Los Angeles

City Profile
Area =1302 sq.km. Pop.= 1,00,10,315 (2011) Density = 3124 ppl/sq.km. Corridor = ?

Methodology Projection years: 20 yrs

1 2 3 4 5

Conceptual alternatives

Identification of alternatives for initial screening

Short listing of alternatives Final screening Board adoption of alternative

ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE

Los Angeles

Los Angeles

Evaluation criteria: Purpose and need: 1. Area mobility needs 2. Goods movement 3. Improvement of service 4. Emergency access Environment 1. Traffic congestion 2. Business and residential relocation 3. Biological impacts 4. 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 the transit infrastructure

Alternate selected

Los Angeles

Miami- Dade
Existing Miami Dade Metro line

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.

U.S 1 Corridor

Miami-Dade County

Miami- Dade

Methodology: ?????????? Projection years: 20 yrs

1

Corridor Identification Corridor Study- Demand, Traffic Flow needs etc. Alternatives-Routes, Modes and Cross Section of Road Evaluation of Alternatives- Criteria and Screening Layout of Final Corridor Stakeholder Decision Funding

Miami- Dade

Alternatives Alternatives selected

Miami- Dade Evaluation Criteria: Based on 2 TIER assessment Tier I: Primary quantitative evaluation criteria (alternatives were analyzed and evaluated based on a scoring system developed for each criteria) 1. 2. 3. 4. Number of north/south travel options Travel time and Headways Transit routes serving rail Future employment and population near stations 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Total capital cost System operating cost Auto/transit conflict points System connectivity Transit ridership or trips Community impacts and impacts to the existing Bus way and Metrorail Tier II: Evaluation Criteria (alternatives were analyzed and evaluated based on potential environment effects) 1. Mobility a. Ridership b. Traffic Impacts 2. Built Environment a. Land use b. Visual Impacts 3. Natural Environment a. 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 Benefit b. Cost per new rider

Alternative selected: ?????

Ogden- Weber Concern: The transit service in inadequate to serve the increasing population, with poor reliability and service City Profile Area = 69 sq.km. Pop.= 82,825 (2011) Density = 1934.7 person/sq.km. Corridor = 36 km

Utah

Methodology Projection years: 20 yrs

1

Corridor Identification Corridor Study- Demand, Traffic Flow needs etc. Major sections in study area Alternatives-Routes, Modes and Cross Section of Road Evaluation of Alternatives- Criteria and Screening Layout of final corridor Limitations and issues Stakeholder decision and funding

Ogden

2
3

4
5 6 7 8

Ogden- Weber

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

Initial Alignment Alternatives and Alignment Sub-areas Street-car

BRT

Corridor Alignment Alternatives

Ogden- Weber 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/Streetscape Land Use Economic Development Right-of-Way Needs Potential Environmental Impacts

MODE Boarding and ridership data

SECTION FOR MODE ROW available LOS of the section(including intersection

Corridor Alignment Selected

Ogden- Weber

Evaluation criteria:
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. Effectiveness 2. Impacts/benefits 3. Cost-effectiveness 4. Financial feasibility 5. Equity 6. Transit benefits/Ridership potential 7. Traffic 8. Community development 9. Environmental impact

INFERENCES: 1. Issues in the project Traffic flow, demand Slope, topography and engineering activity oriented centres 2. Methodology 3. Route Selectionaccording to the criteria and the parameters 4. Mode Street-car may be a biased decision. Other options not fully explored

Sugar House Concern: Apart from the congestion and pollution problems, there is a need to support community redevelopment City Profile Area = xxx sq.km. Pop.= 11.45.905 (2011) Density = xxxx person/sq.km. Corridor = xxx km

Process Projection years: 20 yrs

1 2 3 4

Development of alternatives First level screening Second level screening Third level screening to arrive at the locally preferred alternative

Sugar House

Alternatives explored: 1. Baseline 2. BRT 3. LRT 4. Streetcar (LPA)

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

Pinellas County City Profile Area = 1547 sq.km. Pop.= 9,16,542 (2011) Density = 1264 person/sq.km.

