1. HOT Lanes on I-77
Today vs 2010
May 6, 2013

2. 2010: MUMPO Priority #93
Source: 2035 LRTP

3. 2010: The Initial Solution
Source: “I-77 Feasibility Study HOV-HOT Lanes Conversion”, Parsons- Brinkerhoff, May 6, 2010

4. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 Environmental restrictions
There’s no money
It can only be spent HOT lanes
MUMPO priority
State priority

5. Speaker Thom Tillis on Tolling I-77
"I think the takeaway is that… the choice is (a high-occupancy toll lane) project ... or no improvements to I-77 for 15 or 20 years."
Source: “Tillis: Toll Lanes or Wait 20 Years for I-77 Widening”, LKN Citizen, March 27, 2013

6. The Current HOT Lane Proposal
27.5 Miles of HOT Lanes
Cost: $550 Million
Source: “I-77 HOT Lanes Project Overview NCSITE Lunch N’ Learn”, August 21, 2012; “I-77 Widening Update”, MUMPO (Bill Coxe), Sept 19, 2012; “Billions invested in Roads”, Charlotte Observer, Jan 14, 2013

7. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 Environmental restrictions
There’s no money
It can only be spent HOT lanes
State priority
MUMPO priority

8. Environmental Restrictions
2010: GP lanes must have full-blown EA
Today: MAP 21 Legislation…
Grants categorical exclusion to every capacity addition within the existing ROW…
Puts GP lanes on same legal footing as toll lanes
Key Enabling Environmental Legislation Now In Place.

9. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 Environmental restrictions
There’s no money
It can only be spent HOT lanes
State priority
MUMPO priority

10. Cost Breakdown I-77 Toll Lanes -$M
Source: “Billions invested in Roads”, Charlotte Observer, Jan 14, 2013

11. A GP Lane Estimate
A ballpark cost for two GP lanes from exit 23 to exit 36:
$80- $130M
Source: “I-77 HOT Discussion with Cornelius Town Board”, from Bill Coxe to Andrew Grant, Oct. 10, 2012

12. Toll Lanes vs GP Lanes
Public Funds:
$170M
GP lanes:
$80- $130M

13. Majority of travel time savings
Why the difference?
Majority of travel time savings
Majority of Cost
Source: RFP

14. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 Environmental restrictions
There’s no money
It can only be spent HOT lanes
State priority
MUMPO priority

15. HOT Lane Funding- Federal
What do the Feds Say?
Source: NCDOT

16. From the NCDOT
WidenI-77: “Does Federal funding (NHPP) receive a higher priority due to HOT lanes?”
NCDOT: ”We are going to get the same amount… from the feds funding regardless of what projects we build. 
The feds play no part in the selection process for projects that use NHPP funding.”
So the Feds are a non-issue…
Source: NCDOT

17. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 Environmental restrictions
There’s no money
It can only be spent HOT lanes
MUMPO priority
State priority

18. Speaker Tillis on MUMPO
“Unless the local entity prioritizing roads changes that (prioritization), the only way you could potentially move up is to move other things down.“
- Mar 27, 2013 (emphasis added)

19. MUMPO Criteria
Source: LRTP Roadway Project Ranking Methodology, MUMPO

20. MUMPO Tier 1 Impact on I-77 GP Lanes Priority Highly Negative
Highly Positive
Source: LRTP Roadway Project Ranking Methodology; MUMPO LRTP Roadway Ranking Methodology, approved 11/14/07

21. MUMPO Tier 2 Impact on I-77 GP Lanes Priority
Source: Ibid.
Highly Negative
Highly Positive
I-77 General Purpose Lanes Poised to Be Much Higher Priority

22. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 Environmental restrictions
There’s no money
It can only be spent HOT lanes
MUMPO priority
State priority

23. State Priority- As Is What if MUMPO Supported GP Lanes? Priority
Source: Prioritization Scores for Roads, NCDOT

24. State Priority w/MUMPO Priority
With Local Support, I77 Moves to the Top of the List…

25. State Priority Based on Merit
Competing on Merit, There’s a Clear Winner…

26. McCrory Plan- Allocation
Division(20%)
~$1.2B
Regional (40%)
~$2.4B
Statewide (40%)
~$2.4B
Project Merit (Data)
Per capita
by region
Equally
to Divisions A B C D E F G 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 3 2 1 14
Interstates/ NHS/STRAHNET /Tolls/Etc
(S) + Hwys, Airport, Rail, Transit
(S) + (R) + Local
Three-Plus Chances for Funding GP Lanes
HB817, Strategic Transportation Investments,

27. McCrory Plan- Criteria
Division(20%)
~$1.2B
Regional (40%)
~$2.4B
Statewide (40%)
~$2.4B
Benefit/Cost
Congestion
Economic competitiveness
Freight
Multi-modal
Pavement condition
Lane width
Shoulder width
100%
Benefit/Cost
Congestion
Economic competitiveness
Freight
Multi-modal
Pavement condition
Lane width
Shoulder width
70%
Benefit/Cost
Congestion
Economic competitiveness
Freight
Multi-modal
Pavement condition
Lane width
Shoulder width
50%
Local considerations
50%
Local considerations
30%
Much Greater Emphasis on Project Merit

28. Local Participation
50% bonus allocation for local government funding participation
For projects that serve the local entity providing the funding
50% bonus allocation for toll revenue bonds
For projects within the county (or counties) of the toll project

29. Reasons for HOT lanes: 2010 Environmental restrictions
There’s no money
It can only be spent HOT lanes
MUMPO priority
State priority

30. Summarizing
All the necessary technical elements are coming together to build GP lanes sooner rather than later
Funding ($170M)
Federal Legislation (MAP 21)
State Legislation
The state priority is a function of MUMPO priority
With MUMPO priority, the project obtains NCDOT support
Completely Different Picture Than in 2010

31. Conclusions & Recommendation
The proposed GP project calls for LESS taxpayer funding
The project will compete favorably on its own merit
Recommendation for MUMPO
Rank I-77 GP lane projects according to new criteria BEFORE amending LTRP for HOT Lanes
Determine project timing for GP lanes under this new paradigm