Cost Benefit Analysis

Analysis of Costs and Benefits for the
State Route 710 North Study

Alternatives
June 19, 2015
Executive Summary
ThisCostBenefitAnalysis(CBA)waspreparedfortheStateRoute(SR)710NorthStudy,inLosAngelesCounty,
California,inresponsetoamotionapprovedbytheMetroBoardofDirectorsattheirJune2010meeting.TheCBA
isnotrequiredbytheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct/NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(CEQA/NEPA)andis
notatechnicalstudyincludedinthecomprehensiveanalysisofthealternatives,whichisavailableintheDraft
EnvironmentalImpactReport/EnvironmentalImpactStatement(DEIR/DEIS).TheCBAwillbeconsideredin
conjunctionwiththeinformationprovidedinTable2.15(SummaryofAlternativesandImpacts)duringthe
identificationofthePreferredAlternative,asreferencedintheSR710NorthDraftEIR/EIS(Chapter2,Section2.3,
onpage107).
TheSR710NorthStudyistheculminationofalonghistoryofeffortstoaddressnorthsouthmobilityconstraints
ineast/northeastLosAngelesandthewesternSanGabrielValley.Thestudyareaisgreaterthan100squaremiles
andisgenerallyboundedbyInterstate210(I210)tothenorth,Interstate605(I605)totheeast,Interstate10
(I10)tothesouth,andInterstate5(I5)andStateRoute2(SR2)tothewest.TheJune2010Boardmotion
directedMetrosChiefExecutiveOfficertoconductaparallelCBAconcurrentwiththeDEIR/DEIS.TheSR710
NorthStudyDEIR/DEIS(http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eireis)thatis
currentlyavailableforpublicreviewprovidesthebroadestassessmentofpotentialbenefitsandpotentialimpacts
relatedtothefiveSR710NorthStudyalternatives(referencedbelow).
WhilenoformalactionisrequiredoftheMetroBoardofDirectorsduringthereviewperiodfortheSR710North
StudyDEIR/DEIS,thisCBAwillbeusedasinputforoneoftheperformancemeasuresthatwasestablishedduring
theAlternativesAnalysis(AA)phaseoftheStudy.DuringtheAAscreeningandselectionprocess,morethan
40performancemeasuresrelatedtoprojectobjectiveswereestablishedtoevaluatemorethan100multimodal
alternativesandtoaddressthePurposeandNeedoftheProject.Theprojectobjectivesincluded,butwerenot
limitedto:
Minimizingtraveltime
Improvingconnectivityandmobility
Reducingcongestiononfreewayandlocalroads
Increasingtransitridership
Minimizingenvironmentalandcommunityimpactsrelatedtotransportation
Assuringconsistencywithregionalplansandstrategies
Maximizingthecostefficiencyofpublicinvestments
WhiletheCBAisoneofmanytoolsusedtoassessthecostefficiencyofpublicinvestments,itisviewedasa
methodthatinforms.ThisCBAevaluatesthecostsandbenefitsassociatedwiththefiveSR710NorthStudy
alternatives.ThefollowingfivemultimodalalternativeswereadvancedtotheSR710NorthStudyDEIR/DEISfor
furtherstudy:
1. TheNoBuildAlternativeincludesprojects/plannedimprovementsthrough2035thatarecontainedin
theFederalTransportationImprovementProgram,aslistedintheSouthernCaliforniaAssociationof
Governments(SCAG)2012RegionalTransportationPlan(RTP)/SustainableCommunitiesStrategyMeasureR,
andthefundedportionofMetros2009LongRangeTransportationPlan.Itdoesnotincludeanyplanned
improvementstotheSR710NorthCorridor.
2. TheTransportationSystemManagement/TransportationDemandManagement(TSM/TDM)Alternative
consistsofstrategiesandimprovementstoincreaseefficiencyandcapacityforallmodesinthetransportation
systemwithlowercapitalcostinvestmentsand/orlowerpotentialimpactssuchassubstantiallyincreased
busserviceinthestudyarea,activetransportation(pedestrianandbicycle)facilities,intersectionspot
improvements,localstreetimprovements,andIntelligentTransportationSystem(ITS)elements.
TBG070214143329SCO
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. TheBusRapidTransit(BRT)Alternativeprovideshighspeed,highfrequencybusservicethrougha
combinationofnew,dedicated,andexistingbuslanes,andmixedflowtrafficlanestokeydestinations
betweenEastLosAngelesandPasadena.Theproposedroutelengthisapproximately12miles.
4. TheLightRailTransit(LRT)Alternativeincludesapassengerrailoperatedalongadedicatedguideway,similar
tootherMetrolightraillines,alsowithservicetokeydestinationsbetweenEastLosAngelesandPasadena.
TheLRTalignmentisapproximately7.5mileslong,with3milesofaerialsegmentsand4.5milesofbored
tunnelsegments.
5. TheFreewayTunnelAlternativestartsattheexistingsouthernstubofSR710inAlhambra,justnorthofI10,
andconnectstotheexistingnorthernstubofSR710,southoftheI210/SR134interchangeinPasadena.
TheFreewayTunnelAlternativehastwodesignvariations:adualboretunnelandasingleboretunnel.The
FreewayTunnelAlternativealignmentisabout6.3mileslong,with4.2milesofboredtunneland0.7milesof
cutandcovertunnel.TollswereincludedinsomevariationsoftheFreewayTunnelAlternative.Thetoll
valuesusedinthemodelingweredeterminedbyfindingthetollwherethetunnelswouldattracttrafficto
approximately75percentofthephysicalcapacityandoperateatspeedsof45milesperhourandhigher.The
tollsusedforthetrafficanalysiswouldnotbetheactualtollsduringoperations;theultimatetollswouldbe
determinedbyafutureTrafficandRevenueStudy.
Ingeneral,aCBAisameansofapplyinganeconomic(monetary)valuetoalternativeproposals,therebyenabling
thecostsofanalternativetobecompareddirectlywiththebenefitsthealternativewilldeliver.However,notall
benefitsandcostscanbemonetizedreliablyoreasily.Forexample,directandindirectlongterm(orlifecycle)
benefitsassociatedwithundergroundfacilities(transitandhighways)mayoutweighhigherinitialcapitalcosts
offacilitiesaboveground.Whileundergroundconstructionprojectsarenotwithoutchallenges,onemajor
advantageisthatsuchprojectsreduceadverseimpactstoexistingsurfacestructuresandfacilities.Theneedto
removeordisplacebusinessesandresidentialdwellingsareforthemostparteliminated.Typicalimpactssuchas
divisionofneighborhoodsandcommunitiesareavoided;andotheradverseimpactsassociatedwithsurface
transportationprojects,includingtheremovalofhistoricpropertiesanddistricts,thetakingofparksor
recreationalareasand/orthetakingofcommunityfacilitiessuchasschoolsandchurches,arealsoavoided.The
valueofsavinghomes,businesses,protectedproperties,andothercommunityresourcesisnotincludedinthe
CBAappraisalprocess,becausenodefinitivedataareavailabletoquantifythesebenefits.
Afterareviewofnationalandinternationalguidancedocuments,theCaliforniaBenefit/Cost(CalB/C)model
wasselectedforusebecauseitistransparentandeasytouse;anditisdesignedtoaccommodatethetypeof
multimodalappraisalneededfortheSR710NorthStudyalternatives.TheCBAevaluationisdoneduringan
establishedappraisalperiodforallofthealternatives.TheappraisalperiodfortheCBAevaluationreferstothe
periodoftimeoverwhichbenefitsandcostsassociatedwithaninvestmentareevaluated.Thistimeframe
includestheconstructionperiodandtheperiodofoperation.Theconstructionperiodisdifferentforeach
oftheSR710NorthStudyBuildAlternatives.Mostappraisalsevaluatebenefitsoveranoperationalperiod
of20to60years,basedonthelifeoftheasset.Thelifeexpectancyvariesfortheassetsforeachofthe
BuildAlternatives.
Anappraisalperiodof20yearsfollowingtheconstructionperiodforeachoftheSR710NorthStudyBuild
AlternativeswasusedforthisCBA.Theresidualvaluewasincludedforassets(tunnelsandrightofway)thathave
alifeofmorethan20years.
ThisCBAevaluationincludesthefollowingfactors:
ES-2
Traveltimebenefits
Capitalexpenditures(constructionandrightofwaycosts)
Vehicleoperatingcosts
Systemoperationsandmaintenancecosts
Safetyeffects
Emissionseffects
TBG070214143329SCO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Employmentbenefits
Residualvalues
Acomprehensivetrafficanalysiswasconductedtoprovidedataonthetravelbehaviorassociatedwitheach
alternative.Engineersestimatesofcapitalandoperatingcosts,anairqualitymodel,asafetymodel,andatravel
demandforecastingmodelwereusedtogeneratetheinputsfortheestimationofthemonetarybenefitsand
costsidentifiedinthisCBA.
TableES1isasummaryofthecostsandbenefits,alongwiththenetpresentvalue(NPV)foreachSR710North
StudyBuildAlternative,comparedtowhatisforecasttooccurwiththeNoBuildAlternative.Thepresentvalueof
costsandthepresentvalueofbenefitsarecalculated,anddiscountedovera20yearperiod.TheNPVisbasedon
thenetvalue,intodaysdollars,ofthebenefitsreceivedinthefuture,minusthecosts.Thebenefitsincludeuser
traveltimesavings;reductionsinvehicleoperatingcosts,crashes,andemissions;andincreasedemployment.
Whiletollsareapotentialrevenuesourceforfinancingtransportationprojects,theywerenotincludedasaCBA
benefit,becausetheyareconsideredtransferbenefits.
TABLEES1
CostBenefitAnalysisSummary
SR710NorthStudy,LosAngelesCounty,California
PresentValueof
Costs
($million)
PresentValueof
Benefits
($million)
NetPresentValue
($million)
255
599
344
FreewayTunnelSingleBore*
1,951to1,997
3,429to3,587
1,478to1,590
FreewayTunnelDualBore*
3,227to3,374
3,337to3,733
37to506
BRT*(EastLosAngelestoPasadena)
510
879
369
LRT*(EastLosAngelestoPasadena)
2,163
1,293
870
Alternative/Variation
TSM/TDM*
Notes:
*DatareportedinCBASummaryTableES1onlyapplytotheSR710NorthStudyAlternatives/Variations
Allcostsdiscountedto2014
FreewayTunnelTherangeofvaluesisforthethreevariationsconsideredintheanalysis.
TSM/TDMTransportationSystemManagement/TransportationDemandManagement
BRTBusRapidTransit
LRTLightRailTransit
AsreportedinTableES1,theprimaryfinancialindicators(presentvalueofcosts,presentvalueofbenefits,and
NPV)fortheSR710NorthStudyBuildAlternativescanbesummarizedasfollows:
Thecostcolumnincludesnotonlythecapital(construction)cost,butalsothecostsofoperatingand
maintainingthefacilityovertheperiodoftimesetforthestudy(inthiscase,20years).Thedualbore
variationsoftheFreewayTunnelAlternativehavethehighestcost;thesingleborevariationsandtheLRT
alternativeareapproximatelythesame.
Thebenefitscolumnshowsthetotalvaluetotravelersinthestudyareaandregion.Alternativeswithhigher
benefitswillprovidethemostimprovement.Benefitsaretypicallyexaminedindependentlyoftheir
relationshiptocosts.TheFreewayTunnelAlternativehasthehighestbenefitsregardlessofcosts.Thesix
variationsoftheFreewayTunnelAlternativeallhaveapproximatelythesamebenefitswithinarangeof
about10percent.
TheNPVcolumnshowstheresultsofsubtractingcostsfrombenefits.NPVisperhapsthebestindicatorofthe
additionalbenefitsreceived,comparedtothecost.FormostoftheBuildAlternatives,thebenefitsaregreater
thanthecosts,butthedollarvalueofthebenefitsvariessignificantly.Allsingleborevariationsofthe
TBG070214143329SCO
ES-3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FreewayTunnelAlternativehaveanNPVofapproximately$1.5billion.DualborevariationshaveNPVs
rangingfrom$0.04billionto$0.5billion.TheTSM/TDMandBRTAlternativeshavesimilarNPVs($0.34billion
and$0.37billion),andtheLRTAlternativehasthelowestNPVat$0.9billion.AnegativeNPVmeansthatthe
totalbenefitsarelessthanthetotalcosts.
ThisCBAisbasedonthebestavailabledata,buttherearesomelimitstotheanalysis.Forexample,traveltime
reliabilityhasnotbeencapturedasapartoftheuserbenefits.Indirectbenefitsfornonusers(personsnotusing
thetransportationsystem)havenotbeenincluded.Theseindirectbenefitsincludereductioninnoise,
constructionimpacts,andimprovementsinthelabormarket.Toassesstheimpactofanyuncertaintiesinthe
CalB/Cmodelprojections,asensitivityanalysiswasconducted(refertoSection4).Theresultsofthesensitivity
analysisdonotchangethefindingssummarizedandreportedinTableES1fortheSR710NorthStudy
alternatives.
ES-4
TBG070214143329SCO
Contents
Section
Page
ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................ES1
AcronymsandAbbreviations.............................................................................................................................iii
1
ProjectOverview................................................................................................................................11
StudyTechnicalApproach...................................................................................................................21
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3
Results................................................................................................................................................31
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
OverviewofCostBenefitAnalysis..................................................................................................21
2.1.1 PurposeofCBA..................................................................................................................21
2.1.2 Background........................................................................................................................21
2.1.3 CBAModelStructure.........................................................................................................22
2.1.4 Parameters........................................................................................................................23
CostEvaluation...............................................................................................................................24
2.2.1 CapitalExpenditure...........................................................................................................24
2.2.2 OperationsandMaintenanceCosts..................................................................................26
2.2.3 EmploymentBenefits........................................................................................................27
2.2.4 ResidualValue...................................................................................................................28
TrafficAnalysis................................................................................................................................29
2.3.1 Overview............................................................................................................................29
2.3.2 Methodology.....................................................................................................................29
2.3.3 Assumptions......................................................................................................................29
2.3.4 CBATrafficAnalysis...........................................................................................................29
SafetyAnalysis..............................................................................................................................211
2.4.1 Overview..........................................................................................................................211
2.4.2 Methodology...................................................................................................................212
2.4.3 Assumptions....................................................................................................................213
2.4.4 SafetyAnalysisOutputs...................................................................................................213
2.4.5 CBAAnalysisApproach....................................................................................................215
EnvironmentalAnalysis................................................................................................................215
NetPresentValueCalculations....................................................................................................215
CostEvaluation...............................................................................................................................31
BenefitsEvaluation.........................................................................................................................33
OverallEvaluation...........................................................................................................................38
CBAAnalysisLimitations.................................................................................................................39
SensitivityAnalysis..............................................................................................................................41
TBG070214143329SCO
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
Tables
ES1
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
41
CostBenefitAnalysisSummary.................................................................................................................ES3
AlternativesOpeningYearandConstructionPeriod...................................................................................24
Construction,RightofWay,andTSM/TDMCosts......................................................................................25
OperationsandMaintenanceCosts............................................................................................................26
EmploymentBenefits..................................................................................................................................28
ResidualValue..............................................................................................................................................28
ValueofTimeParameters.........................................................................................................................211
PredictedAverageAnnualCrashesbySeveritybyFacilityandAlternative(2035)...................................214
UnitCostsofCrashesbySeverityLevel.....................................................................................................215
CostBenefitAnalysisSummary...................................................................................................................38
NPVSensitivityAnalysisSummary($million).............................................................................................42
Exhibits
21
22
23
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
310
311
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
II
CBAAnalysisOverview................................................................................................................................22
DetailedCBAModelStructure.....................................................................................................................23
CaptureAreaforVMTandVHTCalculations.............................................................................................210
CapitalExpenditureCostSummarybyAlternative.....................................................................................31
OperationsandMaintenanceCostSummarybyAlternative......................................................................32
ResidualValueSummarybyAlternative......................................................................................................32
UserTimeSavingsBenefitsbyAlternative..................................................................................................33
MonetizedTimeSavingsBenefitsSummarybyAlternative........................................................................34
DistributionofTimeSavingsBenefits.........................................................................................................35
TimeSavingsBenefitsDetailsbyAlternative...............................................................................................35
VehicleOperatingCosts/BenefitsSummarybyAlternative........................................................................36
Cost/BenefitsDuetoChangesinCrashesbyAlternative............................................................................36
EmissionsCostsBenefitsSummarybyAlternative......................................................................................37
EmploymentBenefitsSummarybyAlternative..........................................................................................37
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryOperatingCosts.........................................................................................43
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryTunnelLife.................................................................................................43
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryVMTReduction..........................................................................................44
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryAirQuality..................................................................................................44
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryDiscountRate............................................................................................45
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryAnnualization............................................................................................45
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryValueofTime............................................................................................46
TBG070214143329SCO
Acronyms and Abbreviations

