Mobile Area Transportation Study (MATS) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

Amendment to the Destination 2040

Long Range Transportation Plan as it pertains to the I-10 Mobile River Bridge

Adopted by the Mobile MPO on October 31, 2018

Administrative Modification on November 30, 2018

For information regarding this document, please contact

Mr. Kevin Harrison, PTP, Director, Transportation Planning, kharrison@sarpc.org South Alabama Regional Planning Commission (SARPC)

110 Beauregard Street, Suite 207 Mobile, AL 36602

251.433.6541 251.433.6009 (fax)

Website: www.mobilempo.org

Mobile Area Transportation Study (MATS) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

Amendment to the Destination 2040

Long Range Transportation Plan

For information regarding this document, please contact Mr. Kevin Harrison, PTP, Director, Transportation Planning, kharrison@sarpc.org

South Alabama Regional Planning Commission (SARPC) 110 Beauregard Street, Suite 207

Mobile, AL 36602 251.433.6541

251.433.6009 (fax) Website: www.mobilempo.org

The LRTP Amendment was prepared as a cooperative effort of the U. S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT), and local governments in partial fulfillment of requirements in Title 23 USC 134 and 135, amended by the FAST Act, Sections 1201 and 1202, December 4, 2015. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

i

Mobile Area Transportation Study, MPO Members, October, 2018 Mayor, City of Mobile - Hon. Sandy Stimpson (MPO Chairman) Mobile County Commissioner - Hon. Jerry Carl Mobile County Engineer - Mr. Bryan Kegley Councilman, City of Mobile - Hon. Bess Rich Councilman, City of Mobile - Hon. Fred Richardson Mayor, City of Prichard - Hon. Jimmie Gardner Councilman, City of Prichard – Hon. Lorenzo Martin Mayor, City of Chickasaw - Hon. Byron Pittman Mayor, City of Saraland - Hon. Howard Rubenstein Mayor, City of Satsuma - Hon. Thomas Williams Mayor, Town of Creola - Hon. William Criswell Mayor, City of Bayou La Batre – Hon. Terry Downey Mayor, City of Semmes – Hon. David Baker General Manager, the Wave Transit System – Mr. Michael Chinn Southwest Region Engineer, ALDOT - Mr. Vince Calametti Member, SARPC - Mr. Norman Walton Bureau Chief, Local Transportation, ALDOT (Non-voting) – D.E. “Ed” Philips, Jr. Division Administrator, FHWA (Non-voting) - Mr. Mark Bartlett Executive Director, SARPC (Non-voting) - Mr. John F. “Rickey” Rhodes

Mobile Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Joint Technical / Citizens Advisory Committee Members Alabama State Docks - Mr. Bob Harris ALDOT Southwest Region Planning - Mr. Edwin Perry At Large – Mr. John Blanton Citizen - Mr. Don Watson Citizen – Mr. John Murphy Citizen – Mr. Merrill Thomas City of Chickasaw - Mr. Dennis Sullivan City of Mobile Deputy Director of Public Works - Mr. Nick Amberger City of Mobile Traffic Engineering – Ms. Mary Beth Bergin City of Mobile, Executive Director of Public Works - Ms. Dianne Irby City of Mobile, Traffic Engineer - Ms. Jennifer White City of Mobile, Urban Development - Mr. Bert Hoffman City of Prichard – Mr. Donye Woodard City of Prichard - Mr. Fernando Billups City of Prichard - Mr. James Jacobs City of Saraland – Mr. Mike Black City of Satsuma - Mr. Tom Briand Freight - Mr. Brian Harold MARC – Mr. Jeff Zoghby Mobile Airport Authority - Mr. Jason Wilson

ii

Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce - Mr. David Rodgers Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce - Ms. Kellie Hope Mobile Bay Keeper - Ms. Casi Callaway Mobile County Engineers Office - Mr. Ricky Mitchell Mobile County Engineers Office - Ms. Kim Sanderson Mobile County Health Dept. - Dr. Ted Flotte Mobile County Traffic Operations - Mr. James Foster Mobile United, Executive Director - Ms. Michele Rumpf Partners for Environmental Progress - Ms. Jennifer Denson Private Transit Provider - Ms. Margie Wilcox SARPC - Mr. John F. “Rickey” Rhodes* The Wave Transit System - Mr. Gerald Alfred

Mobile Area Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Bicycle / Pedestrian Advisory Committee Members

John Blanton, Mobile Bike Club Urban Assault Michael Southerland, Airbus Edwin Perry, Alabama Department of Transportation, Southwest Region Daniel Driskell, Alabama Department of Transportation, Southwest Region Daniel Otto, City of Mobile Parks and Recreation Department Jennifer White, City of Mobile Traffic Engineering Marybeth Bergin, City of Mobile Traffic Engineering Butch Ladner, City of Mobile Traffic Engineering Bert Hoffman, City of Mobile Urban Development Jeb Schrenk, Cyclist Bill Finch, Cyclist Fred Rendfrey, Downtown Mobile Alliance Carol Hunter, Downtown Mobile Alliance Tedd Flotte, Health Department, Mobilians on Bikes Richard Spraggins, Mobile County Engineering Ricky Mitchell, Mobile County Engineering James Foster, Mobile County Engineering Ashley Dukes, Midtown Mobile Movement Kelly Warren, Mobile County Health Department Hanlon Walsh, Mobile Baykeeper (BPAC Vice-Chairperson) Green Suttles, Mobile United Katherine Kuhn, Livable Communities Coalition Dorothy Dorton, AARP Dr. Raoul Richardson, Citizen Ben Brenner, Mobilians on Bikes Mark Berte, Alabama Coastal Foundation Elliott Lauderdale, Alabama Coastal Foundation Jessica Melton, Team Share the Road Jeff DeQuattro, The Nature Conservancy/ MOB Cooperative (BPAC Chairperson)

iii

Table of Contents Page Contact Information i Committees ii

1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Amendment Two of the Destination 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan 2 1.1.1 Background 2 1.2 Funding Scenario of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge 4

1.2.1 Public Private Partnership 5 1.2.2 Tolling 6 1.3 Capacity 6 1.4 Title VI 6 1.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian 7 1.6 Performance Measures 7 1.6.1 Systems Performance Report 8

2.0 Highway Facilities 11 3.0 Title VI Update to the Destination 2040, the Long Range Transportation Plan 21

3.1 The I-10 Mobile River Bridge 21 3.1.1 Methodology Differences 21

3.1.1.1 Models 21 3.1.1.2 American Community Survey 2012 VS 2015 21 3.1.1.3 Low-Income Data & Thresholds 22 3.1.1.4 Minority Data and Thresholds 22 3.1.1.5 Traffic Volumes 22 3.1.1.6 ALDOT Bridge & Toll EJ Conclusion 22 3.1.1.7 Mobile MPO Toll EJ Conclusion 22

4.0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 25 4.1 Bicyclist/Pedestrian Accommodations 26 4.2 Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge Shared Use Path 26 4.3 Future Extensions of Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge Shared Use Path 28 4.4 Mobile River Bridge Belvedere 28 4.5 Bankhead Tunnel 29 4.6 Other Options 29 4.7 Bicyclist/Pedestrian Recommendations 29

