Alternative Analysis Case Study

7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study

1/34


2/34

Los AngelesCity ProfileArea =1302 sq.km.

Pop.= 1,00,10,315 (2011)

Density = 3124 ppl/sq.km.Corridor = ?

1Conceptual alternatives

2

Identification of alternatives for initialscreening

3Short listing of alternatives

4Final screening

5Board adoption of alternative

Methodology

Projection years: 20 yrs


3/34

Los AngelesALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE


4/34

Los Angeles

Evaluation criteria:

Purpose and need:

1. Area mobility

needs2. Goods movement

3. Improvement of

service

4. Emergency access

Environment

1. Traffic

congestion2. Business

and

residential

relocation

3. Biological

impacts4. Hydrology

impacts

5. Constructio

n related

impacts

Project cost

1. Cost effectiveness

2. Easy funding

The project looked at 8

altenates and 5

variations for thetransit infrastructure


5/34

Los AngelesAlternate selected


6/34

Miami- Dade

Existing Miami Dade Metro line

U.S 1 Corridor

Miami-Dade

County

South Florida

County Profile

Area = xxx sq.km.

Pop.= 22,53,000 (2011)

Density = xxx person/sq.km.

Corridor = 36 km

Concerns:1. There is a lack of

enough N-S corridors

for mobility.

2. Service levels of

roadways are

decreasing.

3. An imbalance is also

observed between the

employment

opportunities and

housing units.


7/34

Miami- Dade

1Corridor Identification

2Corridor Study- Demand, Traffic Flow needs etc.

3Alternatives-Routes, Modes and Cross Section of Road

4Evaluation of Alternatives- Criteria and Screening

5Layout of Final Corridor

6Stakeholder Decision

7Funding

Methodology: ??????????



8/34

Miami- Dade

Alternatives selected

Alternatives


9/34

Tier II: Evaluation Criteria (alternatives were

analyzed and evaluated based on potential

environment effects)

1. Mobilitya. Ridership

b. Traffic Impacts

2. Built Environment

a. Land use

b. Visual Impacts

3. Natural Environmenta. Air Quality

b. Noise Impacts

4. Cost

a. Capital Cost

b. O & M Cost

5. Transit User Benefit & Cost Effectiveness

a. Cost per hour of user Benefitb. Cost per new rider

Tier I: Primary quantitative evaluation criteria

(alternatives were analyzed and evaluated based

on a scoring system developed for each criteria)

1. Number of north/south travel options

2. Travel time and Headways

3. Transit routes serving rail

4. Future employment and population near

stations

5. Total capital cost

6. System operating cost

7. Auto/transit conflict points

8. System connectivity

9. Transit ridership or trips

10. Community impacts and impacts to the

existing Bus way and Metrorail

Evaluation Criteria: Based on 2 TIER assessment

Miami- Dade

Alternative selected: ?????


10/34

Ogden- Weber

Utah

Ogden

City Profile

Area = 69 sq.km.

Pop.= 82,825 (2011)

Density = 1934.7

person/sq.km.Corridor = 36 km

Concern:The transit service in

inadequate to serve

the increasing

population, withpoor reliability and

service



3Major sections in study area

4

Alternatives-Routes, Modes and Cross Section ofRoad

5 Evaluation of Alternatives- Criteria and Screening

6Layout of final corridor

7Limitations and issues

8Stakeholder decision and funding

Methodology



11/34

Alternatives

Downtown Ogden (2 routes)

East Central Neighborhood (Cross-town

Connectors) (4 routes)WSU and McKay Dee Hospital Centre (5 routes)

Streetcar

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Fixed Route Bus/Transportation Systems

Management

Ogden- Weber

Street-car

BRTCorridor Alignment Alternatives

Initial Alignment Alternatives and

Alignment Sub-areas


12/34

Ogden- Weber

Corridor Ali nment Selected

MODEBoarding and ridership data

ROUTE

Travel Time

Activity Centres Served

Access to future Population

Access to future Employment

Builds and Supports Existing

Transit Service

% Dedicated Guide way

Capital Cost (Streetcar/BRT)

Traffic Operations

Parking/Access/StreetscapeLand Use

Economic Development

Right-of-Way Needs

Potential Environmental

Impacts

SECTION FOR MODE

ROW available

LOS of the section(including intersection


13/34

Ogden- Weber


INFERENCES:

1. Issues in the project

Traffic flow, demandSlope, topography and

engineering

activity oriented centres

2. Methodology

3. Route

Selectionaccording to the criteria

and the parameters4. Mode

Street-car may be a biased

decision. Other options not fully

explored

INITIAL SCREENING

1. Transit benefit

2. Transportation system effects

3. Achieves Economic & Development goals

4. Cost

5. Environmental Impacts

SECOND LEVEL EVALUATION & SCREENING

(recommended by FTA)

1. Effectiveness2. Impacts/benefits

3. Cost-effectiveness

4. Financial feasibility

5. Equity

6. Transit benefits/Ridership potential

7. Traffic

8. Community development

9. Environmental impact


14/34

Sugar House

City Profile

Area = xxx sq.km.

