8403 Colesville Road, Silver Spring, Maryland USA Telephone: (240) Fax: (240)

Transcription

1 BENEFIT COST & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF THE TIGER V APPLICATION ATLANTA BELTLINE COMMUNITY CONNECTOR CITY OF ATLANTA AND ATLANTA BELTLINE, INC. MAY 30, 2013

2 Page 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT, DESIGN & RISK WORKSHOP RESULTS FOR OPCC 2 (October ) CONTENTS OCTOBER 27, 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION DEMAND FORECAST FRAMEWORK POPULATION DATA DEMAND FORECAST BENEFITS FRAMEWORK COSTS Findings Sensitivity Analysis of BCA Results DETAILS OF JOB CREATION ANALYSIS... 22

3 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The requested TIGER V funds are for the Southwest Corridor trail, a bicycle and walking trail facility expansion for the Atlanta BeltLine, for extending the existing West End trail to the north to Lena Street (Washington Park) and south to Allene Avenue. The Project includes; 2.4 miles of multi use trails within the Atlanta BeltLine corridor 14 accessible points of entry Safe routes and connections to four local schools Connections from neighborhoods to four parks Additional opportunities for physical activity in neighborhoods As this project is part of a larger bicycle trail system under development for the Atlanta BeltLine, other portions of this system are included in this analysis, as some have undergone construction and some will be begin construction soon. A table summarizing the changes expected from the project (and the associated benefits) is provided below. Table ES-1: Summary of Infrastructure Improvements and Associated Benefits Current Status or Changes to Baseline Population Affected Baseline / Benefits & Problems to be by Impacts Alternatives Addressed Cyclist Benefits Pedestrian Commuter Bicycle and Pedestrian Livability & Sustainability Safety Improved Health Improved Mobility Increase in Recreation Activity Reduction in VMT due to Reduced Auto Use Reduction in On- Street Bicycle Accidents New & Existing Cyclists New & Existing Pedestrian Commuters New & Existing Recreational Activists All All Savings on future health care costs due to accessible recreation activity Access to non-vehicle mode of transportation for the purposes of a safe and comfortable commute Enhanced recreation value for cyclists and pedestrians Congestion relief due to lower auto use relative to the no-build condition Vehicle, cyclist and pedestrian reduction in accidents due to safer and dedicated trails Summary of Results (millions of $2012) Page # $ $ $ $ Not Quantified 15 The period of analysis used in the estimation of benefits and costs corresponds to 34 years, including 4 years of construction and 30 years of operation. The total project costs are $65.2 million dollars, of which, $20.4 million has either been spent or committed to construction to date on the Eastside Corridor trails. The remaining construction totals $43.3 million dollars, with $0.6 million needed for Operations and Maintenance over the period of analysis. The funds and are expected to be financed by Federal, State, and local funds according to the distribution shown in Table ES 2.

4 Page 3 Table ES-2: Summary of Project Costs and Anticipated Funding Sources, in Millions of Dollars of 2012 Percent of Funding Capital Operation & Maintenance Total Cost Financed Source Costs Costs by Source Federal $ % State $ % Local $6.9 $ % TIGER Request $ % TOTAL $43.3 $ % A summary of the relevant data as well as the calculations used to derive the benefits and costs of the project are shown in Table ES 3 (in dollars of 2012). Based on the Benefit Cost Analysis presented in the rest of this document, the full BeltLine project is expected to generate $105.4 million in discounted benefits and $59.0 million in discounted costs, using a 7 percent real discount rate. Therefore, the project is expected to generate a Net Present Value of $46.4 million and a Benefit/Cost Ratio of 1.79.

