HomeMy WebLinkAbout0474.000-
\
/'
Auqust 2, 19"90 2
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Members of the Council:
Included as part of the oriqinal staff report (CMR:32S:0 1 May 31 1
1990) for the Tasman corridor Study and related Light Rail System
extensions I was a then current draft of Chapter 6: Financial
Analysis and EValUation of Alternatives (dated March 1990).
Provided, herewith, as Attacbment A, Is a
AllgUst I, 1990} of the porti"" of the
discusse5 the evaluation of alternatives.
Is still being prepared.
subsequent draft {dated
Chapter 6 report that
The financial analysis
This current draft reflects further refinements and details of the
modeling and analysis work being done by the consultant l and is
subject to continuing review and refinement.
Respectfully submitted l
Official
lY1t l1.d~ /~ud£ '--..
XI:WETH R. SCHRE I BER
Oirector of Planning and
community Environment
Chapter 6 (DRAFT) Evaluation of Alternatives
(AllgUst I, 1990)
cc: city of Sunnyvale
city of Mountain View
Cl!R:474 :0
•
. .
~,;
f
\ '., \.,
,
.•......... \ ..
'.' j .
. .J ..
. \
"
-
, ,
o o
DRAFT ATTACHMIS! I
6, EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
This cbapter prO\oid'es .. summary comparisoo. 0( key project objectives and evaluation m easure.s..
1t is slruCtured in suc-h a way as 10 hlgbligbt the differcnca and similarilies among tbe
alternatives.. The comparisons are done in accord witb UMTA guidelines in four maio
c.aregacies: eff~ti\lencss.. cost effectiveness, finaoda! feasibility, Ind equity. l:l addition., the
sensitivity of the analysis relative '0 ficly cballges ic land use patterns as a result of tne project
are d"1SC\lSSed. AJ the end of tlIe cbapter, the relative merits of the .Ilernatives are compared,
ami the trade offs of impTemectInl one venus. the other are expJor~d.
~ rJJed:ivcae.ss evaluation focuses 00 how weD an a1ternaGve meets t1le objecuve$ DC fr.c
project,. as defmcd at the .outset of the analysis.. This is a siniTe dimensional mea::.ure that does
co( re fleet the cost of achieving a particuTar level oC efIecUvc:DeS3.
The analysis of cost effcctjvene55 of a!ternatives brings in tbe cost dimension. In addition 10
C051 effectIveness measures. required by UMTA, other, more appropriate comparoons are
provided' as \ileA..
The fiaanciat leasibU.itJ evtIlua60D identifies the funding p~D for each of the project
a!tc:rnatives.. aDd the exte nl &0 which subsicfle5 are needed.
Equity deals with the oLStnouuon of costs and be:cefits across segments of tbe population.
EFFECTIVENESS
A seicd group of measures were dJoseli 10 compare the c:ff~cti ... enes.s of eacll alternau<,:e. The
measures lIe basel3 primarily on the goals and obiecu..,cs set forth in (bapter 1. Effectiveness
meas.ures eva]'uate the relative alenl 10 which each of the arr:ern~tives satisfies the: basic:
objectives .set out at the beginninc of the afternaUves analysis process.
The '"Purpose aDd Needs"' cbaptCf p!OIoide~ numerous goaTs and ob~ctfves for the:: project. To
provide • summ ary evaluation 01. eacll a:cd every one ol those goals and objectives would be ..
cumbersome process that would DO( be conducive 'to l1le lrade-<>ff analysis required 10 make an
informed d'ecisioD on tbe pref.c:rrcd alternative. lbc:refore. only a select group of effectiveness
measures was ehosen foe ClSCUS.liioa. Thcs.e measures were choses as iDd"lCators of groups of
BOals alld objectives.. The: following measures. were ChosefL
6-1
-"
0,
\
"
•
o o
6. Eva!uation of A!tel1lati~
• Con,~tioc reductioil
• ~ibiliry 10 re&'onaI transit seMce
• TraIlS;' rlder>bip
• Travel time .aving> lor transit rider>
.. Fxteot of preservation 3M enllancement or enllironment
• Compatibili<y"';'b laDd use p1anDilll-
Each of lbese is cf~ below.
A key goat {)( imprtl'Ving transit seMct: in the Tasman c.orrldO[ is SO r~duce congest}oc cn 'irea
roadways.. The amou of of vebX-Je D1J1es traveled (VMT) under coogested' cooditk>os (t c. • .. .:?th
a '\Icl.Jmekapacity -ratio cl. greater tban m.75) was determined fot forecast year 2005 conditions.
10 eva!uate the eff.ectivcDe$l of cClC1! .of the alternatives in re"uciog ~ngesljon. Figure 6-1
.shows rhis comparison..
It can be seea thai each of t1Ie artematives b¥ • reTativel'y smaD impact on congeste d' ",chide
m!1es 0{ t.ravet The greatest u\ings in vchide mib iI projected foe tne LRT 04D alternaG.:e
(1-680 to Moun .. in V ..... ) a.d Ille un #4 Altemative (1-680 to Sunol'ale) .. ;!h • 13 p<r~en'
decrease ill coogettc:roI vehicle miles oYer the ThM altc:ma~ _ The feast effective aTtemati'.:e
would be tile E>press Bus .1Iem.1ive, wi,h • deere_ of 0.6 portent
AcCC'Ssihru" to Rqiona] Tnus-it
ProYid"mg greater access to the regional transn Sj~tem is another iroportaot goal of tbe. Tas;na.n
Corridor project. To provide I ~ure of acus.sibiJity. Ibe Dumber of people (Le. popu!atioo
aDd employment) withio tl4 mile: and 112 mile of proposed regfooal tran.sd: stops in addilioc. to
tbose tbill1 now exist projected lor l:ht year 200S was ev.afU31cd. rtg1Jre 6-2 5hc~ this
comparison.
The grea,,,., amoun' of additional transit ><=ibill<y is .fforded by LRT Altcmawe 4D (1.
680 So Mountaia. VlNo') ".jUt Ibout SB)CXJO additional' persons within 114 mik: of trans"lt,. and
150,000 lIrithill 112 mile.. The Dumber d persons .. i:thin 1/4 mile of tnmIt stop' is an incr~ase
ol S8()~ oYer the TSM .ltem.we. LRT Altem.we 4£ (1-680 10 Sunnl'~lel is secood bes~
'wi\11 •• imnar .meun' of additiona.l1/4 mile lI<USSibili<y. and .lightly lower \/2 !rule I""""milil)'.
Transit Ridership
The amount 0( tolal transit riders oa a daily IDd' 00. a peak period basis is another ley
c:vatuauon measure.. Transit ridet$ Jef.ers to tinted transit trips, ie. a travcnet -using two or
more travtl modes is just counted' once. The comparison. or translr riders OG • dail}' ba..sis is
provided in F""re 6-3, .. hile F"",. 6-4.hc-... rhe same comparison lor peak period "",enen.
6-2
___ ..... ""' ... " ... _ ~ ... , .... ~_ .... _~. U:f_ ........... -· .~, ... >-
... { ... ·'t./, ....... .
<. L·' ~
~:,.' ,:/"-.
. ,
".;
..
. ":".:
~f~
-
,
•
() 0
E~mated Congested Roadway VMT
s.c. Co<..Klty -Year 200S (AM Peak)
~_....!:u<r:::"_
~'I'~4 .. \fIprtu 10 t.odt~
~t~.~.~""" t.JI;f~.C .. ~.~
UU'"-<U) .. "'eo • W'UI ~
Utf-4E""HtliO "'~
•
. \ .. \ , "
, "
/
.... ""';;;:.;;;;J;;.;.._..;;.. __ ;:..".c...!,_.-'_~_-~_,_"'_-. ... ~-----~ ...... ~ t l!!."@p"n
/
/
o o
PEOPLE WITHIN 114 MILE WALKING DISTANCE
OF PROPOSED NEW EXPRESS BUS/LRT STOPS
ThoIJUInd.s 80~~~-------------------------------------,
TSM EXP. BUS LAT (). l.RT 48 LRT 4C lRT 40 LRT 4£
ALTERNATIVES
PEOPLE WITHIN 112 MILE WALKING DISTANCE
Of PROPOSED NEW EXPRESS BUS/lRT STOPS
Tnousands ~OOr-~~-----------------------------'--------,
150
100 --~ ---
50
o
TSM EXP. BUS l.RT"A. tRT"B LRT 4C l.RT 40 lRT "E
L~T-'A. • Vipo'a. 'ID t.odo;Mtod
LR'f-AS • "~1Q ID Mtft, \I'tw
LAT-"C • lroIi!pitu " ~
LR1'~.D ,,1-160 10 WtI'. Y'tw
t.RT-'E ~ .. 680 .. ....".,~
ALTERNATIVES
Figure 6-2
-,-, .0-' , .. , ,·}"':~c_"it"}II.u .. r"lE"r···, ", "',."', .. n_" __ '''f)'''''*~b~' __ ~~
.<-;~::-;~,~\t,~-~-.' -';
•
\
.,-'\..-.. > .
I
,
, ;
..
, ,
~
t .
t
HO
ISO
100
so
o
/
o o
Estim?ted Daily Transit Riders
Santa Clara County -Year 2005
NO BlJil;S TSM E-Bul lRT-.cA LR-:'-48lRT-4C lR:T-4D l.RT-cE
1 -LRT -Express 81,11 D local Bus I
Figure 6-3
Estimated Peak Period Transit Riders
Santa ClaraCounfy -Year 2005
Thousands
35
3(1 -26.s
~5
~o
15
10
5
C
I -lRT mil E.~, ... So. 0 loe.;~
Figure 6-4
11I1I·ilII7~ •. ~.;I. TIll I_II ••••• IIII.EJIl; •.. ' ....... iI?J-."'Crtib· -"':>,~ ,.,"'""-...... 7 •• " •. ~
. , ":~~'f
,·:~t·
-
•
/'
..
-~-.
o o
6. E\:aJuatioD oC Alterna uves
'The hji~est projected increase in transit p41tronage (1.0 perceol) over the TSM aJternatI .... e on
• peak period basis in tb< year 200S is tb< Express SU>. qress Bus is .Iso bigbcst 00 • da"y
b .. is. The De:<! most .!recti •• alIernalNe, flom Ille perspe,Il •• 0( ridershlp is LRT 4D (1-680
10 Mountain VJCW) and LRT 4E (l-6BO 10 Sunny>aleJ, -.it!> • projected increase in peak period
transit ride ... hlp of L1 pe=n~ The least effectm is LRT ~ (Milpitas 10 I.oc:klleed), ",1I;,b
would bave aD increase in LRT ridersMp, but I decrease .in bus rideJl.hip as a result of
decreased express bus serviGe. o.,.eraD. this aJ'tcrnalive would be expected lO result in an ol.'eraU
decrease .in transit ridcllbip ()\.'U the TSM altemaf.ive.
Travel l'ime Sames lOr Transit Rlders
A ,ood measure of the benefic of a Itansi! system 10 trans!! users is tbe lTa'.reI time saved.
Figure 6·S summarizes this measure for eacll oC t1le a1ternau\!es.
The greatest us.er benefit is seell to be derived from Ahernati"ve LRT 04D (1-680 £0 Mounta:n
V)CW}, and Ahemative 4E (1-680 10 Sunny .... ale) both ..-lth sa..-tngs of 1,720,000 "bours of tra\.~r
pel year, The !'.lex! best. from tbe perspccti"ve of time sa'wings, is Alternative 4C (M11PlllS to
SiJnnyvaTe). with 1,460,0:::0 bours saved... The least amount 0( IJ5.er benefi' is. expected" fror.1.
LRT 4A (Milpitas 10 Lockheed), with 810.00 bOIl .. saved.
Extent Dr P~'atioD Inc! EahaDcemenf or [avVODIM".Ill
A detailed tOvU-onmenta:' evaluation was done of the proposed' Tasman Corridor altematl\--e$
(see Chapter S). The resulJ olEbe evaluation was 10 determIne the extent 0( impact. if illy, and
ao propose 31 mitigalioll measure i tU impact was. deemed to be "significant" ()(" ·pmentiaDy
SignifICant". Impacts tll.al .'ere deemed 10 be '1c:s.s. than significant" or "DO( significa:::!(O ""Qurd
Dot warrant .aUriga tieD. In the case 0{ transportation impacts, several of tbe project ~enarics
had "be Delicia!"" impacts.
Table 6-1 provides .. summary-0( the lever of .impact a[ter implernenta600 of miligatioCl.
measures. foe tbe differ.cot categories 0( coocera studied. 11 can be s.een that most impacu -could
be rrutigated kJ tile level of "less thac. sigruficant" or "'DO( significant"". and that SOCle
tra~pOrUtiol] criferia have beneficial impac~ from one or more of the aiternatives.
The. fol'lawing summarizes impacts Ibal citbet' -canooC: be mitigaled to "less than significant" or
beuer, or have beneficia] impact, for eacII. ahernative:
.. No Build. Impacts 10 werraods. iilre possible during grading and COD5troc!ic,[] of
proposed exparuioos.. The: mirrgation meas' .. m:s ""Duld' reduce the impact lo lhe
polcllliaR, significanl levet
TSM. Reductioc. in highway VMT would lesurt from this. alternative, Ii kndi6al
impact.
"
•
\
,
2
, .
EstiQted Travel Time saving'? Over TSM
s.c. County -Year 2005
Figllre 6-5
.. -..
, '
o
'" .. t ~m~~~~5555~~~~~~
...>
e ~ 'li!m'li!'li!55:3:3:35~5li555
•
o
o o
• Expn.ss Bas. This ahernafive 'WOuld result in the remO\'al of aD orenard at tbe
Hostet!c.rl!-880 inlclt"ban&e. one of the: last 0PCII space parcels. in che area. The
mili,aoon. 10 preserve I 100 foot Mdc bulks ollre., aloo, Camino Del Ray, and a
5(). 10 100-foot section ol Orchard oloog Capitol Avenue """old I<du<c Ille impact 10
polen.tlally significanL
The proposed park and ride 101 al 1-280 and Di>o. warng Road is I .. ell.nds. flood
control aDd Igrlcultural area. This impact an be reduced 10 potcntiaDy sjgnfficaot
by avoiding the wetlands area and p1antine 10 reduce crosToQ Ind run-off inlO these
areas during construction .lad after completion of the parking lot.
.Reduction in highway VMT "':ould r.csu1t from this alternative, I 'beoeficial ir.Ipacl
• A.1f LRT A1tematin.s. All five LRT ahemaINes would impact 00 Coyote Creek.. If
wcgelatioo is repJaced after constnJctioc. Ind necessary permits and ~asements are
r-ecefved. this would still be a potcotiaDy signif.caot impact.
Ali LRT aJternati-;es. would aIso a!Sturb nparlao Dora,. fauna and warC[ q,uaIIty during
.construction. The mitigation m~asures k> :reduce erosion and ~dirnentation impacts
still Iesult in I potentiany signiIr...ant impact.
Compatibility 1II'itII LAnd Use PlanniDg
It is "important that tbe scleeted' ahernative be rocsistect with local and regional 12 cd cse
plannmg. AI. the present tlme. most 0( the land in the vicinity of the express bus Of tral"'.sit
stops is zoned for relatively low density industria! development.. For nle trallSlt ~tem.s. 10 be
co_mpatlbte with land use p!anning, tne citi"e:s. in the Tasman corridor ",,'OuId ~ed 10 mod~
the~ current zoning policies k> anow hlg.bc:r density devclopmenl Each city 1$ no ..... in the
pr=ss of reviewing iU zoning policies 10 accommodate Ille trans;! line,s), Therefore. an
IJtema~ could be considered 10 be equal!] oCOcsistcnt with land usc planning porKies.
COST EFfECTIVENESS
The measure or cost effect!v.enes.s is: defined by UMT A 10 mean the extent to ~'hjcb an
ahernative reh,lrns be [}(:fil$ in relation 10 its costs. There: arc iI variety of..-a~ iD 'WhiCh this can
be done, SOllie of whit. are I<quired ~y UMTA, and some of "hi<:h tao be daDe based 00
locally determined cril.ria.
The cost effec:threnc:s:s cvafuatIoQ for the Tasman Corridor focused oc. (Dc folbwing measures:
• Annualized .net cost per new kansit rider (UMTA rcquLremec[)
• AnD uarl2.ed' red'eral contribution per DeW transit rider
Increm<otal Ind average =' eEfettkness (UMT A (Uidefines)
• Annualized net cost per tn.osit rider. ~temwidc:
6-9
",
/' .. " -
o
AaDIUlIfzed Net Cost pu New TnllSit RJdu
This ;, the ceol e/fectivenes.s Index required by VMTA policy. h repr='ts the ratIo
iDcremcota]' change ol aCDuafi.zed clFita1 C05f,. opentions and' majntenance COSts and value or
travel time savings roc existing transit ride.n; &0 the c!Iangc ic annual ~ed trans~1 trip!.
Fzgure 6.6 provides a comparison of the net: cost per eac:b new annual rider cc lransrt. Of the
light rai! ahematives~ LRT -4A (MUpilaS 10 LocKheed) is the m05t cost cffecliv~ -.1 S!5J8 per
Dew transit ridcL The ot1!er LRT alternatives alI show .bout the same cost effectiveness, from
S29.11 per new ridor 10 $19.91 per new rider. The Express Bus ahem.tive is the least e/feeti'.,
at S221S per new rider.
UmitarioDS Dr the Cos1-EfTectlveDt'SS Judex.. While tl:!c ictectiOc 0( UMT A·1i cost~ffecti'\leDeSS
index is 10 provide. "level playlng field" wIler.by an proposed "new .,arts" projects in tile
United SLales are rairly coosidered. l1Ie index does DOC appear 10 be cq'UitabJc 10 the San
Franc1sco Bay Area in three la-peets:
• B.,. Area Conslructioa and Operations aDd Mainle-u:DC'C Costs. Given that
construction costs and' tramit operating and maIc:tcnaoce -costs are cnlicat variables in
the cost--c.ffccUYeness equation,. cities with bigher %han average COSts arc penatized'
wbe.reas cities with tower t1lan average costs ha .... e .all ad'vantJ.,ge in Inc feoera!
evaTU2tioo process.. Construction costs :in the Bay Area Irc 10ughly 25% higber t1:!an
tlIe 1l3tKlDai a .... erage. Transit labor cos.ts aI(: approximately ]7% rugner than the
na tional average.
Real Estate-Values. Similar!y,. real eslJ,le \'3l'ues: in the Sao Fra'1Cisc:o Bay Area are
among [be big~ in tl:!e aaooo maldng purchase of righ! of way more expensive .
• Varue of TrayeJ-time. A\"'Crage income levels in the San francisco Bay Area ~1Ccc:d
tho--..e of ot'hcr parts of the COUDtlJ. The value ol tra .... c::I time: for v.'oci: trlp5 in the Bay
Areo is curre.cI, calcu!ated " SS.6Si1x>ur (m 1987 don,rs) compared 10 S4.00,bour
.... hicll is. tbc .assumed naUooa! norm. This is apprrnci'matety 40 perunt big~! thaD the
norm.. The dorl'ar beneEu calculated using S4.OOIhour at(: no« commensurate ... i!h the
perceived benelits 10 existin, Bay Area """"~ ride,,-
Once .,ain, UMTA"s ",,"u!. for eak1l!ation 0( OOSI-cffectMoess irHr.,.. sboold pro.,;oe for
lignificaol re:ional average hourly 1Ir'3ge differeDGeS Ind costs of dom, business that crist
Ihroughoul tile <cunlly. Projects in higher.priced areas should no< be u.f.my pen.rued in [ .. 0<
0( projects ifi Jo-.u-j>rlced areas.
6-10
:.,,~~~,( ,;
". '1
•
\
r t
L
,
, .
..
>~it{:~,~ , .
-"; >;(17 . r
. , '
/
o 0
Estimated Net Cost per New Transit Rider
Santa Clara County -Year 2005
(OQliara)
E-Bus LRl'-4A. l.RT-4B Un-4C lRt-4D t.Ftt-4E
g AYIl"a;e S
LRT-"A. JoItJD,o'1a tl t.ock,-"
UIT-4a • 'M1lpitu lID Ionn v_
U;T· .. C .. lIJIpitas ., ~
l)I.T-... O .. t-e6Q to M\I'. V\ew
urr·~ .. HI!Q ., S~I'
o locany Indexed S
Figura 6-6
Estimated Federal Net Cost per New R~der
Santa Clara County -Year 2005 ,.
,.
12
10
8
6
•
2
o
_ Alferage $ 0 toe an)' lndeud S
Figure 6-7
•
\
-
I
'>",
\
o
To best Jeflect these factors. the COISE eCfectivellW eakuTations wece redone using cost values
indexed 10 reflect cools in otber paIt$ 0( the C()(Iolly. lbe inc!e<iog rOClOG usW .. ere:
• Oopital <OSIs: 1$"" 0( Bay Are.a Cool 10 "'Iual oationa! average
• Operating and maintenance COG.ts: 83~ or BI}' Aiea cost 10 eql!a! caoona! average
• VaIuc or time savings: %40% of Dationa! avenge '10 relate &0 Ictuar Bay Area ,'alues..
The rc:s.1Jrts of this Idj~tmeDI 00. net cost per DeW nnsit rider is. ,bc.w.'D in Figure 6-6 as tlle
10caDy illbed' \'3r~ It can be Jan that LRT 4A., the moSt ccst effective aiternam'e,. 'Il.'ould
have o. es!lJ .. ,.., toOt per Dew U3DSit rider O(S1I.13, e<>mpared 10 SIS.IS!or unindexed values.
The oUla LRT al<c:rnotive> are in the $14.0910 SI4.6S range, and the &prelS B<Is alternati,e
is a' $16.18 pet oew Crans? rider.
AIInuaTu.ecr Federal Contributioa per New Tnnsft Ridu
Figure 6-7 s.h<rws the estima:ed federal conlrlbul1011 per new transit rider O\ICC the TSM
IJtc::matiYe,. The federal eontnout'ion is wumed kl be lIalf the capital «lSI of the project (but
none of the operating aD" maintenance expense). Therefore, the comparison of cost
effectiveness ~.n aJternatives is. similar 10 1lIat d"~ abcwc 'Uotkr the "annualized net
cost pet n= lransit ridet'. The LRT 4A ahemaUve (moot cost cffocmeJ is $8.37 federal don",
per new transit rider, while"the Express Bus alternative (1eas.t cost effective) is S13,25 fede;al
cootributkla per Dew trans.it rider.
H llIe local icderlag adjustmenl is: made Ie the ~eraI cost per DeW rider, the LR T 4.A
ab:ernative lias I cost effectiveness. 0( $6.01 per federal dollar. The otb::! LRT ahernauves
.. 'ould be in the S1.9S 10 S838 range.
Whereas UMTA policy requires ID c\1I!\.Iatioo of alternatives based OD tlle net annualized cost
per new rider .. the UMTA guidetines recommend that a!ternati .. 'C.. more: sensitive measures of
cos: effectiveness be used:
• Inc:remectaI cost effectiVen.ess mt:anIrc. Illd
• Average inc.remenraJ C05Z effectiveness measure..
locreme-.Iltal Cost ElTediveueH Measure. lhls measure evaluates the relative cost effecti .... eness
of I ,ives aflernaUve., compared' 10 the oext lowest cost ahernatNc that 'has muimum cost
eff'ectiveoess.. Ia this way. it i5 po6SJole to evaluatc rhe relative: bcnc:fif: ao be acb~ed' from
makin.&: ad'ditioc.al iovestmenl in • lrall5tt: system..
6-12
··-,····~L-·' . ., -.
•
";;.
•
.,
-
•
/
@
Costs VS. User
Santa Clara COUnty
Uur Benefit (a!"on1 hi,
1
0.5
LRr .... A • MiIQ1ta b ~
LAT· ... *ltIl1png tlloftn v.-
LAr-4C. ~ IID~ .. urr -4~ .. }OSeo to W1lI ""
urr ....... e °1-e80 b &"""')'Yait'
10 20-30
Cost (millions of $) '0
Figure 6-8
Estimated Net Cost per Annual Rider
Santa Clara County -Year 2005
6
2
o
NO-Build TSt4 £-Bus LF\T-'A l.RT-4B \.':;T-4C Un-40 lAT-4E
Figure 6-9
•
\
-
, -
o o
The measure ct elIectiveoess used is Ibe sallinp iD trIvel time b Ira"';' we,,-F'lure 6-8 plots
this savinp (in millions 0( bours per year) versus the anti uafiz.ed c:o:st 0( eacl 0( the ahem ative!..
It un be seea that the most c::ost effective: altcm3Uva 6e OD the OD the frontier. ind"te.a1ed by
the line conoectinl tlle data poiots.. Alternatives that are DOt OD this frontier do DO( ac:hic;.'c
the ma.:Wnwn cost effectiveness for additiooa! mvestmcnL How-tvcr. depending UPOIl the results or odJ.et aspects d the evaluation" dlcse arc noc. ncce&sarily eliminated' from considerati"oD.
Fr<>m the illustraUoIl, iI can be seea thal!he &pres> Bus altern.tive, LRT 01."" LRT 4B •• nd
LR T 4D are on the ma:dmum cost e!l'cctIve fmnrJer.
The incremental <:OSt effectiveness is determined by caJC1.l!ating tbe r<ttio ol .IdditionaJ cost
bctwec:B ODC alternative and tbe -next least crpensive a!ternative OD !.he frontier, ver.;.us the
incremental 'bcnefla 0( the5C two alternatives.. Table: 6--2 s;bO'WS the eicments of thls. ca1c\JTauoll.
'The best ahernative in knrls 0{ IDcrcmer:HaI costs is LRT.(A, .. mel! costs only ~14..46 for each
additional hour of annuaY tra .... el time savings. The next best alternative is LRT 4D. 'jl .. hicb has
an incremental cost eIf-ectiveness of S21.02. Note tbat LRT 4E sbo\lr's I liecrc:ase in user ber.efit
O\o-er LRT 4D. even tbaugh there is addilion~ cost.
Ave~e Incremental Cost Effectiveness Mea.sa:re
[0 order to avoid over emphasizing rile n:1ativcly small changes ic bene[jts and c~ts betv."een
81ternatives.. ic: is useful to usc: I measure 0( average,. Of OYeraD -cost eff«tivcness... This
1Cchnique compares the weighted average 0( incremental costs foe all alternatives. ve~us olher
.h.ernatives of lower cost. tllat are on the maximum cost effective frontier.
Table 6-2 also proVides .a comparison of the average cost effectiveness of tbe aftercatives. The
LRT« alternative (Milpitas 10 Lockheed) is most cost effective, as in the incremental anaTy~::s..
However .. the second' best is. LRT 4~ and' third is LRT 4D. The Express Bus aTternatlo:e
appears as the least cost effective..
Estimated Net Cost per Annual Ridu
k cflSCUS.Sed' earIicri I more usdul comparisoo of cost cffecti"vcDess is the De~ cost per ano.:a!
ride. 5)'Stemwide [ltlCluatng bus. express bus and LRT). This .be .. Ibat .ltho'Jgb Ibe cost per
.DCw rider is qultc bigll in the TasmaD c.oaidor. the overall S}~temwide cost 0( provlding tile De\/."
LRT se....u does IlOI cbange mock (see Figure 6-9). -Where.> !he 'l"'tDwide cost oi Ibe TS~{
,hern.1ive per ricler is $4.01. !he COS! oi !he LRT alternatives is betwee. SUI loc LRT 4..1.
()'Upilas 10 Loc1rheed) IOd S4. 71 (1-680 10 Mountai. Voew}
FINANCIAL FEASIBIUTY
{To come [rom MTq
-L-
. -
•
: .. -.. ·-.~J·f ....
~."'
J
'!
;
. '
I ,
, ,
I.
)
i"
,.
________________________________ ... _-' .... _'-___ • .;:._~i."~.,t)"" ... r_~. _____ _
Tobl .... ~
Ihit ............ nd AWN._ Cotl Erre£tJvl'!nt ..
u~.n."" ••••• '. Incremcl'ltill Mealu"" __ "_
TOlal Usor Donent Added Added Benent Cool 1""
An-nuaUr.ed Coat (milllo •• ) COmpared Cool (MiIIIO •• addition •• 1. .... 16
A,llet.,l11ve (S MiIIlo.) ot hnuf'!;) 10 S MIiIlO.) or houn) hour u,*, Mellure
No BUild TSM SO.OO 0
Bu • SI7,70 O.~490IR TSM SI7.70 0,549018 S)2,74 $)2,24 0
LRT4A $19,29 1,3))%9 TSM 519.29 1.333969 SI .. 016 S14.A6 !II
I.,RT48 $3),40 1,902218 LRT4A SI4.11 O.~68249 S24,8) SIIl,lI4 I t;
LRT4C $)2,,, 1,.'I70l47 I.,RT4A SI2,86 0.2;16278 S~"4) S;IO,4S
LRT 41) $)8,62 2. ISO$)9 ~RT4B S~,22 1),248)21 S21,02 $19,1'
LRT4e ,:)6,99 1,760432 I.,RT4B $),'9 o(),14\71!6 (.) Sl'.56
I ~
<+l AI~""I''''' LRT 4R _I, ___ .116 pmd~ 1_ baM'!!' Ihln ,lIltnl'U"
40, 1I"'l"IIIt_ II II I'lO'l _, .'MM,
0
·I~ ~ .'~ ... ----::----~~~~~:--.:-:--~~
,·Rfli'OO-0l( .... nci)/l) .AUiu1' I, 1'1'90
,:'
,.
",
"~,
-~, -,->'!'"
'T' " ,
!
-
.,
,--~
,
o
Equity issues relate: k> the cftstribuOon ol rosts and benefits of III ahernative acTOS$ segments
or !he populaooo. There are three measures or eq,uily;
.Re!ative increase of trans1t service 10-various popcl'atioLkS, especiaUy the transit
dep"ndenl
RelatiVe distribution or <he =ts or tile project across tile populaoon.
Incidence ol significant enviroomental impact
Each or til ... is d"~ below.
AC'CtSsibilil1 or Transit Senict Co TMlllSit Dt~Dden1 rersous
In ord~r to evaluate the: relative coverage of [be. proposed Tasmall Corridor transit service to
transit depeDdeof people. traffic aoaJys.is ZOIlC$ With the rotIowmg characteristics. .... en~ identified:
~vc:rage income in the lov.rest 25th percentile: in Santa Clara County, and
Incidence ol bomeholds. .. ilb. no autos avauabtc in. the: highest 25th pcrcc:nrile in Sanra
Clara County
It .... as tound that __ % of the bOU$C:bolds in the klwest 25th income percentile, and tnat
__ % of the boweboi"Ss in tIle bigllesa 23th pcrcentt%e of zero auto owncn.hip wc:re ~lthiD
U4 mile of a new aransit stop.
Distril>ullo. 0( Costs or Ill' Pn>l<ct AtnlS.S 1l>e Populalloll
[Awaiting linoocial report from MTq
JDCidcnce or Si&nir..caDf EavlroJlmeaLaI Impad
Al Doted in the Gl5CUS5ion on call1roamcntaI impact, there NC few impacts that canDO( be
srUligated 10 • level or less thaD signiEcact on not ligniflCaDL Distnoutio.c. of 'be: burd'~ G. of
eDViroomernal' impact is therebre DOC • criticaI issue in the Tasman Corridor~
SENSITMlY OF ANALYSIS TO REDEVELOPMENT M'D DEVU.OPME."',
INTENSU'lCA TION OPPORTIJNlTIES
LRT ...ould crute t1le most rmevcTopmenl aDd developmeDI opportunities; IS compared k> the
other IJternatives. lbe two WC$tenL cities in the corridor have: land use :s.tOOIQ on residential
d~nsi6cation and development mttnSification:
6-16
o.
I
I
i
•
·:)~ti'
~ .. '" '.~:. \
./"
o
6. EvaJu..itlon of Ahern2 ti."es
Moutltlm VlCW·S DowntDWI'I PrecfH PIon. and
~i~~~~G: of San be plans aD d'cn;se le:5iden tial Corrido. LR r _ni! V"", Mon.ana. The land
popuJaoo. aM emploj1n<n. adjlCelll 10 lIle affected
~~~~~~~B~~~:~~~Ior~'ddTtiona! transit riders 00 LRT aboo,'e and would increase from oS lO 8 percent among the _hI""",,.., 00 lbc LRT alternatives induding !.be
translate inlO less than one percent or 10tat ri<ters
IPend"Lllg Financial R~j>O<1 from mq
ramal Draft of rable 6-3 included lor illustr.llM: purpose. This I,ble will be used 10 discuss
trade-offs..
6-17
"~';' ... --.;;....-......... -."'---.-'-
•
..
L , -,
I
.,;,.
i I 1 j f. l •
j .e ~
j ~ t 1 !> 3 .. 5 I t U ~i ~ § 2 j a m! f p~ ~ l ~ & f:l "'2 r.~ ~! I i lp :-It 'i l! e--' f. f. t!=;: ! t'" S ?t' t;~ < tJ >0; ~ . ~ . ~E .. .
S z ~~ tJ ;;:
'~,' ,>' ,
~;~,.;{',
'",:,