Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis

7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis

1/164


2/164


3/164

iii

Preface

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

Engineering American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Class of 2012 and Dr. William

J. Davis, whose expertise in transportation analysis for the cost portion of the study was

invaluable.


4/164

iv

Table of Contents

Page

Preface .......................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................. vList of Tables.................................................................................................................. vi

Abstract ....................................................................................................................... viii

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ ix

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

2. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Demand .......................................................................................................... 11

2.2.1 Bicycle ............................................................................................... 12

2.2.2 Pedestrian........................................................................................... 13

2.3 Benefits .......................................................................................................... 15

2.3.1 Air Pollution Reduction ...................................................................... 16

2.3.2 Congestion Reduction ........................................................................ 19

2.3.3 Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures from Physical Activity ..... 21

2.3.4 Reduction in Use of Gasoline (Natural Resources) ............................. 22

2.3.5 Increased Tourism .............................................................................. 23

2.4 Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio ....................................................... 26

3. Results ..................................................................................................................... 28

3.1 Cost ................................................................................................................ 28

3.2 Demand .......................................................................................................... 34

3.2.1 800-Meter Buffer ............................................................................... 34

3.2.2 1600-Meter Buffer ............................................................................. 38

3.3 Benefits .......................................................................................................... 42

3.3.1 Air Pollution Reduction ...................................................................... 42

3.3.2 Congestion Reduction ........................................................................ 43

3.3.3 Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures from Physical Activity ..... 44

3.3.4 Reduction in Use of Gasoline (Natural Resources) ............................. 46

3.3.5 Increased Tourism .............................................................................. 48

3.3.6 Benefits Summary .............................................................................. 50

3.4 Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio ....................................................... 52

3.4.1 Battery2Beach .................................................................................... 52

3.4.2 Battery2Beach Plus Network Improvements ...................................... 56

4. Discussion ............................................................................................................... 62


5/164

v

4.1 Additional Benefits ......................................................................................... 62

4.2 Summary ........................................................................................................ 64

References ..................................................................................................................... 67

Additional Resources ..................................................................................................... 72Appendix A. Garrett Wonders .................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B. BLOS & PLOS Formulas ....................................................................... A-4

Appendix C. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices .......................................... A-5

Appendix D. Individual Segment Construction Cost Estimates ................................... A-6

Appendix E. Alternate Routes ................................................................................... A-72

Appendix F. Battery2Beach Route: Scheduled for Improvement ............................... A-75

Appendix G. Battery2Beach Route: Network Improvements .................................... A-77

Appendix H. Battery2Beach Tourism Impacts by Type & Bicycle Tourist

Estimates ............................................................................................. A-80


6/164

vi

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Proposed Battery2Beach route .................................................................................... 2

2. Wonders Way multi-use path on the Cooper River Bridge .......................................... 23. Determinations of average commute length and number of days commuting ............. 19

4. Battery2Beach 800-meter buffer ............................................................................... 35

5. Battery2Beach 1600-meter buffer ............................................................................. 39

6. Battery2Beach BCR using the 20-year real interest rate ............................................ 54

7. Battery2Beach BCR using the 30-year real interest rate ............................................ 56

8. Battery2Beach + network BCR using the 20-year real interest rate............................ 59

9. Battery2Beach + network BCR using the 30-year real interest rate............................ 61

10. Garrett Wonders ................................................................................................... A-1

11. Folly Road bridge replacements .......................................................................... A-75


7/164

vii

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Roadway alterations and costs activity ........................................................................ 9

2. Top 8 tourist attractions for Charleston, SC and Outer Banks, NC............................. 243. Battery2Beach primary route summary ..................................................................... 29

4. Battery2Beach alternate routes .................................................................................. 31

5. Battery2Beach route: scheduled for improvement ..................................................... 32

6. Battery2Beach route: network improvements ............................................................ 33

7. Battery2Beach (B2B) and network improvement costs.............................................. 34

8. 800-meter buffer bicycle demand .............................................................................. 36

9. 800-meter buffer pedestrian demand ......................................................................... 37

10. 1600-meter buffer bicycle demand .......................................................................... 40

11. 1600-meter buffer pedestrian demand ..................................................................... 41

12. Annual air pollution reduction cost savings ............................................................. 42

13. Annual congestion cost savings ............................................................................... 43

14. 800-meter buffer annual medical care cost savings from physical activity ............... 45

15. 1600-meter buffer annual medical care cost savings from physical activity ............. 46

16. Annual gasoline cost savings .................................................................................. 48

17. Tourist spending percentages .................................................................................. 49

18. Bicycle tourist spending .......................................................................................... 49

19. Battery2Beach tourism impacts ............................................................................... 50

20. Battery2Beach low benefit summary ....................................................................... 50

21. Battery2Beach medium benefit summary ................................................................ 51

22. Battery2Beach high benefit summary ...................................................................... 51

23. Battery2Beach NPV using the 20-year real interest rate .......................................... 53

24. Battery2Beach NPV using the 30-year real interest rate .......................................... 55

25. Battery2Beach + network NPV using the 20-year real interest rate .......................... 58

26. Battery2Beach + network NPV using the 30-year real interest rate .......................... 60

27. Economic impacts of the low (10,200) bicycle tourist estimate ........................... A-80

28. Economic impacts of the medium-low (40,800) bicycle tourist estimate.............. A-81

29. Economic impacts of the medium (102,000) bicycle tourist estimate ................... A-81

30. Economic impacts of the high (680,000) bicycle tourist estimate ........................ A-81


8/164

Abstract

The objective of this analysis is to provide a sound comparison of the costs and

benefits of the Battery2Beach, a multi-use path proposed by Charleston Moves, an

advocacy group in Charleston, SC that promotes cycling and walking. Decision makers

routinely take into consideration the costs and benefits of a transportation project before

allowing it to move forward (Urban Design 4 Health, 2010). However, due to the non-

monetary nature of bicycle and pedestrian project benefits and only recent recognition of

the validity of monetizing these benefits, decision makers are typically unaware of the

return on investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (Litman and Doherty,

2009). The cost methodology followed was the same as that used by professional civil

engineers and utilized the most recent and area-specific construction costs as possible. A

conservative demand methodology and realistic, area-specific benefit estimates for air

pollution reduction, congestion reduction, direct medical care cost reduction from

physical activity, reduced use of gasoline, and increased tourism were used to determine

benefits. Results indicate that for each $1 invested in the Battery2Beach multi-use path,

the community will see a return of $1.92 to $9.32 in benefits.


9/164

ix

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to the many people that made this projectpossible. My advisory committee, Burton Callicott, Tom Bradford, William J. Davis, and

Don Sparks, provided support and guidance throughout this project, for which I willalways be grateful.

Charleston Moves and Tom Bradford gave me the opportunity to conduct this research,and demonstrated ample patience as I determined what to do and how to do it. BurtonCallicotts willingness to join my committee, and all of the insights he shared weretremendous assets to me and to the project overall.

Dr. Davis, who was the first person to agree to assist me in this endeavor, brought in theCitadel Chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers, specifically the class of2012. I cannot thank all of these volunteers enough. They spent countless hours on thecost analysiscollecting data, performing analyses, presenting the research, andanswering my engineering questions. In particular, Aaron Lee, Ben Schwenk, ChrisGeary, Clay Frontz, Jason Barker, John Tousignant, and Nathan Fultz were instrumentalin the completion of the cost analysis. Thank you for including me in the many stepsinvolved in the analysis and providing some much needed laughs along the way.

I am grateful to Mary Graham (Center for Business Research at the Charleston MetroChamber of Commerce), Jeff Burns (Berkeley Charleston Dorchester Council ofGovernments), and Sarah Worth OBrien (Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager atthe Institute for Transportation Research and Education). They willingly shared theirknowledge and resources, which made my job that much easier.

Mark McConnell, the MES Program Coordinator, is amazing and does everything he canto make graduate life easier for all MES students. I know he made mine less stressful.To the MES professors and students, you taught me so much, and I would like to thankyou for making my time in the MES program so fulfilling.

I could not have accomplished any of this without the support and encouragement of myfamily and friends Rachelle Norton, Meredith, Nick, Gavin, and McKayla Azar, Don &Julie Minor, the Morris family, Kimberly Goulart, Kimberly Stringer, Sarah Latshaw,Elizabeth Symon, Michael Griffin, Emma Paz, Jenn Scales, and Anne Cubeta. I am sothankful that all of you are in my life.

I will be eternally grateful to my mom, Sharon Norton, whose unconditional love,

support, and belief that I can do anything was vital to my success.

For their never-ending love, support, and generosity, I dedicate this report to my mom,Sharon, and sisters, Meredith and Rachelle. Thank You.


10/164

1

1. Introduction

The Battery2Beach (B2B) is a path that, upon completion, will provide a

continuous bicycle and walking path approximately 32 miles in length and will connect

three Charleston area beaches and the Battery at the tip of the Charleston peninsula (Fig.

