e visual character and quality of both Sec-          were few di erences between the Airport Alterna-
tion 4(f) resources ...
the parking areas, as well as a strip of land along         Historic Properties on the Salt Lake Alternative
Kamehameha Hi...
First Hawaiian Bank). As a result, they were not       Street. e visual integrity of the NHL will not be
evaluated for Sec...
5.9 Determination of Section 4(f) Use
Considering the foregoing discussion of the
Project’s use of Section 4(f) properties...
This page left intentionally blank




5-74   CHAPTER 5 – Section 4(f) Evaluation
06
CHAPTER




Cost and Financial Analysis
   is chapter presents estimates for capital and                       the City...
revised to include the re nement of the alignment                  In this chapter, the cost estimates for speci c
along U...
6.2.2 Operating and Maintenance                              Table 6-2 Overview of Transit Capital Expenditures
      Cost...
1,200
MILLIONS OF YEAR-OF-EXPENDITURE DOLLARS



                                                                         ...
been appropriated by Congress for the Project.              No private source of capital revenue was assumed
An additional...
• FTA Capital Investment Grants                     1. Private Funds—the City will look to the
     (49 USC 5309): Bus and...
6.4 Operating and Maintenance Plan                                                                             revenue ser...
Table 6-3 2030 Operating and Maintenance Costs by Alternative
                                                            ...
City's Operating Subsidy                                       Share of General and Highway Fund Revenues
                ...
Table 6-4 Project Sources and Uses of Capital Funds (millions        6.5.2 Ongoing Capital Expenditure Cash Flow
of YOE $)...
6.6.1 Project Cost Risks                                     6.6.2 Economic and Financial Risks
Changes in Project Scope  ...
Market Uncertainty                                       have been in place for many years, through several
As with any in...
program will go to projects with a signi cant                 railcar, but the stations could present viable
     impact o...
vehicle weight tax, which are the two largest       costs, both negative and positive. ese include
     sources of revenue...
07
CHAPTER




Evaluation of the Project
   is chapter compares the Honolulu High-                      e evaluation measu...
described in Chapter 3, Transportation. Section 7.6                             relieve tra c congestion for drivers or im...
Table 7-2 E ectiveness of Alternatives in Improving Corridor Mobility

                                                   ...
in the future as the highway system becomes                             Although both of the alternatives are generally
mo...
LEGEND
                                                                                                 Substantial Travel...
Table 7-4 Equity Comparison of 2030 Transit Travel-time Savings for the Project Compared to the No Build Alternative

    ...
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Final EIS Part 5
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Final EIS Part 5

3,797 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,797
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Final EIS Part 5

  1. 1. e visual character and quality of both Sec- were few di erences between the Airport Alterna- tion 4(f) resources is de ned by their location tive and the Salt Lake Alternative alignments along the shoreline with unobstructed harbor in terms of uses of Section 4(f) properties (a er views. Given that, the location of the Project mitigation measures were identi ed and incorpo- elements are mauka of the future park and bike rated into the preliminary design). Section 4(f) use path, they would not change makai views nor cause would be identical, except where the two align- adverse visual impacts or diminish the Section 4(f) ments diverge in the center of the corridor between resources’ features or attributes. Use of and access Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In this segment of to the future park and bike path will be maintained the corridor, it was determined that the Airport during construction of the maintenance and stor- Alternative will result in the least overall harm in age facility. erefore, temporary impacts during light of the statute’s preservation purpose. It will construction will be minimal, no permanent result in a de minimis impact at two recreational adverse physical impact will occur, and there will properties—Ke‘ehi Lagoon Beach Park and Aloha be no use under Section 4(f). Stadium. e Paci c War Memorial Site is a multi- use property that is being considered as a park with de minimis impact, and there will be no other 5.8 Least Overall Harm uses of Section 4(f) historic, park, or recreational e FTA may approve only the feasible and properties. e Salt Lake Alternative would require prudent alternative that causes the least overall substantially more land at Aloha Stadium, result- harm in light of the statute’s preservation purpose. ing in a direct use (not de minimis impact) and Two feasible and prudent alternatives (Airport either direct or de minimis impact use at Radford Alternative alignment and Salt Lake Alternative High School. alignment) that were evaluated in the Dra EIS are assessed in this section to determine which one e constructive use evaluation for the Airport results in least overall harm. e least overall harm Alternative, described in Section 5.6, determined is determined by balancing the following factors: that none of the other Section 4(f) properties in Ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each this segment will experience impairment severe Section 4(f) property enough to constitute constructive use from the Relative severity of harm, a er reasonable Project. mitigation to the Section 4(f) qualities Relative signi cance of each Section 4(f) Aloha Stadium property e Salt Lake Alternative would more severely Views of o cials with jurisdiction of each a ect Aloha Stadium. is alternative would Section 4(f) property use approximately 4.8 acres within two of the Degree that Purpose and Need is met stadium’s parking lots as well as adjacent land Magnitude of adverse impacts, a er reason- for the elevated guideway’s easement, the station able mitigation, to non-Section 4(f) properties plaza, and the connective concourse. Even with Substantial di erences in costs mitigation measures in place to reduce the size of the easement and station areas, this design would 5.8.1 Least Overall Harm Evaluation of the result in more than twice the amount of property Airport and Salt Lake Alternative taken than will result with the de minimis impact Alignments of the Airport Alternative. Under the Airport rough analysis presented in the Dra EIS and Alternative, approximately 2 acres will be required Section 4(f) evaluation, it was found that there for the station and guideway on the ‘Ewa edge of 5-70 CHAPTER 5 – Section 4(f) Evaluation
  2. 2. the parking areas, as well as a strip of land along Historic Properties on the Salt Lake Alternative Kamehameha Highway. is will use less of the e Salt Lake Alternative would also require minor stadium’s parking facilities. In accordance with property acquisition (0.01 acre) along the edge of 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1), the Salt Lake Alternative would the NRHP-eligible Radford High School property not be considered to have least overall harm. (from an existing parking lot) to accommodate widening of Salt Lake Boulevard for the guideway e views of o cials with jurisdiction over the median. e school complex consists of several Section 4(f) property were also considered. In a one- and two-story masonry buildings constructed letter dated September 8, 2008, DAGS, the agency between 1957 and 1968, some of which are oriented with jurisdiction over Aloha Stadium, considered toward Salt Lake Boulevard and others that face both alignments and indicated a preference for the inward toward the campus. e alignment would Airport Alternative, noting that “the impact on the be located approximately 25 feet mauka of the stadium would be further mitigated if the system property boundary and would be approximately ran past the airport…” 20 to 25 feet high. Ke`ehi Lagoon Beach Park e Salt Lake Alternative in this segment would While the Airport Alternative will require the use likely have an adverse e ect under Section 106 of a small area of Ke‘ehi Lagoon Beach Park, the based on impacts to the setting and feeling of the value of the park will be enhanced through mitiga- potential Salt Lake Duplexes Historic District on tion proposed by the City and approved by DPR, the mauka side of the roadway. e wood-frame the agency with jurisdiction over the property. houses were built in the 1950s as military resi- dences, and many feature hipped roofs. e district e Project will pass above approximately 1 acre is eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion A (for of park land. As described in Section 5.5.1, its role in the early development of Title IX housing DTS has designed the Project to minimize use and