AA
AlternativesAnalysis
AADT
averageannualdailytraffic
AASHTO
AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials
BRT
BusRapidTransit
CalB/C
CaliforniaBenefit/Cost
Caltrans
CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation
CBA
costbenefitanalysis
CEQA
CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct
DEIR/DEIS
DraftEnvironmentalImpactReport/EnvironmentalImpactStatement
ELA
EastLosAngeles
FHWA
FederalHighwayAdministration
FY
fiscalyear
Interstate
ITS
IntelligentTransportationSystems
LRT
LightRailTransit
Metro
LosAngelesCountyMetropolitanTransportationAuthority
NEPA
NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct
NPV
netpresentvalue
O&M
operationsandmaintenance
OD
origindestination
ROW
rightofway
RTP
RegionalTransportationPlan
SCAG
SouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments
SPF
SafetyPerformanceFunction
SR
StateRoute
STEAM
SurfaceTransportationEfficiencyAnalysisModel
SWITRS
StatewideIntegratedTrafficRecordsSystem
TDM
TransportationDemandManagement
TIGER
TransportationInvestmentGeneratingEconomicRecovery
TSM
TransportationSystemManagement
TTR
TransportationTechnicalReport
UK
UnitedKingdom
VHT
vehiclehourstraveled
TBG070214143329SCO
III
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
VMT
vehiclemiletraveled
VOT
valueoftime
WebTAG
webbasedtransportappraisalguidance(UnitedKingdom)
IV
TBG070214143329SCO
SECTION1
Project Overview
ThisCostBenefitAnalysis(CBA)waspreparedfortheStateRoute(SR)710NorthStudy,inLosAngelesCounty,
California.TheSR710NorthStudyistheculminationofalonghistoryofeffortstoaddressnorthsouthmobility
ineast/northeastLosAngelesandthewesternSanGabrielValley.TheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation
(Caltrans),incooperationwiththeLosAngelesCountyMetropolitanTransportationAuthority(Metro),proposes
transportationimprovementstoimprovemobilityandrelievecongestionintheareabetweenSR2and
Interstates5,10,210,and605(I5,I10,I210,andI605,respectively)ineast/northeastLosAngelesandthe
westernSanGabrielValley.ThestudyareafortheSR710NorthStudyisapproximately100squaremilesand
generallyboundedbyI210onthenorth,I605ontheeast,I10onthesouth,andI5andSR2onthewest.
CaltransistheLeadAgencyundertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)andtheCaliforniaEnvironmental
QualityAct(CEQA).
Theprimarypurposeoftheprojectistoeffectivelyandefficientlyaccommodateregionalandlocalnorthsouth
traveldemandsinthestudyarea,includingthefollowingconsiderations:
Improveefficiencyoftheexistingregionalfreewayandtransitnetworks.
Reducecongestiononlocalarterialsadverselyaffectedduetoaccommodatingregionaltrafficvolumes.
Minimizeenvironmentalimpactsrelatedtomobilesources.
AsetofalternativeshasbeenevaluatedintheDraftEnvironmentalImpactReport/EnvironmentalImpact
Statement(DEIR/DEIS).TheDEIR/DEISisavailableonlineat
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eireis.TheCBAinthisdocumentfocuses
onthosealternatives.FollowingisasummaryoftheSR710NorthStudyalternatives:
1. NoBuild.TheNoBuildAlternativedoesnotincludeanyplannedimprovementstotheSR710Corridor.The
NoBuildAlternativeincludesprojects/plannedimprovementsthrough2035thatarecontainedintheFederal
TransportationImprovementProgram,aslistedintheSouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments(SCAG)
2012RegionalTransportationPlan(RTP)/SustainableCommunitiesStrategyMeasureR,andthefunded
portionofMetros2009LongRangeTransportationPlan.
2. TransportationSystemManagement/TransportationDemandManagement(TSM/TDM).Thisalternative
consistsofstrategiesandimprovementstoincreaseefficiencyandcapacityforallmodesinthetransportation
systemwithlowercapitalcostinvestmentsand/orlowerpotentialimpacts,suchassubstantiallyincreased
busserviceinthestudyarea,activetransportation(pedestrianandbicycle)facilities,intersectionspot
improvements,localstreetimprovements,andIntelligentTransportationSystems(ITS)elements.
3. BusRapidTransit(BRT).TheBRTAlternativewouldprovidehighspeed,highfrequencybusservicethrougha
combinationofnew,dedicated,andexistingbuslanes,andmixedflowtrafficlanestokeydestinations
betweenEastLosAngelesandPasadena.Theproposedroutelengthisapproximately12miles.
4. LightRailTransit(LRT).TheLRTAlternativewouldincludepassengerrailoperatedalongadedicated
guideway,similartootherMetrolightraillines.TheLRTalignmentisapproximately7.5mileslong,
with3milesofaerialsegmentsand4.5milesofboredtunnelsegments.
5. FreewayTunnel.ThealignmentfortheFreewayTunnelAlternativestartsattheexistingsouthernstub
ofSR710inAlhambra,justnorthofI10,andconnectstotheexistingnorthernstubofSR710,southof
theI210/SR134interchangeinPasadena.TheFreewayTunnelAlternativehastwodesignvariations:
adualboretunnelandasingleboretunnel.
DualBoreTunnel:Thedualboretunneldesignvariationisapproximately6.3mileslong,with4.2milesof
boredtunnel,0.7milesofcutandcovertunnel,and1.4milesofatgradesegments.Thedualboretunnel
variationwouldconsistoftwosidebysidetunnels(theeasttunnelwouldconveynorthboundtraffic;the
westtunnelwouldconveysouthboundtraffic).Eachtunnelwouldhavetwolevelswithtraffictraveling
TBG070214143329SCO
1-1
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
inthesamedirection.Eachtunnelwouldconsistoftwolanesoftrafficoneachlevel,travelinginone
direction,foratotaloffourlanesineachtunnel.Eachboredtunnelwouldhaveanoutsidediameterof
approximately58.5feetandwouldbelocatedapproximately120to250feetbelowthegroundsurface.
Operationalvariationsforthedualboretunnelincludethefollowing:
DualBorewithToll:Vehiclesusingthetunnelwillbetolled.
DualBorewithNoToll:Notollwillbeappliedtoanyvehiclesusingthetunnelfacilities.
DualBorewithNoToll,withTrucksExcluded:Notollwillbeappliedtovehiclesusingthetunnel.
Truckswouldbeexcludedfromusingthetunnel.
SingleBoreTunnel:Thesingleboretunneldesignvariationisalsoapproximately6.3mileslong,
with4.2milesofboredtunnel,0.7milesofcutandcovertunnel,and1.4milesofatgradesegments.
Thesingleboretunnelvariationwouldconsistofonetunnelwithtwolevels.Eachlevelwouldhavetwo
lanesoftraffictravelinginonedirection.Northboundtrafficwouldtraversetheupperlevel;southbound
trafficwouldtraversethelowerlevel.Thesingleboretunnelwouldprovideatotaloffourlanes.The
singleboretunnelwouldalsohaveanoutsidediameterofapproximately58.5feetandwouldbelocated
approximately120to250feetbelowthegroundsurface.Operationalvariationsforthesingleboretunnel
includethefollowing:
SingleBorewithToll:Vehiclesusingthetunnelwillbetolled.
SingleBorewithToll,withTrucksExcluded:Thefacilitywouldbetolledforallautomobiles.Trucks
wouldbeexcludedfromusingthetunnel.
SingleBorewithTollwithExpressBus:Thefreewaytunnelwouldoperateasatolledfacilityand
includeanExpressBuscomponent.
TollsfortheFreewayTunnelAlternativesweredevelopedbasedontrafficmodeling,usingtheconceptof
operationalcapacity.Withthisapproach,thetollvaluesusedinthemodelingweredeterminedbyfindingthetoll
wherethetunnelswouldattracttraffictoapproximately75percentofthephysicalcapacity.Atthesedemand
levels,thetunnelswouldoperateatspeedsof45milesperhourandhigherandhavebuffercapacityfordaily
variations,butwouldstillservearelativelyhighvolumeoftraffic.Thetollsusedforthetrafficanalysiswouldnot
betheactualtollsduringoperations.TheultimatetollswouldbedeterminedbyafutureTrafficandRevenue
Study,andultimatelythedefinedtolloperatingprocedures.
TheTSM/TDMAlternativeimprovementswouldalsobeconstructedaspartoftheBRT,LRT,andFreewayTunnel
Alternatives.Becauseofphysicalconditions,someoftheTSM/TDMAlternativeimprovementswouldnotbe
constructedwiththeBuildAlternatives.
1-2
TBG070214143329SCO
SECTION2
Study Technical Approach

