CLEARWATER BLUFF TO BEACH GUIDEWAY RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SEPTEMBER 2001
Clearwater Bluff-to Beach
Guideway Reconnaissance
Study
September 2001
Clea~1\Ja1e~
Bluff-io- Beach
uuldeNsy
. ..
'Reco##aJ~~a#ce
S1udy
Prepared for the
City of Clearwater
and the
State of Florida
Department of Transportation
Prepared by
Wade. Trims Inc.
Jakes Associatess Inc.
September 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
CONTENTS
Page Number
1.
OBJECTIVES
CLEARWATER BLUFF AND BEACH AREA
LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
6
2.
2.1
Strategic Reasons for a Guideway System in Clearwater
8
9
2.1.1 Poor Visitor Experience Resulting from Insufficient Roadway Capacity 9
2.1.2 Guideway Transit: An Answer to the Clearwater Beach Developmental Constraints 9
2.1.3 Timing for the Guideway Transit Coincides with the City Redevelopment Plans 11
2.1.4 Implementation of the Guideway Consistent with the Local Transportation Plans 12
2.1.5 Implementation of the Guideway Transit Will Enhance
Florida's Economic Growth and Competitiveness 14
2.1.6 Implementation of the Guideway Supports the Goals
of the Pinellas County Major Investment Study 15
2.1.7 Implementation of the Guideway Transit Coincides
with the Florida High Speed Rail Initiative 15
2.1.8 Implementation of the Guideway Needed for the 2012 Olympic Bid 16
2.1.9 Benefits of the Guideway Link Already Tested 17
2.1.10 Guideway Transit Will Fulfill Intermodal Needs without Adverse Impacts 17
3. INVENTORY OF EXISTING AND PLANNED CONDmONS
19
3.1 Reconnaissance
3.2 Related Studies
3.3 Major Investment Study Impact on the Clearwater Guideway Project
3.4 Stakeholders
3.5 Primary Destinations and Potential System Users
3.6 Parking in Clearwater
3.7 Development Plans
3.8 Transit In Clearwater
3.9 Spring Break Peak Traffic
3.10 Legal Issues
3.11 Planning Approach
3.12 Desired Transit System Characteristics
20
20
21
22
23
25
25
28
33
33
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
41
43
4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
4.1 Transit Technology Constraints
4.2 Alignment Feasibility
4.3 Affordability
4.4 Attractiveness
4.5 User Convenience
5. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
5.1 Candidate Technology Types
44
1
I
I 5.2 Advanced, Automated Systems 44
5.2.1 Medium Capacity Monorails 45
I 5.2.2 Medium Capacity People Movers 46
5.2.3 Cable-Driven Systems 46
5.2.4 Personal Rapid Transit 50
I 5.3 Specialty Systems 50
5.3.1 Aerial Cableway Transit Systems 56
I 5.3.2 Minirail 58
5.4 Conventional, Manual Systems 58
I 5.4.1 Light Rail Transit 58
5.4.2 Vintage Trolleys 60
I 5.5 Similar Urban and Resort Complex Applications 60
5.6 Climatic Impact on Technologies 63
5.7 Advantages Advanced Systems 64
I 6. CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT AND STATION LOCATIONS 70
I 6.1 Transit System Alignment Overview 71
6.2 Guideway Transit Alignment Concept 72
6.2.1 Downtown Station Concept 72
I 6.2.2 Beach Station Concept 77
6.2.3 Causeway Guideway and Station Concept 77
6.2.4 Integrated Project Concept 86
I 6.3 Base and Alternative Guideway Alignment 86
I 6.3.1 Guideway Stations and Maintenance Facility Locations and Layouts 88
6.3.2 Feasibility of Using the New Versus Existing
Memorial Causeway Bridge for Transit 92
I 6.4 Gondola Alternative Alignment and Station Locations 95
7. PATRONAGE PROJECTION 106
I 7.1 Order-of-Magnitude Guideway System Patronage Overview 107
I 7.2 Approach 107
7.3 Existing versus Future Conditions 109
7.4 Additional Ridership Potential 110
7.5 Clearwater Shuttle and Public Transit Bus Operations 110
I 7.6 Patronage Projection Methods 111
7.7 Patronage Projection Analysis 111
7.8 Patronage Projection Spreadsheets 115
I 7.9 Patronage Projection Summary 115
7.10 Comparison with Other Patronage Studies 127
I 8. OPERATIONAL SCENARIO 128
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.1 Operational Scenarios for the Alternative Alignments
8.1.1 Guideway System Operational Scenario
8.1.2 Gondola System Operational Scenario
8.1.3 Operational Comparison Between the Guideway and Gondola Systems
9. CLEARWATER GUIDEWAY SYSTEM ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE COST
9.1 Guideway System Capital Cost
9.2 Utilities Along the Alignments
9.3 Soil Condition Along the Alignment
9 A Representative Guideway System Cross-section
9.5 Order of Magnitude Costs for Candidate Guideway Systems
9.6 Order-of-Magnitude Costs for Candidate Gondola Systems
9.7 Operation and Maintenance Costs
10. ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDEECONONfIC ANALYSIS
10.1 Economic Impact Factors
10.2 Revenue Potential
10.3 Projected Tangible Revenues
10.3.1 Fare Collection Revenue Potential from Ridership
10.3.2 Revenue Potential from Downtown Parking Garage
10.3.3 Revenue Potential from Advertising and Sponsorship
10.3A Revenue Potential from Right-of-Way Leasing for Utilities
10.3.5 Revenue Potential from Station Retail Activities
10.3.6 Shuttle Bus Service Reduction Savings
lOA Intangible Contributors to Revenue
10.4.1 Increase Business Patronage
10A.2 Hotel Room Rates Increase
10A.3 Land Value Increase
10AA Job Creation
lOA.5 Transit Improvement Assessment Fees on All Future Developments
10A.6 Societal Benefits
10A.7 Clearwater Image Enhancement
10A.8 Tax Revenue Increase
10.5 Rapid Project Schedule to Minimize Costs
10.6 Adjusted Annual Revenue
10.7 Order-of-Magnitude Return on Investment Analysis
10.8 Risks
10.9 Candidate Procurement Methods
10.10 Economic Impact to the City of Clearwater
11. CLEARWATER GUIDEWAY PROJECT FEASIBILITY AND ACTION PLAN
11.1 Project Feasibility
11.1.1 Integrated Project Concept
11.1.2 Comparable Alignment Alternati ves
3
129
129
129
130
133
134
135
136
136
136
144
144
150
151
151
151
152
152
152
156
157
157
157
157
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
160
161
169
174
176
177
178
178
179
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.1.3 Feasible Use of the New Memorial Causeway Bridge
11.1.4 Diversified Technology Selection
11.1.5 Substantial Patronage
11.1.6 Convenient Operational Characteristics
11.1.7 Affordable Solution
11.1.8 Focused Visioning Sessions
11.1.9 Rapid Project Schedule
11.2 Economically Attractive Solution
11.3 Recipe for Clearwater Project Success
11.4 Beneficial Solution
11.5 Next Steps
180
181
183
183
184
185
185
185
186
186
188
190
12. APPENDICES
Project Drawing Index
HDR e-mail dated December 19, 2000
4
I
I LIST OF TABLES
I Table Description Page
Number Number
I 1 Poma-Otis Shuttle I Specification 51
2 Guideway Alignment Characteristics 89
3 Gondola Alignment Characteristics 104
I 4 Trip Generation Rate Summary 113
5 Guideway System Patronage (10 pages) 116
6 Guideway System Patronage Summary 126
7 Guideway System Operational Characteristics 131
I 8 Gondola System Operational Characteristics 132
9 Representative Self-propelled Guideway System
Order-of-Magnitude Cost Breakdown 143
I 10 Representative Cable-propelled Guideway System
Order-of-Magnitude Cost Breakdown 145
11 Representative Gondola System
I Order-of-Magnitude Cost Breakdown 146
12 Guideway System Life Cycle Order-of-Magnitude Cost Analysis 149
13 Guideway System Project Schedule 159
14 Guideway System Cash Flow in Constant 2001 Dollars 163
I 15 Guideway System and Garage Cash Flow in Constant 2001 Dollars 164
16 Guideway System Investment vs Revenues (Public Funds) 165
17 Guideway System and Parking Garage Investment vs Revenue
I (Public Funds) 167
18 Guideway System Investment vs Revenue (private Funds) 170
19 Guideway System and Parking Garage Investment vs Revenue
I (Private Funds) 172
LIST OF FIGURES
I Figure Description Page
Number Number
I 1 Study Area 10
2 Downtown Issues 24
I 3 Existing Downtown Parking Facilities 26
4 Existing Beach Parking Facilities 27
5 Existing Clearwater Bus and Trolley Service 29
6 The Jolley Trolley Route 30
I 7 Bus Route 80 31
8 Future Rail Intermodal Link 32
9 Evaluation Methodology 37
I 10 Candidate Monorail Technologies for Clearwater Application (two pages) 47
11 Candidate People Mover Technologies for Clearwater Application 49
12 Candidate Cable-driven Technologies for Clearwater Application
I (Three Pages) 52
13 Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Technologies 55
14 Candidate Aerial System Technologies for Clearwater Application 57
15 Candidate Minirail Technology for Clearwater Application 59
I
5
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16 Light Rail Technologies 61
17 Historic Trolley Technologies 62
18 Typical Station Arrangement 65
19 Typical Vehicle Interior 66
20 Guideway Technology Comparison 68
21 Location of the Proposed Downtown Station, Parking Garage,
and Development (two pages) 73
22 Location of the Proposed Waterfront Park in front of the Downtown Station 75
23 Harbor View Center 76
24 Location of the Proposed Beach Station
and Marina Development (two pages) 78
25 Location of the Proposed Overhead Walkway
Between the Station and the Beach 80
26 Physical Constraints 81
27 Causeway Right-of-Way (three pages) 82
28 Location of the Proposed Island Estates Intermediate Station (Optional) 85
29 Guideway Transit on Bridges (two pages) 93
30 Existing Memorial Bridge 96
31 Location of the Proposed Gondola Station 97
32 Typical Gondola Returnffension Terminal 100
33 Typical Gondola Terminal Roar and Section Plan (two pages) 101
34 Typical Gondola Intermediate Angle Tenninal Roor Plan 103
35 Representative Eight Passenger Gondola Cabin 105
36 Representative Elevated Guideway Cross-section
(Self-propelled Technology) 141
37 Representative Elevated Guideway Cross-section
(Cable-propelled Technology) 142
38 Sample Vehicle Exterior Advertising 153
39 Sample Vehicle Interior Advertising 154
40 Sample Station Advertising 155
41 Guideway System NPV versus Year of Investment (Public Fund) 166
42 Guideway System and Parking Garage NPV
versus Year of Investment (Public Fund) 168
43 Guideway System NPV versus Year of Investment (Private Fund) 171
44 Guideway System and Parking Garage NPV
versus Year of Investment (Private Fund) 173
45 Visualization of the Guideway System Along the Causeway 182
46 Recipe for the Clearwater Guideway Project Success 187
LIST OF DRAWINGS
Drawing Number
Page Number
CW-GD-AL-Rev. 1: Guideway Alignment-Aerial View
CW-DS-FP-Rev. 1: Downtown Station Conceptual Roor Plan
CW-BS-FP-Rev. 1: Beach Station Conceptual Roor Plan
CW-GO-AL-Rev. 1: Gondola Alignment-Aerial View
CW-GD-WU-A V: Water Utilities in Study Area
CW-GD-SU-A V: Sewer Utilities in Study Area
CW-GD-GU-A V: Gas Utilities in Study Area
CW-GD-OU-A V: Cableffelephone
87
90
91
99
137
138
139
140
6
I .....
I.
I
I
.1
_I
I' .
I _
I
I- ,
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I. .
I
I '
1. OBJECTIVES
....,,-, "-'-.. :'."
", '- ,'.' .
I
'. I
"
: I
I
,I
I
I
I
" I
'I
, I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
II
1. OBJECTIVES
Clearwater Beach, Florida is considered one of the best beaches on the Gulf of Mexico.
Each year 1.4 million tourists visit its sandy shores. The City of Clearwater is exploring how best
to integrate downtown Clearwater with the beach area (both designated for redevelopment) though
the construction of an innovative guideway transit link. By providing alternative transportation for
residents and tourists, the guideway system will attract and retain income-producing industries,
thus enhancing the economic growth and competitiveness of the City of Clearwater, Tampa Bay
region and the state of Florida. The planned guideway transit project is consistent with the Local
Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Long-Range Transportation
Plan.
To achieve beach-city integration, enhance tourist facilities and spur economic growth, a
large portion of travel needs to be shifted from private automobile along the heavily congested
Memorial Causeway to a more efficient transit mode. This will help achieve a variety of objectives
including higher occupancy of existing and future beach and downtown hotels and better utilization
of other tourist facilities. It will particularly help alleviate the parking shortage that currently
complicates expansion and redevelopment plans.
This initial study will assess the feasibility of developing a guideway system such as an
elevated Automated People Mover system (APM). The APM will connect downtown Clearwater
to the beach area with a possible intermediate stop at Island Way. The alignment and operational
scenario selected for the transit system must reflect a compromise between rider convenience, the
City's resort image, and the desired level of investment. These factors require a unique and creative
transportation solution, as the downtown and beach areas are likely to experience rapid
development.
The specific objectives of this effort are to establish the conceptual system alignment,
patronage projection, and the corresponding system capacity. The study will identify operational
characteristics and estimate capital, operation and maintenance costs for candidate technologies and
alignments. We will provide the City of Clearwater with recommendations for the best and most
cost efficient alternative and define the next steps necessary for rapid project implementation.
7
.1
I
I
I
I . .
I
,I
I
I
I.
I'
I .
I
.1
I
I.
I
I.-
I
'", .',", ... .:.......".
" .;" '" .',"
. 2. .CLEARWATER BLUFF AND BEACH
AREA TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
.
'- ~. .
I
I
1
'1
1
. I
. I
I.
, 1
I
I
I
. I
I
. I
. I
I
I
. I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. CLEARWATER BLUFF AND BEACH AREA LOCAL AND
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
2.1 Strategic Reasons for a Guideway System in Clearwater
Clearwater Beach has been ranked the Best Gulf Beach and receives 1.4 million Florida
tourists per year. The City's mission is to provide high quality and efficient access to the beach
areas for residents and visitors. This mission is substantially impaired by limited roadway and
parking capacities. These constraints result in poor experiences for commuters. This situation
negatively impacts the overall image of the world-class resort area that is a candidate for the 2012
Olympics bid.
2.1.1 Poor Visitor Experience Resulting from Insufficient Roadway Capacity
The existing Causeway Boulevard does not sufficiently serve the beach during the tourist
season. The causeway delivers cars to an island that cannot absorb them and becomes a linear
parking lot. Historically for the past 30-40 years, during long weekends, holidays and for five
solid weeks in the Spring, tourists trying to visit Clearwater Beach are delayed 90 min in an
unpleasant queue, which is two-three miles long and persists for most of the day. The last portion
of their trip-the part from downtown to the beach-currently discourages going to the beach. The
queue to the Beach also negatively impacts downtown. As Clearwater succeeds in extending the
tourist season and in stimulating beach redevelopment, the causeway's constraints will worsen.
The key to solving all these problems and unlocking the redevelopment potential of both
districts is a guideway connection between them. The proposed guideway system will offer a
pleasant, reliable, four to six min ride with spectacular views of Clearwater Harbor, the bluff,
Island Estates, Clearwater Beach and the Gulf of Mexico. The system should be implemented
before further major expansions of the downtown and beach area block the widely available right-
of-way. Figure No. 1: "Study Area" presents the Clearwater downtown-beach area.
2.1.2 Guideway Transit: An Answer to the Clearwater Beach Developmental
Constraints
The City has adopted a "linked" vision for its beach and downtown districts, whereby
downtown Clearwater functionally becomes the "East Beach." Such a vision is necessary to
overcome constraints that limit new development at most of Florida's beaches, especially Florida's
barrier island beaches, including:
· Parking. There is plenty of room for tourists on Clearwater Beach, but not for their
cars. Overflowing parking lots and the resulting traffic congestion are detracting
from the vacation experience and negatively impacting tourism on Clearwater
Beach. During the tourist season, the queue of beach-goers seeking parking often
extends to the mainland through and beyond downtown. One solution is to provide
ample lodging in nearby downtown Clearwater, with a convenient transportation
link.