5 Page 4 Table ES-3: Summary of Pertinent Data, Quantifiable Benefits and Costs, Non Discounted Calendar Health Recreation Mobility Reduced Auto Total Project Total Benefits Year Benefits Benefits Benefits Use Benefits Cost 2012 $7,000, $10,190, $10,454, $28,914, $24,702 $5,592,237 $1,256,515 $311,425 $7,184,880 $7,264, $28,004 $6,351,036 $1,414,117 $315,038 $8,108,195 $48, $31,379 $7,126,687 $1,597,915 $318,692 $9,074,674 $48, $31,743 $7,209,357 $1,616,451 $322,389 $9,179,940 $48, $32,111 $7,292,985 $1,635,202 $326,129 $9,286,427 $48, $32,484 $7,377,584 $1,654,170 $329,912 $9,394,150 $48, $32,860 $7,463,164 $1,673,359 $333,739 $9,503,122 $48, $33,242 $7,549,737 $1,692,770 $337,610 $9,613,358 $48, $33,627 $7,637,314 $1,712,406 $341,527 $9,724,873 $48, $34,017 $7,725,906 $1,732,270 $345,488 $9,837,682 $48, $34,412 $7,815,527 $1,752,364 $349,496 $9,951,799 $48, $34,811 $7,906,187 $1,772,691 $353,550 $10,067,240 $48, $35,215 $7,997,899 $1,793,255 $357,651 $10,184,020 $48, $35,623 $8,090,674 $1,814,056 $361,800 $10,302,154 $48, $36,037 $8,184,526 $1,835,099 $365,997 $10,421,659 $48, $36,455 $8,279,467 $1,856,387 $370,243 $10,542,551 $48, $36,878 $8,375,509 $1,877,921 $374,537 $10,664,844 $48, $37,305 $8,472,664 $1,899,705 $378,882 $10,788,556 $48, $37,738 $8,570,947 $1,921,741 $383,277 $10,913,704 $48, $38,176 $8,670,370 $1,944,033 $387,723 $11,040,303 $48, $38,619 $8,770,947 $1,966,584 $392,221 $11,168,370 $48, $39,067 $8,872,690 $1,989,397 $396,770 $11,297,923 $48, $39,520 $8,975,613 $2,012,474 $401,373 $11,428,979 $48, $39,978 $9,079,730 $2,035,818 $406,029 $11,561,555 $48, $40,442 $9,185,055 $2,059,434 $410,739 $11,695,669 $48, $40,911 $9,291,601 $2,083,323 $415,503 $11,831,339 $48, $41,386 $9,399,384 $2,107,490 $420,323 $11,968,583 $48, $41,866 $9,508,417 $2,131,937 $425,199 $12,107,418 $48, $42,351 $9,618,714 $2,156,667 $430,131 $12,247,864 $48, $42,843 $9,730,292 $2,181,684 $435,121 $12,389,939 $48,117 Total $1,083,801 $246,122,219 $55,177,234 $11,098,517 $313,481,771 $65,219,738 In addition to the monetized benefits presented in Table ES 3, the project would generate benefits that are difficult to quantify. A brief description of those benefits is provided below. Livability Economic Development An increase in property value is a benefit of investing in the Atlanta BeltLine but is unquantified in this analysis. Literature 1 finds an increase in property values of 0.3% in urban areas that are within a mile of a bicycle facility. 1 Krizek, Two Approaches to Valuing Some of Bicycle Facilities Presumed Benefits, Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer 2006.

6 Page 5 Environmental Sustainability Reduced Auto Use The proposed investment brings about new urbanism while preserving greenspace and wildlife habitat. According to statistics complied by The Trust for Public Land, the City of Atlanta is ranked last in percentage of land use dedicated to parks among the nation s 25 largest cities2. Moreover, the same study finds that half of the city s residents do not live within walking distance to a park. By creating bicycle and pedestrian connections with streetscapes that are in line with smart growth principles and land use development objectives, the proposed project promotes accessibility, land use mix, and preserves social and ecological resources. The preservation of social resources is also generated from encouraging infill and redeveloping of older urban areas. Safety Mobility Bicycle safety data is difficult to analyze because stated preferences of cyclists are difficult to match with sparse collision data, especially on off road facilities. Benefits for a reduction of pedestrian and cyclist accidents on the off road facility are not quantified explicitly. Instead, the safety and comfort of the off street facility is a factor of the total value for commuters and recreational users included in the mobility and recreational benefit 2 Eight Years Later, Atlanta Still Last in Parks,

7 Page 6 1 INTRODUCTION The Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) of the Atlanta BeltLine trails and streetscapes project measures benefits against costs throughout the study period beginning at the start of construction and including thirty years of use. The monetized benefits and costs are estimated in 2012 dollars with future dollars discounted using a real rate of seven percent, as per TIGER V guidance. A supplemental presentation of results using a three percent discount rate is also provided. This document presents the assumptions and data employed in the analysis, and introduces the BCA framework. Section 2 details the population estimates and demand forecast. The next section discusses project benefits following the structure provided by the Final Notice for TIGER V. Each benefit category contains a description of the benefit being examined and the computational approach used in the analysis, including monetizing values and lifecycle factors for other feasible alternatives. Section 4 covers project costs, including construction expenditures, as well as operations and maintenance costs. Results of the analysis are then presented in Section 5. Section 6 explains the sensitivity testing of the parameters and assumptions applied in the analysis and details of the Job Creation Analysis are shown in Section 7. 2 DEMAND FORECAST FRAMEWORK The estimation of benefits from the improved project is driven by demand side factors, including the number and preferences of trail users and others who experience welfare gains. The analysis approach is based on the methodology in the Transportation Research Board s (TRB) National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552: Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities Population Data The forecast of trail use begins with an understanding of the local population surrounding the Atlanta BeltLine. Studies discussed in the NCHRP report, and elsewhere, have found that the core set of users live within one mile of a trail. Using the 2010 Census, the potential user population includes the set of Census block groups which have a centroid (center of mass in terms of area, determined within ESRI ArcGIS) within one mile of the trail. These populations values were then grown at the rate of 0.34% (the historic growth rate of Atlanta from 2000 to ), to arrive at 2013 population levels. This analysis assumes that demand is induced spatially in a non linear manner. Also, following NCHRP Guidelines, this one mile zone is further sub divided into quarter mile and half mile distances from the trail. Populations in these sub zones are tracked separately because they represent different levels of demand. The following map presents the population within the one mile buffer around the study area. As introduced earlier in this application, the segment names are abbreviated in the map as followed: Southwest Corridor Trail Eastside Trail Southern Extension Eastside Corridor Trail 3 Krizek, et al, US Census,

