reality. Initial estimates put the project cost at $$25M.$ Studies suggest the intersection hosts $50K$

vehicles a day $($averaged throughout the year$),$ anticipated to increase by $40\%$ once construction

is complete. This includes an anticipated increase of $48K$ people per year in public transportation

passengers, adding $$4\mathrm{.}75$ per passenger to city coffers from additional fares. Interestingly,

analyses show the costs to increase public transportation services is offset by the fuel costs saved

from its busses not having to wait at a standard intersection and will net $$2\mathrm{.}82$ per passenger in

additional advertising revenue. The economic planning factors predict a benefit of $12$ cents per

vehicle transiting the city, but an additional carbon tax of $0\mathrm{.}2$ cents per vehicle; fortunately, the

green elements of the overpass design will cut that tax in half. Transportation sustainment

modeling demands $0\mathrm{.}5$ cents per vehicle for annual infrastructure repair. Given the overpass'

expected life is $20$ years, Union Pacific Railroad $($UPRR$)$ has volunteered to subsidize the $$5M$

of the construction as it the overpass will allow it to increase its freight volume while

simultaneously increasing the level of safety by removing the vehicle crossing. Given Chancellor

Sharp's fiscal savvy, the city has secured a generous $4\mathrm{.}5\%$ interest rate on the initial loan, and is

planning to use reclamation technology pioneered by Texas A&M$\text{'}$s Civil Engineer Department

to reuse the concrete and steel from the overpass supports and recover approx. $17\%$ of the initial

project investment.

a$.$ Should the city proceed with this project?

b$.$ Depending on the outcome to part a$)$:

If your evaluation suggests the city should not pursue the overpass, suggest

additional benefits $($at least $2)$ the city could consider in its analysis, including how to

monetize their value, and demonstrate how including those would change your

determination from part a$).$

If your evaluation suggests the city should pursue the overpass, suggest additional

costs $($at least $2)$ the city could consider in its analysis, including how to monetize

their value, and demonstrate how including those would change your determination

from part a$).$