1). The purpose of the path is to provide local residents and tourists with safe, non-

motorized travel options. The path is intended to be safe for pedestrians and bicyclists of

all skill levels.

The Battery2Beach route was conceived by Charleston Moves, a local non-profit

that promotes bicycling and walking. The group successfully advocated for the

incorporation of the 12-foot multi-use path, Wonders Way, on the new Cooper River

Bridge in 2005 (Fig. 2). Though many legislators wanted to eliminate it from the plans in

an effort to cut costs, the Wonders Way path, named for cyclist Garrett Wonders who

was hit and killed by a motorist while cycling in 2004 (Appendix A), has become a

popular attraction for Charleston tourists (McCarthy 2009).

The last century of transportation infrastructure has centered on the personal

motor vehicle. Having been settled hundreds of years before the advent of the motorcar,

the infrastructure in most of the downtown, or peninsula area of Charleston, is pedestrian

and bike-friendly. Bicycling is a popular mode of transportation for many people in the

downtown area, especially for students attending one of the four colleges located on the

peninsula who live on or near campus. The grid design of this area and low speed limits

make for a relatively safe bicycling environment.


11/164

2

Figure 1. Proposed Battery2Beach route

Figure 2. Wonders Way multi-use path on the Cooper River Bridge(Source: http://mickydee.hubpages.com)


12/164

3

Those bicyclists not living in peninsular Charleston face a treacherous route to the

downtown area, to stores and other destinations. The current bicycle and pedestrian

infrastructure in Charleston, SC is woefully incomplete (Leigh 2007). Bike lanes and/or

sidewalks are limited to various sections of the roadway that often begin and end abruptly

leaving bicyclists and pedestrians stranded or forced to ride or walk on dangerously fast

and unprotected roadways.

Decision makers routinely take into consideration the costs and benefits of a

transportation project before allowing it to move forward (Urban Design 4 Health 2010).

However, due to the non-monetary nature of bicycle and pedestrian project benefits and

only recent recognition of the validity of monetizing these benefits, decision makers are

typically unaware of the return on investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

(Litman and Doherty 2009). With limited budgets and a constantly growing list of

projects, it is logical to invest in those projects that are predicted to have a high return on

investment. Previous bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects in Charleston, such

as the Wonders Way path, were approved due to the work of advocacy groups like

Charleston Moves who organized and galvanized community support. Calculating the

monetized benefits of bicycle and pedestrian projects will provide decision makers with

more complete knowledge with which to make infrastructure decisions.

The Battery2Beach is still in the proposal phase and requires the approval of local

decision makers and the South Carolina Department of Transportation. The objective of

this study is to show the technical feasibility of the Battery2Beach route and to provide a


13/164

4

monetary measure of return so that it can easily be compared to the required

expenditures.


14/164

5

2. Methodology

2.1. Evaluation of Current Road Conditions

Evaluations of the route took place in the fall of 2010. Due to the large number of

roadway miles included in the analysis and the varying types of roadways involved, the

route was divided into sections that have similar physical characteristics. Each segment

is characterized as primary, alternate, or interim:

1. [P]rimary: the path identified by Charleston Moves as the Battery2Beach

route before any analysis took place

2. [A]lternate: a segment identified by Citadel ASCE members that may be less

problematic or more beneficial than one(s) initially chosen by Charleston

Moves

3. [I]nterim: routes that are currently the most desirable to use until the official

Battery2Beach is completed.

Data Collected for each segment include:

Width and configuration of existing motor vehicle lanes

Width and condition of existing pavement

Width of existing bicycle lanes and shoulder

Width and condition of existing sidewalks

Posted speed limit

Any existing buffers between sidewalks, bike lanes, and/or roadway

Available Right of Way


15/164

6

Average daily traffic volume (ADT) and traffic distribution factor variables

Percent of heavy vehicles that travel the roadway

Presence of utility poles

Existing curb and gutter

This data was used to determine the Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) and

Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) for each section (Appendix B). The ratings range

from A to F with A being the highest rating (Bicycle Level of Service 2007; Petritsch et

al. 2010). Any segment with a BLOS or PLOS rating of D or F will require some

modification so that it meets at least a C rating (Bicycle Level of Service 2007). The

design guidelines for the Battery2Beach route are based on nationally accepted standards

and regulations. These include:

Battery2Beach signage every mile and at every turn (AASHTO Guide 2010,

pg. 21)

Signage and traffic control devices must comply with the Manual on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (Appendix C)

4 foot minimum width for bicycle lanes on streets without curbs or gutters

(AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 22)

5 foot minimum width for bicycle lanes on streets with curbs and when adjacent

to on-street parking (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 23)


16/164

7

Bicycle lanes established on both sides of the street, going with the flow of traffic,

and, where applicable, placed between the motor vehicle lane and on-street

parking lane. (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 22)

11 foot minimum width for shared bicycle lane and parking area (if parking area

does not use stripes or stalls) without a curb (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 22)

12 foot minimum width for shared bike lane and parking area with a curb


6 inch minimum solid white line delineating motor vehicle lane and bike lane


4 inch optional solid white line delineating bike lane from parking spaces, where

applicable (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 23)

10 foot minimum width for a two-way, shared use path on a separate right of way


BLOS or PLOS rating C or above

Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-way

included in design elements

5 foot minimum width for sidewalks, excluding curbs and obstructions,

recommended by FHWA and Institute of Transportation Engineers on each side

of the street (Sidewalks and Walkways)

A buffer of 4-6 feet is desirable to separate pedestrians from motor vehicle lanes

(Sidewalks and Walkways)


17/164

8

After determining the BLOS and PLOS rating, the required modifications for each

segment of the route that received a D or F were identified. Current unit costs for the

required alterations were determined (Table 1), and the unit cost of required alterations

was multiplied by the appropriate variable (i.e. length, width, sq. ft.) of the segment in

question. Three components were excluded from the cost estimates:

1. Right of Way (ROW): modifications were designed specifically to stay

within the existing ROW, as a result, there are no costs associated with

acquiring additional ROW area.

2. Utility Relocation: each utility company and municipality has contracts

specifying the details of the costs associated with utility relocation in

different situations. Typically, because companies do not pay to place

utilities in the ROW, the utility company covers the costs associated with

utility relocation when required by a public project (W.J. Davis, pers.

comm. Nov. 8, 2011).

3. Maintenance: because the Battery2Beach will be added to existing

roadways that already require routine maintenance, any additional

maintenance costs will be negligible. In addition, bicyclists and

pedestrians exert much less pressure on sidewalks and bike lanes resulting

in insignificant wear and tear as compared to a motor vehicle (W.J. Davis,

pers. comm. Nov. 16, 2011).


18/164

9

Table 1. Roadway alterations and costs

Alteration Description Unit Cost or Basis

Widen Roadway 10 ft.

Widen shoulder adding two 5

bike lanes, one on each side ofthe road, mill and overlayexisting pavement with newsurface course

$13,700 per 100-ft.

Widen Roadway 5 ft.

Widen shoulder adding one 5bike lane, mill and overlayexisting pavement with newsurface course

$8,892 per 100-ft.

Resurface RoadwayMill existing pavement toremove markings, apply tackcoat, resurface with slurry coat

$3,193 per 100-ft.

DrainageEnclose existing open drainage(ditch) in 30 RCP utilizingexisting ROW in both directions

$15,183 per 100-ft.

Curb & Gutter2 curb and gutter installed inboth directions, includes curbinlets spaced at 300

$4,868 per 100-ft.

Pedestrian SidewalkInstall new, 5 wide, concretesidewalk in one direction (4

uniform depth)

$2,978 per 100-ft.

Seeding & Landscaping Landscaping of affected areas $176 per 100-ft.

Traffic ControlTemporary traffic control costsduring construction: signage,signal timing adjustments, etc.

$400 per 100-ft.

Unsignaled IntersectionCreate unsignalized crosswalkparallel to B2B path in onedirection

$1,700 per intersection

Signalized IntersectionUpgrade existing signalizedintersection to include bike lanesand 4-way pedestrian crossings

$16,500 per intersection

Bike Lane StripingStriping for 1-way bike lane (2solid white lines) and alternatingdiamond and bicycle markings

$140 per 100-ft.


19/164

10

Table 1. (continued)

Alteration Description Unit Cost or Basis

Shared Lane Markings orSharrows (indicatescyclists may use the fulltravel lane)

Striping of sharrows (share theroad markings), spaced at 500in two directions

$140 per 100-ft.

Broken Line StripingStriping of broken 4 lines on aper line per station cost

$55 per 100-ft.

Solid Line StripingStriping of solid 4 lines on a perline per station cost

$40 per 100-ft.

B2B Route SignageGround-mounted Battery2BeachRoute signs spaced every quarter

of a mile

$31 per 100-ft.