8 Page 7 In the Benefit Cost Analysis, benefits are quantified for all users, assuming that access is very limited and benefits would not be realized without all of the significant access points constructed by TIGER V funding. Figure 1: Population of US Census Block Groups of Atlanta BeltLine Atlanta BeltLine TIGER V Trail Segments One Mile Buffer Population by Block Group

9 Page 8 Population estimates for 2013 are determined from the 2011 Census figures using growth rates for Atlanta. Table 1 summarizes the 2013 population estimates for each trail and each sub zone. Note that the Southwest Trail and Eastside Trail Access segments make up the highest proportion of population around these 3 segments of the Atlanta BeltLine. Table 1: Population surrounding Atlanta BeltLine Segments Segments Atlanta BeltLine Sub-zones 2013 Population Southwest Corridor Trail 40% of total population of Segments 1/4 mile 4,584 1/2 mile 9,646 1 mile 29,090 Subtotal Population Segment 43,321 Eastside Trail Southern Extension 17% of total population of Segments A-D 1/4 mile 1,460 1/2 mile 6,563 1 mile 10,875 Subtotal Population Segment 18,899 Eastside Corridor Trail 42% of total population of Segments A-D 1/4 mile 3,990 1/2 mile 11,654 1 mile 30,208 Subtotal Population Segment 45,853 Total Around Atlanta BeltLine Segments 108, Demand Forecast Economic analysis of the value of trail use, for both pedestrians and cyclists, categorizes users into four groups: 1. Existing Commuters 2. Existing Recreational Users 3. New Commuters 4. New Recreational Users This categorization is required for both segmenting user estimates and value of their use. A diagram (Figure 2) shows how these estimates are developed for cyclists. Bicycle Users Existing Bicycle Commuters: The method for estimating users involves multiplying the proportion of the adult population in each sub zone by the proportion of commuters (overall) and then with the share of bicycle commuters. The US Census reports that Atlanta s adult population is 80 percent of the total population. In addition, NCHRP assumes that about 50 percent of adults are commuters. In 2011, Atlanta ranked in the top half of the top 50 cities for share of workers who commute by bicycle, of the 50 US cities with the most workers. The percentage of bicycle commuters in Atlanta is 0.9 percent. 5 The 5 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.

10 Page 9 multiplication of these factors by the population buffer yields the daily existing bicycle commuters. (See Table 2.) Figure 2: Demand Forecast Framework 1 mile ½ mile Total Population % of Adults ¼ mile % Bicycling Commuting Share (US Census) % of Adult Commuters Population Growth Rate (%) NCHRP Multipliers for Existing Recreational Users Total Existing Users Total Existing Bicycle Commuters Total Existing Recreational Users NCHRP Multipliers for New Users Total New Users Total New Bicycle Commuters Total New Recreational Users Legend Assumption Data Point Existing Recreational Cyclists: Estimates of the total (commuting and recreational) daily bicycle trips, as shown in Table 2, are derived from NCHRP multipliers and based on the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The total adult cyclists are also determined from the estimated number of bicycle

