Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Presentation for Border Transportation PartnershipPresentation for Border Transportation Partnership
Detroit River International Crossing
May 31, 2005
2
Presentation Outline
• Background• Planning/Need and Feasibility Study• Existing and Proposed Crossings• DRIC Study Elements• DRIC Study Process• DRIC Study Schedule
3
The Border Transportation Partnership
4
The Project Team
Lead Partner
Canadian Side
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
Lead Partner
U.S. Side
Michigan Department of Transportation
Consultant Team
Canadian Side
Consultant Team
U.S. Side
5
Why a Border Transportation Partnership?• Individual studies by Michigan and Ontario in the
1990’s• Need for long-term improvements was recognized • Within the mandates of:
– Transport Canada;– U.S. Federal Highways Administration;– Ontario Ministry of Transportation; and– Michigan Department of Transportation
• Each agency agreed to partner in a joint study
6
Planning/Need and Feasibility Study(“The Bi-National Study”)
• Develop a 30-year transportation strategy:– Consistent with environmental assessment
requirements:• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act• Ontario Environmental Assessment Act• U.S. National Environmental Policy Act
– Multi-modal• Completed January 2004
7
P/NF Study: Broad Geographic Area
8
P/NF Study Daily Travel DemandBase Case
5,700
19,300
12,700
14,100Year2000
Year2030
Port Huron / Sarnia
12,800
69,30051,600
27,900
Year2000
Year2030
Detroit / Windsor
9
P/NF Study Projected International Trade
Two-Way Canada-U.S. TradePassing Through Detroit-Windsor
(U.S. Dollars)
2001 2030
$90 Billion +/-$150 Billion+/-(64% Increase)
10
Opportunities Lost If No Improvements By Year 2030
P/NF Study Economic Opportunities
SEMCOG-Essex Economy
Michigan-OntarioEconomy
Cumulative Employment(Full Time Equivalent Jobs)
19,750 – 24,000
70,000 – 84,000
Annual Production(Year 2000 U.S. Dollars)
$3.0 - $3.4Billion
$6.2 – $6.8Billion
11
P/NF Study Network Connections
• Options for maintaining the movement of people and goods should be provided
• The current border crossings are 75 years old and will reach capacity in 10-15 years
• This key trade route requires a new or expanded border crossing
12
P/NF Study Summary Elements of 30-Year Strategy
• Ensure sufficient border processing resources • Optimize the use of existing network in the
short to medium-term (5-10 years)
• Encourage use of other modes and diversion to Bluewater Bridge to reduce travel demand
• Construct a new or expanded crossing from the interstate freeway system in Michigan to the provincial highway system in Ontario
13
P/NF Conclusions
• Clear need for improvements at Windsor-Detroit
• Planning and approval process is unique
• Integrated bi-national public planning process
• Initiate Ontario EA Terms of Reference
14
Private Sector Proposals
AMB ETR
Mich-CanProposal
Detroit-WindsorTruck Ferry
Twin AMB
DRTPProposal
Hennepin Pt.Crossing, Inc.
15
The DRIC EA/EIS Study Will:• Coordinate the U.S. and Canadian work programs
• Assess impacts for route, plaza, and crossing alternatives
– Engineering
– Social
– Economic
– Cultural
– Natural environment
• Incorporate public and agency input
16
Preliminary Statement of Project Purpose
The purpose of the Detroit River International Crossing Project is to, for the foreseeable future (i.e., at least 30 years):
• Provide safe, efficient and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian-U.S. border in the Detroit river area to support the economies of Michigan, Ontario, Canada and the U.S.
• Support the mobility needs of national and civil defense.
17
Preliminary Statement of Project NeedTo address future mobility requirements across the Canada-U.S. border, there is a need to:
• Provide new border crossing capacity to meet increased long-term demand;
• Improve system connectivity to enhance the seamless flow of people and goods;
• Improve operations and processing capability; • Provide reasonable and secure crossing options in
the event of incidents, maintenance, congestion, or other disruptions.
18
Ontario EA Terms of Reference
Purpose of the Undertaking
The purpose of the undertaking is to provide for the safe, efficient, and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian-U.S. border in the Detroit River area to support the economies of Ontario, Michigan, Canada, and the U.S.
19
Our Goal:
• Approved location for a river crossing
• Approved connections to freeways in Canada and U.S.