2.1
2.1.1
Overview of Cost-Benefit Analysis
Purpose of CBA
ACBAisameansofapplyinganeconomic(monetary)valuetoalternativeproposalsfordeliveringaproject,
enablingthecostsofanalternativetobecompareddirectlywiththebenefitsthealternativewilldeliver.
TheCBAisusedasameansofdemonstratingthevalueofaproject.CBAisanapproachusedwidelyby
governmentsandfundingagenciesacrosstheworldtoassessthemonetaryvalueofimprovements,selectthe
preferredoptionandrefinethedesign,aidcomparisonsacrossdifferentmodesoftransportationimprovements
andpolicymixes,andprovideindicatorsofsocialvalueformoney.
Itiswidelyagreedthatnotallbenefitsandcostscanbemonetizedreliablyoreasily,sotheresultsoftheCBA
shouldbeviewedforwhattheyarecarefulestimatesofthemonetaryvalueoftheprincipalcomponentsof
valueassociatedwithregionalorlargescalecorridortravel.CBAiswidelyviewedasamethodthatinforms.
TheDEIR/DEISwillprovideinformationfordecisionmakersasitassessespotentialalternatives.TheCBAwillbe
consideredinconjunctionwiththeinformationprovidedinTable2.15(SummaryofAlternativesandImpacts)
duringtheidentificationofthePreferredAlternative,asreferencedintheDEIR/DEIS(Chapter2,Section2.3,
onpage107).BoththeCBAandDEIR/DEISprovideusefulinformationforcomparingalternatives:
TheDEIR/DEISprovidesthebroadestassessmentofbenefitsandimpactsofeachalternative.
TheCBAprovidesdifferentperformancemeasuresforcomparingthecostsofanalternativedirectlywiththe
benefitsthealternativewilldeliver.TheCBAalsomaybeusedtohighlightthevariouscomponentsofthe
valueoftheprojectalternatives.
Assessmentofthealternativeswillbebasedonasetofperformancemeasures.Theassessmentwilloccurafter
commentsarereceivedontheDEIR/DEIS.DuringtheAlternativesAnalysis(AA)phase,over40performance
measuresrelatedtoprojectobjectivesweredeveloped.
Theprojectobjectivesincluded,butwerenotlimitedto:
Minimizingtraveltime
Improvingconnectivityandmobility
Reducingcongestiononfreewayandlocalroads
Increasingtransitridership
Minimizingenvironmentalandcommunityimpactsrelatedtotransportation
Assuringconsistencywithregionalplansandstrategies
Maximizingthecostefficiencyofpublicinvestments
Theperformancemeasuresassociatedwiththeseobjectiveswillberefinedandrevisedtoreflectthelevelof
analysisperformedfortheDEIR/DEIS.OneofthemeasuresusedintheAAphaseevaluationwasfinancial
feasibility.TheresultsoftheCBAwillbeusedasaninputforthismeasure.TheCBAwillnotbeusedbyitselffor
makingdecisions.
2.1.2
Background
Fromthesetofavailableguidance,fourtoolswereselectedforreview.Theseincluded:
TheCaliforniaBenefit/Cost(CalB/C)model,whichwasdevelopedforCaltransasatoolforCBAofhighway
andtransitprojects.CalB/CisanExcel(spreadsheet)applicationstructuredtoanalyzeseveraltypesof
transportationimprovementprojectsinacorridorwherethereisanexistinghighwayfacilityoratransit
service(thebasecase).
TBG070214143329SCO
2-1
2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH
SurfaceTransportationEfficiencyAnalysisModel(STEAM),whichwasdevelopedfortheFederalHighway
Administration(FHWA)asaframeworkforstateandregionalagenciestoassessinvestmentsinmultimodal
urbantransportationinfrastructure,aswellaspolicyalternativessuchaspricinganddemandmanagement
measures;STEAMcanbeusedtoanalyzeinvestmentsattheregionalandcorridorlevels.
TheAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)manual,whichincludes
guidancetoassesstheuserandnonuserbenefitsforhighways.
WebBasedTransportAppraisalGuidance(WebTag),whichistheguidanceusedintheUnitedKingdom(UK).
Followingadetailedreviewofallthedifferentappraisaltools,CalB/Cwasselectedasanappropriatetool.
CalB/CwaschosenbecauseitsatisfiesalltherequirementsfortheSR710NorthStudy,andisdesignedto
accommodateamultimodalappraisal.FortheSR710NorthStudy,thereisarangeofalternativescovering
differentmodesincludinghighway,bus,andlightrail.Tobeconsistent,itisessentialtousethesametoolfor
appraisingthedifferentmodes.Furthermore,CalB/ChasbeenspeciallytailoredtothestateofCaliforniaandis
consistentwithAASHTOguidance.Finally,themodelisverytransparent,accessible(MicrosoftExcel),andeasy
touse.
2.1.3
CBA Model Structure
Exhibit21isanoverviewoftherelationshipbetweentheCBAandothermodelsandanalysisundertakenforthe
SR710NorthStudy.Anextensivemodelingeffortwasconductedthatincludedbothhighway(carsandtrucks)
andtransitevaluations.ThatanalysisisdocumentedintheTransportationTechnicalReport(TTR)1forthe
SR710NorthStudy.ThedatafromthemodelingandtrafficanalysiswerekeyinputstotheCBA,butadditional
safetyandenvironmentalanalysesalsowereconducted.
EXHIBIT21
CBAAnalysisOverview
SafetyAnalysis
Highway
Transportation
Modeling
CostBenefitAnalysis
Transit
Environmental
Analysis
Exhibit22isadiagramoftheoverallstructureoftheCalB/Cmodelcategorizedintoinputs,calculations,and
outputs.ThebasicapproachistocompareeachBuildAlternativetotheNoBuildAlternativeusingavarietyof
measures.TheanalysisoutputistheincrementalcostsandbenefitsforeachBuildAlternative,comparedtothe
NoBuildAlternative.
1CH2MHILL.2014.DraftTransportationTechnicalReport,SR710NorthStudy,LosAngelesCounty,California.June.
2-2
TBG070214143329SCO
EXHIBIT22
DetailedCBAModelStructure
Inputs
Calculations
NumberofTrips
(Build NoBuild)
VehicleMiles Traveled
(Build NoBuild)
AverageTripLength
(Build NoBuild)
VehicleHours Traveled
(Build NoBuild)
TravelTime
(Build NoBuild)
Speed
(Build NoBuild)
CapitalExpenditure
Fatalities,Major/Minorinjuries,PDO
(Build NoBuild)
OperationalandMaintenance
Cost
GreenhouseGasEmissions
Outputs
Cost
(CapitalExpenditure,
OperationalExpenditure,
ResidualValue)
TravelTimeSavings
VehicleOperationalCostSavings
SafetyBenefits
Environmental Benefits
EmploymentBenefits
NetPresentValue
Economic Assumptions:
Economic
Discount Rate
Vehicle
Operating Costs
Value
of Time
Economic
Value of Life
Emission
Cost
*PDOPropertyDamageOnly
2.1.4
Parameters
2.1.4.1
Real Discount Rate
CalB/CprovidesallthevaluesandratetablesnecessarytoundertaketheCBA.Keyeconomicassumptionswere
reviewedandrevisedwhereappropriate.Theeconomicvaluesincludedthefactorsdescribedbelow.
FortheSR710NorthStudyCBA,allofthecostsandbenefitsareshowninconstant(real)2014dollars;thatis,
withoutinflationbeingapplied.Arealdiscountrateisusedtodeterminethepresentvalueofthefuturecash
flows.CalB/Crecommendsusingarealdiscountrateof4percent.Thisrateiscalculatedbasedonthehistorical
realinterestrateandlongtermaveragerealrateofreturnonpublicfundinvestments,plusariskpremiumto
discountallfuturecostsandbenefitstothepresentday.
Itisessentialtochooseanappropriatediscountratetoassessthecostsandbenefitsassociatedwiththe
SR710NorthStudyalternatives.Thehigherthediscountrateisset,thelowerthepresentvalueoffuturecash
flowswillbe.Fortypicalinvestments,withcostsconcentratedinearlyperiodsandbenefitsfollowinginlater
periods,raisingthediscountratetendstoreducethenetpresentvalue(NPV)oreconomicfeasibilityofthe
investment.
2.1.4.2
Appraisal Period
Theappraisalperiodreferstotheperiodoftimeoverwhichbenefitsandcostsassociatedwithaninvestmentare
evaluated.Thisperiodincludestheconstructionperiodandtheperiodofoperation.FortheSR710NorthStudy,
theconstructionperiodusedvariesacrossthedifferentalternatives.Mostappraisalsevaluatebenefitsoveran
operationalperiodof20to60years,basedonthelifeoftheasset.FortheSR710NorthStudy,anappraisal
periodof20yearsfollowingtheconstructionperiodhasbeenused.
TBG070214143329SCO
2-3
2.1.4.3
Opening Year and Construction Period
Table21isasummaryoftheassumedopeningyearsandconstructionperiodofeachofthealternatives.
TABLE21
AlternativesOpeningYearandConstructionPeriod
Alternative
ConstructionPeriod
OpeningYear
TSM/TDM*
2Years
2020
BRT*(ELAtoPasadena)
14months
2020
LRT*(ELAtoPasadena)
6Years
2025
SingleBoreTunnel*
5Years
2025
DualBoreTunnel*
5Years
2025
ELAEastLosAngeles
*DatareportedinTable21onlyapplytotheSR710NorthStudyAlternatives/Variations
2.1.4.4
Annualization Factor
Thetravelforecastmodelproducesforecastsonadailybasis.Annualizationfactorsarerequiredtoconvertdaily
traffictoannualvolumes.FortheSR710NorthStudy,adefaultvalueof365inCalB/Chasbeenusedtoconvert
adailynumberintoanannualnumber.Thisessentiallymeansalldaysoftheweek,includingweekendsand
holidays,havesimilartrafficdemands.ThisisthedefaultCalB/Cvalue;theimpactsofchangingthisparameter
willbeinvestigatedaspartofthesensitivitytestsdescribedinSection4.
2.2
Cost Evaluation
2.2.1
Capital Expenditure
Economiccostreferstothecostassociatedwithimplementingandoperatingtheprojectfacilities.Bothcapital
andoperationsandmaintenance(O&M)costswereassessed.AllofthecostsexpressedintheCBAarein
2014dollars.
2.2.1.1
Approach to Capital Expenditure Estimates
Themethodologyusedtodevelopthepreliminaryconstructioncostestimatesforhighwayandfreeway
alternativesisinconformancewithCaltransguidelinesforestimatingcapitalcostsfortheFreewayandTSM/TDM
Alternatives.ThetransitalternativesusedinformationfromtheFederalTransitAdministrationsStandardized
CostCategoriestodeveloptheconstructioncosts.
Thepreliminaryengineeringplansforeachalternativeservedasthebasisforthequantitytakeoffsand
wereusedtoidentifythevariousinfrastructureelementsthatneededtobeincludedinthecostestimate.Unit
costshavebeendevelopedusingtheCaltransCostDatabase,currentbids,andthemostrecentMetrotransit
projectscosts.Thesedatareflectthecurrentbiddingclimateandtheprojectteamsrecentexperienceonsimilar
projects.Ancillarycostswereestimatedasapercentageofthemajoritemsofworkusingengineeringjudgment
andCaltransstandardguidelines.Costitemsnotshownonthepreliminaryengineeringplansoritemsestimated
byapercentagehavebeenidentifiedandestimatedbasedonengineeringexperienceandusinghistoricaldata.
CostsforcomponentsoftheTSM/TDMAlternativethatarecompatiblewiththeotherBuildAlternativeshave
beenaddedtothecostestimatesforeachBuildAlternative.
Thepreliminarycostsubtotalsarerounded,typicallytothenearestmilliondollars.
2-4
TBG070214143329SCO
2.2.1.2
Capital Expenditure Cost Estimating Assumptions
Thebasicassumptionsandcriteriausedtodevelopthecostdata,consistentwiththeSR710NorthStudyDraft
ProjectReport,areasfollows:
Estimateshavebeenpreparedusing2014dollars.
Toaccountforadditions,5percentoftheroadwaycosthasbeenadded.Tenpercenthasbeenaddedfor
minoritems,exceptforstructures,where5percentwasused.Acontingencyof25percenthasbeenaddedto
rightofway(ROW)costsandotherpotentialcostsnotalreadyidentified.Ahighercontingency(34percent)
wasappliedtothetunnelelementsoftheFreewayTunnelandLRTAlternatives.
AllutilityrelocationandprotectioncostsareassumedtobepaidbyMetro(andthusareincludedinthe
estimate)sincepriorrightshavenotbeendeterminedatthispointinthestudy.Thisisaconservative
approach.
2.2.1.3
Capital Expenditure Cost Summary
Table22isasummaryoftheconstruction,ROW,andTSM/TDMcomponentcostsforeachalternative.
TABLE22
Construction,RightofWay,andTSM/TDMCosts
ConstructionCost
($million)
RightofWayCost
($million)
TSM/TDM
Components
($million)
TotalCost
($million)
FreewayTunnelDual
BorewithTSM/TDM*
5,570
30
50
5,650
FreewayTunnelSingle
BorewithTSM/TDM*
3,070
30
50
3,150
BRT(ELAtoPasadena)
withTSM/TDM*
128
11
102
241
LRT(ELAtoPasadena)
withTSM/TDM*
2,263
105
52
2,420
96
105
Alternative
TSM/TDM*
Source:DraftProjectReport(CH2MHILL,March3,2015),estimatesasofNovember2014.
FortheFreewayTunnel,BRT,andTSM/TDMAlternatives,preliminaryconstructioncosts(thesecondcolumnin
Table22)aretabulatedbyconsideringroadwayitems,structureitems,andfreewaytunnelandventilationitems.
TheLRTestimatewastabulatedusingcostsforaerialstructures,atgradeitems,drainageitems,LRTtunneland
ventilationitems,parkinglots,undergroundstructureitems,andyardandshopitems.
Forallalternatives,ROWcostsweretabulatedindividually(thirdcolumninTable22).FortheFreewayTunnel,
BRT,andLRTAlternatives,aseparatecalculationfortheTSM/TDMcomponentswasconducted(fourthcolumn
inTable22).
2.2.1.4
Capital Expenditure Cost Elements
Roadwayitemsincludeearthwork,pavementsections,drainageitems,specialtyitemssuchasretainingwallsand
concretebarriers,andtrafficitems.Mobilizationandadditionswereaddedtothesecosts.Structureitemsforthe
freewayincludecutandcovertunnels,newovercrossingbridgestructures,andovercrossingdemolitionand
widening.Freewaytunnelandventilationitemsincludetunnelsystemssuchasmechanical,ventilation,electrical,
instrumentationandcommunication,operationcontrolcenters,andfixedfirefightingsystems.Thefreeway
tunnelcostsincludedevelopment,excavation,hardscaping,andlandscapingofthenorthandsouthportalareas.
Othercostssuchasfreewayvehiclecrosspassages,infrastructurefortemporaryandpermanentpower,and
specialseismicvaultswerealsoincluded.
TBG070214143329SCO
2-5
ROWcostsincludepotentialresidentialandcommercialacquisitions,temporaryandpermanenteasements,
relocationassistance,clearanceanddemolitionofcommercialproperties,andfeesassociatedwithtitle,
escrow,andappraisals.Utilityrelocationandprotectioncostsarealsoincludedinthissection.
2.2.2
2.2.2.1
Operations and Maintenance Costs

