Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis

Preface The completion of this project was made possible by collaboration with the Citadel Civil Engineering American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Class of 2012 and Dr. William J. Davis, whose expertise in transportation analysis for the cost portion of the study was invaluable.
iii
Table of Contents Page Preface .......................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................. v List of Tables.................................................................................................................. vi Abstract ....................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ ix 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 2. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Demand .......................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1 Bicycle ............................................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Pedestrian........................................................................................... 13 2.3 Benefits .......................................................................................................... 15 2.3.1 Air Pollution Reduction ...................................................................... 16 2.3.2 Congestion Reduction ........................................................................ 19 2.3.3 Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures from Physical Activity ..... 21 2.3.4 Reduction in Use of Gasoline (Natural Resources) ............................. 22 2.3.5 Increased Tourism .............................................................................. 23 2.4 Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio ....................................................... 26 3. Results ..................................................................................................................... 28 3.1 Cost ................................................................................................................ 28 3.2 Demand .......................................................................................................... 34 3.2.1 800-Meter Buffer ............................................................................... 34 3.2.2 1600-Meter Buffer ............................................................................. 38 3.3 Benefits .......................................................................................................... 42 3.3.1 Air Pollution Reduction ...................................................................... 42 3.3.2 Congestion Reduction ........................................................................ 43 3.3.3 Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures from Physical Activity ..... 44 3.3.4 Reduction in Use of Gasoline (Natural Resources) ............................. 46 3.3.5 Increased Tourism .............................................................................. 48 3.3.6 Benefits Summary .............................................................................. 50 3.4 Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio ....................................................... 52 3.4.1 Battery2Beach.................................................................................... 52 3.4.2 Battery2Beach Plus Network Improvements ...................................... 56 4. Discussion ............................................................................................................... 62
iv
4.1 Additional Benefits ......................................................................................... 62 4.2 Summary ........................................................................................................ 64 References ..................................................................................................................... 67 Additional Resources ..................................................................................................... 72 Appendix A. Garrett Wonders .................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B. BLOS & PLOS Formulas ....................................................................... A-4 Appendix C. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices .......................................... A-5 Appendix D. Individual Segment Construction Cost Estimates ................................... A-6 Appendix E. Alternate Routes................................................................................... A-72 Appendix F. Battery2Beach Route: Scheduled for Improvement ............................... A-75 Appendix G. Battery2Beach Route: Network Improvements .................................... A-77 Appendix H. Battery2Beach Tourism Impacts by Type & Bicycle Tourist Estimates ............................................................................................. A-80
List of Figures Figure Page 1. Proposed Battery2Beach route .................................................................................... 2 2. Wonders Way multi-use path on the Cooper River Bridge .......................................... 2 3. Determinations of average commute length and number of days commuting ............. 19 4. Battery2Beach 800-meter buffer ............................................................................... 35 5. Battery2Beach 1600-meter buffer ............................................................................. 39 6. Battery2Beach BCR using the 20-year real interest rate ............................................ 54 7. Battery2Beach BCR using the 30-year real interest rate ............................................ 56 8. Battery2Beach + network BCR using the 20-year real interest rate............................ 59 9. Battery2Beach + network BCR using the 30-year real interest rate............................ 61 10. Garrett Wonders ................................................................................................... A-1 11. Folly Road bridge replacements .......................................................................... A-75
vi
List of Tables Table Page 1. Roadway alterations and costs activity ........................................................................ 9 2. Top 8 tourist attractions for Charleston, SC and Outer Banks, NC............................. 24 3. Battery2Beach primary route summary ..................................................................... 29 4. Battery2Beach alternate routes .................................................................................. 31 5. Battery2Beach route: scheduled for improvement ..................................................... 32 6. Battery2Beach route: network improvements ............................................................ 33 7. Battery2Beach (B2B) and network improvement costs.............................................. 34 8. 800-meter buffer bicycle demand .............................................................................. 36 9. 800-meter buffer pedestrian demand ......................................................................... 37 10. 1600-meter buffer bicycle demand .......................................................................... 40 11. 1600-meter buffer pedestrian demand ..................................................................... 41 12. Annual air pollution reduction cost savings ............................................................. 42 13. Annual congestion cost savings ............................................................................... 43 14. 800-meter buffer annual medical care cost savings from physical activity ............... 45 15. 1600-meter buffer annual medical care cost savings from physical activity ............. 46 16. Annual gasoline cost savings .................................................................................. 48 17. Tourist spending percentages .................................................................................. 49 18. Bicycle tourist spending .......................................................................................... 49 19. Battery2Beach tourism impacts ............................................................................... 50 20. Battery2Beach low benefit summary ....................................................................... 50 21. Battery2Beach medium benefit summary ................................................................ 51 22. Battery2Beach high benefit summary...................................................................... 51 23. Battery2Beach NPV using the 20-year real interest rate .......................................... 53 24. Battery2Beach NPV using the 30-year real interest rate .......................................... 55 25. Battery2Beach + network NPV using the 20-year real interest rate.......................... 58 26. Battery2Beach + network NPV using the 30-year real interest rate.......................... 60 27. Economic impacts of the low (10,200) bicycle tourist estimate ........................... A-80 28. Economic impacts of the medium-low (40,800) bicycle tourist estimate.............. A-81 29. Economic impacts of the medium (102,000) bicycle tourist estimate................... A-81 30. Economic impacts of the high (680,000) bicycle tourist estimate ........................ A-81
vii
Abstract The objective of this analysis is to provide a sound comparison of the costs and benefits of the Battery2Beach, a multi-use path proposed by Charleston Moves, an advocacy group in Charleston, SC that promotes cycling and walking. Decision makers routinely take into consideration the costs and benefits of a transportation project before allowing it to move forward (Urban Design 4 Health, 2010). However, due to the nonmonetary nature of bicycle and pedestrian project benefits and only recent recognition of the validity of monetizing these benefits, decision makers are typically unaware of the return on investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (Litman and Doherty, 2009). The cost methodology followed was the same as that used by professional civil engineers and utilized the most recent and area-specific construction costs as possible. A conservative demand methodology and realistic, area-specific benefit estimates for air pollution reduction, congestion reduction, direct medical care cost reduction from physical activity, reduced use of gasoline, and increased tourism were used to determine benefits. Results indicate that for each $1 invested in the Battery2Beach multi-use path, the community will see a return of $1.92 to $9.32 in benefits.
Acknowledgements I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to the many people that made this project possible. My advisory committee, Burton Callicott, Tom Bradford, William J. Davis, and Don Sparks, provided support and guidance throughout this project, for which I will always be grateful. Charleston Moves and Tom Bradford gave me the opportunity to conduct this research, and demonstrated ample patience as I determined what to do and how to do it. Burton Callicotts willingness to join my committee, and all of the insights he shared were tremendous assets to me and to the project overall. Dr. Davis, who was the first person to agree to assist me in this endeavor, brought in the Citadel Chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers, specifically the class of 2012. I cannot thank all of these volunteers enough. They spent countless hours on the cost analysiscollecting data, performing analyses, presenting the research, and answering my engineering questions. In particular, Aaron Lee, Ben Schwenk, Chris Geary, Clay Frontz, Jason Barker, John Tousignant, and Nathan Fultz were instrumental in the completion of the cost analysis. Thank you for including me in the many steps involved in the analysis and providing some much needed laughs along the way. I am grateful to Mary Graham (Center for Business Research at the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce), Jeff Burns (Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Council of Governments), and Sarah Worth OBrien (Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager at the Institute for Transportation Research and Education). They willingly shared their knowledge and resources, which made my job that much easier. Mark McConnell, the MES Program Coordinator, is amazing and does everything he can to make graduate life easier for all MES students. I know he made mine less stressful. To the MES professors and students, you taught me so much, and I would like to thank you for making my time in the MES program so fulfilling. I could not have accomplished any of this without the support and encouragement of my family and friends Rachelle Norton, Meredith, Nick, Gavin, and McKayla Azar, Don & Julie Minor, the Morris family, Kimberly Goulart, Kimberly Stringer, Sarah Latshaw, Elizabeth Symon, Michael Griffin, Emma Paz, Jenn Scales, and Anne Cubeta. I am so thankful that all of you are in my life. I will be eternally grateful to my mom, Sharon Norton, whose unconditional love, support, and belief that I can do anything was vital to my success. For their never-ending love, support, and generosity, I dedicate this report to my mom, Sharon, and sisters, Meredith and Rachelle. Thank You.
ix
1. Introduction The Battery2Beach (B2B) is a path that, upon completion, will provide a continuous bicycle and walking path approximately 32 miles in length and will connect three Charleston area beaches and the Battery at the tip of the Charleston peninsula (Fig. 1). The purpose of the path is to provide local residents and tourists with safe, nonmotorized travel options. The path is intended to be safe for pedestrians and bicyclists of all skill levels. The Battery2Beach route was conceived by Charleston Moves, a local non-profit that promotes bicycling and walking. The group successfully advocated for the incorporation of the 12-foot multi-use path, Wonders Way, on the new Cooper River Bridge in 2005 (Fig. 2). Though many legislators wanted to eliminate it from the plans in an effort to cut costs, the Wonders Way path, named for cyclist Garrett Wonders who was hit and killed by a motorist while cycling in 2004 (Appendix A), has become a popular attraction for Charleston tourists (McCarthy 2009). The last century of transportation infrastructure has centered on the personal motor vehicle. Having been settled hundreds of years before the advent of the motorcar, the infrastructure in most of the downtown, or peninsula area of Charleston, is pedestrian and bike-friendly. Bicycling is a popular mode of transportation for many people in the downtown area, especially for students attending one of the four colleges located on the peninsula who live on or near campus. The grid design of this area and low speed limits make for a relatively safe bicycling environment.
Figure 1. Proposed Battery2Beach route
Figure 2. Wonders Way multi-use path on the Cooper River Bridge (Source: http://mickydee.hubpages.com)
Those bicyclists not living in peninsular Charleston face a treacherous route to the downtown area, to stores and other destinations. The current bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in Charleston, SC is woefully incomplete (Leigh 2007). Bike lanes and/or sidewalks are limited to various sections of the roadway that often begin and end abruptly leaving bicyclists and pedestrians stranded or forced to ride or walk on dangerously fast and unprotected roadways. Decision makers routinely take into consideration the costs and benefits of a transportation project before allowing it to move forward (Urban Design 4 Health 2010). However, due to the non-monetary nature of bicycle and pedestrian project benefits and only recent recognition of the validity of monetizing these benefits, decision makers are typically unaware of the return on investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (Litman and Doherty 2009). With limited budgets and a constantly growing list of projects, it is logical to invest in those projects that are predicted to have a high return on investment. Previous bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects in Charleston, such as the Wonders Way path, were approved due to the work of advocacy groups like Charleston Moves who organized and galvanized community support. Calculating the monetized benefits of bicycle and pedestrian projects will provide decision makers with more complete knowledge with which to make infrastructure decisions. The Battery2Beach is still in the proposal phase and requires the approval of local decision makers and the South Carolina Department of Transportation. The objective of this study is to show the technical feasibility of the Battery2Beach route and to provide a
monetary measure of return so that it can easily be compared to the required expenditures.
2. Methodology 2.1. Evaluation of Current Road Conditions Evaluations of the route took place in the fall of 2010. Due to the large number of roadway miles included in the analysis and the varying types of roadways involved, the route was divided into sections that have similar physical characteristics. Each segment is characterized as primary, alternate, or interim: 1. [P]rimary: the path identified by Charleston Moves as the Battery2Beach route before any analysis took place 2. [A]lternate: a segment identified by Citadel ASCE members that may be less problematic or more beneficial than one(s) initially chosen by Charleston Moves 3. [I]nterim: routes that are currently the most desirable to use until the official Battery2Beach is completed.
Data Collected for each segment include: Width and configuration of existing motor vehicle lanes Width and condition of existing pavement Width of existing bicycle lanes and shoulder Width and condition of existing sidewalks Posted speed limit Any existing buffers between sidewalks, bike lanes, and/or roadway Available Right of Way
Average daily traffic volume (ADT) and traffic distribution factor variables Percent of heavy vehicles that travel the roadway Presence of utility poles Existing curb and gutter
This data was used to determine the Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) and Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) for each section (Appendix B). The ratings range from A to F with A being the highest rating (Bicycle Level of Service 2007; Petritsch et al. 2010). Any segment with a BLOS or PLOS rating of D or F will require some modification so that it meets at least a C rating (Bicycle Level of Service 2007). The design guidelines for the Battery2Beach route are based on nationally accepted standards and regulations. These include: Battery2Beach signage every mile and at every turn (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 21) Signage and traffic control devices must comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (Appendix C) 4 foot minimum width for bicycle lanes on streets without curbs or gutters (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 22) 5 foot minimum width for bicycle lanes on streets with curbs and when adjacent to on-street parking (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 23)
Bicycle lanes established on both sides of the street, going with the flow of traffic, and, where applicable, placed between the motor vehicle lane and on-street parking lane. (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 22) 11 foot minimum width for shared bicycle lane and parking area (if parking area does not use stripes or stalls) without a curb (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 22) 12 foot minimum width for shared bike lane and parking area with a curb (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 22) 6 inch minimum solid white line delineating motor vehicle lane and bike lane (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 23) 4 inch optional solid white line delineating bike lane from parking spaces, where applicable (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 23) 10 foot minimum width for a two-way, shared use path on a separate right of way (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 35) BLOS or PLOS rating C or above Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-way included in design elements 5 foot minimum width for sidewalks, excluding curbs and obstructions, recommended by FHWA and Institute of Transportation Engineers on each side of the street (Sidewalks and Walkways) A buffer of 4-6 feet is desirable to separate pedestrians from motor vehicle lanes (Sidewalks and Walkways)
After determining the BLOS and PLOS rating, the required modifications for each segment of the route that received a D or F were identified. Current unit costs for the required alterations were determined (Table 1), and the unit cost of required alterations was multiplied by the appropriate variable (i.e. length, width, sq. ft.) of the segment in question. Three components were excluded from the cost estimates: 1. Right of Way (ROW): modifications were designed specifically to stay within the existing ROW, as a result, there are no costs associated with acquiring additional ROW area. 2. Utility Relocation: each utility company and municipality has contracts specifying the details of the costs associated with utility relocation in different situations. Typically, because companies do not pay to place utilities in the ROW, the utility company covers the costs associated with utility relocation when required by a public project (W.J. Davis, pers. comm. Nov. 8, 2011). 3. Maintenance: because the Battery2Beach will be added to existing roadways that already require routine maintenance, any additional maintenance costs will be negligible. In addition, bicyclists and pedestrians exert much less pressure on sidewalks and bike lanes resulting in insignificant wear and tear as compared to a motor vehicle (W.J. Davis, pers. comm. Nov. 16, 2011).
Table 1. Roadway alterations and costs Alteration Description Widen shoulder adding two 5 bike lanes, one on each side of the road, mill and overlay existing pavement with new surface course Widen shoulder adding one 5 bike lane, mill and overlay existing pavement with new surface course Mill existing pavement to remove markings, apply tack coat, resurface with slurry coat Enclose existing open drainage (ditch) in 30 RCP utilizing existing ROW in both directions 2 curb and gutter installed in both directions, includes curb inlets spaced at 300 Install new, 5 wide, concrete sidewalk in one direction (4 uniform depth) Landscaping of affected areas Temporary traffic control costs during construction: signage, signal timing adjustments, etc. Create unsignalized crosswalk parallel to B2B path in one direction Upgrade existing signalized intersection to include bike lanes and 4-way pedestrian crossings Striping for 1-way bike lane (2 solid white lines) and alternating diamond and bicycle markings Unit Cost or Basis
Widen Roadway 10 ft.
$13,700 per 100-ft.
Widen Roadway 5 ft.
$8,892 per 100-ft.
Resurface Roadway
$3,193 per 100-ft.
Drainage
$15,183 per 100-ft.
Curb & Gutter
$4,868 per 100-ft.
Pedestrian Sidewalk Seeding & Landscaping Traffic Control
$2,978 per 100-ft. $176 per 100-ft. $400 per 100-ft.
Unsignaled Intersection
$1,700 per intersection
Signalized Intersection
$16,500 per intersection
Bike Lane Striping
$140 per 100-ft.
Table 1. (continued) Alteration Shared Lane Markings or Sharrows (indicates cyclists may use the full travel lane) Broken Line Striping Solid Line Striping B2B Route Signage Temporary Erosion Control Mobilization Construction Contingencies Engineering Design/Permitting CE&I Escalation
Source: Citadel ASCE 2011
Description Striping of sharrows (share the road markings), spaced at 500 in two directions Striping of broken 4 lines on a per line per station cost Striping of solid 4 lines on a per line per station cost Ground-mounted Battery2Beach Route signs spaced every quarter of a mile Silt fencing, etc. Construction equipment mobilization costs Project construction costs Project engineering design and permitting costs Construction engineering and inspections costs 3% interest compounded continuously per year for 3 years
Unit Cost or Basis
$140 per 100-ft.
$55 per 100-ft. $40 per 100-ft. $31 per 100-ft. $520 per 100-ft. 12% of Construction Subtotal 10% of Construction Subtotal 8% of Construction Costs Total 12% of Construction Costs Total (1.033-1)
Necessary Battery2Beach facility improvements were identified along the proposed (primary) route and corresponding construction costs were developed for each of the 65 primary and 44 alternate roadway segments. In addition, other related transportation network improvements, beneficial to all roadway users and necessary regardless of the implementation of the Battery2Beach, were identified, evaluated and
10
estimated. Battery2Beach and related network improvement costs, based on 2011 construction data, were tabulated with respect to geographic location. The locations include: 1. Isle of Palms (IOP) 2. Sullivans Island 3. Mount Pleasant 4. Charleston 5. James Island 6. Folly Beach