FLORIDA
Concern: The county wanted to provide local and regional connections. This would also encourage new transit markets.

PINELLAS COUNTY

05 city of Clearwater 15 city of Pinellas park 11 city of largo 22 city of St. Petersburg

Pinellas County Methodology Projection years: 25 yrs

1

Planning Alternatives Analysis Selection f locally preferred alternative Preliminary Engineering Final Design Construction/ Operations

2
3 4 5 6

DEMAND: 1. Providing accessibility to the different zones of the county. 2. Providing an efficient travel time 3. Facilitating economic development along the corridor

Pinellas County

Evaluation criteria:
GEOGRAPHY AND CONNECTIONS
The corridor options best connecting Clearwater, Gateway, St. Petersburg and Hillsborough. 1. East West lines 2. North South Lines ROUTES AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AND COSTS

Finding how detailed alternatives (alignment, technology, operating plans) provide community connections. 1. Maximum Benefits 2. Altenatives Phasing 3. Cost

Finding the best routes to connect: 1. 2. 3. 4. Downtown Clearwater Gateway Area Downtown St. Petersburg Hillsborough County

Alternatives:

Pinellas County From Clearwater to St. Petersburg - 36 km. Greater gateway to Tampa - 23 km.

Screen two evolution

Clearwater Largo Greater Gateway Pinellas Park St. Petersburg Hillsborough County

Screen one evolution

Alternative Selected: Screen three evolution

Pinellas County

Portland North DEMAND: 1. Reduce highway congestion 2. Increase mobility options 3. Integrate Land Use and Concern: Transportation Main concern was to 4. Promote community improve travel time and and economic decrease congestion development Methodology Projection years: 25 yrs
1

MAINE

City Profile Area = 180 sq.km. Pop.= 1,88,080 (2011) Density = 1199.3 person/sq.km.

Planning Alternatives Analysis Selection f locally preferred alternative Preliminary Engineering Final Design Construction/ Operations

PORTLAND

STUDY AREA

are provided later in this chapter.

4:

Alternatives:

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Bus-On-Shoulder Operation

Portland North

Figure 2-5:

Exclusive ROW Operation

Definition of Alternatives and Analysis Final Report ulder operations was developed in an effort to meet the 50% dedicated fixed guideway requirement of the FTA small program.

Bus on Shoulder Operation

Page 2-9 August 2011

of Alternatives and Analysis Final Report

Page 2-7 August 2011

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 2-35: Yarmouth Rail Option SLR Line

Yarmouth

Portland North

Figure 2-45: Brunswick/Bath Rail Option SLR Option

Brunswick/ Bath

Figure 2-54: Auburn/Lewiston Rail Option SLR Option

Auburn/ Lewiston

SLR Line

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Figure 2-36: Yarmouth Rail Option Pan Am Line

Figure 2-46: Brunswick/Bath Rail Option Pan Am Option

Figure 2-55: Auburn/Lewiston Rail Option Pa n Am Option

Definition of Alternatives and Analysis Final Report

Page 2-34 of Alternatives and Analysis Final Report AugustDefinition 2011

Page 2-41 Definition of Alternatives and Analysis Final Report August 2011

Page 2-48 August 2011

Pan Am line

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Portland North
Daily Rev. Hours 36 45 59 43 57 36 45 59 43 57 32

Table 2-9:

Summary of Express Bus Service Alternatives

Yarmouth Brunswick BOS & BOS ROW Bath BOS & BOS ROW Auburn BOS & BOS ROW Lewiston BOS BOS & ROW

Table 2-10: Summary of Commuter Rail Alternatives

Daily Trips Union Station Yarmouth
Pan Am

Service Statistics

BOS

BOS & ROW

Route Miles 13.7 27.7 36.2 30.2 35.5 15.8 29.8 38.3 32.3 37.6 9.3

Daily Rev. Miles 603 1,219 1,593 1,329 1,560 695 1,311 1,685 1,421 1,652 409

Roundtrip Travel Time with Loop Cycle Time with Loop Route Miles with Loop Daily Revenue Miles* Daily Revenue Hours*