· New Beach Density Regulations. Clearwater Beach has ample room for more
tourists to spend the day and evening, but density regulations constrain the number
that can stay overnight on the beach. The solution is to provide quality lodging in
nearby downtown Clearwater, with convenient and attractive transportation to the
Beach.
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO.1
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Study Area
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
· New Coastal Construction Line. This new demarkation will constrain the number
of tourists who can stay overnight on the beach. Similarly, the solution is to
provide ample lodging in nearby downtown Clearwater, with convenient, tourist-
friendly transportation between.
2.1.3 Timing for the Guideway Transit Coincides with the City Redevelopment
Plans
The timing for introducing an attractive and efficient transit system is excellent since the
City is planning a major expansion. The proposed guideway would become an integral part of a
major redevelopment effort in downtown Clearwater and Clearwater Beach.
The City of Clearwater has funded a multifaceted plan to revitalize both the downtown
district and the beachfront. The downtown redevelopment activities include:
· Elimination of through-traffic. Currently, SR 60 carries a large volume of traffic
through downtown (on its way to the beach). This negatively impacts downtown
because the traffic is just passing through and detracts from the downtown
experience. The City is planning to divert this through-traffic a few blocks to the
south by replacing the existing Memorial Causeway with a high-span bridge in a
new alignment. Reducing through-traffic opens the way to reinventing downtown
as a vital, pedestrian-friendly environment.
· Redevelopment of the bluff. Clearwater has an unusual downtown area located on
a bluff overlooking the beautiful Intracoastal Waterway and barrier island. A bluff
overlooking water is an important asset, especially in a state that is virtually flat.
The City is developing a vision and consensus for redevelopment of this asset,
which will in turn spur redevelopment of downtown.
· Designation of Cleveland as a "Main Street." Clearwater's main street, Cleveland
Street, leads directly to the downtown bluff and has been designated a "Main
Street" under the Department of State's program of the same name.
Clearwater Beach redevelopment activities include:
· Clearwater Beach Gateway Roundabout. The City completed construction of this
signature project in December 1999. This project is promoted on brochures and
travelogues associated with Clearwater Beach.
· Clearwater Beach Multi-Purpose Terminal Structure. This project (under
consideration) may replace ground-level parking, a street segment, and a
deteriorating hotel with a grand, multi-purpose structure containing retail stores at
ground level right on the beach, parking, condominiums and hotel rooms. It will
be well suited for the terminal of a guideway transit link to downtown Clearwater.
· Private commercial redevelopment. With construction of the Gateway Roundabout
and announcement of the Multi-Purpose Structure plans, the City has generated
interest among developers in commercial redevelopment on the beach. Developers
have announced plans for Pelican Walk and other projects.
1 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
The plans for redevelopment of downtown and the beach are designed to reinforce and
amplify each other. One of the plan's objectives is to encourage beach-goers to park downtown in
order to support tourism development on the beach, which is now severely constrained by lack of
parking. The beach and downtown will be tied together as a complementary destinations and
would be significantly enhanced by a convenient transportation link connecting both districts-a link
that is especially appealing to tourists.
2.1.4 Implementation of the Guideway Consistent with the Local Transportation
Plans
By 2010, forty-six percent of the travel to Orlando and Tampa Bay (including the most
popular Gulf beach, Clearwater Beach) will be for recreation purposes. Over half of Orlando-
Tampa tourists now arrive without automobiles, and the vast majority of them rent cars for
transportation.
At present, mass tranSIt In Hillsborough and Pinellas County is not developed to
accommodate tourism and economic development. The Local Comprehensive Plan and the Pinellas
County 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan recognize the needs of recreation travelers, and the
Clearwater guideway project is consistent with meeting these needs.
The City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan clearly defines its goal and policy for mass
transit as follows:
Goal 7 of the Mass Transit section in the Transportation Element states:
"The City shall support the efforts of mass transit service operators to provide generalized
and special mass transit services."
Policy 8.2.3 states:
"Due to the constraints of development and available land, mass transit service shall be
urged to provide recreation and commuter employee access to Clearwater Beach and Sand
Key".
Several goals, objectives and policies in the County's Transportation Plan support the
development of a guideway system in Clearwater as follows:
Roadway Performance and Congestion Management:
Objective 1.2:
"Improve travel conditions and mobility options on constrained road corridors and other
facilities afflicted with long-term, level-of-service deficiencies."
Policy 1.2.1:
''The Pinellas Mobility Major Investment Study (MIS) shall be utilized to identify and
implement long-term solutions to the mobility needs of Pinellas County."
Policy 1.2.3:
''The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) shall work with local governments to
ensure that mobility strategies and local land use plans are compatible and mutually
supporti ve."
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Policy 1.2.4:
''The MPO shall continue to prioritize funding to support the planning and implementation
activities associated with the Pinellas MIS, such as a rail demonstration project."
Policy 1.2.6:
''The MPO shall develop Corridor Strategy Plans as a primary tool of the Congestion
Management System to identify and implement mobility solutions such as operational and
small-scale physical improvements and transportation demand management strategies for
backlogged and constrained roads."
Public Transportation Element
Objective 1.4:
"Mass transit shall be encouraged and promoted in order to increase ridership while
reducing the number of single-occupant vehicles on the county's roadways and as a
primary means of travel for the transportation disadvantaged population."
Transportation System Efficiency and Travel Demand Management
Objective 1.6:
"Protect roadway capacity, optimize operating efficiency and reduce travel demand through
the application of system management and demand management strategies."
Transportation System Performance Monitoring
Objective 1.7:
"Develop and provide information and criteria regarding the performance of the county's
transportation system, including roadways, mass transit, and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities in order to identify facilities where capital improvement needs are most
pronounced and to develop performance standards by which to measure the effectiveness
of transportation projects and programs."
Environmental Protection and Neighborhood Preservation
Objective 1.8:
"Maintain air quality levels in accordance with the State Implementation Plan and the Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAAs) and ensure the protection of established neighborhoods
from the impacts of motorized traffic."
Goal 2:
"Contribute to the economic vitality of Pinellas County through the proVISIon of a
transportation system that provides for the effective movement of people and goods to and
from major employment centers and intermodal facilities."
Furthermore, the guideway system is consistent with the "Beach by Design" concept
approved by the City.
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In keeping with the above goals, the guideway system will be designed to have inherent
expandability for the eventual creation of a transit network that is integrated with the planned light
rail transit.
2.1. 5 Implementation of the Guideway Transit Will Enhance Florida's Economic
Growth and Competitiveness
The Clearwater Beach is a major tourist attraction and is often on the itinerary of those
visiting Disney in Orlando and the varied cosmopolitan attractions of Tampa. As a regional and
statewide tourist destination, the City of Clearwater seeks to attract additional tourism and
economic development to the State of Florida and the Tampa Bay region. The guideway project
supports the goal of enhancing Florida's economic growth and competitiveness by providing
alternative resident and tourist transportation. It will attract and retain income-generative industries,
thus having a positive effect on per capita earned income.
To better understand the impact of this guideway system on economic development, it is
necessary to consider the current economic impact of Clearwater's tourism industry:
· 1.4 million overnight visitors to Clearwater Beach annually
· A verage visitor spends $548.01 per capita/per stay
· Visitors spend approximately $736,242,831 annually or $2 million per day In
Clearwater
· The impact of tourism (direct and indirect) on Clearwater's economy is over $1.3
billion annually
· Over 14,000 are directly employed in the regional tourism industry (over 15% of
the working population)
· Over 140,000 are indirectly employed in the regional tourism industry, generating
$308,320,166 in wages
· Taxes collected from tourists equal $68,149,516 or 1/3 of the county collections
· 21.2% of total taxable sales is derived from visitors.
The Clearwater guideway will benefit the City, the state of Florida, the Tampa Bay region
and international and domestic visitors to the state. The expected gains from this innovative
system include economic development incentives, job creation and growth, increase in tourism
dollars, increase tax received from the tourism industry, and a decrease in environmental impact of
automobile travel. The project as part of the overall redevelopment initiative will generate 750-1200
new jobs at tourist industry wages of $8-$8.50 per hour. The operation and maintenance of the
guideway system itself will lead to the creation of approximately 30 jobs.
In addition to economic growth benefits to the City of Clearwater and Tampa Bay region,
the guideway system will itself become a tangible and intangible revenues. Among potential
tangible revenues are fares, parking fees, advertising, sponsorship, guideway right-of-way leases
to utilities (i.e., fiber optic cables), light cargo (if desired), and other. The intangible benefits
include commuting time decrease (potentially more visitors), traveler stress reduction, property and
area value enhancements, societal cost savings resulting from pollution reduction, increased safety
of travel, and other benefits.
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In summary, the guideway investment will attract and focus on new development, by
providing needed capacity in the congested Memorial Causeway corridor, by enhancing property
values, rents and occupancy rates, and by providing access to labor markets. The guideway will
result in a several-fold return on the public's investment.
2.1.6 Implementation of the Guideway Transit Supports the Goals of the Pinellas
County Major Investment Study
Pine lIas County has recognized the need to provide better transportation for the citizens of
and visitors to the County. The Pinellas County Long Range Transportation Plan for the year 2020
includes many improvements to the street and highway networks and local bus system that will
benefit travelers in the future. However, with the recent completion of Phase I of the Pinellas
MPO's Major Investment Study (MIS), a heightened commitment to developing a "Guideway
Transit Network" within the County has emerged. This network is anticipated to include both
elevated and at-grade guideway improvements.
The next phase of the MIS study is anticipated to commence by the end of 2001. It will
include analyzing and planning for an elevated guideway from the Tyrone area of St. Petersburg to
Downtown Clearwater complimented by at-grade, rubber-wheeled technologies to feed the system
in the beach areas and along the Central Avenue and 4th Street Corridors in St. Petersburg.
Candidate demonstration projects were identified in the Phase I study.
Two of the underlying premises upon which the County-wide guideway system is being
proposed are the need to reduce traffic demands on the roadway system and accommodate
anticipated redevelopment activities at higher densities and intensities at select locations around the
County. These also apply to Clearwater as the City strives to reduce traffic congestion on
Memorial Causeway and Clearwater Beach, reduce parking demands on the Beach, and implement
redevelopment plans for both the Beach and Downtown. Clearwater's Bluff-to-Beach Guideway
would be compatible with Pinellas County's transit system. The Clearwater Guideway would also
help Pinellas County in securing the approximately $3 billion needed for the county-wide system.
2.1.7 Implementation of the Guideway Transit Coincides with the Florida High
Speed Rail Initiative
The interest and anticipation for a high-speed rail system in Florida has been growing
steadily for the past few years. Since November 1999 the Central Florida Technology Transit
Corridor Consortium has been examining and analyzing the potential demand and feasibility of
high-speed surface transportation alternatives in the Central Florida Coast to Coast Corridor. This
corridor extends from Clearwater and St. Petersburg to Port Canaveral via Tampa, Lakeland and
Orlando.
This initiative has involved over 30 corporations, transportation authorities, economic
development groups, chambers of commerce and universities who are members of the
Consortium working with the Governor, Florida Legislature, Florida Department of
Transportation, Federal officials, and community and transportation leaders within the corridor.
In November 2000, 2.9 million Florida voters passed an amendment to the Florida
Constitution that effectively mandated that the Governor and the Legislature implement
construction of a Florida High Speed Rail System. The amendment calls for the five most
populous areas to be linked by high-speed rail. Pine lIas County is the fifth most populous county
in Florida. Fifty-nine percent of Pinellas County's voters supported the rail concept.
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
The Legislature approved and the Governor signed legislation establishing the Florida High
Speed Rail Authority and appropriated $4.5 million for preliminary design, environmental,
ridership, financial and other studies of the initial high speed rail system linking St. Petersburg,
Tampa and Orlando with an anticipated connection to Port Canaveral. The 120 mile per hour train
will connect the state's five largest urban areas and is scheduled to be under construction by
November 1, 2003. In addition to the numerous private investors interested in this high-speed rail
corridor, there appears to be interest on the part of Amtrak (National Rail Passenger Corp.) to
prioritize this project from a national perspective whereby significant federal monies would be
available to implement the corridor project.
The U.S. Senate is presently considering and Members of the U.S. House of
Representatives are preparing to introduce the "National High Speed Rail Investment Act" which
would make available approximately $12 billion in new, dedicated tax-exempt bonds, providing
partial federal funding for high speed rail. It is likely these monies will be approved.
The Coast to Coast Rail is critically important to the Tampa Bay area and particularly
Clearwater. First, it lessens demands on the state and federal roadway system connecting Pinellas
County and the Orlando Metropolitan Area one of Florida's most highly traveled corridors. The
enhanced connection of the Tampa and Orlando metropolitan areas will have a significant positive
impact on the economy of central Florida. Clearwater continues to be the one of the most popular
end destinations for Pinellas County tourists and visitors seeking the white beaches and blue
waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and will therefore benefit from the high-speed rail project.
The Clearwater Guideway would be a logical and outstanding demonstration project for
Florida's high speed rail system and perfect tie-in to the proposed Tampa-Orlando high speed rail
connection. Once in place, Clearwater's Guideway could have a significant influence in bringing
Florida's high-speed rail to Pinellas County.
2.1.8 Implementation of the Guideway Needed for the 2012 Olympic Bid
The Tampa Bay community has initiated a significant effort to host the 2012 Summer
Olympic Games and appears to be one of the leading candidates for this worldwide event.
Efficiently accommodating the estimated 11,000 athletes, 5,200 officials, and 700,000 to a million
domestic and international visitors will require years of planning and significant improvements to
the Tampa Bay area's infrastructure system.
According to Florida 2012, the not-for-profit corporation established to serve as the
organizing committee to assist Tampa in its efforts to secure the candidate city designation by the
U.S. Olympics Committee, "the greatest challenge of hosting any Olympics is providing efficient
and effective transportation within the Olympic corridor, including transportation between the
Olympic Village, Media Village, hotels/motels, and Olympic events". The bid must effectively
provide four separate transportation systems: one for the athletes; a second for members of the
Olympic family; a third for the press; and the largest one for spectators.
The current transportation infrastructure in Florida will require upgrading in order to host
the Olympics. Studies are currently underway to address Olympic transportation issues. The
studies include the Olympic Transportation Study designed to determine the impacts that the
Olympic Games would have on the Central Florida transportation system if Tampa were selected.
It will identify transportation systems and infrastructure needed to accommodate the games,
identification of required resources beyond those included in the long range transportation plans for
the area, and present feasibility alternatives for implementation of needed transportation
improvements and systems.
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In order to win the 2012 Olympics bid, the state and local governments will need to
develop infrastructure for hosting the event. Clearwater Beach is the proposed site for the Beach
Volleyball and Sailing events and can expect a minimum of 15,000 beach visitors for the medal
rounds of the volleyball event. Parking capacity on Clearwater Beach is minimal, but will be
increased by a planned parking garage that will include a guideway terminal. The proposed
guideway will allow visitors to park on the mainland, where an ample supply of parking spaces
can be rapidly developed. Moreover, a guideway linking downtown Clearwater and Clearwater
Beach will not only benefit Olympic Games visitors, but will leave a lasting legacy to citizens and
future tourists.
Should the Tampa Bay area be successful in this endeavor, Clearwater's Bluff-to-Beach
guideway project would likely benefit from the millions of dollars available for this worldwide
event. Similarly, redevelopment activities on Clearwater Beach and Downtown would inevitably
be enhanced by winning the Olympic bid.
2.1.9 Benefits of the Guideway Link Already Tested
Some benefits of connecting downtown Clearwater with the beach area, thus integrating the
City into a seamless entity, has already been demonstrated on a limited and temporary basis
through introduction of a ferry service.
