Evaluation of Alternatives

Page 1

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

January 2003

Page 7-1

7.0 Evaluation of Alternatives

This chapter presents the results of the evaluation and trade-offs analysis conducted for

the alternatives developed for the Desire Streetcar Line study area. The purpose of this

chapter is to bring together the key findings, both qualitative and quantitative, for each

alternative so that benefits, costs, and environmental consequences can be evaluated

against the stated project goals and objectives presented in Chapter 1.0, Purpose and

Need. The intent of this comparative analysis is to facilitate the decision-making process

for the RTA Board of Commissioners, as well as public officials, interested residents,

businesses, and institutions in the project area.

Consideration of these findings will lead

to the selection and implementation of the best alternative for providing enhanced public

transportation services for the Desire Streetcar Line study area.

7.1

Evaluation Framework

The transportation goals and objectives set forth in Chapter 1.0 provide the overall

framework for analyzing and comparing the alternatives and selecting the best

alternative for implementation. The alternatives are a No-Build Alternative and a Build

Alternative. The Build Alternative has four different design options for the streetcar line.

These options are:

• Option A – Streetcar trackway arrangement with both inbound and outbound tracks

located in the left travel lanes next to the neutral ground on North Rampart Street,

McShane Place, and St. Claude Avenue between Toulouse Street and Elysian Fields

Avenue;

• Option B – Streetcar trackway arrangement with the inbound track located in the

neutral ground and the outbound track located in the left travel lane on North

Rampart Street, McShane Place, and St. Claude Avenue between Toulouse Street

and Elysian Fields Avenue;

• Option C – At-grade crossing of the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks at Press Street;

and

• Option D – Grade separated crossing of the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks at

Press Street with the streetcar line located in an underpass.

Any combination of the trackway arrangement and railroad crossing options (i.e., options

A, B, C, and D) described in Section 2.2.3 of Chapter 2.0, Alternatives Considered, could

be selected as the locally preferred alternative. The combination of the two track

arrangement options (i.e., options A and B) and the two grade crossing options (i.e.,

options C and D) creates four total options under the Build Alternative for evaluation in

the DEIS. The four combinations of options are: (1) options A+C, (2) options A+D, (3)

options B+C, and (4) options B+D. For the purpose of evaluation of alternatives, each

combination of options is considered to be a distinct alternative.

Acronyms and abbreviations are defined at their first use in the document. The definitions are not

repeated in each chapter. Hence, in review of this chapter there may be acronyms or abbreviations

that are not defined since they were used earlier in the document. A complete list of acronyms and

abbreviations used in this DEIS is contained in Appendix B.

Page 2

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

Page 7-2

January 2003

The evaluation considers each alternative from five different perspectives:

• Effectiveness (Goals Achievement) – This criterion examines how well each

alternative helps achieve the purpose of, and satisfy the need for, transportation

improvements in the project area. It focuses on how well each alternative helps

attain the goals and objectives defined for the project in Chapter 1.0.

• Efficiency (Cost-Effectiveness) – This criterion examines the effectiveness of each

alternative in attracting new ridership relative to estimated capital and operating

costs. In effect, it relates value received (in terms of benefits obtained) to the

resources invested in each alternative.

• Financial Feasibility – This criterion focuses on the RTA’s ability to pay for each

alternative’s capital and operating costs. Consequently, an assessment of potential

funding sources and the relative financial feasibility of each alternative was carried

out during preparation of this DEIS and is summarized here.

• Equity – Each alternative may benefit certain groups more effectively than other

groups. This criterion examines the question of equity from the perspectives of

service, financial, and environmental benefits and impacts among affected groups.

• Trade-Offs – The important differences between alternatives are highlighted. This

permits decision-makers to apply their individual value judgments with respect to

costs and benefits, i.e., what is being given up relative to what is being gained for

each alternative. The objective of the trade-offs analysis is to substantiate the

rationale for the selection of the alternative, or combination of alternatives, which will

become the refined LPA.

The above criteria, as well as public, agency, and other stakeholder comments on the

findings of the DEIS will be used to make three decisions. The first decision will be a

Build/No-Build decision. A build decision would affirm the decision to implement the

Desire Streetcar Line project that was made by the RTA and the RPC, or area’s MPO, in

association with the FTA in 1999 and 2000.

The decision-making process that led to

the 1999/2000 decisions is described in Section 2.2.1 in Chapter 2.0. With a no-build

decision, the RTA would select the No-Build Alternative with the expectation that no

major transportation investment will be implemented in the study area in the foreseeable

future. If the decision to build the Desire Streetcar Line were approved, the following

additional decisions would be made:

• Track Arrangement – First, decision-makers would decide whether to build Option A

with both the inbound and outbound streetcar tracks on North Rampart Street,

McShane Place, and St. Claude Avenue between Toulouse Street and Elysian Fields

Avenue located in the left travel lanes next to the neutral ground or Option B with the

inbound track located in the neutral ground and the outbound track in the left travel

lane between Toulouse Street and Elysian Fields Avenue.

• Railroad Crossing – Second, decision-makers would decide whether to build Option

C with the crossing of the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks at-grade or Option D with

an underpass for the streetcar line.

The RTA Board of Commissioners adopted the LPA for advancement into PE/DEIS on August 24,

1999. The RPC adopted the project into the region's LRTP on June 20, 2000.

Page 3

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

January 2003

Page 7-3

The applicability of the five evaluation criteria to each of the three decisions is illustrated

in Table 7-1. The remaining sections in this chapter describe in detail each of the first

four evaluation criteria, the evaluation findings associated with each criterion, and the

relevance of those findings to the three decisions by comparing trade-offs among the

alternatives.

Table 7-1

Applicability of Evaluation Criteria to Decisions

Evaluation Criterion

Decisions to

be Made

Effectiveness

(Goals Achievement)

Efficiency

(Cost-Effectiveness)

Financial

Feasibility

Equity Trade-Offs

No-Build or Build

Track Arrangement

Railroad Crossing

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff.

7.2

Effectiveness (Goal Achievement)

This evaluation criterion examines how well each alternative achieves the purpose of,

and satisfies the need for, transportation improvements in the study area. It focuses on

how well each alternative attains the goals and objectives defined for the project in

Chapter 1.0. Its primary focus is on what the Desire Streetcar Line project could achieve

over the No-Build Alternative (i.e., the No-Build/Build decision). Effectiveness also

relates to the track arrangement and railroad crossing decisions, because the different

options provide different levels of streetcar service and have different transportation and

environmental consequences.

The goals of the Desire Streetcar Line project and the effectiveness of the alternatives in

achieving them are summarized in this section. Each goal is preceded by a brief

summary of the transportation problems and needs the goal is intended to address. This

is important to understanding the context in which the goal was identified.

7.2.1

Goal 1: Provide a Transportation Mode Compatible with the Historic

Character of Corridor Neighborhoods

The study area contains the historic French Quarter, Tremé, Faubourg Marigny, and

Bywater neighborhoods, all of which date from the eighteenth century and are included

on the NRHP. These neighborhoods once were served by several historic streetcar

lines, including the Desire (generally, along Bourbon/Dauphine Street and Royal Street),

the North Claiborne (along North Claiborne Avenue and Villere Street), and the St.

Claude (along North Rampart Street and St. Claude Avenue) streetcar lines. Diesel-

powered buses have replaced all of these streetcar lines. However, residents state that

the buses are not compatible with the historic character of the neighborhoods. In several

locations, the buses must travel along narrow residential streets not well designed for

large modern buses, and vibrations from the buses threaten the structural integrity of

historic structures located close to many of the streets. Exhaust emissions from idling

buses operating on congested streets are another problem. In short, buses are not

considered to be compatible with the neighborhoods; hence, the goal of providing a

transportation mode compatible with the historic character of corridor neighborhoods.

Page 4

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

Page 7-4

January 2003

The achievement of this goal is expressed in terms of three objectives:

1. Reduce the use of diesel- and gasoline-powered buses in the historic

neighborhoods;

2. Help preserve the neighborhoods; and

3. Enhance the aesthetic character of the neighborhoods.

The Build Alternative would achieve this goal more effectively than the No-Build

Alternative by replacing the current buses with electric-powered streetcars. The vintage-

looking streetcars would be more compatible with the historic and aesthetic character of

the neighborhoods within the study area than buses.

Comparison of the options under the Build Alternative reveals that the trackway

arrangement options would be equally compatible with the historic character of the

neighborhoods, although Option A would have less of an adverse effect than Option B

because it would preserve more of the neutral ground. However, there would be

differences between the effectiveness of the railroad crossing options. The at-grade

crossing under Option C would be more effective in preserving the neighborhoods and

be more compatible with their aesthetic character than the underpass crossing under

Option D. The underpass would have much greater construction impacts from noise and

vibration than the at-grade crossing. The anticipated visual and aesthetic changes from

construction of the underpass under Option D would be substantial and would have an

adverse effect on the Faubourg Marigny and Bywater historic districts.

7.2.2

Goal 2: Provide Better Transit Service and Attract More Transit

Customers

The New Orleans CBD, French Quarter, and Medical District have important

concentrations of activity and employment for the entire region. The commercial, civic,

retail, service, and entertainment activities located within these centers account for much

of the employment within the region and attract tourists and visitors from throughout the

region and beyond. Although the existing transit system provides the residents and

visitors access to the CBD, French Quarter, and Medical District, and to many areas

within the corridor, the system does not have either the capacity or the level of service to

attract any significant portion of the demand generated by these centers. There is also a

lack of connectivity between the existing bus system and other modes of travel that

significantly reduces their collective potential in serving the demands of the study area

and region. The limited levels of service and lack of capacity and connectivity restrict

mobility and reduce access to activities. Without improvements in transit service, the

mobility of residents and tourists will be impaired.

The goal of the project is to improve transit service for residents, workers, students, and

visitors within the corridor and study area, and attract more transit customers. The

achievement of this goal is expressed in terms of two objectives:

1. Improve mobility to, from, and within the corridor; and

2. Improve connectivity between the corridor and the rest of the regional transit system.

The Desire Streetcar Line under the Build Alternative would improve mobility by providing

a higher frequency of service operating at higher speeds than buses under the No-Build

Alternative. The proposed streetcar stops on the Desire Streetcar Line in the CBD would

Page 5

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

January 2003

Page 7-5

be convenient for transfers to and from the Canal Street and St. Charles streetcar lines.

Bus transfers would also be convenient at the Poland Avenue terminal stop.

Comparison of the trackway arrangement options indicates that Option B with the

inbound track located in the neutral ground and the outbound track in the left travel lane

between Toulouse Street and Elysian Fields Avenue would offer faster travel times

because streetcar operating speeds would be higher than those with both the inbound

and outbound tracks in the left travel lanes next to the neutral ground. Thus, Option B

could be considered to be slightly more effective in improving mobility than Option A.

Comparison of the railroad crossing option indicates that Option D with the underpass

would be more reliable and result in less delay to transit riders. Therefore, Option D

could be considered to be more effective in improving mobility than Option C, and as a

result would attract more transit customers, which is a goal of the project. The increase

in transit trips under Option D is projected to total approximately 400 daily in 2025.

However, Option D would eliminate two stops, thus reducing service to the Faubourg

Marigny and Bywater neighborhoods. All of the options are equally effective in improving

connectivity among modes.

7.2.3

Goal 3: Provide More Efficient Transit Service

This goal is intended to provide more efficient transit service to benefit both the corridor

and the regional transit system. The efficiency of existing transit services operated by

the RTA is highly related to the traffic congestion that exists on the major arterials

serving the corridor. During peak hours, North Rampart Street, St. Claude Avenue and

North Claiborne Avenue are congested with delays due to high traffic volumes and buses

stopping in the outside curb lane for passenger loading and unloading. Congestion

increases delay to buses, which affects travel time and reduces ridership. Poor traffic

conditions and consequent congestion also affect air quality from vehicle emissions, a major

source of air pollution, particularly as a result of idling diesel buses spending hours of delay

moving slowly through heavily congested intersections.

The achievement of this goal is expressed in terms of three objectives:

1. Reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality;

2. Eliminate duplication of service; and

3. Maintain or lower the RTA system's operating costs and recurring capital costs.

Under the No-Build Alternative, buses would continue to operate in mixed traffic with

automobiles. Congestion and emissions from buses would remain unchanged. No changes

are anticipated in bus routings to eliminate duplications of service. Operating and capital

costs for bus service in the study area also would remain unchanged.

The proposed streetcar project under the Build Alternative would have streetcars operating in

the neutral ground of St. Claude Avenue downriver of Elysian Fields Avenue where the street

is more congested due to commercial traffic. Streetcars in the neutral ground would have

better transit travel times than the existing buses, and could lead to increased ridership. The

project also would result in the removal of some buses from the corridor, thus reducing

delays to traffic from buses stopping to pick up or discharge passengers. Thus, compared to

the No-Build Alternative, the Build Alternative would be more effective in achieving this goal.

Page 6

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

Page 7-6

January 2003

Comparison of the trackway arrangement options shows that Option B with the inbound

track located in the neutral ground and the outbound track in the left travel lane between

Toulouse Street and Elysian Fields Avenue would result in less impact to traffic than

Option A with both the inbound and outbound tracks in the left travel lanes next to the

neutral ground. Although the levels of service would generally be the same, Option B

could be considered to be more efficient than Option A because of the reduced delay to

traffic. Under Option B, inbound streetcars would operate in the neutral ground. This

would result in less delay to streetcars than under Option A where the inbound streetcars

would operate in mixed traffic. The reduction in streetcar delay under Option B would

translate into slightly lower O&M costs than Option A. Thus, Option B could be

considered to be more efficient.

Option D would result in better transit travel times and improved service reliability by

eliminating delays to the streetcar from train operations that would continue to exist

under Option C with its at-grade railroad crossing. Although service reliability would be

improved, O&M costs for vehicle operations would be approximately the same under

both options. However, O&M costs for facility operations would be slightly higher under

Option D than C because maintenance costs for the underpass would be higher than for

the at-grade crossing.

7.2.4

Goal 4: Provide Economic and Transportation Benefits

Lack of adequate transportation connections between the study area neighborhoods and

CBD hinders efforts to promote economic revitalization. The study area neighborhoods

of Tremé, Faubourg Marigny, St. Roch, and Bywater are among the oldest residential

neighborhoods in New Orleans. They were developed largely in the pre-automobile age

when residents relied on walking and public transit for access to services and activities.

Very few of the homes have off-street parking. With the post-war shift to automobile

reliance, the densely built older homes with no off-street parking lost their appeal and the

neighborhoods witnessed a period of decline. In the last ten years, there has been some

renewal of interest in these historic neighborhoods. However, bus service from the

neighborhoods to employment, entertainment, and shopping activities in the French

Quarter, the CBD, and the Medical District is slow and indirect. With improved

transportation connections, these neighborhoods could become more attractive to people

seeking affordable, historical housing within easy reach of New Orleans’ active center.

Improved transportation would also make these neighborhoods more accessible to

tourists, and help promote economic revitalization.

The purpose of this goal is to provide economic and transportation benefits to corridor

residents, institutions, and businesses. The achievement of this goal is expressed in

terms of three objectives:

1. Provide better transit access to corridor jobs;

2. Serve key activity centers and commercial areas; and

3. Support on-going and new neighborhood revitalization efforts.

The Build Alternative would achieve this goal more effectively than the No-Build

Alternative because the streetcar line would provide a higher frequency of service

operating at higher speeds and with a greater reliability than buses under the No-Build

Alternative. As demonstrated by the St. Charles streetcar line, the restoration of

streetcar service along North Rampart Street/St. Claude Avenue could help revitalize the

neighborhoods by making them more accessible to tourists. Many of the tourists include

Page 7

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

January 2003

Page 7-7

a streetcar ride as part of their experience in New Orleans. All of the options under the

Build Alternative would be equally effective in achieving this goal. However, economic

impacts from construction spending would be greater under Option D because of the

higher construction cost of the underpass.

7.3

Efficiency (Cost-Effectiveness)

This evaluation criterion provides local decision-makers with a means to compare the total

expected costs of each alternative to its expected ridership benefit, which is the number of

additional annual new transit riders attracted to the proposed project. The evaluation of

cost effectiveness uses the FTA New Starts cost-effectiveness measure. Like

effectiveness, the primary focus of efficiency is on what the project could achieve over

the No-Build Alternative (the No-Build/Build decision). Efficiency also relates to the

trackway arrangement and railroad crossing decisions, because the different options

provide different levels of streetcar service at different costs.

The incremental cost per incremental new rider, or cost-effectiveness index, is used by the

FTA to compare proposed New Start projects from across the country and make

recommendations for funding. The cost of all New Start projects seeking discretionary

New Starts funding far exceeds available funds. Each year, the FTA rates the competing

projects and submits funding recommendations to Congress. The cost-effectiveness index

is one of several factors considered in the ratings. Others include mobility improvements,

environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, local commitments to transit supportive land

use, the degree of local financial commitment, and project management.

The index used to calculate cost effectiveness is as follows:

Cost Effectiveness Index = (∆ $CAP + ∆ $O&M)/∆ Annual Linked Trips

where the ∆ 's represent changes in costs and linked trips resulting from the New Starts

investment compared to the New Starts baseline, and

$CAP

Total capital costs, annualized over the life of

the project based on the useful life of each

component and a 7 percent discount rate;

$O&M

Annualized operating and maintenance costs;

and

Annual

Trips

Annual transit ridership, measured in "linked"

trips.

Alternatives that have low cost-effectiveness index values are more cost-effective than

alternatives with high values. A cost-effectiveness ratio greater than $20.00 is generally

considered higher than desirable to be competitive with other transit systems seeking

federal funding. A cost-effectiveness ratio of $10.00 to $20.00 is generally competitive.

A cost-effectiveness ratio of $10.00 or less is considered highly competitive.

Table 7-2 presents the input data and results of the cost effectiveness analysis of the Build

Alternative options using the No-Build Alternative as a baseline for comparison. The cost-

effectiveness values range from a low of $20.44 to a high of $25.56. The options with the

at-grade railroad crossing are the most cost effective due to their much lower costs. The

underpass options (i.e., Options A+D and B+D) reduce the project's cost effectiveness by

Page 8

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

Page 7-8

January 2003

Table 7-2

Cost-Effectiveness

Annual Costs

(millions)

Change in Annual

Costs Over Baseline

(millions)

Streetcar

Options

Capital

Cost

O & M

Cost

Annual

Riders

(millions)

Capital

Cost

O & M

Cost

Change in

Riders Over

Baseline

(millions)

Cost

Effectiveness

Per Change in

Rider

A+C

$8.70

$92.86

32.16

$7.04

$2.77

0.48

$20.44

A+D

$11.12

$92.88

32.16

$9.46

$2.78

0.48

$25.56

B+C

$8.59

$92.86

32.16

$6.93

$2.77

0.48

$20.21

B+D

$11.09

$92.88

32.16

$9.43

$2.78

0.48

$25.44

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff.

approximately 25 percent. The cost-effectiveness index differences between the trackway

arrangement options are insignificant - $20.21 versus $20.44, a difference of

approximately 1 percent.

These findings indicate that the cost effective indices for the at-grade options are slightly

higher than the $20.00 threshold of competitiveness for federal funding, while the

underpass options are significantly higher than desirable to be competitive with other

transit projects. The reason for the undesirable index values is the low number of

incremental new riders over the baseline or No-Build Alternative. Most of the riders

attracted by the project would be existing bus riders in the corridor. The majority of new

riders are projected to be visitors who would not likely ride buses in the corridor. Additional

non-visitor riders will be required to produce a desirable cost effective index below the

$20.00 threshold of competitiveness for federal funding. Otherwise the costs will have to

be reduced for the underpass options in order to achieve a more desirable index.

7.4

Financial Feasibility

A further consideration in the selection of a preferred alternative is the RTA’s ability to finance

the associated capital and operating costs. Chapter 6.0, Financial Analysis, summarized

RTA’s Financial Plan including costs and proposed funding sources for the Build Alternative.

It also notes some of the uncertainties that are implicit in the financial plan.

A financial feasibility assessment identifies the financial implications of each alternative,

enabling federal and local decision-makers to judge the practicality of building and

operating each of them. As such, the financial feasibility criterion relates to all decisions

that have substantive differences in capital and operating costs. Thus, this criterion is

related to the No-Build/Build decision, as well as to the decision about terminus and

railroad crossing options. The difference in costs of the track arrangement options is not

considered significant enough for financial feasibility to be relevant to the decision.

The Financial Plan shows that Build Alternative options A+C and B+C would be

financially feasible under a certain set of economic growth, funding, schedule, and other

assumptions. Noteworthy assumptions are:

• Sales tax revenues will grow by approximately 3 percent per year;

• The FTA will fund 80 percent of the Canal streetcar line and 60 percent of the Desire

Streetcar Line;

• The RTA will be able to borrow an additional $10.4 million, backed by the existing

dedicated sales tax on hotel and motel rooms.

Page 9

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

January 2003

Page 7-9

The federal share for both the Canal and Desire Streetcar Line projects is a significant

unknown that may not be resolved before Congress reauthorizes the FTA program late

in 2003.

The RTA Financial Plan does not address the underpass options (i.e., Options A+D or

B+D), which would increase the capital cost by some 25 percent, or the options under

which the streetcar would have a temporary or permanent terminus at Franklin Avenue.

The underpass option could require additional borrowing, the deferral of other capital

expenditures, or development of new capital funding sources. A permanent terminus at

Franklin Avenue would be the most financially feasible of the streetcar options, because

its capital costs are less than those of the longer options.

The Financial Plan shows that the RTA will maintain sufficient operating cash flow to

operate both the Desire Streetcar Line from Canal Street to Poland Avenue and RTA’s

other bus and streetcar service. The Desire Streetcar Line is projected to result in a net

increase in operating costs of $1.7 million (2006 dollars) per year, which would represent

a very small element of the RTA’s overall operating budget. Under the assumptions

stated in the Financial Plan, the RTA operating budget remains balanced over the 20-

year projection period.

7.5

Equity

Equity is defined as the fairness of the distribution of costs, benefits, and impacts across

various population subgroups. The equity of the alternatives considered was evaluated

with respect to the following three categories:

• Service Equity – The extent to which transit provides service to various population

segments, particularly those that tend to be transit-dependent;

• Financial Equity – The distribution of the project's cost across population segments

through funding arrangements covering the local contribution to construction and

operation; and

• Environmental Equity – The incidence of any substantial environmental impacts,

particularly in low-income and minority communities immediately adjacent to

proposed facilities.

This criterion relates to the decisions to be made by addressing the following questions:

• Would the service provided by the Desire Streetcar Line project be equitably

distributed among various population groups?

• Would funding the Desire Streetcar Line project place an unequal burden on any

particular RTA community or population group?

• Would the implementation of the Desire Streetcar Line and any particular track

arrangement or railroad crossing option place an inequitable burden on minority or

low-income populations or are the impacts evenly distributed among communities of

various socio-economic characteristics?

Following is a summary of the findings on the service, financial, and environmental equity

of the alternatives considered.

Page 10

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

Page 7-10

January 2003

7.5.1

Service Equity

Improved, enhanced, and/or increased accessibility to employment opportunities under

the Build Alternative would result in direct and indirect benefits to all persons in the study

area. The Desire Streetcar Line stops are distributed such that they provide equitable

service to the population groups found within the study area, including in particular the

transit dependent, elderly, minority, and low-income groups. The distribution also

provides accessibility to employment opportunities.

The No-Build Alternative would provide accessibility to transit service similar to the Build

Alternative for all population groups and employment centers but would lack the speed,

reliability, and frequency of service provided by the streetcar line.

7.5.2

Financial Equity

Sales taxes on hotel and motel rooms, which provide the RTA with local funds, do not

affect one population group substantially more than others. Therefore, financial equity is

not an issue of concern either under the Build Alternative or the No-Build Alternative.

7.5.3

Environmental Equity

The Desire Streetcar Line project would not result in inequitable environmental impacts

on low-income and minority communities and businesses. As with any major

transportation project, it is likely that residents within the project area will endure some

impacts because of the construction and operation of the streetcar project. The primary

potential impacts would be related to increased noise levels, visual changes and effects

on cultural resources, water quality and contamination impacts from the underpass, and

construction impacts. These impacts, however, would not be disproportionately high or

adverse for low-income and minority residents of the area.

Among the positive effects of the project for these residents are enhanced mobility

options, greater access to regional jobs and non-job opportunities such as educational,

shopping and entertainment activities, and potential revitalization of the neighborhoods.

Site-specific impacts on particular properties along the alignment would vary slightly

among the track arrangement and railroad crossing options; but the options would not

have substantially differing neighborhood impacts. However, the Faubourg Marigny

Improvement Association has expressed concern regarding the impact of diverted traffic

during construction of the underpass at the railroad crossing.

No environmental impacts would occur under the No-Build Alternative.

7.6

Trade-Offs

The purpose of the trade-offs analysis is to provide decision-makers with a comparison

of the alternatives using the key differences among the alternatives across all four

perspectives – effectiveness, efficiency, financial feasibility, and equity. In selection of

the LPA, decision-makers will consider the evaluation results presented in this document

and comments from government agencies and the public during the public hearings and

circulation period for the DEIS.

As described in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences, the Build Alternative and its

four options were evaluated on the basis of environmental impacts. The trade-offs

analysis highlights the environmental impacts that were found to be significantly different.

Page 11

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

January 2003

Page 7-11

These include transportation, visual quality and aesthetics, cultural and historic

resources; Section 4(f) impacts on historic resources, water quality, contamination, and

construction impacts.

In the comparison of trade-offs, attention is given first to the No-Build versus Build decision.

Second, the trackway arrangement decision is addressed through a comparison of the trade-

offs between the left travel lane versus the neutral ground option for the inbound track of the

streetcar alignment between Toulouse Street and Elysian Fields Avenue. Third, trade-offs

involved in the decision on the crossing of the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks are

addressed – whether the streetcar line crossing is at grade or in an underpass.

7.6.1

No-Build Versus Build Alternative Trade-Offs

Table 7-3 presents a comparison of trade-offs between the No-Build and Build

alternatives. The Desire Streetcar Line under the Build Alternative would be more

effective in meeting the project goals and objectives identified in Chapter 1.0 than the

No-Build Alternative. Most importantly, it would improve mobility and support

neighborhood revitalization efforts. The No-Build Alternative would continue to operate

bus service without any major transit investment in the study area.

Table 7-3

Comparison of No-Build Alternative Versus Build Alternative Trade-Offs

Alternative

Evaluation Criterion

No-Build

Build

Effectiveness

• Provide a Transportation Mode Compatible with Historic Character of Neighborhoods

• Provide Better Transit Service and Attract More Transit Customers

• Provide More Efficient Transit Service

• Provide Economic and Transportation Benefits

Efficiency (Cost-Effectiveness)

Financial Feasibility

Equity

Air Quality Impacts

Transportation Impacts

• Transit Travel Time

• Transit Ridership

Rating:

Better Worse

Neutral

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff.

In terms of cost-effectiveness, the Build Alternative would achieve the purpose and need in

an efficient manner. Although implementation of the Build Alternative represents a significant

investment of local financial resources, the Build Alternative is financially feasible; however,

debt would be incurred during the construction period. The Desire Streetcar Line service

under the Build Alternative would be provided on an equitable basis in terms of population

groups served, sources of funds, and in general, environmental impacts.

Because the No-Build Alternative encompasses planned transit and highway

improvements that will be built whether or not the Desire Streetcar Line project is built,

the No-Build Alternative is considered to have no environmental impacts, but the project

benefits of the Build Alternative, likewise, would not occur. The alternatives would differ

from the perspectives of transportation and air quality impacts.

Page 12

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

Page 7-12

January 2003

Implementation of the Build Alternative would have only a minimal effect on forecast

vehicle miles traveled in 2025 in the New Orleans region encompassed by the regional

travel model compared to the No-Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would result in

a slight increase in total transit trips because of the higher level of transit service and

greater reliability provided by the Desire Streetcar Line. However, travel-time benefits for

transit users would be notable for transit trips that divert from bus to streetcars under the

Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would shift a substantial number of transit trips

from buses to streetcars that would be less affected by traffic congestion, and would

consistently provide lower transit travel times than the No-Build Alternative. The

streetcar service provided under the Build Alternative could have modest localized traffic

impacts at intersections where the trackway is in the neutral ground and along segments

where the streetcars will be operating in mixed-traffic. The Build Alternative would

contribute to a small reduction in regional motor vehicle emissions.

7.6.2

Trackwork Arrangement Trade-Offs

The comparison of trade-offs between the two track arrangement options under the Build

Alternative is presented in Table 7-4. Both track arrangement options would be equally

effective in meeting the purpose and need established for the project. Because of its

lower cost, Option B with the inbound track in the neutral ground would be slightly more

cost effective than Option A with both the inbound and outbound tracks in the left travel

lanes. However, the difference is considered to be insignificant so the cost effectiveness

of the two options is considered to be the same.

Table 7-4

Comparison of Track Arrangement Trade-Offs

Option

Evaluation Criterion

Effectiveness

• Provide a Transportation Mode Compatible with Historic Character of Neighborhoods

• Provide Better Transit Service and Attract More Transit Customers

• Provide More Efficient Transit Service

• Provide Economic and Transportation Benefits

Efficiency (Cost-Effectiveness)

Financial Feasibility

Equity

Environmental Impacts

• Land Use/Neighborhoods

• Visual Quality/Aesthetics

• Air Quality

• Noise and Vibration

• Water Quality

• Historic and Cultural Resources

• Parklands/Section 4(f)

• Geology/Soils

• Contamination

Traffic Impacts

Construction Impacts

Rating:

Better Worse

Neutral

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff

Page 13

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

January 2003

Page 7-13

Although capital costs would be approximately $1.4 million more under Option A with

both tracks in the left travel lanes, the option is still financially feasible, so no financial

issues exist with either option. Likewise, no equity issues exist with either option.

Environmental impacts would be similar under both options. The principal difference is

that Option A would preserve more of the neutral ground and thus have less of an

adverse effect on the historic character of the districts through which it passes. Option B

would have the least impact on traffic because the inbound streetcars would be located

in the neutral ground between Poland Avenue and Canal Street/Basin Street.

Depending on traffic congestion, transit travel times may be lower and one less streetcar

may be required under Option B. During stakeholder meetings, residents expressed a

strong preference for Option A because it preserves the neutral ground.

7.6.3

Railroad Grade Crossing Trade-Offs

Table 7-5 presents the comparison of trade-offs between the two railroad crossing

options under the Build Alternative. The options would be equally effective in meeting

the project goals and objectives; however, the at-grade crossing would better address the

goal of providing a transportation improvement compatible with the neighborhoods, while the

underpass option would better address the goal of providing more efficient transit service.

Table 7-5

Comparison of Railroad Crossing Trade-Offs

Option

Evaluation Criterion

Effectiveness

• Provide a Transportation Mode Compatible with Historic Character of Neighborhoods

• Provide Better Transit Service and Attract More Transit Customers

• Provide More Efficient Transit Service

• Provide Economic and Transportation Benefits

Efficiency (Cost-Effectiveness)

Financial Feasibility

Equity

Environmental Impacts

• Land Use/Neighborhoods

• Visual Quality/Aesthetics

• Air Quality

• Noise and Vibration

• Water Quality

• Historic and Cultural Resources

• Parklands/Section 4(f)

• Geology/Soils

• Contamination

Traffic Impacts

Construction Impacts

Rating:

Better Worse

Neutral

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff

The at-grade crossing under Option C would be more compatible with the adjacent

neighborhoods than the underpass crossing of Option D. The anticipated visual and

aesthetic changes from construction of the underpass would be substantial and are

expected to have potential adverse effects on the Faubourg Marigny and Bywater

historic districts. Impacts during construction also would be greater for the underpass

Page 14

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

Page 7-14

January 2003

than for the at-grade crossing. Potential impacts would consist of increased noise and

vibration from construction equipment, impacts on water quality from disturbance of

contaminated soils and groundwater that exist near the crossing, and impacts on

residents from exposure to contaminated dust released during soil excavation.

By grade separating the streetcar operations at the railroad, the streetcar line would be

able to operate more reliable service because it would be subject to less delay than the

at-grade crossing. The reduced delay and more reliable service under Option D would

have a positive impact on ridership. Thus, the underpass could be considered to be

more effective and address the goal of providing better transit service and attracting

more transit riders.

From the perspective of cost effectiveness, Option C with the at-grade crossing of the

railroad tracks is more cost effective because of its significantly lower capital cost – $27

million less than Option D. The significantly higher cost of the underpass reduces the

project's cost effectiveness by approximately 25 percent.

Option D with the underpass is not financially feasible with existing local sources of funds.

The higher capital cost of the underpass option could require additional borrowing,

the deferral of other capital expenditures, or development of new capital funding

sources.

In terms of equity, neither of the options would result in inequitable

environmental impacts on low-income and minority communities and businesses. As

with any major transportation project, it is likely that residents within the project area will

endure some impacts because of the construction and operation of the streetcar project.

These impacts, however, would not be disproportionately high and adverse for low-

income and minority residents of the area. The only equity issue that exists between the

options is the Faubourg Marigny Improvement Association's concern that the

neighborhood will be impacted by diverted traffic during construction of the underpass in

Option D. Option D would be most desirable from a railroad operations standpoint.

Representatives of the Norfolk Southern Railway have expressed a preference for the

underpass. However, local residents prefer Option C.

Finally, the two railroad crossing options were found to have significantly different

environmental impacts. The underpass would have greater visual and aesthetic

impacts, cultural resource impacts, Section 4(f) impacts, and construction impacts, all

requiring mitigation.

7.7

Conclusion

In making a decision on Build versus No-Build, the costs of the Desire Streetcar Line

under the Build Alternative must be weighed against achievement of the project goals

and objectives. The Build Alternative addresses the transportation needs of the study

area, particularly the need for improvements in mobility. It also provides the necessary

improvements in transportation facilities and services to support neighborhood

revitalization efforts. Although the Build Alternative represents a significant investment of

local financial resources, it would achieve the purpose and need in an efficient manner,

and it is financially feasible. The principal trade-off is its environmental impacts. The No-

Build Alternative would cause no environmental impacts, but it would not provide the

mobility and neighborhood revitalization benefits of the Build Alternative.

Given the decision to build the Desire Streetcar Line, two additional decisions must be

made. The first decision is on track arrangement between Toulouse Street and Elysian

Fields Avenue. This decision involves trade-offs between costs and preserving the

Page 15

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 7.0 – Evaluation of Alternatives

D E S I R E

S T R E E T C A R

P R O J E C T

January 2003

Page 7-15

neutral ground. Locating both the inbound and outbound tracks in the left travel lanes

under Option A would preserve more of the neutral ground, with only the streetcar stops

located in the neutral ground. Local residents also prefer this option. However, costs

and traffic impacts would be greater than under Option B with the inbound track in the

neutral ground. Because of the potential for reduced traffic impacts, the New Orleans

DPW prefers Option B.

The second build decision pertains to the railroad crossing options – whether the streetcar

cross the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks at grade or in an underpass. This decision

involves trade-offs in transit service levels, costs, and environmental impacts. By grade

separating the streetcar operations at the railroad, the streetcar line would be able to

operate more reliable service because it would be subject to less delay than the at-grade

crossing. The reduced delay and more reliable service under Option D would have a

positive impact on ridership. Thus, the underpass could be considered to address the goal

of providing better transit service and attracting more transit customers more effectively.

However, this goal can be achieved only at a significantly high cost, which reduces the

project's cost effectiveness by approximately 25 percent. Furthermore, the higher cost of

the underpass cannot be funded with existing local revenue sources. New funding sources

will have to be investigated if this option is selected. In addition, the at-grade crossing

under Option C would be more compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods than the

underpass crossing under Option D and would present fewer environmental impacts.

Impacts during construction would be greater for the underpass than the at-grade crossing.

Implementation of the at-grade crossing could be difficult given that representatives of the

Norfolk Southern Railway are opposed to the at-grade option. An agreement with the

railroad will be required prior to issuance of a ROD for the project. The residents of the

neighborhoods, on the other hand, are opposed to the underpass option because of its

potential negative impacts on the neighborhood.

Because of issues related to the railroad crossing, a decision may be made to implement

the project in phases. The first phase would be from Canal Street to Franklin Avenue

and the second phase would be from Franklin Avenue to Poland Avenue and beyond to

the Lower Ninth Ward across the Industrial Canal. The phasing of the project would

create a temporary terminus at Franklin Avenue. The impacts of a temporary terminus at

Franklin Avenue are relatively minor and would consist primarily of the reconfiguration of

bus service. No new environmental impacts should result from the temporary terminus.

However, ridership would be less than the full-length project and fewer neighborhoods

would be served with a terminus at Franklin Avenue. The decision on phasing of the

project, as well as the other design decisions, will be subject to comments received

during the comment period on the DEIS.