North Shore Connector Cost-Benefit Study of Extending Pittsburgh Light Rail Transit to the North Shore Parshwanath Adiraja Dan Concepcion Nicolas Zitelli.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Tacoma Link Expansion Infrastructure, Planning and Sustainability Committee Tacoma City Council--Nov. 13, 2013.
Advertisements

TBITE 05/15/ Heather Sobush, Senior Planner Christopher Cochran, Senior Planner
FAL Route 8.5km rail – majority underground Midland spur – 3 new stations 20 minutes from Forrestfield Station to Perth Central Station 2,100 passengers.
Cost-Effectiveness of Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from High- Speed Rail and Urban Transportation Projects in California Juan Matute and Mikhail.
FTA’s Small Starts Program Charlotte, North Carolina October 11, 2007.
Regional Public Transit Issues October 2, Transit in the 2040 CRP Identifies Deficiencies in the existing system Missing important centers of activities.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL: GETTING ON TRACK Silicon Valley Leadership Group Transportation Committee January 9, 2013.
Gilbert Road Light Rail Extension Transportation Project Advancement Agreement City Council Study Session December 4, 2014.
SR 50/UCF Connector Alternatives Analysis Orange County Board of County Commissioners January 13, 2015.
Public Information Sessions November 30, 2010: City Center at Oyster Point December 1, 2010: HRT Norfolk.
1 Corey W. Hill Chief of Public Transportation May 20, 2008 May 20, 2008.
Regional Transportation Commission, Washoe County Lee Gibson, Executive Director Roger Hanson, Senior Planner.
Passenger Rail Development Activities AASHTO Annual Meeting October 18, 2013 Serge Phillips, MnDOT Federal Relations Manager.
Multi-Modal Transit Center at Taylor Street: Project Overview and Uses for the Upper Floors Public Forum October 16, 2013.
“The Pennsylvania Project” High Speed Maglev A Cost Benefit Analysis Presented by: Shawn Buckner, Poonsri O’ Charoen, Chia-Hui Lan & Afshan Yousuf April.
Federal Transit Administration New Starts Project Development Process
Public Expenditure Analysis May 4, 2007 Cost-Benefit Analysis: Seattle Link Light Rail, Initial Segment Your presenters: Annie Gorman Hazel-Ann Petersen.
1 RTD TOD Program University of Denver November 2004.
Dulles Metro Extension Phase I: Tyson’s Corner Martene Bryan Luis Serna Matt Zarit.
SUBWAY SYSTEM IN NEW YORK CITY The Magical Subway.
ORANGE COUNTY FY COUNTY MANAGER RECOMMENDED BUDGET 8/15/2015 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET 1.
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL: GETTING ON TRACK Silicon Valley Leadership Group Transportation Committee January 9, 2013.
Public Transit in Sacramento
SEATTLE LIGHT RAIL STATION AREA PLANNING City of Seattle Station Area Planning in Seattle SEATTLE LIGHT RAIL STATION AREA PLANNING.
Rapid Transit Investment Plan David Armijo, CEO March 19, 2010.
Trends in Urban Transit in the U.S. – Some Comparisons Edd Hauser, P.E., PhD Nicholas J. Swartz, MPA Center for Transportation Policy Studies UNC Charlotte.
Leadership Asheville Gary Jackson City Manager Public Leadership and Delivering Better Service to Citizens for Less Money.
FY’10 School Budget Update Town Council Budget Hearing Town Hall Chambers April 13, 2009.
Finance Officer’s Report September 10, 2015 For the 12 Months Ended June 30, 2015.
Overland Park Public Works Committee – Transit Update June 24, 2015.
1 Governance Council Meeting Fiscal Year 2004 LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY GATEWAY CITIES SERVICE SECTOR December 18, 2003.
The FY 2006 New Starts Report Responding to the Demand for Transit.
2006 Annual Report on the Status of the Implementation of Proposition 400 Management Committee 9/6/06.
Wake County Transit Plan Choose how you move! December 7, 2011 Capital Area Friends of Transit 1.
Citizens Advisory Committee Quarterly Update Bill Van Meter, Assistant General Manager, Planning September 19, 2012.
Aliquippa School District Budget Presentation.
3TB Project Review Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) Overview January 25, 2013.
Imagine the Possibilities… Vision from the 2002 Rail Plan.
February 24, “Moving Transit Forward”  A fiscally responsible, community-driven vision for restoring, enhancing, and expanding the Metro Transit.
INTERREGIONAL EXPRESS BUS SERVICE Presentation to NATA – May 22, 2014.
Morgan County Transit Discussion UTA Corporate Staff Presentation November 19, 2013.
Metro’s Capital Improvement Needs Presented to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board By Tom Harrington, Director of Long Range Planning.
BRT in Pittsburgh: Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway
LA Metro’s Highway Program May 29, 2014
Canadian Court Intermodal Transportation Center Board of County Commissioners April 17, 2007.
Port Authority of Allegheny County FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET As presented to the TFLEX Conference August 19, 2002.
FlexBRT Project Briefing. Background Feasibility Study began in – $750,000 TEA-21 Grant to study an ITS Circulator in North Orange County/South.
Metropolitan Council 1 Twin Cities Region Transportation Policy Plan Nacho Diaz Metropolitan Council Evaluating Economic and Community Impacts of Transit.
Water Emergency Transportation Authority 1 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Short Range Transit Plan January 2016.
Understanding the UMass Boston Budget Finance and Administration Advisory Group March 2009.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority FY16 Budget Development: Preliminary Capital Program Board Staff Briefing February 12, 2015 The.
Transit is Smart Growth Matt Ryan Coconino County Supervisor Chair, NAIPTA April 24, 2012 Arizona Transit Association Annual Conference.
Board of Supervisors Transportation Committee June 25, 2013 (6/18 presentation draft) Proposed High Quality Transit Network Concept 1.
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position 7 OPERATING REVENUES: Fare revenue is above budget due to fare increases that became effective.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) PLANNING EFFORTS STATUS 1 Planning & Development Committee April 5, 2016.
Metropolitan Council Transit Capital Improvement Program October 10, 2007.
Transit Capital Project Revenue Advisory Board June 16, 2016 Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation Transit Resource Allocation Plan Capital.
2015 Annual Program Evaluation (APE) Status Update July 14, 2015.
2   Provides On And Off-Campus Shuttles   Increases Parking Availability   Reduces Traffic Congestion   Reduces Car Trips to Campus and Supports.
Stage 2 Light Rail Transit Program “In the ground ready”
A Presentation to: River to Sea TPO Board October 26, 2016.
Finance Committee & City Council October 10, 2016
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Seattle Link Light Rail, Initial Segment
Future Construction FasTracks Corridors Federal Funding Analysis
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Status Report on Rochester’s DMC Transportation Plan
PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES BY DIVISION
Durham and Orange Transit Plan Funding Needs
February 2017 New Starts Financial Plan
Port of Muscatine Planning and Feasibility study
Presentation transcript:

North Shore Connector Cost-Benefit Study of Extending Pittsburgh Light Rail Transit to the North Shore Parshwanath Adiraja Dan Concepcion Nicolas Zitelli April 28, 2004

North Shore Connector Project Details Costs Benefits Financing Conclusion

North Shore Connector will extend LRT 1.2 miles Source: Port Authority of Allegheny County 1.2 miles 0.3 miles

North Shore Connector strategy entails three major goals VISION More effectively link the Pittsburgh central business district with the North Shore area GOALS Enhance accessibility to major sports, cultural, and civic facilities Improve linkage between North Shore fringe parking and Golden Triangle employment centers Facilitate economic development in the Pittsburgh North Shore Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov. 2003

Current Light Rail System Data Current Data 7.5 mil. boardings per year Approx. 20,500 boardings/day $1.25 peak/$1.75 off-peak Estimated “T” revenue = $11.25 mil. per year Source: Port Authority of Allegheny County

Ridership expected to begin by 2008 North Shore Connector complete Full Funding Grant Agreement in FY 2005 federal budget Final design and engineering Construction begins Source: Port Authority of Allegheny County

Costs Assumptions 30 year timeline ( ) Construction from Discount rate = 7% Figures include 0.3 mile Convention Center spur Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov Costs CapitalOtherOperating

Capital Costs Capital Costs = $362.8 mil Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov. 2003

Operating Costs Operating Costs = $8.5 mil/year Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov. 2003

Other Costs Environmental Disruption Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov. 2003

Total Costs $362.8 mil Capital + $8.5 mil/year Operating Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov = $411.9 mil Total (NPV)

Benefits Assumptions 30 year timeline ( ) Ridership begins in 2008 Discount rate = 7% Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov Benefits OperatingOther

Operating Benefits Ridership = 16,100 boardings/day Average fare = $0.89/trip Time saved = 8 min/trip Average wage rate = $33,837/year Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov Operating Benefits = $175.9 mil (NPV)

Other Benefits Economic development Access to North Shore Downtown access to commuter parking lots North Shore redevelopment will take place with or without LRT extension There is already existing PAT bus service Parking lots on North Side have existing shuttle service to downtown Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov. 2003

Total Benefits Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov $175.9 mil Operating + $0 Other = $175.9 mil Total (NPV)

North Shore Connector will have a negative NPV Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov $175.9 mil Benefits (PV) -$411.9 mil Costs (PV) = -$236 mil Total (NPV)

Project needs a discount rate of -2.1% to break even

Federal, State, and Local government money will finance capital costs Source: Federal Transit Administration, New Starts Report – Stage II LRT Construction (Pittsburgh, PA), Nov $290.3 milFederal (Grant) + $60.5 milState (Appropriations) + $12.1 milLocal (Appropriations) = $362.9 milTotal Funding

Look Familiar?

Opportunity Costs Operating Budget of Pittsburgh = $338 mil (2004 estimate) Expenditures on general services = $22.29 mil (2004 estimate) Pennsylvania’s expenditure on cost of premiums for Medicare participation = $14.2 mil

Conclusion LRT ridership expected to increase 78% because of North Shore Connector Government funding should cover capital costs Revenues from fare and other sources need to cover operating costs Other benefits (apartments, offices, retail) might arise from North Shore Connector