Figures Page Figure 1-1 MATS Study Area 3 Figure 2-1 Projected Study Area Growth: 2010-2040 11 Figure 2-2 Volumes: Toll vs. Non-Toll 14 Figure 2-3 MATS 2040 Highway Plan 16 Figure 4-1 Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities across the Mobile River 27

iv

Table of Contents (continued) Page Tables Page Table 1-1 Projected Funding 5 Table 1-2 Description of Performance Measures and Targets 8 Table 2-1 Mobile Area Transportation Study Trip Purpose Comparisons (2010 and 2040) 13 Table 2-2 Mobile Area Transportation Study System Comparisons (2010 and 2040) 13 Table 2-3 Mobile Area Transportation Study VMT Comparisons (2010 and 2040) 15 Table 2-4 Mobile Area Transportation Study Level Of Service Comparisons (2010 and 2040) 15 Table 2-5 Recommended Highway Projects, 2010 – 2040 17 Appendix A: Definitions

v

1.0 Introduction

The Mobile Area Transportation Study (MATS) covers an area substantially larger than the City of Mobile, but smaller than Mobile County. The study area measures approximately 44 miles north to south and 26 miles east to west; the boundaries are shown on Figure 1-1 and can be generally described as Salco Road and Walter Moore Road to the north, Mobile River (and Spanish River) to the east, Bayou La Batre to the south, and Big Creek Lake and Grand Bay to the west. This area includes all of the Mobile urban area as defined by the U. S. Department of Commerce and also includes all contiguous portions of Mobile County which are expected to be urbanized by the year 2040, the time frame of this study.

Development of the Mobile Area Transportation Study (MATS) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan began in 2012 under the guidance of the Mobile Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The study was conducted by the South Alabama Regional Planning Commission with the assistance of the Alabama Department of Transportation, the Mobile County Engineering Department, the WAVE Transit System, and the City of Mobile Transportation, Planning, and Engineering Departments. Funding has been provided by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, by the Mobile County Commission, and by the cities of Mobile, Prichard, Chickasaw, Saraland, Satsuma, Creola, Bayou La Batre and Semmes.

The document is an amendment to a process called the Destination 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan and was adopted March 4th, 2015. The Plan has had one update (March 15th, 2017) since adoption for the inclusion of Congestion Management Process (CMP) funding subsequent removal of an interchange at Airport Boulevard and Azalea Road. That document is a separate document from this update, and available through the MPO. This update, or amendment, pertains specifically to the I-10 Mobile River Bridge. When the LRTP was adopted in 2015, tolling was not the commitment of funding. In order for MPO transportation planning process to be as transparent as possible, the LRTP needed to be updated prior to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD).

The Destination 2040 Transportation Plan is multi-modal in scope, encompassing long-range plans for highway, public transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian networks. Regional growth, economic development, and accessibility within the study area along with environmental concerns necessitate that the long-range plan addresses not only improved vehicular travel but also improvements to alternative modes. Preservation of the existing transportation system coupled with enhancement of all modal choices will contribute to the improvement of the overall quality of life in the region.

The MPO's objective was to identify, to the maximum extent feasible, the multi-modal transportation improvements which will be needed in the Mobile urban area between now and the year 2040 in order to maintain an acceptable level of mobility. Where possible, these needs were quantified in terms of dollar costs and prioritized based on the availability of funding, the impact of the proposed improvement, and anticipated development patterns and timing. The Destination 2040 Transportation Plan as detailed herein is not proposed as a rigid, inflexible

1

blueprint, but rather is intended to guide decision-makers' actions within a regional context and thus maintain system coordination across the various political boundaries which divide the MATS area.

The recommendations contained in the main report for highway and transit projects address only major needs of regional importance which will add significant capacity to the transportation system; the proposals should be regarded as general only and do not represent specific alignments or locations. Many projects not included in the LRTP will doubtless be constructed by developers or implemented by local governments between now and the year 2040; conversely, some of the projects described in this report may never be constructed. Prior to construction, specific studies will be conducted for each project to determine environmental, social, and economic impacts. For those determined to be in the best interest of the public, studies will be completed to finalize engineering details, including specific location and any necessary rights-of-way. Further, the recommendations made in this report will be reviewed and updated periodically in future years as changing social, economic, physical or technological conditions warrant, and the appropriate changes as then determined will be incorporated in new, updated plans.

1.1 Amendment Two of the Destination 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

This document serves as the second amendment to the Destination 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) of the Mobile Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Destination 2040 LRTP was adopted March 4th, 2015, updated March 15th, 2017, and this proposed for update on October 31, 2018. The main focus of this update, is the I-10 Mobile River Bridge. The I-10 Mobile River Bridge is a project of the March 4th, 2015 adopted Destination 2040 LRTP, and is a project that is justified in the expenditure of federal funds. As part of the adopted Destination 2040 LRTP, the financial commitment was not finalized. Although the Plan is fiscally constrained, the Plan’s projected revenues for the I-10 Mobile River Bridge was not specifically tied to tolling. This update specifically relates to the tolling of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge and is a separate document.

1.1.1 Background

The highway element is detailed and includes specific facility recommendations. Some of the resulting metrics have changed due to changes in traffic flow caused by the tolling of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge. The costs associated with this amendment have not been updated for the existing LRTP projects, with the exception of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge.

Chapter 3 of this amendment details Title VI, and ensures that there are no significant disparaging travel times to low income and minority populations as a result of federally funded transportation projects. In order to quantitatively assess and analyze federal investments in the regional transportation plan and to ensure that low-income and minority groups receive a proportionate share of benefits, measures have been developed and applied to evaluate the long range transportation plan’s impact. Travel Times across the network were slightly effected due to tolling of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge, and the Environmental Justice analysis had to be revisited. The analysis was performed for the present scenario (2010) and for the future (2040)

2

Figure 1-1 MATS Study Area

Source: Mobile MPO

3

time frame. In addition, employment opportunity, defined as the average number of jobs within a specified travel time from each zone, was analyzed for the overall population and the target population. The analysis was performed for current (2010) scenarios and future (2040) conditions.

The bicycle and pedestrian element is primarily policy oriented, but also includes cost estimates for recommended projects and details an outlined plan for the bicycle facilities as it pertains to the I-10 Mobile River Bridge Project.

When the Destination 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan was adopted in 2015, and updated in 2017, the funding was open to a variety of scenarios, and a concrete funding solution was not identified. Since the last update, a Public-Private Partnership (P3), in particular tolling, has become a identified source of funding for the I-10 Mobile River Bridge. For this reason, the LRTP requires updating in order to be fiscally constrained.

Because this update specifically relates to the I-10 Mobile River Bridge, it serves as an update to three chapters: the Highway Element in terms of tolling and volumes, Title VI (Environmental Justice) Element, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Element. The tolling of the Interstate 10 creates a new traffic volume pattern that may have impacts to capacity, and the travel time analysis to and from low income and minority populations that was in the March, 2015 adopted LRTP. Further, the Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities were not finalized in the original LRTP.

1.2 Funding Scenario of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge

In the March, 2015 adopted Destination 2040 LRTP, funding for the bridge had not yet been determined. However, the bridge is a priority for the State of Alabama and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and it was agreed that the I-10 Mobile River Bridge could be included in this Destination 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. The approved spending plan for the bridge is $80 million per year, starting in year 2018 for 15 years. In the 2015 adopted Plan, the Mobile County portion of the bridge was estimated to cost $544,210,843. This does not mean that the bridge will be funded based on jurisdiction, as the Eastern Shore MPO has the Baldwin County portion in its Long Range Transportation Plan. The bridge was estimated to cost $850 Million in the Mobile County portion, and this amendment updates that cost with a new construction estimate of over $1.1 billion; see Table 1-1.