This revealing experiment was conducted during a big concert event on the beach. Such
important events are another reason for massive parking problems on the beach, traffic-tie ups on
the beach, and long lines of cars backing up along the causeway to downtown. For this occasion,
the city provided free parking downtown and a free ferry ride to the beach. The public responded
with substantial demand for the ferry ride and its scenic, fun alternative mode, so much so that
long lines formed at the ferry docks. At concert's end, some tourists found the ferry lines so
daunting they walked the two miles back to downtown and their car.
Clearly, the concept is appealing, but implementation of the specific alternative mode needs
to be efficient and convenient, such as that offered by a guideway link. The view in all directions
from an elevated guideway along this route would be stunning, and would thus become part of the
tourist experience.
2.1.10 Guideway Transit Will Fulfill Intermodal Needs without Adverse Impacts
The system's implementation will not impact the existing roadway capacities. It will
certainly increase the "through-put" of the corridor by providing a travel option to automobile
drivers and passengers. That increase can be achieved through convenience of the system and also
specific measures to provide incentives and/or enforcement for people to take the system. This
project will also result in fewer cars traveling on roadways, particularly during peak hours.
The project will enhance the quality of the trip for both guideway users and for automobile
drivers (and their passengers), as there will be less roadway traffic. People Movers are designed
and built for availability between 99.6% and 99.9%, which means they always work. The system
will provide a reliable service that passengers can count on all of the time.
Beach gear racks can be provided inside the vehicles to accommodate the needs of the
beach crowd. Vehicle air conditioning will offer a pleasant trip environment. Large panoramic
windows will guarantee spectacular views. As the system will be elevated, no collisions areapossible; thus safety will be at an unparalleled level.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
At both ends of the guideway there will be convenient access for pedestrians, buses and
bicyclists. There will be beach trolleys with short headways on the beach side, as part of the
City's Beach By Design initiative. The Jolly Trolley already provides service to downtown and to
the beach. There will be convenient access to parking at both ends of the guideway, possibly with
substantial parking within the terminal facilities themselves.
*
*
*
The planned guideway system will further distinguish Clearwater from other beach towns
around the world, as there is no other beach currently accessible by a guideway system. The
presence of a guideway connecting the beach destination will be a major attraction for tourists
visiting the Tampa Bay region.
18
'1
I
I
I
".1
' .
1
I
'1.
, I..
. .
I .
,I. .
I" .
I
1
I
I
,I
I
I
.-' .~ -. .....
. 3. INVENTORY OF EXISTING AND
. . PLANNED CONDITIONS
',' .,
. ;. ': :.' - - .~
. .'
, . I
I
.1
I'
'. I
I
'.' .1
....1 '
I
I
-I
. . . . .1."
. .
'1
I'
, I
I
I
I
I.
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
3. INVENTORY OF EXISTING AND PLANNED CONDITIONS
3.1 Reconnaissance
In order to establish an inventory of eXIstmg and planned conditions, including
development, land use, and circulation plans within the entire expanse of the Clearwater Bluff-to-
Beach corridor, we have gathered, reviewed and analyzed available data with the intent of
compiling a baseline set of conditions and known plans. Since our objective is to define the goals
and feasibility of the proposed transit system, it is essential to have an accurate and comprehensive
baseline from which to conduct the succeeding tasks in the study.
We sought sources through contacts and discussions with the City of Clearwater. We
interviewed related key staff. We conducted project meetings, working sessions with the City of
Clearwater, and a visioning session with the public to discuss a variety of possible system
routings, and gathered input from the project participants.
In order to develop an in-depth understanding of the site conditions, we conducted a
detailed site visit. A detailed photographic library was created to illustrate various right-of-way
constraints and opportunities. These photographs are used as exhibits in this report. We have
collected and reviewed the most recent and applicable aerial photographs of the study area as well
as several site maps.
3.2 Related Studies
We have reviewed all related studies including the following:
· "Proposal for a Downtown People Mover," City of Clearwater, dated June 30,
1976 (City Staff Report on a Bluff-Beach Guideway)
· "Downtown Clearwater" ("Our Downtown"), prepared by Siemon & Larsen, dated
October 29, 2000-known as "Beach by Design"
· "A Vision of Our Future" (early booklet)
· "City of Cle:lfwater Downtown Master Plan 2000" (presentation)
· "Downtown Clearwater" (Pre-referendum Brochure) dated May 2000
· "Clearwater Beach Strategies for Revitalization - Final Draft", prepared by Ralph
E. Stone, Jr., James A. Moore, Ph. D., AIA, Jason Westrope
· "Straight Facts About Clearwater's New Entryway and Bridge Projects" (brochure)
· "Money Available for Cross Causeway Transportation" by Anne McKay Garris
(article), Beach Gazette, dated October 12, 2000
· "Clearwater City Commission Agenda Cover Memorandum" (Approved Joint
Participation Agreement with Florida DOT for Guideway Study), dated October 5,
2000
20
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
.
"Clearwater City Commission Agenda Cover Memorandum" (Approved Work
Order for Wade-Trim for Guideway Study), dated October 5,2000
"Parking Study City of Clearwater," dated July 1996, prepared by Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
.
.
"North Beach Traffic Study" by Michael Wallwork, P.E. (Alternate Street Design,
P.A.)
.
"Coronado Drive and S. Gulfview Boulevard Traffic and Parking Lot Study" by
Michael Wallwork, P.E. (Alternative Street Design, P.A.), dated June 17, 1999
"Clearwater Beach Traffic Study" by DKS Associates, dated October 1998
Pinal Task 10.2-10.4 Technical Memorandum: Mobility and Transportation System
Operational Assessment for Tier 2, Pinellas Mobility Major Investment Study,
Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization in cooperation with the Florida
DOT, State Project Number: 15007-3891, Work Program Number: 7816714,
prepared by Dames & Moore, dated J ul y 2000
.
.
.
Locally Preferred Alternative Report, Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning
Organization, dated October 2000
.
"What Now?" (article), Florida Trend, dated September 2000
.
Color Visualizations of Proposed Beach Pier 60 Garage and Bluff Development
.
Transportation Outreach Program-2000 Project Application, City of Clearwater,
dated November 8,2000
.
Florida 2012 Olympics Packet
.
DHK Study.
As the Pinellas Major Investment Study (MIS) addresses a potential light rail transit link to
Clearwater Beach, we offer its summary below.
3.3 Major Investment Study Impact on the Clearwater Guideway Project
In July 2000, the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) completed
Tier Two of the Pinellas Mobility Major Investment Study, which analyzed a forty-mile light rail
mass transit corridor. The study determined what guideway corridor segments should be advanced
toward project development. The analysis focused on two alternative guideway configurations:
· Alternative 1: Fully elevated guideway and stations
· Alternative 2: Elevated and at-grade combination guideway and stations
Two routes were proposed for the analysis: Dl (1-27 corridor) and D2 (4th street corridor).
Each alternative was divided into eight "manageable" segments (A-H) including Clearwater Beach
to downtown Clearwater (Segment A). Segment A was fully elevated, 1.9 miles long with two
stations. Segments were compared based on each segment's ability to:
· Expand mobility choices for study area residents
21
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
.
Strengthen desirable transportation and land use patterns
.
Minimize adverse environmental impacts
.
Provide a cost effective and efficient transportation investment strategy.
Based on the MPO's evaluation, the Clearwater Beach to downtown Clearwater segment
ranked fourth in Alternative 1 and seventh in Alternative 2 analyses for both D 1 and D2 route
options. This segment was not favored by the MPO for early development due to its low rankings
by the MIS consultant and estimated low ridership levels of 1100 passengers per day in the year
2020.
The highest estimated ridership (Segment E for D2 location) was forecasted to be 6,300
daily passengers. This difference is simply due to the length of the segments and the number of
stations involved (Clearwater Beach to downtown Clearwater: 1.9 miles with two stations versus
Segment E: 5.7 miles with five stations).
Capital and per unit cost information was provided based on averages for light rail transit
guideways, communications equipment, maintenance facilities, and vehicles using information
gathered from U.S. transit agencies. Right-of-way (ROW) cost analysis assumed best-case
(where the guideway is on existing public ROW), and worst-case (where private land acquisition
for ROW is required) scenarios to provide an expected range of land acquisition cost. The
Clearwater Beach to Downtown Clearwater segment ranked fifth and seventh for Alternative 1 and
seventh and eighth for Alternative 2 cost analyses for D 1 and D2 routes.
The Financing Strategy Plan proposed by the MPO presented several options for
consideration, including the use of several federal and state funding sources including FOOT
Florida Intrastate Highway System Funds (FIHS), air quality funds, gas taxes, and local sales
taxes. Unused or underutilized funding sources, federal and local grants, and unlikely private
investment were also recommended sources of project funding.
Because our approach to the guideway project is totally different from that of the Major
Investment Study (MIS), the impact of MIS findings on our project is marginal. Ours is based on
the requirements of the application, rather than on solutions imported from other urban
communities having completely different needs. The MIS study was oriented toward light rail,
county-wide solutions and utilized a Federal Transit Agency methodology having a mass transit
focus. Consequently, it did not adequately consider land use changes. In contrast, because the
Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach corridor connects two districts specifically targeted for major
redevelopment, our primary concerns are stimulation of tourism and convenience for users of the
guideway system. Ridership projections mus[ take future development into consideration.
3.4 Stakeholders
A transit study cannot be conducted in isolation from a variety of local and regional
stakeholders, as their consensus is vital for the actual system implementation. There are numerous
stakeholders taken into consideration during this study effort, including the following.
· City of Clearwater
· Florida Department of Transportation (DOT)
· Pine lIas County
22
I
1
I 1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
.
Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Community Redevelopment Agency
.
.
Clearwater Downtown Association
.
Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce
.
Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce Beach Area Council
.
Clearwater Beach Association
.
Citizens for a Better Clearwater
.
Beach and downtown property and business owners (particularly hotel/motel
operators)
.
Candidate developers
.
Beach and downtown visitors
.
Other.
3.5 Primary Destinations and Potential System Users
As described in the previous chapter, the study area encompasses downtown Clearwater
with an emphasis on the bluff area and Clearwater Beach with emphasis on its central part. In
addition, the study includes Island Estates located between downtown and the beach adjacent to the
middle part of the causeway. The aerial photographs of the area are included in Chapter 6:
"Conceptual Alignment and Station Locations" of this report.
Downtown Clearwater is an urbanized and dense area with an underutilized convention
center (Harborview Center), office buildings, City Hall, mall, library, and parking facilities.
Clearwater Beach is a resort area with several hotels, motels (over 1,000 hotel rooms in the
vicinity), restaurants, public and private marinas, pier and pier park, parking facilities, etc. The
Hilton Hotel is the largest complex strategically located next to Pier 60 and the beach entryway.
Island Estates includes Clearwater Marine Aquarium, marinas, residences, and other
destinations.
Clearwater suffers from the deterioration of its downtown area and the outward dispersal of
residential housing. This transition has been accelerated by the physical separation by Clearwater
Bay of the central business district into two distinct parts. Although the parts of the central
business district are joined by 1.8-mile Memorial Causeway, the causeway itself is a bottleneck
that causes serious traffic congestion. Figure NO.2: "Downtown Issues" presents the downtown
perception promoted during the last referendum by de Guardiola Development.
Potential guideway transit system users include domestic and international beach visitors,
particularly during Spring Break, as well as local residents living either in Clearwater Beach,
downtown, or other adjacent areas.
23
1
I
I
I
1
I
FIGURE NO.2
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Downtown Issues
I
1
I
1
I
II
Downtown issues presented by citizens of Clearwater prior to July 11th referendum.
1
I
I I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
3.6 Parking in Clearwater
Figure No.3: "Existing Downtown Parking Facilities" summarizes parking availability in
the downtown area. Figure No.4: "Existing Beach Parking Facilities" summarizes parking
availability in the beach area. A parking solution is clearly of paramount concern to the future
growth and prosperity of Clearwater Beach. Currently, the provision of public and private parking
on the beach is fragmented and poorly coordinated.
Enough free parking exists to make it appear worthwhile for beach visitors to circle looking
for one of the free spaces. This circling in itself creates congestion for other automobiles and
increases the sense of the Beach as overcrowded and in need of additional, costly road expansion,
which (if implemented) would degrade the beach ambiance.
Among significant parking problems which are important for the guideway transit study
are:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lack of parking at peak demand times
Poor accessibility into parking lots causes traffic backup
Small, scattered parking lots
Expensi ve parking rates
Illegal parking on peak days
Beach parking closed at night (safety concerns)
Aesthetics concerns
Other.
The parking garages, therefore, must be part of a long-term coordinated traffic and parking
program for the entire beach. A graduated system of fees should be created that is based upon time
and duration of use, and location of spaces. Effectively, free parking should be eliminated in
Clearwater Beach. Parking should be totally integrated with People Mover station(s) and be part of
the People Mover project and subsequently become a system revenue generator.
3. 7 Development Plans
For many years, the City of Clearwater has aspired to revitalize downtown Clearwater and
its immediate environs. However, little has changed in the last twenty-thirty years except the
impressive roundabout at the beach entry and the planned new high-span bridge. Recently, the city
considered a major redevelopment by de Guardiola Development, which (unfortunately for the
guideway project), was defeated in the referendum. A beach garage at Pier 60 was also considered.
The defeated referendum (July 2000) proposed a downtown revitalization plan by de
Guardiola Development and Renaissance Partners, which included townhouses, stores and
restaurants, an amphitheater and multiplex cinema along the waterfront, known as the "bluff." It
may be resurrected in a similar form, under the City's lead. Under the new concept the City would
finance beautification of streets, expand a bayfront park, and make other improvements
downtown. The selected developer might create a hotel, new shops, apartments and a movie
theater or other complex.
25
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
>.,
&:1.-
O.D
CJII
-
.. ..
-=
.Ie
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO.3
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Existing Downtown Parking Facilities
. S.
e ~l
~".
~
~.(,
/
!
~Ij
1
lI'J
QJ
~
.-
-
.-
u
~
u..
en
t:
.-
~
1.0
~
Q.
C
3:
o
..,
c
3:
o
Q
1.0
QJ
..,
~
3:
1.0
~
QJ
-
U
- ~
""
"
:z:
~
..
;:
~
is
:z:
/I.r.$.
""
"
:z:
':!:
..
~
~
~
TR- T
...
Vl
..
""
...
"
o
Vl
NO. SPACES HRL Y. S Cli'( PARKING LOTS NO. SPACES HRL Y S
CITY GARAGES t 8. ST A r;ON SQUARE 55/19- 3O(S15,rTIO.)
A. GAROENAVENUEGARAGE 271 50
128 GARDEN AVE.) (52.50 'day. $37..105 {mo.] (620 CLEVELAND ST.)
'9. :O~RT ST. & OSCEOLA AVE. 39 30
B. MUNICIPAL SVCS. GARAGE '8< (3~ 1 S. OSCEOLA AVE.)
(1lo40 P!ERCE ST.) 20. COuRT ST. & FT. HARRISON 30
CITY PARKING LOTS NO. SPACES ~ (500 :OL:RT ST.)
1. OSCEOLA SOUTH OF LIBRARY 161 ..c
(38 N. OSCEOLA AVE.) 21. COURT ST. WEST OF OSCEOLA AVE. 10 30
2. HARBORVIEW CENTER 168 ..c (220 :OURT ST.)
(300 ClEVELAND ST.) 22. OAK AVE. 9ErweEN COURT ST. 105 10
.. N. GARDEN AVE. 30 & :~ESTNUT ST ('50 OAK AVE.)
138 WATTERSON AVE.) NIC .10/30
5. COACHMAN 2'8 23. PAR!< I PIERCE ST. 25
1'01 DREW ST) .10 1620 P'ERCE ST.)
7. DREW STREET & N. FT. HARRISON 17 2'. CHESTNUT ST. (615 COURT ST.) 38' St5/mo.
(42' DREW ST.)