subsequent real estate development on O‘ahu) and with mitigation there will be a de minimis and Criterion C (as the largest concentration of impact on this park. A er mitigation, the Project duplexes in Honolulu). Since the alignment would will not harm the attributes and features that be approximately 75 feet makai of the district and qualify the park for protection under Section 4(f) be elevated 35 to 50 feet, visibility of the low-scale 23 CFR 774.3. buildings would be maintained at ground level under the guideway structure. e guideway would Paci c War Memorial Site be higher than most of the nearby trees and about e Airport Alternative will require the use of a as tall as the utility poles lining the street. is small area of this multi-use property, considered would not be considered a constructive use of this a park in this Section 4(f) evaluation. e Project property as the features that qualify for protection will pass above approximately 0.5 acre of parkland. under Section 4(f) would not be substantially As described in Section 5.5.1, the City has designed impaired. the Project to minimize use, and with mitigation there will be a de minimis impact on this property. e other historic properties along this segment With mitigation, the Project will not harm the of the Salt Lake Alternative were found to have no attributes and features that qualify the park for adverse e ect as a result of this alignment (‘Aiea protection under Section 4(f) 23 CFR 774.3. Cemetery, Āliamanu Pumping Station–Facility X-24/Quonset Hut Navy Public Works Center, and June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 5-71
  3. 3. First Hawaiian Bank). As a result, they were not Street. e visual integrity of the NHL will not be evaluated for Section 4(f) use. adversely a ected, and the project elements will barely be visible in mauka views from the harbor 5.8.2 Differences in Environmental Impacts (Figure 4-42 in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS). e between Airport and Salt Lake Kamehameha Highway Bridge over Hālawa Stream Alternatives is historic, and its appearance will be changed by According to 23 CFR 774.3, the alternative having the guideway and support columns. e contrast in the least overall harm includes balancing the scale and character of the guideway and columns magnitude of any adverse impacts to properties will be a noticeable change, and visual e ects are not protected by Section 4(f). e Dra EIS had expected to range from moderate to signi cant previously determined that adverse impacts to (noted as a “high” level of visual impact in the other sensitive non-Section 4(f) properties would Dra EIS). In the area of Ke‘ehi Lagoon Beach be slightly greater with the Salt Lake Alternative Park, the alignment will run along the periphery than with the Airport Alternative with respect to of the park and closely follow the elevated Nimitz hazardous materials and noise. Highway and the H-1 Freeway. Views of Honolulu Harbor and the park are already obstructed by e Airport Alternative, as documented in this these elevated highways and will not be substan- Final EIS, will have slightly more displacements tially a ected. e Airport Alternative will not and acquisitions than the Airport Alternative block any protected views or vistas, although discussed in the Dra EIS. Some of these are the the Project will be visible in distant views of result of the re ned alignment near the airport Pearl Harbor, the Wai‘anae Mountain Range, as described above. Overall, for the entire Project and Downtown. e overall visual e ects for the there are two additional business displacements. Airport Alternative are expected to be of a lower ere will be slightly less air pollution, energy magnitude than with the Salt Lake Alternative. consumption, and water pollution because it will have the greatest reduction in vehicle miles trav- 5.8.3 Purpose and Need eled than the Salt Lake Alternative. e Dra EIS documented that of the three Build Alternatives evaluated, the Airport Alternative e Salt Lake Alternative would block protected will carry the most passengers, with 95,000 daily views and vistas along Bougainville Drive, Maluna passengers and 249,200 daily transit trips in 2030, Street, Wanaka Street, and Ala Liliko‘i Street where and provide the greatest transit-user bene ts they intersect with Salt Lake Boulevard. From the (Table 2-6 in Chapter 2 of this Final EIS). While Ala Liliko‘i Station to Pu‘uloa Road, the guideway these numbers have increased since the Dra EIS would also block views from fourth- and h- oor was published, the relative di erences among the windows of businesses and multi-story apartments alternatives would remain similar. e Airport and condominiums mauka of Salt Lake Boulevard. Alternative also will result in the fewest vehicle e locations of the protected views and vistas in miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay. It will the Salt Lake neighborhood area are shown on provide access to employment centers at Pearl Figure 4-18 (in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS). Harbor Naval Base and Honolulu International Airport and will have substantially greater rider- With the Airport Alternative, views of East Loch ship to those areas than the Salt Lake Alternative. and the Pearl Harbor NHL makai of the alignment erefore, the Airport Alternative better meets will be partially obstructed by the guideway and the Purpose and Need for the Project than the Salt columns in the residential area near Kohomua Lake Alternative [23 CFR 774.3 (c)(1)]. 5-72 CHAPTER 5 – Section 4(f) Evaluation
  4. 4. 5.9 Determination of Section 4(f) Use Considering the foregoing discussion of the Project’s use of Section 4(f) properties, there is no prudent avoidance alternative to the use of land from 12 historic properties. As described, the Project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f) properties resulting from use. In addition, the Project will have a de minimis impact on two historic and three recreational Sec- tion 4(f) properties. Measures to minimize harm, such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement measures, were committed to by the agencies with jurisdiction over these properties. FTA has coordinated with these agencies prior to making its de minimis determination. Finally, balancing all the factors discussed in Section 5.8, the Airport Alternative has been determined to cause the least overall harm in light of Section 4(f)’s preservation purpose. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 5-73
  5. 5. This page left intentionally blank 5-74 CHAPTER 5 – Section 4(f) Evaluation
  6. 6. 06 CHAPTER Cost and Financial Analysis is chapter presents estimates for capital and the City, the scal year begins on July 1 and ends operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for on June 30 (e.g., FY2009 is from July 1, 2008, to the Project. ese cost estimates are based on June 30, 2009). In this chapter, all year references engineering and operations analysis performed are to scal years. since the Dra EIS. is chapter, although not speci cally required by the National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA) or Hawai’i Chapter 6.1 Changes to this Chapter since 343, presents a nancing plan for the Project, as the Draft Environmental Impact required for all New Starts projects. Statement e nancial information in the Final EIS has been updated to re ect comments received during the Year-of-expenditure dollar (YOE $) cost estimates include Dra EIS review period, a 2009 base year, and the assumed in ation between today and the expected date of latest data available, including changes in eco- the expenditure. nomic conditions and project revenues and costs. In the case of project revenues, the general excise 2009 dollar cost estimates re ect prices in scal year (FY) 2009. and use tax (GET) surcharge amounts applied to the Project re ect a worsening of economic condi- tions since the Dra EIS was released. Federal is nancial analysis only considers costs, formula funds have been reallocated to take resources, and funding strategies associated with advantage of increased amounts projected to be public transit services provided by the City and apportioned to the City as a result of the Project. County of Honolulu (City). Unless otherwise Costs have been adjusted to re ect more re ned stated, costs and revenues in this chapter are levels of engineering, changing costs of materials, presented in scal year (FY) 2009 dollars and and escalation rates that have been di erentially year-of-expenditure dollars (YOE $). e forecast applied to the key cost drivers of the Project, such period referred to is between 2009 and 2030. For as cement, steel, and labor. Costs have also been June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-1
