Cape Fear Memorial Bridge

A Presentation To

Wilmington Urban Area MPO Board

June 30, 2021

Chad Kimes, PE – Division Engineer, Division 3

1
 Today ’s D is c us s ion

1 2 3

Cape Fear Memorial

Public Private Next Steps
Bridge Replacement
Partnership (PPP)
Discussion

2
The Need:
Replace Aging Infrastructure

• The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge was Constructed in 1969

• 51 Year Old Structure

• Existing structure requires costly routine maintenance

• Fixed Span – Major Rehabilitation Required every 20 years
• Moveable Span – Major Rehabilitation Required every 10 years
• The recent major rehabilitation in 2019 cost ~ $15M
• Yearly maintenance costs $550k/year

• Growing Volumes of Traffic

• Projected 81,900 vehicles per day (2045)

3
3
Options For Replacement:
Feasibility Study
• 4 Options Considered:
• 65 ft. Fixed Span
• 135 ft. Fixed Span
• 65 ft. Moveable Span
• 65 ft. Moveable Span
w/ rail component

44
 Feasibility Study Typical Sections
• 6-lane median -divided facility • 12 ft. wide travel lanes
• 15 ft. wide separated Multi -Use-Path • 22 ft. wide median/inside shoulder
(North Side) • Total Width: 135 ft. - 157 ft. (with rail)
• 12 ft. outside shoulders (current bridge is 54 ft. wide)

5
 Feasibility Study -
Estimated Costs By Option

* Note these are approximate costs from Feasibility Study … Currently

working on updated estimates

6
 The Challenge: Funding

• Traditional method of funding would be through NCDOT ’s P rioritization P roc es s for

potential inc lus ion in the S TIP .

• Initial indic ation is that the ability to program a large-s c ale non-tolled projec t in the
next 10 -year STIP cycle such as the replacement of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge
is unlikely.

7
 An Opportunity:
Unsolicited Proposal for a
Public Private Partnership
Chris Werner, PE – Director, NCDOT Technical Services

Rodger Rochelle, PE – Chief Engineer, NCTA

8
Public Private Partnership
Key Benefits
• Developer accepts financial risk for design, construction, and maintenance
• Private sector accepts revenue risks
• Provides funding opportunity for high -cost projects that pose current funding challenges
• Provides potential acceleration of schedules for replacement
• NCDOT maintains ownership
• Bonus Allocation

9
Unsolicited Proposal
Things To Remember

• This proposal is an idea, not an offer

• Proposal presumes items which may not be possible
• Proposal assumes a highly aggressive schedule

Should WMPO Desire to Move Forward

• This is a local decision (NCDOT will not proceed without WMPO request/support)
• WMPO and NCDOT would move forward as a partnership
• The contract would be awarded through a competitive procurement process
• Final project details would be laid out in the contract set by NCDOT

10
Unsolicited Proposal

• B as ed off the N C DO T F eas ibility S tudy – O ption 2 – 13 5 ’ high ris e with M U P

• Inc ludes improvements to the wes t s ide interc hange (U S 17/U S 4 21/U S 74 ) and the downtown
interc hange at S . F ront S t

11
 Unsolicited Proposal - Overview

Funding Procurement Developer Responsibilities

• Fully Funded by Developer • “Progressive” PPP • Work to Inform NEPA, Design, Public Outreach
• Bonus Allocation To Be Determined • Would Likely Require Certain Hold Points and • Permitting
Exit Ramps • Construction (and Demolition)
• Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

Developer Assumption of Risks Contract Term Team

• National Caliber Design, Engineering and
• NEPA and Permitting • Five Year Schedule
Construction Firms (with PPP experience)
• Design, Construction, and O&M Costs • 50 Year Tolling Duration
• Experience in North Carolina and Coastal
• Schedule Areas
• Revenue

Tolling
• Minimize Toll Rates
• Provide Customer Service and Invoicing
Services

12
Unsolicited Proposal – Summary of Benefits
As Suggested by the Proposing Developer

• Adding lanes
• Pedestrian/bicycle path connecting both sides of the river
• Accelerate delivery vs. traditional public methods
• Relieve the state of financial and operational burden … requires zero state or local funding
• Project will be fully funded from day one
• Potential job creation
• Construction approach limits disruption to the community (current bridge remains open
during construction)
• Low-maintenance structure with a design life of 75 to 100 years

13
Unsolicited Proposal Process

14
 PPP Policy – Unsolicited Proposals

• B oard adopted polic y found here

• This polic y governs the proc urement proc es s for all P ublic
P rivate P artners hips inc luding U ns olic ited P ropos als

• N C DO T would public ly advertis e a c ompetitive

proc urement for any projec t res ulting from an uns olic ited
propos al

15
 1 P ropos er s ubmits c onc eptual uns olic ited propos al

N C DO T initial s c reening (legal allowanc es ,

2 tec hnic al, environmental, engineering, financ ial
c ons iderations )

Public Private
Partnerships Policy
3 N C DO T advis es propos er on determination of propos al
viability
and Procedures for
Disposition of 4 P rojec t development, preliminary des ign, S TIP
amendments , E tc .
Unsolicited
Proposals
5 C ompetitive P P P proc urement proc es s

6 S elec tion of s uc c es s ful propos er and exec ution of

C omprehens ive Agreement

16

16
 Applying PPP Model –
Cape Fear Memorial Bridge
• Potential Timeline
• Areas of Risk
• Bonus allocation

17
 Possible Timeline – 3 Phases
Spring/Summer 2022
Winter 2023/24

Fall 2024
1 2 3

Programming Planning & Preliminary Design Procurement

• MPO Coordination and
Resolution(s) of Support
• MPO Public Involvement and
Pre-screening Assessment
• Sketch Level Traffic and
Revenue Study
• Legislation
• WMPO and NCDOT (S)TIP
Amendments
• Secure PE Funding
• S c oping • Advertis ement a nd P re-B id F orums
• N E P A D oc uments • S hortl is t
• P rel imina ry D es ign a nd D es ign • Intera c tive D evel opment of
C riteria C omprehens ive Agreement
• P ermitting • S el ec tion of B es t V a l ue P ropos a l
• N C D O T B oa rd a nd Loc a l
G overnment C ommis s ion Approva l
• Legis l a tive R eporting
• C ommerc ia l C l os e

18
 Areas of Potential Risk
Financial
• Preliminary Engineering Funds
• Expenses Outpacing
Milestones
• Bonus Allocation Uncertainty
• Competitive Pressure
Unknown
• Lack of Plan of Finance
Certainty
• No Surety of Success until
after Notable Expenditures
Delivery
• NEPA (historic district, etc.)
• USACE, CAMA, USCG Permits
• Navigational Clearance
• Right of Way
• Undefined Scope Prior to
Procurement
• Considerable Resources for
Procurement
External Stakeholders
• Permitting and Regulatory
Agencies
• Public Acceptance of Tolling
• Business Community
Acceptance of Tolling
• Unknown Toll Rates During
Planning
• Would Require Legislative
Change(s) to Proceed
• USDOT Tolling Approval
19
Bonus Allocation
NCGS 136 -189.11(f)(3)

• Funding that the WMPO could potentially receive by implementing a toll project
• Must be used on projects located in the same county( ies ) as the original project
(Brunswick/New Hanover)
• For a project funded with toll revenue bonds (or toll supported debt)
• 50% of the amount of toll revenue bonds (or toll supported debt) issued to construct the project
• For a project funded without toll revenue bonds (or toll supported debt)
• 50% of the amount of revenue expected from the project over the first 10 years of the project, less
operations costs, as set forth in an Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study

• Therefore BA depends largely on the Plan of Finance for the project

• Maximum $100 Million
• MPO or RPO must have funds authorized for projects within 5 years of Financial Close

20
Next Steps

21
 Next Steps – If WMPO Desires

1 2 3

MPO Coordination and Continued Analysis Prescreening

Resolution(s) of Support Assessment

• Identify Legislative Needs • Prescreening Guidelines/Flow Chart

• STIP and MPO Amendments • Early Public Involvement
• Traffic and Revenue Study
• Prioritization (SPOT)
• Identify/Secure “Seed” PE Funds

22
 Questions

Preliminary Feedback

23