Temporary ErosionControl

Silt fencing, etc. $520 per 100-ft.

MobilizationConstruction equipmentmobilization costs

12% of ConstructionSubtotal

ConstructionContingencies

Project construction costs10% of Construction

Subtotal

EngineeringDesign/Permitting

Project engineering design andpermitting costs

8% of Construction CostsTotal

CE&IConstruction engineering and

inspections costs

12% of Construction

Costs Total

Escalation3% interest compoundedcontinuously per year for 3 years

(1.033-1)

Source: Citadel ASCE 2011

Necessary Battery2Beach facility improvements were identified along the

proposed (primary) route and corresponding construction costs were developed for each

of the 65 primary and 44 alternate roadway segments. In addition, other related

transportation network improvements, beneficial to all roadway users and necessary

regardless of the implementation of the Battery2Beach, were identified, evaluated and


20/164

11

estimated. Battery2Beach and related network improvement costs, based on 2011

construction data, were tabulated with respect to geographic location. The locations

include:

1. Isle of Palms (IOP)

2. Sullivans Island

3. Mount Pleasant

4. Charleston

5. James Island

6. Folly Beach

2.2 Demand

A Geographic Information System (GIS) map with current census block data was

used to determine the population living within 800 and 1600-meters ( mile and 1 mile)

of the proposed route (Barnes and Krizek 2005; Hawk 2009). Research shows that this

geographic range surrounding a safe route consistently induces bicycle ridership

(Poindexter et al. 2007). After making a layer file of the Battery2Beach route, 2010

census block data was added. The buffer toola was used to distinguish the area 800 and

1600-meters from the route. Each buffer was dissolved and intersected with the census

population data. From the GIS data table, the population inside the buffer was

a The GIS buffer tool creates a polygon of specified distance around a feature within the map. Attributes

belonging only to the area within the buffer can then be determined. (Source: http://webhelp.esri.com)


21/164

12

determined by estimating the population density of each block group and multiplying this

number by the area of the block group within the buffer.

2.2.1 Bicyclists

National statistics identify 80% of the population as adults and 50% of adults as

commuters (Hawk 2009). Applying these statistics to the population (Pi) living within

each of the buffer zones gives the estimated number of commuters(Ni).

Ni = Pi 0.8 0.5

These results were multiplied by Charlestons existing bicycle commute share(Cb) to

estimate the number of adults that commute by bicycle (Bi) in each buffer zone.

Bi =Ni Cb

Because the Census bicycle commute share only accounts for those cycling to

workignoring those that cycle for other utilitarian purposes and recreationit

underestimates the total amount of bicycling (Krizeket al. 2006; 2001 NHTS).

According to Appendix A of the Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle

Facilities (Krizeketal. 2006) and the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (2001),

total adult bicycling rates (Rbi) in metropolitan areas vary from a low (the Census

bicycle commute rate) to a high, defined by 0.5 percent plus 3 times the Census bicycle

commute rate. In between these two rates is a medium rate defined by 0.3 percent plus

1.5 times the Census bicycle commute rate.

Rbihigh = 0.005 + 3Cb

Rbimedium = 0.003 + 1.5Cb

Rbilow = Cb


22/164

13

To determine the total daily existing cyclists(Tbi), the high, medium, and low

bicycling rates for each buffer zone were multiplied by the total population in the

specified buffer and 0.8 (statistics identify 80% of the US population as adults).

Tbi = Rbi Pi 0.8

Persons living closer to a designated bicycle route (800 meters) are more likely to

use the route than those living further away. In order to account for this, Hawks research

identifies likelihood multipliers (Lbi) for each buffer zone. By multiplying the two adult

groups [bicycle commuters (Bi)and total daily cyclists (Tbi)] from each buffer zone by the

likelihood multipliers, the number of additional bicyclists produced by the

implementation of the Battery2Beach route was calculated.

Additional bicycle commuters (Abi) =BiLbi

Additional daily cyclists (Dbi) = Tbi Lbi

Where: Lb800 = 0.51

Lb1600 = 0.44

2.2.2 Pedestrians

The estimated number of commuters (Ni) found in the bicycle demand analysis

(Ni= Pi 0.8 0.5) for the 800 and 1600-meter buffer zones was used in the pedestrian

demand analysis (Hawk 2009). These numbers were multiplied by Charlestons

existing pedestrian commute share (Cp) to estimate the number of adults that are

pedestrian commuters (Wi) in each buffer zone.

Wi =Ni Cp


23/164

14

The same user-rates (Rpi) as used in the bicycle analysis are applied here. The

ratesvary from a low, the Census pedestrian commute rate, to a high, defined by 0.5

percent plus 3 times the Census pedestrian commute rate. In between these two rates is a

medium rate defined by 0.3 percent plus 1.5 times the Census pedestrian commute rate.

Rpihigh = 0.005 + 3Cp

Rpimedium = 0.003 + 1.5Cp

Rpilow = Cp

To determine the total daily existing pedestrians (Tpi), the high, medium, and

low pedestrian rates for each buffer zone were multiplied by the total population (Pi) in

the specified buffer and 0.8 (statistics identify 80% of the US population as adults).

Tpi = Rpi Pi 0.8

Hawks research identifies likelihood multipliers (Lpi) for each buffer zone, as a

person living within 800 meters of a route is more likely to use that route than a person

living 1600 meters from the route. By multiplying the two adult groups [pedestrian

commuters (Wi) and total daily pedestrians (Tpi)] from each buffer zone by the likelihood

multipliers, the number of additional pedestrians produced by the implementation of the

Battery2Beach route was estimated.

Additional pedestrian commuters (Api) = WiLpi

Additional daily pedestrians (Dpi) = Tpi Lpi

Where: Lp800 = 0.51

Lp1600 = 0.44


24/164

15

2.3 Benefits

Multi-use paths provide a multitude of benefits, both to those that use the path and

to the wider community. The goal of a benefit analysis is to ascribe a monetary value to

such non-market goods as increased convenience, comfort, and safety for users; reduced

roadway construction, maintenance, and operation costs; reduced energy consumption

resulting in economic and environmental benefits; decreased land needed for widening

roads and additional parking facilities; increased accessibility; increased social equity;

decreased air, noise, and water pollution providing economic and environmental benefits;

and health benefits from physical activity (Litman 2011). This is a difficult task as these

goods are valuable, but not regularly traded on the market (Krizeket al. 2006; Litman

and Doherty 2009). However, studies and data that provide reasonable and viable

monetary estimates of traditionally non-monetized benefits have gained acceptance in the

last fifteen to twenty years (Litman and Doherty 2009). While there is some measure of

uncertainty in the monetization of benefits, as there is with any cost benefit analysis, a

crude approximation, made as exact as possiblewould be preferable to the manifestly

unjust approximation caused by ignoring these [benefits] (Litman and Doherty 2009).

For this report, five benefits are monetized and applied to the implementation of the

Battery2Beach Route. These include:

1. Air Pollution Reduction

2. Congestion Reduction

3. Direct Medical Cost Reduction from Physical Activity


25/164

16

4. Reduced Use of Gasoline/Natural Resources

5. Increased Tourism

Although affecting regular users of the route most directly, the benefits will

positively affect the entire Charleston community. Benefits from reduced air pollution

and increased tourism will positively affect the areas economy. The other three benefits,

reduced congestion, direct medical cost reduction from physical activity, and reduced use

of gasoline/natural resources primarily affect regular users of the path. However, there

will undoubtedly be residual positive effects on the community at large as a reduction in

money spent on motorized transportation allows that money to be spent on goods with

more regional economic value (Litman 2011). Additionally, an increase in money

injected into the regional economy has a multiplying effect that can increase jobs and

local household income ("Economic Multiplier Effect Makes Transportation Tops" 2008;

Hughes 2003).

2.3.1 Air Pollution Reduction

Air pollution has a plethora of negative effects on the environment, from negative

impacts on human health to affecting the local ecosystem (Treshow and Anderson 1991).

Air pollution can lead to extirpation (local extinction) of plants by suppressing the plants

growth and/or vigor and thus reducing its competitive ability (Treshow and Anderson

1991). Biogeochemical cycles can be altered by air pollution (i.e. the addition of sulfur,

nitrogen, or ammonia) resulting in long lasting effects such as acidification of soil,

disruption of critical element ratios, and direct and indirect absorption of pollutants by


26/164

17

plants (Treshow and Anderson 1991). Additionally, air pollution associated with burning

fossil fuel has been shown to accelerate corrosion of traditional building materials such as

marble, metal, and even glass (Inkpen 2004). In fact,

[a]ir pollution can significantly affect the corrosion of materials. In the USA, ithas been estimated that some 4 % of the GNP goes to restoring the damage ofcorrosion, and that about half of this could have been avoided, i.e. is due toanthropogenic causes (Van Grieken et al. 1998).

