Laserfiche WebLink
Table 5 -2: Final Alternatives Ranking <br />CRITERIA I MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS <br />TSM <br />STREETCAR <br />ALTERNATIVE 1 <br />STREETCAR <br />ALTERNATIVE 2 <br />1. <br />ACCESSIBILITY AND LIVABILITY <br />1A <br />1113 <br />No. of transit - dependent households within 1/4 3 1 2 <br />mile walkinkdistance of proposed _alignment —� <br />No. of daily riders (average weekday boardings) 3 1 2 <br />2• <br />ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY GOALS <br />_ <br />2A <br />Assessment of the transit supportiveness of <br />land uses served by the proposed alignment <br />3 <br />1 <br />_ <br />2 <br />26 <br />Assessment of the economic development <br />potential of land uses served by the proposed <br />alignment <br />3 <br />1 <br />2 <br />2C <br />Community Support <br />2 <br />1 <br />1 <br />3. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY <br />3A <br />3B <br />Amount of additional right -of -way required 1 2 3 _ <br />Environmental Tradeoffs 2 3 <br />4• <br />TRAVEL BENEFITS, CHOICE AND RELIABILITY <br />4A <br />Customer service (travel times between 0 -D <br />airs) <br />2 <br />_ <br />1 <br />3 <br />46 <br />Number of daily riders (average weekday <br />boardin s) <br />3 <br />1 <br />2 <br />5. <br />COST EFFECTIVENESS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY <br />5A <br />Constructability /ease of construction <br />1 <br />2 <br />_ <br />3 <br />56 <br />Capital cost <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />5C <br />_ <br />Capital cost per route mile <br />1 <br />2 <br />_ <br />3 <br />5D <br />Annualized_ operating cost_ <br />3 <br />1 <br />2 <br />5E <br />Operating cost per passenger <br />3 <br />1 <br />_ <br />2 <br />_ <br />_ <br />30 <br />_ _ <br />19 <br />33 <br />OVERALL RANKING <br />2 <br />1 <br />3 <br />*For purposes of comparison to the Streetcar Alternatives, the Annualized Operating Cost for <br />TSM includes only the SARTC -to- Harbor route. <br />5.1.1 Design Options Evaluation Results <br />O &M Facility Site: As described in Section 2.4.1, two sites were considered for the 0 &M <br />facility. Based on the results of the detailed evaluation of the two sites it was concluded <br />that Site A was slightly smaller than Site B and irregularly shaped, making the ease of <br />operations somewhat less than with Site B. Site A was also more expensive than Site B. <br />However it offered advantages in terms of environmental tradeoffs. It would not result in <br />the displacement of any residents. Neither site were estimated to create additional noise <br />LPA Decision Report <br />July 2014 <br />55C -74 <br />6-3I Page <br />