|
Measure |
No Build – Planned expansion of existing service |
TSM – Express bus with park and ride lots |
LRT Build 1 – 13 mile at grade line, 3 miles street running in CBD |
LRT Build 2 – 12.5 mile at grade line, 2.5 mile tunnel in CBD |
|
Project Cost ($YOE) |
$45 million |
$125 million |
$750 million |
$950 million |
|
Annual operating and maintenance costs |
$2.5 million |
$14 million |
$ 18 million |
$17.5 million |
|
Annualized Cost |
$11.5 million |
$35 million |
$136 million |
$153 million |
|
Measures of Effectiveness |
|
Daily ridership in study corridor |
24,000 |
32,000 |
41,000 |
44,000 |
|
Daily system-wide transit ridership (forecast year) |
85,000 |
92,000 |
103,000 |
106,000 |
|
Annual user benefits (hrs of travel time)
Vs. No-Build
Vs. TSM |
NA
NA |
6,200,000 hrs
NA |
13,300,000 hrs
7,100,000 hrs |
14,000,000 hrs
7,800,000 hrs |
|
Average transit trip time in corridor |
37 minutes |
31 minutes |
24 minutes |
20 minutes |
|
Accessibility: Jobs within 30 minutes travel time
Highway
Transit |
180,000
95,000 |
195,000
120,000 |
198,000
130,000 |
199,000
133,000 |
|
Project Impacts |
|
Value of added development in corridor over 20 years |
$2.2 billion |
$2.25 billion |
$2.35 billion |
$2.5 billion |
|
Property takings |
0 |
45 homes
1 commercial |
125 homes
13 commercial
2 industrial sites |
45 homes
5 commercial
2 industrial sites |
|
Noise and vibration |
NA |
Localized noise impacts on 58 properties |
Localized noise impacts on 40 properties
10 structures within vibration screening distance |
8 structures within vibration screening distance |
|
Pollutant emissions reduction vs. no-build |
NA |
0.2% reduction |
0.3% reduction |
0.35% reduction |
|
Consistency with local land-use policies |
Not consistent with local plans which recommend fixed guideway transit connection in corridor. |
Consistent with local plans to improve transit service in corridor |
Supports local plans to improve transit service and concentrate economic development in planned station areas. |
Supports local plans to improve transit service and concentrate economic development in planned station areas. |
|
Measure of Cost-Effectiveness |
|
Cost-effectiveness ($Annual/user benefits)
vs. No-Build
vs. TSM |
NA
NA |
$5.65
NA |
$10.22
$19.15 |
$10.93
$19.61 |
|
Financial Feasibility |
|
Available funds
Additional funding required
Source of additional funds |
$ 250 million (local)
NA
NA |
$ 250 million (local)
NA
NA |
$ 625 million (local plus 50% federal)
$125 million
Tax referendum |
$ 725 million (local plus 50% federal)
$225 million
Tax referendum |
|
Equity Considerations |
|
Characteristics of affected communities
Travel benefits by income group/location
Distribution of funding costs between users and non-users |
Middle/upper income
Lower cost buses serve predominantly lower and middle income passengers
Users pay 25% of costs
General sales tax – 75% |
Middle/upper income
Slightly higher costs to existing lower/middle income riders, additional middle income riders drawn to improved service
Users pay 30% of costs
General sales tax – 70% |
Middle/upper income
Middle/upper income suburban communities benefit most, higher costs for existing riders, improved suburban job access for city residents
Users pay 35% of costs
General sales tax – 65% |
Middle/upper income
Middle/upper income suburban communities benefit most, higher costs for existing riders, improved suburban job access for city residents
Users pay 35% of costs
General sales tax – 65% |