  7. 7. revised to include the re nement of the alignment In this chapter, the cost estimates for speci c along Ualena Street as a result of con icts with items are based on typical construction practices runway clearances at Honolulu International and procedures on similar projects. Quantities Airport. e costs do not, however, re ect favor- are estimated based on anticipated operating able actual bids received for early phases of work. service plans (i.e., size and frequency of trains) and engineering performed to date. Estimated costs for each standard cost category were increased 6.2 Cost Estimate Methodology in accordance with FTA guidance for estimates 6.2.1 Capital Cost Methodology developed prior to PE, to account for unknown but e capital cost estimate is the total cost of imple- expected additional expenses. menting the Project. It is based on standard cost categories the Federal Transit Administration In ation was applied to the cost estimate based on (FTA) created in establishing a consistent format the Project’s implementation schedule. e speci c for reporting, estimating, and managing capital critical construction cost driver (e.g., cement, steel, costs for New Starts projects. e cost categories are labor) in ation rates were applied based on the used to show project costs in Table 6-1. is method local construction market conditions and recent allows for the summary of costs to be tracked during global trends in the price of each key commodity. the Project’s follow-on phases (i.e., Preliminary e derivation of the escalation rates is presented Engineering (PE), Final Design, and Construction). in the Cost Escalation Report prepared for the Project and included as an appendix to the Finan- cial Plan (RTD 2009n). Table 6-1 Capital Cost Estimate for the Project by Cost Category Airport Alignment Cost Categories (2009–2030) 2009 $M YOE $M Guideway construction 1,409 1,678 Station construction 306 389 Yard, shops, and support facilities 122 138 Sitework and special conditions 757 895 Systems 254 311 Right-of-way 157 159 Vehicles 341 399 Professional services 810 996 Unallocated contingency (project reserve) 125 149 Total Costs Excluding Finance Charges 4,281 5,115 Finance charges 302 398 Total Costs 4,583 5,513 Project cost (construction, vehicles, right-of-way, soft costs) 3,283 3,791 Contingency (allocated and unallocated) 998 1,329 6-2 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
  8. 8. 6.2.2 Operating and Maintenance Table 6-2 Overview of Transit Capital Expenditures Cost Methodology through 2030 (excluding nance charges) Fixed Guideway Operating and Maintenance 2009 $M YOE $M O&M costs for the Project were estimated using Project implementation 4,281 5,115 the rail transit system in Washington, D.C., and Rail rehabilitation, replacement, and making adjustments to re ect the Project’s pro- 121 124 purchase of railcars posed operating system characteristics. A sensitiv- TheBus and TheHandi-Van expansion ity analysis was conducted using similar transit 1,014 1,258 and replacement operations to con rm the results. Among the Total 5,416 6,497 systems used in the sensitivity comparison were Miami and Los Angeles. All costs were adjusted to re ect O‘ahu’s higher costs of goods and services, throughout the forecast period (2009 to 2030). Rail where appropriate. rehabilitation and replacement costs are expected to begin in 2028, 16 years a er initial construction TheBus and TheHandi-Van Operating activities are completed. and Maintenance eBus O&M costs were developed using existing Current bus service will be restructured and bus operations as the baseline, as well as the antici- expanded to support general growth in service. pated service levels once the Project becomes fully To support this, the number of buses operating operational. eBus O&M costing methodology is during peak periods is expected to grow from 439 also consistent with Section 4 of the FTA’s Procedures in FY2009 to 465 in FY2030. To comply with FTA’s and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning 20-percent spare ratio policy, the total bus eet will (FTA 2008). increase from the current 531 buses to about 558 by FY2030. eHandi-Van eet is expected to grow from 166 vehicles in FY2009 to 185 in FY2030. 6.3 Capital Plan e capital plan presents project capital revenues Figure 6-1 summarizes capital costs for all transit and costs for the Project and the ongoing public travel modes through the forecast period. It transportation system. includes an expenditure for bus facilities that are not part of the Project, as programmed in the 6.3.1 Capital Costs O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization’s e capital cost estimate of implementing the (O‘ahuMPO) FYs 2008–2011 Transportation Project is presented in Table 6-1. e capital cost Improvement Program (O‘ahuMPO 2008) estimate, excluding nance charges, is $4.3 billion and O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 in FY2009 dollars and $5.1 billion in YOE $. ese (O‘ahuMPO 2007). cost estimates exclude amounts already incurred during FY2007 and FY2008, which are not included 6.3.2 Proposed Capital Funding Sources for in the New Starts cost estimate. the Project is section describes the various funding sources e estimates for system-wide, ongoing capital assumed for implementation of the Project and for expenditures, shown in Table 6-2, include ongoing the system’s ongoing capital needs. ese sources costs for replacing, rehabilitating, and main- include GET surcharge funds, FTA New Starts rev- taining capital assets (e.g., buses, rail vehicles, enues, and other Federal-assistance programs for and eHandi-Van) in a state of good repair capital needs, complemented by local assistance. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-3
  9. 9. 1,200 MILLIONS OF YEAR-OF-EXPENDITURE DOLLARS Project Capital Costs 1,000 TheHandi-Van Acquisitions Total Ongoing Bus CapEx Bus Acquisition Costs 800 Rail Rehabilitation and Replacement Additional Railcar Acquisition 600 400 200 ' 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 C I T Y F I SCAL Y EAR Figure 6-1 Total Agency-wide Capital Costs General Excise and Use Tax Surcharge basis for projects that have completed the pro- e local funding source for the Project is a gram’s procedural requirements and that meet dedicated 0.5-percent surcharge on the State of certain criteria speci ed in law and regulation. Hawai‘i’s GET. In 2005, the Hawai‘i State Legisla- e program is highly competitive. At this point, ture authorized counties to adopt this surcharge the City is in the process of addressing FTA for public transportation projects. Following this requirements, and indications are that the Project authorization, the City enacted Ordinance 05-027 will meet FTA criteria. However, FTA cannot establishing a 0.5-percent County surcharge on make a nal commitment to fund the Project the GET for business transactions on O‘ahu to be until a Full Funding Grant Agreement has been levied through December 31, 2022. is revenue is approved a er NEPA requirements have been met, to be exclusively used for the Project’s capital and/ the Project is approved for Final Design, and the or operating expenditures and could be used to New Starts Program is reauthorized by Congress back General Obligation (GO) Bonds as needed for as part of the Federal Surface Transportation the Project. GET surcharge revenues are estimated Funding Program. Current authorizing legislation to be $3,524 million (YOE $) through FY2023. expired but has been extended in anticipation of a new authorization in 2010, following which there FTA Section 5309 New Starts Program (49 USC 5309) could be changes in statute, regulations, policy, e City is seeking capital funds from FTA’s New and funding availability. Starts program, which provides funding for xed guideway transit projects and extensions. Under e City’s nancial analysis assumes that the current authorizing legislation, an annual appro- Project will receive $1.55 billion from this program priation is available nationwide on a discretionary between 2010 and 2019. To date, $35 million has 6-4 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
  10. 10. been appropriated by Congress for the Project. No private source of capital revenue was assumed An additional $55 million appropriation has been to fund the Project. Opportunities for joint proposed in the Federal budget for 2011. development or other forms of public-private partnerships could reduce City contributions or FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program could help fund construction of future extensions (49 USC 5307) of the Project. ese funds are distributed to the Honolulu and Kailua-Kāne‘ohe urbanized areas using a formula 6.3.3 Funding Sources for Ongoing set by law. e total amount of Section 5307 funds Capital Expenditures received by the City through FY2030, including Federal Assistance funds from the American Recovery and Reinvest- e City receives Federal assistance for ongoing ment Act (ARRA), will amount to approximately transit capital investments through various fund- $900 million (YOE $) of which approximately ing programs from the FTA. One of the conditions $305 million is proposed to be used for the Project for receiving most of these funds is that at least if other project funding sources or cost savings 20 percent of eligible expenses be paid with local do not cover the full capital cost. A portion of funds. e three main sources of Federal funds for the $900 million is attributable to the increased ongoing capital expenses are as follows: Section 5307 amount that will be distributed to • FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program the Honolulu urbanized