5.3. SR 11-16-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION/BUSINESS PLAN Working Paper of September 30, 1998 -- Page 9 The preceding table provides an overview of the basic cost and ridership numbers for each of the Phase II routes. It also provides input for the evaluation matrix in the next section of this paper, and the information for formulation of a staged implementation program. Criteria for inclusion in a first phase of development include a variety of cost-related indices, including total Capital investment and passenger projections, cost per passenger mile, benefit-cost measures, federal cost-effectiveness guidelines, coincidence with development patterns and plans, regional service balance and ease of operational implementation. Together, these indicators furnish a useful comparative approach among the routes on both technical an policy grounds. However, the capital cost per mile on its own does not provide a useful relative measure for route evaluation. It is independent of ridership and does not vary significantly among routes. It is included in the table because it is helpful in demonstrating that costs fall within anticipated levels. At $ 6.4 to $ 8.6 million per mile for constructing and equipping each of the six radial routes, including common system elements and the 10 miles of the Route T downtown connector, capital investments are within the range expected for commuter rail start-ups in the United States. And these costs are well below even simple urban transit light rail ($20 to $40 million per mile) and heavy rail ($50 to $100 million or more per mile) systems. Costs per passenger mile, factoring in projected ridership, constitute a more meaningful comparative tool. SECTION 3. INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Development all of the fidl Phase !I routes would require a near-term expenditure of nearly $1.4 billion covering capital components alone. Such a substantial front-end investment for a start-up system in a region without any recent commuter or urban rail transit experience requires examination to determine whether some of the capital costs can be reduced or deferred, and whether implementation of the system can be phased to better fit regional patterns and resources. Can any of the routes themselves he shortened initially? Can a rational staging plan call for less than all routes to be developed as a first stage? In the process, can overall capital and operating requirements be reduced substantially? Three approaches to capital cost savings are presented in this section, followed by a recommended plan. :