Upload
tom-bradford
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
1/164
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
2/164
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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)
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
13/164
4
monetary measure of return so that it can easily be compared to the required
expenditures.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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)
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
(AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 22)
6 inch minimum solid white line delineating motor vehicle lane and bike lane
(AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 23)
4 inch optional solid white line delineating bike lane from parking spaces, where
applicable (AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 23)
10 foot minimum width for a two-way, shared use path on a separate right of way
(AASHTO Guide 2010, pg. 35)
BLOS or PLOS rating C or above
Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-way
included in design elements
5 foot minimum width for sidewalks, excluding curbs and obstructions,
recommended by FHWA and Institute of Transportation Engineers on each side
of the street (Sidewalks and Walkways)
A buffer of 4-6 feet is desirable to separate pedestrians from motor vehicle lanes
(Sidewalks and Walkways)
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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).
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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)
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.htm7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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,
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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/7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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).
additional commuters average length of trip number of trips per day number of
days ($2.714 per gallon/19.8 mpg)
2.3.5 Increased Tourism
Tourism is one of the top four economic drivers of the Charleston economy
(Charleston, SC Economic Profile 2011). Over four million people visit Charleston
every year providing an annual economic impact of $3 billion (Charleston, SC
Economic Profile 2011). The North Carolina Northern Outer Banks share similar
physical characteristics with Charleston: a coastal location, flat terrain, temperate climate,
and approximately four million tourists visit every year (Lawrie et al. 2004). Charleston
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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).
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
0.19Cruise Ship PassengerTerminal
2012Completion
104 Washington St. Laurens St.PritchardSt.
0.24Cruise Ship PassengerTerminal
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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).
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
800-Meter Buffer Population (P800): 37,689
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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).
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
48/164
39
Figure 5. Battery2Beach 1600-meter buffer. The proposed B2B Route with the 1600-meter (1 mile) buffer surrounding it in violet.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
1600-Meter Buffer Population (P1600): 67,743
2009 Bicycle Commute Share (Cb): 1.5%
Estimated Number of Commuters (N1600)
N1600 = P1600 0.8 0.5 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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
1600-Meter Buffer Population (P1600): 67,743
2009 Pedestrian Commute Share (Cp): 1.7%
Estimated Number of Commuters (N1600)
N1600 = P1600 0.8 0.5 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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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:
additional commuters average length of trip number of trips per day number of
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)
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
Note: 1600-meter buffer estimations include the 800-meter buffer estimations (i.e. are not in addition to)
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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.
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
55/164
46
Table 15. 1600-meter buffer annual medical care cost savings from physical activity
Note: 1600-meter buffer estimations include the 800-meter buffer estimations (i.e. are not in addition to)
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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:
additional commuters average length of trip number of trips per day number of
days ($2.714 per gallon/19.8 mpg)
The results indicate that cyclists and pedestrians in the 800-meter buffer will save
$17,362.98 per year in gasoline costs; while in the 1600-meter buffer, they will save
$27,000.78 per year (Table 16).
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
57/164
48
Table 16. Annual gasoline cost savings
Note: 1600-meter buffer estimations include the 800-meter buffer estimations (i.e. are not in addition to)
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
60/164
51
Table 21. Battery2Beach medium benefit summary
Category Annual Benefit
Air Pollution Reduction (1600-Meter Buffer) $15,766.88
Congestion Reduction (1600-Meter Buffer) $259,866.96
Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures fromPhysical Activity (800-Meter/High)
$1,135,880.60
Reduction in Use of Gasoline (1600-Meter Buffer) $27,000.78
Increased Tourism (40,800 Tourists) $40,624,339.00
Total $42,062,854.22
Table 22. Battery2Beach high benefit summary
Category Annual Benefit
Air Pollution Reduction (1600-Meter Buffer) $15,766.88
Congestion Reduction (1600-Meter Buffer) $259,866.96
Reduction of Direct Medical Expenditures from
Physical Activity (1600-Meter/High)$1,760,417.50
Reduction in Use of Gasoline (1600-Meter Buffer) $27,000.78
Increased Tourism (680,000 Tourists) $704,704,070.00
Total $706,767,122.12
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
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 $151 million (Table
24) and 9.13: 1 (Fig. 7), respectively (Budget Assumptions 2011).
7/31/2019 Battery2Beach Route Cost-Benefit Analysis
62/164
53
Table 23. Battery2Beach NPV using the 20-year real interest rate.
YearTime
PeriodCash Flow ($) 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