2.2 Demand A Geographic Information System (GIS) map with current census block data was used to determine the population living within 800 and 1600-meters ( mile and 1 mile) of the proposed route (Barnes and Krizek 2005; Hawk 2009). Research shows that this geographic range surrounding a safe route consistently induces bicycle ridership (Poindexter et al. 2007). After making a layer file of the Battery2Beach route, 2010 census block data was added. The buffer toola was used to distinguish the area 800 and 1600-meters from the route. Each buffer was dissolved and intersected with the census population data. From the GIS data table, the population inside the buffer was
The GIS buffer tool creates a polygon of specified distance around a feature within the map. Attributes belonging only to the area within the buffer can then be determined. (Source: http://webhelp.esri.com)
11
determined by estimating the population density of each block group and multiplying this number by the area of the block group within the buffer. 2.2.1 Bicyclists National statistics identify 80% of the population as adults and 50% of adults as commuters (Hawk 2009). Applying these statistics to the population (Pi) living within each of the buffer zones gives the estimated number of commuters (Ni). Ni = Pi 0.8 0.5 These results were multiplied by Charlestons existing bicycle commute share (Cb) to estimate the number of adults that commute by bicycle (Bi) in each buffer zone. Bi = Ni Cb Because the Census bicycle commute share only accounts for those cycling to work ignoring those that cycle for other utilitarian purposes and recreation it underestimates the total amount of bicycling (Krizek et al. 2006; 2001 NHTS). According to Appendix A of the Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities (Krizek et al. 2006) and the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (2001), total adult bicycling rates (Rbi) in metropolitan areas vary from a low (the Census bicycle commute rate) to a high, defined by 0.5 percent plus 3 times the Census bicycle commute rate. In between these two rates is a medium rate defined by 0.3 percent plus 1.5 times the Census bicycle commute rate. Rbihigh = 0.005 + 3Cb Rbimedium = 0.003 + 1.5Cb Rbilow = Cb
12
To determine the total daily existing cyclists (Tbi), the high, medium, and low bicycling rates for each buffer zone were multiplied by the total population in the specified buffer and 0.8 (statistics identify 80% of the US population as adults). Tbi = Rbi Pi 0.8 Persons living closer to a designated bicycle route (800 meters) are more likely to use the route than those living further away. In order to account for this, Hawks research identifies likelihood multipliers (Lbi) for each buffer zone. By multiplying the two adult groups [bicycle commuters (Bi) and total daily cyclists (Tbi)] from each buffer zone by the likelihood multipliers, the number of additional bicyclists produced by the implementation of the Battery2Beach route was calculated. Additional bicycle commuters (Abi) = Bi Lbi Additional daily cyclists (Dbi) = Tbi Lbi Where: Lb800 = 0.51 Lb1600 = 0.44
2.2.2 Pedestrians The estimated number of commuters (Ni) found in the bicycle demand analysis (Ni= Pi 0.8 0.5) for the 800 and 1600-meter buffer zones was used in the pedestrian demand analysis (Hawk 2009). These numbers were multiplied by Charlestons existing pedestrian commute share (Cp) to estimate the number of adults that are pedestrian commuters (Wi) in each buffer zone. Wi = Ni Cp
13
The same user-rates (Rpi) as used in the bicycle analysis are applied here. The rates vary from a low, the Census pedestrian commute rate, to a high, defined by 0.5 percent plus 3 times the Census pedestrian commute rate. In between these two rates is a medium rate defined by 0.3 percent plus 1.5 times the Census pedestrian commute rate. Rpihigh = 0.005 + 3Cp Rpimedium = 0.003 + 1.5Cp Rpilow = Cp To determine the total daily existing pedestrians (Tpi), the high, medium, and low pedestrian rates for each buffer zone were multiplied by the total population (Pi) in the specified buffer and 0.8 (statistics identify 80% of the US population as adults). Tpi = Rpi Pi 0.8 Hawks research identifies likelihood multipliers (Lpi) for each buffer zone, as a person living within 800 meters of a route is more likely to use that route than a person living 1600 meters from the route. By multiplying the two adult groups [pedestrian commuters (Wi) and total daily pedestrians (Tpi)] from each buffer zone by the likelihood multipliers, the number of additional pedestrians produced by the implementation of the Battery2Beach route was estimated. Additional pedestrian commuters (Api) = Wi Lpi Additional daily pedestrians (Dpi) = Tpi Lpi Where: Lp800 = 0.51 Lp1600 = 0.44
14
2.3
Benefits Multi-use paths provide a multitude of benefits, both to those that use the path and
to the wider community. The goal of a benefit analysis is to ascribe a monetary value to such non-market goods as increased convenience, comfort, and safety for users; reduced roadway construction, maintenance, and operation costs; reduced energy consumption resulting in economic and environmental benefits; decreased land needed for widening roads and additional parking facilities; increased accessibility; increased social equity; decreased air, noise, and water pollution providing economic and environmental benefits; and health benefits from physical activity (Litman 2011). This is a difficult task as these goods are valuable, but not regularly traded on the market (Krizek et al. 2006; Litman and Doherty 2009). However, studies and data that provide reasonable and viable monetary estimates of traditionally non-monetized benefits have gained acceptance in the last fifteen to twenty years (Litman and Doherty 2009). While there is some measure of uncertainty in the monetization of benefits, as there is with any cost benefit analysis, a crude approximation, made as exact as possiblewould be preferable to the manifestly unjust approximation caused by ignoring these [benefits] (Litman and Doherty 2009). For this report, five benefits are monetized and applied to the implementation of the Battery2Beach Route. These include: 1. Air Pollution Reduction 2. Congestion Reduction 3. Direct Medical Cost Reduction from Physical Activity
15
4. Reduced Use of Gasoline/Natural Resources 5. Increased Tourism Although affecting regular users of the route most directly, the benefits will positively affect the entire Charleston community. Benefits from reduced air pollution and increased tourism will positively affect the areas economy. The other three benefits, reduced congestion, direct medical cost reduction from physical activity, and reduced use of gasoline/natural resources primarily affect regular users of the path. However, there will undoubtedly be residual positive effects on the community at large as a reduction in money spent on motorized transportation allows that money to be spent on goods with more regional economic value (Litman 2011). Additionally, an increase in money injected into the regional economy has a multiplying effect that can increase jobs and local household income ("Economic Multiplier Effect Makes Transportation Tops" 2008; Hughes 2003).
2.3.1 Air Pollution Reduction Air pollution has a plethora of negative effects on the environment, from negative impacts on human health to affecting the local ecosystem (Treshow and Anderson 1991). Air pollution can lead to extirpation (local extinction) of plants by suppressing the plants growth and/or vigor and thus reducing its competitive ability (Treshow and Anderson 1991). Biogeochemical cycles can be altered by air pollution (i.e. the addition of sulfur, nitrogen, or ammonia) resulting in long lasting effects such as acidification of soil, disruption of critical element ratios, and direct and indirect absorption of pollutants by
16
plants (Treshow and Anderson 1991). Additionally, air pollution associated with burning fossil fuel has been shown to accelerate corrosion of traditional building materials such as marble, metal, and even glass (Inkpen 2004). In fact, [a]ir pollution can significantly affect the corrosion of materials. In the USA, it has been estimated that some 4 % of the GNP goes to restoring the damage of corrosion, and that about half of this could have been avoided, i.e. is due to anthropogenic causes (Van Grieken et al. 1998). Without taking measures to reduce air pollution, Charleston runs the risk of prematurely losing or having to restore many historic buildings and structures arguably some of the most significant tourist attractions. Additionally, some of the local iconic plants could vanish from the area. In US cities, the largest source of pollution comes from personal vehicle use (Nel 2005; Boubel et al. 1994). However, the multiple variables that affect vehicle emissions, such as: gasoline formulation, air-fuel ratio, ignition timing, compression ratio, engine speed and load, engine deposits, engine condition, coolant temperature, and combustion chamber configuration, make them one of the most difficult to control (Boubel et al. 1994). The 2008 South Carolina Climate Energy Commerce Committee Report identified three ways to reduce vehicle emissions in the state: improve vehicle fuel efficiency, reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled, and use lower-emission fuels in place of gasoline and diesel. Although these are all important measures that can have a positive impact on air pollution, reduction of vehicle miles traveled is the only measure that presents a simple, efficient, and 100% effective solution. By providing a safe and efficient means of transportation, such as the Battery2Beach route, a measureable reduction in vehicle miles can be achieved with minimum cost to the state.
17
A study by McCubbin and Delucchi (1999) identifies the economic costs of illnesses caused by air pollution. These include acute morbidity [headache, sore throat, eye irritation, respiratory illness (other than asthma), asthma attack, respiratory restricted activity day (RRAD)], chronic illness, mortality, and cancer (McCubbin and Delucchi 1999). The health costs of air pollution from an automobile (gasoline only) is estimated at 4.74a (in 1990 dollars) per mile (McCubbin and Delucchi 1999). The online inflation calculator provided by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) was used to update the 1990 value to the 2011 value of 8 per mile. The Battery2Beachs monetary impact on air pollution reduction is calculated using the following equation (methods and resources used to determine the average trip length and number of days per year can be seen in Figure 3): additional commuters average length of trip number of trips per day number of days per year $0.08
This is an average of the high (8.83) and low (0.65) estimates of per mile health costs of air pollution from a motor vehicle in the US in 1990 dollars (McCubbin and Delucchi 1999).
18
1. Average Length of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Commute Trip Bicycle: 2.6 miles Pedestrian: 0.7 miles ("2009 NHTS Average Person Trip Length by Mode and Purpose.", 2009)
2. Steps to Determine Days Commuting by Bicycle and Foot Step 1. 2 days per weekend 52 weekends per year= 104 weekend days Step 2. 20 paid days off per year (Miller, 2010). Step 3. 365 days per year 104 weekend days 20 paid days off= 241 working days per year Step 4. Bicycle commuters average 4 days per week commuting by bicycle (Moritz, 1997). Step 5. 241 working days (4/5)= 192.8 days per year commute by bicycle Step 6. Pedestrian commuters average 3 days per week commuting by foot (How Many People Walk?) Step 7. 241 working days (3/5)= 144.6 days per year commute by foot
Figure 3.
Determinations of average commute length and number of days commuting
2.3.2 Congestion Reduction Congestion is a traffic condition in which the number of vehicles on the road exceeds the ability of the road to accommodate them, which results in travel delays (Weisbrod et al. 2001). Negative impacts resulting from congestion include air quality (due to additional vehicle emissions), quality of life (due to personal time delays), and business activity (due to the additional costs and reduced service areas for workforce,
19
supplier, and customer markets) (Weisbrod et al. 2001). Geographic features of a region, such as the multiple waterways in Charleston, SC, exacerbate congestion because they limit route alternatives (Lomax et al. 2011). Traffic congestion resulted in the inefficient use of 3.9 billion gallons of fuel on idling and 4.8 million hours of time worth $115 billion due to lost productivity expended in the United States in 2009 alone (Lomax et al. 2011). Congestion in greater Charleston accounted for more than 8.3 million gallons of fuel and 9.1 million hours of travel delay, worth an estimated $227 million in lost revenue in 2009 (Lomax et al. 2011). For the average individual traveler in Charleston-North Charleston in 2009, 27 hours were lost to congestion delays and 24 gallons of fuel expended to keep the engine running while at a standstill (Lomax et al. 2011). The Urban Mobility Report estimates the extra fuel consumed and time wasted while in congested conditions to be $646 per CharlestonNorth Charleston automobile commuter per year (Lomax et al. 2011). Fuel costs included in the congestion cost estimate are based solely on the extra fuel used (30% on average) when one encounters congested conditions (Litman and Doherty 2009; Lomax et al. 2011). The 2009 cost estimate was updated to the 2011 value of $680.28 using the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics online calculator. The Battery2Beachs expected impacts on congestion reduction were estimated, for the 800-meter buffer and 1600-meter buffer, by multiplying the additional bicycle and pedestrian commuters by $680.28.
20
2.3.3 Direct Medical Cost Reduction from Physical Activity Dependence on the automobile as the main form of transportation in the United States has resulted in devastating impacts on health, most directly from decreased opportunities for physical activity (Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. 2010). A sedentary lifestyle can lead to an overwhelming array of health issues, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, cancer, depression, and premature death (Warburton et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2005; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1996). Healthcare spending is estimated to reach an astronomical $3.1 trillion in 2012, and healthcare reform has become a major issue in national politics and households nation-wide (Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. 2010). Pratt et al. (2000) used the National Medical Expenditures Survey to determine the amount of money a person could save annually in medical expenses by engaging in regular moderate physical activity. Regular moderate physical activity is defined as spending 30 minutes three or more times per week in moderate or strenuous activity (Pratt et al. 2000). The survey divided respondents into three groups: persons with no physical limitations, persons with some physical limitations, and current smokers. An estimate of direct medical expenditures that could be avoided by regular exercise was determined for each group: Persons with no physical limitations: $330 Persons with some physical limitations: $1,053 Current Smokers: $906
21
The $330 annual savings for a person with no physical limitations will be used in this analysis because there is no way to determine how many potential users of the Battery2Beach are smokers or have some physical limitations. The US Bureau of Labor and Statistics online inflation calculator (www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) was again utilized to bring the $330 annual per person estimation to the corresponding 2011 cost of $658.10 annually per person. The implementation of the Battery2Beach will provide a safe transportation alternative that will make it easy to incorporate physical activity into daily life. The direct reduction of medical costs from physical activity brought about by the Battery2Beach was estimated by multiplying the additional bicycle and pedestrian commuters as well as the additional daily cyclists and pedestrians (for each buffer there is a high, medium, and low additional daily estimate) by the estimated annual savings of $658.10.
2.3.4 Reduced Use of Gasoline/Natural Resources Two-thirds of the oil consumed in the US is for transportation (Jacobson and King 2009). Converting automobile trips to walking or bicycling will save consumers on fuel costs and reduce oil consumption overall. According to the United States Energy and Information Administration website, the average price for a gallon of gasoline in 2010 was $2.714 for the lower Atlantic region (Weekly Lower Atlantic 2011). The 2010 average cost was used so that seasonal pricing variations would be captured in the average. However, gasoline prices have risen substantially (average $3.449 for January
22
through May 2011) and will most likely continue to rise as the natural stores of crude oil are depleted. National travel data were used to turn the additional pedestrian commuter and additional bicycle commuter counts into miles traveled. The Highway Statistics 2005 report from the Federal Highway Division of the United States Department of Transportation states that the average combined mpg for all cars and light trucks on United States roads was 19.8 mpg. The combined estimation of additional miles traveled was divided by 19.8 mpg to estimate the average number of gallons of gasoline saved with the implementation of the Battery2Beach. The number of gallons was multiplied by the 2010 average cost of gasoline for the lower Atlantic region ($2.714). This formula estimated the cost of the gasoline avoided by those additional bicycle and pedestrian commuters on the Battery2Beach (Fig. 3). additional commuters average length of trip number of trips per day number of days ($2.714 per gallon/19.8 mpg)
2.3.5 Increased Tourism Tourism is one of the top four economic drivers of the Charleston economy (Charleston, SC Economic Profile 2011). Over four million people visit Charleston every year providing an annual economic impact of $3 billion (Charleston, SC Economic Profile 2011). The North Carolina Northern Outer Banks share similar physical characteristics with Charleston: a coastal location, flat terrain, temperate climate, and approximately four million tourists visit every year (Lawrie et al. 2004). Charleston
23
and the Outer Banks also share many of the same features that tourists report attracted them to the location, including the beach, shopping, and restaurants (Table 2) (Estimation of Tourism Economic Impacts in the Charleston Area 2010; Lawrie et al. 2004). Additionally, most visitors to both locations originate from the east coast of the United States (Estimation of Tourism Economic Impacts in the Charleston Area 2010; Strategic Marketing & Research, Inc. 2006). One significant difference, however, is that the Outer Banks offers 50 miles of continuous bicycle paths while Charleston has limited options for safe cycling (Lawrie et al. 2004).
Table 2. Top 8 tourist attractions for Charleston, SC and Outer Banks, NC Charleston, SC 1. Food 2. History 3. Ambiance/Atmosphere 4. Attractions 5. Local Hospitality 6. Beach/Waterfront 7. Tours 8. Shopping Outer Banks, NC 1. Oceans/Beaches 2. Unique Restaurants 3. Scenic Beauty 4. Shopping 5. Lighthouses 6. Historic Sites 7. Scenic Drive 8. Wildlife Viewing/Bird Watching
Sources: Charleston, SC Economic Profile 2011; Lawrie et al. 2004
In 2003, the Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University conducted a study of the impact of bicycle tourism on the Outer Banks (Lawrie et al. 2004). Results from surveys of visitors indicate that 17% of tourists (680,000) do some bicycling while in the area. The researchers derived three levels of
24
estimated impact: high, mid-range, and low. The high estimate was calculated by multiplying the 680,000 tourists who do some bicycling while in the area by the 15% of survey respondents who indicated on the questionnaire that bicycling was very important in their decision to come to the area (Lawrie et al. 2004). This produced a high impact estimate of 102,000 tourists. The mid-range estimate was calculated by multiplying the 102,000 tourists from the high impact estimate by the 40% of survey respondents who also gave a high value to the overall quality of bicycling facilities in the area (Lawrie et al. 2004). This produced a mid-range impact estimate of 40,800 tourists. The low estimate was calculated by multiplying the 40,800 tourists from the mid-range impact estimate by the 25% of survey respondents who also said that bicycling would be important in their decision to return to the area (Lawrie et al. 2004). This produced a low impact estimate of 10,200 tourists. The survey also determined that tourists who cycle spent an average of $162.50 per person, per day. For the cost-benefit this amount has been updated to $199.35 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator to reflect 2011 prices. Survey respondents indicated that they extended their stay in the Outer Banks by 3.5 days in order to fully enjoy the available bicycle facilities. The Outer Banks Study states that these findings suggest that public investments in bicycle facilities in other coastal or resort areas could return similar benefits whether the area attracts tourists primarily for bicycling or for other reasons (Lawrie et al. 2004). Due to the similarities between the two locations, a benefits-transfer analysis was completed in order to provide an estimation of the impacts the Battery2Beach will have on Charleston tourism. The daily expenditures per tourist ($199.35) were divided by the
25
percent of tourism dollars spent on the following categories: accommodations, food and beverages, local transportation, tourist attractions, and shopping (Estimation of Tourism Economic Impacts in the Charleston Area 2010). The dollar amount determined for each category was then multiplied by the 3.5 average extra days and the estimates of the number of tourists to determine an approximate increase of tourism dollars to the Charleston area once the Battery2Beach is implemented. These figures were entered into the economic impact analysis computer software IMPLAN, also used in the Outer Banks Study. This software applies local economic data to the estimates to establish the economic impact on the local economy.
2.4
Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio In transportation engineering, it is common for project benefits to be calculated for
a 20-year period (W.J. Davis, pers. comm. Oct. 2011). In order to determine the net present value (benefits minus costs) and the benefit-cost ratio of the Battery2Beachs 20year lifespan, the costs and benefits b must be discounted (Ward 2006). Discounting takes into account the time-value of money (i.e. $1 received 20 years from now is worth less than $1 received today) (Ward, 2006). The net present value (NPV) equation is: (B1-C1) NPV = (B0-C0) + (1+i)
1
(B2-C2) + (1+i)
2
(Bn-Cn) + (1+i)n
The lowest benefit estimates for all categories were used in all NPV and BCR calculations.
26
Where: Bn = Benefitsyear Cn = Costsyear i = interest rate
The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) equation is:
BCR
Present Value of Benefits Present Value of Costs
The costs for transportation projects are routinely applied as a lump sum in the year the project is finished (W.J. Davis, pers. comm. Oct. 2011; D.L. Sparks, pers. comm. Nov. 2011). The Battery2Beach project is estimated to require three years of construction; therefore, the project costs were analyzed as a lump sum cost in 2014 for the net present value and benefit-cost ratio calculations. Benefits were considered for twenty years beginning in 2015. According to The White House Circular A-94 (1992), public projects, such as the Battery2Beach, should use the real interest rate, which accounts for inflation, in present value calculations. The 2011 20-year real interest rate is 2.1% (Budget Assumptions 2010). Calculations using the 2011 30-year real interest rate (2.3%) were also performed because benefits of the Battery2Beach will accrue until 2035, 24 years from 2011 (Budget Assumptions 2010).
27
3. Results 3.1 Costs Data collection for each of the 109 segments of the primary and alternate routes occurred in the fall of 2010. The data were used to determine the bicycle and pedestrian level of service. To meet nationally accepted standards, any segment with a BLOS or PLOS below a C will require modifications in addition to signage (Table 3). Detailed individual construction cost estimates for each segment of the primary route can be found in Appendix D. Alternate routes, segments scheduled for improvement, and network improvements were not included in the Battery2Beach cost estimate. Descriptions of the alternate routes can be found in Table 4 and Appendix E. Alternative segments were included as available options for primary route sections where modifications would be difficult to implement due to existing conditions. The cost associated with segments of the Battery2Beach that were scheduled for improvement including bicycle and pedestrian considerations before this analysis began was not included as these projects were already in the final planning and funding stages (Table 5 and Appendix F). Network improvements are segments along the Battery2Beach route that need to be addressed for all users motorists included. Because network improvement segments need alterations regardless of whether Battery2Beach enhancements are included, these costs are excluded from the Battery2Beach cost estimate (Table 6 and Appendix G).
28
Table 3. Battery2Beach primary route summary.