Without taking measures to reduce air pollution, Charleston runs the risk of prematurely

losing or having to restore many historic buildings and structuresarguably some of the

most significant tourist attractions. Additionally, some of the local iconic plants could

vanish from the area.

In US cities, the largest source of pollution comes from personal vehicle use (Nel

2005; Boubel et al. 1994). However, the multiple variables that affect vehicle emissions,

such as: gasoline formulation, air-fuel ratio, ignition timing, compression ratio, engine

speed and load, engine deposits, engine condition, coolant temperature, and combustion

chamber configuration, make them one of the most difficult to control (Boubel et al.

1994). The 2008 South Carolina Climate Energy Commerce Committee Report

identified three ways to reduce vehicle emissions in the state: improve vehicle fuel

efficiency, reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled, and use lower-emission fuels in

place of gasoline and diesel. Although these are all important measures that can have a

positive impact on air pollution, reduction of vehicle miles traveled is the only measure

that presents a simple, efficient, and 100% effective solution. By providing a safe and

efficient means of transportation, such as the Battery2Beach route, a measureable

reduction in vehicle miles can be achieved with minimum cost to the state.


27/164

18

A study by McCubbin and Delucchi (1999) identifies the economic costs of

illnesses caused by air pollution. These include acute morbidity [headache, sore throat,

eye irritation, respiratory illness (other than asthma), asthma attack, respiratory restricted

activity day (RRAD)], chronic illness, mortality, and cancer (McCubbin and Delucchi

1999). The health costs of air pollution from an automobile (gasoline only) is estimated

at 4.74a (in 1990 dollars) per mile (McCubbin and Delucchi 1999). The online inflation

calculator provided by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics

(www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) was used to update the 1990 value to the

2011 value of 8 per mile. The Battery2Beachs monetary impact on air pollution

reduction is calculated using the following equation (methods and resources used to

determine the average trip length and number of days per year can be seen in Figure 3):

additional commuters average length of trip number of trips per day number of

days per year $0.08

a This is an average of the high (8.83) and low (0.65) estimates of per mile health costs of air pollution

from a motor vehicle in the US in 1990 dollars (McCubbin and Delucchi 1999).
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm


28/164

19

1. Average Length of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Commute Trip

Bicycle: 2.6 miles

Pedestrian: 0.7 miles

("2009 NHTS Average Person Trip Length by Mode and Purpose.", 2009)

2. Steps to Determine Days Commuting by Bicycle and Foot

Step 1. 2 days per weekend 52 weekends per year= 104 weekend days

Step 2. 20 paid days off per year (Miller, 2010).

Step 3. 365 days per year104 weekend days20 paid days off= 241 working

days per year

Step 4. Bicycle commuters average 4 days per week commuting by bicycle

(Moritz, 1997).

Step 5. 241 working days (4/5)= 192.8 days per year commute by bicycle

Step 6. Pedestrian commuters average 3 days per week commuting by foot

(How Many People Walk?)

Step 7. 241 working days (3/5)= 144.6 days per year commute by foot

Figure 3. Determinations of average commute length and number of days commuting

2.3.2 Congestion Reduction

Congestion is a traffic condition in which the number of vehicles on the road

exceeds the ability of the road to accommodate them, which results in travel delays

(Weisbrod et al. 2001). Negative impacts resulting from congestion include air quality

(due to additional vehicle emissions), quality of life (due to personal time delays), and

business activity (due to the additional costs and reduced service areas for workforce,


29/164

20

supplier, and customer markets) (Weisbrod et al. 2001). Geographic features of a

region, such as the multiple waterways in Charleston, SC, exacerbate congestion because

they limit route alternatives (Lomax et al. 2011).

Traffic congestion resulted in the inefficient use of 3.9 billion gallons of fuel on

idling and 4.8 million hours of time worth $115 billion due to lost productivity expended

in the United States in 2009 alone (Lomax et al. 2011). Congestion in greater Charleston

accounted for more than 8.3 million gallons of fuel and 9.1 million hours of travel delay,

worth an estimated $227 million in lost revenue in 2009 (Lomax et al. 2011). For the

average individual traveler in Charleston-North Charleston in 2009, 27 hours were lost to

congestion delays and 24 gallons of fuel expended to keep the engine running while at a

standstill (Lomax et al. 2011). The Urban Mobility Report estimates the extra fuel

consumed and time wasted while in congested conditions to be $646 per Charleston-

North Charleston automobile commuter per year (Lomax et al. 2011). Fuel costs

included in the congestion cost estimate are based solely on the extra fuel used (30% on

average) when one encounters congested conditions (Litman and Doherty 2009; Lomax

et al. 2011). The 2009 cost estimate was updated to the 2011 value of $680.28 using the

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics online calculator. The Battery2Beachs

expected impacts on congestion reduction were estimated, for the 800-meter buffer and

1600-meter buffer, by multiplying the additional bicycle and pedestrian commuters by

$680.28.


30/164

21

2.3.3 Direct Medical Cost Reduction from Physical Activity

Dependence on the automobile as the main form of transportation in the United

States has resulted in devastating impacts on health, most directly from decreased

opportunities for physical activity (Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. 2010). A sedentary

lifestyle can lead to an overwhelming array of health issues, including cardiovascular

disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, cancer, depression, and premature

death (Warburton et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2005; U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services 1996). Healthcare spending is estimated to reach an astronomical $3.1 trillion in

2012, and healthcare reform has become a major issue in national politics and households

nation-wide (Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. 2010).

Pratt et al. (2000) used the National Medical Expenditures Survey to determine

the amount of money a person could save annually in medical expenses by engaging in

regular moderate physical activity. Regular moderate physical activity is defined as

spending 30 minutes three or more times per week in moderate or strenuous activity

(Pratt et al. 2000). The survey divided respondents into three groups: persons with no

physical limitations, persons with some physical limitations, and current smokers. An

estimate of direct medical expenditures that could be avoided by regular exercise was

determined for each group:

Persons with no physical limitations: $330

Persons with some physical limitations: $1,053

Current Smokers: $906


31/164

22

The $330 annual savings for a person with no physical limitations will be used in

this analysis because there is no way to determine how many potential users of the

Battery2Beach are smokers or have some physical limitations. The US Bureau of Labor

and Statistics online inflation calculator(www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)

was again utilized to bring the $330 annual per person estimation to the corresponding

2011 cost of $658.10 annually per person. The implementation of the Battery2Beach will

provide a safe transportation alternative that will make it easy to incorporate physical

activity into daily life. The direct reduction of medical costs from physical activity

brought about by the Battery2Beach was estimated by multiplying the additional bicycle

and pedestrian commuters as well as the additional daily cyclists and pedestrians (for

each buffer there is a high, medium, and low additional daily estimate) by the estimated

annual savings of $658.10.

2.3.4 Reduced Use of Gasoline/Natural Resources

Two-thirds of the oil consumed in the US is for transportation (Jacobson and King

2009). Converting automobile trips to walking or bicycling will save consumers on fuel

costs and reduce oil consumption overall. According to the United States Energy and

Information Administration website, the average price for a gallon of gasoline in 2010

was $2.714 for the lower Atlantic region (Weekly Lower Atlantic 2011). The 2010

average cost was used so that seasonal pricing variations would be captured in the

average. However, gasoline prices have risen substantially (average $3.449 for January
http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/http://inflation_calculator.htm/


32/164

23

through May 2011) and will most likely continue to rise as the natural stores of crude oil

are depleted.

National travel data were used to turn the additional pedestrian commuter and

additional bicycle commuter counts into miles traveled. The Highway Statistics 2005

report from the Federal Highway Division of the United States Department of

Transportation states that the average combined mpg for all cars and light trucks on

United States roads was 19.8 mpg. The combined estimation of additional miles traveled

was divided by 19.8 mpg to estimate the average number of gallons of gasoline saved

with the implementation of the Battery2Beach. The number of gallons was multiplied by

the 2010 average cost of gasoline for the lower Atlantic region ($2.714). This formula

estimated the cost of the gasoline avoided by those additional bicycle and pedestrian

commuters on the Battery2Beach (Fig. 3).


days ($2.714 per gallon/19.8 mpg)

2.3.5 Increased Tourism

Tourism is one of the top four economic drivers of the Charleston economy

(Charleston, SC Economic Profile 2011). Over four million people visit Charleston

every year providing an annual economic impact of $3 billion (Charleston, SC

Economic Profile 2011). The North Carolina Northern Outer Banks share similar

physical characteristics with Charleston: a coastal location, flat terrain, temperate climate,

and approximately four million tourists visit every year (Lawrie et al. 2004). Charleston


33/164

24

and the Outer Banks also share many of the same features that tourists report attracted

them to the location, including the beach, shopping, and restaurants (Table 2) (Estimation

of Tourism Economic Impacts in the Charleston Area 2010; Lawrie et al. 2004).