11 Page 10 commuters. Several levels of use have been estimated in the NCHRP report. For this analysis, a moderate level of recreational use is assumed an assumption that makes the number of recreation trips slightly more than commuting trips. The moderate rate is chosen because Atlanta is in the upper half of all cities in terms of the proportion of bicycle commuters and additional streetscaping investments that enables and encourages trail access. Lower and higher rates of use (according to NCHRP) are evaluated in the sensitivity analysis. Existing Recreational Cyclists, Alternative Method: While the analysis is based off the cyclist estimates using the NCHRP methodology above, we believe these estimates are indeed conservative, as an alternative methodology created by the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project 6 suggests the total existing daily trips for the Eastside Trail Access could be upward of 1,307, approximately 70% higher than the 768 in use. This was based on raw data counts collected by Traffic Data Collection, Inc., who collected the data analysis at select locations of the current Eastside Trail. New Commuting and Recreational Cyclists: This analysis applies NCHRP parameters with existing levels of use to estimate the numbers of new users. The number of new users depends on their proximity to the trail (see Table 2). NCHRP reports new demand factors for the ¼ mile, ½ mile and one mile subzones. However, because the one mile factor is not statistically significant, it is not included in the baseline analysis and instead included in the sensitivity analysis. Table 2: New and Existing Cyclist Base Segment Commuters - Cyclists New Daily Trips Existing Daily Trips Recreational Cyclists Existing Daily New Daily Trips Trips Southwest Corridor Trail Eastside Corridor Trail Southern Extension Eastside Corridor Trail Total Around Atlanta BeltLine ,811 Pedestrians NCHRP acknowledges their method does not account for schools or transit systems near the trail. NCHRP also argues that value for pedestrians is not appropriate in urban areas because there are already well developed and safe pedestrian facilities. Accordingly, the report argues that an off road trail would not create the same incentive for use or demand for pedestrians as it does for cyclists. The Atlanta BeltLine provides an altogether unique experience for users. In the main application document, much of the current existing sidewalk network around the Atlanta BeltLine Segments are described as being in a poor state of repair. The main application document also describes the poor safety conditions of the current sidewalks where there over 16 percent of bicycle crashes in the city and 12 percent of pedestrian crashes within the City of Atlanta occur on roadways within one half mile of the proposed trail segments. Not only is it a new park that runs directly through neighborhoods, in an area lacking such, it is a new concept in community connection bridging recreation, education and art. Contrary to NCHRP, this analysis argues that pedestrians on the trail would value the enhanced experience of the park over and above walking on sidewalks in their neighborhood. Dog walkers, 6

12 Page 11 persons with disabilities, children and the elderly would all be expected to enjoy this green space as an enhanced quality of experience. Consistency with NCHRP however is evaluated in the sensitivity analysis by excluding additional benefits for pedestrians. Recreational Pedestrians: Estimates of demand for recreational use are not available in the literature. A conservative assumption of pedestrian recreational demand equal to the number of new and existing recreational cyclists is used in this analysis. (See Table 3.) Existing Recreational Pedestrians, Alternative Method: As mentioned in the section above describing an alternative method to count existing recreational cyclist, the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project 7 provides another methodology for calculating daily average pedestrians. Using the data obtained from the Traffic Data Collection, Inc., study of select locations on the Eastside trail, existing daily pedestrian use for the Eastside trail could be up to 1,807. This value is 135% higher than the current value in use in the model. Commuting Pedestrians: The Atlanta BeltLine would provide opportunities to enhance commuting by walking, as well as biking. Three heavy rail MARTA stations are within a ½ mile of the trails: Ashby, West End and Inman Park. Two additional stations, Oakland City and West Lake are within one mile of the trails. To estimate the number of pedestrian commuters, the Census block groups that are within a half mile buffer of the trail and these MARTA stations are identified. It is assumed that half of this adult population are commuters and would take the train. The estimate of demand also incorporates results from other studies that show about 30 percent of the population near the Ashby, Inman and West End stations are transit dependent 8. (See Table 3.) Table 3: New and Existing Pedestrian Base Segment Commuters (walking to MARTA) Recreational Pedestrians New Daily Trips Existing Daily Trips Southwest Corridor Trail Eastside Corridor Trail Southern Extension Eastside Corridor Trail n/a Total Around Atlanta BeltLine ,811 3 BENEFITS FRAMEWORK This section describes the analytical approach in estimating benefits and the underlying data and assumptions used for Atlanta BeltLine Segment. Many of the quantified benefit categories are outlined in the NCHRP Guidelines, which is based on research on new bicycle facility investments and their societal impacts. The benefits over the lifecycle of the proposed investment rely on the demand forecast discussed in the previous section, and they are quantified (where possible) with respect to direct users and other non users. Benefits per segment begin to accrue as soon as the Southwest trail segment is completed in the beginning of BeltLine Health Impact Assessment