Miles 0.35 0.18 0.92 0.14 1.29 0.45 0.52 0.34 0.99 0.40 0.22 1.40 0.71 1.17 0.20 0.09 0.49 0.56 0.23 0.55 0.23 0.42 0.52 0.32 1.03 0.10 0.39 0.28 0.36 0.10 0.14 0.07 0.91 0.31 0.23 0.13 0.37 Segment ID 504 503 502 501 500 439 430 429 428 422 421 420 425 417 416 415 414 413 412 411 401 400 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 106 Cost $43,619.00 $478.00 $242,894.00 $356.00 $371,156.00 $1,065,406.00 $1,698,499.00 $1,077,101.00 $2,950,155.00 $236,724.00 $125,980.00 $807,847.00 $2,118,734.00 $3,053.00 $528.00 $239.00 $763,877.00 $555,208.00 $230,773.00 $1,789,693.00 $601.00 $1,093.00 $1,348.00 $850.00 $2,685.00 $26,665.00 $238,803.00 $27,129.00 $14,532.00 $2,972.00 $4,730.00 $968.00 $18,595.00 $4,454.00 $101,158.00 $79,962.00 $212,275.00 B LOS D E C E C C C C C E E D D C E E E E D B E F E E F C E E C C C C C C D D E P LOS B C D D D D D D A B B E A D F F F D C D D F E E E B D B C B A B B A B C B Road Center St. Folly Rd.-Folly River Br. Folly Rd. Folly Rd.-Sol Legare Cr. Br. Folly Rd. Battery Island Dr. Old Military Rd. Secessionville Rd. Secessionville Rd. Ft. Johnson Rd. Ft. Johnson Rd. Ft. Johnson Rd. Mikell Dr. Harbor View Rd. Harbor View Rd. Harbor View Rd.-JI Cr. Br. Harbor View Rd. Harbor View Rd. Harbor View Rd. Tatum St./Cheves Dr. Folly Rd. Folly Rd.-Wappoo Bridge Folly Rd. Wesley Dr. US 17-Ashley R. Br. WB Lockwood Blvd. Lockwood Blvd. Lockwood Blvd. Lockwood Blvd. Broad St. Chisolm St. Tradd St. Murray Blvd. East Battery St. East Bay St. East Bay St. Concord St./Vendue Range Improvement Signs/Intersections Signs Sidewalk Signs Sidewalk Widening Widening Widening Widening Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path Multi-Use Path Widening Signs Signs Signs Widening Restriping Restriping Widening Signs Signs Signs Signs Signs Signs/Intersections Multi-Use Path Signs/Intersections Signs/Intersections Signs/Intersections Sharrows Sharrows Sharrows Sharrows Restriping Restriping Restriping
29
Table 3. (continued)
Miles 0.25 0.20 0.26 0.57 2.46 0.28 0.51 0.38 0.26 0.03 1.21 1.16 1.11 0.35 0.41 0.19 0.09 0.85 Segment ID 104 103 102 101 100 200 201 202 203 204 210 211 212 300 301 302 304 305 Cost $140,908.00 $115,570.00 $133,291.00 $1,486.00 $6,444.00 $724.00 $561,753.00 $38,277.00 $27,065.00 $26,866.00 $55,485.00 $65,659.00 $2,918.00 $908.00 $1,079.00 $488.00 $328,426.00 $23,978.00 B LOS E E D C A A E C E D C C D D D E D C P LOS B C B C B C D D E D A A D D D D B B Road Washington St. Washington St. Washington St. East Bay St. US 17-Cooper R. Bridge W. Coleman Blvd. W. Coleman Blvd. W. Coleman Blvd. W. Coleman Blvd. W. Coleman Blvd. Pitt St./Whilden St. Center St. Ben Sawyer Blvd. Ben Sawyer Blvd. Bridge Ben Sawyer Blvd. Station 22 1/2 Jasper Blvd. Jasper Blvd. Jasper Blvd. Beach Inlet - Bridge Carolina Blvd./10th Ave. Palm Blvd. 10th Ave. Ocean Blvd. Ocean Blvd. Ocean Blvd. Ocean Blvd. Improvement Restriping Restriping Restriping Signs/Intersections Signs/Intersections Signs Restriping Signs/Intersections Signs/Intersections Sharrows Sharrows Sharrows Signs Signs Signs Signs Widening Signs/Intersections Widening Signs/Intersections Widening Signs/Intersections Widening Sidewalk Sidewalk Signs/Intersections Signs/Intersections
0.55 306 0.35 307 1.18 312 1.21 310 0.14 311 0.40 319 0.41 317 0.52 318 0.29 313 Total Miles: 32.8
$1,657,397.00 D B $3,626.00 B B $1,047,955.00 C D $43,965.00 C D $465,373.00 C D $128,244.00 C D $143,646.00 C D $23,111.00 C A $762.00 C A Total Cost: $19,907,459.00
Source: Citadel ASCE 2011
30
Table 4. Battery2Beach alternate routes Current B2B Location Fort Johnson Rd. Possible Alternate Route Dills Bluff Rd. Folly Rd. (new bike lanes) Central Park Rd./Riverland Dr./Grimball Rd. Folly Rd. South of Wappoo Bridge Folly Rd. North of Wappoo Bridge Washington St. Passenger Terminal Palm Blvd. Charleston Country Club Crescent Area to Albemarle Rd. 1-way pair with E. Bay or Concord 1-way bike lane on Carolina, southwest on Ocean Blvd
31
Table 5. Battery2Beach route: scheduled for improvement