Additionally, most visitors to both locations originate from the east coast of the United

States (Estimation of Tourism Economic Impacts in the Charleston Area 2010; Strategic

Marketing & Research, Inc. 2006). One significant difference, however, is that the Outer

Banks offers 50 miles of continuous bicycle paths while Charleston has limited options

for safe cycling (Lawrie et al. 2004).

Table 2. Top 8 tourist attractions for Charleston, SC and Outer Banks, NC

Charleston, SC Outer Banks, NC

1. Food 1. Oceans/Beaches

2. History 2. Unique Restaurants

3. Ambiance/Atmosphere 3. Scenic Beauty

4. Attractions 4. Shopping

5. Local Hospitality 5. Lighthouses

6. Beach/Waterfront 6. Historic Sites

7. Tours 7. Scenic Drive

8. Shopping 8. Wildlife Viewing/Bird Watching

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

In 2003, the Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North

Carolina State University conducted a study of the impact of bicycle tourism on the Outer

Banks (Lawrie et al. 2004). Results from surveys of visitors indicate that 17% of tourists

(680,000) do some bicycling while in the area. The researchers derived three levels of


34/164

25

estimated impact: high, mid-range, and low. The high estimate was calculated by

multiplying the 680,000 tourists who do some bicycling while in the area by the 15% of

survey respondents who indicated on the questionnaire that bicycling was very

important in their decision to come to the area (Lawrie et al. 2004). This produced a

high impact estimate of 102,000 tourists. The mid-range estimate was calculated by

multiplying the 102,000 tourists from the high impact estimate by the 40% of survey

respondents who also gave a high value to the overall quality of bicycling facilities in

the area (Lawrie et al. 2004). This produced a mid-range impact estimate of 40,800

tourists. The low estimate was calculated by multiplying the 40,800 tourists from the

mid-range impact estimate by the 25% of survey respondents who also said that bicycling

would be important in their decision to return to the area (Lawrie et al. 2004). This

produced a low impact estimate of 10,200 tourists. The survey also determined that

tourists who cycle spent an average of $162.50 per person, per day. For the cost-benefit

this amount has been updated to $199.35 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation

Calculator to reflect 2011 prices. Survey respondents indicated that they extended their

stay in the Outer Banks by 3.5 days in order to fully enjoy the available bicycle facilities.

The Outer Banks Study states that these findings suggest that public investments in

bicycle facilities in other coastal or resort areas could return similar benefits whether

the area attracts tourists primarily for bicycling or for other reasons (Lawrie et al. 2004).

Due to the similarities between the two locations, a benefits-transfer analysis was

completed in order to provide an estimation of the impacts the Battery2Beach will have

on Charleston tourism. The daily expenditures per tourist ($199.35) were divided by the


35/164

26

percent of tourism dollars spent on the following categories: accommodations, food and

beverages, local transportation, tourist attractions, and shopping (Estimation of Tourism

Economic Impacts in the Charleston Area 2010). The dollar amount determined for each

category was then multiplied by the 3.5 average extra days and the estimates of the

number of tourists to determine an approximate increase of tourism dollars to the

Charleston area once the Battery2Beach is implemented.

These figures were entered into the economic impact analysis computer software

IMPLAN, also used in the Outer Banks Study. This software applies local economic data

to the estimates to establish the economic impact on the local economy.

2.4 Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost RatioIn transportation engineering, it is common for project benefits to be calculated for

a 20-year period (W.J. Davis, pers. comm. Oct. 2011). In order to determine the net

present value (benefits minus costs) and the benefit-cost ratio of the Battery2Beachs 20-

year lifespan, the costs and benefitsb must be discounted (Ward 2006). Discounting takes

into account the time-value of money (i.e. $1 received 20 years from now is worth less

than $1 received today) (Ward, 2006). The net present value (NPV) equation is:

NPV = (B0-C0) +(B1-C1)

+(B2-C2)

+(Bn-Cn)

(1+i)1 (1+i)2 (1+i)n

b The lowest benefit estimates for all categories were used in all NPV and BCR calculations.


36/164

27

Where: Bn = Benefitsyear

Cn = Costsyear

i = interest rate

The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) equation is:

The costs for transportation projects are routinely applied as a lump sum in the

year the project is finished (W.J. Davis, pers. comm. Oct. 2011; D.L. Sparks, pers. comm.

Nov. 2011). The Battery2Beach project is estimated to require three years of

construction; therefore, the project costs were analyzed as a lump sum cost in 2014 for

the net present value and benefit-cost ratio calculations. Benefits were considered for

twenty years beginning in 2015.

According to The White House Circular A-94 (1992), public projects, such as the

Battery2Beach, should use the real interest rate, which accounts for inflation, in present

value calculations. The 2011 20-year real interest rate is 2.1% (Budget Assumptions

2010). Calculations using the 2011 30-year real interest rate (2.3%) were also performed

because benefits of the Battery2Beach will accrue until 2035, 24 years from 2011

(Budget Assumptions 2010).

BCR =Present Value of Benefits

Present Value of Costs


37/164

28

3. Results

3.1 Costs

Datacollection for each of the 109 segments of the primary and alternate routes

occurred in the fall of 2010. The data were used to determine the bicycle and pedestrian

level of service. To meet nationally accepted standards, any segment with a BLOS or

PLOS below a C will require modifications in addition to signage (Table 3). Detailed

individual construction cost estimates for each segment of the primary route can be found

in Appendix D.

Alternate routes, segments scheduled for improvement, and network

improvements were not included in the Battery2Beach cost estimate. Descriptions of the

alternate routes can be found in Table 4 and Appendix E. Alternative segments were

included as available options for primary route sections where modifications would be

difficult to implement due to existing conditions. The cost associated with segments of

the Battery2Beach that were scheduled for improvementincluding bicycle and

pedestrian considerationsbefore this analysis began was not included as these projects

were already in the final planning and funding stages (Table 5 and Appendix F).

Network improvements are segments along the Battery2Beach route that need to be

addressed for all usersmotorists included. Because network improvement segments

need alterations regardless of whether Battery2Beach enhancements are included, these

costs are excluded from the Battery2Beach cost estimate (Table 6 and Appendix G).


38/164

29

Table 3. Battery2Beach primary route summary.

MilesSegment

IDCost

BLOS

PLOS

Road Improvement

0.35 504 $43,619.00 D B Center St. Signs/Intersections

0.18 503 $478.00 E C Folly Rd.-Folly River Br. Signs

0.92 502 $242,894.00 C D Folly Rd. Sidewalk

0.14 501 $356.00 E D Folly Rd.-Sol Legare Cr. Br. Signs

1.29 500 $371,156.00 C D Folly Rd. Sidewalk

0.45 439 $1,065,406.00 C D Battery Island Dr. Widening

0.52 430 $1,698,499.00 C D Old Military Rd. Widening

0.34 429 $1,077,101.00 C D Secessionville Rd. Widening

0.99 428 $2,950,155.00 C A Secessionville Rd. Widening

0.40 422 $236,724.00 E B Ft. Johnson Rd. Multi-Use Path

0.22 421 $125,980.00 E B Ft. Johnson Rd. Multi-Use Path

1.40 420 $807,847.00 D E Ft. Johnson Rd. Multi-Use Path

0.71 425 $2,118,734.00 D A Mikell Dr. Widening

1.17 417 $3,053.00 C D Harbor View Rd. Signs

0.20 416 $528.00 E F Harbor View Rd. Signs

0.09 415 $239.00 E F Harbor View Rd.-JI Cr. Br. Signs

0.49 414 $763,877.00 E F Harbor View Rd. Widening

0.56 413 $555,208.00 E D Harbor View Rd. Restriping

0.23 412 $230,773.00 D C Harbor View Rd. Restriping

0.55 411 $1,789,693.00 B D Tatum St./Cheves Dr. Widening

0.23 401 $601.00 E D Folly Rd. Signs

0.42 400 $1,093.00 F F Folly Rd.-Wappoo Bridge Signs

0.52 127 $1,348.00 E E Folly Rd. Signs

0.32 126 $850.00 E E Wesley Dr. Signs

1.03 125 $2,685.00 F E US 17-Ashley R. Br. WB Signs

0.10 124 $26,665.00 C B Lockwood Blvd. Signs/Intersections

0.39 123 $238,803.00 E D Lockwood Blvd. Multi-Use Path

0.28 122 $27,129.00 E B Lockwood Blvd. Signs/Intersections

0.36 121 $14,532.00 C C Lockwood Blvd. Signs/Intersections

0.10 120 $2,972.00 C B Broad St. Signs/Intersections

0.14 119 $4,730.00 C A Chisolm St. Sharrows

0.07 118 $968.00 C B Tradd St. Sharrows0.91 117 $18,595.00 C B Murray Blvd. Sharrows

