass, and NC Quick Pass system, and probably try to get TxDOT and the Houston/Dallas tolling agencies on board on accepting the EZ Tag/TxTag/TollTag on the new Bayway as well
^ SunPass, PeachPass, and NC Quick Pass all are interoperable with E-ZPass, it should just incorporate into that.
TxTag, PikePass, and K-Tag (Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas) are also all interoperable, and arguably these two networks (the E-ZPass network and TX, OK, KS) need to all become interoperable.
I'd go so far as to say that we shouldn't be allowing new toll tags to come into existence without full interoperability. The national deadline came and went back in 2016, and we're still a long, long ways away from having it. No need to make the problem worse.
https://mynbc15.com/news/local/toll-framework-approved-for-mobile-river-bridge-and-bayway-project
Quote
Toll framework approved for Mobile-River Bridge and Bayway Project
by Lisa LibrenjakWednesday, July 27th 2022
MOBILE, Ala. (WPMI) – A bridge connecting Mobile and Baldwin county is one step closer to becoming a reality.
Both Mobile and Eastern Shore Metropolitan Planning Organizations voted unanimously Wednesday to include the Mobile-River Bridge and Bayway project to their Transportation Improvement Plans. By doing this, the project is put in a better position to receive federal funding.
"Today is really a monumental day," City of Mobile Mayor Sandy Stimpson said.
A day that gives the Alabama Department of Transportation the OK to move forward with it's plan to build a nearly 8-mile bridge, giving drivers some ease when it comes to thinking about crossing the bay.
"People demanded for the bridge to be toll free, and while not all of it will not be toll free we have persevered many toll free routes. So if you don't want to pay the toll, you can take a toll free route," Eastern Shore MPO Chairman Jack Burrell said.
Maximum ALGO Pass toll rates are below:
- Cars, pickups, motorcycles, SUVs, etc. (Vehicle height under 7.5 feet)
- 2 axles: $2.50
- 2 axles with 1 or 2 axle trailers: $5.00
- 2 axles with any 3 or more-axle trailer: $7.50
- Buses, delivery trucks, 18-wheeler trucks, etc. (Vehicle height over 7.5 feet)
- 2 axles: $9
- Each additional axle: +3
- 18-wheeler (5 axles): $18.00
Maximum non-ALGO Pass rates are below:
- Cars, pickups, motorcycles, SUVs, etc. (Vehicle height under 7.5 feet)
- ALGO rate + 1.50 per axle
- Buses, delivery trucks, 18-wheeler trucks, etc. (Vehicle height over 7.5 feet)
- ALGO rate + $2.75 per axle
There is also an unlimited use option for $40 per month which is under $1 per trip for daily commuters. The cost for the one-time purchase of that ALGO or unlimited pass hasn't been decided just yet.
"I have been told anywhere between $5 and $15, similar to what they use in Florida," South Alabama Regional Transportation Planning Director Tom Piper said.
The projects price tag is $2.7 billion dollars. At least $250 million is being fronted from the state for the project along with $125 million in federal funding through an INFRA grant.
"Over 80% of the people that were polled have stated that we need a solution and that we need solution now, not later," the Eastern Shore MPO Chairman said.
The Causeway, Wallace Tunnel, Bankhead Tunnel, and Africatown Bridge will continue to be free routes for people to travel on. Tolls will be lifted once debt from the project is paid off. The ALDOT estimates that will take about 40 years.
[\quote]
I can see this working out. I'm sure most of the trucks using I-10 will use the new bridge (especially HAZMATs, who I'm sure would love to not have to detour to the Africatown Bridge anymore).
General traffic don't have to use it if they don't want to, like the article says (and like I suspected). This should be a win for everyone.
Yeah $2.50 is pretty reasonable. It would be nice if they could start construction within the next year or two.
I am wondering if they are going to work with SunPass and/or EZ-Pass transponders to also get these people the lowest toll rates as well.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 28, 2022, 04:09:44 PM
I am wondering if they are going to work with SunPass and/or EZ-Pass transponders to also get these people the lowest toll rates as well.
Given precedent elsewhere, I would suspect the following scenario: say that they go with EZPass, where ALGO = Alabama-issued EZPass. Those would get the discounted rate while non-Alabama EZPass would pay the regular rate. And, as we've see in other jurisdictions, those who don't have an EZPass pay a higher rate above that.
Until the first shovel of dirt is turned, I'll believe it when I see it. 19 years and counting since I attended an ALDOT meeting on the Mobile Bay Bridge...
^ I recall attending a meeting 21 years ago...
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 28, 2022, 04:09:44 PM
I am wondering if they are going to work with SunPass and/or EZ-Pass transponders to also get these people the lowest toll rates as well.