The funding scenario for the Highway Element of The Destination 2040 Long Range Plan, is based on the MPO’s projected revenue at current levels, plus the projects ALDOT will fund over the next 25 years. ALDOT has stated that because of funding shortfalls, ALDOT has noted that there is limited funding for capacity projects throughout the State of Alabama each year. The I-10 Mobile River Bridge, the three additional capacity projects, and three interchange projects are to be included in the Destination 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan as the ALDOT’s funded portion of federal funds. Based on these assumptions, and as detailed in Table 1-1, the MATS Study Area can expect to receive $1,372,292,622 of ALDOT funded projects over the next 25

4

years. The match for the State’s federal funds vary between 20 percent and 10 percent based on which funding program is used.

In the March, 2015 adopted LRTP, the Mobile MPO annually received $6,865,639 of federal funds based on federal formula, by the federal transportation funding legislation, MAP-21. These annual funds require a 20 percent match which totals an annual programmable amount of $8,582,049 (2015 dollars). Projecting the annual programmable amount to 25 years, equates to $214,551,225 over the next 25 years (2015 to 2040). The projected funding of the highway element of this Long Range Transportation Plan is the MPO projected funding, plus the ALDOT’s projects that will be implemented in the next 25 years.

Table 1-1 Projected Funding

ALDOT Funded Projects Phase Funding

SR 158 Extension from Schillinger Rd to Study Area Boundary UT,CN $106,067,146

Schillinger Rd from US 98 to Lott Rd UT,CN $5,000,000

I-10 From Carol Plantation to McDonald Rd UT,CN $39,221,496

I-65 / Celeste Rd Interchange ROW,UT,CN $8,938,316

I-65 / US 43 Interchange UT,CN $18,951,661

I-10 West Tunnel Interchange UT,CN $30,500,000

I-10 Mobile River Bridge (Mobile Urban Area Only) PE $51,614,003

I-10 Mobile River Bridge (Mobile Urban Area Only) UT $10,000,000

I-10 Mobile River Bridge (Mobile Urban Area Only) CN $1,102,000,000

TOTAL ALDOT FUNDED $1,372,292,622

MPO Attributable Funding

Annual Allocation (plus match) $8,582,049 X 25 years $214,551,225

TOTAL 25 YEAR PROJECTED FUNDING $1,703,768,911

1.2.1 Public Private Partnership

A Public-Private Partnership (P3) will be required in order to fund the I-10 Mobile River Bridge Project. This is the ultimate change in the funding scenarios from this LRTP update and the previous LRTP. A P3 allows for a group of private companies, to design, build, assist in funding, and maintain the bridge over an agreed term. This has being done recently in other areas to leverage private sector resources to build critical projects when the public agencies do not have sufficient funds to do so otherwise. ALDOT will serve as the facilitator of the process, and the group selected to build the project, the concessionaire, will lease the project for 55 years, making

Source: Mobile MPO

5

the concessionaire responsible for designing and constructing the project, as well as maintaining and preserving the roadways and bridges over the life of the lease. During the 55-year concession period, ALDOT will provide oversight and hold the concessionaire accountable for the goals, deadlines, and budgets detailed in the lease.

1.2.2 Tolling

The actual toll amount is not determined as of this document; however, factors influencing toll rates include traffic volumes; existing travel conditions; forecasted travel conditions; and costs for construction, operations and maintenance. Toll rates are expected to range from $3 to $6 for passenger vehicles with possible discounts for a variety of users. Revenue generated from the tolls will in large part go to the concessionaires; however, there will be some federal funds involved and the exact scheme of reimbursement based on revenue from the tolls is not decided as of this document.

1.3 Capacity

Section 2.0 Highway Facilities of this document outlines the updated capacities of the projects of the 2040 network, including the I-10 Mobile River Bridge. The Mobile MPO uses the travel demand forecasting software by Citilabs, Cube Voyager. The Alabama Department of Transportation purchased this software for all MPOs in the State of Alabama and the Mobile MPO is required to use this software. The Voyager software is an integral role in determining travel patterns within the next 25 years. The model is validated to current traffic counts and specific federal parameters (please see Appendix D of March, 2015 LRTP) to base year conditions. The socio-economic data is forecasted to year 2040 and the model is run using future year data, resulting in estimated future volumes for the entire network. From this future network, all Alternatives are tested for network performance. For the purpose of this Amendment of the LRTP, the socio-economic data has not been updated. The data is presented in detail in Section 4.0 Highway Facilities of the March, 2015 LRTP.

1.4 Title VI

In order to quantitatively assess and analyze federal investments in the regional transportation plan and to ensure that low-income and minority groups receive a proportionate share of benefits, measures have been developed and applied to evaluate the long range transportation plan’s impact. Section 3.0 Title VI in this Long Range Transportation Plan amendment is a comparative analysis of accessibility to essential services for the overall region and the target populations. The analysis was performed for the present scenario and for the future (2040) time frame by both ALDOT and the Mobile MPO; there are two separate analysis of this update. Because the ALDOT analysis used a region-wide model, and the Mobile MPO used a model specific to the Mobile Area Transportation Study Area Boundary, travel time comparisons would be based on different inputs and models. For this reason, the two Environment Justice Analysis is Section Three of this document, and contain separate but similar conclusions.

6

1.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian

The March, 2015 LRTP, recommended and supported a bicycle pedestrian facility on the I-10 Mobile River Bridge. The resolution of support dated June 5th of 2013, expressed support for bicycle/pedestrian facilities to be included into the design and construction of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge, and if it is determined that bicycle/pedestrian facilities are not to be included in the I-10 Mobile River Bridge design, the MATS Metropolitan Planning Organization expressed support for any available mitigation measures during preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-10 Mobile River Bridge. ALDOT has shown commitment to providing a facility that crosses the Mobile River. ALDOT has committed to providing a bicycle and pedestrian shared use path from the I-165 southbound on-ramp at Bay Bridge Road to the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge. ALDOT will retrofit the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge to provide two protected bicycle and pedestrian lanes (one on each side of the bridge). ALDOT proposes to provide a shared use path on the south side of Bay Bridge Road and a sidewalk on the north side of Bay Bridge Road with crosswalks at appropriate locations. More detailed studies, design, and coordination with the local community will be required to finalize the details of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities along this route. The length of this [proposed bike/ped corridor is approximately 2.6 miles. The estimated total cost for this path is approximately $8.5 million. This facility will be constructed using Federal and/or state funds and will be completed within the same timeframe as the completion of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway project. This is detailed in Section 4.0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities of this amendment.

1.6 Performance Measures

With the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and following with the Fixing America’s Transportation (FAST) Act in December of 2015, the United States Department of Transportation has elected to move towards a performance-based planning process. This process refers to the application of performance management principles to achieve desired outcomes for transportation facilities.