0.31 116 $4,454.00 C A East Battery St. Sharrows

0.23 115 $101,158.00 D B East Bay St. Restriping

0.13 114 $79,962.00 D C East Bay St. Restriping

0.37 106 $212,275.00 E B Concord St./Vendue Range Restriping


39/164

30

Table 3. (continued)

MilesSegment

IDCost

BLOS

PLOS

Road Improvement

0.25 104 $140,908.00 E B Washington St. Restriping

0.20 103 $115,570.00 E C Washington St. Restriping

0.26 102 $133,291.00 D B Washington St. Restriping

0.57 101 $1,486.00 C C East Bay St. Signs/Intersections

2.46 100 $6,444.00 A B US 17-Cooper R. Bridge Signs/Intersections

0.28 200 $724.00 A C W. Coleman Blvd. Signs

0.51 201 $561,753.00 E D W. Coleman Blvd. Restriping

0.38 202 $38,277.00 C D W. Coleman Blvd. Signs/Intersections

0.26 203 $27,065.00 E E W. Coleman Blvd. Signs/Intersections

0.03 204 $26,866.00 D D W. Coleman Blvd. Sharrows

1.21 210 $55,485.00 C A Pitt St./Whilden St. Sharrows

1.16 211 $65,659.00 C A Center St. Sharrows

1.11 212 $2,918.00 D D Ben Sawyer Blvd. Signs

0.35 300 $908.00 D DBen Sawyer Blvd. -

BridgeSigns

0.41 301 $1,079.00 D D Ben Sawyer Blvd. Signs

0.19 302 $488.00 E D Station 22 1/2 Signs

0.09 304 $328,426.00 D B Jasper Blvd. Widening

0.85 305 $23,978.00 C B Jasper Blvd. Signs/Intersections

0.55 306 $1,657,397.00 D B Jasper Blvd. Widening

0.35 307 $3,626.00 B B Beach Inlet - Bridge Signs/Intersections

1.18 312 $1,047,955.00 C D Carolina Blvd./10th Ave. Widening1.21 310 $43,965.00 C D Palm Blvd. Signs/Intersections

0.14 311 $465,373.00 C D 10th Ave. Widening

0.40 319 $128,244.00 C D Ocean Blvd. Sidewalk

0.41 317 $143,646.00 C D Ocean Blvd. Sidewalk

0.52 318 $23,111.00 C A Ocean Blvd. Signs/Intersections

0.29 313 $762.00 C A Ocean Blvd. Signs/Intersections

Total Miles: 32.8 Total Cost: $19,907,459.00Source: Citadel ASCE 2011


40/164

31

Table 4. Battery2Beach alternate routes

Current B2B Location Possible Alternate Route

Fort Johnson Rd. Dills Bluff Rd.Folly Rd. (new bike lanes)

Central Park Rd./Riverland Dr./Grimball Rd.

Folly Rd.South of Wappoo Bridge Charleston Country Club

Folly Rd.North of Wappoo Bridge Crescent Area to Albemarle Rd.

Washington St.Passenger Terminal 1-way pair with E. Bay or Concord

Palm Blvd.1-way bike lane on Carolina, southwest onOcean Blvd


41/164

32

Table 5. Battery2Beach route: scheduled for improvement

ID Road From ToMile

sImprovement Schedule

503 Folly Rd.-FollyRiver Bridge BeginBridge EndBridge 0.21 Bridge replacement with5-ft. bike lanes & sidewalks 2013Completion

501Folly Rd.-SolLegare Cr. Br.

BeginBridge

EndBridge

0.14Bridge replacement with5-ft. bike lanes & sidewalks

2013Completion

417Harbor ViewRd.

N. ShoreDr.

Mikell Dr. 1.17Road improvement with10-ft. multi-use path

2013Completion

102 Washington St.East BaySt.

CalhounSt.

0.29Cruise Ship PassengerTerminal

2012Completion

103 Washington St. Calhoun St.LaurensSt.


2012Completion

104 Washington St. Laurens St.PritchardSt.


2012Completion

201W. ColemanBlvd.

PatriotsPoint Rd.

HarborGate Dr.

0.52Coleman-Ben Sawyer Blvd.Revitalization Master Plan

Unknown

202W. ColemanBlvd.

HarborGate Dr.

Pelzer Dr. 0.38Coleman-Ben Sawyer Blvd.Revitalization Master Plan

Unknown

203W. ColemanBlvd.

Pelzer Dr. Mill St. 0.25Coleman-Ben Sawyer Blvd.Revitalization Master Plan

Unknown

204W. ColemanBlvd.

Mill St.WhildenSt.

0.07Coleman-Ben Sawyer Blvd.Revitalization Master Plan

Unknown

212Ben SawyerBlvd.

Center St.Gold BugIsland Dr.

1.25

Ben Sawyer CausewayBike/Ped. Facility, CenterSt. (M.P.) to Middle St.

(S.I.)

2012Completion

301Ben SawyerBlvd.

End ofBridge

End ofCauseway

0.46

Ben Sawyer CausewayBike/Ped. Facility, CenterSt. (M.P.) to Middle St.(S.I.)

2012Completion

302 Station 22-1/2End ofCauseway

JasperBlvd.

0.16

Ben Sawyer CausewayBike/Ped. Facility, CenterSt. (M.P.) to Middle St.(S.I.)

2012Completion

Notes: 15 total B2B route segments, Cumulative length = 5.33 miles. Source: Citadel ASCE 2011


42/164

33

Table 6. Battery2Beach route: network improvements

ID Road From To Miles B2B Accommodation Issues

416Harbor ViewRd.

James IslandCreek Bridge

N. Shore Dr. 0.20

Existing 2-lane, narrow causeway,widening would affect marsh(23,100 ADT, 40 mph, 11-ft. lanes,no sidewalks)

415

Harbor ViewRd.-JamesIsland CreekBridge

Begin Bridge End Bridge 0.09

Existing 2-lane flat slab bridgespanning James Island Creek(23,100 ADT, 40 mph, 11-ft. lanes,4.5-ft. sidewalks)

400

Folly Rd.-

WappooBridge

Tranquil Dr.MaybankHwy 0.41

Existing 5-lane draw bridge over

ICW (58,500 ADT, 40 mph, 9-ft.lanes, 2.5-ft. sidewalks)

127 Folly Rd.WindermereBlvd.

Tranquil Dr. 0.53Existing 6-lane road (58,500 ADT,35 mph, 10-ft. lanes, 4.5-ft.sidewalks)

126 Wesley Dr.St. AndrewsBlvd.

WindermereBlvd.

0.32Existing 5-lane road (41,100 ADT,35 mph, 10-ft. lanes, 4-ft.sidewalks)

125

US 17-Ashley River

Bridgewestbound

Lockwood

Blvd. Wesley Dr. 1.01

Existing bridges over Ashley R.(59,500 ADT, 40 mph, 10-ft.

lanes), approach on St. AndrewsBlvd. to 4.5-ft. sidewalk onsouthbound bridge

203W. ColemanBlvd.

Pelzer Dr. Mill St. 0.25Existing 4-lane bridge over ShemCreek (31,200 ADT, 35 mph, 13-ft. lanes, 5-ft. sidewalks)

300Ben SawyerBlvd.-Bridge

Gold BugIsland Dr.

End Bridge 0.21Existing 2-lane bridge over ICW(13,700 ADT, 40 mph, 13-ft. lanes,5-ft. sidewalks)

Notes: ADT = Average Daily Traffic, 8 total B2B route segments, Cumulative length = 3.02 milesSource: Citadel ASCE 2011


43/164

34

The construction cost for the 32.8 miles of the primary Battery2Beach route was

estimated at $19.9 million (Table 7). Expenses for all network improvements were

estimated at $75 million (Table 7).

Table 7. Battery2Beach (B2B) and network improvement costs

Location B2B Costs Network Improvement Costs

Isle of Palms (IOP) $1,853,000 $0

Sullivans Island $2,015,000 $0

Mount Pleasant $779,500 $20,000,000

Charleston $1,177,000 $33,000,000

James Island $13,424,500 $22,000,000

Folly Beach $658,500 $0

Total $19,907,500 $75,000,000

3.2 Demand

3.2.1 800-Meter Buffer

An estimated 37,689 people reside within 800 meters (1/2 mile) of the

Battery2Beach route. Of those living within this buffer zone, the implementation of the

Battery2Beach will likely attract 131 people to walk and 115 people to bicycle to work in

addition to those that currently commute by bicycle or walk (Tables 8 and 9). Also

within this area are 14 schools and 36 parks and recreational spacesideal destinations

for a bicycle or walking trip (Fig. 4).


44/164

35

Figure 4. Battery2Beach 800-meter buffer. The proposed B2B Route with the 800-meter(1/2 mile) buffer surrounding it in light green.


45/164

36

Table 8. 800-meter buffer bicycle demand. The equations and calculations for bicycledemand within 800 meters of the proposed Battery2Beach multi-use path.

