Region of Waterloo. Rapid Transit Initiative. Preliminary Preferred Option May 12, 2009

Transcription

1 Region of Waterloo Rapid Transit Initiative Preliminary Preferred Option May 12, 2009

2 Why Rapid Transit? 729,000 people (+45%), 366,000 jobs (+44%) 40% of new development in existing urban areas 100,000 more people in central transit corridor Limited ability/opportunity to add or expand roads in core areas Opportunity to encourage and facilitate intensification Move people/shape urban form

3 Why Rapid Transit? Rapid Transit Promotes: A Stronger Economy: stimulates investment, helps attract and retain knowledge workers who contribute to our nationally significant economy Sustainable Growth: integrates transportation with land use planning to encourage intensification and development in urban areas and prevent sprawl A Cleaner Environment: helps reduce auto use and resulting emissions, protects key agricultural areas A Better Community: brings public health and social benefits

4 Environmental Assessment Timeline

5 Environmental Assessment Current Status Phase 2 Step 3a (Shortlist of system options) Completed June 2008 Phase 2 Step 3b (Preferred option) This meeting Transition to Transit EA Mid 2009

6 Environmental Assessment Where Are We Now? Phase 2 Step 3b Selection of the Preferred RT System Option Evaluation of alternative rapid transit system options 2 Light Rail Transit (LRT) options 2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) options 2 Staging Options The conclusion of this step will conclude the Environmental Assessment Following Council approval of the preferred RT option, the project will transition into the expedited Transit EA Regulation

7 Evaluation of Short-listed Options and Preliminary Preferred Option Multiple Account Evaluation Jeff Lehman

8 Multiple Account Evaluation (MAE) Evaluates costs and benefits (user, social, environmental, land use) within a series of accounts A hybrid of traditional cost-benefit analysis and the triple bottom line evaluation approach More flexible approach Considers costs and benefits Considers economic and other benefits Quantitative and qualitative Evaluation approach used by BC and MetroLinx

9 Accounts Direct Project and Transportation Account Direct Transportation User Benefits Account Environmental Account Land Use/Economic Development Account Social and Community Benefit Account Series of metrics in each account either monetary, quantitative, or qualitative measures Metrics reflect the RGMS objectives

10 RGMS Goals and MAE Metrics Foster a Strong Economy Capital Costs Operating Costs Operating Revenues (Fares, Parking) Travel Time Savings Vehicle Operating Cost Savings Accident Avoidance Savings Parking Cost Savings Employment Generated Taxes Generated Construction Disruption Build Vibrant Urban Places Residential Development Non-Residential Development Support to Regional Land Use Objectives Community Liveability Land Value Uplift Provide Greater Transportation Choice Ridership Consumer Cost per passenger km Increased transportation choice Public Health Benefits - Active Transportation Enhance our Environment GhG Emissions Critical Air Contaminents (CAC) Emissions Public Health Benefits - Air Quality Public Health Benefits - Active Transportation Residential Development Non-Residential Development Support to Regional Land Use Objectives Protect Countryside Residential Development Non-Residential Development Support to Regional Land Use Objectives

11 Scenarios Evaluated Base Case a gradual expansion of the existing ixpress and local GRT bus service, operating in mixed traffic. Light Rail Transit LRT from St. Jacobs Farmers' Market on the rail spur in Waterloo, then via King, Courtland, the CPR line, Eagle Street and Hespeler Road Waterloo Route Variation LRT on King Street in north Waterloo, west on University to UW, then via the rail spur to King Bus Rapid Transit BRT on the rail spur in Waterloo, then via King, Courtland, Highway 8/401, and Hespeler Road Waterloo Route Variation BRT on King Street in north Waterloo, west on University to UW, then via the rail spur to King

12

13

14 MAE - Basic Assumptions Discount rate 6% used for baseline analysis Inflation rate and Cost Escalation rate 3% consistently throughout Length of analysis period 30 years ( ) Opening year Value of time - $10.30/hour (roughly 50% of Average Hourly Wage) Development potential assessed within study area on a parcel by parcel basis and used as input to the study

15 Cost and Revenue Estimates Project Costs (2009$M) LRT Spur LRT King St. BRT Spur BRT King St. Capital (2014) 1,340 1, Annual O&M Operating (2014) Annual Revenue Net Operating Annual O&M Operating (2031) Annual Revenue Net Operating

16 Summary of Results Relative to Average Relative Costs and Benefits - Project Options 160 Index (100=Average of All Options) LRT Spurline LRT King St. BRT Spurline BRT King St. Total Costs User Benefits Environmental Benefits Land Use Benefits (Pop/Emp within 600m) Social/Community Benefit (Air Quality) For Land Use/Economic Development and Environment Accounts, single metric shown: population/employment within 600m of station air quality improvements LRT Spurline option is the highest cost, but has the highest return overall LRT King St. does not provide as strong return on user benefits, environmental, social/community relative to cost BRT options are less expensive, but deliver significantly lower benefits

17 Discussion of Results LRT has highest costs but also greatest benefits LRT Spurline performs better overall than LRT King St. BRT has the lowest capital cost but the lowest monetary and non-monetary benefits BRT Spurline performs better overall than BRT King St. LRT Spurline has the highest overall benefit, but the highest overall cost BRT Spurline is the second lowest cost option but provides significantly less overall benefit. Overall, based on this evaluation: LRT Spurline best accomplishes objectives of RGMS, has highest overall benefit LRT is the preferred option for the Region's rapid transit system