area as a result of the (49 USC 5307)— of the $900 million avail- Project’s xed guideway route miles and other able from Section 5307 funds, another operating data. e statutory basis for Section approximately $325 million, including $20 5307, as for New Starts, expired at the end of the million in ARRA funds, will continue to previous Federal scal year (September 30, 2009) be used for ongoing capital needs. Activi- but has been extended in anticipation of a new ties eligible for Section 5307 funds include authorization in 2010; the formula and eligibility capital investments in rail and rail related requirements could change depending on this areas, bus and bus-related activities (e.g., future reauthorization. the replacement of rail vehicles and buses, overhaul of rail vehicles and buses, rebuilding City General Obligation Bonds of rail vehicles and buses, crime prevention e nancial analysis assumes that GO Bonds will and security equipment, and construction of be the main nancial instrument used by the City maintenance and passenger facilities). to provide nancial support for the Project. is • FTA Capital Investment Grants funding source will be required to bridge funding (49 USC 5309): Fixed Guideway Mod- gaps in any given year and will be repaid by the ernization Program—these funds are revenue sources described in previous sections. distributed using a formula speci ed by law. GO Bonds are direct obligations of the City, for Implementation of the Project will increase which its full faith and credit are pledged. City GO Fixed Guideway Modernization funds for debt will be issued from 2013 through 2019 and Honolulu because the formula is largely based repaid by 2023. Section 6.5, Cash Flow Analysis, on the number of xed guideway miles. Total provides further details on nancing assumptions Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization for the Project. funding is expected to be approximately $102 million (YOE $) through FY2030. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-5
  11. 11. • FTA Capital Investment Grants 1. Private Funds—the City will look to the (49 USC 5309): Bus and Bus-related Equip- private sector to supplement project funds. ment and Facilities Capital Program—these A variety of mechanisms are potentially funds are distributed on a discretionary 80/20 available. is might include donations of (Federal/Local) matching basis. All bus-relat- right-of-way, contributions toward the cost ed elements of the Project are eligible for bus of building stations and other project com- capital funds. It is assumed that Honolulu’s ponents that directly bene t private entities bus capital local allocations between 2009 through transit-oriented development, or and 2030 will equal 35 percent of annual bus the creation of bene t assessment districts or and bus-related capital needs, well over the other value capture mechanisms around one local match required to qualify for the funds. or more stations. Total Section 5309 bus funding is expected to 2. Airport Funds—the decision to route the be $419 million (YOE $) through FY2030. Project to directly serve Honolulu Interna- tional Airport will bene t both airport pas- City General Obligation Bonds sengers and employees, but adds more than e City currently issues GO Bonds to nance $200 million to the Project’s capital cost. In ongoing transit capital expenses. is includes similar situations elsewhere in the U.S. (e.g., eBus and eHandi-Van purchases, construc- San Francisco, Portland, Minneapolis, and tion of facilities and transit centers, and other Northern Virginia), the responsible airport public transportation capital improvements. authorities have contributed sizable amounts e nancial analysis assumes that the City will toward the construction of rail projects. continue to use GO Bond proceeds to match Funds have come from Passenger Facility Federal contributions and fund ongoing system- Charges, Airport Improvement Program wide capital expenditures. is will correspond to (AIP) Funds, and general airport revenues. In approximately $571 million (YOE $) in GO Bond addition, the Federal Aviation Administra- proceeds through FY2030. tion reauthorization bill now being consid- ered by Congress could expand opportunities Other Potential Capital Sources to use Passenger Facility Charges for transit Based on the forecast GET surcharge revenues and projects serving airports. the assumed Federal funding level, the Project is 3. Reduction in State Retention of GET Sur- not expected to require any other source of funds; charge—the State has retained 10 percent of however, at this stage in the Project’s develop- the GET Surcharge collected on O‘ahu since ment, numerous risks and uncertainties exist that 2007. is amount is substantially more than can a ect the Project’s funding. ese risks are required for administration of the program. discussed in Section 6.6, Risks and Uncertain- If the retained portion can be reduced, ad- ties. Accordingly, the City recognizes the need ditional funds will ow to the rail program. to identify potential additional capital funding A reduction of the retention percentage to sources to enhance the strength and robustness of 5 percent would generate about $187 mil- this nancial analysis. lion in additional revenue over the time the surcharge is in e ect. is change would be e City has identi ed three potential sources of subject to action by the State Legislature. added capital funding to actively pursue as the Project moves forward: 6-6 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
  12. 12. 6.4 Operating and Maintenance Plan revenue service, until the entire alignment is is section discusses the data and unit costs used completed in FY2019. to calculate O&M needs and the sources and uses of operating funds through FY2030. 6.4.2 Operating and Maintenance Funding Sources 6.4.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs is section describes the range of O&M funding Figure 6-2 presents the projected O&M costs for sources anticipated. ese sources include FTA the City’s transit system, including the Project, Section 5307 funds for preventive maintenance, from FY2009 to FY2030. In the year FY2030 fare revenues, and contributions from the City’s YOE $, total O&M costs are projected to be General and Highway Funds. approximately $117 million or 31 percent higher with the Project than with the No Build Alterna- Fare Revenues tive, as shown in Table 6-3. Systemwide ridership is forecast to be approxi- mately 282,500 linked trips per day in 2030. e e xed guideway system’s operating costs are fare structure for the xed guideway is assumed anticipated to be about 26 percent of total O&M to follow the current bus fare structure, with free costs for the public transportation system in transfers between modes. is will yield farebox FY2030. O&M costs will increase in a step-like revenues ranging from $45 million in FY2009 to manner as operable segments are opened for $151 million (YOE $) in FY2030. 600 Total O&M Costs—TheHandi-Van Total O&M Costs—Fixed Guideway Total O&M Costs—TheBus 500 Total Fare Revenues MILLIONS OF YEAR-OF-EXPENDITURE DOLLARS 400 300 200 100 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 C I T Y F I SCAL Y EAR Figure 6-2 Systemwide Operating and Maintenance Costs June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-7
  13. 13. Table 6-3 2030 Operating and Maintenance Costs by Alternative Difference from O&M Costs TheBus TheHandi-Van Fixed Guideway Total No Build (FY2030) 2009 $M YOE $M 2009 $M YOE $M 2009 $M YOE $M 2009 $M YOE $M 2009 $M YOE $M No Build Alternative 200 328 27 44 – – 227 372 – – Project 195 320 27 44 77 126 298 489 72 117 e average fare incorporated into the nancial is assumed to be used for capital needs (for rail analysis starts at $0.95, which includes the pro- capital and ongoing capital needs for both bus posed fare increase for FY2010. e growth in and rail) and about $270 million of that going to average fare from this point is shown as a “step preventive maintenance. function” with increases of approximately $0.33 in FY2015 and FY2023, which are based on the City’s City Contribution historical fare increases. Figure 6-2 shows the e City’s contribution to transit O&M is currently projected annual fare revenues (in YOE $). In 2001, funded using revenues from the General and the City Council adopted a resolution to adjust Highway Funds. e General Fund mainly com- fare levels so that the farebox recovery ratio (the prises real property tax revenues, but also includes ratio of annual fare revenues to annual O&M costs) revenues from a transient accommodations tax for eBus will be maintained between 27 and (transferred from the State), motor vehicle annual 33 percent in any given year. e assumed average registration fees, and a public service company fare discussed previously will result in a farebox tax. e Highway Fund consists of revenues from recovery ratio for the combined bus and xed the City fuel tax, the vehicle weight tax, and a guideway systems that follows the City’s resolution public utility franchise tax. General and Highway in most years, including 2030 when the ratio is Fund revenues were assumed to increase at an expected to equal about 30 percent. average rate of 2.7 percent