800-Meter Buffer Population (P800): 37,689

2009 Bicycle Commute Share (Cb): 1.5%

Estimated # of Commuters (N800)

N800 = P800 0.8 0.5 37689 0.8 0.5 = 15075.60 15076

Current Bicycle Commuters (B800)

B800 = N800 Cb 15076 0.015 = 226.14 226

User-Rates (Rb800i)

Rb800high = 0.005 + 3Cb 0.005 + 3(1.5) = 4.505% 4.51%

Rb800medium = 0.003 + 1.5Cb 0.003 + 1.5(1.5) = 2.253% 2.25%

Rb800low = Cb 1.50% 1.50%

Total Daily Existing Cyclists (Tb800i)

Tb800high = Rbhigh P800 0.8 0.0451 37689 0.8 = 1359.81 1360

Tb800medium = Rbmedium P800 0.8 0.0225 37689 0.8 = 678.40 678

Tb800low = Rblow P800 0.8 0.015 37689 0.8 = 452.268 452

Additional Bicycle Commuters (Ab800)

Ab800 = B800 Lb800 (Lb800 = 0.51) 226 0.51 = 115.26 115

Additional Daily Cyclists (Db800i)

Db800high = Tb800high Lb800 1360 0.51 = 693.60 694

Db800medium = Tb800medium Lb800 678 0.51 = 345.78 346

Db800low = Tb800low Lb800 452 0.51 = 230.52 231


46/164

37

Table 9. 800-meter buffer pedestrian demand. The equations and calculations forpedestrian demand within 800 meters of the proposed Battery2Beach multi-use path.


2009 Pedestrian Commute Share (Cp): 1.7%

Estimated # of Commuters (N800)

N800 = P800 0.8 0.5 37689 0.8 0.5 = 15075.60 15076

Current Pedestrian Commuters (W800)

W800 = N800 Cp 15076 0.017 = 256.29 256

User-Rates (Rp800i)

Rp800high = 0.005 + 3Cp 0.005 + 3(1.7) = 5.105% 5.11%

Rp800medium = 0.003 + 1.5Cp 0.003 + 1.5(1.7) = 2.553% 2.55%

Rp800low = Cp 1.7 1.70%

Total Daily Existing Pedestrians (Tp800i)

Tp800high = Rp800high P800 0.8 0.0511 37689 0.8 = 1540.72 1541

Tp800medium = Rp800medium P800 0.8 0.0255 37689 0.8 = 768.85 769

Tp800low = Rp800low P800 0.8 0.017 37689 0.8 = 512.57 513

Additional Pedestrian Commuters (Ap800)

Ap800 =W800 Lp800 (Lp800 = 0.51) 256 0.51 = 130.56 131

Additional Daily Pedestrians (Dp800i)

Dp800high =Tp800high Lp800 1541 0.51 = 785.91 786

Dp800medium =Tp800medium Lp800 769 0.51 = 392.19 392

Dp800low =Tp800low Lp800 513 0.51= 261.6 262


47/164

38

3.2.2 1600-Meter Buffer

An estimated 67,743 people reside within 1600 meters (1 mile) of the

Battery2Beach route. This estimate includes those residents within the 800-meter buffer

(i.e. it is not in addition to the 800-meter buffer estimation). With the implementation of

the Battery2Beach, Charleston can expect an additional 203 people walking and an

additional 179 people bicycling to work (Tables 10 and 11). In this area are 18 schools

and over 40 parks and recreational spacesperfect destinations for a bicycle or walking

trip (Fig. 5).


48/164

39

Figure 5. Battery2Beach 1600-meter buffer. The proposed B2B Route with the 1600-meter (1 mile) buffer surrounding it in violet.


49/164

40

Table 10. 1600-meter buffer bicycle demand. The equations and calculations for bicycledemand within 1600 meters of the proposed Battery2Beach multi-use path.


2009 Bicycle Commute Share (Cb): 1.5%

Estimated Number of Commuters (N1600)

N1600 = P1600 0.8 0.5 67743 0.8 0.5 = 27097.20 27097

Current Bicycle Commuters (B1600)

B1600 = N1600 Cb 27097 0.015 = 406.45 406

User-Rates (Rb1600i)

Rb1600high = 0.005 + 3Cb 0.005 + 3(1.5) = 4.505% 4.51%

Rb1600medium = 0.003 + 1.5Cb 0.003 + 1.5(1.5) = 2.253% 2.25%

Rb1600low = Cb 1.50% 1.50%

Total Daily Existing Cyclists (Tb1600i)

Tb1600high = Rb1600high P1600 0.8 0.0451 67743 0.8 = 2444.16 2444

Tb1600medium = Rb1600medium P1600 0.8 0.0225 67743 0.8 = 1219.37 1219

Tb1600low = Rb1600low P1600 0.8 0.015 67743 0.8 = 812.91 813

Additional Bicycle Commuters (Ab1600)

Ab1600 = B1600 Lb1600 (Lb1600 = 0.44) 406 0.44 = 178.64 179

Additional Daily Cyclists (Db1600i)

Db1600high = Tb1600high Lb1600 2444 0.44 = 1075.36 1075

Db1600medium= Tb1600medium Lb1600 1219 0.44 = 536.36 536

Db1600low = Tb1600low Lb1600 813 0.44 = 357.72 358


50/164

41

Table 11. 1600-meter buffer pedestrian demand. The equations and calculations forpedestrian demand within 1600 meters of the proposed Battery2Beach multi-use path.


2009 Pedestrian Commute Share (Cp): 1.7%

Estimated Number of Commuters (N1600)

N1600 = P1600 0.8 0.5 67743 0.8 0.5 = 27097.2 27097

Current Pedestrian Commuters (W1600)

W1600 = N1600 Cp 27097 0.017 = 460.6 461

User-Rates (Rp1600i)

Rp1600high = 0.005 + 3Cp 0.005 + 3(1.7) = 5.105% 5.11%

Rp1600medium = 0.003 + 1.5Cp 0.003 + 1.5(1.7) = 2.553% 2.55%

Rp1600low = Cp 1.7 1.70%

Total Daily Existing Pedestrians (Tp1600i)

Tp1600high = Rp1600high P1600 0.8 0.0511 67743 0.8 = 2769.33 2769

Tp1600medium = Rp1600medium P1600 0.8 0.0255 67743 0.8 = 1381.95 1382

Tp1600low = Rp1600low P1600 0.8 0.017 67743 0.8 = 921.30 921

Additional Pedestrian Commuters (Ap1600)Ap1600 = W1600 Lp1600 (Lp1600 = 0.44) 461 0.44 = 202.84 203

Additional Daily Pedestrians (Dp1600i)

Dp1600high = Tp1600high Lp1600 2769 0.44 = 1218.36 1218

Dp1600medium = Tp1600medium Lp1600 1382 0.44 = 608.08 608

Dp1600low = Tp1600low Lp1600 921 0.44 = 405.24 405


51/164

42

3.3 Benefits

3.3.1 Air Pollution Reduction

Air Pollution Reduction is determined using the additional bicycle and pedestrian

commuters established in the demand analysis. The number of additional commuters is

used to estimate the automobile miles they will avoid once the Battery2Beach route is in

place. To calculate the expected reduction of air pollution as a direct result of the

Battery2Beach, the following equation was used:


days $0.08The results show that additional cyclist and pedestrian commuters in the 800-meter buffer

will avoid driving 127,000 miles per year, saving the community a total of $10,138.97in

air-pollution-related health costs. In the 1600-meter buffer, 197,000 vehicle miles will be

avoided resulting in a savings of $15,766.88 (Table 12).

Table 12. Annual air pollution reduction cost savings

BufferTravelMode

AdditionalCommuters

Averagetrip

Length

TripsperDay

Daysper

Year

CostPerMile

Total

800-meter

Bicycle 115 2.26 2 192.8 $0.08 $8,017.40

Walk 131 0.7 2 144.6 $0.08 $2,121.57

$10,138.97

1600-meterBicycle 179 2.26 2 192.8 $0.08 $12,479.25

Walk 203 0.7 2 144.6 $0.08 $3,287.63

$15,766.88

Note: 1600-meter buffer estimations include the 800-meter buffer estimations (i.e. are not in addition to)


52/164

43

3.3.2 Congestion Reduction

Congestion reduction was determined by the additional bicycle and pedestrian

commuters established in demand calculations of each buffer zone multiplied by the

estimated annual cost savings ($680.28 per commuter) of time spent sitting in a vehicle

and the extra fuel (approximately 30% more) used by a vehicle when in congested

conditions (Lomax et al. 2011; Litman and Doherty 2009). There will be an estimated

246 additional bicycle and pedestrian commuters living within an 800-meter span of the

proposed Battery2Beach route. Combined, they will save $167,348.88 annually (Table

13). The additional 382 bicycle and pedestrian commuters living within 1600 meters of

the Battery2Beach route will save an estimated $259,866.96 each year (Table 13).