In Alabama, the performance based planning process manifests itself in several forms. 23 CFR Part 490 requires MPOs to develop performance targets related to safety, pavement condition, bridge condition, highway reliability, freight movement, traffic congestion, and emissions reduction. 49 CFR Part 625 requires the same for transit asset management. Separately, the FAST Act recommends that performance-based planning be worked into documents such as the Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP), Transit Asset Management Plan (TAM), Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Statewide Freight Plan, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Performance Plan, and the Congestion Management Plan.

23 CFR 450.326 mandates that a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) include performance-based planning in its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). More specifically, the TIP should include a description of each measure and target, a systems performance report, and the performance management agreement signed by each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).

7

Table 1-2 Description of Performance Measures and Targets

Category Performance Measure Performance Target

Safety

Number of Fatalities 1,010 Rate of Fatalities 1.49 Number of Injuries 8,369 Rate of Serious Injuries 12.42 Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities & Injuries

390

Transit

% of Revenue Vehicles that Exceeded ULB* Reduce by 10% % of non-Revenue Vehicles that Exceeded ULB*

Reduce by 10%

% of Facilities with Condition Rating < 3.0 No more than 20% rated < 3.0 Assets

% Pavement in Good Condition (Interstate) Greater than 50% % Pavement in Poor Condition (Interstate) Less than 5% % Pavement in Good Condition (non- Interstate)

Greater than 40%

% Pavement in Poor Condition (non- Interstate)

Less than 5%

% NHS Bridges in Good Condition No less than 27% % NHS Bridges in Poor Condition No greater than 3%

2Year Target 4 Year Target

System Perform.

Reliable Person Miles on the Interstate 96.4% 96.4% Reliable Person Miles on the non-Interstate NHS 93.7% 93.6% Truck Travel Time Reliability Index 1.20 1.21 Annual Hours of Peak Hour Excessive Delay N/A Percent of Non-SOV N/A Total Emissions Reduction N/A

* ULB = Useful Life Benchmark

1.6.1 Systems Performance Report

The Systems Performance Report provides a measure of how the TIP supports the performance- based planning process. This report will evaluate the progress made towards the achievement of performance targets.

The MPO adopted safety performance targets on February 14, 2018 and transit performance targets on May 23, 2018. In lieu of developing their own targets, the MPO elected to support the state’s safety and transit targets as referenced in the table above. No other targets have been established to date by the MPO. The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) adopted the Statewide Freight Plan in November of 2017 and ALDOT’s Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) is currently in draft form.

8

The MPO will support the above-mentioned targets and state plans through the Transportation Improvement Program. The MPO will address new targets as they are adopted by the State or developed by the MPO per the Alabama Performance Management Agreement. Projects not in the TIP are added by resolution, at a meeting of the MPO, and in accordance with agreements and bylaws that the MPO has in place with state and member governments. Such projects will be evaluated to determine alignment with the performance targets.

9

10

2.0 Highway Facilities The future infrastructure needs of an area are largely determined by its growth and the subsequent demand placed on a limited supply of any given commodity - in this case transportation system capacity. The extent of future transportation needs depends on the number and length of trips made on an average day. Trip characteristics are primarily determined by an area's population, housing, and employment densities and the spatial orientation of its residential and commercial or industrial areas. The section of the amendment details the differences, system wide, that the toll on the I-10 Mobile River Bridge may have. Regardless of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge, by year 2040, it is estimated that the MATS area will have almost 161,000 households and over 237,000 employees. This is a significant increase compared to over 147,000 households and over 178,000 employees in year 2010. Figure 2-1 below graphically illustrates the anticipated growth in the MATS area between 2010 and 2040, including the significant growth in internal automobile and truck trips. While population is expected to increase about 9 percent and housing and employment by 9 percent and 33 percent, daily vehicle-trips will likely increase by 22 percent during the period. A trip is any vehicular movement between an origin and a destination. An internal trip is any trip solely within the study area.

Figure 2-1 Projected Study Area Growth: 2010-2040

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Population Households Employment Internal Trips

Source: Mobile MPO

Table 2-1 quantifies the projected growth in area-wide vehicle-trips per day between 2010 and 2040 and illustrates the impact on the area's street and highway system. When the projected growth of internal trips is combined with external trips and truck trips, the total increase is forecast at 25 percent over the 30 year period. Growth is going to happen regardless of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge. Table 2-2 details the number of lane miles between 2010 and 2040 Plan. The toll has no impact on the number of lane mile s in the system. In Table 2-3 the

2000 2010 2040

Thou

sand

s

11

impact of this growth on the Existing and Committed system (E+C, or the roads now open to traffic plus those currently under construction or contract) would be intolerable by today's traffic service standards. Table 2-3 details the comparison of the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Interesting to note that the I-10 Mobile River Bridge in theory should not have had a change in the VMT. However, the projected 2040 volumes at the cordon (Mobile County Line) had notable changes between the tolled network and the original, non-tolled, network. US 90 (the Causeway) saw a large increase in the projected volume in the tolled network because of the cost incurred on the Bayway. Similarly, Interstate 10 (the Bayway) had a loss of projected volume. A shift in external volumes from the Bayway to the Causeway can be expected due to a toll; however, the projected cordon volume analysis completed for ALDOT also presented a lower volume in percentage. This accounts for potential increase in carpooling, telecommuting, and public transit as a result of the toll. The comparison of a non-tolled network and a tolled network has a slight variation in VMT due to the slightly varied external volume changes at the cordon. The street miles operating at unacceptable, overcrowded conditions (level-of-service E or F) would increase from 2010's 82.4 miles to over 238 miles in 2040. Further, operating conditions throughout the network would badly deteriorate with system-wide capacity utilization of 82 percent in 2040 as compared to the 56 percent utilized today. The ultimate result of this growth and accompanying congestion will be a need for additional highway capacity throughout the MATS planning area, with the need being most acute west of I-65. After evaluating numerous alternative systems and individual projects, SARPC has recommended a 2040 Highway Plan to the MPO members for their concurrence; the plan was adopted on March 4, 2015. Table 2-4 include the 2040 operating conditions after implementation of this recommended plan as adopted without the toll, and with the toll. An obvious conclusion can be made that a toll on Interstate 10 with an un-tolled option on US90 will put a strain on the capacity of US, the Causeway. The system wide Level of Service (LOS) for principal arterials deteriorates as shown in Table 2-4. The number of miles of principal arterials operating at over LOS D went from 35.6 to 46.3; however, interstates improved with the toll. Table 2-4 shows capacity utilization is higher in the future year than the 2010 base year (56 percent) because of the strain on the system produced by the new demand. The capacity utilization in 2040 is expected to be at 82.1 percent and road miles at (LOS) E or F are expected to be significantly higher in 2040 than 2010; about 238 miles in 2040 E+C versus 82 miles in 2010. The main reason for this is the anticipated interstate growth. The network that has a toll on the I-10 Mobile River Bridge is slightly varied when compared the March, 2015 network. Capacity utilization for interstates is improved by 1% with the toll, but system wide decreases by 1%. Figure 2-2 displays the volume difference between a tolled facility and no toll in the year 2040. Figure 2-3 illustrates the projects included in the 2040 Highway Plan and Table 2-5 describes the projects. The plan is based on both new construction and improvements to existing roads. Slightly more than 34 lane-miles of additional limited access roadway would be constructed, with about 2 miles of new roadway (I-10 Mobile River Bridge in Mobile Urban Area). A bout 14 miles of new arterial roads would be constructed with a total of over 83 additional arterial lane-miles system-wide. A lthough no other additional capacity is needed, there are three improvements to existing interchanges; Celeste Road on I-65, the West

12

entrance to the Wallace Tunnel of I-10 and US 43 and I-65.

Table 2-1 Mobile Area Transportation Study Trip Purpose Comparisons (2010 and 2040)

Vehicle-Trips/Day 2010 2040 %Increase

Home-Based Work 118,700 130,300 Home-Based Other 550,400 604,000

Non-Home Based 410,100 450,000

Trucks 25,200 37,400 Total Internal 1,104,400 1,221,700 11%

Internal-External 154,700 329,400

Through 25,800 44,600

Through Trucks 16,700 31,900

Total 1,301,600 1,627,900 25%

Source: Mobile MPO

Table 2-2

Mobile Area Transportation Study System Comparisons (2010 and 2040)

2010 2040 E+C 2040PLAN no toll & toll

Miles Lane-Mi Mi Lane-Mi Mi Lane-Mi Mi

Freeway/Expressway 306.7 59.2 317.8 59.2 340.7 61.5

Principal Arterials 545.7 152.4 551.9 152.4 594.5 159.2

Minor Arterials 581.6 227.4 584.4 227.8 624.8 234.7

Collectors 470.5 217.8 470.5 217.8 482.1 218.3

Total 1904.5 656.7 1924.5 656.7 2042.1 673.6

Source: Mobile MPO

Other than projects recommended under the Congestion Management Process of Destination

2040 or projects being planned with local funds, there are no significant improvements to the

collector system. The highway element of the 2040 Plan is estimated to cost almost $1.6 billion

dollars ($1,593,930,000) to construct over the next twenty-five year period.

For the purposes of this amendment to the adopted Destination 2040 Long Range Transpiration

Plan, the cost estimates for the projects on Table 2-5 are as they were adopted, with the

exception of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge. The cost estimates for the Bridge are current as of

the adoption of this amendment, as are detailed in 1.2 Funding Scenario of the I-10 Mobile

River Bridge.

13

Sour

ce: M

obile

MPO

Figu

re 2-

2 V

olum

es: T

oll V

S N

o To

ll

14

Table 2-3 Mobile Area Transportation Study VMT Comparisons (2010 and 2040)

2010 2040 E+C VMT Mi/day % of Tot % of Tot

Freeway/Expressway 3,432,512 36% 5,149,829 36%

Principal Arterials 2,984,236 31% 4,117,199 29%

Minor Arterials 2,286,012 24% 3,339,613 23%

Collectors 954,654 10% 1,721,952 12%

Total 9,657,415 14,328,596

2040 NoToll 2040 Toll VMT Mi/day % of Tot Mi/day % of Tot

Freeway/Expressway 5,226,269 36% 5,147,019 35%

Principal Arterials 4,092,664 28% 4,194,268 29%

Minor Arterials 3,412,235 24% 3,519,174 24%

Collectors 1,640,760 11% 1,705,987 12%

Total 14,371,928 14,566,448

Source: Mobile MPO

Table 2-4 Mobile Area Transportation Study Level Of Service Comparisons (2010 and 2040)

2010 2040 E+C

Level Of Service Mi /LOS D Cap Used Mi /LOS D Cap Used

Freeway/Expressway 4.3 74.5% 76.7 108.0%

Principal Arterials 27.8 60.1% 65.6 82.1%

Minor Arterials 37.1 50.5% 57.8 73.6%

Collectors 13.1 30.2% 38.5 54.8%

Total 82.4 56.0% 238.5 82.1%

2040NoToll 2040 Toll Level Of Service Mi /LOS D Cap Used Mi /LOS D Cap Used

Freeway/Expressway 78.1 102.5% 76.7 101.0%

Principal Arterials 35.6 75.5% 46.3 77.3%

Minor Aterials 34.5 69.6% 33.9 71.1%

Collectors 26.4 50.6% 27.5 53.3%

Total 175.0 77.0% 185.8 78.0%

Source: Mobile MPO

15

Figure 2-3 MATS 2040 Highway Plan

Source: Mobile MPO

16

Table 2-5 Recommended Highway Projects, 2010 – 2040

2010 2040 2010 2040 MAP#. CPMS# FUNDS PHASE COST ROAD FROM TO DIS LANE LANE VOLUME VOLUME PRIORITY

1 n/a MPO ALL $10.90 Airport Blvd Snow Rd Eliza Jordan Rd 1.2 2 4 13,800 19,900 2

2

n/a

MPO

ALL

$17.80

Celeste Rd

I-65

Forest Ave

2

2

4

13,500

24,400

3

3

n/a

MPO

ALL

$9.00

Cottage Hill Rd

McFarland Rd

Dawes Rd

0.8

2

4

7,500

17,100

2

4

100052460

MPO

CN

$3.65

Dauphin Street

Sage Ave

Springhill Mem. Hosp.

1.1

4

6

33,000

45,000

1

100052459 MPO UT $0.28 Dauphin Street Sage Ave Springhill Mem. Hosp. 1.1 4 6 33,000 45,000 1

100052458 MPO RW $0.27 Dauphin Street Sage Ave Springhill Mem. Hosp. 1.1 4 6 33,000 45,000 1

5

n/a

MPO

ALL

$5.25

Dawes Rd

Jeff Hamilton Rd

Grelot Rd

1.5

2

4

14,000

13,700

2

6

n/a

MPO

ALL

$8.19

Government St

Macy Place

Water St

2.3

n/a

n/a

26,000

32,300

3

7

100033461

NHPP

CN

$32.74

I -10

Carol Plantation Rd

McDonald Rd

4.2

4

6

55,400

97,700

1

100062412 DPIP CN $1,102.00 I-10 (Bridge) Virginia St Mobile County Line 3 new 6 - 78,100 1

100062411 DPIP UT $10.00 I-10 (Bridge) Virginia St Mobile County Line 3 new 6 - 78,100 1

100062410 DPIP RW $25.41 I-10 (Bridge) Virginia St Mobile County Line 3 new 6 - 78,100 1

100062408 DPIP PE $51.61 I-10 (Bridge) Virginia St Mobile County Line 3 new 6 - 78,100 1

9

100052450

MPO

CN

$4.80

McDonald Road

North of I-10

Old Pascagoula Rd

0.5

2

4

11,500

30,400

1

100052449 MPO UT $0.70 McDonald Road North of I-10 Old Pascagoula Rd 0.5 2 4 11,500 30,400 1

100052448 MPO RW $1.00 McDonald Road North of I-10 Old Pascagoula Rd 0.5 2 4 11,500 30,400 1

10

100059791

MPO

CN

$13.10

McFarland Road

Old Pascagoula Rd

Three Notch Rd

3.1

new

2

n/a

18,400

1

100059790 MPO UT $2.40 McFarland Road Old Pascagoula Rd Three Notch Rd 3.1 new 2 n/a 18,400 1

100059789 MPO RW $6.00 McFarland Road Old Pascagoula Rd Three Notch Rd 3.1 new 2 n/a 18,400 1

100059788 MPO PE $2.50 McFarland Road Old Pascagoula Rd Three Notch Rd 3.1 new 2 n/a 18,400 1

11

100052602

MPO

CN

$2.34

McGregor Avenue

Dauphin St

Airport Blvd

0.6

2

4

19,100

19,500

1

MPO UT $0.20 McGregor Avenue Dauphin St Airport Blvd 0.6 2 4 19,100 19,500 1

17

Table 2-5 Recommended Highway Projects, 2010 – 2040

2010 2040 2010 2040 MAP#. CPMS# FUNDS PHASE COST ROAD FROM TO DIS LANE LANE VOLUME VOLUME PRIORITY

100052600 MPO RW $2.50 McGregor Avenue Dauphin St Airport Blvd 0.6 2 4 19,100 19,500 1

12

100046891

MPO

CN

$4.63

Schillinger Road

US 98

Lott Rd

2.1

2

4

13,000

24,800

1

100046891 STPAA CN $5.00 Schillinger Road US 98 Lott Rd 2.1 2 4 13,000 24,800 1

100046890 MPO UT $0.61 Schillinger Road US 98 Lott Rd 2.1 2 4 13,000 24,800 1

13

n/a

MPO

ALL

$28.00

Snow Rd

Airport Blvd

Tanner William Rd

2.8

2

4

13,000

20,000

2

n/a MPO ALL $14.10 Snow Rd Moffett Rd (new) US 98 1.5 2 4 n/a 12,900 2

14

100060152

NHPP

CN

$20.27

SR 158

Schillinger Rd

Lott Rd

1.6

new

4

n/a

26,000

1

100060155 NHPP CN $10.80 SR 158 Schillinger Rd Lott Rd 1.6 new 4 n/a 26,000 1

100060153 NHPP CN $17.37 SR 158 Lott Rd Glenwood Rd 4.1 new 4 n/a 26,000 1

100060482 NHPP CN $14.37 SR 158 Lott Rd Glenwood Rd 4.1 new 4 n/a 26,000 1

100060154 NHPP CN $14.03 SR 158 Glenwood Rd McCrary Rd 3.5 new 4 n/a 26,000 1

100060483 NHPP CN $9.85 SR 158 Seabury Creek Bridge - new 4 n/a 26,000 1

100060484 NHPP CN $9.56 SR 158 Interchange Lott Rd - new 4 n/a 26,000 1

15 n/a MPO ALL $9.90 Tanner Williams Rd Snow Rd Eliza Jordan Rd 1 2 4 11,000 17,400 2

16

100052464

MPO

CN

$4.67

Three Notch Road

Schillinger Rd

McDonald Rd

1

2

4

11,600

22,500

1

100052463 MPO UT $0.51 Three Notch Road Schillinger Rd McDonald Rd 1 2 4 11,600 22,500 1

100052462 MPO RW $1.03 Three Notch Road Schillinger Rd McDonald Rd 1 4 11,600 22,500 1

100052461 MPO PE $0.35 Three Notch Road Schillinger Rd McDonald Rd 1 2 4 11,600 22,500 1

100052596 MPO CN $5.06 Three Notch Road McDonald Rd Ben Hamilton Rd 0.9 2 4 3,500 19,900 1

100052595 MPO UT $0.51 Three Notch Road McDonald Rd Ben Hamilton Rd 0.9 2 4 3,500 19,900 1

100052594 MPO RW $1.03 Three Notch Road McDonald Rd Ben Hamilton Rd 0.9 2 4 3,500 19,900 1

100052465 MPO PE $0.35 Three Notch Road McDonald Rd Ben Hamilton Rd 0.9 2 4 3,500 19,900 1

100052599 MPO CN $5.06 Three Notch Road Ben Hamilton Rd Dawes Rd 1 2 4 3,000 15,100 1

100052598 MPO UT $0.51 Three Notch Road Ben Hamilton Rd Dawes Rd 1 2 4 3,000 15,100 1

100052597 MPO RW $1.03 Three Notch Road Ben Hamilton Rd Dawes Rd 1 2 4 3,000 15,100 1

100052466 MPO PE $0.35 Three Notch Road Ben Hamilton Rd Dawes Rd 1 2 4 3,000 15,100 1

18

Table 2-5 Recommended Highway Projects, 2010 – 2040

2010

2040

2010

2040

MAP#. CPMS# FUNDS PHASE COST ROAD FROM TO DIS LANE LANE VOLUME VOLUME PRIORITY

17 100037215 MPO CN $11.00 Zeigler Boulevard Forest Hill Dr Athey Rd 3.4 2 4 15,000 25,200 1

100043178 MPO UT $0.50 Zeigler Boulevard Forest Hill Dr Athey Rd 3.4 2 4 15,000 25,200 1

100046895 MPO CN $4.19 Zeigler Boulevard Cody Rd Schillinger Rd 1.8 2 4 13,600 25,200 1

100046895 MPO UT $0.38 Zeigler Boulevard Cody Rd Schillinger Rd 1.8 2 4 13,600 25,200 1

100046895 MPO RW $1.00 Zeigler Boulevard Cody Rd Schillinger Rd 1.8 2 4 13,600 25,200 1

100055883 MPO CN $5.00 Zeigler Boulevard Schillinger Rd Tanner Williams Rd 1.4 2 4 7,000 17,200 1

100055882 MPO UT $1.12 Zeigler Boulevard Schillinger Rd Tanner Williams Rd 1.4 2 4 7,000 17,200 1

100055881 MPO RW $1.88 Zeigler Boulevard Schillinger Rd Tanner Williams Rd 1.4 2 4 7,000 17,200 1

100055880 MPO PE $0.80 Zeigler Boulevard Schillinger Rd Tanner Williams Rd 1.4 2 4 7,000 17,200 1

Locally Funded Projects L1 n/a Local ALL $14.91 Schillinger Rd Three Notch Rd Halls Mill Creek 2.3 2 4 15,100 26,000 L1

L2 n/a Local ALL $15.0 Tanner Williams Rd Zeigler Blvd Snow Rd 1.8 2 4 13,400 23,800 L2

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS TYPE PROJECTS

1 n/a MPO ALL $13.30 Airport Blvd Azalea Rd Int. Interchange - n/a n/a - - 3

n/a MPO ALL $6.80 Airport Blvd Malls Intersection Intersection - n/a n/a - - 3

7 100055753 IM CN $30.00 I-10 West Tunnel Int Interchange - - - - - 1

100055752 IM UT $0.50 I-10 West Tunnel Int Interchange - - - - - 1

8 100039475 IM CN $8.94 I-65 Celeste Rd Int. Interchange - - - - - 1

100050694 IM CN $18.78 I-65 US 43 Int. Interchange - - - - - 1

100050693 IM UT $.15 I-65 US 43 Int. Interchange - - - - - 1

TOTAL Federal Projects (millions) $1,593,930,000

Priority 1 (2015 - 2020) $1,469,000,000

Priority 2 (2020 - 2030) $77,150,000 Priority 3 (2030 - 2040) $47,790,000

-All projects are required to have some form of bicycle /pedestrian facility included in the project, or a valid reason for an exclusion; please see Section 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities of this Plan.