25. COURT ST.(61' COURT ST.) 1612'. 10IS15,mo.)
10. CITY HALL (112 S. OSCEOLA AVE) 51 .30
29. =T. HARRISON AVE. 26 )0
11. PIERCE BLVD. S. ()F CLEVELAND ST 59 .1a .l20 S FT HARRISON AVE,)
(SO P'ERCE BLVD.) ORE'.\' 57 65 NiC
13. LARGE COURTHOUSE LOT '8 30
(475 OAK AVE.) C:..::vE:....,..l......O $-:- 63 .\J{C
,. DREW STRE!:.T EXTENSION 22 .10
(100 DREW ST.) ClCWNiCWN STREETS (meters) 225 10 1.30
'5. CITY HALL OVERFLOW 52 foliC
(111 PIERCE BLVD) 30 . PE RMI ';'" ,:14RK ING ONL Y
16. COURT ST. & GARDEN AV!: NOT: XES Nor INCLUDE
(318 S. GARDEN AVE.I 30 ,~AN{)ICAP SPACES
H. COURT STREET & FT. HARRISON 20
(351 S FT HARR!SON AVE)
FIGURE NO.4
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Existing Beach Parking Facilities
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
Be._ Copy
Available
1
t CnY'~ I.D1l'S
30. MARK\
~ 31. PlEReo
T 32. So GUI.FVlEW BLVD.
~ 32. No GtJlFVIEW BLVD.
34. MNCW,AY AVE.
SOUTH OF PNJAYA ST.
...1'~
" 35. MNCW,AY AVE.
" NORTH OF PNJAYA ST.
'"
" 3lS. ROCtCAWAY STREET
~
" ::
::.. :fT. AVALON I KENDALL
'0
;."
'" " 3L BAY ESPlANADE
'"
"l ..
~ 38. Md<AYFlElD
~
" .co. SANO KEY (nat 8hown)
~
'"
'" BEACH STREETS
"
~
LOT 30 . 45 MEMORIAl.. CNJSENAY
MO.IPACa
272
218
183
285
24
28
145
53
eo
17
758
233
.,
LOT 31 - 100 So GUl.F'ilEW BLVD.
LOT 32.332 So GlAJ'VlEW BLVD.
LOT 34. -423 MAK>>LAV AVE
LOT 35. 45T MAK>>LAY AVE
LOT 35 -.. ROa<AWAY ST.
LOT 37.8 AVALON ST.
LOT 38 - 51 BAY ESP\..ANADE
LOT 39 . 605 MANOAlAY AVE
DRIV(
0"'''''
,
?:.
~
,\
J j,:;,
~
--~--
IlR.Y. .
.75
1Sl
1Sl
1Sl
.75
.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.7511.00
~
~
=
=
~
~
@)
5
=
~
~
~
!
1:::
~
I
~
=
~;
'(j ".t.. ~ t2
.,';~ .....;.;r
:12\4.11. ~ ,
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
This creates opportunIties for the City not only to set conditions for developers to
incorporate provisions for the planned guideway transit and also to require redevelopment around
its stations. The guideway project will fit well into the City's vision: "One City. One Future. One
Great Place to Live, Work and Play," which has been a motive of several redevelopment plans
considered to date. The guideway should create a sense of revival and direction. Furthermore,
additional new proposals are being submitted including a large Marriott Hotel development.
3.8 Transit in Clearwater
There are two transit services currently provided in the downtown and beach areas of
Clearwater including the local trolley and public bus. Figure No.5: "Clearwater Bus and Trolley
Service" illustrates the existing bus and Jolley Trolley transit service.
Clearwater Beach to Downtown trolley service known as the Jolley Trolley is provided
daily. Operating hours are between 10 A.M and 10 P.M. The trolley schedule averages about
every thirty-five minutes for the Beach route and every thirty minutes for the DowntownlIsland
Estates Route. The fare is $0.50. Figure No.6: ''The Jolley Trolley Route" illustrates the trolley's
daily route.
Fixed route bus service Monday through Sunday is provided by the Pinellas Suncoast
Transit Authority (PST A). PST A operates several routes into downtown Clearwater, using a
terminal on Park Street (to be relocated). Service between the Park Street terminal and the North
and South Clearwater Beach (and Island Estates Plaza) is provided by one route (number 80),
which operates over the Memorial Causeway. This route experiences the same delays as other
vehicular traffic using the Causeway. During peak seasons of the year it has been found necessary
to add an extra bus to this route in order to approximate on-time performance. Peak monthly
ridership is reached in March. Figure No.7: "Bus Route 80" illustrates the daily bus route to
Clearwater Beach.
The following are significant constraints of the trolley and bus system within the
downtown-beach corridor:
· Long headways and travel times
· Susceptive to traffic congestion and delays during peak hours
· Susceptive to weather conditions
· Poor coverage of destinations
· On-demand bus routes include out-of-direction segments to access destinations
· The shuttle bus fleet is small and conventional
· Substantial operating costs.
In addition to the existing transit service, future opportunities exist resulting from the
existing railroad track which could be used for the planned county-wide light or heavy rail service.
Figure No.8: "Future Rail Intermodal Link" shows the existing train station.
28
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
FIGURE NO.5
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Clearwater Bus and Trolley Service
~
~
J, I
I.
~.
;~'t"'p.:-"'"
.......
_..
Existing peT A Bus Station (Park Street)
r-
Jolly Trolley
~
r:m
.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO.6
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
The Jolley Trolley Route
land Key
Park Bea<h
f
;;
Drew St
I Libra"L-.. ;M
I PArking ~ Tl I
Osceola Av-e
Clearwater Beach To
Downtown Trolley
8KD KlndJl'1
1~
...J
- ,
---::.,.
. Isl311u Way Raul< 10
H700 SC:lS"'''U ()f1I~'
2-1
Existing Trolley. Routes
Cbrwat.:r lkacb Trolley
Isla.nd EstllesJl)ownlOwu Trolley -
Best Copy
Available
I
1
I i
N
0
I R
T
H
Juniper St.
I NORTH
CLEARWATER
BEACH
1 .
>.
co (/J
-Q)
co L...
'Co 1
C.c
I co(/)
~
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
FIGURE NO.7
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Bus Route 80
LEGEND:
o
.
: Timepoint; see scheduled times.
Board at bus stop sign located
frequently throughout route.
: Landmark
rlrlO
r;.~ l1unrtUn r..;)
C5:I
R Ilunrdln
~ Pu""" I.1br:u
\t> RTII
CLEARWATER
BEACII
~
U2)~~
~""
.'" S
'if ."
~ 5
o
?( nun(ldJn~
t:j M.~t!.:
""
::>
!
ai
>
<{
'6L
Ql
~ Pierce St.
o
DREW ST
"""
I!:!SociaJ Services Office
l!!!!I CLEVELAND ST
.1
rii1
Urvel:ll1d
~ Piau
a:
::>
o
'"
'"
~
PARK 5T
>
<(
o
o
o
~
~
'"
PIERCEST
.,
Ptn~~+:~E11
COURT $T
CHESTNUT 5T
@
Park Street Temtinal
e@}€!>~,
~(fJfD~'
fD€!>0{D
~
11
:.:
~
~
o
a:;
<(
'"
~,
DRUID RD
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
FIGURE NO.8
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Future Rail Intermodal Link
4'
.......
..~~
-......- -
Existing rail track could be used for future light and commuter rail link.
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
3.9 Spring Break Peak Traffic
Spring Break is the busiest season for Memorial Causeway traffic. It includes every
weekend from March 2 to April 16. For example in 2001, Spring Break for local county schools
will be as follows:
.
Pinellas County: April 9-13
Pasco County: April 9-13
.
.
Hillsborough: March 19-23
Local colleges have the following Spring Break dates:
Florida State University (FSU) Tallahassee: March 3-12
University of South Florida (USF) Tampa: March 12-17
Uni versity of Florida (UP) Gainesville: March 3-10
University of Miami (UM) Miami: Undetermined.
3. 10 Legal Issues
.
.
.
.
The City Charter imposes specific restrictions on the development of publicly owned land.
The land of interest downtown is bounded on the north by the right-of-way of Drew Street, on the
east by the right-of-way of Osceola A venue, on the south by the right-of-way of Pierce Street, and
on the west by the waters of Clearwater Harbor, lying below the 28-ft mean sea level elevation. In
addition, the restrictions apply to the portion of Memorial Causeway (S.R. 60) consisting of
1,200-ft-wide right-of-way, lying between the east abutment of the west bridge and east line of
Clearwater Harbor. According to the City Charter the above-described land shall not be developed
or maintained other than as open space and public utilities together with associated appurtenances,
except upon finding by the Commission at a duly advertised public hearing that such development
is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and
approval of such at referendum, conducted subsequent to the public hearing.
The City's legal counsel should make a determination whether the transit system could be
legally treated as a public utility, thus allowing its implementation without calling for a referendum.
Certainly, the guideway system will improve public safety (less traffic and resultant accidents),
health (less traffic and resultant pollution), and welfare (more visitors and resultant tax revenues).
The City should address all legal issues early in the planning process to allow the consultant team
to adopt the proper direction and methodology for the system implementation.
3.11 Planning Approach
In summary, planning for a guideway link between downtown Clearwater and Clearwater
Beach should address:
· Rider experience
· Reducing the time and effort of travel
· Land use
33
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
.
Visitor parking
.
Employee parking
Conserving land
.
.
Impact on further development patterns
.
Improving safety and the environment
.
The image for a world-class resort center.
As a result, future development could be planned comprehensively (instead of
incrementally) to maximize mobility between the properties through the application of appropriate
and sufficiently proven transit technology. Clearwater cannot stand still as competing vacation
destinations are constantly upgrading, and international vacationers have more choices.
3.12 Desired Transit System Characteristics
The following are some desired transit system characteristics that will be utilized in our
subsequent technology and alignment analysis:
· Passenger friendly, comfortable and attractive vehicles with on-board video
· Consistent high system availability achieved through a design balance between
inherently fault-tolerant hardware and advanced energy management systems
· Driverless, on-demand system that accommodates both daily and nightly volumes
without any operational changes
· Capability of coupling vehicles into trains to accommodate the most heavily traveled
portions of the transit corridor during peak hours (may not be utilized for the start-
up system)
· Intermodal design to accommodate interconnections with the public and private bus
systems and future light rail corridor
· Exclusive right-of-way that does not create a physical barrier
· Added value to properties along the alignment at both ends (downtown/beach).
34
I
I
, 1 :
1
I .
I
I
I
I'
I
I
1
II
I
I
I'
I
I.
I
l__~__ .
~ .-:-:,-" :~: '.~-.
. .
. .
. '4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
, -. '.' .' '., .-.."
. . '.'.' . " ..-
. .' ," , .,
'" "....,.
. ;...', -'.',', '" '. -.,-'" ,''',''
. ....:-., ....".;._ .... '0-'
. ----
.... ' ,-------_..,,".'--.--.-
.- . ~..' .
'. .1
,I'
I
I
.'1'
I
. 'I..
I
. .1
I
I
. I
I
. . .1
I
I
'.1
1
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The development of a guideway system should not be undertaken merely because
technology is available and right-of-way exists. The usefulness of a guideway system will depend
on technical and non-technical conditions that exist or appear attainable before implementation
efforts are undertaken. Before conceptualizing the system, there is a need for evidence that the
technology/routing will supply services that satisfy genuine needs in the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach
corridor. Our methodology is relevant to Clearwater's intention to redevelop downtown and the
beach, whereas the previously referenced MIS study used methodology that did not take these
factors into consideration. To select the most appropriate technology and alignment for the
Clearwater application, it is necessary to compare alternatives with one another.
Early in the assignment, we prepared a list of evaluation factors. Figure No.9: "Evaluation
Methodology" shows the recommended process that can be used to discriminate between the
alignment and technology alternatives. Five major groups were identified:
· Guideway technology constraints
· Alignment feasibility
· Affordability
· Attractiveness
· User convenience.
Evaluations and comparisons of the selected corridor and various guideway technologies
require the adoption of several planning criteria within all groups, including (but not limited to) the
following.
4. 1 Transit Technology Constraints
Phvsical Limitations
Is the overall design concept suitable for urban and resort applications (grade capability, curvability
limitations, weather resistance, safety, other)?
Performance Limitations
What is the maximum speed in the urban/resort environment?
What is the peifonnance in rain and wind conditions?
What is the passenger ride comfort?
Operational Limitations
What is the passenger capacity?
What is the evacuation procedure in the urban/resort environment?
Is it suitable for cargo movement (if desired)?
36
FIGURE NO.9
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Evaluation Methodology
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GUIDEWAY
SYSTEM
ALIGNMENT
AND
TECHNOLOGY
ALTERNATIVES
· Physical Limitations
· Performance Limitations
· Operational Limitations
· Risks
· Right of Way Impacts
· Station Locations
· Alignment Design Standards
· Environmental Impacts
· Capital Costs
. Operation and Maintenance Costs
· Funding Potential
· Economic Enhancement Potential
(re-development of two districts)
· Ride Experience
· Visual and Aesthetic Impacts
· Overall Image
· Tourist Attraction
· Market Served
· Transit System Integration
· Travel Time/Frequency
· Parking Availability
· Patronage Potential
UIDEWAY SYSTEM
ALIGNMENT AND
TECHNOLOGY
ECOMMENDATION
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
Risks
Is it proven?
Is it safe?
Is the system implementation feasible?
4.2 Alignment Feasibility
Right-of- Way Impacts
Is adequate right-of way available and feasible?
Are specific real estate sites available for stations?
Do obstacles exist? (Are there any underground utilities, strnctures, and/or geological fonnations
that would inteifere with constrnction?)
Station Locations
Is the transit system easy to use?
Are there access roads for emergency and service vehicles?
Is station implementation practical?
The capability of guideway systems to handle considerable grades and turns gives the
designer flexibility in providing passenger and vehicle access to stations. Station locations are
influenced by terrain, geology, the existence of underground structures and utility lines, and the
availability and configuration of suitable sites. Two types of stations have been identified for the
Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach corridor, including:
.
Terminal stations located at the ends of a guideway system
Intermediate station located along a guideway system.
.
Alignment Design Standards
Horizontal Alignment
Are tight turns acceptable (feasible) for the peifomwnce of the system (and passenger comfort)?
A preferred guideway alignment may require curves that are too sharp for the vehicle's
turning radius. Too many horizontal curves may cause rider discomfort and increase the wear on
lateral guidance wheels. Where the guideway surrounds the vehicle, either the guideway, the
dynamic envelope, the horizontal geometry, or combinations of these three factors may control
horizontal curves and clearances. However, where the vehicle surrounds the guideway, as with
monorails, the dynamic envelope may control lateral curves and clearances throughout the length of
the guideway. Since the technology type has not been selected, both cases must be considered.
Horizontal alignment can be affected by the options available for locating columns or other
supporting structures. Since guideway strength and flexibility are functions of span length,
spacing between supporting structures can become critical. Curved guideway alignments
frequently require intermediate support. This support is usually provided by columns located
within the crossing or by bends.
In addition, the particular alignment is contingent upon adequate space for the footings.
38
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
Vertical Alignment
Are grades and column heights acceptable (jeasible) for perfonnance of the system (and passenger
comfort)?
Minimum vehicle clearance is defined as the vertical distance between the top of the vehicle
and the nearest fixed obstruction above. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASmO) requires a 16-ft vertical clearance under a guideway on state
highways and interstate systems. Also, 16 ft should be the minimum clearance for local routes
below the guideway, "where such clearance is not unreasonably costly and where needed for
defense requirements." Segments of the guideway which must span roads, rail tracks or other
types of crossings may require deviations from a constant grade in order to satisfy vertical
clearance requirements.
Environmental Impacts
How does guideway technology physically impact this environment?
Potential impacts to adjacent land uses need to be considered, including noise, vibration,
air quality, and compatibility with land-use types. Impacts to the natural environment should also
be considered, as the corridor traverses Clearwater Harbor.
4.3 Affordability
Can we afford to build and operate this technology?
Capital Costs
Does this alignment reduce the guideway length to maintain minimum system cost ?
Is this technology cost effective for this application?
Based on the alignment configuration (length, spans, double/single guideway, number of
stations and track switches, other), it is possible to rate the affordability of the
alignment/technology alternatives.