13 Page 12 Table 4 below describes each of the benefits estimated in this analysis in accordance with the TIGER V benefit criteria. Table 4: Benefits and Description by Evaluation Criteria Criteria Benefits Description Livability Health Cost Savings Mobility Recreation Savings on future health care costs due to accessible recreation activity Access to non-vehicle mode of transportation for the purposes of a safe and comfortable commute Enhanced recreation value for cyclists and pedestrians Sustainability Reduced Auto Use Reduced Auto Use Congestion relief due to lower auto use relative to the no-build condition Reductions in pollutants and green house gasses due to auto use reductions relative to the no-build condition Safety Mobility Includes willingness to pay for comfort and safety of off-road facility User Benefits New and Existing Commuter Cyclist Mobility Benefit NCHRP research found that bicycle commuters are willing to spend (M) extra minutes per trip to travel on an off street bicycle trail when the alternative is riding on a street with parked cars. This willingness to travel also reflects users perceived benefit of safety and appreciation for greenspace. The value of time is estimated by using the US DOT guidance for TIGER V published in May, The value of time for personal travel is $13 per hour. The per trip benefit for the appropriate facility is multiplied by the number of daily existing and induced commuters, and then doubled to include trips both to and from work. This results in a daily mobility benefit. NCHRP recommends multiplying the daily benefit by 52 weeks per year and 5 days per week to find the annual benefit. Annual mobility benefit = M V/60 (Existing Commuters + New Commuters) 250 days 2 trips per day Where: M is the time commuters are willing to spend to travel to an off street facility V is the value of time for commuters per hour (translated to minutes by dividing by 60). 250 equals the number of commuting days 2 is the number of trips per day that the commuter spends time traveling to off street facility New and Existing Commuter Pedestrian Mobility Benefit Pedestrian commuters will now have a safer and more comfortable walk to the MARTA station. To capture this benefit, a value based on the pedestrian environment improvement benefits reported in the January 2010 United Kingdom s Department of Transport Guidance on the Appraisal of Walking and

14 Page 13 Cycling Schemes 9 is assigned to these users. This includes a value per mile for lighting, information panels, directional signage and benches. It is assumed that a person would walk a half mile to the MARTA station on the Atlanta BeltLine trail twice a day for 250 commuting days. New Recreational User Benefit A wide variety of studies of outdoor recreational activities (non bicycling) generated typical values of about $40 per day. If a typical day of recreation is about 4 hours, this would equate to about $10/hour. Note that this is an estimate of the net benefits, above and beyond the value of the time taken by the activity itself. It is assumed that this value includes the value of spending time outdoors, and the related benefits of doing so including health cost savings. This estimate is also in line with a recent study of urban trails in Indianapolis, which used the travel cost method to find typical implied values per trip of about $7 $20. The typical day involves about an hour of total bicycling activity. The value a day is assumed at $10. From both NHTS and Twin Cities Travel Behavior Inventory surveys, the average adult cycling day includes about 40 minutes of cycling. This plus some preparation and cleanup time is assumed to be the total time spent cycling. It is assumed that this is the same time and value for pedestrians on the trails. This is multiplied by the number of new users minus the number new commuters. The new user recreational benefit applies to people who will now enjoy outdoor recreational activity on the Atlanta BeltLine who did not spend recreational time outdoors before. To annualize this benefit, NCHRP recommends multiplying this by 365 days per year. Annual recreation benefit = (New users New commuters) * D 365 days per year Where: Existing Recreational User Benefit D is the value of spending recreational time 365 is the potential number of recreational trip days per year The NCHRP Guidelines do not consider benefits for existing recreational users. NCHRP argues that existing recreational cyclists and pedestrian have access to bicycle facilities throughout a city including bike routes, bike lanes, and sidewalks. NCHRP appears to be more focused on the participation of the recreation activity as opposed to the quality of the experience. Although the activity may not change with a new facility, the quality of the experience is enhanced with the Atlanta BeltLine. HDR departs from the NCHRP Guidelines because the Atlanta BeltLine enhances the quality of the experience for all users. Instead, a premium on the value of a trip is developed from the January 2010 UK s Department of Transport Guidance on the Appraisal of Walking and Cycling Schemes. This Guidance reports a premium value of an off road bicycle track versus an on road facility. In this research, an off road facility is valued per use for quality, comfort, convenience and perceived improvements to safety. This value is determined to be about $4 per trip. This benefit is assigned to existing recreational cyclists that would enjoy Atlanta BeltLine s quality, comfort and convenience. The UK Guidance also reports pedestrian environment improvements including lighting, signage, informational panels and benches, valued per use. This value applies to number of total recreational pedestrians, which is assumed to be equal to the number of total recreational cyclists estimated by the NCHRP Guidelines. This value is determined to be about $1 per trip. 9