-These priorities were determined by the Mobile MPO and are subject to change; -Year of Expenditure (YOE) cost based on 1% per year applied to first year of these priorities

19

20

3.0 Title VI Update to the Destination 2040, the Long Range Transportation Plan 3.1 The I-10 Mobile River Bridge

Because tolling was not considered as a final financial commitment in the Destination 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) adopted March 15th, 2015, this Environmental Justice Amendment to Destination 2040 attempts to account for the change in volume and travel time, resulting from the tolled facility. Two Environmental analyses were conducted, one by Mobile MPO and another by ALDOT using two different methodologies. Although the methodologies used by the Mobile MPO and ALDOT were slightly different, but resulted in similar conclusions. The original analysis Mobile MPO conducted is included in Section 1.0 Environmental Justice of Mobile MPO’s 2040 LRTP which details how the Mobile MPO staff conducted the Environmental Justice analysis for the entire Metropolitan Planning Area. In addition to the original analysis, the Mobile MPO re-ran Travel Time across the network based on tolling of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge to see how tolling affected the Environmental Justice communities, as well as the entire network within the Urbanized Area. The analysis ALDOT conducted is only for the project area where I-10 Mobile River Bridge will be constructed, and for areas that will be affected by the I-10 Mobile River Bridge project. 3.1.1 Methodology Differences Although the methodology for the Environmental Justice analysis for ALDOT and the Mobile MPO are similar, it is important to note the differences. These differences include separate models, thresholds, data, and other inputs. 3.1.1.1 Models The I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway Project spans two counties, Mobile County and Baldwin County. For this reason, ALDOT needed to use a regional Travel Demand Forecasting Model that included both counties. The Mobile MPO and the Eastern Shore MPO have a dedicated model to only their region, Mobile County and Baldwin County respectively. ALDOT’s travel demand model uses a two county model. The Mobile MPO model is only for the Mobile MPO Study Area and preloads its truck trips and external – external trips to the model prior to loading the vehicular trips. Further, the truck and external – external trips for the Mobile MPO model are forced to use facilities that are known for these types of trips. This prevents trucks from using a collector, even though the travel time would suggest it is a preferred route. The Eastern Shore MPO model treats external and truck trips differently than the Mobile MPO model. How the external and truck trips are treated, is one of several modeling parameter differences that required ALDOT to create a separate two county model in order to perform their analysis. Also, ALDOT’s model used a base year of 2015, as opposed to the Mobile and Eastern Shore MPO models of a 2010 base year. ALDOTs model has 483 TAZs, Mobile MPO has 312 TAZ in its study area. 3.1.1.2 American Community Survey 2012 VS 2015 The Mobile MPO obtained demographic data used in the Environmental Justice analysis from the 2012 American Community Survey. ALDOT obtained demographic data used in its analysis from the 2015 American Community Survey. A key difference between the 2012 and 2015

21

American Community Survey data sets, besides different numbers, is their geographical units. The key difference has resulted in more zones being identified as low-income/minority in the MPO’s EJ analysis than ALDOT’s. 3.1.1.3 Low-Income Data & Thresholds The Mobile MPO used the 2012 American Community Survey at the Census Tract level; it showed 18.5 percent of persons in Mobile County live below the poverty level. 18.5 percent was used as the low-income threshold in the Environmental Justice analysis. ALDOT obtained data from the 2015 American Community Survey at the Block Group level; flagging the Block Group as low-income if the median household income was less than the poverty level which is based on the Block Groups average household size. 3.1.1.4 Minority Data and Thresholds The Mobile MPO used the 2012 American Community Survey, it showed 37.5 percent of the population of the Mobile County was classified as minority. 37.5 percent was used as the minority threshold index. ALDOT obtained data from the 2015 American Community Survey and used threshold of 50 percent based on the Council on Environmental Quality’s Report “Environmental Justice under the National Environmental Policy Act.”

3.1.1.5 Traffic Volumes

The boundary for the Mobile MPO study area is the Mobile / Baldwin County border, the Tensaw River. The traffic volume entering and exiting Mobile MPO Study Area over the Tensaw River have only two options, the Bayway (Interstate 10), or the Causeway (US90). The I-10 Mobile River Bridge is a project of the March, 2015 adopted Destination 2040 LRTP, and although the Mobile MPO Environmental Justice analysis was done system wide (all of the projects) prior to 2015, the tolled I-10 Mobile River Bridge shifted the future year 2040 traffic volumes. The main shift of projected traffic volume occurred from the Bayway to the Causeway at the Study Area Boundary. For this reason, the entire system wide analysis had to be rerun, and is reflected in this amendment. 3.1.1.6 ALDOT Bridge & Toll EJ Conclusion Although EJ populations in Mobile County will have adverse effects due to the proposed project, they will not be disproportionately high and adverse. Any potential impact will affect both EJ and non-EJ communities in equal measure. ALDOT is committed to taking mitigation measures to lessen any potential negative impact. These measures will continue to be implemented before, during, and after construction. 3.1.1.7 Mobile MPO Toll EJ Conclusion This conclusion is separate from Mobile MPO Environmental Justice Conclusion as described in the 2040 LRTP, which evaluates all projects as a whole; this conclusion focuses on the network

22

with and without a toll. The model concluded that the toll would increase peak travel times moderately to all Attraction Zones for all zones and target zones. The toll would also increase off-peak travel times negligibly to all Attractions Zones with the exception of Medical Facilities, where it improved. Average travel time from target zones generally increased more than the average from all zones, except for off-peak Central Business District, Post-Secondary Educational Facilities, and Medical Facilities. The higher increase, although negligible, could be attributed to the close proximity of the I-65 EJ Zones, which is now determined to be over capacity because of the toll. Overall, there will be a comparable increase in travel time to both EJ and Non-EJ Zones due to the toll. The Mobile MPO has reviewed ALDOT’s EJ analysis and considered it to be consistent with the MPO’s analysis.

23

24

4.0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway Widening project is a proposal to increase the vehicular capacity of I-10, by constructing a new six-lane bridge, with 215 feet of Air Draft Clearance (ADC), across the Mobile River, and widening the existing I-10 bridges across Mobile Bay, from four to eight lanes. The proposed project would originate in Mobile County in Alabama and extend to Baldwin County. For the purpose of this plan, only the Mobile County section is included. The bridge increases the capacity of I-10 to meet existing and predicted future traffic volumes, and to provide a more direct route for local, regional, and coastal interstate traffic, while minimizing impacts to Mobile’s maritime industry. The Federal Highway Administration approved the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed I-10 bridge over Mobile River, and widening of the existing I-10 Bayway, on July 22, 2014. The DEIS addresses impacts associated with the bridge alignments under consideration for the project, and provides a preferred corridor based on studies, and addresses the associated impacts. The preferred corridor (B prime) begins at Virginia Street, crosses the Mobile River just south of the Mobile Cruise Terminal, continues across Pinto Island, and joins the center of the Bayway, which will be widened two-lanes in each direction, from the bridge meeting point to Daphne in Baldwin County. The DEIS was available for public review with several ALDOT public meetings during the comment period ending on November 7, 2014. A large number of comments received during the comment period, were in favor of the inclusion of a bicycle/pedestrian facility on the bridge, which, as a limited-access Interstate highway, makes the addition of such a facility problematic. The Mobile MPO has adopted a resolution, dated June 5th, 2013 supporting a bicycle/pedestrian facility (separated walkway or multi-use service feature) on the bridge, and if deemed not feasible, the resolution proposed that mitigation of the issue be included as an adjunct to the Environmental Impact Statement, including proposals for alternative solutions. Although Section 39-13 of the Mobile City Code prohibits pedestrians and bicycles on certain interstate highways, there are plenty of examples in the United States where this was accomplished safely. It states in the DEIS for the I-10 Mobile River Bridge, that ALDOT is committed to providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the Mobile River via Cochrane Bridge, Bankhead Tunnel, or the proposed I-10 Bridge. For the purposes of this plan, the Mobile MPO recommends that the proposed I-10 Mobile River Bridge include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, unless it is determined to not be feasible. If that is the case, it is the recommendation of this plan that an alternative bike/ped crossing over the Cochran Bridge with safe connectivity to Broad Street in Mobile and the US-90/US-98 Causeway on the east side of the Mobile River should be constructed. Without tolling, the proposed I-10 Mobile River project cannot be constructed; therefore, the decision was made to proceed with a Supplemental DEIS that includes tolling on all of the Build Alternatives. The Wallace Tunnel and I-10 from Virginia Street to the US-90/US-98 Eastern Shore Interchange would be tolled. Non-tolled routes would include the Bankhead Tunnel, the US-90/US-98 Causeway, the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge, I-165, and I-65.

25

4.1Bicyclist/Pedestrian Accommodations The selected combination of bicycle/pedestrian facilities includes: Cochrane-Africatown USA Shared Use Path, a belvedere (observation area) on the new Mobile River Bridge, continued seasonal weekend openings of the Bankhead Tunnel to cyclists and pedestrians (as interest and availability allows), and Options described in the final contract of the Mobile River Bridge project. More details on each of these components are described below. 4.2 Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge Shared Use Path ALDOT has indicated that the Cochrane Bridge route was selected as the preferred option to provide a crossing to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians across the Mobile River (Figure 4-1).

26

Figure 4-1 Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities across the Mobile River _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Alabama Department of Transportation

27

ALDOT has committed to providing a bicycle and pedestrian shared use path from the I-165 southbound on-ramp at Bay Bridge Road to the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge. ALDOT will retrofit the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge to provide two protected bicycle and pedestrian lanes (one on each side of the bridge). ALDOT proposes to provide a shared use path on the south side of Bay Bridge Road and a sidewalk on the north side of Bay Bridge Road with crosswalks at appropriate locations. More detailed studies, design, and coordination with the local community will be required to finalize the details of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities along this route. The length of this proposed bike/ped corridor is approximately 2.6 miles. The estimated total cost for this path is approximately $8.5 million. This facility will be constructed using Federal and/or state funds and will be completed within the same timeframe as the completion of the I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway project.

4.3 Future Extensions of Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge Shared Use Path

In addition to the facilities described above, ALDOT has committed to working with the local municipalities and the Mobile MPO in a separate project, to build future bicycle and pedestrian facilities from Beauregard Street in downtown Mobile to the Cochrane-Africatown USA Bridge Shared Use Path via surface streets, such as Conception Street or Telegraph Road. ALDOT, the local municipalities, and the Mobile MPO will work together to determine the appropriate route for these future bicycle and pedestrian facilities, taking into consideration the opportunity for connectivity with the proposed Three Mile Creek Trail improvements, the Africatown Connections Blueway, and other proposed nearby bicycle and pedestrian plans and greenway initiatives.

In another separate project, ALDOT has also committed to working with the local municipalities and the MPOs from Mobile to extend the bicycle and pedestrian facilities to the USS ALABAMA Battleship Memorial Park. ALDOT has also committed to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities in future transportation improvement projects along the US-90/US-98 Causeway as noted in the Alabama Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

4.4 Mobile River Bridge Belvedere

In addition to the above-listed facilities, ALDOT committed to constructing a belvedere (i.e., an overlook that provides a space for people to stop, rest, and enjoy the view) on the bridge at the west main tower. Access to the belvedere will be provided via an elevator and stair tower located at the west main span anchor pier on the west side of the river. The path from the tower access to the belvedere will be a minimum of 12 feet wide and have a minimum area of 700 square feet. Construction of the belvedere will provide the view from the new Mobile River Bridge that was requested in comments received from the public workshop, the BPACs, and the bicycle/pedestrian focus group.

28

4.5 Bankhead Tunnel

ALDOT has previously closed the Bankhead Tunnel to vehicular traffic for a few hours on selected weekends to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to use the tunnel to cross the Mobile River. The majority of respondents from the public workshop who favored the Bankhead Tunnel alternative said they would solely use the tunnel on the weekends. ALDOT has committed to continuing this program as long as there is interest from the community.

4.6 Other Options

ALDOT has also identified other options that could be considered as part of the proposed project if sufficient funding becomes available. These options are summarized in the following paragraphs.

One option would provide a minimum 12-foot-wide shared-use path along the high level approaches and the main span of the bridge. The path would begin between Virginia Street and Texas Street on the west side of Mobile River and end near US-90/US-98 on the east side of Mobile River. The path would be located on the same side as the Mobile River Bridge Belvedere and would provide a connection to the belvedere from the path.

Another option would provide an elevator and stair tower on the east anchor pier on the east side of Mobile River. The 12-foot-wide shared-use path from the Mobile River Bridge Belvedere would connect to the elevator and stair tower on the east side of Mobile River, and the belvedere would be moved to the center of the main span of the bridge.

4.7 Bicyclist/Pedestrian Recommendations For the purposes of this plan, the Mobile MPO recommends that the proposed I-10 Mobile River Bridge include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, unless it is determined to not be feasible. If that is the case, it is the recommendation of this plan that an alternative bike/ped crossing over the Cochran Bridge with safe connectivity to Broad Street in Mobile and the US-90/US-98 Causeway on the east side of the Mobile River should be constructed.

29

Appendix A Mobile Metropolitan Planning Organization Abbreviations and Acronyms

3-C Cooperative, Continuous, Comprehensive AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic AARC Alabama Association of Regional Commissions ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management ADSS Alabama Department of Human Services ALDOT Alabama Department of Transportation AMPO Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations ATPA Alabama Transportation Planners Association BPAC Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAC Citizen Advisory Committee CARE Critical Analysis Reporting Environment CHSTP Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan CMP Congestion Management Process COOP Continuity of Operations Plan DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise DOT Department of Transportation DR Designated Recipient EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERH Emergency Ride Home FAST Act Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act FAF3 Freight Analysis Framework (3rd Edition) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GIS Geographic Information System IAC Inter-Agency Consultation ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers ITS Intelligent Transportation System JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century MATS Mobile Area Transportation Study MPA Metropolitan Planning Area MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Protection Agency NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program OFLT Office for Freight, Logistics, & Transportation PEA Planning Emphasis Areas PMP Program Management Plan POP Program of Projects PPP Public Participation Procedures

Appendix A Mobile Metropolitan Planning Organization Abbreviations and Acronyms (CONTINUED)

SAFETEA-LU Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SARPC South Alabama Regional Planning Commission SPR State Planning and Research STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program TA Technical Assistance TAP Transportation Alternatives Program TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TCC Technical Coordination Committee TDP Transit Development Plan TERM Transit Economic Requirements Model TIP Transportation Improvement Plan TMA Transportation Management Area TRB Transportation Research Board TSM Transportation System Management UAH University of Alabama Huntsville ULB Useful Life Benchmark UCP Unified Certification Plan UPWP Unified Planning Work Program VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled V/C Volume to Capacity