The resolution of some of these issues, particularly in the area of exact alignment, may
require engineering determinations. They also require policy consideration~ because of cost
implications (capital and O&M), possible community concerns, or a degradation of service or ride
comfort.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Does this technology offer the best life cycle costs?
Fundin~ Potential
Is this technology within funding limits for this type of application?
Can this technology be a candidate for a demonstration project under various public/private
initiatives?
Certain types or levels of technology may be more readily fundable than others.
39
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
Economic Enhancement Potential
Will the system implementation enhance land values, rental rates and business activities?
Does this project make long-term economic sense and attract investors?
4.4 Attractiveness
Will this technology attract local residents and visitors, and induce new trips to the downtown and
beach areas?
Ride Experience
How will passengers perceive the ride both from the ride comfort and overall experience point of
view?
Certain types of technology may be more comfortable and attractive than others.
Visual and Aesthetic Impacts
How does guideway technology visually impact this environment?
When designing guideway systems, a few viewpoints should be considered-that of the
system user and that of the impacted urban environment.
Visual Barriers
Station and guideway structures should not degrade scenic views of natural or historic sites
from locations where these views are normally enjoyed by the public. Guideways should not limit
desirable views. The view from hotels, for instance, should not be obstructed.
Adverse Impacts of Shade
Shade and shadow patterns should be considered in relation to their effects on adjacent land
use and on the right-of-way. By blocking sunlight, elevated structures may contribute to problems
of cast shadows on nearby uses. Consideration should also be given to any blocking of the sun's
rays to facilities which require them.
Visual Intrusion on Residences and Commercial Establishments
The guideway should be aligned and stations placed to minimize visual intrusion on public
and private spaces. Public spaces are especially sensitive to visual intrusion. Guideway placement
within the urban and resort environments that allows riders a view into private residences, hotel
rooms, or offices exemplifies visual intrusion. Occupants of facilities adjacent to guideways
should also be spared the kaleidoscopic effects of passing vehicles.
Overall Ima~e
Will guideway technology improve the overall image of the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach area?
The quality of the overall image is vital to the success of the project in terms of attracting
residents and visitors making repeated trips.
40
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
4.5 User Convenience
Market Served
Is the guideway system easily accessible from various destinations?
Guidewav System Inte2ration
Can the guideway system operate in this environment, integrate with other systems (bus, future
light rail) and be upgraded in the future?
Are intennodal transfers convenient and time efficient?
Would the station entry zone provide ample space for transfer to access modes and safe pedestrian
circulation?
The comfort and efficiency of the transferring passengers should be of prime concern in
this project.
Travel Time/Frequency
Does this alignment reduce the guideway length to maintain minimum travel time ?
How long does a trip to a specific destination take?
How long does a patron wait at the station?
Does the guideway length pennit high frequency of service?
Long guideways would require a large fleet of vehicles.
Parkin2 Availability
Is there existing parking available or is there sufficient space to build dedicated parking lots?
Parking areas for the transit stations should provide sufficient spaces to eliminate commuter
parking on local roadways. Entrances to on-site parking should be placed to minimize interference
with local traffic.
Patrona2e Potential
What is the patronage potential of the transit line?
Each technology for the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach corridor will need to be assessed in
terms of the potential patronage levels and the ability to serve urban and resort passenger
circulation markets.
* * *
In the process of establishing our evaluation criteria and methodology, we primarily focus
on whether our study will be able to define the overall "Guideway System Effectiveness."
Does the guideway system overcome the natural and artificial barriers of Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach
corridor?
Does the guideway system serve identified travel pattems?
Does the guideway system overcome traffic congestion in the corridor?
41
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
Does the guideway system overcome adverse weather conditions?
Does the guideway system serve primary destinations in the corridor?
Does the system attract new riders?
Alternative guideway technologies of many kinds could be conceived to serve the
Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach corridor. Therefore, a clear understanding of the physical and
operational characteristics of guideway system and the Clearwater application must be established,
as only a limited number of technologies are truly applicable.
42
I
I .
. .
II
I I.
1-'.
I
I
.'1
I
I
I
I'
I
.'1 . '.' '
I
I
'1.
I
I
. .
.... . Co
. ..
. ,.,
:. .'
.' . I
;
.1
I
5. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT '.
..
..-.....
I
.1
."1
I
I.
I
"1
I
.' .1
'I
I
I
I'
. I
'. . I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
5.
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
5.1 Candidate Technology Types
Candidate technologies of many kinds could be conceived for the Clearwater Bluff-to-
Beach guideway application. Taking into consideration the primary objective of the project
described above, we have narrowed the selection to three categories with emphasis on lower-to-
medium cost, capacity, and performance Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) systems operating
either on elevated guideways or at-grade:
Advanced, Automated Systems
.
Medium capacity monorails
.
Medium capacity People Movers
Cable-driven systems
.
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
Specialty Systems
.
· Aerial ropeway transit systems
· Minirail
Conventional, Manual Systems
· Light Rail Transit (LRT)
· Historic trolleys.
5.2 Advanced, Automated Systems
Advanced guideway transit systems (as listed above) represent major changes and
innovations in equipment, facilities, operations, and services in comparison with conventional rail,
bus, taxi, and other street modes. System performance and capacities can be tailored to match
expected loads to meet the functional requirements for the Clearwater application. Vehicle size can
be expanded or reduced. Seats can be added or removed from vehicles. Various grades and curves
can be accommodated by altering guideway design and speeds.
For this application, we envision vehicles under automatic control on exclusive guideways
following the same paths best be served by a shuttle type of operation and does not require
complexities of a guideway network.
44
II
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
The AGT classification deals with entire systems, many of which use new technology
subsystems and components such as linear induction motors, air and cable propulsion, magnetic
levitation and air cushion suspension, electronic wire lateral guidance, computer aided dispatching,
non-contact inductive coupling power collection, fuel cell/battery power, collision avoidance aids,
surveillance and control systems, advanced control and information systems, on-board Closed
Circuit Television, and others.
The following information describes the monorail, People Mover, cable-driven system, and
Personal Rapid Transit categories in greater detail. There are over 150 technologies of this type.
We have described only those technologies that are currently available and applicable to the
Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach situation.
5.2.1 Medium Capacity Monorails
Monorail technology is characterized by vehicles or trains either supported by or suspended
from a single rail or beam guideway without any other support except this single rail. Trains are
usually permanently coupled units. Often common suspension elements are shared at the points
where the cars are attached to each other. In common usage, almost any exclusive guideway
system that is not dual rail, any system with a flat surface for vehicle support and single rail for
guidance, or any systems with suspended vehicles have been called "monorails."
Monorails vary widely in cost, speed, and capacity. They can carry anywhere from 500 to
over 10,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) and offer speeds from 12 to over 50 mph.
For the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach corridor application, we will focus on systems offering
approximately 2,000-3,000 pphpd capacity and speeds up to 30 mph, as distances are short.
The oldest monorail has been in operation in Wuppertal, Germany, since 1901. The first
monorail built in Japan was for the Tokyo Zoo in 1957. Several systems of the Safege (suspended)
type and eighteen systems of Alweg (straddle) type design have been built since the early sixties,
including the 8.1-mile long Tokyo-Haneda monorail, the 4. I-mile long Shonan monorail, and the
1.2-mile long Seattle monorail. The first major transit line opened at Kitakyushu City, Japan, in
1985. In 1986, the first 9.6-mile phase of a suspended, dual-track monorail was opened in Chiba
(now expanded to 25 miles).
The first Disney monorail started operating more than thirty years ago. The Mark V trains
debuted in 1987, following years of design by Walt Disney Imagineering and Messerschmidt,
Bolkow, and Blohm. Twelve new Mark VI trains built by Bombardier are currently in operation at
Florida's Walt Disney World.
Several advantages can be cited for implementing monorail technology in Clearwater. The
key advantage of the monorail is its very efficient box beam guideway structure which can reduce
elevated guideway costs some 30% relative to those of conventional rail. The major drawback is
the rather cumbersome switch, which involves moving a substantial length of the box beam itself.
This switching limitation constrains operational flexibility, making it less practical to use turnbacks
and crossovers to optimize vehicle loading and route around failed equipment. However, the
Clearwater application probably will not need extensive switching (depending on final
configuration).
Several companies make low-speed monorail systems, which are simpler and less
expensive than the higher-speed monorails operated at the Disney theme parks, for example, and
which are affordable for lower levels of patronage. In addition, there is considerable recent activity
geared towards improving the performance of these monorails and applying them to more
demanding guideway applications.
45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Of particular interest to the City of Clearwater may be the medium-performance monorails
of SDI, Intamin, Severn-Lamb, Bombardier, and ADtranz design and manufacture. Figure No. 10
(two pages): "Candidate Monorail Technologies" illustrates a wealth of options. Jakes Associates,
Inc. has been involved in several monorail projects, including the highly successful Las Vegas
high-capacity monorail.
5.2.2 Medium-Capacity People Movers
Automated People Mover systems are characterized by the use of exclusive guideways and
vehicles operated without a driver on board. The vehicles or trains are generally of a much smaller
size and capacity than conventional rail transit vehicles. Vehicles can operate as single units, in
married pairs, or coupled into trains. The platforms mayor may not be separated from the
guideway by a barrier wall with doors coordinated to operate with the doors of a stopped vehicle.
Service may be provided according to a fixed schedule or on demand.
Several People Mover systems can be very attractive for the Clearwater application. They
have low direct labor costs for the operation of vehicles in revenue service. Exclusive guideways
eliminate interference from pedestrians and vehicles of other types. They permit vehicles to travel at
average speeds higher than those usually attained by vehicles in mixed traffic. People Mover
systems have demonstrated excellent safety and reliability. They use electric propulsion, conserve
fuels, and are quiet and non-polluting. Many of the necessary technologies are already well
developed.
Hybrid Linear Induction Motor (LIM) and Maglev systems are among the most advanced
transit technologies available. In a hybrid LIM system, the LIM provides vehicle propulsion, while
other conventional driveline components (such as steel wheels) allow for vehicle guidance and
weight support. They offer low operational and maintenance costs for operators, low drive train
wear, and ease of operations in severe weather.
In comparison with hybrid LIM systems, Maglev systems take LIM technology one step
further by magnetically levitating and guiding the vehicle. This feature eliminates the need for steel
wheels for vehicle guidance.
Among many technologies, the Unitrak system is the lowest cost technology available on
the market for the Clearwater application, yet it is both attractive and efficient. Its lower cost is
derived from a very efficient and newly designed guideway cross-section and small (but capable)
supplier size. The Unitrak system is currently in operation at Primm City, Nevada, and under
construction in Indianapolis, Indiana. Figure No. 11: "Candidate People Mover Technologies"
presents various People Mover technologies that are candidates for the Mayo/Rochester
application.
5.2.3 Cable-Driven Systems
Of particular interest for the Clearwater application is cable-drive technology with either
fixed or detachable grip for the vehicle, depending upon the selected alignment. Cable technologies
are an ideal solution for the windy Florida climate. The system design principle resembles large
vertical elevators; therefore, the overall cost of installation would be very competitive. There are
several well-established candidate suppliers with proven technologies, including Poma-Otis,
Leitner, and Doppelmayer.
46
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
FIGURE NO. 10 (1 of 2)
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Candidate Monorail Technologies for Clearwater Application
,-
Sydney, Australia
r"
Stuttgart, Germany
Newark, New Jersey
Jacksonville, Florida
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
FIGURE NO. 10 (2 of 2)
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Candidate Monorail Technologies for Clearwater Application
Orlando, Florida
(Disney World)
----
=:
c
.-l::
~
~~
1::1 '"
;. =:
~8
","' l..
I::I~
~=:
~:::l
'" =:
~.~
=:
~
~
~
I::I~
~::
t~
oSlo;
~I::I
"'~
1::1..::::
e.~
'... '"
... :::l
~Q:l
'--
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 11
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Candidate People Mover Technologies for Clearwater Application
Miami, Florida
Dallas, Texas
(under construction)
.".
........11.-1..1-..1-1.1. ~Iilllllil ::glllllrnm
"- . ... AI ,II. I I 1111 JIJI 1 II I r
Ii ....... II .. II II II II . 1111111111 111111111 . I'
....... ....... II ........ 1111111111_, I" '1' '.
f.-.-. .~.-.. ... . . <lill, I II I "w:,;.
I. . . . . . . . . · · 1111 I I I .,..,.
· · · · · · · · · · .: III III II I II....;!
. . . . · · · · · · .! I I. . . ,;j.
~. . . . · · · · · · · 111111 III I,..,.!
. . . . . . . . . . . 111111 I I I I;.....
I.......... .'11111111 I.'..
........... 111"'"
..........1'11111111 I~
l. ..~j ill . . . . . I 11111 III nl.l,
. . .. III. ..... '11111 . .. . 1.'-
e\..s....... -.a. .~Jt 4.. ..'
'.r.:=. ,l.J.. -.-.'""'!'. .<- "',...,.-:~__
.-. .':= =-. ----
Las Vegas, Nevada
Primm City, Nevada
Nagoya, Japan
! 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
The POMA-Otis People Mover system (which is similar to Doppelmayer and a few other
systems) is a fully automated, cable-propelled system. This system is equipped with rubber-tires
or resilient steel wheels with an improved suspension and is controlled by a sophisticated central
computer. The system uses a patented grip technology providing a permanent or detachable
attachment between the passenger vehicle and the cable that horizontally propels and guides the
vehicle(s). The grip arrangement makes the POMA People Mover particularly ideal for shuule
operations between various activity centers.
The propulsion system consists of variable-speed DC motors located in the terminal. The
drive motors propel a steel cable attached to the vehicle. The traction-driven haul cable imparts
motion to the vehicle. The isolation of the propulsion machinery allows the motor, braking system
and other drive components to be large, easily serviced, and provide substantial reserve capacities.
This arrangement also eliminates the need for off-track vehicle service areas. The absence of an
on-board motor makes the vehicles lighter than those of a self-propelled system, allowing them to
travel on a slimmer guideway. Additionally, the vehicles operate silently and without motor noise.
Large window areas are employed to maximize passenger enjoyment during the ride. A range of
attractive and wear-resistant upholstery fabrics and carpeting is available. Table No.1: "Poma-Otis
Shuttle I Specification" presents technical data for the Shuttle I system by Poma-Otis. Figure No.
12 (three pages): "Candidate Cable-driven Technologies" illustrates a variety of technological
options.
5.2.4 Personal Rapid Transit
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems could serve individuals alone or in small groups
traveling together by choice in small-capacity vehicles routed directly from origin to destination.
PRT systems are distinguished by the use of automated vehicles and exclusive guideways to
provide prompt, non-stop, transfer-free personal transportation service among all the stations of a
network. Though PRT concepts have been controversial, design and other work has continued
because of PRT's potential for offering superior transit service at much lower per mile construction
and operating costs when compared to those of conventional transit.
The inherent advantages of a small guideway cross section include its light weight, ease of
construction and installation, and low cost. Views of surrounding architecture and panoramas are
not obstructed as much as with other forms of transit, and modifications to existing structures or
utilities are seldom needed. These features can allow for further installation cost reductions. In
addition, small and inexpensive stations provide access to PRT service. By designing stations for
low volume, more stations may be deployed for the same invested capital. PRT stations can also be
designed for "off-line" service, which can more easily facilitate a transition to other forms of
transportation such as buses.
Unfortunately, the development of a PRT demonstration project by the Chicago Regional
Transit Authority (RT A) has been stopped because Raytheon (the only proven supplier) has
withdrawn from the market. Figure No. 13: "Candidate Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
Technologies" illustrates the concept.
5.3 Specialty Systems
There are many specialty transit technologies. Two types of technologies could besconsidered for the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach area as follows.
50
II
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
TABLE NO.1
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAffiANCESTUDY
Poma-Otis Shuttle I SpecificatiO'&est Co py
Available
rP::~FORMANCE:
I Venlc:: s:::~
I T raVe! ::s:ance
T:/:::lcai:e::ormance
Sys;am length
. Ca:ac:ty: Model 101 W
Model101N
. He.-~.vay
Ave:age waitina time
I 30 mpn (2.540 fpm)
I Uo to 8.000 feet with ;:rac:Jcai li~I:aJens
Data below is for a Qua/lane sys;e:.!, 2 s;oos, 2 vehicles, 30 mph, 30 second s:ancn ewe!!