per year by the State’s Department of Business, Economic Development Federal Funding and Tourism’s in ation forecast between 2009 and Section 5307 funds were rst applied to capital 2012. In ation in subsequent years is assumed needs, with the remainder used for preventive to be constant at 2.5 percent. In addition, a real maintenance. Based on historical trends, it is growth component is assumed based on historical assumed that a maximum of 20 percent of annual experience. Based on these assumptions, the total O&M expenditures will be associated with preven- amount of General and Highway Funds is forecast tive maintenance, and thus could be covered by to total approximately $33 billion between 2009 Section 5307 funds. and 2030. In FY2009, the Honolulu and Kailua-Kāne‘ohe Between FY1994 and FY2008, the transit subsidy urbanized areas were apportioned a combined has averaged 11 percent of the total Highway $31 million in Section 5307 formula funds by and General Fund revenues. Immediately a er FTA. As noted earlier, over the longer term, the 2003, City revenues increased as a result of large City’s nancial analysis assumes that it will receive increases in real estate values on O‘ahu, more approximately $900 million (YOE $) through quickly than O&M costs for eBus. is had FY2030 from this funding program and ARRA resulted in a transit subsidy below 10 percent funds, $630 million (including ARRA) of which for 2004 and 2005. Figure 6-3 shows that given 6-8 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
  14. 14. City's Operating Subsidy Share of General and Highway Fund Revenues 5307 Formula Funds Used for Preventive Maintenance Projected to go to Transit Operations (Millions of YOE Dollars) Total System Operating Revenue 100% 80% PERCENTAGE SHARE 60% 40% 20% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 C I T Y F I SCAL Y EAR Figure 6-3 Transit System Operating Revenues and City Subsidy present economic conditions, this percentage is sources and the use of funds for the Project over likely to increase through FY2030, averaging 13.9 the forecast period. e Honolulu High-Capacity percent over the entire forecast period with the Transit Corridor Project Summary Cash Flow Project. While higher than the historical average, Tables (RTD 2009g) presents the year-by-year cash this increase is not unprecedented. In 2001, the ow for the Project. City spent approximately 15 percent of its General and Highway Fund revenues on transit (although 6.5.1 Financing Assumptions for the Project property taxes were not increased to pay for the is nancial analysis assumes that GET surcharge higher percentage), and the Project a ords substan- revenues will be the only source of funding tially more overall service than what was provided through FY2010 adding Federal Section 5307 at that time. formula funds and Section 5309 New Starts funds beginning in 2010. 6.5 Cash Flow Analysis In years when GET surcharge revenues and/or e cash ow analysis compares costs with rev- Federal funding are not su cient to meet the cash enues on a year-by-year basis, factoring in nanc- ow requirement to cover capital expenditures, a ing as necessary. Table 6-4 summarizes funding mix of City GO Bonds and short-term construction June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-9
  15. 15. Table 6-4 Project Sources and Uses of Capital Funds (millions 6.5.2 Ongoing Capital Expenditure Cash Flow of YOE $) Systemwide ongoing capital expenditures include all necessary replacement, rehabilitation, and Sources of Funds FY2009–2030 improvements to the existing system ( eBus and Project beginning cash balance (FY2009) 154 eHandi-Van) as well as the Project. Funding Net GET surcharge revenues 3,524 sources used to pay for these capital expenses FTA Section 5309 New Starts 1,550 consist of discretionary and formula-based Federal FTA Section 5307 Formula Funds 305 funding programs (see Section 6.3.3 for descrip- (including $4m ARRA) tions of these programs). Any resulting funding Interest income on cash balance 11 gap is assumed to be bridged on an annual basis Total Sources Funds 5,544 with City GO Bonds, as is currently the case with Uses of Funds FY2009–2030 transit-related budgets. erefore, the resulting Capital cost 5,115 ongoing capital sources and uses will balance in Interest payment on long-term debt 359 any given year. Finance charges on short-term construction 20 nancing 6.5.3 Operating and Maintenance Expenditure Other nance charges 19 Cash Flow Project ending cash balance 31 O&M funds will be used for eBus and eHandi- Van as well as for the Project. Sources of O&M funds Total Uses Funds 5,544 include farebox revenues and Federal assistance for Source: Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Financial Plan preventive maintenance; any remaining funding requirements are assumed to be funded through borrowing will be used to bridge the funding gap. City contributions from its General and Highway e weighted average interest rate on long-term Funds. e resulting operating sources and use of debt is assumed to be 3.27 percent, which is consis- funds will balance in any given year. e Summary tent with the City’s current Standard & Poor’s AA Cash Flow Tables (RTD 2009g) includes year-by- nancial rating and based on rates as of April 8, year ongoing operating expenditure cash ows. 2009. All GO debt is assumed to mature in FY2023, corresponding to the last scal year of receipt of GET revenues. 6.6 Risks and Uncertainties e nancial analysis described in this chapter e total nance charges incurred for the Project and the sources and uses of funds are subject to a will be $398 million. Most of these nance charges number of risks and uncertainties. Some risks are will correspond to interest payments on GO project-speci c and others are related to macro- Bonds. e remainder will include nance charges level uncertainties a ected by the local and global related to the cost of issuance of GO Bonds and economies. Although this analysis has de ned a set short-term borrowing and the interest expense on of most likely scenarios based on the cost, revenue, short-term borrowing. funding, and nancing assumptions described, several operating and capital risks could materially Interest will be earned on any positive year-end cash a ect the nal nancial results. Uncertainties can balances, which has been calculated at a conservative be organized into the following major categories. 1 percent per year. Interest income is expected to generate $11 million for the Project (YOE $). 6-10 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
  16. 16. 6.6.1 Project Cost Risks 6.6.2 Economic and Financial Risks Changes in Project Scope In ation Most projects, especially large infrastructure proj- In ation is applied to both costs and revenues. ects such as this one, have uncertainties associated Project construction costs have been escalated with the de nition of the project. At this stage of using individual cost component rates that vary project planning, there are o en numerous deci- according to demand and supply at a global, sions and project re nements that will be made as regional, and local level, as well as the overall local the project design progresses. Assumptions may be economic environment. Commodity components revisited and con rmed or modi ed during New (cement, steel, and other critical construction Starts Preliminary Engineering and Final Design. materials) may be subject to similar uctuations in Scope changes may also result from the following: prices that could a ect project costs. Right-of-way • Physical barriers, such as unexpected utility costs are closely related to property values, and locations or groundwater labor rates will depend on the results of periodic • Community involvement contract negotiations. • Changes in political leadership • Budget constraints that lead to scope Interest Rates and Municipal Market Uncertainties reductions As in any capital project requiring the issuance of debt, the Project is subject to uncertainty around Changes in Project Schedule uctuations in interest rates. Variations in interest Scheduling delays, the availability of skilled labor, rates could a ect the interest earnings rate on cash vehicle delivery, and unforeseen construction chal- balances and the interest paid on any outstanding lenges can all lead to cost increases that may a ect debt, as well as the size of the debt requirements to the nancial plan for a project. Schedule changes nance the Project. Fluctuations in interest rates might result from project changes, local decision- are in uenced by a number of factors, including making processes, equipment malfunctions, and the credit rating of the bond issuer (the City) construction delays. As a project becomes more and market risks associated with local or global complex, tasks become larger and they o en nancial conditions. Variations in interest rates have more dependencies. Every task’s duration could also in uence the level of working capital is dependent on factors that can be outside of an and the ability to both operate existing service and agency’s control. undertake new initiatives. e choice between di erent procurement mecha- Credit Rating nisms may a ect phasing of the Project, as well as is nancial analysis assumes that the City’s the timing of capital outlays. Some e ciencies may credit quality will remain at its current Standard be gained from using an innovative procurement & Poor’s AA rating. Adverse economic conditions approach, such as design-build or design-build- or shi s in the City’s debt policies could a ect its operate-maintain. Depending on the general credit rating and increase the cost of borrowing approach that the City pursues, this procurement accordingly. Most importantly, the credit quality method could change at various milestones of the City is likely to be in uenced by the size of throughout the Project. the City’s capital program and its ability to remain below the current a ordability guidelines set by the City Council. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-11