Approach to O&M Estimates
Operationalcostsincludeallofthedaytodayrunningcostsofthefacilities.Maintenancecostsinclude
maintainingthefacilitiesandassets.Thesecostsareexpressedonanannualbasis.Equipmentrenewaland
pavementrehabilitationcostswereaddedaspartofthesubsequentcosts,whichoccuroncethefacilitiesare
inplace.
FreewayO&Mcostsrelatedtothetunnelincludetheenergycostsassociatedwithrunningequipmentbased
onelectricitysupplyrequirements,maintenanceassociatedwitheachinstalledsystem,andthestaffingto
accommodatetunneloperations.Freewaymaintenancecostsnotrelatedtothetunnelsincludecostsfor
pavement,tollsystems,bridges,andatunnelexpressbusservice.
2.2.2.2
O&M Cost Estimating Assumptions
ThebasisforcostingfreewayO&Mincludesabreakdownoftheestimateformechanicalandelectricalsystems.
Fromthisbreakdown,O&Mandrenewalcostsareestimatedforeachsystem.Ratesandfactorsusedtoestimate
theaverageannualcostarederivedfromanumberofreferencesincludingdatafromoperationaltunnels,
supplierestimates,andinformationusedfrompreviousstudiesforotherfreewaytunnels.Freewaymaintenance
costsforitemsoutsidethetunnelwereprovidedbyCaltransatanassumedvalueof$10,000perlanemilewith
trucksallowedonthefreewayandareduced$3,500perlanemileforthenotrucksalternative.Reconstructionof
pavementwasassumedtocost$1,250,000perlanemileandtotakeplaceevery20yearswithtruckspresentand
every30yearsforthefreewayalternativewithouttrucks.O&Mcostsfortunneldamagecausedduringacaror
truckcollisionwerereducedfornontruckscenarios.Costsforbridgemaintenancewereassumedtobe2percent
ofthebridgeconstructioncost.
2.2.2.3
O&M Expenditure Cost Summary
Table23isasummaryofthetotalO&Mcostsbyalternative.O&McostsfortheFreewayTunnelAlternativevary
anddependonvariationswithandwithouttrucks,tolls,andtheexpressbus.TSM/TDMcostsarethelowest
becausethatalternativedoesnotincludeatunnelornewtransitservice.Also,theTSM/TDMoperationsand
maintenancecostsareasubsetofthecostsfortheotheralternatives.
TABLE23
OperationsandMaintenanceCosts
Alternative
AnnualO&MCost
FreewayTunnelDualBorewithTSM/TDM(WithTrucks,WithTolls)*
$68,000,000
FreewayTunnelDualBorewithTSM/TDM(WithoutTrucks,WithoutTolls)*
$52,000,000
FreewayTunnelDualBorewithTSM/TDM(WithTrucks,WithoutTolls)*
$57,000,000
FreewayTunnelSingleBorewithTSM/TDM(WithTrucks,WithTolls)*
$48,000,000
FreewayTunnelSingleBorewithTSM/TDM(WithoutTrucks,WithTolls)*
$45,000,000
FreewayTunnelSingleBorewithTSM/TDM(WithTrucks,WithTolls,WithExpressBus)*
$50,000,000
LRT(ELAtoPasadena)withTSM/TDM*
$65,000,000
BRT(ELAtoPasadena)withTSM/TDM*
$28,000,000
TSM/TDM*
$15,000,000
2-6
TBG070214143329SCO
2.2.2.4
O&M Expenditure Cost Elements
FreewayO&Mcostsincludeongoingmaintenanceandrenewalcosts.Thefreewaytunnelsystemsinclude
mechanical,electrical,firesafety,andcommunicationsystems.Eachsystemcontainscomponentssubjectto
differentlevelsofuseandlocatedindifferentenvironments.
Therenewalcostofeachsystemisbrokendownintocomponentelementsbasedontheirexpectedservicelife
duration.Forthepurposeofthisassessment,thecostofrenewingasystemisconsideredtobeaproportionof
theinitialcost.Thisisgenerallyassumedtobe75percent,butthepercentagemaybehigherorlowerdepending
onthesystemandhowitmightbereplacedinanoperationaltunnelenvironment.
Amajorconsiderationintherenewalofsystemsisthedisruptiontotheoperationofthetunnelduringthe
replacementoftheequipment.Generally,theequipmentlocatedinthetunnelboreswillrequireatunnelclosure;
thecostofimplementingtheclosure,aswellastheimpactofdelaytousers,shouldbetakenintoaccount.
However,theproposedfreewaytunnelincludescontinuouswalkwaysandaccessbelowtheroaddecksomanyof
thesystemsoutsidethetunnelscanbereplacedwithouttunnelclosuresandduringnormalworkinghours.This
willreducethecostofreplacement,andsupportstheassumptiontousecostslessthantheinitialcostasabasis
forfuturerenewals.
LRTO&Mcostsarecalculatedbasedonthefiscalyear(FY)2012costperrevenueservicehourpresentedin
MetrosFY2013proposedbudget.Theunitcostof$374.48isappliedforeachhoureachlightrailvehiclewould
beoperatedinrevenueserviceduringa1yearperiod,andincludestransportationcosts,maintenancecosts,
otheroperatingcosts,andsupportdepartmentcosts.TheSR710NorthStudyLRTPreliminaryOperationPlan
TechnicalMemorandum(CH2MHILL,April2,2014)andtheSR710NorthStudyLRTFeederBusPreliminary
OperatingPlanTechnicalMemorandum(CH2MHILL,February10,2014)providemoredetailonoperatingcosts
forLRT.
BRToperatingcostsarecalculatedbasedontherevenuevehiclehoursofserviceforthe12mileroute
andapplyingafullyallocatedcostrateof$134.70perrevenueservicehourfromMetrosFY2013budget.
BRTrelatedTSMoperatingcostsweredevelopedfocusingonthedirectlycomparablenumberofrevenue
vehicleservicehoursincludedinthedemandforecastmodel.TheSR710NorthStudyBRTOperatingPlan
(CH2MHILL,March31,2014)providesmoredetailonBRTandrelatedTSMoperatingcosts.
TSM/TDMAlternativeO&McoststhatwerecompatiblewiththeotherBuildAlternativeswereaddedtotheother
BuildAlternatives.TSM/TDMAlternativecostsweredeterminedforeachintersection,localstreet,andhookramp
locationbasedonavalueof$20,000perintersectionandperITSlocation,and$33,000perlanemile.
2.2.3
Employment Benefits
Allofthealternativeswillresultinnewemploymentassociatedwithconstructionandrelatedactivitiesinthe
vicinityofthestudyarea.Table24isasummaryoftheemploymentbenefitsbyalternative,convertedto
2014dollars.TableES1intheDEIR/DEISincludesacalculationofexpectedemploymentearningsassociatedwith
construction.Earningswereestimatedbasedonthecreationof1,400to41,100personyearjobs,whichwould
occurovertheconstructionperiod(14monthsto6years,dependingonthealternative).Thesebenefitsare
associatedwiththewagespaidtoworkers,anddonotcountsecondarybenefits(forexample,workerseating
lunchatnearbyrestaurants).Permanentemploymentbenefits(300to1,300jobsperyear,dependingonthe
alternative)werealsoincluded.
TBG070214143329SCO
2-7
TABLE24
EmploymentBenefits
Alternative
EmploymentBenefits,$million
(Discountedover20yearAppraisalPeriod),2014Prices
TSMTDM*
$80
SingleBoreTunnel(allvariations)*
$808
DualBoreTunnel(allvariations)*
$1,380
BRT*(ELAtoPasadena)
$159
LRT*(ELAtoPasadena)
$714
Constructionandpermanentemploymentimpactsarenotalwaysincludedinacostbenefitevaluation.Fortypical
(smaller)projects,itisnotexpectedthatanynewjobsarelikelytodisplaceotheremploymentelsewhereinthe
economy.Forthesesmallerprojects,thebenefitsarerelativelylowbecausetheyarelikelytosimplybeashift
fromotheremployment,notmovingintotheareaorintowork.However,theLRTandFreewayTunnel
Alternativesareuniquelylarge,andlikelytogenerateadditionalemploymentonaregionalscale.WhileAASHTO
generallyconsidersconstructionspendingimpactsassecondary,therationaleisthattheseimpactsare
likelysmallcomparedtothemagnitudeofconstructionspendingimpacts.InthecaseoftheLRTandFreeway
TunnelAlternatives,thesechangeswouldnotbesmall,sothesebenefitswerecountedseparately.Asa
conservativeestimate,andasnottodisadvantagetheTSM/TDMandBRTAlternatives,theemploymentbenefits
associatedwiththesealternativeswerealsoincluded.Further,notallofthewagestabulatedintheDEIR/DEIS
wereincluded.AppraisalguidancefromtheUKandGermanyimpliesthatafigureof40percentofthe
employmentwages(takenasaproxyforGrossValueAdded)wouldbeareasonableestimateoftheseimpacts.
2.2.4
Residual Value
FortheSR710NorthStudy,theappraisalofthecostsandbenefitswasassessedoveraperiodof20years.
However,attheendoftheevaluationperiod,forassetsthathavealifeofmorethan20years,thereremainsa
residualeconomicvalueoftheinvestment.Theresidualvalueisincludedinyear20andtheappropriatediscount
ratewasapplied.
Table25isasummaryoftheresidualvalues.Tunnelsareassumedtohaveanassetlifeof100years,consistent
withWorldBankguidance.Therefore,after20years,thereremainsasignificantvaluetotheassetthatmustbe
includedwithintheappraisal.ToestimatetheresidualvalueoftunnelsforthesingleanddualboreFreeway
TunnelandLRTAlternativesafter20years,astraightlinedepreciationhasbeenapplied;thatis,80percentofthe
tunnelcostremainsasaresidualvalueafter20years.Thisisasimple,andthemostcommonlyused,approachto
estimatingresidualvalues.Secondly,landisassumedtohaveanindefinitelifeso100percentoftheROWcosts
forallalternativeswasincludedasaresidualvalue.AlloftheBuildAlternativeshaveresidualvaluefromROW.
TABLE25
ResidualValue
Alternative
ResidualValue,$million
(Discountedover20yearAppraisalPeriod),2014Prices
TSMTDM*
$0.38
SingleBoreTunnel(allalternatives)*
$769.82
DualBoreTunnel(allalternatives)*
$1,387.13
BRT*(ELAtoPasadena)
$0.41
LRT*(ELAtoPasadena)
$249.46
2-8