1,000 2,000 ~,OOO 6.000 8,000 f~
2,170 i, 580 i, 150 880 700 passlhrfdir
1,430 i, i i 0 760 580 460 passlhrfCir
78 100 146 190 236 sacs
24 35 58 80 103 sees
I VE.~ICt.::
Cao conS;;Uctlon
ExtemaJ:imensions
We!gnr (emety)
Ce~iing .~e!9nt
I 101W (Wide 80dy) I 101N (Narrow Body)
I Laminated glass on steel frame I Laminated class on steel frame
116'6"Lx 11'1"Wx10'S"H I 16'6"Lx8'2"Wx10'S"H
112.800 Ibs (13.600 [bs With oetlonal i-iVACj I 8.900 Ibs (9.700 Ibs with oenonal HVACl
I 7' 0" I 7' 0"
I 145.8ft" /101.2ft"
I 47 passengers (39 s""nc:ng. 8 scaLae) I 31 passenoers (23 s,anoing. 8 seared)
I Sioe doors: 2 bl-pamng 4' W x c' a" i-i , Side doors: 2 bJ-partlng 4' W x o' 8- H
End doors: 2 bi-carting 4' W x 5' a" i-i End doors: 2 bi-parting 3' W ;( o' S" H
I ReSilient sreel wheels en alas,cmenc ~:::ur.ts
I VentIlation. fluorescent Ilgnnng, .e:.:~enc'f lighting (1 hour). emergency phone. s;,;,:oxe
detection. rubber tile ~ccnng. fire ".(::ng!.::sher. load weighing
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
Fcc:' ar:a
Ca::aC::'1 "
, Dcc:'S U~ax. available)
SL:s:e~s;::::1
At~;nm=s
GUIDE''iVA Y:
C':~i:g:';:=rIon
MaxllOil.:~ grade
Min. ~c~cnt31 curve radius
,1{1In. ve:.:::al C:,li'Ve radius
I C,:::su::::::cn
I Single or cuallane ,:!e'Jar~. or sll~gleane wltt1l:lypass. tunnel or at-grade
I 10% wIth pracncallilOilraucns
I 165'
I 3.000' convex. 12. .JOO' ccncave
I Painreo steel struc:ure continuous ~ecal crack
I 5T). TlCN5:
I C-~r:-~"--on
_" I~_..;U
I Ccnsu::::::en
I Ooenoiar.'crm With gates. CCtIonal ::n::guratIons avallacle
I Palnteosteei struc:ure
SYS I':'''d: I
Ocera;;cn I Fully automatlo, scn~ulec or demand ~ede. I
P~C:uISicn I Steel cable with DC geare-: motcr ana soiid state dnve I
8ra:-C1r.; I Regenerative anve. fali-safe cnve sr:eave brake, fali-safe vehicle brake I
::~~I I Machine roem: 480V, 3 pnase. :v-cO HZ I
Guideway power. 22QV. Single ~n;;se
Utility power. 1 i OV or 220V ..loC (tycical)
C c;;cnaJ :earures Vehicles: HVAC, pl.:circ adcress, o:s:::lays. CCTV, custom cabs. end egress
Guideway: Lighting, c:nvenlence cl.:tiets
Stations: HVAC. Duclie accress. eisclays, CCTV, covered or enclosed platfoms,
autcr.':anc clar.'cr.71:c:rs. elevators/escalators to clatforms
Cu":e: system capacities and configurations are avaIiacie fr:r.': cC:7:c:ementary produc~ lines
;::,:~c~ance data and other features r.':ay vary cecencing u:::r. So;: ::nditions, customer ,equirernen;s. Iccal ccee
~~:.;:rements and changes in standard c:nfiguratio~s r..:aoe :y C:~s
Ve:~:::e caoacity based on 4 standing passengers .cer SOCiare :7:e::: "r.d 2 seated passengers ,::er s~uare :7':e:er
An Example of Vehicle Design Applicable for Clearwater
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 12 (1 of 3)
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Candidate Cable-driven Technologies for Clearwater Application
; ;~
':'~.t:'
". ,-
11
,
'.
fI,"
San Francisco, California
Las Vegas, Nevada
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1 :
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
'I
I
FIGURE NO. 12 (2 of 3)
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Candidate Cable-driven Technologies for Clearwater Application
- ~Pt1n
--
1]--.
Primm City, Nevada
Vipiteno, Italy
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 12 (3 of 3)
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Candidate Cable-driven Technologies for Clearwater Application
Tampa, Florida (dismantled)
{i
~
;:..
~
~"'
~
~
~
~
l
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
..1
FIGURE NO. 13
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Technologies
~- - ~-'
. ,1;: ___..
... . J
~
-""'
.c ~"_ -
Malborough, Massachusetts
(dismantled)
I'll
II~
,'I .JJ
. j 1 1
..j 'J .~,,~ '-!'4
...iJ
..r\
,l
.~.: r
j:
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 .3.1 Aerial Cableway Transit Systems
Aerial rope way transit technologies have been designed for demanding transportation
corridor applications where availability of the right-of-way for conventional systems is limited or
too costly. The systems can be installed without any major impact on the environment. By using
cables to serve as support and guideway, aerial systems offer the most economical and unobtrusive
trackway available for transit applications. In addition to cost savings, the unobtrusive suspended
cables cast few shadows and present little aesthetic disturbance.
Among aerial systems, the most proven and widely used are gondola and aerial tramway
technologies. There have been several other designs developed over the last twenty years (Aerobus
Trasse, Sky tram, and Skyshuttle). However, they are not advanced enough, neither on a business
nor technical level, to be considered for this project. Only gondola technologies can be considered
for the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach corridor.
The gondola is a closed cabin that is suspended from a cable system. The gondola is
connected to the cable by a gripping mechanism that ensures that the cabin is carried along with the
moving cable. At the terminal stations, there is an automatic lifter that removes the grip from the
cable so that the gondola comes to a gradual stop. The system is supported on pylons that follow
the land profile of the route. The cables run on rollers at the top of each pylon.
Detachable gondola cable systems are continuous, featuring small-to-medium size vehicles
launched at regular intervals as often as 9 sec apart. Developed to move skiers upslope at ski
resorts, the technology can be applied to the circulation needs of other applications.
Normally only two end stations are served, but it is feasible to add an intermediate station; a
number of ski systems serve three stations and some serve four. The vehicle is suspended beneath
the rope. The cable to which the vehicles are attached forms a closed loop that moves at constant
velocity.
In order to load and unload vehicles in the terminals, they are detached from the moving
rope, stabilized, decelerated by mechanical devices, and moved at a slow, constant velocity
through the boarding area in the terminal.
After passing through the loading area, vehicles are accelerated to the speed of the rope by
mechanical equipment similar to that used for deceleration, then reattached to the rope. Pulsed
gondola systems feature fixed rather than detachable vehicles.
Pulsed gondola systems offer vehicles that are semi-permanently attached close together on
the haul rope in short trains, but are not detached in stations. Because vehicles are not detachable,
the entire rope must be slowed or stopped in the station area to allow passenger unloading and
loading. Other trains attached to the rope will also slow down or stop, even if not in a station.
Gondolas offer both advantages and disadvantages over bottom-supported systems. A
primary performance advantage is the ability to span long distances over natural and artificial
obstacles. These features are made possible by virtue of the guideway, which consists only of
ropes supported by towers, much like high-tension power lines.
Figure No. 14: "Candidate Aerial System Technologies" illustrates gondola systems in
urban areas in Europe and the Middle East. Any of this approaches could be applied to the
Clearwater application.
56
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
""'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ... ~-
I~J
I ~ji' ~,~~ ~
"'tj.. .;1 F
~ .,.,1
I "'.,1 .~
. ~..~
.. i-
1 ~jP ~.~~ ~
FIGURE NO. 14
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Candidate Aerial System Technologies for Clearwater Application
---
r
-
..
~
.....
~
~
~
~
:::
~
~..
..:;:
~
~
~..
~
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
it
fit
it
.
.
00- I
.....
"
.~
. i
--~
. ~
.~;;;;.
~~ .....
i. ~
3-~
Lisbon, Portugal
-
..-:.;...-.~~-~~ ~::;;.z~'..=o-_ ";:_=--~-"'___~.". ~.-- --_ .-L': /
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
5.3 . 2 Minirail
The minirail technology in operation on the Big Island of Hawaii (Waikoloa) eliminates
visually obtrusive overhead traction typical for light rail systems and also achieve quieter ride by
the use rubber tires instead of steel wheels. Because of these aesthetic and environmental benefits,
the minirail fits the image of the beach area well. However, this custom-designed, custom-built
minirail has only a single supplier, and its curretnt technology would have to be greatly enhanced
to fit the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach corridor application. Furthermore, the mini rai I is manually
driven at-grade and therefore has the same operational disadvantages as light rail transit. Figure
No. 15: "Candidate Minirail Technology" illustrates the only installation of its at Waikoloa.
5.4 Conventional, Manual Systems
Light rail transit (including historic trolleys) is not considered as a good candidate for the
Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach application because its at-grade operation would be adversely impacted
by traffic at existing roadways and intersections. It would not provide much better service than
buses and would cost substantially more. It would also offer a greter passenger capacity than
necessary for this application. Placing a light rail system on elevated guideway would be a clear
misuse of the technology. However, as both at-grade and elevated light rail options have been
under extensive study by Pinellas County and their consultants (Major Investment Study), we have
included them in our assessment for completeness. Similarly, the vintage trolleys have the same
drawbacks as the light rail transit.
5.4.1 Light Rail Transit
Light rail transit (LRT) is a rail mode comprised of vehicles with steel wheels operating on
steel rail tracks. It is applicable to an entire range of operations, from traditional street installation
to an exclusive right of way.
LRT is electrically powered, usually by means of overhead electric wires. Train operation
in rush periods typically consists of up to three connected vehicles. Cars may be articulated
(hinged in the middle). LRT can be utilized in underground applications such as subways, at
grade, or on elevated structures. However, both subway and elevated configurations are not well
suited for systems with overhead traction. Passenger loading is possible at both high-level and
low-level platforms.
The capability of LRT to operate at grade and in mixed traffic allows significant flexibility
and potential cost savings in those sections of a system service area where high capacity is not
required and where spacing between stations does not unduly increase trip times. However,
average speeds will likely be limited due to at-grade crossing of surface streets, and where sharing
of traffic lanes by both autos and LRT occurs. Modern at-grade implementations of light rail
usually avoid mixed LRT/auto use of the track area, and provide an exclusive, in-street right-of-
way for the LRT. Under certain circumstances, priority can be given to the LRT over auto traffic
at cross streets. Traffic operations and safety are issues that need to be addressed in the
engineering of at-grade LRT.
58
I
1
I
I
I I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
""~
I ~~ \
" }1\~.
....... ~-
FIGURE NO. 15
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Candidate Minirail Technology for Clearwater Application
I
Kona, Island of Hawaii
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elevated LRT operates on an exclusive guideway structure. This enables a higher
performance system. Because there are no conflicts with street traffic or pedestrians, these
systems can operate at faster speeds with more reliable schedules. However, the elevated
structures generally lead to higher construction costs, and access is not as simple as at-grade
systems. While elevated structures often have fewer right-of-way and street traffic impacts than at-
grade systems, they also create potential visual and aesthetic concerns, particularly from adjacent
land uses. As a general rule, LRT should not be considered in an elevated configuration as Rapid
Transit Systems offer much better performance.
Figure No. 16: "Candidate Light Rail Technologies" illustrates that light rail systems have
massive right-of-way requirements. Choosing such as a system for the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach
application would result in wasting precious land along the Memorial Causeway.
5.4.2 Vintage Trolleys
Vintage Trolley are streetcars of the past brought back to life, using either old cars that have
been rehabilitated or new cars replicating the quaint designs of turn-of-the-century equipment.
Because many people find their nostalgia appealing, vintage trolleys can lend an air of festivity to a
tourist-orient area whicle providing useful service that is also fun to ride. Examples include the
downtown streetcar in Detrot, the St. Charles Avenue streetcar line in New Orleans (one of the
city's most heavily patronized transit routes), and historic and vintage trolley circulators of San
Francisco and San Jose, California.
In Colorado Springs, Colorado, the Pikes Peak Historic Street Railway Foundation bid on
surplus ex-SEPTA PCC trolley cars at an auction in May 1995 and acquired operable equipment at
a fraction of the cost of a new light rail vehicle. However, deals like this for still-servicable cars
cannot be predicted, since the supply of operational cars is scarce and refurbishing of old ones can
be relatively expensive. The procurement of new replica vehicles is also an option.
Vintage trolley systems are typically designed for traditional LRT street or elevated
operation. Typical trolley systems are electric with overhead wires, although diesel-operated
railroad cars could be utilized. Trolleys are presently operating on standard 600-volt systems and
are also compatible with 750-volt (modern LRT) systems. Specially built units can be equipped
with electrical motors that draw current from a self-contained diesel engines rather than from
overhead electrical lines if necessary. Figure No. 17: "Candidate Historic Trolley Technologies"
illustrates the aesthetically pleasing historic image provided by vintage trolleys, which require
substantial right-of-way (with poor service), contrary to the Clearwater objectives.
5.5 Similar Urban and Resort Complex Applications
There are numerous installations at a variety of similar applications including major activity
centers such as downtowns, office complexes, resorts, convention centers, airports, and other.
Among them the following offer some resemblence to Clearwater:
· Several Las Vegas People Movers (Mandalay Bay, Bellagio, MGM Grand-BaIly's,
Mirage, Primm, Circus Circus, and others)
· Several Florida People Movers (Disney, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa Harbour
Island (shut down), Tampa, Orlando, Miami Airports, and others)
· International Resorts (Brisbane, Australia: Sun City, South Africa; Waikoloa,
Hawaii)
60
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 16
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Light Rail Technologies
San Diego, California
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Calgary, Canada
San Jose, California.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Baltimore, Maryland
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 17
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Historic Trolley Technologies
'",
\
Lisbon, Portugal
San Francisco, California
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Several small downtown People Movers (Indianapolis, under construction,
Shenzen, China; Sydney, Australia; Detroit, Scarborough; Canada, and others).
Particularly, the Disney experience is a perfect local example of a successful project that has
resulted in substantial value enhancement through application of an innovative transit technology
(higher hotel room rates on the monorail line ).
5.6 Climatic Impact on Technologies
As indicated above, there are several People Mover systems currently in operation in
Florida in spite of occasional excessive wind and flood conditions. Nevertheless, climatic
conditions must be taken into consideration in transit technology discussions. The climatic
conditions in Clearwater are available from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) as follows:
Average Precipitation Average Temperature
(inches) (degrees F)
Winter 2.45 71.6/51.5
Spring 2.60 81.9/61.9
Summer 6.34 90.2/73.9
Fall 3.45 83.5/65.5
The above averages have been compiled over a period of 30 years.
Pinellas County, as well as much of the state of Florida, is subject to hurricanes and
tropical storms. In the last decade, Pinellas County has experienced an average of 1.4 hurricanes
or tropical storms annually. These severe storms last an average of 1.3 days and can carry winds
in excess of 130 mph, though the usual sustained winds are much less (average about 40 mph).
Also, hurricanes often spawn tornados, which also create adverse wind and debris conditions.
The possible occurrence of hurricanes, tropical storms, and tornadoes must be taken into
design consideration. The structure must be designed to withstand the impact of these severe
conditions, but the operation of the system would be shut down by the operation and maintenance
staff in these rare situations. In accordance with standards and codes, the system shall be
operational at 50 mph wind velocity with minimal sway or degraded performance (wind velocity
shall be monitored).
Maximum and normal sustained wind speeds (winds recorded for a minimum duration of
10 minutes) for Pinellas have been obtained from the NCDC and are listed below:
Max Sustained Wind
Speed
(mph)
Avg. Sustained Wind
Speed
(mph)
Winter 47
8.6
63
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Spring
Summer
Fall
46
9.1
69
7.3
56
8.1
Because much of Florida is prone to flooding, flood forces must be considered throughout
the column foundation design phase of the project.