ID
503 501 417 102 103 104 201 202 203 204
Road
Folly Rd.-Folly River Bridge Folly Rd.-Sol Legare Cr. Br. Harbor View Rd. Washington St. Washington St. Washington St. W. Coleman Blvd. W. Coleman Blvd. W. Coleman Blvd. W. Coleman Blvd. Ben Sawyer Blvd.
From
Begin Bridge Begin Bridge N. Shore Dr. East Bay St. Calhoun St. Laurens St. Patriots Point Rd. Harbor Gate Dr. Pelzer Dr. Mill St.
To
End Bridge End Bridge Mikell Dr. Calhoun St. Laurens St. Pritchard St. Harbor Gate Dr. Pelzer Dr. Mill St. Whilden St. Gold Bug Island Dr.
Mile s
0.21 0.14 1.17 0.29 0.19 0.24 0.52 0.38 0.25 0.07
Improvement
Bridge replacement with 5-ft. bike lanes & sidewalks Bridge replacement with 5-ft. bike lanes & sidewalks Road improvement with 10-ft. multi-use path Cruise Ship Passenger Terminal Cruise Ship Passenger Terminal Cruise Ship Passenger Terminal Coleman-Ben Sawyer Blvd. Revitalization Master Plan Coleman-Ben Sawyer Blvd. Revitalization Master Plan Coleman-Ben Sawyer Blvd. Revitalization Master Plan Coleman-Ben Sawyer Blvd. Revitalization Master Plan Ben Sawyer Causeway Bike/Ped. Facility, Center St. (M.P.) to Middle St. (S.I.) Ben Sawyer Causeway Bike/Ped. Facility, Center St. (M.P.) to Middle St. (S.I.) Ben Sawyer Causeway Bike/Ped. Facility, Center St. (M.P.) to Middle St. (S.I.)
Schedule
2013 Completion 2013 Completion 2013 Completion 2012 Completion 2012 Completion 2012 Completion Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 2012 Completion
212
Center St.
1.25
301
Ben Sawyer Blvd.
End of Bridge
End of Causeway
0.46
2012 Completion
302
Station 22-1/2
End of Causeway
Jasper Blvd.
0.16
2012 Completion
Notes: 15 total B2B route segments, Cumulative length = 5.33 miles. Source: Citadel ASCE 2011
32
Table 6. Battery2Beach route: network improvements

ID Road
Harbor View Rd.
From
James Island Creek Bridge
To
Miles
B2B Accommodation Issues

Existing 2-lane, narrow causeway, widening would affect marsh (23,100 ADT, 40 mph, 11-ft. lanes, no sidewalks) Existing 2-lane flat slab bridge spanning James Island Creek (23,100 ADT, 40 mph, 11-ft. lanes, 4.5-ft. sidewalks) Existing 5-lane draw bridge over ICW (58,500 ADT, 40 mph, 9-ft. lanes, 2.5-ft. sidewalks) Existing 6-lane road (58,500 ADT, 35 mph, 10-ft. lanes, 4.5-ft. sidewalks) Existing 5-lane road (41,100 ADT, 35 mph, 10-ft. lanes, 4-ft. sidewalks) Existing bridges over Ashley R. (59,500 ADT, 40 mph, 10-ft. lanes), approach on St. Andrews Blvd. to 4.5-ft. sidewalk on southbound bridge Existing 4-lane bridge over Shem Creek (31,200 ADT, 35 mph, 13ft. lanes, 5-ft. sidewalks) Existing 2-lane bridge over ICW (13,700 ADT, 40 mph, 13-ft. lanes, 5-ft. sidewalks)
416
N. Shore Dr.
0.20
415
Harbor View Rd.-James Island Creek Bridge Folly Rd.Wappoo Bridge
Begin Bridge
End Bridge
0.09
400
Tranquil Dr.
Maybank Hwy
0.41
127
Folly Rd.
Windermere Blvd. St. Andrews Blvd.
Tranquil Dr.
0.53
126
Wesley Dr.
Windermere Blvd.
0.32
125
US 17Ashley River Bridge westbound
Lockwood Blvd.
Wesley Dr.
1.01
203
W. Coleman Blvd.
Pelzer Dr.
Mill St.
0.25
300
Ben Sawyer Blvd.-Bridge
Gold Bug Island Dr.
End Bridge
0.21
Notes: ADT = Average Daily Traffic, 8 total B2B route segments, Cumulative length = 3.02 miles Source: Citadel ASCE 2011
33
The construction cost for the 32.8 miles of the primary Battery2Beach route was estimated at $19.9 million (Table 7). Expenses for all network improvements were estimated at $75 million (Table 7).
Table 7. Battery2Beach (B2B) and network improvement costs Location Isle of Palms (IOP) Sullivans Island Mount Pleasant Charleston James Island Folly Beach Total B2B Costs $1,853,000 $2,015,000 $779,500 $1,177,000 $13,424,500 $658,500 $19,907,500 Network Improvement Costs $0 $0 $20,000,000 $33,000,000 $22,000,000 $0 $75,000,000
3.2 Demand 3.2.1 800-Meter Buffer An estimated 37,689 people reside within 800 meters (1/2 mile) of the Battery2Beach route. Of those living within this buffer zone, the implementation of the Battery2Beach will likely attract 131 people to walk and 115 people to bicycle to work in addition to those that currently commute by bicycle or walk (Tables 8 and 9). Also within this area are 14 schools and 36 parks and recreational spaces ideal destinations for a bicycle or walking trip (Fig. 4).
34
Figure 4. Battery2Beach 800-meter buffer. The proposed B2B Route with the 800-meter (1/2 mile) buffer surrounding it in light green.
35
Table 8. 800-meter buffer bicycle demand. The equations and calculations for bicycle demand within 800 meters of the proposed Battery2Beach multi-use path. 800-Meter Buffer Population (P800): 37,689 2009 Bicycle Commute Share (Cb): 1.5% Estimated # of Commuters (N800) N800 = P800 0.8 0.5 Current Bicycle Commuters (B800) B800 = N800 Cb User-Rates (Rb800i) Rb800high = 0.005 + 3Cb Rb800medium = 0.003 + 1.5Cb Rb800low = Cb Total Daily Existing Cyclists (Tb800i) Tb800high = Rbhigh P800 0.8 Tb800medium = Rbmedium P800 0.8 Tb800low = Rblow P800 0.8 Additional Bicycle Commuters (Ab800) Ab800 = B800 Lb800 (Lb800 = 0.51) 226 0.51 = 115.26 115 0.0451 37689 0.8 = 0.0225 37689 0.8 = 0.015 37689 0.8 = 1359.81 1360 678.40 678 452.268 452 0.005 + 3(1.5) = 0.003 + 1.5(1.5) = 1.50% 4.505% 4.51% 2.253% 2.25% 1.50% 15076 0.015 = 226.14 226 37689 0.8 0.5 = 15075.60 15076
Additional Daily Cyclists (Db800i) Db800high = Tb800high Lb800 Db800medium = Tb800medium Lb800 Db800low = Tb800low Lb800 1360 0.51 = 678 0.51 = 452 0.51 = 693.60 694 345.78 346 230.52 231
36
Table 9. 800-meter buffer pedestrian demand. The equations and calculations for pedestrian demand within 800 meters of the proposed Battery2Beach multi-use path. 800-Meter Buffer Population (P800): 37,689 2009 Pedestrian Commute Share (Cp): 1.7% Estimated # of Commuters (N800) N800 = P800 0.8 0.5 Current Pedestrian Commuters (W800) W800 = N800 Cp User-Rates (Rp800i) Rp800high = 0.005 + 3Cp Rp800medium = 0.003 + 1.5Cp Rp800low = Cp Total Daily Existing Pedestrians (Tp800i) Tp800high = Rp800high P800 0.8 Tp800medium = Rp800medium P800 0.8 Tp800low = Rp800low P800 0.8 Additional Pedestrian Commuters (Ap800) Ap800 =W800 Lp800 (Lp800 = 0.51) 256 0.51 = 130.56 131 0.0511 37689 0.8 = 0.0255 37689 0.8 = 0.017 37689 0.8 = 1540.72 1541 768.85 769 512.57 513 0.005 + 3(1.7) = 0.003 + 1.5(1.7) = 1.7 5.105% 5.11% 2.553% 2.55% 1.70% 15076 0.017 = 256.29 256 37689 0.8 0.5 = 15075.60 15076
Additional Daily Pedestrians (Dp800i) Dp800high =Tp800high Lp800 Dp800medium =Tp800medium Lp800 Dp800low =Tp800low Lp800 1541 0.51 = 769 0.51 = 513 0.51= 785.91 786 392.19 392 261.6 262
37
3.2.2 1600-Meter Buffer An estimated 67,743 people reside within 1600 meters (1 mile) of the Battery2Beach route. This estimate includes those residents within the 800-meter buffer (i.e. it is not in addition to the 800-meter buffer estimation). With the implementation of the Battery2Beach, Charleston can expect an additional 203 people walking and an additional 179 people bicycling to work (Tables 10 and 11). In this area are 18 schools and over 40 parks and recreational spaces perfect destinations for a bicycle or walking trip (Fig. 5).
38
Figure 5. Battery2Beach 1600-meter buffer. The proposed B2B Route with the 1600meter (1 mile) buffer surrounding it in violet.
39
Table 10. 1600-meter buffer bicycle demand. The equations and calculations for bicycle demand within 1600 meters of the proposed Battery2Beach multi-use path. 1600-Meter Buffer Population (P1600): 67,743 2009 Bicycle Commute Share (Cb): 1.5% Estimated Number of Commuters (N1600) N1600 = P1600 0.8 0.5 Current Bicycle Commuters (B1600) B1600 = N1600 Cb User-Rates (Rb1600i) Rb1600high = 0.005 + 3Cb Rb1600medium = 0.003 + 1.5Cb Rb1600low = Cb Total Daily Existing Cyclists (Tb1600i) Tb1600high = Rb1600high P1600 0.8 Tb1600medium = Rb1600medium P1600 0.8 Tb1600low = Rb1600low P1600 0.8 Additional Bicycle Commuters (Ab1600) Ab1600 = B1600 Lb1600 (Lb1600 = 0.44) Additional Daily Cyclists (Db1600i) Db1600high = Tb1600high Lb1600 Db1600medium = Tb1600medium Lb1600 Db1600low = Tb1600low Lb1600 2444 0.44 = 1219 0.44 = 813 0.44 = 1075.36 1075 536.36 536 357.72 358 406 0.44 = 178.64 179 0.0451 67743 0.8 = 0.0225 67743 0.8 = 0.015 67743 0.8 = 2444.16 2444 1219.37 1219 812.91 813 0.005 + 3(1.5) = 0.003 + 1.5(1.5) = 1.50% 4.505% 4.51% 2.253% 2.25% 1.50% 27097 0.015 = 406.45 406 67743 0.8 0.5 = 27097.20 27097
40
Table 11. 1600-meter buffer pedestrian demand. The equations and calculations for pedestrian demand within 1600 meters of the proposed Battery2Beach multi-use path. 1600-Meter Buffer Population (P1600): 67,743 2009 Pedestrian Commute Share (Cp): 1.7% Estimated Number of Commuters (N1600) N1600 = P1600 0.8 0.5 Current Pedestrian Commuters (W1600) W1600 = N1600 Cp User-Rates (Rp1600i) Rp1600high = 0.005 + 3Cp Rp1600medium = 0.003 + 1.5Cp Rp1600low = Cp Total Daily Existing Pedestrians (Tp1600i) Tp1600high = Rp1600high P1600 0.8 Tp1600medium = Rp1600medium P1600 0.8 Tp1600low = Rp1600low P1600 0.8 Additional Pedestrian Commuters (Ap1600) Ap1600 = W1600 Lp1600 (Lp1600 = 0.44) 461 0.44 = 202.84 203 0.0511 67743 0.8 = 0.0255 67743 0.8 = 0.017 67743 0.8 = 2769.33 2769 1381.95 1382 921.30 921 0.005 + 3(1.7) = 0.003 + 1.5(1.7) = 1.7 5.105% 5.11% 2.553% 2.55% 1.70% 27097 0.017 = 460.6 461 67743 0.8 0.5 = 27097.2 27097
Additional Daily Pedestrians (Dp1600i) Dp1600high = Tp1600high Lp1600 Dp1600medium = Tp1600medium Lp1600 Dp1600low = Tp1600low Lp1600 2769 0.44 = 1382 0.44 = 921 0.44 = 1218.36 1218 608.08 608 405.24 405
41
3.3 Benefits 3.3.1 Air Pollution Reduction Air Pollution Reduction is determined using the additional bicycle and pedestrian commuters established in the demand analysis. The number of additional commuters is used to estimate the automobile miles they will avoid once the Battery2Beach route is in place. To calculate the expected reduction of air pollution as a direct result of the Battery2Beach, the following equation was used: additional commuters average length of trip number of trips per day number of days $0.08 The results show that additional cyclist and pedestrian commuters in the 800-meter buffer will avoid driving 127,000 miles per year, saving the community a total of $10,138.97 in air-pollution-related health costs. In the 1600-meter buffer, 197,000 vehicle miles will be avoided resulting in a savings of $15,766.88 (Table 12).
Table 12. Annual air pollution reduction cost savings Travel Buffer Mode 800-meter Bicycle Walk 115 131 2.26 0.7 2 2 192.8 144.6 $0.08 $0.08 $8,017.40 $2,121.57 $10,138.97 1600-meter Bicycle Walk 179 203 2.26 0.7 2 2 192.8 144.6 $0.08 $0.08 $12,479.25 $3,287.63 $15,766.88
Note: 1600-meter buffer estimations include the 800-meter buffer estimations (i.e. are not in addition to)
Additional Commuters
Average trip Length
Trips per Day
Days per Year
Cost Per Mile
Total
42
3.3.2 Congestion Reduction Congestion reduction was determined by the additional bicycle and pedestrian commuters established in demand calculations of each buffer zone multiplied by the estimated annual cost savings ($680.28 per commuter) of time spent sitting in a vehicle and the extra fuel (approximately 30% more) used by a vehicle when in congested conditions (Lomax et al. 2011; Litman and Doherty 2009). There will be an estimated 246 additional bicycle and pedestrian commuters living within an 800-meter span of the proposed Battery2Beach route. Combined, they will save $167,348.88 annually (Table 13). The additional 382 bicycle and pedestrian commuters living within 1600 meters of the Battery2Beach route will save an estimated $259,866.96 each year (Table 13).
Table 13. Annual congestion cost savings Buffer 800-meter Bicycle Walk Total 1600-meter Bicycle Walk Total 179 203 382 $121,770.12 $138,096.84 $259,866.96 115 131 246 $78,232.20 $89,116.68 $167,348.88 Travel Mode Additional Commuters Annual Savings
43
3.3.3 Direct Medical Care Cost Reduction from Physical Activity The additional bicycle and pedestrian commuters as well as the additional bicycle and pedestrian daily users were combined and multiplied by the estimated $658.10 saved annually per person to determine reduced direct medical care costs. For each buffer there is one estimate for additional bicycle commuters and one estimate for additional pedestrian commuters; on the other hand, a low, medium, and high estimate was determined for both the bicycle and pedestrian additional daily users. Each additional daily user rate was combined with the additional commuter estimates for each buffer to produce 6 valuations for the reduced direct medical care costs (Tables 14 and 15). The estimations range from $486,335.90 to $1,760,417.50 saved annually.
44
Table 14. 800-meter buffer annual medical care cost savings from physical activity Buffer/Rate 800/Low Bicycle Walk Total 800/Medium Bicycle Walk Total 800/High Bicycle Walk Total 115 131 246 694 786 1480 $532,402.90 $603,477.70 $1,135,880.60 115 131 246 346 392 738 $303,384.10 $344,186.30 $647,570.40 115 131 246 231 262 493 $227,702.60 $258,633.30 $486,335.90 Travel Mode Additional Commuters Additional Daily Users x $658.10
45
Table 15. 1600-meter buffer annual medical care cost savings from physical activity Buffer/Rate 1600/Low Bicycle Walk Total 1600/Medium Bicycle Walk Total 1600/High Bicycle Walk Total 179 203 382 1075 1218 2293 $825,257.40 $935,160.10 $1,760,417.50 179 203 382 536 608 1144 $470,541.50 $533,719.10 $1,004,260.60 179 203 382 358 405 763 $353,399.70 $400,124.80 $753,524.50 Travel Mode Additional Commuters Additional Daily Users x $658.10
3.3.4 Reduced Use of Gasoline (Natural Resources) Converting automobile trips to walking or bicycling will save consumers on fuel costs and reduce oil consumption overall. The additional commuters determined in the demand calculations were used to estimate the cost associated with the gasoline that will not be needed once the Battery2Beach is in place. Other data needed for this calculation includes (Fig. 3):
46
1. Average length of a bicycle trip = 2.7 miles 2. Average length of a walking trip = 0.7 miles 3. Number of trips per day (travel to work, then travel home = 2 trips) 4. Number of days per year a commuter walks (144.6) or bikes (192.8) to work 5. Average price for a gallon of gasoline in 2010 ($2.714 for the lower Atlantic region). 6. Average combined miles per gallon for all cars and light trucks on US roads (19.8 mpg).
This information was entered into the following equation: additional commuters average length of trip number of trips per day number of days ($2.714 per gallon/19.8 mpg) The results indicate that cyclists and pedestrians in the 800-meter buffer will save $17,362.98 per year in gasoline costs; while in the 1600-meter buffer, they will save $27,000.78 per year (Table 16).
47
Table 16. Annual gasoline cost savings Buffer Travel Mode Additional Commuters Average trip length Trips per day Days per year ($2.714 /19.8) Total
800-meter Bicycle Walk 115 131 2.26 0.7 2 2 192.8 144.6 $0.14 $0.14 $13,729.79 $3,633.19 $17,362.98 1600-meter Bicycle Walk 179 203 2.26 0.7 2 2 192.8 144.6 $0.14 $0.14 $21,370.72 $5,630.06 $27,000.78
3.3.5 Increased Tourism The estimated daily expenditure per bicycle tourist ($199.35) was divided into five spending categories based on the reported spending of Charleston tourists and then converted into a percentage (Table 17). These estimates were then multiplied by the 3.5 extra days of stay and by each of the 4 estimates of number of bicycle tourists. The resulting calculations were entered into the economic impact computer software program, IMPLAN, by the Center for Business Research at the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce (2011) (Table 18 and Appendix H). According to IMPLAN, the total economic impact of the 3.5 extra days bicycle tourists typically stay range from $10 million to $704 million per year with 117 to 8009 jobs produced and supported (Table 19) (Center for Business Research 2011).
48
Table 17. Tourism spending percentages Spending Category Accomodations Food & Beverages Local Transportation Tourist Attractions Shopping Total Charleston Tourists $84 $46 $29 $31 $37 $227 Percent 37% 20% 13% 14% 16% 100% Bicycle Tourists $73.77 $40.40 $25.47 $27.22 $32.49 $199.35
Source: Center for Business Research 2011
Table 18. Bicycle tourist spending Spending Category Accommodations Food & Beverages Local Transportation Tourist Attractions Shopping Total 680,000 Tourists $175,568,511 $96,144,661 $60,612,938 $64,793,141 $77,333,749 $474,453,000 102,000 Tourists $26,335,277 $14,421,699 $9,091,941 $9,718,971 $11,600,062 $71,167,950 40,800 Tourists $10,534,111 $5,768,680 $3,636,776 $3,887,588 $4,640,025 $28,467,180 10,200 Tourists $2,633,528 $1,442,170 $909,194 $971,897 $1,160,006 $7,116,795
Note: Calculations were done with the non-rounded daily expenditure estimates. Source: Center for Business Research 2011
49
Table 19. Battery2Beach tourism impacts Tourist Estimate 680,000 102,000 40,800 10,200
Jobs Produced 8009.7 1181.5 462.6 117.3
Total Impact (in 2011 dollars) $704,704,070 $103,848,111 $40,624,339 $10,331,039
3.3.6 Benefits Summary Using the most conservative estimates from each category, the Battery2Beach will provide annual benefits in excess of $11 million (Table 20). A mid-range estimate, using a medium estimate from each category, assesses the benefits at $42 million annually (Table 21). The Battery2Beach annual benefits using the highest estimates from each category are $706.7 million (Table 22).
Table 20. Battery2Beach low benefit summary Category Air Pollution Reduction (800-Meter Buffer) Congestion Reduction (800-Meter Buffer) Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures from Physical Activity (800-Meter/Low) Reduction in Use of Gasoline (800-Meter Buffer) Increased Tourism (10,200 Tourists) Total Annual Benefit $10,138.97 $167,348.88 $486,335.90 $17,362.98 $10,331,039.00 $11,012,225.73
50
Table 21. Battery2Beach medium benefit summary Category Air Pollution Reduction (1600-Meter Buffer) Congestion Reduction (1600-Meter Buffer) Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures from Physical Activity (800-Meter/High) Reduction in Use of Gasoline (1600-Meter Buffer) Increased Tourism (40,800 Tourists) Total Annual Benefit $15,766.88 $259,866.96 $1,135,880.60 $27,000.78 $40,624,339.00 $42,062,854.22
Table 22. Battery2Beach high benefit summary Category Air Pollution Reduction (1600-Meter Buffer) Congestion Reduction (1600-Meter Buffer) Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures from Physical Activity (1600-Meter/High) Reduction in Use of Gasoline (1600-Meter Buffer) Increased Tourism (680,000 Tourists) Total Annual Benefit $15,766.88 $259,866.96 $1,760,417.50 $27,000.78 $704,704,070.00 $706,767,122.12
51
3.4
Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio 3.4.1. Battery2Beach
The net present value (NPV) is the sum of the present value of all costs and benefits over the life of a project (Ward 2006). Using the lowest benefit estimation and the 20-year real interest rate (2.1%), the Battery2Beach NPV is $155 million (Table 23) (Budget Assumptions 2011). The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) using the same parameters is 9.32: 1, in other words, for every $1 invested in the Battery2Beach, Charleston will receive $9.32 in benefits (Fig. 6). When the net present value and benefit-cost ratio are calculated using the 30-year real interest rate (2.3%), the results are $151 million (Table 24) and 9.13: 1 (Fig. 7), respectively (Budget Assumptions 2011).
52
Table 23. Battery2Beach NPV using the 20-year real interest rate.
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Time Period 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Cash Flow ($) 0 0 0 (19,907,500.00) 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 19,907,500 (1+0.021)3 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)4 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)5 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)6 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)7 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)8 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)9 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)10 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)11 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)12 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)13 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)14 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)15 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)16 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)17 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)18 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)19 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)20 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)21 (18,704,215.53) 10,133,795.52 9,925,362.90 9,721,217.33 9,521,270.65 9,325,436.48 9,133,630.25 8,945,769.10 8,761,771.89 8,581,559.14 8,405,053.03 8,232,177.31 8,062,857.30 7,897,019.89 7,734,593.42 7,575,507.76 7,419,694.18 7,267,085.39 7,117,615.47 Equation Present Value ($)
53