TBG070214143329SCO
2.3
Traffic Analysis
2.3.1
Overview
2.3.2
Methodology
Thetrafficanalysiswasbasedontravelforecastmodeling,conductedforexistingandfutureconditions.Forecasts
weredevelopedfortheopeningyear(2020or2025dependingonthealternative)andahorizonyearof2035.
ThetravelforecastmodelareaincludedtheentireSCAGregion,butperformancewasevaluatedfortheSCAG
regionincludingLosAngelesCountyandtheSR710NorthStudyareadependingontheperformancemeasure.
DetailsoftheforecastmodelingcanbefoundintheTTR(CH2MHILL,2014).
Acustomizedtravelforecastmodel,describedastheSR710Modelwasdeveloped.TheSR710Modelisbased
ontheSCAG2012RTPVersion6.1model(ortheVersion6.1model).TheVersion6.1modelincludesmultiple
updatestotheSCAG2012RTPmodel,whichwasusedbySCAGforanalysisinthe2012RTP.Updatestothe
Version6.1modelincludehighwayandtransitnetworkdescriptions,updatedtrafficanalysiszonedefinitions,and
incorporationofupdatedandimprovedmodelingofmodechoice.Themostsignificantupdateincludedinthe
Version6.1modelwasanewtimeofdaymodelsensitivetotravelercharacteristicsandcongestion.Additional
detailsontheoverviewandhistoryoftheSCAGmodel,includingadaptionsandenhancementsthatweremadeto
developtheSR710Northmodel,areincludedindetailintheTTR(CH2MHILL,2014).
TheSR710Modelhasbeenadjustedtoimprovethecalibrationofthetransportationnetworkoutputsto
observedtraveldatainthestudyarea.Theseimprovementsincludemodelnetworkdefinition,modelparameter
andcoefficientchanges,andmodelprocess(scripting)changes.Someoftheprocesschangeswereimplemented
tocorrectissueswiththemodelasprovidedbySCAG.TheseissueshavebeensharedwithSCAGfortheirmodel
improvement.
Theoutputsfromthetravelforecastmodelareusedtodirectly,andindirectly,informtheCBAanalysis.Several
outputsareuseddirectlyintheCBAanalysis.Anothersetofoutputswasusedforsafetyanalysis,ofwhich,the
outputwasusedforCBAanalysis(anindirectuseoftravelmodelperformancemeasures).
2.3.3
Assumptions
2.3.4
CBA Traffic Analysis
TheSR710NorthtraveldemandmodeloutputswereusedasinputstotheCBAanalysis.Thevehiclemiles
traveled(VMT)andvehiclehourstraveled(VHT)arethemaininputstotheCBAprocess.Duetotheregional
natureoftheSR710Northproject,VMTandVHTovermultiplegeographies,includingtheSCAGregionandthe
studyarea,wereevaluatedasinputtotheCBAprocess.Usingananalysisareathatistoolargeaccumulatestrips
thatarenotaffectedbytheSR710Northalternatives,andthereforedilutesthechangesinVMTandVHTinthe
transportationsystembetweenthealternatives.Therefore,itwasassumedthatthecapturearea(describedin
Section2.3.4.1)VMTandVHTwouldbeusedasinputstotheCBAanalysis.Thecaptureareaenablesustosee
differencesinVMTandVHTwithoutbeingoverwhelmedbytheentireregion.TheuseofcaptureareaVMTand
VHTbestservestheneedsoftheCBAbecauseitcapturesthechangesintripdistributionandtimeofdaythat
occurduetotheSR710NorthStudyalternatives.
2.3.4.1
Performance Measures
Performancemeasuresallowfortheimpactsoftransportationalternativestobequantified.Theperformance
measuresusedinthisanalysisaredesignedtofocusonthetransportationsystem(vehicularandtransit)
performancefortheregionandthestudyarea.Athoroughdiscussionaboutthevariousperformancemeasures
isdescribedintheTTR.
TwooftheperformancemeasuresdevelopedtoevaluateSR710Northmodeloutputswereusedasdirectinputs
totheCBAanalysis:VMTandVHT.Utilizingthestudyareadidnotcapturechangesinthesurroundingareaasthe
facilityandadditionalcapacityaltersthetravelpatternsoftravelersinalargearea.Toaccountforthisissue,a
captureareawasdevelopedusingorigindestination(OD)pairstodevelopconsistentVMTandVHTestimates
acrossthealternatives.
TBG070214143329SCO
2-9
Thecaptureareawasdefinedinthesamewaythetraveltimesavingdistrictsforthetransportationreportwere
defined.Tripsthatmaygoto,through,orareentirelywithinthestudyareaweredefinedaswithinthecapture
area,asshowninExhibit23.Theanalysisincludessometripsthatmaynotcurrentlygothroughthestudyarea,
butarecandidatetripstousethecorridoriftherearetransportationimprovements.Thenumberoftripsinthe
captureareaforeachODpairwasmultipliedbythehighwaytraveltimeanddistance,andsummedacrossall
captureareazonepairstogettheVMTandVHT.
EXHIBIT23
CaptureAreaforVMTandVHTCalculations
2.3.4.2
Time Saving Benefits
Thetimethatauserspendstravelingfromanorigintoadestinationisanimportantaspectofonesdailyactivity.
Theuserstravelingcostnotonlyincludesthecostoffuelorfares,etc.,butalsoincludesthevalueofthetime
spenttraveling.ValuationofsavingsintraveltimeisastandardapproachusedinCBAs,andoftenproducesthe
majorityofthebenefits.
Theanalysisincludedfourstepstocalculateestimatesofannualand20yeardelaysavingsonhighways:
1. Usingthe2035projectedtrips,themodelestimatesfutureannualtrips,assumingstraightlinegrowth
of1percentperannum,usingacompoundannualgrowthrate.
2. Annualtripsaremultipliedbythetraveltime.
3. Annualtraveltimesavings(thedifferenceintotaltraveltimesbetweentheNoBuildAlternativeandeach
BuildAlternative)aremultipliedbythevalueoftimeandaveragevehicleoccupancyforeachmodetoconvert
traveltimesavingsintodollarvalues.
4. Thedollarvaluesoftraveltimesavingsarediscountedtoestimatetheirpresentvalue.
2.3.4.3
Value of Time
Valueoftimeisusedtoconverttimesavingsfromhourstodollars.Itisaproportionofanhourlywagerate.
Table26showsthewageratesandthevalueoftimeusedintheanalysis.
2-10
TBG070214143329SCO
TABLE26
ValueofTimeParameters
StatewideAverageHourlyWage
HeavyandLightTruckDrivers
Value
Units
$26.55
$/hr
AverageHourlyWage
$20.07
$/hr
BenefitsandCosts
$10.99
$/hr
ValueofTime
Automobile
$13.25
$/hr
Truck
$31.05
$/hr/veh
Transit
$13.25
$/hr
Source:CalB/CModel
$/hrdollarsperhour
$/hr/vehdollarsperhourpervehicle
2.3.4.4
Vehicle Operating Cost Savings
Vehicleoperatingcostsavingsaregenerallythesecondmostimportantcomponentofuserbenefitsinan
appraisal.Vehicleoperatingcostsarethecompositeofthechangeincostsassociatedwithoperatingthevehicle
overtheroadsegments,comparedwiththeNoBuildAlternative.Theoperatingcostsincludefuel,maintenance,
andtirewearandtear.
Thechangeinvehicleoperatingcostsisestimatedasfollows:
EstimatedfutureannualtripsaremultipliedbytheaffectedsegmentlengthtodetermineannualVMT.
UsingtheVMTandVHT(toderivespeed),theannualVMTsavingsaremultipliedbythefuelconsumption
(basedonaveragespeed)andtheunitfuelcosttofindthedollarvalueforfuelvehicleoperatingcostsavings.
AnnualVMTsavingsaremultipliedbyunitnonfuelvehicleoperatingcosttofindthedollarvalueofnonfuel
vehicleoperatingcostsavings.
Futureannualvehicleoperatingcostsavingsaresummedacrossdifferenttimeperiodsanddiscountedto
obtaintheirpresentvalue.
2.4
2.4.1
Safety Analysis
Overview
ThebasicapproachofthesafetyassessmentofthedifferentalternativesfortheSR710NorthStudywasto
computeestimatesofannualcrashesandtheirseverityoutcomesbasedontraveldemandforecastdata.Crash
frequencieswerecomputedseparatelyforroadwaysegmentsandintersections.Theexpectedoutputfromthe
SafetyPerformanceFunctions(SPFs)intermsofpredictedcrashfrequencywasfurtherdividedintodifferent
injurylevels.Theseinjurylevelsarefatal,injury,andnoninjurycrashes.Thecrashfrequencyoffatal,injury,and
noninjurycrasheswascomputedfordifferentfunctionalclasses(facilitytypes)suchasfreeway,nonfreeway
(arterials,collectors,andlocalstreets),andintersection.Then,thesafetybenefits(orcosts)wereestimatedfrom
theunitcostassociatedwiththepredictedcrashfrequencyofdifferentinjurylevelsacrossthealternatives.
SafetyestimatesbasedonSPFswereconductedforthehorizonyearusing2035travelforecastdata,described
inSection2.3.Onlycrashesinvolvingvehiclesonroadways(generallycarsandtrucks)wereanalyzed.Transit
serviceincidents(forexample,LRT)werenotpredicted.
ThestateoftheartincrashpredictionissummarizedintheAASHTOHighwaySafetyManual.Modelsfor
predictingcrashesweredevelopedbytheFHWA.CalculationsaremadewiththeSafetyAnalystsoftwareprogram.
TBG070214143329SCO
2-11
2.4.2
Methodology
2.4.2.1
Applying SPFs
Thefollowingsectionsbrieflyoutlinethemethodologyfollowedinthesafetyassessmenttocomputethe
predictedtotalcrashfrequencyforeachalternative.
Therelationshipbetweentrafficvolumeandcrashfrequencyisnonlinear.Thisrelationshipgenerallytakesa
mathematicalformreferredtoasanSPF.SPFswereextractedbasedonthefacilitiesandnumberofbasiclanes
fromtheSafetyAnalystsoftware2forurbanareas.RoadwayandintersectionSPFswereappliedtopredictthe
crashfrequency.
SafetyAnalystcontainsmultiplemodelsforthefullrangeofroadwaytypesandnumberoflanesforeachroad
typefrommultistatedatabases.ThefunctionalformofabasicSPFforroadwaysegmentsrangingfromfreeway
segmentstoarterialandcollectorsegmentsis:

Similarly,thefunctionalformofabasicSPFforanintersectionwiththelegs/approachesoftheirrespective
averageannualdailytraffic(AADT)is:

Where:
N=predictedaveragecrashfrequencyperyearatasite
AADT=averageannualdailytraffic(vehiclesperday[veh/day])
L=segmentlength(miles)
a=intercept
b=coefficientforAADT
MajAADT=AADTofmajorroad(veh/day)
MinAADT=AADTofminorroad(veh/day)
b1=coefficientformajorAADT
b2=coefficientforminorAADT
Npi= =totalpredictedcrashfrequencysummingoveralllanefacilitiesforeachalternative
i=alternatives
j=numberoflanesinthefacility(i.e.,4,6,8,10,12,ormore)
Npi= =totalpredictedcrashfrequencysummingoveralllegsofintersectionsforeachalternative
k=numberoflegsinthefacility(i.e.,3or4)
2.4.2.2
Computing Predicted Total Crash Frequency
AftersettingtheSPFsfordifferentlanefacilities,thepredictedtotalcrashfrequencyforeachalternativewas
calculated.Thepredictedcrashfrequenciesforfreeways,nonfreeways,andintersectionswereaggregatedto
obtainthetotalpredictedcrashfrequencyofeachalternative.
2.4.2.3
Obtaining the Proportion of Fatal, Injury, and Non-Injury Crashes
CrashreportsfromtheStatewideIntegratedTrafficRecordsSystem(SWITRS)andcrashdatafromCaltranswere
extractedforthepast3years(2010to2013)focusingonfunctionalclassesofroadways;severitydistributionfor
fatal,injury,andnoninjurycrasheswerecomputedfromthosecrashrecords.Forfreeways,0.40percentofthe
crashesarefatal,28.28percentareinjury,and71.34percentarenoninjury.Forarterials,thesplitis0.35percent
fatal,49.46percentinjury,and50.19percentnoninjury.Forintersections,thesplitis0.13percentfatal,
45.55percentinjury,and54.32percentnoninjury.
2SafetyAnalystTM:SoftwareToolsforSafetyManagementofSpecificHighwaySites.July2010.NTISAccessionNo.PB2010111996,FHWAPublication
No.FHWAHRT10063.
2-12
TBG070214143329SCO
2.4.2.4
Obtaining the Annual Frequency of Fatal, Injury, and Non-Injury Crashes
Aftercomputingthetotalpredictedcrashesandtheproportionofcrashtypes,theannualfrequenciesforfatal,
injury,andnoninjurycrasheswerecomputedbymultiplyingeachotheracrossthealternatives(iinthe
equationsbelow).
2.4.2.5
Monetizing the Frequency of Crashes
Afterobtainingtheannualfrequencyofcrashesfordifferentseveritylevels,monetaryvalueswereattached
(thatis,theunitcostofdifferentlevelsofinjuryseverity)tothepredictedcrashesforallthealternativesoveran
appraisalperiodof20yearswithanannualdiscountrateof4percent.
2.4.3
Assumptions
Theassumptionsforthesafetyassessmentareasfollows:
SafetyAnalystSPFsweredevelopedbasedontheFHWAHighwaySafetyInformationSystemcrashdatabaseof
fourstatesCalifornia,Minnesota,Ohio,andWashington.ThedevelopedSPFsareageneralrepresentation
ofSPFstousefordifferentlaneandfacilitytypes.
TheSPFsusedinthisanalysisarenotcalibratedtotheSR710NorthStudyarea.However,crashesover
a3yearperiodwereusedtodeterminethedistributionofseverity(proportionoffatal,injury,andnoninjury
crashes).SinceoneofthecrashdatabasesrepresentsCalifornia,thecalibrationfactorwouldpresumablybe
similarto1.0.
Severitydistributionwasdeterminedfromthecrashesinfreeway,nonfreeway,andintersectionfacilities.
ThecrashdatawereextractedfromCaltransandSWITRScrashreportsfromJuly2010toJuly2013.
Therewere155intersectionsidentifiedandconsideredasarepresentativesampleforthesafetyassessment.
Itwasassumedthatthepredictedcrashfrequencyforthestudyareaintersectionscanbeextrapolatedto
representthewholetrafficimpactarea.
TheintersectionapproachdirectionwiththehigherAADTwasconsideredthemajorflowdirectioninthe
intersectionSPFcomputationprocess.
PredictedcrashfrequencyiscomputedonanannualbasisbasedonSPFs.TheprimaryinputtoSPFsisAADT
andlengthofsegment.Thetrafficforecastandannualaveragecrashfrequencyareexpandedwithanannual
growthrateoverthelifecycleoftheprojectfordifferentalternatives.
2.4.4
Safety Analysis Outputs
ThepredictedannualaveragecrashfrequenciesfordifferentfacilitieswithintheSR710NorthStudyareaare
presentedinTable27.Thetableisorganizedbyfunctionalclass,alternative,andcrashtype.Thepredictednumber
ofcrashesisfortheentirestudyarea,andnotjustthenewfacilitiesthatarepartoftheBuildAlternatives.Inother
words,thedatainthetablearecrashesforallofthefreeways,arterialsandcollectors,andintersectionsinthe
studyarea.
TBG070214143329SCO
2-13
TABLE27
PredictedAverageAnnualCrashesbySeveritybyFacilityandAlternative(2035)
Functional
Class
2035
Alternative
PredictedTotal
Crashes
PredictedFatal
CrashFrequency
PredictedInjury
CrashFrequency
PredictedNoninjury
CrashFrequency
Combined(Freeway,ArterialsandCollectors,andIntersections,FullStudyArea)
NoBuild
19,942.9
72.8
7,200.1
12,672.4
TSM/TDM
19,954.5
72.8
7,185.5
12,698.8
BRT
19,885.3
72.4
7,165.3
12,650
LRT
19,916.9
72.6
7,176.1
12,670.7
70.6
6,890.8
12,329.2
SingleBoreTunnel
19,288.0
DualBoreTunnelb
20,001.2
73.6
7,076.5
12,853.7
12,308.9
49.2
3,480.9
8,781.1
Freeway(FullStudyArea)
NoBuild
TSM/TDM
12,400.7
49.6
3,506.9
8,846.7
BRT
12,332.0
49.3
3,487.5
8,797.6
LRT
12,354.3
49.4
3,493.8
8,813.6
12,244.0
49.0
3,462.6
8,734.9
13,041.9
52.2
3,688.2
9,304.1
SingleBoreTunnel
DualBoreTunnel
ArterialsandCollectors(FullStudyArea)
NoBuild
6,186.0
21.7
3,059.6
3,104.7
TSM/TDM
6,082.8
21.3
3,008.6
3,053.0
BRT
6,067.5
21.2
3,001.0
3,045.3
LRT
6,075.9
21.3
3,005.1
3,049.5
5,618.0
19.7
2,778.7
2,819.7
5,586.2
19.6
2,762.9
2,803.7
SingleBoreTunnel
DualBoreTunnel
IntersectionsArterialsandCollectors(FullStudyArea)
NoBuild
1,448.0
1.9
659.6
786.6
TSM/TDM
1,471.0
1.9
670.0
799.1
BRT
1,485.8
1.9
676.8
807.1
LRT
1,486.7
1.9
677.2
807.6
1,426.0
1.9
649.5
774.6
1,373.1
1.8
625.4
745.9
SingleBoreTunnel
DualBoreTunnel
FreewayTunnelSingleBorewithTSM/TDM(WithTrucks,WithTolls)
FreewayTunnelDualBorewithTSM/TDM(WithTrucks,WithoutTolls)
2-14
TBG070214143329SCO
2.4.5
CBA Analysis Approach
Basedontheunitcostofdifferentseveritylevels(showninTable28),crashcostsavings(associatedwithfewer
crashes)werecomputedoveranappraisalperiodof20years,withadiscountrateof4percent.
TABLE28
UnitCostsofCrashesbySeverityLevel
CrashType
UnitCost
FatalCrash
$4,900,000
InjuryCrash
$69,500
PropertyDamageOnlyCrash
$10,200
AllTypes
$53,600
Source:NationalSafetyCouncil:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/LCBC_Analysis_Model.html
2.5
Environmental Analysis
CalB/Cestimatestheenvironmentalimpactsofthealternativesindollarsbasedontheoutputsfromthetravel
forecastingmodel.Themodelputsavalueonchangesinvolumesofcarbonmonoxide(CO),carbondioxide(CO2),
nitrogenoxide(NOX),particulatematterlessthan10micrometersinaerodynamicdiameter(PM10),andsulfur
oxide(SOX).Thesevolumesarecalculatedbasedonthenumberofmilestraveled(VMT)andthespeedoftravel.
Thevaluesofhighwayemissionsarecalculatedasfollows:
1. Theaggregateemissionscost(permile)iscalculatedbymultiplyingtheemissionsrate(gramspermile)for
therelevantaveragespeedbytheemissionscostforeachtypeofemissionandsummingtheresults.The
emissionsratesareforecasttochangeinthefutureandthedefaultCalB/Cparametersareapplied.
2. AnnualVMT(inmiles)ismultipliedbytheaggregateemissionscost.Theresultistheannualemissionscostfor
eachalternative.
3. Thedifference(thatis,thechangeinemissionscostbetweenNoBuildandeachBuildAlternative)is
discountedtofindthepresentvalueoffutureemissionsbenefits.
Analternativemethodologyhasbeenappliedtoestimatetheemissionsimpactsofthedifferentalternatives.
Aspartoftheenvironmentalstudies,detailedforecastsofawiderangeofpollutantshavebeendevelopedusing
outputsfromthetravelforecastmodel.Thealternativemethodofmonetizingthesehasbeentotakethevolumes
thatunderpintheenvironmentalstatementandtouseCalB/Cemissionscoststomonetizethem.Thevolumes
arebasedonamoredetailedestimationmethodologythantherelativelysimpleapproachwithinCalB/C.
AsensitivitytestonthealternativemethodologyisprovidedinSection4.
2.6
Net Present Value Calculations
Thepresentvalueofcostsandthepresentvalueofbenefitsarecalculatedanddiscountedovera20yearperiod.
Thepresentvalueofcostsisthesumofthecapitalexpenditure(includingROW),theO&Mcost,andtheresidual
value.Thepresentvalueofbenefitsisthesumofthetimesavingbenefits,vehicleoperatingbenefits,benefitsof
reducedcrashes,andemissionsbenefits.
TheNPVisthepresentvalueofbenefitsminusthepresentvalueofcosts.Wherethisnumberispositive,the
alternativedeliversmoreincrementalbenefitsthanitrequiresinincrementalcostswhencomparedtothe
NoBuildAlternative.Thelargerthisnumberis,thegreaterthenetbenefitsthataredelivered.WheretheNPVis
negative,thereareinsufficientbenefitstooutweighthecostsofimplementationandoperation.
TBG070214143329SCO
2-15
Someimprovementsmayhavealow(butpositive)NPVbutalsolowcosts,meaningtheydelivermodestbenefits
buthaveagoodreturnoninvestment.LargerimprovementsmayhavehighNPVsastheydelivergreaterbenefits
butrequireahigherinvestment.NoneoftheoutputsfromtheCBAmeasures(costs,valueofbenefits,andNPV)
shouldbeusedontheirown.However,allprovideusefulinformationandshouldbeconsideredtogetherwith
otherperformancemeasuresbydecisionmakers.
Tolls,taxes,andotheruserchargesfortransportationprojectsrepresentarevenuesourcetogovernment
agenciesforfinancingtransportationprojects.However,fromtheCBApointofview,thisrevenuecannotbe
consideredasabenefit.Amoreaccuratewayofviewingtheseelementsisthattheyaretransferbenefits.This
CBAapproachisconsistentwiththeguidanceprovidedbyFHWA(FHWATransportationPerformance
ManagementWebsite,http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/).
2-16
TBG070214143329SCO
SECTION3
Results
3.1
Cost Evaluation
Exhibits31to33aresummariesofthecostevaluationanalysis.Exhibit31isasummaryofthecapital
expenditurescostbyalternative.Thecapitalexpendituresrangefrom$88million(2014prices)fortheTSM/TDM
Alternativeto$4.1billionforthedualborevariationsoftheFreewayTunnelAlternative.Thehighercostsofthe
FreewayTunnelandLRTAlternativesaredirectlyrelatedtotheextentoftunneling.
EXHIBIT31
CapitalExpenditureCostSummarybyAlternative
Costisshowninpresentvaluesdiscountedat4percentto2014pricesoverthe20yearappraisalperiod
*DatareportedinExhibit31onlyapplytotheSR710NorthStudyAlternatives/Variations
Exhibit32isasummaryoftheO&Mcostbyalternative.TheO&Mexpendituresrangefrom$168million
(2014prices)fortheTSM/TDMAlternativeto$624millionforthedualboretollvariationoftheFreewayTunnel
Alternative.Themajorcostelementsaretunneloperations,tolling,andtransitvehicles.
TBG070214143329SCO
3-1
3. RESULTS
EXHIBIT32
OperationsandMaintenanceCostSummarybyAlternative
Costisshowninpresentvaluesdiscountedat4percentto2014pricesoverthe20yearappraisalperiod
Exhibit33showstheresidualvalueforeachalternative.Theresidualvaluesrangefromnearzero(2014prices)
fortheTSM/TDMandBRTAlternativesto$1.4billionforthedualborevariationoftheFreewayTunnel
Alternative.Onlyalternativesthatcreatetunnels(singlebore,dualbore,andLRT)haveanysignificantresidual
valuethatcontributestotheoverallNPV.
EXHIBIT33
ResidualValueSummarybyAlternative
Residualvalueisshowninpresentvaluesdiscountedat4percentto2014prices
Residualvaluesareshownaspositiveforclarity,althoughtheyareactuallynegativecosts
3-2
TBG070214143329SCO
3. RESULTS
3.2
Benefits Evaluation
Exhibits34to311aresummariesofthebenefitsevaluationanalysis.Exhibit34includesdataonthetotal
personhoursoftraveltimesavings.Thetraveltimesavingsrangefrom380millionpersonhoursforthe
TSM/TDMAlternativetoapproximately2.6billionpersonhoursforsomevariationsoftheFreewayTunnel
Alternative.InExhibit35,thesamedataareconvertedtodollars,withthetimesavingsbenefitsbyalternative
shown,usingthevalueoftimefordifferentusers.
InExhibits34and35,thedataillustratehowtheFreewayTunnelAlternativeswillprovideanorderof
magnitudemoretimesavingsthantheLRT,BRT,andTSM/TDMAlternatives.Thetraveltimebenefitsofthe
singleboreanddualboretunnelvariationsaresimilar.Whilethedualboretunnelswillservemoreusersand
havemorecapacity,theywillnotprovidesubstantiallymorebenefitsforthreereasons.First,thedualbore
tunnelswillincreasetrafficontheroutestogetdriverstoandfromthetunnels.Second,thedualboretunnels
attracttripstothestudyareasosomeofthebenefitsarewashedoutbythenewtripsthatbringadditionalVMT,
accidents,and/oremissions.Finally,thedualboretunnelshavemorecapacitythanthesingleboretunnel.
Tunnelswithmorecapacityattractmoredemand.Whilemorepeoplebenefit(thereismorerouteshiftingon
nontunnelroutes),thebenefitsoftheseshiftsaresmallerbecausetherearemoreofthem.
EXHIBIT34
UserTimeSavingsBenefitsbyAlternative
TBG070214143329SCO