  17. 17. Market Uncertainty have been in place for many years, through several As with any interest rate, the yield curves on debt authorization cycles, there is a possibility that assumed in the nancial analysis are subject to Congress will change direction in the next autho- global market conditions. Recent turmoil in the rization cycle. ey could increase or decrease the credit markets is a case in point and has prompted amount of funds available, impose new rules on the Federal Reserve to react with a series of interest project eligibility, or revise the criteria that are used rate cuts that in uence the market in general and to evaluate potential projects. e timing of new the nance cost for the Project in particular. is authorization legislation is also uncertain. uncertainty is further enhanced by the fact that, given baseline assumptions, the rst debt issuance e amount of the FTA contribution will be spelled for the Project capital expenditures is not expected out in a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) to occur before 2012. Because it is assumed that the between FTA and the City. e FFGA will also City will continue to be able to issue bonds in the identify the amount to be made available each tax-exempt municipal marketplace, uncertainties year. Although history has shown that Congress about market factors must be evaluated. ultimately honors and appropriates the full amount identi ed in an FFGA, Congress could delay Based on the assumptions and analysis presented funding for the Project by reducing or delaying the in this Financial Plan, a 1.0 percent increase annual appropriations. Any delay could necessitate in interest rates is estimated to correspond to additional borrowing or schedule delays, poten- an increase in interest costs of approximately tially delaying funding authority or increasing the $130 million over the forecast period. Project’s capital cost. 6.6.3 Capital Revenues Other Federal Funding Opportunities GET—Scenario Based on Council on Revenues A number of proposals for increased funding for Growth Rates (Downside Risk) transit are being considered, either as part of the In the short term, GET surcharge revenues are reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU or other legisla- subject to uncertainties related to the magnitude tion. For example: and timing of the economic recovery on O‘ahu. • e National Surface Transportation Policy Over the longer term, GET surcharge revenues on and Revenue Study Commission recom- O‘ahu depend on a variety of underlying economic mended a signi cant increase in funding factors outside of the City’s control that may result and a restructuring of the FTA and FHWA in a higher or lower projection than the one used in programs. Its recommendations included this Final EIS. creation of a new Metropolitan Mobility Pro- gram, which would place increased emphasis Federal Funding: New Starts, 5307, 5309 Fixed on public transportation. Guideway Modernization—Reauthorization and • e ARRA of 2009 created new funding op- Appropriation Risk portunities for transit, including $100 million e Project assumes Federal funding participation in funding for Transit Investments for Green- through the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Pro- house Gas and Energy Reduction Grants, gram and the Section 5309 New Starts Program. as well as a new $1.5 billion multimodal Federal legislation that authorizes these programs discretionary program. ese new programs (SAFETEA-LU) expired at the end of September may be precursors to the next reauthoriza- 2009 but has been extended in anticipation of a tion of the surface transportation programs. new authorization in 2010. While these programs Grants under the multimodal discretionary 6-12 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
  18. 18. program will go to projects with a signi cant railcar, but the stations could present viable impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or advertising locations. Based on FTA’s 2007 a region and may range up to $300 million. National Transit Database data, Honolulu Priority will be given to projects that can be receives approximately $0.006 per boarding, completed within three years, and funds must while some larger transit systems in the U.S. be obligated by September 30, 2011. receive 10 to 40 times that amount. • Congress is considering comprehensive cli- • Parking Revenues—demand for park-and- mate and energy legislation that would fund ride stations is forecast to be strong with the the expansion of environmentally friendly Project. Charging even a nominal amount modes of transportation, including transit. for daily parking could generate a signi cant Funding could be provided through new amount of revenue. Collected parking funds cap-and-trade legislation designed to reduce could be used for capital and operating costs greenhouse gas emissions. as parking fees could be bonded to o set the construction costs of the parking lots and Lower Amount of GET Surcharge Revenues Retained structure or revenues could be used to o set by the State operating costs of the parking facilities, such e enabling legislation for the County GET sur- as those incurred to pay for garage attendants charge speci es that 10 percent of GET surcharge and security personnel. revenues be retained by the State for administrative • Reduced Service Redundancies between and collection purposes. A decrease of this per- Bus and Rail Operations—the addition of centage from 10 to 5 percent would increase GET the Project to existing bus service will likely revenues by $183 million from FY2009 to FY2023. result in some overlap of service between bus and rail. While some bus service and route 6.6.4 Operating Revenues modi cations are planned as the Project is Fare Policy and Ridership implemented, there is a possibility to further Growth in transit ridership is subject to uncertain- modify existing bus service as rail ridership ties because the availability of alternate modes and increases. is would a ect ongoing bus eet riders’ price sensitivity could a ect ridership, at replacement cycles since fewer buses may least in the short-term. For purposes of this Final need to be replaced as more are removed EIS, the assumption is made that there will be free from service, thus a ecting O&M costs for transfers to and from the xed guideway service. the bus eet. Upside risks also exist and demand could be • Adjust City Highway Fund Revenues higher than expected. Although this would a ect (Vehicle Registration Fees, City Gas Tax)— fare revenues positively, it could also increase the the nancial analysis assumes revenues system’s level-of-service requirements. from the City’s General and Highway Funds will grow at historical real growth rates Other Potential Operating Sources plus general in ation. As a general purpose • Advertising and Other Nonfare Operat- local government, the City has the authority ing Revenues—expanding the advertising to raise other local tax revenues over and program could generate signi cantly more beyond the baseline growth rate assumed for than the approximately $400,000 received the General and Highway Fund revenues in by the City for bus advertisements. With the this nancial analysis. Both funds consist of introduction of rail service, not only will a variety of tax revenues, including property there be an ability to advertise within each taxes, but also include fuel tax and motor June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-13