Year 2033 2034 2035 Time Period 22 23 24 Cash Flow ($) 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 Equation 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)22 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)23 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)24 Present Value ($) 6,971,219.85 6,827,835.31 6,687,399.91
Net Present Value = $155,543,656.54

Note: Parentheses in the Cash Flow column denote an outflow or expense (vs. an inflow or benefit).
BCR
174,247,872.10a 18,704,215.53b
9.31596 1
= 9.32: 1
Figure 6. Battery2Beach BCR using the 20-year real interest rate.
Determined by summing the present value determinations from rows 2015-2035 (only the benefits) from Table 23.
b
The present value of B2B costs from Table 23, row 2014.
54
Table 24. Battery2Beach NPV using the 30-year real interest rate
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Time Period 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Cash Flow, $ 0 0 0 (19,907,500.00) 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 19,907,500 (1+0.023)3 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)4 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)5 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)6 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)7 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)8 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)9 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)10 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)11 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)12 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)13 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)14 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)15 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)16 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)17 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)18 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)19 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)20 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)21 (18,594,727.71) 10,054,779.94 9,828,719.40 9,607,741.35 9,391,731.52 9,180,578.22 8,974,172.26 8,772,406.90 8,575,177.81 8,382,383.00 8,193,922.78 8,009,699.69 7,829,618.46 7,653,585.98 7,481,511.23 7,313,305.21 7,148,880.94 6,988,153.42 6,831,039.51 Equation Present Value, $
55


Note: Parentheses in the Cash Flow column denote an outflow or expense (vs. an inflow or benefit)
BCR
169,802,771.10a 18,594,727.71b
9.13176 1
= 9.13: 1
Figure 7. Battery2Beach BCR using the 30-year real interest rate.
3.4.2.
Battery2Beach Plus Network Improvements
The Battery2Beach construction costs were calculated at $19.9 million. There are several segments of the route, however, that need improvement for everyone motorists included and will have to be renovated or replaced regardless of the implementation of the Battery2Beach. These network construction costs were estimated at $75 million. Even though the network costs will have to be addressed whether the Battery2Beach is built or not, the NPV and BCR were estimated including these costs in order to provide
b
56
full information and to encourage transportation planning that includes multiple modes of transportation. The net present value for the Battery2Beach plus the network costs using the 20 and 30-year real interest rates both show a net present value of over $80 million (Tables 25 and 26) (Budget Assumptions 2010). The benefit-cost ratios for the Battery2Beach plus the network improvements show an almost doubling of every dollar invested (1.95:1 and 1.92: 1) despite quadrupling the costs and estimating the benefits for only five benefit categories (Fig. 8 and 9).
57
Table 25.
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Battery2Beach + network NPV using the 20-year real interest rate

Time Period 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Cash Flow ($) 0 0 0 (94,907,500.00) 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 94,907,500 (1+0.021)3 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)4 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)5 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)6 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)7 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)8 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)9 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)10 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)11 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)12 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)13 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)14 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)15 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)16 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)17 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)18 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)19 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)20 11,012,225.73 (1+0.021)21 (89,170,932.31) 10,133,795.52 9,925,362.90 9,721,217.33 9,521,270.65 9,325,436.48 9,133,630.25 8,945,769.10 8,761,771.89 8,581,559.14 8,405,053.03 8,232,177.31 8,062,857.30 7,897,019.89 7,734,593.42 7,575,507.76 7,419,694.18 7,267,085.39 7,117,615.47 Equation Present Value ($)
58


BCR
174,247,872.10a 89,170,932.31b
1.95408 1
= 1.95: 1
Figure 8. Battery2Beach + network BCR using the 20-year real interest rate
b
59
Table 26. Battery2Beach + network NPV using the 30-year real interest rate
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Time Period 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Cash Flow ($) 0 0 0 (94,907,500.00) 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73 94,907,500 (1+0.023)3 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)4 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)5 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)6 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)7 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)8 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)9 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)10 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)11 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)12 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)13 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)14 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)15 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)16 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)17 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)18 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)19 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)20 11,012,225.73 (1+0.023)21 (88,648,957.45) 10,054,779.94 9,828,719.40 9,607,741.35 9,391,731.52 9,180,578.22 8,974,172.26 8,772,406.90 8,575,177.81 8,382,383.00 8,193,922.78 8,009,699.69 7,829,618.46 7,653,585.98 7,481,511.23 7,313,305.21 7,148,880.94 6,988,153.42 6,831,039.51 Equation Present Value ($)
60