3-3
3. RESULTS
EXHIBIT35
MonetizedTimeSavingsBenefitsSummarybyAlternative
Valuesshowninpresentvaluesdiscountedat4percentto2014pricesover20yearappraisalperiodpostconstruction
Exhibits36and37provideamorefocusedassessmentofthetimesavings.Exhibit37isasummaryofthetravel
timesavings,delineatedbythesavingspertrip,fortheAMandPMpeakperiods.Thegraphillustratesthattravel
timesavingsaredifferentdependingonthetriptype.Timesavingsforthesingleboretunneldriversareupto
13.5minutes,andtheaveragesavingsduringthepeakperiodsare7.2minutes(dataextractedfromtheSR710
NorthModel,calibratedfortheSR710NorthStudyareafromtheSCAGRegionalTravelDemandModel,
Version6.1).Thesebenefitsarefortunnelusers,althoughtherearealsohundredsofthousandsoftripsthatwill
notusethetunnelbutwillhaveanincrementaltraveltimesavings.Forthesingleboretunnel,moreofthesavings
comesfromtripswithsubstantialtimesavingsnearlyhalfisfromtripswithmorethan5minutesoftraveltime
improvement.Becausetherearemoretripsthatbenefitwiththedualboretunnel,thepercentagesaredifferent,
butthemaximumtimesavingsisstillnearly13minutes.Theaveragetimesavingsfordualboretunnelusersis
4.0minutes,andtherearemoretripswithlowertraveltimesavings.Incontrast,almostallofthetripbenefits
associatedwiththetransitalternativesarelessthan1minute.Thegraphalsoillustratesthenumberofdailytrips
withtraveltimesavingsbycategory.
Exhibit37providesdetailsonthetimesavingsforusersofthefreewaytunnelvs.otherusers.Ingeneral,
about50percentofthetimesavingsforautotripsisattributabletothoseusingthefreewaytunnel.Fortruck
trips,thatvalueisabout40percent.Theremainderareindirectbenefitstootherusers(thosenotusingthe
tunnel).ThesebreakdownsaresimilarforthesingleanddualborevariationsoftheFreewayTunnelAlternatives.
TheTSM/TDM,BRT,andLRTAlternativeshavenotunnelrelatedbenefits.
3-4
TBG070214143329SCO
3. RESULTS
EXHIBIT36
DistributionofTimeSavingsBenefits
EXHIBIT37
TimeSavingsBenefitsDetailsbyAlternative
TBG070214143329SCO
3-5
3. RESULTS
Exhibit38isasummaryofthechangeinvehicleoperatingcostbenefitsforeachalternative.Apositivevalue
indicatesasavingsinvehicleoperatingcost(andthereforeabenefit).Tunnelalternativesincreasevehicle
operatingcostduetotheadditionaldistancetraveledbytunneluserstoachieveanoveralltimesavings.Transit
alternativesprovidemoderatebenefitsduetomodeshiftsfromautomobiletotransit.
EXHIBIT38
VehicleOperatingCosts/BenefitsSummarybyAlternative
Exhibit39isasummaryofthebenefitsduetochangesincrashes.Allofthealternativeshavepositivebenefits
(reducedcrashcosts).TheFreewayTunnelAlternativesdivertmoretrafficfromsurfacestreets,whichtendto
havehighercrashratesthanthefreeway,thereforegeneratinggreaterbenefits.Thebenefitsofthedualbore
alternativesaresomewhatlessbecausewithgreatercapacityonthefreewaytherewillbeanincreaseintravel
onthefreewaysystem.Theresultingbenefitsfromlowercrashratesonthefreewayfortrafficthathasshifted
fromotherroadsisoffsetbyagreatervolumeoftrafficonthefreeway.
EXHIBIT39
Cost/BenefitsDuetoChangesinCrashesbyAlternative
3-6
TBG070214143329SCO
3. RESULTS
Exhibit310showsthebenefitsfromreducedemissionsbasedonamonetizationofemissionsestimatedby
CalB/C.TheFreewayTunnelAlternativevariationsshowadisbenefit(thatis,anincreaseincostsfromemissions
inafocusedarea),whiletheTSM/TDM,BRT,andLRTalternativesshowareductioninemissionscoststhroughout
thestudyarea.Asensitivitytest,showninSection4,includesamonetizationoftheemissionsundertakenaspart
oftheenvironmentalanalysis.
EXHIBIT310
EmissionsCostsBenefitsSummarybyAlternative
Exhibit311showsthebenefitsfromconstructionandpermanentemployment.Allofthealternativesshowa
positivebenefit.TheLRTandFreewayTunnelAlternativeshaverelativelyhighconstructionbenefits.The
permanentemploymentbenefitsarerelatedtotransitservice(allalternatives)andtunneloperations.
EXHIBIT311
EmploymentBenefitsSummarybyAlternative
$m(discountedto2014)
EmploymentBenefits
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
TSMTDM Single
Single
Single DualBore DualBore DualBore
BoreToll BoreToll BoreToll NoToll noTollno lowToll
noTrucks ExpBus
Trucks
BRT
LRT
TBG070214143329SCO
3-7
3. RESULTS
3.3
Overall Evaluation
Table31isasummaryofthediscountedcostsandbenefits,withtheNPVforeachalternativecomparedtothe
NoBuildAlternative.
TABLE31
CostBenefitAnalysisSummary
PresentValueof
Costs
($million)
PresentValueof
Benefits
($million)
NetPresentValue
($million)
255
599
344
SingleBore(Toll)*
1,979
3,503
1,524
SingleBore(Toll,NoTrucks)*
1,951
3,429
1,478
SingleBore(Toll,ExpressBus)*
1,997
3,587
1,590
DualBore(NoToll)*
3,273
3,348
75
DualBore(NoToll,NoTrucks)*
3,227
3,733
506
DualBore(Toll)*
3,374
3,337
37
BRT*(ELAtoPasadena)
510
879
369
LRT*(ELAtoPasadena)
2,163
1,293
870
Alternative/Variation
TSM/TDM*
Note:Allcostsdiscountedto2014
AsdescribedintheSection2.1.1,thepurposeoftheCBAisnottodictatedecisions.TheCBAisnotan
indisputablebottomlineanswer.Notallbenefitsandcostscanbemonetizedreliablyoreasily.Whiletheyare
informative,theresultsoftheCBAareonlycarefulestimatesofthemonetizationoftheprincipalcomponents
ofvalue(incorporatinguncertainty).
WheninterpretingTable31,guidancetoconsiderincludesthefollowing:
Thecostcolumnincludesnotonlythecapital(construction)costbutalsothecostsofoperatingand
maintainingthefacilityovertheperiodoftimesetforthestudy(inthiscase,20years).Tunnels,roadways,
andtransitservicesandfacilitieshavedifferentO&Mcosts,whichareincludedhere.
Thebenefitscolumnissometimesexaminedindependentlyofitsrelationshiptocosts.TheFreewayTunnel
Alternativehasthehighestbenefitsregardlessofcosts.ThesixvariationsoftheFreewayTunnelAlternative
allhaveapproximatelythesamebenefitswithinarangeofabout10percent.
TheNPVcolumnshowstheresultsofsubtractingcostsfrombenefits.NPVisperhapsthebestindicator
oftheadditionalbenefitsreceived,comparedtothecost.Formostofthealternatives,thebenefitsare
greaterthanthecosts,butthedollarvalueofthebenefitsvariessignificantly.Allsingleborevariationsof
theFreewayTunnelAlternativehaveanNPVofapproximately$1.5billion.Dualborevariationshave
NPVsrangingfrom$0.04billionto$0.5billion.TheTSM/TDMandBRTAlternativeshavesimilarNPVs
($0.34billionand$0.37billion),andtheLRTAlternativehasthelowestNPVat$0.9billion.
Thesemeasuresarecommonlycompared,notonlyabsolutely(thatis,whichoneishighestorlowest),but
alsorelatively.Inthecontextofthisstudy,somealternativesmaycomplementratherthancompetewith
oneanother(becausetheymayservedifferentsegmentsoftravelmarketsorreducedemandfortravel
regardlessofalternative).Insuchsituations,theremaybereasonstocombinealternatives,ortoselectmore
thanone.
3-8
TBG070214143329SCO
3. RESULTS
3.4
CBA Analysis Limitations
Atthisstage,theSR710NorthStudyCBAhasfocusedprimarilyontheuserbenefitsandspecificallythetime
savings,vehicleoperatingcostsavings,andaccidentcostsavings.Userbenefitsincludebothtravelersonthenew
infrastructure(bus,rail,andtunnel)anddriversandpassengersinthesystemwhomayhaveindirectbenefits.
Otheruserbenefitssuchastraveltimereliabilityhavenotbeencapturedaspartoftheuserbenefits.
Nonuserbenefits(forpeoplenotusingtransportation)havebeencapturedintheformofemissionsimpactsand
employmentbenefitsonly.Othernonuserbenefitssuchasindirectbenefitsincludingnoise,construction
disbenefits,andimprovementinthelabormarketproductivityarealsonotcapturedinthemodel.
Finally,directandindirectlongterm(orlifecycle)benefitsassociatedwithundergroundfacilities(transitand
highways)mayoutweighhigherinitialcapitalcostsoffacilitiesaboveground.Whileundergroundconstruction
projectsarenotwithoutchallenges,onemajoradvantageisthatsuchprojectsreduceadverseimpactstoexisting
surfacestructuresandfacilities.Theneedtoremoveordisplacebusinessesandresidentialdwellingsareforthe
mostparteliminated.Typicalimpactssuchasdivisionofneighborhoodsandcommunitiesareavoided;andother
adverseimpactsassociatedwithsurfacetransportationprojects,includingtheremovalofhistoricpropertiesand
districts,thetakingofparksorrecreationalareasand/orthetakingofcommunityfacilitiessuchasschoolsand
churches,arealsoavoided.However,thevalueofsavinghomes,businesses,protectedproperties,andother
communityresourcesarenotincludedintheCBAappraisalprocess,becausenodefinitivedataareavailableto
quantifythesebenefits.
TBG070214143329SCO
3-9
SECTION4
Sensitivity Analysis
ThecostandbenefitevaluationsinthisCBAarebasedonthebestavailabledata.However,thereissome
uncertaintyaboutalloftheprojections.Toassesshowtheuncertaintymightaffectdecisionmaking,asetof
rangeshasbeenplacedaroundeachofthecostandbenefitlineitems.TheNPVswerethenrecalculatedtocreate
arangeofNPVsforeachalternative.Thefollowingsensitivityevaluationswereconducted:
1. Capitalandoperatingcostswereadjustedtobetween5percentlowerthanestimatedand10percenthigher
thanestimated.(Notethatthebaseestimatesalreadyincludecontingencies.)
2. A50yearlifeforthetunnel(insteadof100years)wasusedtocalculateresidualvalue,sincea50year
timeframeisoftenusedforstructureevaluations.
3. AVMTreduction(basedonresearchbyRodier3)wasincludedasalowerbound.Theadjustmentbasedonthis
researchisascenariowhere94percentoftheforecastVMTisachieved.
4. Theemissionsvolumedatafromthedetailedairqualitytechnicalanalysisconductedfortheenvironmental
studieswasincludedinsteadofthestandardoutputsfromCalB/C.
5. Adiscountrateof7percentwasapplied,consistentwithassumptionsusedforTransportationInvestment
GeneratingEconomicRecovery(TIGER)grantapplications,insteadoftheCalB/Cassumptionof4percentas
definedbyCaltrans.
6. Areducedannualizationfactorof330wasappliedinsteadoftheCalB/Cassumptionof365toreflectlower
levelsoftrafficonweekends/holidays.
7. Adifferentvalueoftime(VOT)featuringdifferentVOTsforautoandtransituserswasapplied$22.57for
autoand$6.35fortransit(2014prices)insteadoftheCalB/Cassumptions($13.25forbothautoand
transit).
Table41isasummaryoftheNPVsensitivityevaluations.
Exhibits41to47areillustrationsoftheimpactoftheserangesontheNPVsofeachalternative.Thebluedots
arethebaseNPVs(beforethesensitivityanalysis).TheblackverticallinesaretherangeofNPVsforeach
sensitivityassessment.
Evenunderthemostpessimisticscenarios,therangeofvaluesdoesnotchangethegeneralcomparisons.
Thesensitivityrangesareoftenrelativelysmall(Exhibit44)and/orinthesamedirection(Exhibit45).
3Rodier,CarolineJ.2004.VerifyingAccuracyofRegionalModelsUsedinTransportationandAirQualityPlanning:CaseStudyinSacramento,California,
Region.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,No.1898,TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.
pp.4551.
TBG070214143329SCO
4-1
4. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
TABLE41
NPVSensitivityAnalysisSummary($million)
SensitivityEvaluation
Alternative/
Variation
Base
NPV
TSM/TDM
343
SingleBore(Toll)
1524
SingleBore(Toll,NoTrucks)
1477
SingleBore(Toll,ExpressBus)
1590
DualBore(NoToll)
75
DualBore(NoToll,NoTrucks)
506
DualBore(Toll)
37
BRT(ELAtoPasadena)
369
LRT(ELAtoPasadena)
869
Range
Operating
Costs
Tunnel
Life
VMT
Reduction
Air
Quality
Discount
Rate
Annualization
Valueof
Time
Lower
318
343
309
325
223
294
343
Upper
356
343
343
343
343
343
561
Lower
1250
1140
1159
1524
428
1298
1524
Upper
1662
1524
1524
1543
1524
1524
3022
Lower
1205
1093
1165
1477
397
1258
1477
Upper
1613
1477
1477
1497
1477
1477
2946
Lower
1313
1205
1267
1590
466
1355
1590
Upper
1728
1590
1590
1601
1590
1590
3095
Lower
391
618
261
75
783
111
75
Upper
308
75
75
92
75
75
1358
Lower
45
188
191
506
533
283
506
Upper
737
506
506
506
506
506
1947
Lower
513
730
328
37
851
222
37
Upper
201
37
37
37
37
1410
Lower
318
369
332
348
224
316
369
Upper
394
369
369
369
369
369
516
Lower
1110
869
1219
880
853
902
869
Upper
749
869
869
869
869
869
813
4-2
TBG070214143329SCO
EXHIBIT41
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryOperatingCosts
SR710CostBenefitAnalysisSensitivityAnalysis OperatingCosts
$2,000
NetPresentValue
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
TSM/TDM
SingleBore SingleBore
SingleBore DualBoreNo DualBoreno DualBorelow
Toll
TollnoTrucks TollExpBus
Toll
TollnoTrucks
Toll
BRT
LRT
Alternative
EXHIBIT42
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryTunnelLife
SR710CostBenefitAnalysisSensitivityAnalysis TunnelLife
$2,000
NetPresentValue
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
$500
$1,000
TSM/TDM
SingleBore SingleBore SingleBore DualBoreNo DualBoreno DualBorelow