Pop.= 11.45.905 (2011)

Density = xxxx

person/sq.km.Corridor = xxx km

Concern:Apart from the

congestion and

pollution problems,

there is a need tosupport community

redevelopment

1Development of alternatives

2First level screening

3Second level screening

4

Third level screening to arrive at thelocally preferred alternative

Process



15/34

Sugar House

Alternatives explored:

1. Baseline

2. BRT

3. LRT

4. Streetcar (LPA)


16/34

Sugar House

The alternative chosen had to

satisfy the following categories

to the max:1. Ridership

2. Capital Cost

3. Operations and

Maintenance Cost

4. Public support

5. Community and social

compatibility

6. Potential land use effects


17/34

Pinellas County

Concern:The county wanted to

provide local and regional

connections. This would

also encourage new

transit markets.

City Profile

Area = 1547 sq.km.

Pop.= 9,16,542 (2011)

Density = 1264person/sq.km.

05 city of Clearwater 15 city of Pinellas park

11 city of largo 22 city of St. Petersburg

FLORIDA

PINELLAS COUNTY


18/34

Pinellas County

1Planning

2Alternatives Analysis

3Selection f locally preferred alternative

4Preliminary Engineering

5Final Design

6Construction/ Operations

Methodology

Projection years: 25 yrsDEMAND:

1. Providing accessibility to the

different zones of the county.2. Providing an efficient travel

time

3. Facilitating economic

development along the

corridor


19/34

Pinellas County

ROUTES AND TECHNOLOGY

Finding the best routes to connect:

1. Downtown Clearwater

2. Gateway Area

3. Downtown St. Petersburg

4. Hillsborough County

GEOGRAPHY AND

CONNECTIONS

The corridor options best

connecting Clearwater,

Gateway, St. Petersburg and

Hillsborough.

1. East West lines

2. North South Lines


COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

AND COSTS

Finding how detailed

alternatives (alignment,

technology, operating plans)

provide community

connections.

1. Maximum Benefits2. Altenatives Phasing

3. Cost

Pi ll CAl i


20/34

Pinellas CountyAlternatives:

Clearwater

Largo

Greater Gateway

Pinellas Park

St. Petersburg Hillsborough County

`

From Clearwater to St. Petersburg - 36 km.

Greater gateway to Tampa - 23 km.

Screen one evolution

Screen two evolution

Pi ll C tAl i S l d


21/34

Pinellas County

Screen three evolution

Alternative Selected:

P tl d N th


22/34

Portland North

Concern:Main concern was to

improve travel time and

decrease congestion

City Profile

Area = 180 sq.km.

Pop.= 1,88,080 (2011)

Density = 1199.3person/sq.km.

1Planning




5Final Design


Methodology


DEMAND:

1. Reduce highway

congestion

2. Increase mobilityoptions

3. Integrate Land Use and

Transportation

4. Promote community

and economic

development

MAINE

PORTLAND

STUDY AREA

P tl d N thAlt ti


23/34

Portland North

Bus on Shoulder Operation

Alternatives:

P tl d N th


24/34

Portland North:

Pan Am line

Yarmouth :Brunswick/ Bath

:

Auburn/ Lewiston

SLR Line

Portland North


25/34

Portland North

Table 2-9: Summary of Express Bus Service Alternatives

Service Statistics

Yarmouth Brunswick Bath Auburn Lewiston

BOSBOS &ROW

BOSBOS &ROW

BOSBOS &ROW

BOSBOS &ROW

BOSBOS &ROW

Roundtrip Travel Time 30 22 72 64 92 84 88 82 108 102

with Loop 47 39 89 81 109 101 105 99 125 119

Cycle Time 30 30 90 90 120 90 90 90 120 120

with Loop 60 60 90 90 120 120 120 120 150 120

Route Miles 10.5 28.5 36.7 35.1 41 10.4 28.1 36.3 34.6 40.5

with Loop 14 32 40.2 38.6 44.5 13.9 31.6 39.8 38.1 44

Daily Revenue Miles* 616 1,408 1,769 1,698 1,958 612 1,390 1,751 1,676 1,936

Daily Revenue Hours* 18:08 16:00 29:20 27:44 34:40 32:32 32:00 29:52 37:20 35:12

*statistics include distribution loop operated through downtown Portland

Table 2-10: Summary of Commuter Rail Alternatives

Daily Trips Route Miles

Daily Rev.

Miles

Daily Rev.

Hours

PanAm

Union Station

Yarmouth 44 13.7 603 36

Brunswick 44 27.7 1,219 45

Bath 44 36.2 1,593 59

South Auburn 44 30.2 1,329 43

Lewiston 44 35.5 1,560 57

PanAm

Center Street

Yarmouth 44 15.8 695 36

Brunswick 44 29.8 1,311 45

Bath 44 38.3 1,685 59

South Auburn 44 32.3 1,421 43

Lewiston 44 37.6 1,652 57

SLR

Bayside

Yarmouth 44 9.3 409 32

Brunswick 44 25.8 1,135 44Bath 44 34.3 1,509 58

South Auburn 44 27.9 1,228 40

Lewiston 44 33.7 1,483 54

SLR

India Street

Yarmouth 44 10.1 444 32

Brunswick 44 26.6 1,170 44

Bath 44 35.1 1,544 58

South Auburn 44 28.7 1,263 40

Lewiston 44 34.5 1,518 54

Phase I Screening:

1. Costs

2. Projected ridership

3. Cost per rider figure


Phase II Screening:

Bus on Shoulder expressbus + Pan Am to Center

Street Rail

1. Amtrack

Downeaster

extension a part of

basline conditions

Phase III Screening:Alternatives serving

Brunswick

1. Portland- Brunswick

corridor

2. Intercity Service

investment

3. Combining intercityand commuter

services

Portland NorthAlternatives: Integrated Rail Integrated Bus Services; Screen III


26/34

Portland NorthAlternatives: Integrated Rail, Integrated Bus Services; Screen III

Portland NorthAlternatives: Integrated Rail Integrated Bus Services


27/34

Portland NorthAlternatives: Integrated Rail, Integrated Bus Services

Coordinated Public Transport Service TSM 1

1. 14 round trips

between Brunswick,

Yarmouth andPortland- train/ bus

2. 9 round trips to

Brunswick- bus

3. 3 downeaster trips

4. 2 short turn round

trips from Yarmouthand Falmouth

1. 14 round trips

between Brunswick,

Yarmouth and

Portland- train/ bus2. 9 round trips to

Brunswick- bus

3. 3 downeaster trips

4. 2 short turn round

trips from Yarmouth

only

Alternative selectedCoordinated Public Transport Service TSM 2

Columbia Pike


28/34

Columbia Pike

Concern:The counties wanted to

improve the transit

services to promoteeconomic development.

Study area Profile

(Arlington, Fairfax)

Area = 1547 sq.km.

Pop.= 91,000 (2011)

Density = 1264

person/sq.km.

1Planning




5Final Design


Methodology???


DEMAND:

1. Increase roadway capacity

2. Support for future growth

3. Connectivity of Skyline to the

regional transit network

VIRGINIA


29/34

Columbia PikeAlternatives: Streetcar build options


30/34


-

1. Ability to meet the stated

purpose and need of

project

2. Stakeholder feedback

3. Environmental constraints

4. Right- of- way needs

5. Engineering constraints




31/34


Mauritius


32/34

Country ProfileArea =2040 sq.km.

Pop.= 12,86,760 (2011)

Density = 630 person/sq.km.

Corridor = 25 km

Concern:Decreasing public transport

leads to increased private

motorization and traffic

congestion

Maurit

ius

25 km(Corridor)

Mauritius



3Alternatives-Routes, Modes and Cross Section of Road

4Evaluation of Alternatives- Criteria and Screening

5 Layout of Final Corridor

6Stakeholder Decision

7Funding

Methodology


Source : Multi-Criteria Analysis of the Alternative Mode of Transport

MauritiusAlternatives available:


33/34

Mauritiuste at es a a ab e

Mauritius


34/34

Mauritius


Alternative selected LRT System was opted for the corridor under all the above assessments

FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT

1. Capital Cost

2. Revenue

3. Operating Cost

ECONOMICAL ASSESSMENT

1. Sensitivity tests

2. Impacts of modes on

corridor

SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

1. Communities along

route

2. Public transit users

3. Effect on transit

employees

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1. Land and property

2. Road traffic

3. Cultural and historic sites

4. Visual impact

5. Air pollution

INFERENCES:

Methodology for the

selection of criteria.

Responsible authorities.

Type of assessments

done for the validation of

alternatives.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	leftierenee
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Alternative Analysis Case Study

Documents