30 47 30 60 10.5 14 616

22 39 30 60 28.5 32

72 89 90 90 36.7 40.2

64 81 90 90 35.1 38.6

92 109 120 120 41 44.5

84 101 90 120 10.4 13.9 612

88 105 90 120 28.1 31.6

82 99 90 120 36.3 39.8

108 125 120 150 34.6 38.1 1,676 37:20

102 119 120 120 40.5 44

44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

Brunswick Bath South Auburn Lewiston Center Street Yarmouth

Pan Am

1,408 1,769 1,698 1,958

1,390 1,751

1,936 35:12

18:08 16:00 29:20 27:44 34:40 32:32 32:00 29:52

Brunswick Bath South Auburn Lewiston Bayside Yarmouth Brunswick

*statistics include distribution loop operated through downtown Portland

Service to five outer terminals was evaluated with the intent that service to only one of these outer terminals will be proposed at the completion of the overall analysis.

Evaluation criteria:
Rail Alternatives Phase I Screening:

44 Phase III Screening: Bath 44 34.3 1,509 58 The rail service would terminate in downtown Portland at either a Bayside or India Street Station on the Alternatives serving South Auburn 44 27.9 1,228 40 SLR line, or at Union Station or a Center Street Station on the Pan Am line. In Portland, all terminals except Center Street would require operation of a shuttle bus service to get riders closer to their final Lewiston 44 33.7 1,483 54 Brunswick 1. in Costs destinations downtown. Table 2-10 provides a summary of service statistics for the commuter rail India Street alternatives. 1. Portland- Brunswick Yarmouth 44 10.1 444 32 2. Projected ridership Brunswick 44 26.6 1,170 44 corridor 3. Cost per rider figure Bath 44 35.1 1,544 58 South Auburn 44 28.7 1,263 40 2. Intercity Service Lewiston 44 34.5 1,518 54 Phase II Screening: investment Bus on Shoulder express 3. Combining intercity 2.4 Fleet Requirements For bus and rail alternatives, fleet size (number of vehicles or rail consists ) was determined based on bus + Pan Am to Center and commuter projected service miles and hours. Fleet size was further modified to ensure that all projected rider would have a seat for their trip to Portland (or to the outer terminal for reverse commuting). Street Rail services 1. Amtrack 2.4.1 Express Bus For both express bus options BOS or BOS & ROW the fleet size would be the same for each oute Downeaster terminal. The commuter buses are assumed to be 80-passenger 55-foot over-the-road double decke extension a part of buses, similar to the buses operated by MegaBus. The fleet size includes spare vehicles at a spare ratio of 15%, an industry standard. The fleet size also includes the necessary buses to operate the downtown basline conditions distribution loop. Table 2-11 lists the total number of vehicles required for each of the express bu
SLR SLR

2.3.2

25.8

1,135

Definition of Alternatives and Analysis Final Report

Page 2-61 alternatives. Fleet requirements are higher for Bath service because of the longer distance to Portland August 2011 and also because of the higher projected ridership (See Section 2.6). Longer travel times contribute to

Alternatives: Integrated Rail, Integrated Bus Services; Screen III

Integrated Rail Service

CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Portland North

CHA ALTERNATIVES AN

3-1:

Figure 3-2:

Integrated Bus Servic e

Similar to the IRS option, Union Station would also used as an Amtrak stop to provide commute convenient access to the Maine Medical Center. Additionally, no shuttle service would be prov ed Bus Service Union Station for passengers boarding and alighting the Downeaster. With the Integrated Bus alternative asusing ridership grows trains could replace buses. grated Bus Service (IBS) would operate 12 bus roundtrips between Portland and Brunswick

shoulder (BOS) operation on I-295 during periods of traffic congestion. Bus stations would be 3.2.2 tripsOperating Plans - Integrated Rail and Integrated Bus Services d at I-295 Exits 10 and 15. The Downeaster would continue to provide three rounds per day Amtrak deadhead train would be converted to revenue service. Due to operational constraints, The operating assumptions and conceptual service plans describe information such as stop p s midday Downeaster trips #684 and #681 will continue to stop only at Freeport and Brunswick. number of trips and headway for the Integrated Rail and Integrated Bus Service options. Th 3-2 shows the map of Integrated Bus Service. See Section 3.2.2.2 for theprovide proposed service description of where the service would operate, the primary service destinati a general e. well as how often or frequent service would be.

Integrated Rail Service

Table 3-1 provides a conceptual schedule of the Integrated Rail Option. As shown in the tab Downeaster, the proposed commuter service would provide an extension to Amtrak #685 (c scheduled to terminate at the Portland Transportation Center), out to Brunswick. Table 3-2 pro summary of the number of the roundtrips provided with this option. The Integrated Rail Service have a total number of six trips, three for each of the AM peak arrivals and PM peak departures.

re 3-5:

Alternatives: Integrated Rail, Integrated Bus Services

Coordinated Public Transport Service TSM 1

Figure 3-8:

Coordinated Public Transport Service TSM 2

Portland North

1. 14 round trips between Brunswick, Yarmouth and Portland- train/ bus 2. 9 round trips to Brunswick- bus 3. 3 downeaster trips 4. 2 short turn round trips from Yarmouth only

1. 14 round trips between Brunswick, Yarmouth and Portland- train/ bus 2. 9 round trips to Brunswick- bus 3. 3 downeaster trips 4. 2 short turn round trips from Yarmouth and Falmouth

Coordinated Public Transport Service TSM 1

Alternative selected Coordinated Public Transport Service TSM 2

Columbia Pike Study area Profile (Arlington, Fairfax) Area = 1547 sq.km. Pop.= 91,000 (2011) Density = 1264 person/sq.km. Concern: The counties wanted to improve the transit services to promote economic development.

VIRGINIA

Figure 1.1-1: Project Corridor

DEMAND: 1. Increase roadway capacity 2. Support for future growth 3. Connectivity of Skyline to the regional transit network Methodology??? Projection years: 25 yrs
1

Planning Alternatives Analysis Selection f locally preferred alternative Preliminary Engineering Final Design Construction/ Operations

Figure 2.1-3: No Build Alternative Route Network

Alternatives: No Build Alternative

Table 2.1-3: Characteristics of Alternatives No Build Vehicle Fleet Type* Total Vehicles per hour (peak): Total Vehicles per hour (off-peak) To Pentagon (peak) To Pentagon (off-peak) To Pentagon City (peak) To Pentagon City (off-peak) To Other Destinations (peak) To Other Destinations (off-peak) Average Service Frequency Standard buses 39 16 15 6 11 4 13 (7 WMATA buses; 6 ART buses) 6 (ART buses)

Figure 2.1-4: TSM Alternatives Route Network

TSM 1- Enhanced Bus TSM 2- Articulated Bus

TSM 1 TSM 2 Standard buses; Articulated buses on selected routes: 16G, 16H 44 26 15 6 12 (10 articulated buses) 10 (10 articulated buses) 17 (7 WMATA buses; 10 ART buses) 10 (ART buses)

Columbia Pike
Streetcar Build Streetcars and standard buses 44 26 15 6 12 (10 streetcar vehicles) 10 (10 streetcar vehicles) 17 (7 WMATA buses; 10 ART buses) 10 (ART buses)

Standard buses 44 26 15 6 12 10 17 (7 WMATA buses; 10 ART buses) 10 (ART buses)

2.0 Alternatives Along ColumbiaConsidered Pike

Figure 2.1-5: Streetcar Alignment and Background Bus Service Route Network

2-3 min peak; 6 min off-peak The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires a peak; comparison 4 min Pentagon of alternatives to To satisfy a projects purpose and need. Additionally, the FTA 10 min off-peak 2-6 Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment Volume I New Starts/Small Starts Program requires an alternatives analysis to support 5.5 min peak; Pentagon City Alternative (LPA). As part of the project he selection of aTo Locally Preferred 15 min off-peak

A more detailed definition of each alternative, including additional operational and physical characteristics of each alternative, is available in 2-3 min peak; Same TSM 1 Same as TSM 1 Volume II: Detailed Definition ofas Alternatives Technical Memorandum. 4 min off-peak
Same as No Build as TSM TSM 1 Same TSM 2 1 Same as TSM 2

Streetcar, Standard Buses

development process, FTA requires the development of a Transportation SmarTrip and cash: onFare collection Systems Management (TSM) alternative that can serve vehicle as a baseline alternative payment or comparison to the proposed build alternative. A TSM alternative provides Stops located at most or modest investments that can improve the existing transit system without higher capital investments. This allows both FTA intersections, and decision-makers an Transit Stops 1/8 mile opportunity to compare alternatives to see if similarapproximately transit benefits can be apart achieved with a lower capital investment. Implementation of Super Stops Program Yes

Enhanced Stops not Pike Starts requirements, No To meet both the NEPA andalong NewColumbia Starts/Small the Boarding Areas Raised along Columbia Pike Columbia Pike Transit Initiative is evaluating four alternatives, ranging in Boarding and Alighting Front door boarding nvestment levels, which seek to address the transportation needs of the corridor. The alternatives include: Existing Site at Columbia

Facility Pike and Four Mile Run No Park-and-Ride Build Alternative Drive TSM 1 Alternative Enhanced Bus TSM 2 Alternative Articulated Bus *Unless otherwise noted, peak-period vehicles are standard 35-foot or 40-foot buses. Streetcar Build Alternative

No 5 min peak; Same as TSM 1 Build 6 min off-peak Planned Service Enhancements Off-vehicle payment and Increased Span of Service Same as No Build validation; on-board random inspections Consolidated Stop Locations along Columbia Pike Consolidated stops located Improved Service Coverage (to as TSM 1 1/4 to 1/2 mile apart Same and from Skyline) along corridor Off-vehicle Fare Collection and Yes Yes Multi-door Boarding No Yes Increased Vehicle Passenger Same as No Build Raised along full alignment Capacity Same as No Build All door boarding Full Program of Stop Upgrades Existing Site at Columbia andand Four Mile Run (Including transfer Pike center Same as No Build Drive nearlevel boarding) Jefferson Street Transit Rail Vehicles and Associated Center Performance Characteristics

Table Alternatives Same as 2.1-1: No Build Overview of Same as No Build

Streetcar May 2012 Build

2-9

Same as TSM 1 Yes Yes Same as TSM 2 Same as TSM 2 Same as TSM 2

This chapter is organized into two parts. The first section provides descriptive definitions of the alternatives, including their physical and operational

2.1.1 No Build Alternative

NEPA requires consideration of a No Build Alternative to provide a basis for

Figure 2.2-1: Initial Streetcar Build Alternative Design Options

Alternatives: Streetcar build options

Columbia Pike

Evaluation criteria:
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

May 2012

2-19

Alternatives: Streetcar build options

Columbia Pike

Mauritius Concern: Decreasing public transport leads to increased private motorization and traffic congestion

Country Profile
Area =2040 sq.km. Pop.= 12,86,760 (2011) Density = 630 person/sq.km. Corridor = 25 km

Maurit ius

Methodology Projection years: 20 yrs

1

Corridor Identification Corridor Study- Demand, Traffic Flow needs etc. Alternatives-Routes, Modes and Cross Section of Road Evaluation of Alternatives- Criteria and Screening Layout of Final Corridor Stakeholder Decision Funding

25 km (Corridor)

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

Alternatives available:

Mauritius

Mauritius

Evaluation criteria:
FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT 1. Capital Cost 2. Revenue 3. Operating Cost ECONOMICAL ASSESSMENT 1. Sensitivity tests 2. Impacts of modes on corridor INFERENCES: Methodology for the selection of criteria. Responsible authorities. Type of assessments done for the validation of alternatives.

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

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

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