• Approved locations for plazas in Canada and the U.S.
• Comprehensive engineering to support approvals, property acquisition, design and construction
• Submission for approval by December 2007
20
Detroit River CrossingsForecasted Traffic Volumes
21
Sensitivity Analysis
Scenario Year Capacity Reached
Base Forecast 10 to 15 years
Sensitivity Tests
High Trade Growth Advance 3 years
Low Trade Growth Defer 3 years
Diversion to Intermodal Rail Defer 2 years
High Diversion to St. Clair River Crossing Defer 6 years
High Passenger Car Demand Advance 4 years
Low Passenger Car Demand Defer 5 years
Extreme Low Scenario Defer 11 years
Extreme High Scenario Advance 7 years
22
Detroit River Crossing Capacity
CrossingFacility
Year Capacity Reached
US Road Access
US Border Processing
Bridge / Tunnel
CAN Border
Processing
CAN Road Access
Ambassador Bridge > 30 years5 to 10 years
10 to 15 years
5 to 10 years
5 to 10 years
Detroit-Windsor Tunnel
0 to 5 years
5 to 10 years
> 30 years5 to 10 years
5 to 10 years
23
Bridge Types
• Cable Stay Bridges– Main spans up to 1,500 ft
• Greenville Mississippi River Bridge – 1,300 ft
24
Bridge Types
• Suspension Bridges– Main spans over 1,500 ft
• Tacoma Narrows Bridge – 2,800 ft
25
Tunnel Types• Soft Ground Bored Tunnels• Rock Bored Tunnels• Cut/Cover – Submerged• Mined (Drill and Blast)• Construction
– Bored tunnels in soft ground up to 80 ft/day– Bored tunnels in hard rock up to 30 ft/day
• Cost– Comparable to very long span bridges– $160 to $240 US million/mile
26
Tunnel FeasibilityCategory Southern Central Eastern
Soft Ground Bored Tunnel
Not feasible
• Insufficient soil depth
Possibly Feasible
• Soil depth varies from marginal to insufficient
Feasible
• Marginal soil depth
Rock Tunnel Not Feasible
• Poor rock
• Deep tunnel/ long approaches
• Poor history
Not Feasible
• Poor rock
• Even deeper tunnel/ long approaches
• Poor history
Not Feasible
• Poor rock
• Very deep tunnel/ long approaches
Submerged Tunnel Not Feasible
• Rock excavation required
• Environmental Issues
Technically Feasible – Engineering
Not Feasible & Prudent – Environmental Issues
Technically Feasible – Engineering
Not Feasible & Prudent – Environmental Issues
27
Crossing Feasibility Summary
Location
Type
South
Central EastGrosse Ile Fighting
Island
Soft Ground Bored Tunnel
No No Yes Yes
Rock Bored Tunnel No No No No
Submerged Tunnel No No No No
Bridge Yes Yes Yes Yes
28
Plaza Functions
29
South Crossing Corridor• Further Distances to Freeways• Intensely Developed in US• Detroit River is approximately 3 miles wide• Piers Likely in Detroit River• Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge• Numerous Natural Environmental Impacts• Poor Connections to West• Airport Flight paths• Rural in Canada• Direct Route Southerly
30
Central Crossing Corridor• Short Connections to I-75 and EC Row
Expressway• Major Infrastructure Improvements Required
for Connection to Freeway in Canada• Difficult Connection to I-75• Industrial Development• Many Brine Wells• Environmental Justice Concerns• Detroit River is Narrowest • Natural Environmental Impacts
31
Eastern Crossing Corridor
• Densely Developed in Both Nations• Less Desirable from a Travel Demand
Perspective• Impacts to Belle Isle• Detroit River is Over one mile wide • Natural Environmental Impacts• Mid Length Connections to Freeways
32
Evaluation Process
Select Technicallyand Environmentally Preferred Alternative;
Refine & CompletePreliminary Design
Select Technicallyand Environmentally Preferred Alternative;
Refine & CompletePreliminary Design
Refine andAssess
PracticalAlternatives
Refine andAssess
PracticalAlternatives
Assess IllustrativeAlternatives &
Identify PracticalAlternatives
Assess IllustrativeAlternatives &
Identify PracticalAlternatives
Purpose of theUndertaking
Assess PlanningAlternativesand Develop
Illustrative Alternatives
Purpose of theUndertaking
Assess PlanningAlternativesand Develop
Illustrative Alternatives
Steps in Evaluation Process
TIME
Aug ‘05Jan ‘06
Jan ‘07Dec ‘07NUMBER OF
ALTERNATIVES
AMOUNT OFANALYSIS
33
Balance of Social, Environmental andEngineering FactorsPROPOSED EVALUATION CRITERIA
Socio-Economic Environment
• Property and Access
• Community Effects (Noise, Disruption, etc.)