BCR
169,802,771.10a 88,648,957.45b
1.91545 1
= 1.92: 1
Figure 9. Battery2Beach + network BCR using the 30-year real interest rate
b
61
4. Discussion 4.1 Additional Benefits The benefits quantified in this report were chosen due to the availability of areaspecific data and reliable methodology applicable to an on-road facility. They are not, by any means, all of the benefits gained by implementation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Other benefits include: 1. Parking Cost Savings: Charleston was built when transportation consisted of walking, horseback riding, and horse-drawn carriages. There is very limited space for parking lots and garages resulting in high parking costs. 2. Vehicle Cost Savings: operating and ownership costs of a sedan average $7,393 per year or 74 per mile (assuming 10,000 miles driven per year) (AAA Association Communications 2010). These costs increase if more miles are driven and for larger vehicles, such as SUVs and minivans (AAA Association Communications 2010). 3. Travel Time Cost (Possible Savings): in general, non-motorized transportation requires more time to reach a destination; however, whether it is considered a cost or benefit depends on the individual and travel conditions (e.g. a person may find a scenic walk on a maintained sidewalk that takes an extra 5-10 minutes preferable to sitting in traffic) (Litman 2004). 4. Noise Pollution: motorized traffic produces more noise than non-motorized transportation, especially in densely populated areas where residences are close to roads (Litman 2004; Nelson 1995; Rowell and Fergusson 1991).
62
5. Reduced Obesity: 17% of United States children and adolescents are obese (Obesity and Overweight for Adults 2011). In 2010, 31.5% of adults in South Carolina were obese (Obesity and Overweight for Adults 2011). Walking and cycling are two of the most effective and practical ways to be physically active, especially for people who are inactive or overweight (Litman 2004). 6. Accident Cost: car accidents cost Americans $162 billion every year, or about $1,000 per person (Clifford 2008). Road users tend to be more cautious in areas where they expect to encounter walkers and cyclists, decreasing the probability of an accident with cyclists, pedestrians, and other vehicles (Litman 2004). 7. Community Livability and Social Benefits: the United States Department of Transportation identifies bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access compatible with other community characteristics to reduce the reliance on motor vehicles as one of six qualities necessary for a livable community (Florida Department of Transportation). Bicycling and walking, as opposed to driving, allow for more interactions between neighbors and tend to have an increase in community involvement (Litman 2004). 8. Improved Mobility for Non-Drivers: the elderly, children, and those who cannot afford an automobile must often rely on others for transportation. This limits their independence and ability to be fully productive members of the community.
63
9. Land-Use Development: bicycle and walking facilities decrease the amount of space needed for paved roads, parking lots, and parking garages (Litman 2004). This allows for more compact development patterns resulting in less money spent on public services, as a house built on the urban fringe is estimated to require an additional $10,000 in public services as compared to a house located in the urban core (The Ahwahnee Principles 1998, as cited in Snyder). 10. User Enjoyment: many people enjoy walking and bicycling for recreation. The ability to safely walk or bicycle for daily transportation needs provides these enjoyment benefits as well (Litman 2004).
These ten benefits and the five benefits monetized for this analysis do not provide a complete list of the benefits of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. They are merely a few of the many possible benefits of providing safe, non-motorized transportation options.
4.2 Summary The goal of this analysis was to provide a sound comparison of the costs and benefits of the Battery2Beach multi-use path. The cost methodology followed was the same as that used by professional civil engineers and utilized the most recent and areaspecific construction costs as possible. A conservative demand methodology and realistic benefit estimates were chosen because an overestimation of the benefits could lead to
64
decisions contrary to the communitys best interest and a distrust of future analyses. For the same reasons, an underestimation of benefits is equally disadvantageous. Therefore, a concerted effort was made to produce a reliable and accurate analysis. The intention of which is to effect transportation infrastructure planning in a way that will improve the community for everyone. The Cost-Benefit results indicate that, over a 20-year lifespan, the five benefits estimated in the analysis (air pollution reduction, congestion reduction, direct medical care cost reduction from physical activity, reduced use of gasoline, and increased tourism) exceed construction costs of the Battery2Beach even when network improvement costs (areas that need improvement regardless of the implementation of the Battery2Beach) are included. This is valuable information that should be presented to stakeholders, the public, and decision makers. In order to implement the Battery2Beach, the South Carolina Department of Transportation, Charleston County, City of Charleston, Town of Mount Pleasant, Town of Sullivans Island, Town of Isle of Palms, and Town of Folly Beach must all agree to the proposed route. The inclusion of the Battery2Beach in the Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Council of Governments Transportation Plan would aid in this endeavor, as would the support of RoadWise (a Charleston County transportation management program that oversees spending of a voter-approved half-cent sales tax). Investments in transportation in many urban areas are motivated by the need to alleviate increasing traffic congestion (Weisbrod et al., 2001). By creating an environment that is safe for one to walk or bicycle to work, the Battery2Beach multi-use
65
path will help reduce the number of vehicles on the road, thus alleviating congested conditions, providing many other benefits, and limiting the need for new and wider roads. Charleston Moves envisions the Battery2Beach path to serve as a backbone for future bicycle and walking paths to branch off from providing connections to many additional neighborhoods and increasing the quality of life for all Charleston residents and visitors. In every situation analyzed in the Battery2Beach cost-benefit analysis, over a 20-year lifespan, the five monetized benefits exceed construction costs indicating that inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in transportation planning is an economically sound decision that will enhance the Charleston area and enrich the community.
66
References "2001 National Household Travel Survey." U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2001. Web. July 2010. <http://nhts.ornl.gov>. "2009 NHTS Average Person Trip Length by Mode and Purpose." National Household Travel Survey. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web. 27 June 2011. <http://nhts.ornl.gov/tables09/fatcat /2009/aptl_TRPTRANS_WHYTRP1S.html>. AAA Association Communications. Your Driving Costs: How Much Are You Really Paying to Drive? Rep. American Automobile Association (AAA), 2010. Web. Oct. 2011. <http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/201048935480.Driving %20Costs%202010.pdf>. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010. Web. Aug. 2010. <http://www.sccrtc.org/bikes/AASHTO_1999_BikeBook.pdf>. The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart Economic Growth. Local Government Commission, 1998. Barnes, Gary, and Kevin Krizek. Tools for Predicting Usage and Benefits of Urban Bicycle Network Improvements. Rep. no. MN/RC-2005-50. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dec. 2005. Web. May 2010. <http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200550.pdf>. Bicycle Level of Service: Applied Model. Sprinkle Consulting, Inc., Apr. 2007. Web. Sept. 2010. Birk, Mia. "RE: Literature Review: Economic Benefits of Bicycling." Letter to Linda Ginenthal. 5 Jan. 2006. Alta Planning and Design. 2006. Web. May 2011. <http://www.altaplanning .com/App_Content/files/pres_stud_docs/ economic_ benefits_of_bicycling.pdf>. "Budget Assumptions." The White House. Office of Management and Budget, 15 Dec. 2010. Web. Oct.-Nov. 2011. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files /omb/assets/a94/dischist.pdf>. Center for Business Research. Bicycle Tourism Outer Banks Applied in Charleston, SC Model. Sept. 2011. Benefits-transfer analysis using MIG Inc. IMPLAN Model 3.0. Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, Charleston, SC. "Charleston, SC Economic Profile." Charleston Regional Development Alliance. 18 July 2011. Web. 4 Aug. 2011. <http://charlestoneconomicdevelopment.com>.
67
"Circular No. A-94 Revised." The White House. Office of Management and Budget. Web. Nov. 2011. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/>. Clifford, Catherine. "U.S. Car Accident Cost $164.2 Billion." CNNMoney - Business, Financial and Personal Finance News. CNN, Mar. 2008. Web. Nov. 2011. <http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/economy/AAA_study/>. "Economic Multiplier Effect Makes Transportation Tops." Construction, Building & Engineering News: ENR. Dec. 2008. Web. Nov. 2011. <http://enr.construction. com /opinions/editorials/2008/1210-TransportationTops.asp>. Florida Department of Transportation. "Selected Definitions/Characteristics of Community Livability." Florida Department of Transportation. Web. Nov. 2011. <http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/sis/phase2/steering/groups/CE/materials/liva bilitydef.pdf>. Hawk, Roger. Salem Pedestrian/Bicycle Corridor Demand Analysis. Rep. Southern New Hampshire Rail Trail Alliance, 4 Sept. 2009. Web. Feb. 2011. <http://www.snhrta .org>. "Highway Statistics 2005." Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. Web. June 2011. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim /hs05 /index.htm>. "How Many People Walk?" Walkinginfo.org. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Web. Sept. 2011. Hughes, David W. "Policy Uses of Economic Multiplier and Impact Analysis." Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm and Resource Issues 2 (2003). University of Minnesota. American Agricultural Economics Association, 2003. Web. Nov. 2011. <http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/93725/2/2003-2-06.pdf>. Inkpen, Rob. "Atmospheric Pollution, Climate Change and Historic Buildings." Building Conservation Directory (2004). Buildingconservation.com. 2004. Web. Oct. 2011. Jacobson, Sheldon H., and Douglas M. King. "Measuring the Potential for Automobile Fuel Savings in the US: The Impact of Obesity." Transportaion Research Part D: Transport and Environment 14.1 (2009): 6-13. Science Direct. Web. 8 June 2011. Krizek, Kevin J., Gary Barnes, Gavin Poindexter, Paul Mogush, Kristin Thompson, David Levinson, Nebiyou Tilahun, David Loutzenheiser, Don Kidston, William Hunter, Dwayne Tharpe, Zoe Gillenwater, and Richard Killingsworth. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Rep. no. 552. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2006. Web. Aug. 2010.
68
Lawrie, Judson, John Guenther, Thomas Cook, Mary Paul Meletiou, and Sarah Worth O'Brien. Pathways to Prosperity: The Economic Impact of Investment in Bicycle Facilities: A Case Study of the North Carolina Northern Outer Banks. Tech. Institute for Transportation Research and Education, 2004. Web. Leigh, Benjamin. "Employing the Bicycle Level of Service Standard to the Charleston Regional Transportation Infrastructure." Thesis. College of Charleston, 2007. Litman, Todd. "Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits and Costs." Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2 Oct. 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2011. <http://www.vtpi.org/ nmt-tdm.pdf>. Litman, Todd, and Eric Doherty. Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications. 2nd ed. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2009. Web. June 2011. <http://www.vtpi.org/tca/>. Litman, Todd. Quantifying the Benefits of Nonmotorized Transportation For Achieving Mobility Management Objectives. Rep. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2004. Web. 2011. <http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf>. Lomax, Tim, David Schrank, Shawn Turner, Lauren Geng, Yingfeng Li, and Nick Koncz. Real-Timing the 2010 Urban Mobility Report. Rep. no. UTCM 10-65-55. U.S. Department of Transportation: Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Feb. 2011. Web. June 2011. McCarthy, Deborah. Wonder's Way Path: A Successful Model for Facilitating Active Living in the Lowcountry South Carolina. Rep. College of Charleston, Feb. 2009. Provided by D. McCarthy through Personal Email. June 2010. McCubbin, Donald R., and Mark A. Delucchi. "The Health Costs of Motor-VehicleRelated Air Pollution." Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 33.3 (1999): 253-86. Provided by M. Delucchi through Personal Email. Oct. 2011. Miller, Stephen. "Survey: Corporate Practices for Paid Time Off." SHRM Online Society for Human Resource Management. 7 July 2010. Web. 13 Sept. 2011. <http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/PTOPractices.aspx>. Moritz, William. "Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters: Design and Aggregate Results." Transportation Research Record 1578.1 (1997): 91-101. Transportation Research Board. National Academy of Sciences, 1997. Web. 13 Sept. 2011. Nel, A. "Air Pollution-Related Illness: Effects of Particles." Science 308.5723 (2005): 804-06. Science. 2005. Web. Nov. 2011
69
Nelson, A. C. "Private Provision of Public Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Ways." Transportation Research Record 1502 (1995): 96-104. Print. "Obesity and Overweight for Adults: Data and Statistics: U.S. Obesity Trends." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. July 2011. Web. Nov. 2011. <http://www. cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html>. Office of Tourism Analysis, College of Charleston. Estimation of Tourism Economic Impacts in the Charleston Area 2010. Rep. Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, 2011. Web. June 2011. <http://chaschamber.com/images/stories/ PDF/2011VisitorImpact.pdf>. Petritsch, Theodore A., Peyton S. McLeod, Bruce W. Landis, and Douglas S. McLeod. Pedestrian Level of Service Model for Urban Streets. Rep. no. 10-1186. Transportation Research Board, 2010. Web. Oct. 2010. Poindexter, Gavin, Kevin J. Krizek, Gary Barnes, and Kristen Thompson. Optimization of Transportation Investment: Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Refining Methods for Estimating the Effect of Bicycle Infrastructure on Use and Property Values. Rep. no. MRUTC 06-07. U.S. Department of Transportation: Research and Innovative Technology Administration, June 2007. Web. May 2011. Pratt, Michael, Caroline A. Macera, and Guijing Wang. "Higher Direct Medical Costs Associated with Physical Activity." Physicians and Sportsmedicine 28.10 (2000): 63-70. Web. May 2011. Rowell, Andrew, and Malcolm Fergusson. Bikes Not Fumes: the Emission and Health Benefits of a Modal Shift from Motor Vehicles to Cycling. Rep. Cyclists' Touring Club, 1991. Web. Oct. 2011. <http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10298>. Saelensminde, Kjartan. "Cost-benefit Analyses of Walking and Cycling Track Networks Taking into Account Insecurity, Health Effects, and External Costs of Motorized Traffic." Transportation Research Part A 38 (2004): 593-606. Science Direct. Web. June 2011. "Sidewalks and Walkways." Walkinginfo.org. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center within the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. Web. Sept.-Oct. 2010. <http://www.walkinginfo.org/engineering/roadwaysidewalks.cfm>. Snyder, Ryan. The Economic Value of Active Transportation. Los Angeles: Ryan Snyder Associates, LLC. PDF.
70
Strategic Marketing & Research, Inc. "Outer Banks Visitors Bureau: Visitors Research Wave 4-2006." Outerbanks.org. Outer Banks Visitors Bureau, Sept. 2006. Web. Sept. 2011. Treshow, Michael, and Franklin K. Anderson. Plant Stress from Air Pollution. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1991. Print. Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation. Rep. American Public Health Association, Feb. 2010. Web. Aug. 2011. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rep. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1996. Web. 2011. <http://www.cdc.gov/ nccdphp/sgr/pdf/prerep.pdf>. Van Grieken, R., F. Delalieux, and K. Gysels. "Cultural Heritage and the Environment." Pure and Applied Chemistry 70.12 (1998): 2327-331. International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Web. Oct. 2011. Wang, Guijing, Caroline A. Macera, Barbara Scudder-Soucie, Tom Schmid, Michael Pratt, and David Buchner. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Physical Activity Using Bike/Pedestrian Trails." Health Promotion Practice 6.2 (2005): 174-79. Sage Publications. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. Warburton, Darren E.R., Crystal Whitney Nicol, and Shannon S.D. Bredin. "Health Benefits of Physical Activity: The Evidence." Canadian Medical Association Journal 174.6 (2006): 801-09. Canadian Medical Association Journal. Canadian Medical Association, 14 Mar. 2006. Web. Sept. 2011. Ward, Frank A. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006. Print. "Weekly Lower Atlantic (PADD 1C) Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices." Petroleum and Other Liquids. United States Energy Information Administration, 31 May 2011. Web. June 2011. <http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler. ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_ EPMR_PTE_R1Z_DPG&f=W>. Weisbrod, Glen, Teresa Lynch, and Michael Meyer. Monetary Valuation per Dollar of Investment in Different Performance Measures. Rep. no. 08-36-61. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Feb. 2007. Web. May 2011.
71
Additional Resources American Community Survey Bicycle Commuting Trends, 2000 to 2008. Rep. League of American Bicyclists, Sept. 2009. Web. <http://www.bikeleague.org /resources/reports/pdfs/acs_commuting_trends.pdf>. Argys, Laura M., and H. Naci Mocan. "Bicycling and Walking in Colorado." Colorado Department of Transportation. Colorado Department of Transportation Bicycle/Pedestrian Program, Apr. 2000. Web. <http://www.coloradodot.info/ programs/bikeped/bike-walk-study/executive-summary/execsummary.pdf>. Bowker, J.M., John C. Bergstrom, and Joshua Gill. "Estimating the Economic Value and Impacts of Recreational Trails: a Case Study of the Virginia Creeper Rail Trail." Tourism Economics 13.2 (2007): 241-60. Print. Bridging the Gaps in Bicycling Networks: An Advocate's Guide to Getting Bikes on Bridges. Rep. League of American Bicyclists. Web. <http://www.bikeleague.org /resources/reports/pdfs/bridges.pdf>. Buis, Jeron. "The Economic Significance of Cycling." Velo Mondial. Interface for Cycling Expertise I-ce, The Netherlands, 2000. Web. <http://www.velomondial .net/velomondiall2000/PDF/BUIS.PDF>. Burden, Dan, and Peter Lagerwey. Road Diet: Fixing the Big Roads. Rep. Walkable Communities, Inc., 1999. Web. <http://www.walkable.org/assets/downloads/ roaddiets.pdf>. Burden, Dan. "Building Communities With Transportation." Transportation Research Board Distinguished Lectureship. Washington, DC. 10 Jan. 2001. New Hampshire State Government. Transportation Research Board. Web. <http://www.nh.gov/ dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/contextsensitivesolutions/documents/ DanBUrdenBuildingCommunitieswithTransportation.pdf>. Climate Change and Bicycling: How Bicycling Advocates Can Help Craft Comprehensive Climate Action Plans. Rep. League of American Bicyclists. Web. <http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/climate_change_bicycling. pdf>. Drennen, Emily. Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses. Rep. San Francisco State University, Dec. 2003. Web. <http://www.emilydrennen.org /TrafficCalming_full.pdf>. Everett, M., and J. Dorman. "New Approach to Economic Evaluation of Labor-Intensive Transportation Systems." Transportation Research Record 599 (1976). Print. Everett, M. "Measuring the Economic Value of Exercise in Labor-Intensive Urban Transportation Systems." Transportation Research Record 599 (1976). Print.
72
Fix, Peter, and John Loomis. "Comparing the Economic Value of Mountain Biking Estimated Using Revealed and Stated Preference." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41.2 (1998): 227-36. Print. Fix, Peter, and John Loomis. "The Economic Benefits of Mountain Biking at One of Its Meccas." Journal of Leisure Research 29 (1997). Print. Frank, Lawrence D. "Economic Determinants of Urban FormResulting Trade-offs between Active and Sedentary Forms of Travel." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27.3 (2004): 146-53. UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA. 2008. Web. <https:// woc.uc.pt/fcdef/course/MLDLELDL/2008-2009/AM%20J%20PREV%20MED %202004%20eco%20PA-Frank.pdf>. Garcia, Claudia, Parish Chandra, and Matthew Yi. Inner Sydney Regional Bicycle Network. Rep. no. 60143266. Ed. Katie Feeney. City of Sydney, Apr. 2010. Web. <http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/aboutsydney/parkingandtransport/cycling/ EcononmicResearchCycling.asp>. Hopkinson, P., and M. Wardman. "Evaluating the Demand for New Cycle Facilities." Transport Policy 3.4 (1996): 241-49. Elsevier. Web. <http://www.elsevier.com>. Lindsey, G., and D. B. L. Nguyen. "Use of Greenway Trails in Indiana." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 130.4 (2004). Print. Lindsey, G., J. Man, S. Payton, and K. Dickson. "Amenity and Recreation Values of Urban Greenways." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 22.3 (2004): 69-90. Print. Lindsey, Greg. "Sustainability and Urban Greenways: Indicators in Indianapolis." Journal of the American Planning Association 69.2 (2003): 165-80. Print. Litman, Todd. "Economic Value of Walkability." Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2002. Web. <http://www.vtpi.org/walkability .pdf>. Litman, Todd. Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts. Rep. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Dec. 1999. Web. <http://www.vtpi.org>. Maine Department of Transportation. "Bicycle Tourism in Maine." Maine.gov. 2001. Web. <www.maine.gov/mdot/opt/pdf/biketourismexecsumm.pdf>. Meyer, Michael D. "Crashes vs. Congestion Whats the Cost to Society?" AAA Newsroom. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Mar. 2008. Web. <http://www.aaanews room.net>. Moore, R. L., R. J. Gitelson, and A. R. Graefe. "The Economic Impact of Rail-Trails." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 12.2 (1994). Print.
73
Moore, Roger L., and Kelly Barthlow. The Economic Impacts and Uses of Long-distance Trails: Featuring a Case Study of the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail. [Alexandria, Va.]: Service, 1998. Print. Poindexter, Gavin, Kevin J. Krizek, Gary Barnes, and Kristen Thompson. Guidelines for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities: Refining Methods for Estimating the Effect of Bicycle Infrastructure on Use and Property Values. Rep. no. MRUTC 06-07. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2007. Web. <http://minds.wisconsin. edu/handle/1793/53917?show=full>. Pucher, John, and Lewis Dijkstra. "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe." Transportation Quarterly 54.3 (2000). Rutgers University. Web. <http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/MakingWalkingAndCyclingSafer_TQ20 00.pdf>. Saelens, Brian E., James F. Sallis, and Lawrence D. Frank. "Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling: Findings from the Transportation, Urban Design, and Planning Literatures." Annals of Behavioral Medicine 25.2 (2003): 80-91. Rafapana. Web. <http://www.rafapana.org/curso_agitamundo/arquivos/090513 _archivo19.pdf>. Saelensminde, Kjartan, Lars B. Andersen, and Harry Rutter. CBA of Cycling. Rep. Ed. Gunnar Lind. Nordic Council of Ministers, TemaNord, 2005. Web. <http://www. norden.org/da/publikationer/publikationer/2005-556/>. Vogt, Christine, Charles Nelson, and Joel Lynch. A Case Study Measuring Economic and Community Benefits of Michigans Pere Marquette Rail-Trail. Rep. Michigan State University Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, 2002. Web. <http://www.michigantrails.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/msu-peremarquette-survey.pdf>.