5.7 Advantages of Advanced Systems
We have identified the following advantages of an advanced system for the Clearwater
Bluff-to-Beach application:
.
Excellent downtown-beach destination coverage
.
Long system life
.
High class image
.
Environmental friendly ("zero emission vehicles")
.
Passenger friendly (high ride comfort and convenience)
Short boardingldeboarding time
.
.
Good integration into the urban and resort environments
.
Demand oriented (vehicles can be added or removed from service)
.
Slim, transparent guideways
.
Rapid construction
.
Small vehicles
.
Intermediate stations possible
.
Low life cycle costs (driverless)
ADA compliant
.
.
High safety.
Figure No. 18: ''Typical Station Arrangement" shows a proposed station integration with
the vehicle floor aligned with the station platform floor thus allowing rapid, ADA-compliant
boarding and deboarding of passengers. The synchronized, automatic station and vehicle doors
offer the highest level of safety possible. Figure No. 19: ''Typical Vehicle Interior" illustrates two
alternative vehicle floor plans. One maximizes the number of seats. The other one maximizes
floor space for standing passengers. Additional racks for cargo could be provided.
64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. IS
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Typical Station Arrangement
I
I
1-
~
An open-type of station design applicable for Clearwater.
A representative fully enclosed and air conditioned station.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 19
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Typical Vehicle Interior
Example of spacious, comfortable vehicle layout for both seated and standing passengers.
Example of spacious vehicle layout for primarily standing passengers
(this layout can accommodate various beach-gear).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure No. 20: "Guideway Technology Comparison" compares various modes using
several criteria reflecting the limitations of candidate technologies. They are based on the following
key parameters:
· Affordability: Can the City of Clearwater afford to build and operate this
technology?
· Accessibility: Is the technology easy to use?
· Reliability: Does the technology meet its advertised performance?
· Travel time: How long does a trip take?
· Adaptability: Can the technology operate in the Florida environment, integrate with
other systems, and be upgraded in the future?
· Impact on environment: How does the technology impact the physical environment?
· Safety: How safe is the technology to use?
· Energy: Is the technology energy efficient?
· Capacity: Is the technology capable of meeting the range of projected ridership
demands?
We have performed a generalized screening of technologies to show advantages and
disadvantages of various modes for the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach application. In order to achieve
the best value, all guideway technologies should be given continued consideration as alternative
system routings are being selected. The final selection of a "best bet" technology will be made
through a competitive process in the subsequent phase(s) of this project.
67
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CRITERIA:
I Affordability
I Accessibility
FIGURE NO. 20
CLEARW A TER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway Technology Comparison
PEOPLE
MOVERS
o
o
I Reliability e
Travel Time e
I Adaptability 0
I EnvironmentallmpactO
I Safety .
Comfort e
I Energy 0
I Capacity e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HIGH
(Best rating for
Clearwater)
e
PERSONAL MONO- CABLE- AERIAL LIGHT
RAPID RAI LS DRIVEN SYSTEMS RAIL
TRANSIT SYSTEMS TRANSIT
0 0 . . 0
0 0 0 0 .
0 0 e e 0
e e e 0 Q
0 e 0 0 0
. .
0 e e e 0
@ @ e . 0
"#.~:.~
. :~"':,~
@ ~ e ~ e
;it!"
6) @ e e -
:1....,.
0 e e @ e
'.,
" ,
MEDIUM
Q
LOW
(Worst rating for
Clearwater)
o.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
., . " .
. .
I ',' .
. "
'.. .
. .
. . .
I. .' . . .
.. .
. .
. .
.' .' .
. . ,
. I ' .' .. '.
. .
. ..
.' . ,
. .. "
. . - .
, .
. ..- . '.
. .
. . . . . . . . ,
. .
"
. .
. .
, '
II .,...
. . .
" .
, " . :" :'. ."
I'. . ". '.. . ...'. '.
. . "." - .
'. '. ..
:..' .". .6.. CONCEPTUAL'ALIGN'MENrAND"~.'
1'1: '.' ":'. '-'STATION.LO:CATION-S'" ',' :.,. . ....
. -. ".
I.
"1" .
'. .
, "" .
'1 '. .>.. . " . . . '.' . '.' . ..:'. ..'
. '.
. ~ . .
" .
. .
I . .' ....
,'''. '.' " '. " .-
'1'
. .. .
I ,. .
, .... ". . "
. .
I....... . "
. . '" ' " .
. ,
I'.. .' .... ~., .' ...'. . .'
,'. ." : '.. . . " '. ",
I; . : .... .
, , .
I' . '.' ..
I':.. '.
. .
'" '.
.1 : . ,'" ....
..
.1"".' .... '.'
. .' . .'
I' ..' ,
. - . "
, . '.1
. '. '. I
'. ". .
. "
\. .....
, . . '
" .
',. .
. . .
. .' .
, .
. . .
. -
. , ".
. .
. .
. .
. . . .'
. ..' . .
. , .
. "'"
f', '
, '
f' '
I- .~. .
, '
, '
, ' '
, '
, '
. . " .
. . . .
.. '
, ' '
. . . . .
, ' .
, '
.' . .
" . -
. "
. . '.
, '
, '
.' '
.' '
, "
, '
,,' .
" .'
, '
, '
.,' ' .
, '
, ' '
.' '
, '
, ' '
. .' .'
." .'
, --
, '
. . . ,
. .... .
, - '
.-", " .
, ,
. . .'
" '
, '
i
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
6. CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT AND STATION LOCATIONS
6.1 Transit System Alignment Overview
A field study of possible alignments was conducted in Clearwater on December 4 and 5,
2000, and documented by photographs. Aerial photographs and site maps were assembled and
subsequently used as working documents to develop feasible alignments for both the guideway
and aerial gondola system options. Various alignment ideas were discussed during a visioning
session in Clearwater. We gathered input from various stakeholders regarding their opinions on a
variety of possible system routings.
Initially, a full range of guideway alignment combinations was considered in order to
identify the best options. These possible alignments were subsequently reduced by the consultant
to "base" and "alternative" alignments. Each one has the possibility of future extension. The
alignments also offer additional options within each routing with specific advantages and
disadvantages.
We have adopted the following color coding for the alignment alternatives.
· Guideway Alternatives:
Base Alignment: Magenta Color Line
Alternative 1 Alignment: Yellow Color Line
Alternative 2 Alignment: Aqua Color Line
· Gondola Alternatives:
Base Alignment: Magenta Line
Alternative Alignment: Yellow Line.
The color of dark blue is used for stations. The color red is used for the maintenance
facility.
The alignments offer some variations should certain site-specific constraints prevail (such
as partially at-grade versus totally elevated) in the system implementation approval process. The
future extension opportunities are indicated in graphic form by arrows.
We have developed several alignment alternative drawings, which are included in this
report in B-size format (at a scale of 1 "=700'). E-size versions of these drawings have been
separately submitted (at a scale of 1 "=250'). The list of drawings is included in the Appendix
section of this report.
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I !
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
6.2 Guideway Transit Alignment Concept
Due to substantial initial capital investment in the implementation of a guideway system, the
supporting economic activity must exist or be developed around the stations including parking
facilities. It is vital to the success of the system to create sufficient parking capacity in downtown
to encourage beach patrons to park in downtown, considering the shortage and expense of parking
along the beach. It is also vital to create reasons for beach residents and visitors to visit downtown.
Furthermore, derivation of the alignments should be based on the fundamental assumption
of identifying the shortest and easiest possible route between the primary destinations (in order to
hold the cost of implementation to a minimum). Upon careful review of the nature of the
application, it has become apparent that the central part of the beach area and the bluff area of
downtown are the only suitable candidates for end stations of the start-up system.
6.2.1 Downtown Station Concept
In downtown, the area confined between the waterfront and Osceola A venue and from
Drew Street (SR 590) on the north to the new SR 60/Court Street on the south is the most
promising for combining the station with parking facilities and major redevelopment. Within this
locale, the area between the existing Harbor View Center (which requires substantial
improvements) and the Library is ideal for a station integrated into a multistory parking garage.
The garage would also house the Maintenance Facility as an extension of the station. The system
and the garage would be designed to allow for future system extension to other areas in
downtown. Figure No. 21 (two pages): "Location of the Proposed Downtown Station, Parking
Garage, and Development" illustrates the candidate location.
Furthermore, the existing parking lot between Osceola Avenue and North Fort Harrison
Street could also be converted into a supplemental multi-story parking garage. Both parking
structures could be linked with overhead walkways. The garage should also allow space for
countywide buses and the downtown trolley to create an intermodal transfer.
As the bluff area is the most precious asset of the City of Clearwater, its redevelopment
requires an environmentally and economically sound approach. The existing waterfront parking
lots are considered for conversion into a city park with trees and pedestrian areas. Figure No. 22:
"Location of the Proposed Waterfront Park in Front of the Downtown Station" illustrates the area
that should be converted into a park. The proposed garage with incorporated station would be
located between two existing structures (Harbor View Center and the Library) and thus will not
result in an out-of-place structure. Furthermore, the front of the garage would become a first class
commercial and/or residential complex that would also extend in front of Harbor View Center,
which deserves a better image and performance as a flagship property in downtown. Figure No.
23: "Harbor View Center" shows the convention center building. A supplemental development
such as a hotel could be created on the nearby Church site (currently for sale) on Cleveland Street
(while preserving the historic part of the church building).
Such a solution would serve both the downtown and transit system needs and have a
positive impact on the entire bluff area. Placing the station on the South side of Cleveland St.
would only make sense if City Hall would be demolished (as is under consideration) to create
space for a parking garage. However, this area has fewer opportunities for first-class
development. We also assume that the existing Bayfront Tennis Complex would be converted into
a city park.
72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 21 (1 of 2)
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Location of the Proposed Downtown Station, Parking Garage, and Development
I--
I
The area adjacent to HarborView Center can accommodate large development
including a guideway system station.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 21 (2 of 2)
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Location of the Proposed Downtown Station, Parking Garage, and Development
The area adjacent to HarborView Center can accommodate large development
including a guideway system station.
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 22
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEW A Y
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Location of the Proposed Waterfront Park in front of the Downtown Station
~: -
As part of the guideway system development (which must include a multi-story garage),
the waterfront parking can be converted into a city park.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 23
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Harbor View Center
f
--
--------,-
rl.l:'d~
--- --- ltAf;,";"
, ~ ! I, '" .. .
1. '~r
4L
(hI 'l 0
'\ \ H
-~-
-~
---
---
---
A prime candidate for enhancement and adjacent development
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1_ __
6.2.2 Beach Station Concept
At the beach, the central area around the new roundabout offers promising redevelopment
opportunities. However, considering the pristine quality of the beach itself, we recommend
converting the existing beach parking lot into a city park to encourage pedestrian activities and
create a recreational rather than utilitarian (parking) environment next to Pier 60 and the main beach
entry. The redevelopment should concentrate on the Clearwater Marina area where the plentiful
parking spaces could be developed into a multi-story parking garage containing the Beach Station
and commercial complex (including a hotel).
Figure No. 24 (two pages): "Location of the Proposed Beach Station and Marina
Development" presents the existing parking lots in the marina area. Furthermore, the area north of
60 (across the street from the marina) is a great candidate for supplemental development (between
the waterway and East Shore Drive).
The guideway system would be brought on the south side of the bridge to the edge of
Coronado Drive (where the C. Bill's Grill is currently located) in such a way that it could be
extended in the future either to the south or north beach areas (or both). Temporarily, Jolley
Trolley could serve remote destinations. The station would be linked with the beach park area by
an overhead pedestrian walkway over Coronado Drive. Figure No. 25: "Location of the Proposed
Overhead Walkway between the Station and the Beach" shows the future walkway location.
Potential problems to mitigate include the maneuverability of the dinner boat, which will already be
impacted by the planned pedestrianlbicycle bridge. In addition, the fueling tanks will have to be
relocated (however, they are already scheduled for relocation).
6.2.3 Causeway Guideway and Station Concept
The entire guideway alignment does not present a technical challenge except for crossing
the Intracoastal Waterway in the Memorial Bridge area. Figure No. 26: "Physical Constraints"
illustrates the waterway baniers including bridges on both sides of the causeway. Three options
exist including placing the system on the surface of the planned, new Memorial Bridge (subject to
load and other impact analysis and the City/Florida DOT consensus), reusing the existing bridge
foundations, or building a dedicated guideway (not recommended as other options exist).
In the causeway area, the guideway can be either entirely elevated or mostly at-grade. The
advantage of the elevated guideway is a spectacular ride experience with views of waterways and
islands. The system would become an attraction by itself. However, one could potentially
question a visual obstruction caused by the guideway structure. Considering that the guideway
will be very slim and unobtrusive and nobody's specific, direct view will be blocked, it may not be
a consideration. Having the guideway at-grade along the causeway between the bicycle path and
the waterway would provide a substantial cost saving resulting from elimination of columns and
costly foundations. The at-grade guideway (or trackway) would have to be fenced, as trains will
be driverless. Figure No. 27 (three pages): "Causeway Right-of-Way" presents views of the
causeway in various representati ve locations.
An optional station could be located on the south side of causeway at the Island Way
intersection with SR 60 (Island Estates Station). In the case of elevated guideway, a dual platform
station would be elevated, thus requiring elevators and staircase. In the case of at-grade guideway,
a simple open-type, center-platform station would also be at-grade. However, in order to provide
accessibility to the outer guideway lane, an overhead pedestrian walkway or a small tunnel would
have to be built. Figure No. 28: "Location of the Proposed Island Intermediate Station (Optional)"
shows the candidate station site.
77
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 24 (1 of 2)
CLEARW A TER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
- RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Location of the Proposed Beach Station and Marina Development
The existing marina parking lot can accommodate large development,
including guideway system station.
-. '--:"1<'- -- i_'__
L_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 24 (2 of 2)
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Location of the Proposed Beach Station and Marina Development
~
The existing marina parking lot can accommodate large development,
including guideway system station.
r ~-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
I I
FIGURE NO. 25
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Location of the Proposed Overhead Walkway
between the Station and the Beach
Beach parking can be converted into park.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 26
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Physical Constraints
The physical constraints can be overcome by using the new bridge
(or the foundations of the shown existing bridge) for the guideway system.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 27 (1 of 3)
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Causeway Right-of-Way
The causeway right-of-way can accommodate all types of guideway technologies
(either at-grade or elevated).
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 27 (2 of 3)
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Causeway Right-of- Way
'J.-
The causeway right-of-way can accommodate all types of guideway technologies
(either at-grade or elevated).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 27 (3 of 3)
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Causeway Right-of-Way
T?$,~
r ;;i-;-~
f
The causeway right-of-way can accommodate all types of guideway technologies
(either at-grade or elevated).
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 28
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Location of the Proposed Island Estates Intermediate Station (Optional)
-
~
I t-+-1---
The station accessibility can be improved by a local Island Estates on-demand shuttle service.
~ ': .";.r~jr4i,~~;~~~J"',..,
~ '1. ~,....~lf;~( .'i~~,{
~ ,.,.
.~
(;?
..
I
I
I i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.2.4 Integrated Project Concept
To justify a guideway system for Clearwater, it must be incorporated into a larger
redevelopment project, unless a dedicated funding source can be identified. Even with a dedicated
funding source, the transit system cannot be planned in isolation from redevelopment, as it requires
supporting ridership distributed over the year, not just derived from peak beach ridership days.
As guideway system can be built rapidly (in 12 to 28 months from the notice-to-proceed),
its implementation will be driven by the entire redevelopment rather than by selected technology.
This offers the opportunity to treat the guideway project and its future stations as part of the
proposed redevelopment. By combining both, we can rapidly create an economically sound
scenario attractive to real estate developers, candidate system suppliers, the City, and the general
public.
6.3 Base and Alternative Guideway Alignments
Drawing No. CW-GD-AL-Rev. 1: "Guideway Alignment - Aerial View" illustrates the
Guideway Base Alignment (Magenta Line) and Altemative Alignments (Yellow and Aqua Lines).