Table 13. Annual congestion cost savings


Buffer Travel Mode Additional Commuters Annual Savings

800-meter

Bicycle 115 $78,232.20

Walk 131 $89,116.68

Total 246 $167,348.88

1600-meter

Bicycle 179 $121,770.12

Walk 203 $138,096.84

Total 382 $259,866.96


53/164

44

3.3.3 Direct Medical Care Cost Reduction from Physical Activity

The additional bicycle and pedestrian commuters as well as the additional bicycle

and pedestrian daily users were combined and multiplied by the estimated $658.10 saved

annually per person to determine reduced direct medical care costs. For each buffer there

is one estimate for additional bicycle commuters and one estimate for additional

pedestrian commuters; on the other hand, a low, medium, and high estimate was

determined for both the bicycle and pedestrian additional daily users. Each additional

daily user rate was combined with the additional commuter estimates for each buffer to

produce 6 valuations for the reduced direct medical care costs (Tables 14 and 15). The

estimations range from $486,335.90 to $1,760,417.50 saved annually.


54/164

45

Table 14. 800-meter buffer annual medical care cost savings from physical activity

Buffer/RateTravelMode

AdditionalCommuters

AdditionalDaily Users

x $658.10

800/Low

Bicycle 115 231 $227,702.60

Walk 131 262 $258,633.30

Total 246 493 $486,335.90

800/Medium

Bicycle 115 346 $303,384.10

Walk 131 392 $344,186.30

Total 246 738 $647,570.40

800/High

Bicycle 115 694 $532,402.90

Walk 131 786 $603,477.70

Total 246 1480 $1,135,880.60


55/164

46

Table 15. 1600-meter buffer annual medical care cost savings from physical activity


3.3.4 Reduced Use of Gasoline (Natural Resources)

Converting automobile trips to walking or bicycling will save consumers on fuel

costs and reduce oil consumption overall. The additional commuters determined in the

demand calculations were used to estimate the cost associated with the gasoline that will

not be needed once the Battery2Beach is in place. Other data needed for this calculation

includes (Fig. 3):

Buffer/RateTravelMode

AdditionalCommuters

AdditionalDaily Users

x $658.10

1600/Low

Bicycle 179 358 $353,399.70Walk 203 405 $400,124.80Total 382 763 $753,524.50

1600/Medium

Bicycle 179 536 $470,541.50Walk 203 608 $533,719.10Total 382 1144 $1,004,260.60

1600/High

Bicycle 179 1075 $825,257.40Walk 203 1218 $935,160.10Total 382 2293 $1,760,417.50


56/164

47

1. Average length of a bicycle trip = 2.7 miles

2. Average length of a walking trip = 0.7 miles

3. Number of trips per day (travel to work, then travel home = 2 trips)

4. Number of days per year a commuter walks (144.6) or bikes (192.8) to

work

5. Average price for a gallon of gasoline in 2010 ($2.714 for the lower

Atlantic region).

6. Average combined miles per gallon for all cars and light trucks on US

roads (19.8 mpg).

This information was entered into the following equation:


days ($2.714 per gallon/19.8 mpg)

The results indicate that cyclists and pedestrians in the 800-meter buffer will save

$17,362.98 per year in gasoline costs; while in the 1600-meter buffer, they will save

$27,000.78 per year (Table 16).


57/164

48

Table 16. Annual gasoline cost savings


3.3.5 Increased Tourism

The estimated daily expenditure per bicycle tourist ($199.35) was divided into

five spending categories based on the reported spending of Charleston tourists and then

converted into a percentage (Table 17). These estimates were then multiplied by the 3.5

extra days of stay and by each of the 4 estimates of number of bicycle tourists. The

resulting calculations were entered into the economic impact computer software program,

IMPLAN, by the Center for Business Research at the Charleston Metro Chamber of

Commerce (2011) (Table 18 and Appendix H). According to IMPLAN, the total

economic impact of the 3.5 extra days bicycle tourists typically stay range from $10

million to $704 million per year with 117 to 8009 jobs produced and supported (Table

19) (Center for Business Research 2011).

BufferTravelMode

AdditionalCommuters

Averagetrip

length

Tripsper

day

Daysper

year

($2.714/19.8)

Total

800-meter

Bicycle 115 2.26 2 192.8 $0.14 $13,729.79

Walk 131 0.7 2 144.6 $0.14 $3,633.19

$17,362.98

1600-meter

Bicycle 179 2.26 2 192.8 $0.14 $21,370.72

Walk 203 0.7 2 144.6 $0.14 $5,630.06

$27,000.78


58/164

49

Table 17. Tourism spending percentages

Spending CategoryCharleston

TouristsPercent Bicycle Tourists

Accomodations $84 37% $73.77Food & Beverages $46 20% $40.40Local Transportation $29 13% $25.47Tourist Attractions $31 14% $27.22Shopping $37 16% $32.49Total $227 100% $199.35

Source: Center for Business Research 2011

Table 18. Bicycle tourist spending

Note: Calculations were done with the non-rounded daily expenditure estimates. Source: Center forBusiness Research 2011

Spending Category 680,000Tourists 102,000Tourists 40,800Tourists 10,200Tourists

Accommodations $175,568,511 $26,335,277 $10,534,111 $2,633,528Food & Beverages $96,144,661 $14,421,699 $5,768,680 $1,442,170Local Transportation $60,612,938 $9,091,941 $3,636,776 $909,194Tourist Attractions $64,793,141 $9,718,971 $3,887,588 $971,897Shopping $77,333,749 $11,600,062 $4,640,025 $1,160,006Total $474,453,000 $71,167,950 $28,467,180 $7,116,795


59/164

50

Table 19. Battery2Beach tourism impacts

Source: Center for Business Research 2011

3.3.6 Benefits Summary

Using the most conservative estimates from each category, the Battery2Beach

will provide annual benefits in excess of $11 million (Table 20). A mid-range estimate,

using a medium estimate from each category, assesses the benefits at $42 million

annually (Table 21). The Battery2Beach annual benefits using the highest estimates from

each category are $706.7 million (Table 22).

Table 20. Battery2Beach low benefit summary

Category Annual Benefit

Air Pollution Reduction (800-Meter Buffer) $10,138.97

Congestion Reduction (800-Meter Buffer) $167,348.88

Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures from

Physical Activity (800-Meter/Low)$486,335.90

Reduction in Use of Gasoline (800-Meter Buffer) $17,362.98

Increased Tourism (10,200 Tourists) $10,331,039.00

Total $11,012,225.73

Tourist Estimate Jobs Produced Total Impact (in 2011 dollars)680,000 8009.7 $704,704,070102,000 1181.5 $103,848,11140,800 462.6 $40,624,33910,200 117.3 $10,331,039


60/164

51

Table 21. Battery2Beach medium benefit summary




Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures fromPhysical Activity (800-Meter/High)

$1,135,880.60



Total $42,062,854.22

Table 22. Battery2Beach high benefit summary




Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures from

Physical Activity (1600-Meter/High)$1,760,417.50



Total $706,767,122.12


61/164

52

3.4 Net Present Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio

3.4.1. Battery2Beach

The net present value (NPV) is the sum of the present value of all costs and

benefits over the life of a project (Ward 2006). Using the lowest benefit estimation and

the 20-year real interest rate (2.1%), the Battery2Beach NPV is $155 million (Table 23)

(Budget Assumptions 2011). The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) using the same parameters is

9.32: 1, in other words, for every $1 invested in the Battery2Beach, Charleston will

receive $9.32 in benefits (Fig. 6). When the net present value and benefit-cost ratio are

calculated using the 30-year real interest rate (2.3%), the results are $151 million (Table

24) and 9.13: 1 (Fig. 7), respectively (Budget Assumptions 2011).


62/164

53

Table 23. Battery2Beach NPV using the 20-year real interest rate.

YearTime

PeriodCash Flow ($) Equation Present Value ($)

2011 0 02012 1 0

2013 2 0

2014 3 (19,907,500.00)19,907,500(1+0.021)3

(18,704,215.53)

2015 4 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)410,133,795.52

2016 5 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)59,925,362.90

2017 6 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)69,721,217.33

2018 7 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)79,521,270.65

2019 8 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)89,325,436.48

2020 9 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)99,133,630.25

2021 10 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)108,945,769.10

2022 11 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)118,761,771.89

2023 12 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)128,581,559.14

2024 13 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)13 8,405,053.03

2025 14 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)148,232,177.31

2026 15 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)158,062,857.30

2027 16 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)167,897,019.89

2028 17 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)177,734,593.42

2029 18 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)187,575,507.76

2030 19 11,012,225.73 11,012,225.73(1+0.021)19

7,419,694.18

2031 20 11,012,225.7311,012,225.73

(1+0.021)207,267,085.39

2032 21 11,012,225.7311,012,22

Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis

Documents

Transcript of Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis