Contact Information - Greenville Bypass · 20. Unclaimed Freight Furniture Store 21. Dawkins Office Supplies & Equipment Co. 22. Atmos Energy Corporation 23. B. L. Mitchell, Inc

Washington County, MS February 25, 2020

Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project

Basic Project Information:

What is the Project Name?Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project

Who is the Project Sponsor? Mississippi Department of Transportation

Was an INFRA application for this project submitted previously? (If yes, please include title.)

No

Project Costs:

INFRA Request Amount: $86,460,000

Estimated federal funding (excluding INFRA): $28,820,000

Estimated non-federal funding: $28,820,000

Future Eligible Project Cost (sum of previous three rows): $144,100,000

Previously incurred project costs (if applicable): $64,800,000

Total Project Cost (sum of 'previous incurred' and 'future eligible'): $208,900,000

Are matching funds restricted to a specific project component? If so, which one?

No

Project Eligibility:

Approximately how much of the estimated future eligible project costs will be spent on components of the project currently located on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN)?

$0

Approximately how much of the estimated future eligible project costs will be spent on components of the project currently located on the National Highway System (NHS)?

$144,100,000, since this is a new facility, it is not currently on the NHS, but will be upon completion.

Approximately how much of the estimated future eligible project costs will be spent on components constituting railway-highway grade crossing or grade separation projects?

$0

Approximately how much of the estimated future eligible project costs will be spent on components constituting intermodal or freight rail projects, or freight projects within the boundaries of a public or private freight rail, water (including ports), or intermodal facility?

$0

Project Location:

State(s) in which project is located: Mississippi

Small or large project? Large

Urbanized Area in which project is located, if applicable: N/A, Rural

Population of Urbanized Area: N/A, Rural

Is the project located (entirely or partially) in an Opportunity Zone?

While the project limits are not located within a Qualified Opportunity Zone (QOZ), the completion of the project will provide better access to QOZs in the area.

Is the project currently programmed in the:

TIP N/A

STIP No, however it will be upon award of INFRA funds.

MPO Long Range Transportation Plan? N/A

State Long Range Transportation Plan? Yes

State Freight Plan? Upon completion, it will become a segment of the US 82 (Greenville - Winona - Columbus) Tier II Mississippi Freight Corridor.

Image courtesy of Google

Contact Information Melinda L. McGrath, P.E.Executive DirectorMississippi Department of TransportationP.O. Box 1850Jackson, MS 39215-1850Phone: 601.359.7002Fax: 601.359.7050Email: [email protected]

Photo Caption

Project at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Project Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Performance Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Infrastructure Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Congestion Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Freight Movement and Economic Vitality . . . . . . . . . 8

Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Project Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Grant Funds, Sources and Uses of All Project Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Merit Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Criterion #1: Supporting Economic Vitality . . . . . . . 9 Benefit-Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Operational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Travel Time Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Criterion #2: Leveraging of Federal Funding . . . . . 12 Criterion #3: Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Safety Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Rumble Stripe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Data Driven Safety Analysis (DDSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Reducing Rural Roadway Departures . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Criterion #4: Performance and Accountability . . . 14

Project Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Technical Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Value Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Project Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Assessment of Project Risks and Mitigation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Required Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 National Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Legislative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 State and Metropolitan Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Large Project Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Does the project generate national or regional economic, mobility or safety benefits? . . . . . . . . . . .17 Is the project cost-effective? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Does the project contribute to one or more of the goals listed under 23 U.S.C. 150 (and shown below)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Infrastructure Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Congestion Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 System Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Freight Movement and Economic Vitality . . . . . . . . .17 Environmental Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Is the project based on the results of preliminary engineering? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 With respect to non-federal financial commitments, does the project have one or more stable and dependable funding or financing sources to construct, maintain and operate the project? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Are contingency amounts available to cover unanticipated cost increases? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Is it the case that the project cannot be easily and efficiently completed without other federal funding or financial assistance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Is the project reasonably expected to begin construction not later than 18 months after the date of obligation of funds for the project? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Index of Supporting Information on Website . . . 19

Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Appendix Appendix A: Commitment/Support Letters Appendix B: Plans and Studies Appendix C: Cost Estimates Appendix D: Detailed Benefit-Cost Analysis Appendix E: Schedule Appendix F: Environmental Clearance

Contents

https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/appendices.html

https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/appendix-b-plans-and-studies.html

https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/appendix-c-cost-estimates.html

https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/appendices.html

https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/uploads/9/0/4/3/9043871/schedule.jpg

https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/uploads/9/0/4/3/9043871/appendix.pdf

FiguresFigure 01. Typical Proposed Project Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 02. Total Project % Share by Funding Source . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 03. Qualified Opportunity Zones Near the Project Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

TablesTable 01. Future Construction Funding Summary . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table 02. Greenville Bypass Corridor Estimated Traffic Data 7

Table 03. Crash Rate Comparison Between Existing US 82 and the New Greenville Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 04. Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project - Project Funding Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 05. Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 06. Project Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Existing US 82 corridor


Project at a GlanceOur national freight system is the backbone of the United States economy. Our country’s ability to compete in global markets and to meet the needs of consumers and industry is dependent on an efficient multimodal freight transportation system. Today, our aging freight transportation system infrastructure is strained and is becoming increasingly congested which is having a negative effect on efficiency and reliability. This country’s freight system currently moves approximately 63 tons of goods per American each year.1 With the United States population forecasted to increase by about 70 million over the next 30 years, combined with an expected doubling in size of our economy over the same period, the system will only become more strained without major capital improvement projects such as the one proposed by this grant application.2

The efficient and reliable movement of goods along Mississippi’s freight network is critical to the state, regional and national economies. An efficient and reliable freight network results in both national and international competitiveness and ultimately improves economic opportunities for citizens.