  19. 19. vehicle weight tax, which are the two largest costs, both negative and positive. ese include sources of revenues for the Highway Fund. station managers, labor productivity, fare collec- • FTA Formula Funds—Section 5307 funds tion systems, security, and salaries. ese costs are could become available following reautho- all accounted for in the operating cost estimates, rization or if GET revenues are higher than but are elements of the system that could result in expected (which would allow for a reduction uncertainties over time. in the use of 5307 funds for the Project’s capital needs). While Section 5307 funds A change in the bus vehicle eet allocation may also are used for capital purposes in priority, any reduce operating costs as well as a ect bus replace- remaining amount is allocated to operations ments costs. e City is reconsidering a policy to for preventive maintenance purposes. Uncer- move toward a eet in which all articulated buses tainties in the Capital Plan could also a ect are hybrids in favor of more economical, yet still the amount of Section 5307 funds used for environmentally friendly, clean diesel vehicles. operations and decrease the local amount of Changes to that policy may signi cantly a ect operating subsidy required. system operating costs as well as ongoing capital costs. A hybrid bus costs approximately $1 million 6.6.5 Operating Costs to replace, while a diesel bus costs approximately Operating Cost Escalation—Labor Cost, $650,000. However, hybrid buses are less expensive Energy Prices to operate and have operating cost savings of The nancial analysis assumes that operating approximately $5,000 per peak vehicle over similar expenditures will increase following general in a- diesel buses. tion. However, certain operating cost components may increase at a faster or slower rate depending on local conditions. Increases in labor costs are subject to local union bargaining agreements. is includes transit employee health care costs and fringe and other bene ts. Energy costs in Honolulu are highly driven by oil prices and, therefore, subject to the same volatility. e operating cost estimate in the nancial analysis assumes a 3 percent upward adjustment to electricity prices as compared to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), but this may be a conservative assump- tion if oil prices remain at their current relatively low levels. System Operations—Drivers, Station and Train Attendants The O&M cost methodology used the WMATA as a base for forecasting operating costs per station since this agency had the most relevant and avail- able data set. However, once the system is built and operational, there may be a number of uncertainties in station operations that could a ect operating 6-14 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
  20. 20. 07 CHAPTER Evaluation of the Project is chapter compares the Honolulu High- e evaluation measures used in this chapter Capacity Transit Corridor Project to the No Build re ect local goals for the Project (described in Alternative from several perspectives. Section 7.1, Chapter 1, Background, Purpose and Need) as well Changes to this Chapter since the Dra Environ- as FTA criteria for evaluating projects proposed mental Impact Statement, summarizes how this for funding under the Section 5309 New Starts chapter has changed since the Dra Environmen- program. FTA criteria that are meaningful to tal Impact Statement (EIS). Section 7.2, E ective- an analysis of the Project include user bene ts ness in Meeting Project Purpose and Need, draws and development potential (both measures of on information in prior chapters and summarizes e ectiveness) and the FTA’s cost-e ectiveness how well the Project meets its Purpose and Need. index. By including these criteria, this chapter Section 7.3, Transportation and Environmental ful lls Council on Environmental Quality regula- Consequences, discusses the Project’s potential tions (40 CFR 1502.23), which require that an EIS e ect on transportation and the environment. Sec- “indicate those considerations, including factors tion 7.4, Cost-e ectiveness, adds a cost perspective not related to environmental quality, which are to the e ectiveness comparison, to consider the likely to be relevant and important to a decision.” Project’s bene ts in justifying its capital and operating costs. Section 7.5, Financial Feasibility, looks at a ordability given available funding 7.1 Changes to this Chapter since sources. Section 7.6, New Starts Program, sum- the Draft Environmental Impact marizes the Project’s ratings in the Federal Transit Statement Administration (FTA) New Starts Program. is chapter has been updated to re ect the iden- Section 7.7, Important Trade-o s, is a discussion ti cation of the Airport Alternative as the Project of trade-o s to be made in implementing the and to re ect updated and additional analysis Project. e chapter concludes with Section 7.8, presented in the other chapters of this Final Unresolved Issues. EIS. Transportation data have been updated, as June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 7-1
  21. 21. described in Chapter 3, Transportation. Section 7.6 relieve tra c congestion for drivers or improve has been added to document FTA’s approval of the mobility for transit riders compared to today. Project to enter the Preliminary Engineering phase Average travel times along major corridors would of the New Starts process. Section 7.7 has been increase. Locations farthest from employment modi ed to compare the Project to the No Build centers would experience the largest increase in Alternative. Section 7.8 has been added to address congestion, decline in mobility, and constrained unresolved issues related to the Project. access. e Project will substantially improve corri- dor mobility compared to the No Build Alternative. 7.2 Effectiveness in Meeting Project As shown in Table 7-2, vehicle miles traveled Purpose and Need (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and vehicle Section 1.8, Need for Transit Improvements, hours of delay (VHD) would increase under the of this Final EIS describes four needs that the No Build Alternative compared to today. Vehicular Project is intended to meet. is section evalu- tra c volumes on major roadways would grow ates how well each alternative meets these needs, substantially between now and 2030. Increases based on the variety of measures of e ectiveness in a.m. peak-hour tra c across screenlines shown in Table 7-1. Several of these measures are would range from approximately 10 to 50 percent primarily intended to address local goals, while (Table 3-9 in Chapter 3). others are also factors considered in FTA New Starts evaluations. For eBus and eHandi-Van riders, these increases in highway congestion would directly 7.2.1 Improve Corridor Mobility a ect their mobility because travel times on buses Just as mobility and congestion have worsened would increase. For the No Build Alternative, over the years, conditions in 2030 will be worse transit would continue to operate in mixed tra c, than today. Despite implementation of the planned except on several short bus-only segments and $3 billion in roadway improvements identi ed in high-occupancy vehicle lanes on freeways. As in the O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 shown in Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3, average transit (ORTP), the No Build Alternative still would not speed has dropped by approximately 10 percent Table 7-1 Project Goals and Objectives Goal Measure of Objective Improve corridor mobility • Transit ridership (daily linked trips) • Transit user bene ts • Corridor travel time • Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) • Vehicle hours of travel (VHT) • Vehicle hours of delay (VHD) Improve corridor travel reliability • Percent of transit trips using xed guideway • Percent of transit passenger miles in exclusive right-of-way Improve access to planned • Development within station area compared to existing amount of development development to support City policy to develop a second urban center Improve transportation equity • User bene ts to transit-dependent communities • Percent of project costs borne by communities of concern 7-2 CHAPTER 7 – Evaluation of the Project
  22. 22. Table 7-2 E ectiveness of Alternatives in Improving Corridor Mobility Alternative (2030) Measure 2007 Existing Conditions No Build Project Transit Travel Time (minutes) 121 minutes 93 minutes Wai`anae to UH Mānoa 128 minutes (1 transfer) (2 transfers) Kapolei to Ala Moana Center 101 minutes 105 minutes 59 minutes Transit Performance Transit ridership (daily linked trips) 184,700 226,300 282,500 Transit user bene ts (hours per year) n/a n/a 20,775,000 Highway Performance Daily islandwide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 11,232,400 13,623,100 13,049,000 Daily islandwide vehicle hours traveled (VHT) 325,700 415,600 383,800 Daily islandwide vehicle hours of delay (VHD) 71,800 104,700 85,800 since 1984 (from 14.6 to 13.2 mph) and would decrease by 8 percent; and VHD will decrease by continue to decline through 2030 to approximately 18 percent. 12.7 mph under the No Build Alternative. 7.2.2 Improve Corridor Travel Reliability e Project will increase average transit speeds by With the No Build Alternative, travel reliability for approximately 25 percent compared to the 2030 No both drivers and transit riders would decrease by Build Alternative (Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3), leading 2030. Because delay on the system is not predict- to higher transit ridership and travel time savings able from one day to another, reliability for drivers for existing and new transit users. Transit travel would worsen. e large increase (46 percent) times between major destinations will decrease up in VHD that would occur with the No Build to 60 percent compared to the No Build Alterna- Alternative includes an element of unpredictability tive (Table 7-2). As transit becomes a faster, and that requires special accommodations in travel thus more attractive, travel choice, ridership will planning. Average travel times would increase increase. As shown in Table 7-2, transit ridership somewhat under the No Build Alternative, but will increase by approximately 56,200 trips per day the impact on reliability would be more dramatic, (25 percent) by 2030 with the Project compared especially in the morning. e reason is that driv- to the No Build Alternative, and transit users will ers are forced to allocate more time to account for save more than 20 million equivalent hours of the possibility that unexpected delays will occur. travel time per year by 2030. ese unknowns make it di cult to estimate a trip’s duration when scheduling appointments. Increases in transit ridership will bene t highway users as well by removing drivers from the road- All transit riders would experience similar ways through better transit service. e Project decreases in reliability under the No Build will reduce tra c congestion and improve mobility Alternative. Problems with turnbacks and sched- compared to the No Build Alternative (Table 7-2). ule adherence already plague the transit system. Daily VMT will decrease by 4 percent; VHT will ese reliability factors are expected to get worse June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 7-3