•Land Use Strategies
• Disposal Sites & Contaminated Areas
Cultural Environment
• Archaeology
• Heritage and Recreation
Natural Environment
• Air Quality
• Agricultural Areas
• Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat
• Groundwater and Surface Water
• Noise
• Other Resources
• Special Wildlife and Habitat Areas
• Wetlands
• Woodlands
Technical Considerations
• Traffic and Network Operations
• Engineering/Constructability
• Cost
34
Consultation
THE PARTNERSHIP
PRIVATESECTOR
ADVISORYGROUP
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
GROUP
CDNPROJECT
TEAMEXPERTISE
MUNICIPALCOUNCILS
MUNICIPALADVISORY
GROUP
CDNGENERAL
PUBLIC
CDNBORDER
AGENCIES CROSSING OWNERS,
OPERATORSPROPONENTS
CDNREGULATORY
AGENCIES
LOCALADVISORYCOUNCIL
U.S. PROJECTTEAM
EXPERIENCE
CITY/TOWNSHIPCOUNCILS
PUBLICAGENCYGROUP
U.S.GENERAL
PUBLIC
U.S.BORDER
AGENCIESFIRST
NATIONS
U.S.REGULATORY
AGENCIES
35
Study Process Schedule
PUBLICMEETINGS
NEPA
OEAA
CEAA
Initial Public Outreach PIOH 2 PIOH 3 PIOH 5
PublicHearing(NEPA)
Consultation/PIOH
(OEAA)
PublicHearing(NEPA)
Consultation/PIOH
(OEAA)
Decisionby MOEDecisionby MOE
Undertake Assessment of Socio-economic, Cultural &
Natural Environment &Technical Considerations &
Identify Practical Alternatives
Undertake Assessment of Socio-economic, Cultural &
Natural Environment &Technical Considerations &
Identify Practical Alternatives
Complete PreliminaryDesign of Technically
& EnvironmentallyPreferred Alternative
Complete PreliminaryDesign of Technically
& EnvironmentallyPreferred Alternative
Compile and Circulate Report(s)Compile and Circulate Report(s)
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N
2005
Draft OEAReport
Draft OEAReport
D
Final OEA Report
Final OEA Report
PIOH 4
RefinePractical
Alternatives
RefinePractical
Alternatives
Compile &DocumentResults of theseInvesti-gations
Compile &DocumentResults of theseInvesti-gations
On-going Meetings and Workshops on Project Issues
DR
IC P
RO
DU
CTS
PRO
CES
S PR
OD
UC
TSC
ON
SULT
ATI
ON
PRO
CES
S ST
EP
2006 2007
Assess Planning Alternatives(Alternatives To) and
Define Study Area
Assess Planning Alternatives(Alternatives To) and
Define Study Area
Finalize Purposeof the UndertakingFinalize Purpose
of the Undertaking
Develop Illustrative AlternativesDevelop Illustrative Alternatives
SelectTechnically
andEnvironmentally
PreferredAlternative
SelectTechnically
andEnvironmentally
PreferredAlternative
PIOH 1
DraftCEAA Project
Description
DraftCEAA Project
Description
DraftCEAA Scoping
Document
DraftCEAA Scoping
Document
NEPAPurpose & Need
Statement
NEPAPurpose & Need
Statement
NEPAScoping
Document
NEPAScoping
Document
DraftEnvironmentalImpact Study
DraftEnvironmentalImpact Study
FinalEnvironmentalImpact Study
FinalEnvironmentalImpact Study
Record ofDecision
from FHWA
Record ofDecision
from FHWA
FinalCEAA Project
Description
FinalCEAA Project
Description
FinalCEAA Scoping
Document
FinalCEAA Scoping
Document
Draft CEAAScreening
Report
Draft CEAAScreening
Report
Final CEAAScreening
Report
Final CEAAScreening
ReportDecisionby RA’s
Decisionby RA’s
TransportationPlanning/Need
Report
TransportationPlanning/Need
Report
Study AreaExisting
ConditionsReport
Study AreaExisting
ConditionsReport
Illustrative RouteAlternatives Generation &
Assessment Report
Illustrative RouteAlternatives Generation &
Assessment Report
CanadianPlaza Alternatives
Generation &Assessment
Report
CanadianPlaza Alternatives
Generation &Assessment
Report
PracticalRoute Alternatives
Generation &Assessment
Report
PracticalRoute Alternatives
Generation &Assessment
Report
Selection ofTechnically Preferred
Alternative Report(Ont.)