With this in mind, the State of Mississippi is requesting $86,460,000 in FY 2020 Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) INFRA Grant funds for assistance in the implementation of the Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project. The completion of this project will enable users to experience reduced and more reliable travel times, savings in vehicle operating and logistics costs, improved safety standards and substantially enhanced access to labor and business delivery markets. With the support of national, state, regional and local officials and other stakeholders (see Appendix A), this project will address needed improvements to the safety, efficiency and reliability within this critical area for economic development.

Supporting Economic VitalityUnreliable infrastructure severely impacts economic vitality, both regionally and nationally. Heavy trucks cannot cross posted bridges, and 90% of the nation’s posted bridges are located in rural areas. Trucks hauling freight through rural areas must travel 300% further to find a safe bridge.3 These delays result in increased transportation costs for freight, which are passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices. Additionally, user costs (fuel, tire, maintenance and repair costs) also increase due to poor infrastructure conditions. Once completed, this project will improve the infrastructure condition, safety standards and reliability throughout the region, saving time and money for users.

Leveraging of Federal FundingThe requested INFRA funds to complete the project will leverage approximately $28.8M of MDOT State and $28.8M of Federal program funds.

InnovationThe proposed project will utilize many of the innovations that have been promoted by the FHWA through the “Every Day Counts” program. Innovations such as Safety Edge, Warm Mix Asphalt, Rumble Stripe and Data-Driven Safety Analysis will be in-corporated throughout the delivery of the project.

Performance & AccountabilityThe proposed improvements will be delivered utilizing the accurate estimate of benefits, realistic delivery schedule and reliable construction cost estimate contained within this application. MDOT envisions the level of risk to these proposed milestones to be very low and will adhere to the Initial Financial Plan and Annual Update requirements as described in 23 U.S.C 106(i) to ensure that any risk is mitigated. Additionally, MDOT commits to maintaining the assets contained within the proposed project to the condition level identified in their Transportation Asset Management Plan.

Table 01. Future Construction Funding SummaryFunding Source Amount

INFRA Grant Funds $86.46M

MDOT Federal Program Funds $28.82M

MDOT State Program Funds $28.82M

Total $144.1M

Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project | 3

INFRA Grant Application for Fiscal Year 2020

https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/about.html

1. Delta Regional Medical Center2. Contech Engineered Solutions3. Loveland Products4. James Ceranti Nissan5. Delta Event Center6. Airgas Store7. Washington County

Road Department8. Person Mobile Home

Transporters9. Farmers, Inc.10. McCoy’s Building Supply11. Triple D Diesel Parts & Services12. Guy Hall Transmission Services13. Lauren Farms

14. World Class Athletic Surfaces, Inc

15. Southern Pipe & Supply16. Boyd Bros Transportation17. Greenville Recycling Center18. Mid-Delta Cold Storage19. Nichols Propeller Co.20. Unclaimed Freight

Furniture Store21. Dawkins Office Supplies

& Equipment Co.22. Atmos Energy Corporation23. B. L. Mitchell, Inc. Fish Farm24. Republic Services

Big River Landfill25. Mid-Delta Regional Airport

26. Army National Guard27. Delta Conservation

Demonstration Center28. Ayres-Delta

Implement, Inc.29. FedEx Ground30. Black Bayou Water

Association31. D&R Feed32. Redwine Towing33. Industrial Architecture

Reclaimed Depot34. Port of Greenville35. USDA Jamie

Whitten Delta States Research Center

0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles

1

817

13

162

1110 34

7

5

6

31

34

3332

30

24

2927

25

26

28

9

23

12

18

15

14

19

20 22

21

Segment 2

Segment 1

35



BackgroundThe rural US 82 corridor runs west-east through the central part of Mississippi and is the only corridor that provides a direct connection between the Mississippi River and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. The primary commodities shipped through the corridor are agricultural products, coal and other minerals, crude oil, and petroleum.

At the western edge of the state the corridor continues into Arkansas via the new Greenville Bridge over the Mississippi River. This cable-stayed structure which opened to traffic in 2010, was built using a tremendous investment of federal and state funds from both Mississippi and Arkansas. Unfortunately, through traffic currently must travel on the existing US 82 corridor through the city of Greenville as it makes its way over the 17.5 miles between the bridge and the town of Leland. The corridor currently experiences Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts as high as 20,000 vehicles per day and contains twelve (12) signalized intersections that further reduce travel times for through traffic. Poor access management within this portion of the corridor also leads to higher than desirable crash rates. Removing the through traffic from this 17.5-mile segment

Project Narrative via the new Greenville Bypass as proposed by this application, would allow the existing route to become a much safer facility for local traffic and would also allow for the development of additional modes of transportation such as biking and walking.

