Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2.1 <br /> <br />GillDELlNES <br /> <br />Guidelines were defined to reflect regional transportation needs and likely fiscal constraints. <br />Guidelines are generally qualitative; related quantitative evaluation criteria will be developed in <br />a future work activity for further evaluation of chosen technologies. The following guidelines <br />govern preliminary evaluation of the identified technologies: <br /> <br />· The systems carried forward should be relatively low cost. Comparative data from peer cities <br />will be utilized. <br /> <br />· The system should be reliable and based on proven technology. The subject technology shall <br />be considered appropriate based on the number of active operations and corresponding <br />performance records for maintenance and reliability. <br /> <br />· The system should be adaptable to a variety of operating environments. This relates to the <br />requirement for grade separation and also indicates the degree of difficulty for a system <br />extension or connection to another mode. <br /> <br />· Stations should be readily accessible for passengers. This relates to station type, at-grade or <br />grade separated, and the type of platform, high or low. <br /> <br />· The system should be readily accessible for passengers and allow easy coordination with a <br />multi-modal transportation network. <br /> <br />· The system should not result in extensive negative environmental impacts. <br /> <br />· The system should be supportive of transit-friendly land use. <br /> <br />Results of the preliminary evaluation of technologies shall be the basis for the definition of <br />conceptual alternatives. <br /> <br />2.2 EV ALVA TION OF TECHNOLOGIES <br /> <br />The evaluation was conducted by first describing the advantages, disadvantages and considerations <br />related to each technology, then screening these technologies according to defined guidelines. <br />Table 111-1 summarizes evaluation results in matrix format. <br /> <br />In general, all technologies except PRT are technically feasible and are in operation. Bus Rapid <br />Transit, Monorail and AGT have been in operation for several years, but in few locations. Bus <br />exhibits the lowest cost per mile for implementation since no guideway and only low cost physical <br />improvements are required. Costs for LRT, Monorail, Bus Rapid Transit and Commuter Rail are <br />mid-range, while those for Heavy Rail and AGT are very high compared to other rail modes. <br />Required grade separation is less desirable for the study corridor because of the higher <br /> <br />Northstar Corridor Major Investment Study <br />Conceptual Definition of Alternatives <br />February 1999 <br /> <br />I1I-7 <br />