Selection ofTechnically Preferred
Alternative Report(Ont.)
ConceptDesign Alternatives
Generation &Assessment Report
(Ont.)
ConceptDesign Alternatives
Generation &Assessment Report
(Ont.)
EngineeringReport(Mich.)
EngineeringReport(Mich.)
AccessJustification Report
(Mich.)
AccessJustification Report
(Mich.)
Consultation to include Concurrence Meetings as prescribed under NEPA(coordinated with U.S. Consultant), and additional meetings in U.S. and Canada on an on-going basis
Undertake Investigations of:
• Technical Considerations
• Social Environment
• Economic Environment
• Cultural Environment
• Natural Environment
to Assess Practical Alternatives
Undertake Investigations of:
• Technical Considerations
• Social Environment
• Economic Environment
• Cultural Environment
• Natural Environment
to Assess Practical Alternatives
36
Key Milestones
Study Area Features, Opportunities & Constraints April ‘05
Initial Set of Crossing Alternatives & Connecting Routes in Canada and the U.S.
June ‘05
Final Set of Alternatives December ‘05
Results of Social, Economic, Environmental and Engineering Assessments
Winter ‘06
Preferred Crossing Location & Connecting Routes in Canada and the U.S.
Spring ‘07
Finalize Engineering and Mitigation Measures Summer ‘07
Document Study and Submit for Approvals End of ‘07
37
Who Decides?
DRIC Study
Partnership Recommendation
OEAAMinister of Environment
CEAAFederal Agencies
NEPAU.S. Agencies
APPROVALS
38
DRIC Project Time Line
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EA Review &Approval
EA Review &Approval
• Coordinated Canada – U.S. process• Streamlined within existing legislation• Public meetings have begun
NEWCROSSING
2013
NEWCROSSING
2013
LandAcquisition
LandAcquisition
Technically andEnvironmentally Preferred
Alternative SelectedMid-2007
Technically andEnvironmentally Preferred
Alternative SelectedMid-2007
Detroit RiverInternational Crossing
Route Planning andEnvironmental Assessment
Detroit RiverInternational Crossing
Route Planning andEnvironmental Assessment
ENGINEERING / CONSTRUCTIONENGINEERING / CONSTRUCTION
39
Project Contacts – Canadian StudyMr. Dave Wake
Windsor Projects Coordinator
Ministry of Transportation Tel. (519) 873-4559
Mr. Roger Ward Senior Project Manager
Ministry of Transportation Tel. (519) 873-4586
DRIC Project Office
2465 McDougall Street, Suite 100Windsor, Ontario N8X 3N9
Tel. (519) 969-9696; Fax (519) [email protected]
Mr. Len Kozachuk, P.Eng. Deputy Project Manager
URS Canada Inc. Tel. (905) 882-4401
Project Web Site: www.partnershipborderstudy.com
Toll Free : 1-800-900-2649
40
Project Contacts – U.S. StudyMr. Mohammed Alghurabi
Senior Project Manager
Michigan Department of TransportationTel. (517) 373-7674
Mr. Joe CorradinoDRIC Project Manager
The Corradino GroupTel. (313) 964-1926
Project Web Site: www.partnershipborderstudy.com
Toll Free : 1-800-900-2649
Detroit Project OfficeThe Corradino Group, Inc.
535 Griswold StreetBuhl Building, Suite 918Detroit, Michigan, 48226
Tel. (800) 880-8241
Southfield Project OfficeThe Corradino Group, Inc.
20300 Civic Center Drive, Suite 410Southfield, Michigan, 48076
Tel. (248) 799-0140Fax (248) 799-0146