Recognizing the need to construct the new 15.6-mile Greenville Bypass to improve their transportation system, MDOT began working on the Preliminary Engineering phase for the new route in the early 1990’s. To date MDOT has completed most of the preliminary engineering and right-of way phases for the entire project. MDOT also has constructed the initial 6.2 mile “grade, drain and bridge” project from the Mississippi River Bridge to the future interchange with MS 1 at a construction cost of over $39M. However the economic downturn experienced in 2008 combined with increasing construction costs and a flat state fuel tax rate (Mississippi has not had an increase to their current state fuel tax rate since 1987), led MDOT to make the difficult decision to postpone future construction phases of the project and divert funding to maintain their current transportation assets. Thankfully, the INFRA program now gives MDOT the opportunity to complete this long overdue project.

Existing US 82 corridor through Greenville




Like many areas targeted by the Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (R.O.U.T.E.S.) initiative, the Mississippi Delta region has historically lagged behind the rest of the state in terms of education, job creation and overall economic success. Manufacturing and agriculture are two of the Mississippi Delta’s top industry sectors, so freight must be able to travel freely through the region if the Delta is to achieve any level of economic improvement. The Mississippi Delta region has more bridge closures and posted weight restrictions than any other region of the state. The region is also subject to flooding from the Mississippi River, which increases wear on roadways and the level of difficulty truck operators face in finding passable routes through the Delta. In short, the Mississippi Delta’s inadequate infrastructure brings economic development to a grinding halt.

Once completed, the Greenville Bypass will serve as a catalyst for economic development throughout the region. MDOT has made an investment of approximately $64M for the preliminary engineering, right of way acquisition and construction that has been done to date. MDOT intends to let two construction contracts to complete the remainder of the approximately 15.6-mile facility. Segment 1 will involve grading, drainage improvements, construction of bridges and paving the roadway. MDOT has already performed the grading, drainage improvements and bridge construction on Segment 2, therefore the remainder of the project will only need paving.

Manufacturing and agriculture are two of the Mississippi delta’s top industry sectors, so freight must be able to travel freely through the region if the delta is to achieve any level of economic improvement.

Existing US 82 corridor entering Greenville




Performance Goals The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) that was signed into law in 2012 began to set the framework for transportation system national performance goals. These performance goals were further refined and carried forward into the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) that was signed into law in 2015. The goals of the Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project also align with the goals contained within the FAST Act National Freight Policy and the Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan. The following performance areas are addressed by this project:

SafetyThe USDOT discovered that 46% of roadway fatalities occur on rural roads; additionally, the roadway fatality rate is 2.1 times greater in rural areas than urban3. Furthermore, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) found in 2016 that over 90% of fatal crashes in Mississippi occur on rural roads, making it the deadliest state in the nation to drive a car4. This project will seek to reduce crash frequencies throughout the corridor segment by incorporating engineering improvements that focus on highway safety and improved access management practices. Improvements such as Safety Edge and Rumble Edge Stripe will

be included in the project. For the Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement project, MDOT’s Safety Analysis Management System (SAMS) has also been utilized to identify crashes that occurred along alternate routes during the period of September 2014 to August 2018. Based on this thorough data-driven safety analysis and combined with MDOT’s average crash rate for fully access controlled rural facilities of 0.500738212 per million vehicle miles traveled, the proposed project would be expected to exhibit an approximately 65% lower accident rate than the currently utilized alternative routes, as shown below.

Infrastructure ConditionState of Good Repair (SGR) is typically defined as, “the condition of an asset where the asset, at a minimum, is capable of delivering the required performance safely and reliably for a predetermined period of time.” The freight corridor improvement project will make improvements which will ensure this segment of the corridor will operate as efficiently as possible under both routine daily conditions and emergency situations. In other words, the project is intended to create a facility in a sustainable state where it can deliver the required performance—facilitating the movement of people and goods—safely and reliably. This new facility is designed to meet the latest design standards as defined by MDOT and FHWA.

Table 02. Greenville Bypass Corridor Estimated Traffic Data

Route Termini

2045 Design Year Data

ADTD

(% of DHV)

Trucks (% of ADT)

US 82 Bypass

MS River Bridge to MS 1 10,770 60 25

US 82 Bypass MS 1 to Leland 7,080 60 25

Project DescriptionThe proposed freight corridor will improve the safety, efficiency and reliability within a critical developing economic region and will be designated as a Principal Arterial on the National Highway System. The completion of the proposed project will allow for improved traffic flow within both the new and the existing US 82 corridors.

Table 03. Crash Rate Comparison Between Existing US 82 and the New Greenville Bypass

Existing US 82 Historic Crash Rate (2014-2018)

1.448474104 per million vehicle miles traveled

MDOT Average Crash Rate for Rural Fully Access Controlled Roadways w/Volume < 20,000

0.500738212 per million vehicle miles traveled



Congestion ReductionCongestion is defined as a delay in normal free-flow traffic conditions on major transportation systems that impedes traffic mobility. The impacts of congestion in terms of travel delay, uncertainty and safety can have severe negative effects on commerce. The completion of this project will ensure reliable free-flow traffic conditions along this developing freight corridor.

Freight Movement and Economic VitalityUSDOT began its R.O.U.T.E.S. Initiative in October 2019 because it recognizes that adequate infrastructure in rural areas is vital to economic success. The majority of the nation’s freight movement occurs on rural roadways, so efficient and safe freight movement is a non-negotiable factor for improving both the local and national economies.

MDOT recently updated their Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan and as part of this effort, a Freight Advisory Committee (FAC), consistent with the FHWA’s Interim Guidance on State Freight Plans and Freight Advisory Committees (Interim Guidance, FR, 15 October 2012) was formed. This FAC includes representatives of public and private sector transportation and government organizations. In addition to obtaining input from this FAC, the plan also solicited input from Mississippi shippers and carriers. Once completed the Greenville Bypass will become a segment in the US 82 (Greenville - Winona - Columbus) Tier II Mississippi Freight Corridor as designated in the Mississippi Statewide Freight Plan.

The project section is home to many industries that are vital to the economic health of the state

and the nation at large. The Mississippi Delta is a nationally significant source of agricultural and manufacturing exports. Last year, Washington County was the state’s highest producer of corn, the third-highest producer of soybeans and the seventh-highest producer of rice. Industries such as Viking Range, Uncle Ben’s Rice, Thermos, Milwaukee Tool, GE, Dollar General and Bayer all maintain factories or distribution centers in the Mississippi Delta Region. The University of Mis-sissippi School of Manufacturing and Mississippi State University partner with the state’s innova-tive Workforce Investment Network (WIN) to offer workforce training to Delta job-seekers.

Mississippi State University, as well as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) fre-quently perform research in Washington County. In fact, Leland is home to the USDA’s Jamie Whit-ten Delta States Research Center.

Highway congestion and the resulting negative effect of travel delays, lack of system reliability and safety impacts can have a severe impact on the economic vitality of a region. Additionally, truck traffic delays often result in increased transportation costs for freight, which are typically passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services. To estimate the user operating costs due to existing poor roadway conditions on the existing network of alternate routes to the new Greenville Bypass freight corridor, the impacts of International Roughness Index (IRI) on fuel, tire, maintenance and repair costs can be quantified. A study by Chatti and Zaabar on the effects of pavement condition on vehicle operating costs conducted under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 720, shows an on average

Figure 01. Typical Proposed Project Section



reduction of 63.4 inch/mile in IRI results in a 4.8% reduction in vehicle operating costs.6 Since the current roadway IRI, according to MDOT’s 2018 Pavement Management Data, along the alternate route (US 82) averages at 113 inch/mile, and MDOT specifications will require the new Greenville Bypass to have an IRI of 63.4 inch/mile or better, vehicles utilizing the new route will have an approximate 4% reduction in operating cost compared to those using existing US 82. Once completed, this project will improve safety, infrastructure condition, congestion and reliability and will have a positive effect on the economic vitality of the area.

Project LocationThe proposed Freight Corridor Improvement project is composed of two segments which will be let to construction separately and is located in Washington County, Mississippi, between the Mississippi River Bridge and Leland. The termini for segment 1 is located at the alignment’s intersection with MS 1 (33°20’05”N 91°02’34”W) and extends approximately 9.4 miles to the termini at the intersection of existing US 82 and the alignment in Leland, MS (33°23’51”N 90°53’55”W). The termini for segment 2 is located just east of the Mississippi River Bridge (33° 18’13”N 91°07’51”W) and extends approximately 6.2 miles to the intersection at MS 1 (33°20’05”N 91°02’34”W). The project is not located within a 2010 Census Urbanized Area.

Project PartiesThe MDOT (DUNS Number: 809394067) will serve as the primary sponsor and lead agency for

this INFRA grant application.

Grant Funds, Sources and Uses of All Project FundingThe MDOT has agreed to allocate available State and Federal program funds in addition to the requested INFRA grant funds. A summary of the proposed future cost allocations are provided in Table 04. It should be noted that the listed State funding is not being counted as the matching requirement for another Federal program.

Merit CriteriaCriterion #1: Supporting Economic Vitality

Benefit-Cost AnalysisApproach

A benefit cost analysis was conducted to evaluate the monetary values of the expected project benefits against the expected project cost, including capital expenditures related to project construction and anticipated ongoing maintenance costs. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidance outlined in Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs.

Funding Source

Previously- Incurred Prelimi-nary Engineering

Costs

Previously-Incurred Right-of-Way & Utility

Relocation Costs

Previously-Incurred

Construction Costs

Future Eligible

Construction Costs

Total Costs

Total % Share

Future Only % Share

INFRA Grant Funds $86.46M $86.46M 41.4% 60%

Federal Earmark Funds $3.96M $5.33M $9.29M 4.4%

MDOT Federal Program Funds $2.11M $12.33M $25.21M $28.82M $68.47M 32.8% 20%

MDOT State Program Funds $1.80M $5.49M $8.63M $28.82M $44.74M 21.4% 20%

TOTAL $3.91M $21.78M $39.17M $144.10M $208.96M 100% 100%

Table 04. Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project – Project Funding Summary



The analysis is based on the total project cost, including previously incurred costs, as provided by the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), annual daily traffic (ADT), expected travel time delay along the subject portion of existing US 82, existing crash rates along US 82, and statewide crash rates for controlled access facilities. Taken together, these data points were used to determine and quantify the expected safety, operational, and environmental benefits of the project. Each is described in greater detail in the following sections.

Benefit Categories

Safety

Safety benefits were determined by comparing the expected number of crashes that would occur along US 82 in the No-Build case against the expected number of crashes that would occur on both US 82 and the new Bypass facility. Using the latest five years of crash data (2014-2018) along US 82, rates for total crashes, injury crashes, and fatality crashes were determined. These were applied to the expected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would occur along US 82 for both the No-Build and Build cases.

The number of crashes likely to occur along the new Bypass facility were determined using a total crash rate provided by MDOT for fully access-controlled facilities located in rural areas with an ADT less than 20,000, the most appropriate description of the new facility. To determine the expected fatality and injury crash rates associated with the new rate, values were calculated based on the latest rates reported by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) (accessed at https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data). Expected fatality and injury for Bypass were assumed to be the same proportion to the overall crash rate as those reported by BTS.

As costs associated with crashes are not borne solely by the user and can be considered a cost borne by society at-large, the rule of half was not applied to new or induced users.

Operational

Travel Time Savings

Expected travel times were calculated for US 82 and the Bypass for the Build case. Base travel

7% Discount

RateCosts ($M)

Capital Cost $175.6Total Costs $175.6

Benefits ($M)Safety Benefits

Reduced Crashes $0.1Sub-Total $0.1

Operational BenefitsTravel Time Savings $190.0Operating Cost Savings -$0.2Residual Savings $6.6

Sub-Total $196.4Environmental ProtectionEmissions Savings $0.0Sub-Total $0.0

Total Benefits $196.5OutcomeNet Present Value (2018 $M) $20.88Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.12

Table 05. Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary

Figure 02. Total Project % Share by Funding Source

21.4% MDOT State Program Funds

32.8% MDOT Federal Program Funds

41.4% INFRA Grant Funds

4.4% Federal Earmark Funds



were counted in full. Additional ADT beyond that identified as shifting from US 82 was assumed to consist of new or induced users, and thus benefits were divided by two prior to inclusion in the BCR calculation.

Vehicle Operating Cost Savings

Expected vehicle operating costs were determined by evaluating the total expected VMT over the analysis period. Expected VMT for US 82 for both the No-Build and Build cases was quantified, as well as expected VMT on Bypass in the Build case. The difference in total VMT between the No-Build and Build cases was then calculated and multiplied by the vehicle operating cost values provided in Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs.

Given the overall increase in VMT expected in the Build case, a net increase in vehicle operating costs would be expected in the Build case. These “disbenefits” were factored into the overall benefit-cost ratio (BCR) calculation.

Given that ADT projections for Bypass suggest new or induced users on the facility, the rule of half was applied to the vehicle operating cost benefit calculations. Users assumed to have previously used US 82 were determined by calculating the shift in traffic to Bypass in Project Year 1 and the subsequent annual deficit in ADT expected over the analysis period. Benefits for these users were counted in full. Additional ADT beyond that identified as shifting from US 82 was assumed to consist of new or induced users, and thus benefits were divided by two prior to inclusion in the BCR calculation.

Environmental

Expected damage costs for pollutant emissions were calculated for both the No-Build and Build cases, based on calculating VMT as described earlier in this section. The costs associated with each of the criteria pollutants —carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide—were applied consistent with the values provided in Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs.

Given the overall increase in VMT expected in the Build case, a net increase in pollutant emissions would be expected in the Build case. These

times for US 82 were derived from data in the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS). Statewide Travel Demand Model. Build case travel times for the Bypass were calculated using the total project length and design speed.

According to data provided by MDOT, the existing US 82 route is projected to experience a 20 percent reduction in volumes in the opening year of the Bypass. In a 2020 ARTPLAN-based traffic analysis conducted for MDOT, this volume reduction would result in approximately 2.4 percent and 3.4 percent delay reductions in 2025 and 2045, respectively.

Additionally, should INFRA funds be awarded for the Bypass project, MDOT will work with the City of Greenville to optimize the signal timing on the existing US 82 corridor to further reduce delay. This would likely be implemented concurrently with Bypass construction to further improve mobility throughout the Greenville area. As such, delay reductions that will be realized from the signal timing optimization were assumed to begin in 2025.

According to a study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC), coordinated actuated traffic signals examined for the purpose of the study averaged a 30 percent reduction in travel times along the coordinated corridors.7 As such, an additional 30 percent annual reduction in delay was assumed for US 82.

Savings for users on Bypass in the Build case were determined by calculating the difference in expected travel time along Bypass in the Build case versus the expected time those same users would expect to experience along US 82 in the No-Build case. These savings were then multiplied by the value of travel time and average vehicle occupancy values provided in Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs.

Given that ADT projections for Bypass suggest new or induced users on the facility, the rule of half was applied to the travel time benefit calculations. Users assumed to have previously used US 82 were determined by calculating the shift in traffic to Bypass in Project Year 1 and the subsequent annual deficit in ADT expected over the analysis period. Benefits for these users



“disbenefits” were factored into the overall benefit-cost ratio (BCR) calculation. As costs associated with crashes are not borne solely by the user and can be considered a cost borne by society at-large, the rule of half was not applied to new or induced users.

Benefit Cost Ratio

After quantifying the expected net benefits expected under the Build case and taking into account the residual cost benefits of the project for years beyond the analysis period, the BCR for the project was calculated to be 1.12, suggesting that the project benefits over the analysis period would exceed the expected costs associated with project implementation.

Rural transportation infrastructure, such as the new Greenville Bypass project proposed in this application, are critical in the production and export of needed agriculture, mineral and energy products across our nation. Additionally, urban residents traveling on rural roadways make up 44% of the personal vehicle miles traveled on rural roadways, so rural transportation infrastructure truly enhances the quality of life for all users.3

Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of

Figure 03. Qualified Opportunity Zones Near the Project Section

0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles

28011950701

28133950500

28133950600

28133950402

28133950300

28151000600

28151000300

05017080300

05041950200

05041950100

roadway fatalities occur on rural transportation facilities. Only approximately 20% of Americans live in rural areas, however 46% of highway fatalities in this country occur on rural routes.3

Previously in this application, it was shown that the proposed Greenville Bypass should reduce the crash rate for motorists that currently use the existing US 82 corridor by 65% and therefore meets the intent of the new USDOT R.O.U.T.E.S. initiative to address disparities in rural transportation infrastructure.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has designated several areas near the project section as Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZ), as seen in Figure 03. Areas in economic distress can be nominated for QOZ designation by the state and then certified by the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. New investments may receive tax benefits in communities which receive the designation, encouraging job creation and economic growth.

Criterion #2: Leveraging of Federal Funding

If awarded, the requested INFRA funds to complete the Greenville Bypass will further



leverage approximately $28,820,000 of MDOT State program and $28,820,000 of MDOT Federal program funds.

Criterion #3: Innovation

The Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement project has incorporated numerous innovative design elements.

Safety EdgeSafety Edge, an innovation from the first round of FHWA’s Every Day Counts (EDC) Program, will be incorporated into the project as a safety countermeasure to mitigate pavement edge related crashes. Data from other state DOTs has

indicated that incorporating this edge treatment into pavements an result in a reduction of up to 25% in rural run-off the road crashes.8

Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA)WMA, another innovation from the first round of FHWA’s EDC Program, will be allowed for contractors to utilize on the project. WMA is produced at lower temperatures than conventional Hot Mix Asphalt, resulting in lower emissions, less fuel consumption during production, improved compaction and portability during construction and a healthier and safer working environment for construction workers. Historically, when MDOT allows for contractors to choose to utilize either WMA or HMA for asphalt paving, industry in Mississippi has chosen WMA for approximately 70% of the tonnage placed.9

Rumble Stripe

MDOT will utilize rumble edge striping throughout the Greenville Bypass project. Rumble striping combines the audible benefits of a rumble strip with the raised profile reflective nighttime visibility of raised pavement markers to reduce roadway departure crashes. A rumble strip becomes a rumble stripe when the thermoplastic edge line is placed on the rumble strip.

Data Driven Safety Analysis (DDSA)MDOT currently applies DDSA throughout their project development processes. By utilizing this innovation from the third round of FHWA’s EDC Program on all projects, MDOT can make informed decisions and target investments which results in improved safety throughout their transportation network. MDOT has a robust SAMS system, which when used in conjunction with other resources such as the Crash Modification

The Safety EdgeSM is an uncomplicated and effective solution to mitigate pavement edge-related crashes by shaping the edge of the pavement to 30 degrees to eliminate vertical drop-off.

Because WMA makes compaction easier, cost savings are achieved by reducing time and labor spent compacting the mix. Lower temperatures also result in less emissions and safer conditions for workers.

A rumble strip becomes a “rumble stripe” when the edge line pavement marking is placed on it. In addition to the auditory benefit, the profile of the marking within the rumble provides added nighttime visibility.



Factors Clearinghouse and the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual is helping to advance the safety of Mississippi’s roadways towards zero deaths.

Reducing Rural Roadway Departures

Many of the innovations incorporated into the Greenville Bypass project are countermeasures which support the FHWA EDC Round Five initiative to reduce roadway departures on rural roads. The application of rumble stripe and safety edge will help keep vehicles in their travel lanes, reduce the potential for crashes and reduce the severity of crashes should they occur.

Criterion #4: Performance and Accountability

The proposed improvements will be delivered utilizing the accurate estimate of benefits, realistic delivery schedule and reliable construction cost estimate contained within this application. MDOT envisions the level of risk to these proposed milestones to be very low and will adhere to the Initial Financial Plan and Annual Update requirements as described in 23 U.S.C 106(i) to ensure that any risk is mitigated.

MDOT has a credible plan in place to address the full lifecycle costs associated with the proposed project. MDOT will utilize State Program funding for annual routine maintenance operations within the corridor to ensure that the long-term condition of the assets follows the requirements of MDOT’s Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). MDOT periodically programs rehabilitation activities utilizing a combination of MDOT State and Federal program funds as applicable to ensure that asset condition ratings within the project corridor meet with the goals set forth in the TAMP.

DDSA provides more reliable analysis than previous methods through the application of predictive and systemic tools for analyzing crash and roadway data.

Better Targeted

Investments

More Informed Decision Making

Fewer Fatalities

and Serious Injuries

MDOT’s most recent Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) was released in August 2019.



Value EngineeringValue Engineering (VE) is an important component of the design process which, when done properly, will result in quantifiable benefits to the quality, user costs and effective delivery of needed transportation improvement projects. MDOT has already completed the VE analysis for this freight corridor improvement project in accordance with Title 23 CFR part 627 and the subsequent Section 1503(a)(3) of MAP-21 for projects on the NHS receiving federal assistance with an estimated total cost of $50,000,000 or greater.

The MDOT utilized a multidisciplinary team of persons not involved in the design of the project to conduct the VE analysis and provide recommendations to improve the following: • Safety • Reliability • Efficiency

• Value • Quality • Project Delivery Time

Technical FeasibilityItemized features of this freight corridor improvement project are as follows:

• Construction of a new rural four (4) lane Principal Arterial facility for 15.6 miles between the US 82 Mississippi River Bridge and Leland;

• Controlled access throughout the new 15.6-mile corridor to improve access management and safety compared to the existing US 82 route used by all users;

• Leverages previous investments made by MDOT and FHWA for the preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction phases;

• Incorporation of safety measures such as asphalt pavement safety edge, guardrail and barrier systems, raised pavement markers and rumble edge stripe throughout the 15.6-mile segment between the US 82 Mississippi River Bridge and Leland; and

• Cost estimates developed for the project based on recent historical construction bid prices received by the MDOT on projects of comparable size and scope. Cost estimates have been inflated to account for a 3.2% annual inflation rate and are presented at a 75% confidence level that construction bid unit prices will be at or below the unit cost values used for the estimate. MDOT has also included 10% for contingencies in the project estimate.

Upon notification of award of INFRA funds, MDOT will quickly complete the remainder of minor preliminary engineering tasks, including the needed environmental reevaluation shown in Table 06. Given that MDOT has already completed most preliminary engineering and all right-of-way phase activities, there is little risk that MDOT will not be able to obligate all requested INFRA funds ahead of the September 30, 2023, deadline and will begin construction much more quickly than the 18-month requirement after obligation.

Project ReadinessThe MDOT has administered numerous federally funded transportation improvement grants and is well-positioned to successfully administer the proposed INFRA grant and other funds for these much-needed transportation improvements.

Completed bridges at future interchange with MS 1




The completion of the Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project’s Value Engineering Report will ensure an economical final design that better serves the needs of all users. The complete VE study is located in Appendix B.

Project ScheduleThe schedule shown in Table 06 is based on a projected award date of the requested INFRA grant funds no later than August 31, 2020.

Assessment of Project Risks and Mitigation StrategiesThere is very little risk that would prevent the project from meeting the obligation deadline for FY 2020 INFRA funds (September 30, 2023) based on the following: • The MDOT has already completed the bulk of the

Preliminary Engineering phase. • All real property and right-of-way has been

acquired in accordance with 49 CFR part 24, 23 CFR part 710 and any other applicable legal requirements.

Based on the proposed project schedule contained within this application all INFRA funds will be obligated ahead of the obligation deadline.

Required ApprovalsNational Environmental Policy ActThe proposed 15.6-mile project was defined in the approved Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) documents. FHWA approved the original EA & FONSI for the project corridor on October 26, 1982. MDOT received FHWA approval on subsequent required re-evalu ations of the Environmental documents on August 31, 2004, and February 12, 2008. Given the economic downturn experienced in this country in 2008, MDOT quickly had to put plans of moving forward with the project on hold due to a lack of funding. Upon notice of award of the requested INFRA funding, MDOT will move forward with the needed re-evaluation of the original EA & FONSI as shown int the project schedule. Given that the original EA & FONSI has be re-evaluated and approved multiple times, MDOT would not expect any issue with the future re-evaluation that would negatively impact the proposed schedule. Environmental documentation related to the project can be found in Appendix F.

PermitsThe MDOT has obtained the needed US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit 14 for Linear Transportation Projects for this project. Additional needed permits will be obtained by the MDOT in time to meet the milestones shown in Table 06.

LegislativeThere are no further legislative approvals required to implement this project; however, a number of public officials, both at the state and federal levels, and other stakeholders have pledged their individual support to this project (See Appendix A).

State and Metropolitan PlanningSince Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) documents are required to maintain fiscal constraint and MDOT does not currently have the available funding to construct the proposed project without the requested INFRA funds, the project is not currently in MDOT’s STIP. Once the project is awarded the requested INFRA funding, the necessary adjustments will be made to the STIP document to reflect the project in MDOT’s Program.

Table 06. Project Schedule

Milestone Date

MDOT Completes Environmental Re-Evaluation Aug. 1, 2021

MDOT Completes PS&E Activities for Segment 1 Sep. 15, 2021

MDOT Obligates INFRA Funds for Segment 1 (MS 1 to Leland)

Oct. 1, 2021

MDOT Lets Segment 1 (MS 1 to Leland) Construction Nov. 23, 2021

MDOT Completes PS&E Activities for Segment 2 May 31, 2023

MDOT Obligates INFRA Funds for Segment 2 (MS River to MS 1)

Jul. 31, 2023

MDOT Lets Segment 2 (MS River to MS 1) Construction

Nov. 28, 2023

Construction Completed on Both Segments By: Nov. 30, 2025






Congestion Reduction To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System. Yes, the facility proposed within this application will provide a higher level of service for users as opposed to the alternate routes currently in use. A secondary benefit to the existing route used by local users will see an increase in the level of services as through traffic will be diverted to the new bypass.

System ReliabilityTo improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system. Yes, the proposed project will improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system by reducing the travel time currently achieved on alternate routes.

Freight Movement and Economic VitalityTo improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets and support regional economic development. Yes, as described at the beginning of this section, the proposed project is located in an area with numerous growing industries, and the project will serve as an economic catalyst for suppliers looking to locate facilities with efficient transportation connections between industrial and agricultural facilities.

Environmental SustainabilityTo enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Yes, the project has completed the NEPA process and a resulting Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued with subsequent re-evaluations confirming the FONSI. Given the amount of time that has passed since the most recent re-evaluation, MDOT will need to perform a third re-evaluation but does not anticipate any difficulty confirming the FONSI again. Additionally, sustainable materials such as Warm Mix Asphalt will be allowed to be utilized on the project.

The Greenville Bypass Freight Corridor Improvement Project satisfies the statutory requirements of 23 U.S.C. 117(g), summarized as follows:

Does the project generate national or regional economic, mobility or safety benefits? Yes, as described in the Project Description and Merit Criteria sections of this narrative document, the proposed project does generate national or regional economic, mobility and safety benefits. The project will promote economic development within the area.

Is the project cost-effective? Yes, as detailed in the Merit Criteria section of this document, the project will yield a Benefit-Cost ratio of 1.12 at a 7% discount rate.

Does the project contribute to one or more of the goals listed under 23 U.S.C. 150 (and shown below)?

SafetyTo achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Yes, the highway safety elements such as rumble stripe and improved access management will serve to reduce the potential for traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 65% within the project limits.

Infrastructure Condition To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a good state of repair. Yes, as detailed in the Performance and Accountability criterion within the Merit Criteria section of this document, MDOT commits to maintain the condition of the assets contained within this project to the performance metrics as outlined in MDOT’s Transportation Asset Management Plan. This plan can be found in Appendix B.

Large Project Requirements




program funding will be utilized to maintain the assets to the condition as described in the MDOT Transportation Asset Management Plan. Historically, based on the current state fuel tax rate, MDOT’s state program funding is approximately $450M annually.

Are contingency amounts available to cover unanticipated cost increases? Yes, contained within the engineering estimate for the cost of the project is an approximate $11.5M increase for contingencies. Should additional contingency funds beyond this be required, MDOT would utilize state program funding.

Is it the case that the project cannot be easily and efficiently completed without other federal funding or financial assistance? Yes, MDOT will be unable to deliver this project in the foreseeable future without the 60% INFRA funds ($86.46M) or the 20% MDOT Federal Program funds ($28.82M) as described in this application.

Is the project reasonably expected to begin construction not later than 18 months after the date of obligation of funds for the project? Yes, since MDOT is proposing to construct this rural bypass under two separate construction projects, there will be two separate obligations and a subsequent beginning of construction related to each federal obligation action. It is proposed that the $104.8M ($62.88M INFRA, $20.96M Federal Program and $20.96M State Program Funds) for Segment 1 will be obligated in October of 2021 for a November 2021 construction letting. The remaining $30.3M ($23.58M INFRA, $7.86M Federal Program and $7.86M State Program Funds) for Segment 2 will be obligated in July 2023 for a November 2023 construction letting.

Is the project based on the results of preliminary engineering? For the proposed Greenville Bypass project, the following status report of activities as of the date of application submission is provided:

• Environmental Assessments – Original EA and FONSI were approved in 1996 with subsequent re-evaluations to confirm the FONSI performed in 2004 and 2008. Upon award of INFRA funding, MDOT will perform a third re-evaluation to confirm the FONSI.

• Topographic Surveys – Completed

• Metes and Bounds Surveys – Completed

• Geotechnical Investigations – Completed

• Hydraulic Analysis – Completed

• Traffic Studies – Completed

• Financial Plans – Since the previously obligated project amount is less than $100M, no Financial Plan has been performed to date, however upon award of INFRA funding, MDOT will provide the required Initial Financial Plan (with Annual Updates) in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 106(i) prior to obligation of INFRA funds.

• Revenue Estimates – N/A

• Hazardous Materials Assessments – Completed

• General estimates of the types and quantities of materials – Completed

• Other work needed to establish parameters for the final design - Completed

With respect to non-federal financial commitments, does the project have one or more stable and dependable funding or financing sources to construct, maintain and operate the project? Yes, the project will utilize MDOT state program funding for the construction as described in the application document. Additionally, MDOT state

Existing US 82 corridor in Greenville




Appendix A: Commitment/Support LettersAppendix B: Plans and StudiesAppendix C: Cost Estimates Appendix D: Detailed Benefit-Cost AnalysisAppendix E: ScheduleAppendix F: Environmental Clearance

Index of Supporting Information On WebsiteThe primary web address for the freight corridor improvement project is http://www.infragreenvillebypass.com. The appendices to the application narrative are located on the website as follows:




https://www.infra76itawamba.com/appendix-b-plans-and-studies.html


https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/appendix-c-cost-estimates.html


https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/uploads/9/0/4/3/9043871/schedule.jpg


https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/

https://www.infragreenvillebypass.com/

Sources 1 https://www.selectusa.gov/logistics-and-transportation-industry- united-states

2 https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/P25-1144.pdf

3https://www.transportation.gov/rural

5 https://mississippitoday.org/2018/07/03/why-mississippi-is-the-deadliest-place-to-drive-a-car/

6Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 720: Estimating the Effects of Pavement Condition on Vehicle Operationg Costs

7 Quantifying the Benefits of Coordinated Actuated Traffic Signal Systems: A Case Study. Virginia Department of Transportation

8https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/safedge/brochure/

9Based on historic MDOT construction bid information



© 2020 Gresham Smith

210 East Capitol Street Suite 1150 Jackson, MS 39201601.991.2393 GreshamSmith.com

Documents

Contact Information - Greenville Bypass · 20. Unclaimed Freight Furniture Store 21. Dawkins Office Supplies & Equipment Co. 22. Atmos Energy Corporation 23. B. L. Mitchell, Inc