74
Appendix A Garrett Wonders Cyclist's death won't be forgotten around Lowcountry Published on 03/16/04 By David Quick Of The Post and Courier Staff People who run, bike or walk along Lowcountry roads were given a grim reminder last week of how they are always at the mercy of those driving motor vehicles on those roads. Aspiring professional cyclist and Naval nuclear instructor Garrett Patrick Wonders, 25, was killed on March 10 when a pickup truck driven by Theodore Borck, 50, of Moncks Corner, hit Wonders while he was cycling on the edge of a road known as "Old (U.S.) Highway 52" near the Oakley subdivision, six miles south of Moncks Corner. Friends, family and total strangers, including cyclists from as far away as Maine, have expressed concern, even outrage, that no charges have been filed against Borck. The decision whether to charge Borck awaits a meeting between the S.C. Highway Patrol Trooper J.T. Manley and Ninth Circuit Deputy Solicitor Blair Jennings, who is currently tied up in a murder trial that could run on for days. Lance Cpl. Paul Brouthers, the patrol's spokesman, said that meeting should take place "sometime this week" but couldn't be more specific. Since Wonders death, the Coastal Cyclists group e-mail has been busy with discussion of the tragedy and the state's legal system, which some think ignores their safety. Regardless of opinion, Charleston's cycling community is watching very closely to see how this case is handled. While they wait, his friends have organized several efforts to honor his life. Wonders was buried in his home state of Ohio. -- First, they are encouraging people to donate money to the Garrett Wonders Memorial Fund, started by his 26-year-old wife, Terri Wonders, and his family. They plan to use the fund to create a scholarship at Ohio State University, where Garrett earned a masters in nuclear engineering and led the Buckeyes cycling team. The fund also may be used for bicycling safety initiatives. Those wanting to contribute can mail gifts to: Garrett Wonders Memorial Fund, South Carolina Federal Credit Union, PO Box 190012, North Charleston, S.C., 29419-9012. Be sure to reference the account number, 1154012-00.
A-1
-- Friends will gather for a memorial service Friday. See www.coastalcyclists.org for the exact time and location. -- Also, local cyclists are encouraged to go down to Hampton Park at 8 a.m. Saturday for a Garrett Wonders Memorial Ride. Family members will join cyclists who routinely start Saturday training rides from the park for several laps around the park in his memory. Afterward, groups will depart for their usual rides. -- Similar to road races honoring runners Dr. Charlie Post and Laura Griffin, Coastal Cyclists president John Glover said the club is pondering the creation of the Garrett Wonders Century Ride and a committee to specifically address bicycle safety in the Lowcountry. -- Back in Ohio, the Savage Hill Cycling Team already have named a race the Garrett Wonders Memorial Criterium for him. The race will be July 17. According to www.savagehillcycling.com, Wonders had strong ties with the Westerville Bike Shop and the central-Ohio cycling community. Proceeds of the race will go to the memorial fund. Source: http://archives.postandcourier.com/archive/arch04/0304/arc03161635841.shtml
Bike lane dedication tops week of bicycle events Published on 05/15/06 By David Quick The Post and Courier The widow and family of the late Garrett Patrick Wonders, an aspiring professional cyclist killed while on a training ride by a man driving a truck near Moncks Corner in March 2004, will arrive in Charleston this week for the dedication of the popular bike and pedestrian path on the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge in Wonders' name. The dedication of the Garrett P. Wonders Memorial Bicycle-Pedestrian Way, or Wonders Way, at 6 p.m. Wednesday on the Mount Pleasant side of the bridge will be one of several events held this week that focus on bicycles. "We're so excited," said Terri Wonders-Abney, who has remarried and now lives in Cherry Hill, N.J. "It's huge to have something like that (a bike lane on a major bridge) named for a cyclist ... I especially like it because the bike lane gets used so much." Local Coastal Cyclist bike club member Betsy Reves has worked with Wonders-Abney on numerous initiatives to promote bicycle awareness in the Lowcountry in two years since Wonders' death, including the installation of "Share the Road" bike caution signs,
A-2
holding two memorial bike rides and lobbying legislators to have the bike lane named for Wonders. "Wonders Way is not only meant to keep Garrett's legacy alive, but is also to serve as a reminder that the road should be shared by cars and cyclists," said Reves. Following the dedication ceremony, local cyclists are invited to participate in a bike ride called "Ride of Silence" from the ceremony site, down East Bay Street, to Murray Boulevard and up Ashley Avenue to end at Hampton Park. The ride is expected to draw a large number of cyclists and is just one of more than 200 in the United States and six other countries scheduled for the Ride of Silence, an event that originated in Dallas just three years ago to honor those who have been killed or injured while riding bikes on public roadways. The Ride Of Silence is a free ride that asks its cyclists to ride no faster than 12 mph and remain silent during the ride. It is a chance to mourn, in funeral procession style, those who have been killed. Riders who know someone who has been killed while riding a bike will wear black armbands, while those who have been hit while riding will wear red armbands. Local bicycling and pedestrian advocate Dr. Donald Sparks, president of Charleston Moves, says the ride is an important reminder that South Carolina, and Charleston in particular, is "one of the most deadly places in America to ride a bike." Sparks himself was hit by a car in downtown Charleston in October 2005 and broke his wrist. "While we've made great strides in the last five to 10 years, we've still got a long way to go. Hopefully this ride will remind us of the dangers and the challenges that face us ahead." Meanwhile, many cyclists remain dedicated to encouraging the use of the bike on roadways not only for exercise but, appropriately in this day of rising gas prices, for transportation. The Washington, D.C.-based League of American Bicyclists promotes the month of May as National Bike Month, this week as Bike-to-Work Week, and Friday as Bike-to-Work Day. Source: http://archives.postandcourier.com/archive/arch06/0506/arc05153110433.shtml
A-3
Appendix B BLOS & PLOS Formulas The Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) is calculated using the following formula: 0.507 ln(Vol15/Ln) + 0.199 SPt(1+10.38HV)2 + 7.066(1/PR5)2 - 0.055 We2 + 0.760 The variables that determine the outcome of the equation are: Width of the Travel Lane (0.055 We2+ 0.760) Traffic Volume (Vol15/Ln) Pavement Quality (7.066(1/PR5)2) Traffic Speed and the percent of Heavy Vehicles (0.199 SP t(1+10.38HV)2)
The Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) is calculated using the following formula: -1.2276 ln[(Wol + Wl + 0.2 %OSP + fb Wb + fsw Ws) + 0.0091(Vol15/L)] + 0.0004 SPt + 6.0468 The variables in the equation are: Width of the Outside Lane (Wol) Width of the Shoulder or Bicycle Lane (Wl) Effect of the percentage of On-street Parking (0.2 %OSP) Buffer area barrier co-efficient (fb) Buffer width (Wb) Sidewalk presence coefficient (fsw) Width of sidewalk (Ws) Traffic Volume (Vol15/L) Traffic Speed (SPt) Sources: Bicycle Level of Service 2007; Petritsch et al. 2010
A-4
Appendix C Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or MUTCD defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public traffic. The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 655, Subpart F.
The traffic control devices (TCD) are very critical for the safe and efficient transportation of people and goods. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), by setting minimum standards and providing guidance, ensures uniformity of traffic control devices across the nation. The use of uniform TCDs (messages, location, size, shapes, and colors) helps reduce crashes and congestion, and improves the efficiency of the surface transportation system. Uniformity also helps reduce the cost of TCDs through standardization. The information contained in the MUTCD is the result of either years of practical experience, research, and/or the MUTCD experimentation process. This effort ensures that TCDs are visible, recognizable, understandable, and necessary. The MUTCD is a dynamic document that changes with time to address contemporary safety and operational issues.
The MUTCD, which has been administered by the FHWA since 1971, is a compilation of national standards for all traffic control devices, including road markings, highway signs, and traffic signals. It is updated periodically to accommodate the nation's changing transportation needs and address new safety technologies, traffic control tools and traffic management techniques. Source: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm
A-5
Appendix D Individual Segment Construction Cost Estimates A detailed individual construction cost estimate was prepared for each of the 65 segments of the primary route. The estimates are included below. Segment ID numbers are not consecutive because all segments (primary, alternate, and interim) were numbered according to geographic location first (the hundreds place-value) and then sequentially starting at either end of the Wonders Way Path on the Cooper River Bridge. The details of modifications and associated construction costs are located on each cost estimate sheet and in Table 1. Source: Citadel ASCE 2011
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
A-26
A-27
A-28
A-29
A-30
A-31
A-32
A-33
A-34
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-38
A-39
A-40
A-41
A-42
A-43
A-44
A-45
A-46
A-47
A-48
A-49
A-50
A-51
A-52
A-53
A-54
A-55
A-56
A-57
A-58
A-59
A-60
A-61
A-62
A-63
A-64
A-65
A-66
A-67
A-68
A-69
A-70
A-71
Appendix E Battery2Beach Alternate Routes 1. Fort Johnson Rd. Alternative #1: Dills Bluff The Dills Bluff alternative would turn from Harbor View Rd. onto North Shore Dr. just after crossing the James Island Creek Bridge. From North Shore Dr., the path would turn onto Dills Bluff Rd. where it would remain until turning onto Camp Rd. The path would only be on Camp Rd. for approximately 700-800 feet before turning onto Farmington Rd. From Farmington Rd., the path would turn onto Honeysuckle Ln. and follow this street until it intersects with the segment of Farmington Rd. that connects to Secessionville Rd. There are no sidewalks currently in place on any of these streets. Alternative #2: Folly Rd. The second alternative would be to use Folly Rd. from the Wappoo Bridge to Folly Island. This is a high traffic thoroughfare that would require construction. Bike lanes have recently been added to several areas of Folly Rd. There are intermittent sidewalks and a bike path is available close to Folly Island. Alternative #3: Central Park Rd./Riverland Dr./Grimball Rd. The third alternative to Fort Johnson Rd. would be to use Folly Rd. from the Wappoo Bridge and turn onto Central Park Rd. just before passing the James Island Connector. The path would turn onto Riverland Dr. from Central Park Rd. and pass by the James Island County Park. From Riverland Dr., the path would turn onto Grimball Rd. for a short distance before turning back onto Folly Rd. Central Park Rd. currently
A-72
has a sidewalk on one side of the street that would need minor improvements. Riverland Dr. only has a small section of sidewalk on one side of the street near the entrance of James Island County Park. Grimball Rd. would need approximately 70 feet of sidewalk added to connect the current sidewalk to the intersection of Grimball and Riverland. 2. Folly Rd. South of Wappoo Bridge (from Maybank Hwy. to Tatum St.) (Segment ID 401) Alternative: Charleston Country Club The alternative route would use Cheves Dr. until it meets Tatum St. where a path would be built through to the cul-de-sac of Picard Way. There is approximately 150 feet between the corner of Cheves/Tatum and the cul-de-sac. There is one house in the Picard Way cul-de-sac on the opposite side from where the path would enter. The path would cut through trees and shrubbery, and avoid private property. A sidewalk would be added to one side of Picard Way along with Battery2Beach signs and bicycle/car sharrows. From Picard Way, the Battery2Beach would then turn onto Country Club Dr. A 10 foot multi-use path would be added to the north side of Country Club Dr. along with Battery2Beach signs. The path would stay on Country Club Dr. until it intersects with Folly Rd. just before the Wappoo Bridge. 3. Folly Rd. North of Wappoo Bridge (Segment ID 126, 127) Alternative: Albemarle Rd. to Broughton Rd. cul-de-sac If crossing the Wappoo Bridge going towards Windermere Shopping Center, this alternative would turn right onto Broughton Rd. Broughton Rd. currently ends in a culde-sac, but there is a paved path connecting the cul-de-sac to Albemarle Rd, which would
A-73
need improvement and signs. The Battery2Beach path would stay on Albemarle Rd. passing by the Porter-Gaud School. Albemarle has a sidewalk along most of its length and would only require a small section of sidewalk, signs, and sharrows for bicycles. Broughton Rd. would need sidewalks, sharrows, and signs. 4. Washington St.: Passenger Terminal Alternative #1: 1 way pair A one-way pair of bike lanes would be added on East Bay St. and Washington St. Alternative #2: Concord St. If exiting off of the Cooper River Bridge, take East Bay St. to Washington St. From Washington St., turn onto Charlotte St. then Concord St. Charlotte St. has a sidewalk on one side of the street. Concord St. has sidewalks on both sides of the street for most of the way, and on one side of the street for a small section. Washington St. has a sidewalk on one side of the street. Bike lanes or sharrows would need to be implemented, as well as signs. 5. Palm Blvd. There is already a bike path on one side of Palm Blvd. Rather than adding another bike path/lane on the other side of Palm Blvd., a 1 way pair of bike lanes could be constructed by adding the opposite direction bike path on Carolina Blvd. A sidewalk is currently in place on Ocean Blvd. from 6 th Ave. to 14th Ave. Instead of constructing an entirely new sidewalk, the sidewalk on Ocean Blvd could be continued from 6th Ave back to Palm Blvd. This would require that the sidewalk cut through the Ocean Blvd. cul-de-sac to Palm Blvd.
A-74
Appendix F Battery2Beach Route: Scheduled for Improvement By Citadel ASCE 2011 Members 1. Folly Rd. (SC 171) Bridge Replacement Projects - The South Carolina Department of Transportation has completed engineering designs for bridge replacements over Folly River and Sol Legare Creek. Construction contracts should be awarded in 2012 and projects completed in 2013. The new bridges will provide 5-ft. bike lanes and 5ft. sidewalks as shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Folly Road bridge replacements
2. Harbor View Road Improvements - Charleston County Roadwise has completed the engineering design for this project that will provide curb and gutter, a sidewalk and 10-ft. wide multi-use path (or bike lanes).
A-75
3. Washington St. Improvements - South Carolina State Port Authority is in the process of developing plans for a new cruise ship passenger terminal. Site improvements would include modifications to the surrounding street network. The possibility of creating a one-way pair with East Bay St. (southbound) and Washington St. (northbound) has been discussed. This could potentially provide additional roadway space for bicycle and pedestrians. At the very least, Concord St. will be reconnected and Washington St. will be improved. These proposed roadway projects could be used to better accommodate the Battery2Beach route and greatly improve this critical link between the Battery/Historic District and Cooper River Bridge. 4. Coleman Blvd. Revitalization Master Plan - The Town of Mt. Pleasant published a master plan for the Coleman Boulevard corridor extending from the Cooper River Bridge to Center St. Although the primary focus of the study was on land use changes, transportation issues were also included and recommendations to modify the roadway to better accommodate non-motorized travel was also addressed in the planning level document. 5. Ben Sawyer Blvd. Causeway Improvements - The Towns of Mt. Pleasant and Sullivans Island are in the process of developing improvements to the Ben Sawyer Boulevard causeway that will extend from Center St. in Mt. Pleasant to Middle St. on Sullivans Island. As currently proposed, the project will provide an 8-ft. multi-use path along the causeway with a 5-ft. buffer. In addition, the roadway travel lanes will be widened to 14-ft.
A-76
Appendix G Battery2Beach Route: Network Improvements By Citadel ASCE 2011 Members 1. Harbor View Rd., Bridge & Causeway over James Island Creek - Proposed improvements along Harbor View Rd., including a 10-ft. multiuse path, will end at North Shore Dr. The bridge and causeway create a major bottleneck for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians alike. No known improvement plans are in the works for this crucial transportation network connection. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permitting, bridge reconstruction, right-of-way constraints, approach roadway alignment, and maintenance of traffic during construction are all major issues that need to be addressed for future improvement of this deficient roadway segment. Existing conditions are very problematic for the Battery2Beach route as the bridge and causeway currently provide LOS E for bicycles and LOS F for pedestrians. 2. Folly Rd. (SC 171), Wappoo Creek Bridge over ICW - The heavily traveled drawbridge with narrow travel lanes and minimal 2.5-ft. safety walks over the Intercoastal Waterway currently provides LOS F for bicycles and pedestrians. Modifying this structure to accommodate Battery2Beach facilities will constitute a major undertaking. No known improvement plans are in the works for this crucial transportation network connection. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permitting, bridge reconstruction, right-of-way constraints, and maintenance of traffic
A-77
during construction are all major issues that need to be addressed for future improvement of this deficient roadway segment. 3. Folly Rd. and Wesley Blvd. near Windermere Shopping Center - This heavily traveled roadway extends from the Wappoo Cr. Bridge through Windermere to St. Andrews Blvd. and an approach sidewalk to the US 17 WB Ashley River Bridge. The segment from Windermere to Wappoo Cr. Bridge is the most critical. This road currently includes sidewalks but has limited ability to accommodate bicycles due to right-of-way constraints. There may be a possibility to connect via Albemarle Rd. and through the Crescent subdivision to avoid a portion of this problematic roadway. A current improvement project is underway for Wesley Dr., which includes some sidewalk upgrades, but no improvements for bicycles. Existing conditions are concerning for the Battery2Beach route as these segments currently provide LOS E for bicycles and LOS E for pedestrians. 4. US 17, Ashley River Bridges - These bridges constitute a vital connection in the regional transportation network and are equally crucial for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Existing conditions are very concerning for the Battery2Beach route as this bridge connection currently provides LOS F for bicycles and LOS E for pedestrians. A series of studies have been completed with the purpose of determining how to better accommodate non-motorized travel modes at this bridge crossing. Some of the suggested improvements include converting one of the four travel lanes for bike and pedestrian use on the NB Legare Bridge, rerouting the approach to the bridge over the marsh connecting with Albemarle Rd. and the West Ashley
A-78
Greenway. Most recently Charleston County Roadwise is scheduled to release a study evaluating the travel lane conversion option. Early indications point to this becoming a reality and likelihood of eventual implementation. Completion of this project will dramatically improve accommodation of the Battery2Beach route, enhance cyclist and pedestrian travel across the Ashley River, and provide a muchneeded connection to the West Ashley Greenway. The fact that these bridges include movable spans for maritime ship passage, adds an additional degree of difficulty to the already difficult task of providing a crucial connection for cyclists and pedestrians. 5. Coleman Blvd., Shem Creek Bridge - This fixed span bridge currently provides LOS D for bicycles and pedestrians. Modifying this structure to better accommodate Battery2Beach facilities will constitute a major undertaking. Although the Coleman Blvd. Corridor Revitalization master plan includes a few concept sketches, no known improvement plans are in the works for this transportation network connection. 6. Ben Sawyer Blvd., ICW Bridge - This movable span bridge currently provides LOS D for bicycles and pedestrians. As this structure was recently renovated, accommodation of improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities appears unlikely. Despite significant public involvement and input, only minimal bicycle and pedestrian accommodations were included in the most recent bridge renovation project. As the existing 5-ft. multi-use path nears the bridge, regulatory signs remain posted requiring cyclists to dismount and walk across bridge on the sidewalk.
A-79
Appendix H Battery2Beach Tourism Impacts by Type & Bicycle Tourist Estimate Tables 27 30 detail economic effects of the additional 3.5 days spent on vacation for each of the 4 bicycle tourist estimates entered into IMPLAN software. The effects included are: 1. Direct: jobs and outputs supported by the direct spending of the tourists (Center for Business Research 2011) 2. Indirect: increased business-to-business interactions as supplying industries meet the demand of the directly affected businesses (Center for Business Research, 2011) 3. Induced: changes in local spending due to changing local household income from the directly and indirectly affected businesses (Center for Business Research 2011) 4. Total: direct, indirect, and induced effects combined (Center for Business Research 2011) Explanation of other expressions used in tables 27 30: 1. Labor Income: estimate of all forms of employment income: wages, benefits, and/or proprietor income (payments received by self-employed and unincorporated business owners) (Center for Business Research 2011) 2. Output: total value of goods and services produced within a given region including any intermediary products purchased (Center for Business Research 2011)
Table 27. Economic impacts of the low (10,200) bicycle tourist estimate Impact Type Direct Effect Indirect Effect Induced Effect Total Effect Jobs Produced 81.6 15.4 20.3 117.3 Labor Income $2,358,752 $593,737 $710,211 $3,662,700 Output $6,246,800 $1,832,141 $2,252,098 $10,331,039
A-80
Table 28. Economic impacts of the medium-low (40,800) bicycle tourist estimate Impact Type Direct Effect Indirect Effect Induced Effect Total Effect Jobs Produced 322.9 60.7 79.1 462.6 Labor Income $9,190,082 $2,338,321 $2,771,972 $14,300,375 Output $24,630,799 $7,203,711 $8,789,829 $40,624,339
Table 29. Economic impacts of the medium (102,000) bicycle tourist estimate Impact Type Direct Effect Indirect Effect Induced Effect Total Effect Jobs Produced 822.5 155.4 203.6 1,181.5 Labor Income $23,700,684 $5,973,926 $7,138,114 $36,812,723 Output $62,776,000 $18,436,947 $22,635,165 $103,848,111
Table 30. Economic impacts of the highest (680,000) bicycle tourist estimate Impact Type Direct Effect Indirect Effect Induced Effect Total Effect Jobs Produced 5,570.6 1,055.3 1,383.8 8,009.7 Labor Income $161,137,813 $40,531,855 $48,517,361 $250,187,028 Output $425,646,014 $125,207,123 $153,850,933 $704,704,070
A-81

Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Preface The completion of this project was made possible by collaboration with the Citadel Civil Engineering American

Figure 1. Proposed Battery2Beach route

Widen Roadway 10 ft.

$13,700 per 100-ft.

Widen Roadway 5 ft.

$8,892 per 100-ft.

$3,193 per 100-ft.

$15,183 per 100-ft.

Curb & Gutter

$4,868 per 100-ft.

Pedestrian Sidewalk Seeding & Landscaping Traffic Control

$2,978 per 100-ft. $176 per 100-ft. $400 per 100-ft.

$1,700 per intersection

$16,500 per intersection

Bike Lane Striping

$140 per 100-ft.

Unit Cost or Basis

$140 per 100-ft.

Determinations of average commute length and number of days commuting

Sources: Charleston, SC Economic Profile 2011; Lawrie et al. 2004

Where: Bn = Benefitsyear Cn = Costsyear i = interest rate

The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) equation is:

Present Value of Benefits Present Value of Costs

Table 3. Battery2Beach primary route summary.

Source: Citadel ASCE 2011

Table 5. Battery2Beach route: scheduled for improvement

Ben Sawyer Blvd.

Table 6. Battery2Beach route: network improvements

B2B Accommodation Issues

Harbor View Rd.-James Island Creek Bridge Folly Rd.Wappoo Bridge

Windermere Blvd. St. Andrews Blvd.

US 17Ashley River Bridge westbound

Ben Sawyer Blvd.-Bridge

Gold Bug Island Dr.

Average trip Length

Trips per Day

Days per Year

Cost Per Mile

Source: Center for Business Research 2011

Jobs Produced 8009.7 1181.5 462.6 117.3

Total Impact (in 2011 dollars) $704,704,070 $103,848,111 $40,624,339 $10,331,039

Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio 3.4.1. Battery2Beach

Table 23. (continued)

Net Present Value = $155,543,656.54

Figure 6. Battery2Beach BCR using the 20-year real interest rate.

Table 24. (continued)

Net Present Value = $151,208,043.40

Figure 7. Battery2Beach BCR using the 30-year real interest rate.

Battery2Beach Plus Network Improvements

Battery2Beach + network NPV using the 20-year real interest rate

Table 25. (continued)

Net Present Value = $85,076,939.79

Table 26. (continued)

Net Present Value = $81,153,813.65

Figure 11. Folly Road bridge replacements

Source: Center for Business Research 2011

Source: Center for Business Research 2011

Source: Center for Business Research 2011

Source: Center for Business Research 2011

Anda mungkin juga menyukai