Toll
Toll
TollnoTrucks
Toll
BRT
LRT
Alternative
TBG070214143329SCO
4-3
EXHIBIT43
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryVMTReduction
SR710CostBenefitAnalysisSensitivityAnalysis VMTReduction
$2,000
NetPresentValue
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
TSM/TDM

Toll
Toll
TollnoTrucks
Toll
BRT
LRT
Alternative
EXHIBIT44
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryAirQuality
SR710CostBenefitAnalysisSensitivityAnalysis AirQuality
$2,000
NetPresentValue
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
TSM/TDM

Toll
Toll
TollnoTrucks
Toll
BRT
LRT
Alternative
4-4
TBG070214143329SCO
EXHIBIT45
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryDiscountRate
SR710CostBenefitAnalysisSensitivityAnalysis DiscountRate
$2,000
NetPresentValue
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
$500
$1,000
TSM/TDM

Toll
Toll
TollnoTrucks
Toll
BRT
LRT
Alternative
EXHIBIT46
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryAnnualization
SR710CostBenefitAnalysisSensitivityAnalysis Annualization
$2,000
$1,500
NetPresentValue
$1,000
$500
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
TSM/TDM

Toll
Toll
TollnoTrucks
Toll
BRT
LRT
Alternative
TBG070214143329SCO
4-5
EXHIBIT47
SensitivityAnalysisSummaryValueofTime
SR710CostBenefitAnalysisSensitivityAnalysis ValueofTime
$3,500
$3,000
NetPresentValue
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
TSM/TDM

Toll
Toll
TollnoTrucks
Toll
BRT
LRT
Alternative
4-6
TBG070214143329SCO

Cost Benefit Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cost Benefit Analysis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Analysis of Costs and Benefits for the

State Route 710 North Study

June 19, 2015

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Study Technical Approach

Overview of Cost-Benefit Analysis

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

CBA Model Structure

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

Real Discount Rate

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

Opening Year and Construction Period

Approach to Capital Expenditure Estimates

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

Capital Expenditure Cost Estimating Assumptions

Capital Expenditure Cost Summary

Capital Expenditure Cost Elements

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

Operations and Maintenance Costs

O&M Cost Estimating Assumptions

O&M Expenditure Cost Summary

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

O&M Expenditure Cost Elements

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

CBA Traffic Analysis

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

Time Saving Benefits

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

Vehicle Operating Cost Savings

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

Computing Predicted Total Crash Frequency

Obtaining the Proportion of Fatal, Injury, and Non-Injury Crashes

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

Obtaining the Annual Frequency of Fatal, Injury, and Non-Injury Crashes

Monetizing the Frequency of Crashes

Safety Analysis Outputs

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

CBA Analysis Approach

Net Present Value Calculations

2. STUDY TECHNICAL APPROACH

CBA Analysis Limitations

SingleBore SingleBore SingleBore DualBoreNo DualBoreno DualBorelow

SingleBore SingleBore SingleBore DualBoreNo DualBoreno DualBorelow

SingleBore SingleBore SingleBore DualBoreNo DualBoreno DualBorelow

SingleBore SingleBore SingleBore DualBoreNo DualBoreno DualBorelow

SingleBore SingleBore SingleBore DualBoreNo DualBoreno DualBorelow

SingleBore SingleBore SingleBore DualBoreNo DualBoreno DualBorelow

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen