Upload
leftierenee
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
1/34
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
3/34
Los AngelesALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
5/34
Los AngelesAlternate selected
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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.
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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: ??????????
Projection years: 20 yrs
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
8/34
Miami- Dade
Alternatives selected
Alternatives
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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: ?????
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
1Corridor Identification
2Corridor Study- Demand, Traffic Flow needs etc.
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
Projection years: 20 yrs
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
13/34
Ogden- Weber
Evaluation criteria:
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
Projection years: 20 yrs
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
15/34
Sugar House
Alternatives explored:
1. Baseline
2. BRT
3. LRT
4. Streetcar (LPA)
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
Evaluation criteria:
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
21/34
Pinellas County
Screen three evolution
Alternative Selected:
P tl d N th
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
2Alternatives Analysis
3Selection f locally preferred alternative
4Preliminary Engineering
5Final Design
6Construction/ Operations
Methodology
Projection years: 25 yrs
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
23/34
Portland North
Bus on Shoulder Operation
Alternatives:
P tl d N th
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
24/34
Portland North:
Pan Am line
Yarmouth :Brunswick/ Bath
:
Auburn/ Lewiston
SLR Line
Portland North
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
Evaluation criteria:
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
26/34
Portland NorthAlternatives: Integrated Rail, Integrated Bus Services; Screen III
Portland NorthAlternatives: Integrated Rail Integrated Bus Services
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
2Alternatives Analysis
3Selection f locally preferred alternative
4Preliminary Engineering
5Final Design
6Construction/ Operations
Methodology???
Projection years: 25 yrs
DEMAND:
1. Increase roadway capacity
2. Support for future growth
3. Connectivity of Skyline to the
regional transit network
VIRGINIA
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
29/34
Columbia PikeAlternatives: Streetcar build options
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
30/34
Columbia PikeAlternatives: Streetcar build options
-
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
Evaluation criteria:
Columbia PikeAlternatives: Streetcar build options
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
31/34
Columbia PikeAlternatives: Streetcar build options
Mauritius
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
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
1Corridor Identification
2Corridor Study- Demand, Traffic Flow needs etc.
3Alternatives-Routes, Modes and Cross Section of Road
4Evaluation of Alternatives- Criteria and Screening
5 Layout of Final Corridor
6Stakeholder Decision
7Funding
Methodology
Projection years: 20 yrs
Source : Multi-Criteria Analysis of the Alternative Mode of Transport
MauritiusAlternatives available:
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
33/34
Mauritiuste at es a a ab e
Mauritius
7/28/2019 Alternative Analysis Case Study
34/34
Mauritius
Evaluation criteria:
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.