I am quite curious whether interoperability will be a thing with ALGO. Maybe... since Florida joined last year and Georgia is supposed to join soon, being part of E-ZPass would be a good way to be interoperable with both with no additional agreements.
Quote from: vdeane on July 29, 2022, 12:58:23 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 28, 2022, 04:09:44 PM
I am wondering if they are going to work with SunPass and/or EZ-Pass transponders to also get these people the lowest toll rates as well.
I am quite curious whether interoperability will be a thing with ALGO. Maybe... since Florida joined last year and Georgia is supposed to join soon, being part of E-ZPass would be a good way to be interoperable with both with no additional agreements.
I'm not only curious about working with other state toll networks (E-ZPass, SunPass, Peachpass) but also the existing transponder Freedom Pass for the other Alabama toll bridges.
https://www.fox10tv.com/2022/08/16/standing-room-crowd-contractors-look-get-piece-27-billion-i-10-bridge-project/
Quote
Standing-room crowd of contractors looks to get piece of $2.7 billion I-10 bridge project
By Brendan Kirby
Published: Aug. 16, 2022 at 3:59 PM CDT|Updated: 16 hours ago
MOBILE, Ala. (WALA) - When state transportation officials award contracts for the most expensive project in Alabama history, they won't just pick the low bidders.
Instead, the Alabama Department of Transportation will evaluate a variety of factors to evaluate proposals for a $2.7 billion bridge and Bayway between Mobile and Baldwin County. On Tuesday, ALDOT hosted an industry forum for contractors, engineering design firms and consultants who might submit bids.
Edwin Perry, the Mobile River bridge project director for ALDOT, said he was pleased with he standing-room turnout at the GulfQuest National Maritime Museum of the Gulf of Mexico.
"It's more than what we expected," he said. "You know, originally, we were thinking around 200 (attendees). But I think we got close to 275 sign up for this event."
Perry told FOX10 News he expects as many as six teams to bid on each of the two phases — a 215-foot cable-stayed bridge over the Mobile River, and a six-lane Interstate 10 Bayway that will replace the current structure. The new Bayway structure will be an average of 10 to 11 feet higher than the current one.
Perry described a give-and-take process. ALDOT will lay out its requirements, and companies bidding on the project will offer their own design proposals. The state will work with the winning companies on pricing.
"We still feel like this is a highly attractive project that we'll be able to save money through the selected design contractor to be able to make this project happen," he said.
Fairhope City Council President Jack Burrell, the chairman of the Eastern Shore Metropolitan Planning Organization, said he is excited to see the project finally moving forward after roughly a quarter-century of delays and disagreements.
"Today, it feels like this project is finally is gonna happen," he said. "You know, reality is setting in. You know, we're not just sitting around talking about it. We're talking to the people who are actually going to perform the work and giving them the details."
Mobile-area political and business leaders never have doubted the need to add capacity to the Bayway and relieve bottlenecks that routinely snarl traffic at the Wallace Tunnel. But it has taken an entire generation to build consensus on a plan that satisfies competing commercial concerns along the waterfront and accounts for the mammoth cost.
Opposition to tolls derailed an ALDOT-sponsored plan in 2019, but the Eastern Shore MPO and its counterpart in Mobile voted last month to greenlight the current iteration of the plan. Officials still plan to rely on tolling — to the tune of more than $1 billion. But the Wallace Tunnel would remain toll-free and the rates would be lower for the Bayway and bridge — $2.50 per trip for passenger cars that have a transponder, and $40 a month for those who buy an ALGO pass. Burrell reiterated the commitment to keeping rates at those levels for the duration of the project and repealing them, altogether, once the state pays back the borrowed money.
"We put that in our framework," he said. "We said the max $2.50 toll is what we had to have. You can get that with the ALGO pass, or less if you buy a monthly pass. It could come out to about 87 cents a trip."
Several steps remain before construction, currently slated for the latter part of next year, can begin. And that means potential hurdles, as well. Burrell pointed to rising interest rates.
"Let's hope that they stay steady," he said. "So you know, barring some, you know, upheaval in the financial markets, I don't see anything really stopping it."
Perry said the state also must complete a tolling and revenue study to demonstrate that the levies will produce enough money to fill in the gaps left after state and federal funding.
"We think the project will be able to be financed through the tolls," he said. "We're also working with the grant programs that are available with the new infrastructure bill. And the more grants we're able to get through that will only mean we'll have to less rely on tolling."
Update on the project:
Quote
ALDOT plans to move forward with Mobile River Bridge and Bayway Project
By WALA Staff
Published: Dec. 5, 2022 at 1:12 PM CST|Updated: 18 hours ago
MOBILE, Ala. (WALA) - The Eastern Shore and Mobile Metropolitan Planning Organizations today announced that the Alabama Department of Transportation will move forward with the Mobile River Bridge and Bayway Project, prior to knowing the results of outstanding applications for federal Mega Grant and Bridge Investment Program funding.
In a memo sent to the chairs of the Eastern Shore and Mobile MPOs, ALDOT states:
"ALDOT is moving forward with this project, utilizing funds from the $125 million federal INFRA grant as well as a commitment of at least $250 million in State funding.
"ALDOT and the nationally recognized financial experts working on the project agree that this project is financially viable, regardless of the result of our outstanding applications (filed pursuant to your instructions) for Mega Grant and Bridge Investment Program funding.
"This stronger posture is made possible by improvements in projected traffic and revenue numbers for the project as initial estimates were refined. Further strengthening its financial viability are the recent changes in federal law and regulatory guidance which potentially allow for this project to qualify for higher TIFIA loan amounts."
A news release states that ALDOT will continue to pursue funding opportunities with the U.S. Department of Transportation but will not delay moving forward pending future grant awards.
"This is fantastic news," said Eastern Shore MPO chair and Fairhope City Council member Jack Burrell for the news release. "We are closer than ever before to the new bridge and Bayway that South Alabama desperately needs. This news, combined with the good progress in selecting the teams that will design and build the project, should be music to the ears of the thousands of drivers who are tired of sitting on the Bayway or in the tunnels."
"Today's announcement is a clear signal that the State of Alabama is serious about building this bridge," said Mobile MPO chair and Mayor of Mobile Sandy Stimpson for the release. "Ultimately, we are further along in this process than at any point before and have a clear path toward solving the worst bottleneck on the I-10 corridor."
The U.S. Department of Transportation Mega Grant program, in addition to the Bridge Investment Program, were created in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Mega grant program is a highly competitive, national program that includes $1 billion in federal funding that is expected to be allocated this year.
According to ALDOT, the design-build teams who have registered for the project will submit their statements of qualification by Dec. 21, a key milestone in the project's early phases.
Plan details include:
- A comprehensive plan with a new Mobile River Bridge and a new Bayway that meets capacity and safety needs and can be built in five years
- Free, no-toll routes on the Causeway, Wallace Tunnel, Bankhead Tunnel, and Africatown Bridge
- Toll options of $2.50 or less for passenger vehicles, and $18.00 or less for trucks
- An unlimited use option for $40 per month, which is under $1 per trip for daily commuters between Mobile and Baldwin Counties
- Toll revenue to be used only to pay down project debt, with tolling to end once the debt is paid off
- All infrastructure to be owned and operated by the State of Alabama, with no private concessionaire
- A contribution of at least $250 million in State funding, in addition to $125 million in federal funding through an INFRA Grant
That is a great deal! Glad to see the toll free routes being offered as well.
Quote from: rte66man on December 06, 2022, 09:33:28 AM
Update on the project:
Quote
ALDOT plans to move forward with Mobile River Bridge and Bayway Project
In a memo sent to the chairs of the Eastern Shore and Mobile MPOs, ALDOT
- Toll revenue to be used only to pay down project debt, with tolling to end once the debt is paid off
- All infrastructure to be owned and operated by the State of Alabama, with no private concessionaire
In other words, get that Foley Beach Express Bridge type nonsense out of the discussion!
I wonder what the timeframe will be to pay down the debt would be? Best-case scenario includes the state winning the infrastructure bill mega project funding and people using the bridge as projected, but worse-case would include not only the state NOT winning the infrastructure bill mega project funding, but people leaning towards the free routes more.
The optimist in me hopes that the tolls would be paid off in 25 years, but who knows for sure when it will happen.
Mega Grant goes to an I-10 project in Mississippi, not Alabama (https://www.al.com/news/2023/03/mega-grant-goes-to-an-i-10-project-in-mississippi-not-alabama.html)
Quote from: codyg1985 on March 01, 2023, 09:50:28 AM
Mega Grant goes to an I-10 project in Mississippi, not Alabama (https://www.al.com/news/2023/03/mega-grant-goes-to-an-i-10-project-in-mississippi-not-alabama.html)
QuoteThe U.S. Department of Transportation, in an announcement in January, awarded $60 million in Mega Grant funding for widening the interstate from four lanes to six west of Diamondhead, Mississippi.
--
But none of the Mega Grant funds are going toward the $2.7 billion I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway project, despite hopes from state officials that the Mega Grant funds would support a project heavily leveraged with bonding.
Well $60 million for six lane expansion is a pittance considering the bridge plan is $2.7 billion. The headline is a bit misleading.
QuoteThe toll plan remains the same. It is expected cost $2.50 or less for passenger vehicle owners who purchase an ALGO Pass to take the newly built Bayway and Bridge over the Mobile River. An unlimited trip option will be available for $40.
So will this be like Maryland's E-ZPass plan that gives discounts only to in state account holders? $5.50 is pretty steep considering there is no toll at all on the current crossing.