  23. 23. in the future as the highway system becomes Although both of the alternatives are generally more congested. consistent with Local, District, and State plans, the Project best serves the areas of O‘ahu desig- With the Project, reliability for transit riders will nated for future growth and development. increase substantially as trips are moved from buses operating on streets in mixed tra c and Compared to the No Build Alternative, the Proj- congested freeways to the xed guideway, which ect will support a greater amount of development will provide a predictable travel time. Forty-three and redevelopment around stations by enhanc- percent of transit trips and transit passenger miles ing access and supplying a daily in ux of transit will be carried on an exclusive xed guideway riders and potential customers for businesses. that is not subject to tra c delay (Table 7-3). With the Project, approximately 60,000 additional With the Project, bus passengers will also realize residents and 27,000 new jobs will be located service reliability as a result of route restructuring within walking distance to project stations in that replaces long-haul bus routes with shorter 2030. As shown in Table 7-2, the “second city” local routes integrated with the xed guideway planned for Kapolei will experience transit travel system. Driver and bus transit reliability will also times to Ala Moana Center that are reduced by improve as a result of reduced congestion and delay 44 percent compared to the No Build Alterna- on the highway. tive. e improved transit conditions are further illustrated in Figure 7-1, which shows travel time Table 7-3 E ectiveness of Alternatives in Improving Corridor savings for the majority of transit users in ‘Ewa Travel Reliability and Central O‘ahu, which are areas planned for future development. Section 3.4.2 describes the 2007 Alternative (2030) Measure Existing travel time savings calculation. By providing Conditions No Build Project better transit access, the Kapolei area will be better Percent of transit trips able to grow and develop than it would be if it 0% 0% 43% carried on xed guideway remained isolated from the rest of the region by Percent of transit congested roadways. passenger miles in 1% 1% 43% exclusive right-of-way 7.2.4 Improve Transportation Equity Equity relates to the fair distribution of a project’s bene ts and impacts, so that no group would carry 7.2.3 Improve Access to Planned Development an unfair burden of a project’s negative environ- to Support City Policy to Develop a mental, social, or economic impacts or receive less Second Urban Center than a fair share of a project’s bene ts. is section A goal of the Project is to support urban devel- focuses on considering the following evaluation opment consistent with the City General Plan criteria: (DPP 2002a), which is the blueprint for future • Population segments bene ting from alterna- population and employment growth. By providing tive investments improved mobility and access, a xed guideway • Population segments paying for alternative transit facility can serve as a catalyst for shaping investments development patterns in a corridor. • Net bene ts by population segment, com- pared to needs 7-4 CHAPTER 7 – Evaluation of the Project
  24. 24. LEGEND Substantial Travel User Bene t Increase Medium Travel User Bene t Increase Small Travel User Bene t Increase Negligible Change Small Travel User Bene t Decrease Medium Travel User Bene t Decrease Substantial Travel User Bene t Decrease Unoccupied Communities of Concern Study Corridor Boundary The Project Figure 7-1 Communities of Concern and User Bene ts for the Project Compared to the No Build Alternative • Travel-time savings for transit-dependent within communities of concern will be located populations within one-half mile of a transit station in 2030. Approximately 35 percent of O‘ahu’s population e Project will provide transit travel-time currently lives in areas that have concentrations savings to approximately 61 percent of the of communities of concern. Communities of islandwide population in 2030 compared to the concern are de ned as concentrations of minority, No Build Alternative (Table 7-4). Of the 35 per- low-income, transit-dependent, and linguistically cent of the island’s population that resides in isolated households (Figure 7-1). areas containing concentrations of communities of concern, over half would realize a substantial e Project will provide service where the transit transit travel-time savings. e rest of the island’s need is greatest, connecting areas that have the high- population that resides in areas with concentra- est transit dependency, which includes communities tions of communities of concern will experience of concern. irty-six percent of the population little change in transit travel time as a result of the June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 7-5
  25. 25. Table 7-4 Equity Comparison of 2030 Transit Travel-time Savings for the Project Compared to the No Build Alternative Percent of Percent of Population within Category Islandwide That will experience Within Communities Outside Communities Population of Concern of Concern 61% Travel-time savings compared to the No Build Alternative 34% 66% 39% Negligible travel-time change compared to the No Build Alternative 36% 64% 0% Travel-time increase compared to the No Build Alternative 0% 0% Project. None of the population will experience an most of which will not be replaced. Landowners increase in travel times. will be paid fair market value for the land, includ- ing lost parking spaces, which is consistent with Tourists pay approximately 30 percent of the General the requirements of the U.S. Uniform Relocation Excise and Use Tax (GET) surcharge collected, which Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies is the Project’s local funding source. e remain- Act. On-street parking spaces will generally not ing local transit investment costs are distributed be replaced; however, there is available parking throughout the island in proportion to how much nearby to accommodate drivers currently using each individual expends on goods and services. these spaces. e City will conduct surveys to determine the extent of spillover parking near e Project will substantially improve transporta- stations and implement mitigation strategies as tion equity compared to the No Build Alternative. needed. Potential strategies include the addition of Based on demographics within the study corridor, parking supply, parking restrictions, and shared the demand and need for public transit on O‘ahu parking arrangements. is greatest within the areas served by the Project (Figure 1-8 in Chapter 1). During the construction period, lanes will be closed for construction of the overhead guideway located in the median of existing roadways. 7.3 Transportation and Although the time to build these improvements Environmental Consequences will be kept as short as possible, one or more lanes e Project’s e ect on transportation and the in sections of major highways will be closed while environment would di er substantially from the columns are placed and the guideway erected. No Build Alternative. 7.3.2 Environmental Consequences 7.3.1 Transportation e Project will convert 160 acres of land to trans- e Project will have a positive e ect on transit portation use. is includes approximately 88 acres use within the study corridor, which will help of currently prime, unique, or important farmland. reduce delay in the transportation system as a However, all of this land is already planned for whole, regardless of travel mode (Table 7-2). conversion to non-farm use by other projects, including the Ho‘opili Development. e Project e Project will a ect parking availability, both will acquire land from 204 properties (Table 4-4 in during construction and permanently, once the Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, Consequences, Project is complete and in operation. e Project and Mitigation). will remove approximately 865 parking spaces, 7-6 CHAPTER 7 – Evaluation of the Project

×