Upload File

i-26 fixed guideway alternatives...

  • Home
  • Documents
  • I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysisi26alt.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Two-Analysis-Summary-Sheet.pdf · Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT 23.1 23.1 18 18 16 15
7
Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT 23.1 24.3 22.1 23.2 24.6 25.8 18 19 16 17 16 17 16 17 14 15 17 18 1,986,586 2,024,734 1,369,571 1,430,550 1,637,185 1,746,138 $359,061,298 $373,414,886 $335,703,418 $350,319,307 $377,527,234 $392,149,473 $5,850,240 $6,654,480 $5,465,280 $5,645,280 $6,694,800 $6,874,800 Cost per Trip $9.12 $9.64 $12.41 $12.44 $12.04 $11.74 Rating Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Trips on Project 2,831,044 2,899,104 2,179,638 2,279,199 2,176,893 2,376,303 Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low Low Low Low Low New Transit Trips 3,973 3,818 1,968 1,840 4,010 3,970 Rating Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium Medium Cost /Benefit Ratio 0.009 0.002 -0.033 -0.038 -0.016 -0.020 Rating Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Employment 28,058 33,336 23,521 28,799 18,730 24,008 Population Density 2,257 1,986 2,462 2,146 2,515 2,199 Rating Low Low Low Low Low Low Economic Development Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Corridor Miles Total Stations Total Vehicles Forecasted Ridership Screen Two BRT Alternatives Screen Two: Project Justification Criteria Alternative Characteristics Overall Rating Cost Effectiveness Environmental Benefits Land Use Mobility Improvements Congestion Relief Capital Construction Cost Annual Operating Cost Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg LRT Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT 23.1 24.3 22.1 23.2 24.6 25.8 18 19 16 17 16 17 15 16 14 15 16 17 2,671,227 2,715,155 1,774,460 1,864,050 2,310,844 2,339,166 $2,077,637,037 $2,177,619,117 $1,976,143,912 $2,076,139,718 $2,153,124,497 $2,253,120,295 $13,696,390 $15,805,991 $13,259,680 $13,696,390 $15,805,991 $16,242,701 Cost per Trip $36.31 $38.03 $51.79 $51.75 $44.51 $45.93 Rating Low Low Low Low Low Low Trips on Project 3,645,735 3,721,309 2,673,395 2,821,796 3,026,986 3,082,330 Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low New Transit Trips 6,617 6,412 3,663 3,586 6,255 6,120 Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Cost /Benefit Ratio -0.004 -0.006 -0.016 -0.017 -0.014 -0.015 Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Employment 28,058 33,336 23,521 28,799 18,730 24,008 Population Density 2,257 1,986 2,462 2,146 2,515 2,199 Rating Low Low Low Low Low Low Economic Development Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Corridor Miles Total Stations Total Train-Sets Capital Construction Cost Annual Operating Cost Forecasted Ridership Screen Two LRT Alternatives Overall Rating Screen Two: Project Justification Criteria Alternative Characteristics Land Use Cost Effectiveness Mobility Improvements Congestion Relief Environmental Benefits I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis Screen Two Analysis Summary

Upload: vandang

Post on 06-Mar-2019

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysisi26alt.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Two-Analysis-Summary-Sheet.pdf · Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT 23.1 23.1 18 18 16 15

Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT

Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT

Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT

Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT

Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT

Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT

23.1 24.3 22.1 23.2 24.6 25.818 19 16 17 16 1716 17 14 15 17 18

1,986,586 2,024,734 1,369,571 1,430,550 1,637,185 1,746,138$359,061,298 $373,414,886 $335,703,418 $350,319,307 $377,527,234 $392,149,473$5,850,240 $6,654,480 $5,465,280 $5,645,280 $6,694,800 $6,874,800

Cost per Trip $9.12 $9.64 $12.41 $12.44 $12.04 $11.74Rating Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low

Trips on Project 2,831,044 2,899,104 2,179,638 2,279,199 2,176,893 2,376,303Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low Low Low Low Low

New Transit Trips 3,973 3,818 1,968 1,840 4,010 3,970Rating Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium Medium

Cost /Benefit Ratio 0.009 0.002 -0.033 -0.038 -0.016 -0.020Rating Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low

Employment 28,058 33,336 23,521 28,799 18,730 24,008Population Density 2,257 1,986 2,462 2,146 2,515 2,199

Rating Low Low Low Low Low LowEconomic Development Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low

Corridor MilesTotal StationsTotal Vehicles

Forecasted Ridership

Screen Two BRT Alternatives

Scre

en T

wo:

Pro

ject

Just

ifica

tion

Crite

riaAl

tern

ativ

e Ch

arac

teris

tics

Overall Rating

Cost Effectiveness

Environmental Benefits

Land Use

Mobility Improvements

Congestion Relief

Capital Construction CostAnnual Operating Cost

Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT

Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT

Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg LRT

Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT

Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT

Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT

23.1 24.3 22.1 23.2 24.6 25.818 19 16 17 16 1715 16 14 15 16 17

2,671,227 2,715,155 1,774,460 1,864,050 2,310,844 2,339,166$2,077,637,037 $2,177,619,117 $1,976,143,912 $2,076,139,718 $2,153,124,497 $2,253,120,295$13,696,390 $15,805,991 $13,259,680 $13,696,390 $15,805,991 $16,242,701

Cost per Trip $36.31 $38.03 $51.79 $51.75 $44.51 $45.93Rating Low Low Low Low Low Low

Trips on Project 3,645,735 3,721,309 2,673,395 2,821,796 3,026,986 3,082,330Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low

New Transit Trips 6,617 6,412 3,663 3,586 6,255 6,120Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Cost /Benefit Ratio -0.004 -0.006 -0.016 -0.017 -0.014 -0.015Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low

Employment 28,058 33,336 23,521 28,799 18,730 24,008Population Density 2,257 1,986 2,462 2,146 2,515 2,199

Rating Low Low Low Low Low LowEconomic Development Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low

Corridor MilesTotal Stations

Total Train-Sets

Capital Construction CostAnnual Operating Cost

Forecasted Ridership

Screen Two LRT Alternatives

Overall RatingScre

en T

wo:

Pro

ject

Just

ifica

tion

Crite

riaAl

tern

ativ

e Ch

arac

teris

tics

Land Use

Cost Effectiveness

Mobility Improvements

Congestion Relief

Environmental Benefits

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

Screen Two Analysis

Summary

Page 2: I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysisi26alt.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Two-Analysis-Summary-Sheet.pdf · Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT 23.1 23.1 18 18 16 15

Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT

Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT

23.1 23.118 1816 15

1,986,586 2,671,227$359,061,298 $2,077,637,037$5,850,240 $13,696,390

Cost per Trip $9.12 $36.31Rating Medium Low

Trips on Project 2,831,044 3,645,735Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low

New Transit Trips 3,973 6,617Rating Medium Medium

Cost /Benefit Ratio 0.009 -0.004Rating Medium Medium-Low

Employment 28,058 28,058Population Density 2,257 2,257

Rating Low LowEconomic Development Rating Medium Medium

Medium Medium-LowScre

en T

wo:

Pro

ject

Just

ifica

tion

Crite

ria Cost Effectiveness

Mobility Improvements

Congestion Relief

Environmental Benefits

Land Use

Overall Rating

Screen Two Alternatives

Alte

rnat

ive

Char

acte

ristic

s Corridor MilesTotal StationsTotal Vehicles

Forecasted RidershipCapital Construction Cost

Annual Operating Cost

Station Name

Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT

Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT

Main/Richardson 551 767E. 5th/Berlin Myers 807 1,126US 78/Royle 427 609US 78/College Park 370 506US 78/I-26 156 219Rivers/Otranto 556 756Rivers/Ashley Phosphate 257 343Rivers/Stokes 193 247Rivers/Remount 521 634Rivers/Mall 392 467Rivers/Durant 240 313Rivers/McMillan 631 837Rivers/US 52 176 295Meeting/Milford (Braswell) 122 170Meeting/Mt. Pleasant 231 231Meeting/Romney 99 183Meeting/Huger 191 230Meeting/Line 957 1,314Total 6,877 9,247

Forecasted Station Ridership

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis January 2016 Screen Two Analysis Summary Page 2

Page 3: I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysisi26alt.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Two-Analysis-Summary-Sheet.pdf · Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT 23.1 23.1 18 18 16 15

Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT

Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT

24.3 24.319 1917 16

2,024,734 2,715,155$373,414,886 $2,177,619,117$6,654,480 $15,805,991

Cost per Trip $9.64 $38.03Rating Medium Low

Trips on Project 2,899,104 3,721,309Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low

New Transit Trips 3,818 6,412Rating Medium Medium

Cost /Benefit Ratio 0.002 -0.006Rating Medium Medium-Low

Employment 33,336 33,336Population Density 1,986 1,986

Rating Low LowEconomic Development Rating Medium Medium

Medium Medium-LowScre

en T

wo:

Pro

ject

Just

ifica

tion

Crite

ria Cost Effectiveness

Mobility Improvements

Congestion Relief

Environmental Benefits

Land Use

Overall Rating

Screen Two Alternatives

Alte

rnat

ive

Char

acte

ristic

s Corridor MilesTotal StationsTotal Vehicles

Forecasted RidershipCapital Construction Cost

Annual Operating Cost

Station Name

Alt B-3: US 78/EB BRT

Alt B-4: US 78/EB LRT

Main/Richardson 552 761E. 5th/Berlin Myers 809 1,118US 78/Royle 423 596US 78/College Park 367 493US 78/I-26 159 220Rivers/Otranto 549 741Rivers/Ashley Phosphate 259 338Rivers/Stokes 179 229Rivers/Remount 529 658Rivers/Mall 361 445Rivers/Durant 230 321Rivers/McMillan 605 835Rivers/US 52 192 291Meeting/Milford (Braswell) 122 149Meeting/Mt. Pleasant 317 375East Bay/Romney 149 184East Bay/Huger 219 294East Bay/Columbus 378 530East Bay/Calhoun 604 817Total 7,003 9,395

Forecasted Station Ridership

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis January 2016 Screen Two Analysis Summary Page 3

Page 4: I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysisi26alt.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Two-Analysis-Summary-Sheet.pdf · Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT 23.1 23.1 18 18 16 15

Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg BRT

Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg LRT

22.1 22.116 1614 14

1,369,571 1,774,460$335,703,418 $1,976,143,912$5,465,280 $13,259,680

Cost per Trip $12.41 $51.79Rating Medium-Low Low

Trips on Project 2,179,638 2,673,395Rating Low Medium-Low

New Transit Trips 1,968 3,663Rating Medium-Low Medium

Cost /Benefit Ratio -0.033 -0.016Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low

Employment 23,521 23,521Population Density 2,462 2,462

Rating Low LowEconomic Development Rating Medium Medium

Medium-Low Medium-LowScre

en T

wo:

Pro

ject

Just

ifica

tion

Crite

ria Cost Effectiveness

Mobility Improvements

Congestion Relief

Environmental Benefits

Land Use

Overall Rating

Screen Two Alternatives

Alte

rnat

ive

Char

acte

ristic

s Corridor MilesTotal StationsTotal Vehicles

Forecasted RidershipCapital Construction Cost

Annual Operating Cost

Station Name

Alt C-1: US 176/Mtg

BRT

Alt C-2: US 176/Mtg EB

LRTUS 176/US 17A 69 94US 176/Old Mount Holly 198 290US 176/Central Ave 246 343Rivers/Otranto 490 637Rivers/Ashley Phosphate 249 329Rivers/Stokes 191 241Rivers/Remount 466 548Rivers/Mall 428 524Rivers/Durant 220 284Rivers/McMillan 545 690Rivers/US 52 181 256Meeting/Milford (Braswell) 126 158Meeting/Mt. Pleasant 198 262Meeting/Romney 91 141Meeting/Huger 155 260Meeting/Line 885 1,084Total 4,738 6,141

Forecasted Station Ridership

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis January 2016 Screen Two Analysis Summary Page 4

Page 5: I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysisi26alt.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Two-Analysis-Summary-Sheet.pdf · Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT 23.1 23.1 18 18 16 15

Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT

Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT

23.2 23.217 1715 15

1,430,550 1,864,050$350,319,307 $2,076,139,718$5,645,280 $13,696,390

Cost per Trip $12.44 $51.75Rating Medium-Low Low

Trips on Project 2,279,199 2,821,796Rating Low Medium-Low

New Transit Trips 1,840 3,586Rating Medium-Low Medium

Cost /Benefit Ratio -0.038 -0.017Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low

Employment 28,799 28,799Population Density 2,146 2,146

Rating Low LowEconomic Development Rating Medium Medium

Medium-Low Medium-LowScre

en T

wo:

Pro

ject

Just

ifica

tion

Crite

ria Cost Effectiveness

Mobility Improvements

Congestion Relief

Environmental Benefits

Land Use

Overall Rating

Screen Two Alternatives

Alte

rnat

ive

Char

acte

ristic

s Corridor MilesTotal StationsTotal Vehicles

Forecasted RidershipCapital Construction Cost

Annual Operating Cost

Station Name

Alt C-3: US 176/EB BRT

Alt C-4: US 176/EB LRT

US 176/US 17A 67 91US 176/Old Mount Holly 199 292US 176/Central Ave 249 340Rivers/Otranto 482 637Rivers/Ashley Phosphate 252 319Rivers/Stokes 179 223Rivers/Remount 466 576Rivers/Mall 412 524Rivers/Durant 213 298Rivers/McMillan 509 682Rivers/US 52 180 268Meeting/Milford (Braswell) 113 139Meeting/Mt. Pleasant 322 410East Bay/Romney 160 156East Bay/Huger 275 302East Bay/Columbus 311 455East Bay/Calhoun 561 737Total 4,950 6,449

Forecasted Station Ridership

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis January 2016 Screen Two Analysis Summary Page 5

Page 6: I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysisi26alt.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Two-Analysis-Summary-Sheet.pdf · Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT 23.1 23.1 18 18 16 15

Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg BRT

Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg LRT

24.6 24.616 1617 16

1,637,185 2,310,844$377,527,234 $2,153,124,497$6,694,800 $15,805,991

Cost per Trip $12.04 $44.51Rating Medium-Low Low

Trips on Project 2,176,893 3,026,986Rating Low Medium-Low

New Transit Trips 4,010 6,255Rating Medium Medium

Cost /Benefit Ratio -0.016 -0.014Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low

Employment 18,730 18,730Population Density 2,515 2,515

Rating Low LowEconomic Development Rating Medium Medium

Medium-Low Medium-LowScre

en T

wo:

Pro

ject

Just

ifica

tion

Crite

ria Cost Effectiveness

Mobility Improvements

Congestion Relief

Environmental Benefits

Land Use

Overall Rating

Screen Two Alternatives

Alte

rnat

ive

Char

acte

ristic

s Corridor MilesTotal StationsTotal Vehicles

Forecasted RidershipCapital Construction Cost

Annual Operating Cost

Station Name

Alt D-1: Dorch/Mtg

BRT

Alt D-2: Dorch/Mtg

LRTMain/Richardson 1,026 1,370Old Trolley/Miles Jamison 963 1,304Old Trolley/Dorchester 763 1,030Dorchester/Wescott 182 240Dorchester/Ashley Phosphate 426 600Dorchester/W. Hill 33 48Dorchester/Michaux 92 116Dorchester/W. Montague 243 314Dorchester/Leeds 165 268Rivers/McMillan 561 738Rivers/US 52 144 230Meeting/Milford (Braswell) 96 134Meeting/Mt. Pleasant 186 271Meeting/Romney 71 151Meeting/Huger 153 214Meeting/Line 560 969Total 5,664 7,997

Forecasted Station Ridership

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis January 2016 Screen Two Analysis Summary Page 6

Page 7: I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysisi26alt.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Two-Analysis-Summary-Sheet.pdf · Alt B-1: US 78/Mtg BRT Alt B-2: US 78/Mtg LRT 23.1 23.1 18 18 16 15

Alt D-3: Dorch/EB BRT

Alt D-4: Dorch/EB LRT

25.8 25.817 1718 17

1,746,138 2,339,166$392,149,473 $2,253,120,295$6,874,800 $16,242,701

Cost per Trip $11.74 $45.93Rating Medium-Low Low

Trips on Project 2,376,303 3,082,330Rating Low Medium-Low

New Transit Trips 3,970 6,120Rating Medium Medium

Cost /Benefit Ratio -0.020 -0.015Rating Medium-Low Medium-Low

Employment 24,008 24,008Population Density 2,199 2,199

Rating Low LowEconomic Development Rating Medium Medium

Medium-Low Medium-LowScre

en T

wo:

Pro

ject

Just

ifica

tion

Crite

ria Cost Effectiveness

Mobility Improvements

Congestion Relief

Environmental Benefits

Land Use

Overall Rating

Screen Two Alternatives

Alte

rnat

ive

Char

acte

ristic

s Corridor MilesTotal StationsTotal Vehicles

Forecasted RidershipCapital Construction Cost

Annual Operating Cost

Station Name

Alt D-3: Dorch/EB

BRT

Alt D-4: Dorch/EB

LRTMain/Richardson 1,031 1,355Old Trolley/Miles Jamison 969 1,296Old Trolley/Dorchester 761 1,011Dorchester/Wescott 184 243Dorchester/Ashley Phosphate 417 553Dorchester/W. Hill 33 49Dorchester/Michaux 104 131Dorchester/W. Montague 227 301Dorchester/Leeds 171 256Rivers/McMillan 548 725Rivers/US 52 135 215Meeting/Milford (Braswell) 87 115Meeting/Mt. Pleasant 296 372East Bay/Romney 137 159East Bay/Huger 180 266East Bay/Columbus 233 317East Bay/Calhoun 526 727Total 6,039 8,091

Forecasted Station Ridership

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis January 2016 Screen Two Analysis Summary Page 7


23.1(2) 23.1(1) Ingeneral. - legis.iowa.gov · 17/06/2020  · IAC Ch23,p.1 567—23.1(455B)Emissionstandards. 23.1(1)Ingeneral.Thefederalstandardsofperformancefornewstationarysources(newsource

Risk Strategy 23.1 - Home - Library

23.1(1) Accounts. EMPLOYER’SCONTRIBUTIONANDCHARGES - Iowa · IAC2/14/18 WorkforceDevelopment[871] Ch23,p.3 23.1(31)Quarterlywagedetail.Areportlistingworkersandtheirwagesbysocialsecuritynumber

Profile Mtg

0+$/&,%(#1 23.1/,(.+

Mtg prototyping

Tour &travel 23.1

MTG Helthcare

Chapter 23.1

Á ALT+0193á ALT+0225 É ALT+0201é ALT+0233 Í ALT+0205í ALT+0237 Ó ALT+0211ó ALT+0243

Figure 23.1

MTG - ITFRK

§23.1 Hyperbolic Models

23.1 Introduction

23.1 The Solar System

TX History Ch 23.1

Master Plan 2050 Public Open House #1 - Airport Projects · 2018-08-13 · Short List Strategy #1. Short List Strategy #2. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Charrette #2. Charrette #3

SERVICE magazine 23.1

Biology 23.1

METHUEN JAZZ 2017-2018 Solo Audition Piece - · PDF fileChorus 1 =126 Hot and Humid (Track 4/21 ) B 7 alt. B alt. B 7 alt. B 7 alt. B alt. B 7 alt. Jim Snidero E 7 alt. B alt. E 7

Mtg Credential

MTG Decklists

ALT + 131 = â ALT + 136 = ê ALT + 140 = î ALT + 147 = ô ALT + 150 = û

January 23.1

23.1 Animal Characteristics Animals. 23.1 Animal Characteristics Multicellular Heterotrophic Lack cell walls Sexual Reproduction Movement Specialization

Channel List Iranian [V9]23.1

Neighbor mtg

18.8 23.3 23.6 23.1 23.1 – Connecticut. What’s A Good Score? Science: 24 out of 36

Chapter 23 Notes (23.1-23.4)

23.1 – Calor : energia em movimento

snowboarder 23.1 2010 ride editorial

23.1 Relationships among phyla

Alt Lucialternative alt-lucealternative

23.1 Insulation of Piping

MTG Traders