Evaluation of Alternatives and Options For the City of Windsor Sam Schwartz Engineering PLLC January 2005 Image courtesy of Canadian Transit Company Overview of Presentation C Background C Evaluation of River Crossing Alternatives C Recommended Crossing C Alternative Connecting Roadways 5) Conclusion City : Overall Objectives The current border crossings proposals were evaluated with regard for the following over-all objectives C Solution must lead to strategic development and implementation of a coordinated and integrated transportation network that will serve as a platform for long-term and anticipated projected future demands. C Development of a long-term border vision and strategy that goes beyond fixing short-term problems, not be reactive, and reflects increasing economic integration with the United States. Image courtesy of Canadian Transit Company City : Parameters Alternatives must incorporate the following: C Be least intrusive environmentally and socially C Consider the impact on existing neighborhoods, preserve the sense of community, and take into consideration proximity to residential, commercial and institutional uses C Provide for choice and a flexible integrated transportation network C Provide for redundancy C GET TRUCKS OFF CITY STREETS C Provide controlled access to link to Highway 401 Image courtesy of Canadian Transit Company Message I Received C Seek a Utilitarian Solution • Greatest good for greatest number • Least harm to the fewest people • Individual interests respected but not reflected Work Process C Reviewed background documents and data C Field observations C Met and/or phone conversations with proponents of river crossings and other strategies including ferry, rail and remote staging areas C Met with council and city engineers of Windsor C Met with Windsor, LaSalle, county, provincial and federal representatives C Met with various stakeholder groups and associations C Collected some new data Historical Context The map tells the story - A mistake was made 50 years ago – Highway 401 ends 11 km from the Ambassador Bridge Highway 401 Historical Context Bi-National River Crossings with Direct Connections Background C Heavy truck traffic and long queues on local streets: • Huron Church Road • Wyandotte Street • College Avenue C Pedestrian and vehicular safety compromised by heavy truck traffic C Significant Air Emissions and Noise Impacts C Border delays will cost an estimated $17.8 billion/year by 2030* * Bi-National Study , 2004 Image courtesy of Canadian Transit Company Background Truck Queues 1000m (Tecumseh Rd.) or more on Huron Church Road % of days queues 1000m or more C Queues counted from College Ave. C 22-week survey from July 8- December 20, 2002 and reflects 6 available customs stations during survey C Maximum queue length of 5800 meters (Cabana Rd.) Source: MTO 2003 Background C Traffic Volume and Capacity Analyses • Volumes vs. Ambassador Bridge’s roadbed capacity • Volumes vs. custom stations’ capacity Background Ambassador Bridge - USA Bound – Volumes vs. Roadbed Capacity * * May 3rd 2004 – May 7th 2004 Background Ambassador Bridge - USA Bound – Volumes/Capacity Ratio with One Lane Closed Background Ambassador Bridge - USA Bound – Volumes/Capacity Ratio with One Lane Closed Background Ambassador Bridge - USA Bound – Projected 2030 Roadbed Capacity Background Ambassador Bridge - Projected Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Source: Bi-National Study for growth curve Background USA Bound Weekday Truck Volumes* vs. Processing Capacity (9 Stations) * May 3rd 2004 – May 7th 2004 Average Processing Rate = 2 minutes Background USA Bound Weekday Truck Volumes* vs. Processing Capacity (13 Stations) * May 3rd 2004 – May 7th 2004 Average Processing Rate = 2 minutes Background USA Bound Projected 2030 Weekday Truck Volumes vs. Processing Capacity Background USA Bound Projected 2030 Weekday Truck Volumes vs. Processing Capacity Bi-National Alternatives Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Assuming only one new river crossing is built 2010 Volumes * In all other alternatives, other than the twinned Ambassador Bridge, it is assumed that some truck traffic would continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Assuming only one new river crossing is built 2010 Volumes * In all other alternatives, other than the twinned Ambassador Bridge, it is assumed that some truck traffic would continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Assuming only one new river crossing is built 2010 Volumes * In all other alternatives, other than the twinned Ambassador Bridge, it is assumed that some truck traffic would continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Assuming only one new river crossing is built 2010 Volumes * In all other alternatives, other than the twinned Ambassador Bridge, it is assumed that some truck traffic would continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Assuming only one new river crossing is built 2010 Volumes * In all other alternatives, other than the twinned Ambassador Bridge, it is assumed that some truck traffic would continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Assuming only one new river crossing is built 2030 Volumes * In all other alternatives, other than the twinned Ambassador Bridge, it is assumed that some truck traffic would continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Assuming only one new river crossing is built 2030 Volumes * In all other alternatives, other than the twinned Ambassador Bridge, it is assumed that some truck traffic would continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Assuming only one new river crossing is built 2030 Volumes * In all other alternatives, other than the twinned Ambassador Bridge, it is assumed that some truck traffic would continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Assuming only one new river crossing is built 2030 Volumes * In all other alternatives, other than the twinned Ambassador Bridge, it is assumed that some truck traffic would continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Assuming only one new river crossing is built 2030 Volumes * In all other alternatives, other than the twinned Ambassador Bridge, it is assumed that some truck traffic would continue to use the Ambassador Bridge. Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report Relative Attractiveness of Alternatives for Trucks Trucks remaining on Ambassador Bridge 2030 Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report River Width at Crossing Alternatives Source: 2004 Study by the Bi-National Report 2030 Traffic Level of Service – Existing and Proposed Crossings Source: Bi-National Study South Crossing Corridor Geography • Impacts sensitive marsh habitat and wildlife management program underway on Fighting Island. •Impact current residential, institutional and recreational land uses in Wyandotte,Riverview and LaSalle communities. West of river dominated by schools, churches and parks. •Approximately 4.2 miles (6.7km) to Interstate 75 from Detroit touchdown site Source: Bi-National Study Central Crossing Corridor Geography •New bridge footprint on Canadian and U.S. sides would be in predominately industrial areas with minimum impact to local residences. • Approximately 1.3 miles (2 km) to Interstate 75 from Detroit touchdown site Source: Bi-National Study Ambassador Twinning and DRTP Corridor Geography •On Canadian side, new bridge would impact Sandwich Town, University of Windsor and downtown Windsor communities. •New bridge footprint would be adjacent to residential areas of Mexicantown (Detroit). •DRTP connection to I-75 would pass though Corktown Source: Bi-National Study East Crossing Corridor Geography • Environmental impacts to Peche Ile or Belle Isle •Heavy residential and community impacts in Detroit, Gross Pointe Park and East Riverside •Approximately 2 miles (3.12 km) to Interstate 94 from Detroit touchdown site Source: Bi-National Study Bi-National Alternatives Summary South and East Crossings were least attractive: C Would draw fewest trucks C Wider river crossings C Pass through sensitive areas C Poor interstate access C Significant community issues C Fail capacity test Leaving three alternatives for further study: C DRTP C Central Crossing/ Mich-Can C Ambassador Twinning Alternatives - DRTP Single Barreled Rail Tube 2 one lane truck tunnels 200m Residential Customs Plaza Impact Zone 4 New Bridges Non FAST Truck Staging Area 4 New Traffic Signals Alternatives - DRTP Typical DRTP Truck and Rail Tunnel Cross Section Looking Toward Detroit Truck Tunnel C Single lane tubes- 4.07m (13’-4”) wide and 4.38m (14’-4”) high. Rail Tunnel C Tunnel portion = 2.5 km (1.6 mi) Base Image - Detroit River Tunnel Project Alternatives - DRTP DRTP Rail Infrastructure Improvements •Creation of high clearance tunnel capable of transporting double stacked trailers •Compatible with plans for rail rationalization