15 Page 14 The methodology ensures that benefits of the willingness to pay for mobility or health benefits are not double counted. New Cyclist Commuter Health Benefit An annual per capita cost savings from physical activity of $146 is determined by NCHRP by taking the median value of ten studies. Then it is multiplied by the total number of new commuter cyclists to estimate an annual health benefit. Annual health benefit = New Commuters $146 User Safety Benefit NCHRP does not recommend including user safety benefits in a quantitative analysis because the data is inconclusive. Bicycle safety data is difficult to analyze because stated preferences of cyclists are difficult to match with sparse collision data, especially on off road facilities. Benefits for a reduction of pedestrian and cyclist accidents on the off road facility are not quantified explicitly. Instead, the safety and comfort of the off street facility is a factor of the total value for commuters and recreational users included in the mobility and recreational benefit. Non User Benefits Indirect benefits are in the form of decreased auto use and increased livability. Benefits for existing traffic can be analyzed quantitatively by using the estimated reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This generates value for reduction in congestion and pollution in the reduced auto use benefit. Reduced Auto Use Benefit The benefits to society are generated by the number of new cyclist commuters that replace auto travel. The benefits include reduced congestion to remaining drivers, reduced air pollution to all of society, and user cost savings. The total benefit per mile is multiplied by the number of new commuters, the average round trip length, and annualization factors. The savings per mile account for congestion savings and pollution savings for commuting trips during congested periods in urban areas. Research shows that urban congestion costs range from 5 to 30 cents per vehicle mile. The average congestion costs on the non freeway streets that bikes can use is more in the range of 0 to 5 cents a vehicle mile. The average costs of air pollution caused by automobiles are about 5 cents per mile for urban drivers. User cost savings of substituting bicycle trips for auto trips do not have robust literature support. One study that looks into this benefit is critiqued in the NCHRP Guidelines, Quantifying the Benefits of Non Motorized Transport for Achieving TDM Objectives, by Todd Litman for the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. These costs include fuel, tires, maintenance and repairs, and depreciation. This study estimates a savings of 11 to 17 cents per mile of operating a bicycle instead of a car. However, NCHRP disagrees with these findings and asserts that the savings are much lower since maintenance and repairs for tires and the bicycles itself remains. Reduced auto use benefit = New Commuters L S 50 5 Where: L is the average round trip length, assumed to be 14 miles S is the savings per mile, estimated to be $0.15

16 Page is the numbers of weeks per year there are commuters 5 is the number of days per week there are commuters The following figure summarizes the estimation of the four benefit categories created by cyclists on the Atlanta BeltLine. Figure 3: Benefits Calculation of Investments in Bicycle Facilities

17 Page 16 The following table shows the values used in the benefits estimation. These values are estimated in 2012 dollars by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI). Description of Value Value Source & Dollar Year Annual health benefit per commuting cyclist $146 NCHRP Guidelines (2006) Value of Recreational Day per trip $11 NCHRP Guidelines (2006) Existing User Benefit per trip or off-road segregated cycle track relative to no facility $4 Hopkinson & Wardman (1996) as reported in UK Department of Transport Guidance* Congestion savings per mile $0.15 NCHRP Guidelines (2006) Value of time per hour $13.05 Total Pedestrian Environment Impacts per trip including street lighting, information panels, directional signage and benches assuming a half hour trip walking 3 miles per hour Commuting Pedestrian Benefit per trip assuming a half mile trip walking 3 miles per hour $1 $0.34 US DOT TIGER V Guidance on Local Personal Travel (2013) Heuman (2006) as reported by UK Department of Transport Guidance* Heuman (2006) as reported by UK Department of Transport Guidance* * Values reported in British Pounds are converted to US dollars at the time of the publication and then estimated to 2012 dollars using the CPI. Qualitative Benefits Aside from the benefits that are discussed above, the proposed multi use trail segments provide significant connectivity to Atlanta BeltLine parks and community facilities such as schools and generate positive economic impacts that may be difficult to measure and quantify. In terms of livability impacts, the proposed bicycle trails and associated streetscape will increase community cohesion. This type of benefit will be particularly apparent in areas that are culturally and economically disjointed because of Interstate 20. By providing and enhancing non motorized access to neighborhood amenities, the proposed trails can facilitate existing business, educational, and social exchanges and even attract future opportunities. In terms of sustainability impacts, the proposed investment brings about new urbanism while preserving greenspace and wildlife habitat. According to statistics complied by The Trust for Public Land, the City of Atlanta is ranked last in percentage of land use dedicated to parks among the nation s 25 largest cities 10. Moreover, the same study finds that half of the city s residents do not live within walking distance to a park. By creating bicycle and pedestrian connections with streetscapes that are in line with smart growth principles and land use development objectives, the proposed project promotes accessibility, land use mix, and preserves social and ecological resources. The preservation of social resources is also generated from encouraging infill and redeveloping of older urban areas. 10 Eight Years Later, Atlanta Still Last in Parks,

18 Page 17 An increase in property value is a benefit of investing in the Atlanta BeltLine but is unquantified in this analysis. Literature 11 finds an increase in property values of 0.3% in urban areas that are within a mile of a bicycle facility. Lifecycle Factors Benefits are calculated over a 30 year planning horizon and discounted to present day dollars at a 7 percent discount rate. Benefits increase over time as the number of users grows with the forecasted Atlanta population growth rates, which is 1.16 percent annually. The forecasted population growth rates used are from the Atlanta Regional Commission s Regional 2030 Transportation Plan. It is also assumed that benefits ramp up after construction until the full value is realized. A ramp up describes the increasing use of a facility, beginning from three quarters of the expected level of use. The initial lower use reflects the fact that potential users have simply not learned of the benefits from the Atlanta BeltLine trails. Such benefit patterns are commonly observed in the response of users to transportation system investments (such as new roads). Benefits are estimated for the primary evaluation criteria. Where appropriate, these are aggregated and compared to project costs in Section 4. The table below describes each benefit estimated for each criteria. Table 5: Value of Benefits and Description by Evaluation Criteria Criteria Category of Benefits Total Benefits ($ millions) Livability Sustainability Health $0.4 Mobility $18.1 Recreation $83.2 Reduced Auto Use $3.8 Reduced Auto Use This benefit also meets the environmental sustainability goal but benefits shown in the Livability section cannot be separated Safety Mobility This benefit meets the safety goal but cannot be separated from the Mobility and Recreation benefits Total Benefits Around Atlanta BeltLine Segments $105.4 The neighborhoods of the Atlanta BeltLine have suffered from the recent recession. Analysis of US Census data shows that over 30 percent of the population in a one mile buffer of the Southwest trail live in poverty. Also, the weighted average of the median household income for all segments (weighted by the number of households) is less than the City of Atlanta. Furthermore, the percentage of the population that is non white for the segments, at 67.9 percent, is greater than for the City of Atlanta. The following table shows these socioeconomic variables and the distribution of benefits by segment. 11 Krizek, Two Approaches to Valuing Some of Bicycle Facilities Presumed Benefits, Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer 2006.

19 Page 18 Table 6: Distribution of Benefits Segments Median Income * % Non White ** Total Benefits ($ millions) Distribution of Benefits Southwest Corridor Trail $25, % $ % Eastside Corridor Trail Southern Extension $98, % $ % Eastside Corridor Trail $98, % $ % Overall for City of Atlanta $50, % $ % Total For Atlanta BeltLine $62, % $ % * American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates at the census tract level, for Census block groups in a 1 mile buffer ** U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3) for Census block groups in a 1 mile buffer 4 COSTS The total capital cost of the Atlanta BeltLine Project in 2012 dollars is $63.6 million. The present value of these capital costs, discounted at 7%, is $59 million. Of this total, $20.2 million has either been spent or is committed to construction beginning later in The remaining costs of $43.6 million focus of the Southwest Corridor trail creation. This includes the construction of 2.4 miles of trails, fourteen accessible connections to the Eastside Trail, and transit preparations. The present value of the Southwest Trail capital costs is $38.1 million This analysis has made every effort to exclude costs which would benefit future transit development, which is part of the long term BeltLine plan. Since the scope of this TIGER V application is for funding only for the bicycle and pedestrian pathways, only costs relevant to benefits derived by users of the trails has been included. The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated to be $6,500 per mile of trails per the NCHRP methodology. The city already maintains the streetscaping and is assumed to continue to do so. In 2012 dollars, the annual O&M costs are $7,403. These costs will be incurred over 30 years. The present value of 30 years of O&M costs is $0.66 million. The following table presents the costs for each segment, and for the entire project. Table 7: Costs, Non Discounted Segments Trail Length (miles) Construction Costs Construction Cost Per Mile Opening Year O&M costs Southwest Corridor Trail 2.4 $43,300,000 $18,041,667 $17,766 Eastside Corridor Trail Southern Extension 1.6 $6,380,000 $3,987,500 $11,844 Eastside Corridor Trail 2.5 $14,000,000 $5,600,000 $18,506 Total For Atlanta BeltLine 6.5 $63,680,000 $9,796,923 $1,539,738

