Final Report - Pima Association of Governments

High Capacity Transit System Plan - Final Report June 2009
Refined Corridor Assessment
land development impacts. BRT alternatives operating in mixed‐traffic were given a score
of 1.
Table 26 shows that the top‐ranked alternative is Alternative 2B with BRT operating in a
dedicated lane on Broadway Boulevard. It is reasonable that this alternative would score high
because a dedicated lane already exists on Broadway Boulevard.
The other alternatives in the top four (i.e., those scoring higher than 90) are as follows:
• Alternative 13 with BRT operating in mixed traffic on 6th Avenue South and Nogales
Highway
• Alternative 2A with BRT operating in mixed traffic on Speedway Boulevard
• Alternative 13 with streetcar operating on 6th Avenue South and Nogales Highway
The top four alternatives are the most favorable HCT alternatives because they have high scores
for nearly every evaluation criterion. Alternative 2A with BRT operating in mixed traffic and
Alternative 13 with BRT operating in mixed traffic have a score of 1 only for land use
compatibility/TOD potential and image. Alternative 2B with BRT operating in a dedicated lane
has no scores of 1. Alternative 13 with streetcar has a score of 1 only for capital cost per mile. All
four alternatives have scores of 3 for ridership potential.
The three lowest‐scoring alternatives are:
• Alternative 11 with LRT operating on Grant Road
• Alternative 12 with LRT operating on Campbell Avenue South/Kino Parkway
• Alternative 4 with LRT operating on Oracle Road
The three lowest‐scoring alternatives are the least favorable HCT alternatives primarily because
of a combination of high capital costs and medium ridership.
The project team notes that many of the alternatives in Table 26 have scores that differ by less
than three points. This means that a small change in score for a given alternative or a change in
weights could impact the rankings. Because of this sensitivity, the project team added another
analysis to the screening evaluation: a comparison of capital costs per annual rider. The project
team divided estimated total capital cost for each alternative by the projected annual ridership
and ranked the alternatives. The results of this comparison are summarized in Table 27. Table 27
shows that the alternatives offering the most ridership benefit for the investment in capital are the
BRT alternatives. The top four alternatives according to this measure (i.e., those with the lowest
capital cost per annual rider) are as follows:
• Alternative 2B with BRT operating in a dedicated lane on Broadway Boulevard
• Alternative 2A with BRT operating in mixed traffic on Speedway Boulevard
• Alternative 13 with BRT operating in mixed traffic on 6th Avenue and Nogales Highway
• Alternative 4 with BRT operating in mixed traffic on Oracle Road
116