Laserfiche WebLink
substantial new construction, it does not require acquisition of right -of -way, nor does it <br />adversely affect any conditions in the environment compared to the No Build Alternative. <br />Both Streetcar Alternatives require acquisition of right -of -way (with Streetcar Alternative 2 <br />requiring somewhat more than Streetcar Alternative 1). Because both Streetcar <br />Alternatives involve new construction, both alternatives will alter conditions in the <br />environment compared to the No Build Alternative. <br />The MOEs for Cost Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility in the Alternatives Analysis <br />included Constructability /Ease of Construction, Capital Cost, Capital Cost per Route Mile, <br />Annualized Operating Cost, and Operating Cost per Hour. During the environmental review <br />process, and as part of the public outreach efforts that were undertaken in support of the <br />environmental review, capital and operating costs for the alternatives were reviewed as <br />were the Cost Effectiveness MOEs. <br />The TSM Alternative ranked first for Constructability /Ease of Construction because of the <br />very limited amount of construction likely to occur under this alternative. <br />TSM Alternative ranked first in capital cost and capital cost per route mile. However, <br />although the TSM Alternative is initially less expensive to implement, the busses used in <br />the TSM Alternative only have a 12 -year life cycle, compared to a 25 to 30 year life cycle <br />for streetcar vehicles. Also, Streetcar 1 has the lowest annual operating cost. So while <br />Streetcar Alternative 1 costs considerably more than the TSM Alternative to initially <br />implement, after 25 years it has cost less than TSM or Streetcar 2 to construct, operate <br />and maintain. Over a 25 year period, the cost per passenger to construct, maintain and <br />operate Streetcar Alternative 1 is approximately half that of the TSM alternative. <br />Table 5 -1 provides a summary of estimated capital and operating costs for each of the <br />alternatives. <br />Table 5 -1: Cost Comparison of Alternatives <br />*Operating Cost of TSM SARTC -to- Harbor route only is $5.1 million; daily ridership is 3,085. <br />Table 5 -2 shows the results of the detailed evaluation of alternatives. Again, Streetcar <br />Alternative 1 is ranked first overall with the TSM Alternative ranking second. <br />I.PA Decision Report <br />July 2014 <br />55C -73 <br />5.21 Page <br />STREETCAR <br />STREETCAR <br />TSM <br />ALTERNATIVE <br />1 ALTERNATIVE 2 <br />i $197.4 million - <br />$217.0 million - <br />Capital Cost <br />_ <br />$14.5 million <br />$209.7 million <br />4 $228.1 million <br />Daily Ridership <br />� 31982 <br />6,090 <br />4,752 <br />Operating Cost (Annual) _ <br />.3 <br />13 million <br />$ _ <br />$4.9 million <br />___ <br />r <br />�_ $6.1 million <br />Cost /Passenger <br />$10.20 <br />$6.59 <br />t$9.59 <br />Cost /Revenue Mile <br />$13.23_ <br />$14.86 <br />t <br />—tI $16.81 <br />Cost /Revenue Hour <br />$125.70 <br />$187.12 <br />1 $187.12 <br />*Operating Cost of TSM SARTC -to- Harbor route only is $5.1 million; daily ridership is 3,085. <br />Table 5 -2 shows the results of the detailed evaluation of alternatives. Again, Streetcar <br />Alternative 1 is ranked first overall with the TSM Alternative ranking second. <br />I.PA Decision Report <br />July 2014 <br />55C -73 <br />5.21 Page <br />