20 Page 19 5 Findings The Atlanta BeltLine project is expected generate $46.4 million worth of societal benefits in excess of costs. The primary outcomes of the cost benefit analysis that lead to this net benefit estimate are presented in Table 8. As this table indicates, discounted benefits exceed costs by 1.8 to 1, which means that for every dollar invested in this project, there will be a $0.8 return in monetized benefits. Table 8: Results Segments Total Discounted Benefits ($ millions) Total Discounted Costs ($ millions) Net Present Value ($ millions) Benefit Cost Ratio Southwest Corridor Trail $40.4 $38.1 $ Eastside Corridor Trail Southern Extension $20.5 $6.3 $ Eastside Corridor Trail $44.5 $14.7 $ Total For Atlanta BeltLine $105.4 $59.0 $ The following tables show the annual undiscounted benefits and costs. Table 9: Annual Undiscounted Benefits Calendar Recreation Health Benefits Year Benefits Mobility Benefits Reduced Auto Use Benefits Total Benefits $24,702 $5,592,237 $1,256,515 $311,425 $7,184, $28,004 $6,351,036 $1,414,117 $315,038 $8,108, $31,379 $7,126,687 $1,597,915 $318,692 $9,074, $31,743 $7,209,357 $1,616,451 $322,389 $9,179, $32,111 $7,292,985 $1,635,202 $326,129 $9,286, $32,484 $7,377,584 $1,654,170 $329,912 $9,394, $32,860 $7,463,164 $1,673,359 $333,739 $9,503, $33,242 $7,549,737 $1,692,770 $337,610 $9,613, $33,627 $7,637,314 $1,712,406 $341,527 $9,724, $34,017 $7,725,906 $1,732,270 $345,488 $9,837, $34,412 $7,815,527 $1,752,364 $349,496 $9,951, $34,811 $7,906,187 $1,772,691 $353,550 $10,067, $35,215 $7,997,899 $1,793,255 $357,651 $10,184, $35,623 $8,090,674 $1,814,056 $361,800 $10,302, $36,037 $8,184,526 $1,835,099 $365,997 $10,421, $36,455 $8,279,467 $1,856,387 $370,243 $10,542, $36,878 $8,375,509 $1,877,921 $374,537 $10,664, $37,305 $8,472,664 $1,899,705 $378,882 $10,788, $37,738 $8,570,947 $1,921,741 $383,277 $10,913, $38,176 $8,670,370 $1,944,033 $387,723 $11,040, $38,619 $8,770,947 $1,966,584 $392,221 $11,168, $39,067 $8,872,690 $1,989,397 $396,770 $11,297, $39,520 $8,975,613 $2,012,474 $401,373 $11,428, $39,978 $9,079,730 $2,035,818 $406,029 $11,561,555

21 Page $40,442 $9,185,055 $2,059,434 $410,739 $11,695, $40,911 $9,291,601 $2,083,323 $415,503 $11,831, $41,386 $9,399,384 $2,107,490 $420,323 $11,968, $41,866 $9,508,417 $2,131,937 $425,199 $12,107, $42,351 $9,618,714 $2,156,667 $430,131 $12,247, $42,843 $9,730,292 $2,181,684 $435,121 $12,389,939 Total $1,083,801 $246,122,219 $55,177,234 $11,098,517 $313,481,771 Table 10: Annual Undiscounted Costs Calendar Year Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Project Cost 2012 $7,000,000 $0 $7,000, $10,190,000 $0 $10,190, $10,406,667 $48,117 $10,454, $28,866,667 $48,117 $28,914, $7,216,667 $48,117 $7,264, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48,117

22 Page 21 Calendar Year Capital Cost O&M Cost Total Project Cost 2040 $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48, $0 $48,117 $48,117 Total $63,680,000 $1,539,738 $65,219,738 6 Sensitivity Analysis of BCA Results Sensitivity analyses are also performed on key parameters used and assumptions applied. The following analyses are examined independently: Discount rate of 3 percent An alternative assumption for bicycle trip demand is used (high and low assumptions) Include the NCHRP new user multiplier for the 1 mile buffer Exclude pedestrian benefits to strictly follow the NCHRP Guidelines Table 11 shows the results of these changes in the analysis. The alternative assumption for bicycle trip demand makes the greatest impact on the NPV of all changes, yielding NPVs of $16.2 million and $89.2 million. As mentioned earlier, the current estimates are conservative compared to alternative values based on current count data collected. The table also shows the percentage change in the NPV from the baseline NPV of $46.4 million. Table 11: Sensitivity Test Results Sensitivity Tests NPV ($ millions) % Change in NPV 3% Discount Rate $ % No Pedestrian Benefits $ % NCHRP New User Factor - 1 mile buffer included $ % Alternative assumption for bicycle trip demand: High $ % Alternative assumption for bicycle trip demand: Low -$ %

23 Page 22 7 DETAILS OF JOB CREATION ANALYSIS Projects that create new employment can be counted as a benefit if the jobs are in fact new and not a transfer from another position. Amid the slack labor market, with high unemployment and slow recovery, capital expenditures for are likely to increase employment overall or, at least retain current jobs that may be vulnerable to being lost. Job years are computed from construction on Atlanta BeltLine trails and streetscapes projects based on short term expenditures and the 1 job per $78,515 in expenditures 12. Of the total Southwest trail project costs, $32.5 million is spent on construction spending. This will result in about 414 job years nationally, most of which will be in Atlanta. This does not include the jobs that will be created later in 2013 when construction begins on the Eastside Corridor Trail extension. It is expected these jobs will be created throughout the 18 months of construction for the Southwest Corridor trail, beginning in 2014 and leading up to the opening year, As per TIGER V guidance More recently, in September 2011, based on further analysis both of actual jobcreation experience from transportation projects under the Recovery Act and on further macroeconomic analysis, the CEA determined that a job-year is created by every $76,923 in transportation infrastructure spending (or 13,000 jobyears per billion dollars of transportation infrastructure spending).