Laserfiche WebLink
2.7 Conclusions and Tradeoffs among Alternatives <br />Streetcar Alternative 1 was ranked first in all MOEs included in Accessibility and Livability <br />because it served the greatest number of transit dependent households and was estimated <br />to have the highest daily ridership of the three alternatives. It ranked the highest among <br />the alternatives on Economic Development, Transit Supportive Land Use and Community <br />Goals. The existing land uses along the eastern portion of the Streetcar Alternative 1 <br />alignment provide the densities and development patterns to support a high capacity transit <br />system. Adopted land use plans that cover the Streetcar Alternative 1 alignment support <br />and encourage the types of development /redevelopment likely to occur in conjunction with <br />high capacity and transit, and existing development patterns provide opportunity for such <br />development /redevelopment to occur. Streetcar Alternative 1 effectively serves key <br />destinations within the corridor area, ranking it first in Travel Benefit, Choice and <br />Reliability. <br />The TSM alternative ranked first among the alternatives in Environmental Responsibility. <br />Because it does not include substantial new construction, it does not require acquisition of <br />right -of -way, nor does it adversely affect any conditions in the environment compared to <br />the No Build Alternative. <br />In terms of Cost Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility, the TSM Alternative ranked first for <br />constructability /ease of construction because of the very limited amount of construction <br />likely to occur under this alternative. It has the lowest capital cost of the alternatives, and <br />therefore the lowest cost per route mile. <br />Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked second in terms of constructability /ease of construction, and <br />capital cost. It was estimated to be less expensive than Streetcar Alternative 2 primarily <br />because of its shorter route length. Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked first in terms of annual <br />operating cost and second on operating costs per hour. The TSM Alternative includes <br />considerably greater number of revenue hours than Streetcar Alternative 1 or 2, although <br />the cost per revenue hour for the TSM Alternative was less than for the Streetcar <br />Alternatives. <br />Overall, Streetcar Alternative 1 ranked first among the alternatives based on the technical <br />evaluation. <br />LPA Decision Report <br />July 2014 <br />55C -48 <br />2.181 Page <br />