It also shows potential future extensions. This configuration consists of an elevated (or partially
elevated) double guideway, bi-directional transit system. All stations are elevated and have a center
platform. Length of the stations and width of the double guideway shown on the overlays greatly
depends on the type of technology selected. We assumed 100 ft by 20 ft for downtown and 80 ft
by 10 ft for beach station platform sizes. Representative elevated guideway cross-sections for the
Clearwater application are presented together with the cost analysis later in this report. A typical
span between columns would be between 70 and 120 ft.
The Base Guideway Alignment system:
· Begins in downtown between the existing Harbor View Center and the Library on
the bluff inside the recommended multistory parking garage (first level) with an
enclosed transit station and maintenance facility. Guideway has future expandability
potential to the east part of downtown
· Exits the garage on its first level and continues towards Intracoastal Waterway
above the existing parking lot (to be converted into park), which is situated at a
lower elevation
· Crosses the waterway and enters the new Memorial Bridge at its north side at the
bridge surface level
· Continues on the bridge surface on a dedicated north lane (fenced on the south side
of the lane), 75 ft above the water level
· As the bridge descends on the causeway, the guideway becomes elevated until it is
17 ft above the bridge-SR 60 level
· Crosses SR 60 on the south side of the causeway
· Continues along causeway between the existing pedestrian/bicycle walkway and the
waterway, either totally elevated or at-grade (the guideway elevation can be lower
by a few feet as there is no street traffic underneath at any point of the causeway
route)
86
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~
lie I
!!
~Ii
hI ~ I ~
I~IH J ,"]d
!N i
Be~~
~lle a ~ s
hn !:!~
c
ffi
CJ
w
...
:(
!
o
o
....
:lI ~I
., ~r''''''' i ~P7'.~. I I 11- I
i!f'..>~; .......,. ~
;/':'fi6t.:7~" ~ ~ ~ ~
"..l,<ifh!. .~. ;.~~~ ~ ~ ~ [~i
jt. . ,.. .~," t 'II ~.~:! = i i
,'Ii ~. - ~ ~~~H
~ h~Tl
~ ~~1g-~ii i
~p.~l~ ..;
"'~~IIlI-~~ U
. I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Crosses above the waterway on the south side of the existing bridge and enters
Clearwater Marina (the planned pedestrianlbicycle bridge can be attached to the
guideway structure over water)
.
Continues elevated inside the marina development on the second level parallel to SR
60 towards Coronado Drive
.
Ends with an elevated station on the east side of Coronado Drive next to the round-
about (station inside the recommended development). Guideway has future
expandability potential along Mandalay A venue to the north and/or Coronado Drive
to the south
.
Station linked with the west side of Coronado Drive and the beach by an overhead
pedestrian walkway with staircase and elevators on the west side of Coronado
Drive.
The only difference between the Base and Altemative 1 alignments is the route over the
Intercoastal Waterway, which requires either using the new bridge surface, selected old bridge
foundation, or dedicated guideway (see discussion below).
The Alternative 2 Alignment has been created solely to accommodate the IIDR's position
on the use of the median of the new bridge, and it is not recommended for economic development
reasons (see discussion on the use of the bridge below). Furthermore, this alternative requires at
least a seven story garage/retail complex to accommodate a roof top guideway system station in the
location which is less economically desired. It is the only potentially feasible location, as the
guideway must enter the bridge median at least 16.5 ft above traffic lanes in order to descend to the
bridge surface level.
Table No.2: "Guideway Alignment Characteristics" summarizes the features of the Base
and Alternative alignments. Their lengths are basically comparable (the Alternative 1 Alignment is
shorter by 178 ft). The table points out that the guideway segment on the causeway can be either
elevated or at-grade. The at-grade option would substantially reduce the project cost.
6.3.1 Guideway Stations and Maintenance Facility Locations and Layouts
Drawing CW-DS-FP-Rev. 1: "Downtown Station Conceptual Floor Plan" illustrates the
downtown station concept. The station will be housed inside a multi-story parking garage with a
maintenance area directly beneath the station platforms. The control room and the train washing
facility will be located at the station platform level. The guideway system and the garage will be
designed to accommodate future extension of the system to other destinations in downtown. For
that reason and also for links with other levels of the garage, the center platform will include an
elevator bank and staircase (escalators are optional).
Drawing CW-BS-FP-Rev. 1: "Beach Station Conceptual Floor Plan" illustrates the beach
station concept. The station will be housed inside a multi-story parking garage and/or retail
development. The guideway system will be designed to accommodate future extension of the
system to north and south destinations in Clearwater Beach. The center platform will be linked
with the beach area over Coronado Drive by an overhead pedestrian walkway. On the beach side,
the walkway will terminate with an elevator and staircase.
88
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
<
~
~ '"
~ .:::
~ .....
;:I "-- . c
~~~
== 5 ~
u ~ ;;
<rJ1-=
~~~~
o I U 5
zoze
r~1 ~ < c:
~ I ~" Cll
~~oo~
~~~<
<;:I<e
~~z~
~ Z ~
~OrfJ
~ ~ f
<~~
~ .S
~ c.?
<
~
~
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f-< -0
Z <1)
'-W VJ
0
~ u
Z I::
V UJ
"i~ ...
~ 1) 0 -0 -0
< .5 ... 0 0 <1) <1)
::: <1) N lr) <1) ::0 .: <1)
N-:J - ~ -0
-x. <1) C >< >< lr)
~ ro r:r, 0.. - \0 - ;>- ::l 0 -; ::l
> ::I 0 <1) 0 0 0\ <1) 0 c: U
cr U 0 00 [iJ Q 0 ..:
-< -
f-<~ -x-
< -x
Z -0
0::: <1)
~ ca
f-< ;>-
.....l <1)
rJ:J < [iJ
U
- f-< -0
Eo-< Z <1)
rJ:J ~ VJ
- 0
ez:: ~ u
~ ~ I::
Eo-< v~ UJ
U - 'l) ...
~ .....l = 0 0 -0 -0
<:.: ... 0 <1) <1) <1) <1)
- ::: <1) N - r:r, ~ ::0 c: -0
.x <1) C >< r--
~ '-W ~ r:r, 0.. >< - \0 N ;>- ::l 0 -; ::l
>:::: 0 <1) 0 0 <1) 0 c: U
U 0 00 C\ [iJ Q 0 ..:
u - "-' -
f-<>- -x-
Eo-< <~ .x.
Z Z -0
::.:: <1)
~ ~ ~
~ f-: ;>-
<1)
Z <: [iJ
Co-'
- -
...:l
< -0
<1)
VJ
0
f-< U
Z c:
~ UJ
~ '-' ...
~ .5 0 0 -0 -0
Z.....l ::: ... 0 <1) <1) <1) <1)
<1) N - ::0 .5
~ ro - ~ -0
-x. <1) C >< lr)
;:: r:r, 0.. >< - \0 "1", ;>- ::l 0 = ::l
<: '-' 0 <1) 0 0 <1) 0 u
OJ) U 0 00 C\ [iJ Q 0 I::
ro - -
~~ -x.
:<~ -x.
-0
::::: <1)
~
;>-
<1)
[iJ
~
rJ:J V
Eo-< ~ I::
Z ~ ~ 0
~ v V ~
~ .!::: ~ Vl VJ .....
VJ ~ <1) ::5
~ E <1) ... 02 .c
<1)
...:l N 0.. '-- ~ 8 'C
... v
~ c8 Vi VJ V .~ ~
E -0 ~ ...
Eo-< ~ E C':l ~ VJ
Z I:: ... ... c: Q,I
0 c;: ... S U .c .9 "'" ~
~ c8 OD U c: .c
~ ca c: ~ C':l ~.. E ~ C':l ~ VJ
!:: ;:: c;: ~ c: !:: ... c: C':l
VJ ... c;: ~ ::l <1) f-< ~
Z c: <1) CD 0 E ......l CD Q,I
.:: ~ c ....... Q,I ....... ....
Co-' E V ;.;::: .c 0 "0 .:;< -a V ;.;::: 0 c: V c:
- .... 0.. c: ;:: u ':; 0.. I:: "; 0.. ii
.s C':l ci C':l '0 ci
...:l ::l >. 0 0 V ~ >. 0 ~ >. C':l
< rJ:J Z f-< U Q o::l Z Co-' f-< f-< U Z f-< U
>.
C':l
;::
<1)
VJ
::l
C':l
U
-a
'C
o
E
<1)
~
OD
I::
o
-a
V
-0
C':l
...
OD
I
~
...
o
-0
<1)
~
;>-
V
[i]
-x.
-x.
~
c:
o
0..
o
I::
.9
8
VJ
~
C':l
:a
V
E
...
V
C
j
~
~ Is
e 0
-
~
"Cl ]
d 'S
0 ~€ g-
...... '5.a g
f'-l
d GlSrn
~ ~ ~ U
~ u 8
= =
... GIS .-=
t:: ~ s
~ .- r/.)
:I GIS
~ - = i
=:I =
u
~ ~~ ~
GIS
~ 0
GIS J
~
-
u
I
Q
~~
T
~ ~
~~i
~o~
~~I
~~ 00 ... I
~~~ z I rI:l
Q)
~~~. ~ Q) g.
rI:l ~
I~~~ 5= rI) :J f
~ - ...
!-<orl) ~ Q) 5
Q<~~ p:: .... 1
~~Q -;-
~ia 'a U
'S t .:!l
~~b~ - ~ :a
UiaZrI) 'i
~i~~ <:> .....
~ ~ 1
~ ~~ ~ VI C"I
..... ~
orl)~~ ........ ~
C"I M
~Q rI) ..... <:>
.~~~ ~
~8~ ~ ..... C"I ~
"
]
Q.
-8
~
0
-
0
iJ
j
rI)
...
oS
"tS
.~
I
'S
0
~
z
*
~
~
o
Cl
00
=
:a
...
-
f'-l
s
cB
1d
~
~
~
00
~
~'"
o
00
]
~
~
. ~1l0Z ___
rI:l
1
, 1
~
.... Q.
~;3-
i) 0
-E-<
I:l:l_
.~1l01
1ii'
-
Q)
i)
...:l
~
~f;l.
.t ;3-
s 0
r/.lC
~
~
~
.S
o
~ ~
...... 10
~ M
o
U
~
~
.0
.0""1
U
rI:l
Q)
',oj
...
:-::l
~
~
~
:E
rI)
ll:I
~
I
C"I r;:!,
t u
r:lIl i
..... I
<+-<
0
.....
'il
!
~
f'-l
o
I
J~
eU
z
f
Q
:d
o
o
C"I
II
.....
I I I J I
u
~
-
'"
C
(1
,.
~; ~ ~
rr;
s ~ ~: ~~~
5 .~J,~5~
~ ~!~Ul
~ E~. ~ = .~ ~~
~ ~:.:.~, f~: ~p) ?=
00
.s
"'('j
-
......
~
~
~
d
~
U
~
......
>
~
o
~
~
..-r..
.
~
~
<:>
<:>
-
~
~
.0
......
u
-------------------
~~ j
.~g ~
1.1 I \ ~
~ 8
." -
'S ~
~~~ ~€ I
00
~~~ I \ 'fi.a
eo 00 g
~~~ ~ ~
=? u u
~~~ ~ ~ ~ I c:> = S
o 0 ... eo
~~~. ~ ~ 6- It: rI)
I \ ... .~
~ ~ ::I eo S
I~~~ 5: "" ~ - = 00
~ - ..... j = B -5
I~n ~ ~ 5 J ~&! ~
:.=
-au eo ~
.~
]~ .:!l I \ ~
~~b~ ~ eo
u~z"" 'i ~ Ii
~~m~ o _ -
~o ~ U 1:1
~~ ~ VlOO ! f
~ ~l:i ~ ::::~
o""~~ 0 N (") 'S Cl
o "" -0 0
~~~~ ~
~g~ ~ - N
..
=d
o
u
~
,:;:
i,
....
"> r
cI) ~:~) 8
~ y ~
-<IfI!f!' rl ~"J :!.
... .~:! ~ ;0)
~ ~C:~ Z
~ ;;"> ~,'
~ ~./~ ~
r.fJ ~ ~ u ,'j ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -" .~
~ ~~~,2~~
.ldOl
OJ.f *
.
~
~
o
o
,....-4
tI}
~
o
o
o
on
~
. ...-4
"'C
. ...-4
.......c
r.J'J.
e
e.S
~
~
~
~
~
Q)
"'C
. ...-4
6
.
~
~
o
N
.
~
~
o
,....-4
l
N 'i:!1
t to)
llIl -
j
- ~
l+-t 8
0 =
-
)
~
00
~
I
!~
eU
z
f
Cl
o
-
II
-
1 I
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
We recommend the maintenance facility be located inside the proposed parking garage in
downtown because the marina area might be more attractive for redevelopment. In the case of
potential future extensions, the maintenance facility may have to be relocated to the new end of the
line or off-line facility, depending on the magnitude of the extension. The maintenance facility size
is dependent on the selected technology and the size and quantity of the vehicles that are
conceptually determined in this report.
6.3.2 Feasibility of Using the New Versus Existing Memorial Causeway Bridge
for Transit
We met with the bridge designer (HDR Engineering, Inc.) on December 4, 2000, to
discuss the possibility of using the planned new bridge for a dedicated transit lane. Bridge design
drawings and loads were reviewed. We reviewed the HDR memorandum dated April 4, 2000,
entitled "Memorial Causeway Bridge Accommodation of Future Light Rail," which did not favor
the use of the bridge for rail transit. The recommendation was substantiated based on the lack of
HDR knowledge of candidate technologies.
Highway bridges (particularly those designed to military standards) are typically adequate
in design for carrying light guideway systems without the need for structural modifications. There
are several bridges worldwide that accommodate transit systems (including drawbridges). Figure
No. 29 (two pages): "Guideway Transit on Bridges" shows two examples of guideway systems
placed on the existing new and old bridges (Darling Harbor in Sydney, Australia and New Tokyo
Waterfront - Yurikamome in Tokyo, Japan).
Jakes Associates, Inc. presented a memorandum to HDR on December 11, 2000, defining
in detail all vehicle and guideway design loads for a representative technology necessary for the
bridge capability assessment.
For the Clearwater application, two concrete (or steel) beamways per guideway lane would
be placed on the surface of the bridge for guidance purposes. Their dimensions would likely be 12
in wide by 18 in tall (instead of 4 ft as shown on the drawings for elevated guideway). Although
not preferred from the point of view of future expansions, a single lane with by-pass section
configuration is also possible (thus requiring only a single lane of the bridge).
The designed 20-ft wide median has sufficient width to accommodate a few technologies in
a dual lane configuration. Furthermore, one of the sidewalks is 12 ft wide (twice wider than the
other one which is 6 ft 7 in). This together with wide shoulders (10 ft each) provide additional
opportunities for the width necessary for the guideway transit system. The guideway system
should run on the north side of the bridge rather than in the median, as the system station is being
proposed on the north side of the bridge in the Harbor View Center area. As a result, entering the
bridge median would be technically and aesthetically challenging. It would require reducing the
width of the median and using the gained width (plus some extra space from the wide sidewalk and
shoulders) for the dedicated People Mover lane on the north side of the bridge. Having the system
on the north side would require only one traffic barrier with a fence on top of it versus two barriers
in the median.
HDR responded to our memorandum bye-mail dated December 19, 2000 (a copy of this
response is in the Appendices of this report). HDR concluded that the less favorable location (on
the bridge median) appears capable of accommodating the guideway system, as the stresses from
guideway loads are of the same magnitude as the regular AASTHTO loads. These conclusions are
based on rough estimates that employ influence lines produced for the AASTHTO truck (with an
axle spacing of 14 ft, whereas the People Mover has spacing in the 20-ft range).
92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 29 (1 of 2)
CLEARW A TER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway Transit on Bridges
Harbor Link in Sydney, Australia.
I
I
I
I
I I
I :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 29 (2 of 2)
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Guideway Transit on Bridges
I
New Tokyo Waterfront System in Tokyo, Japan
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HDR pointed out that having the guideway system on the north side of the bridge may not
be acceptable, as the stresses near the web are double the ones that they found under the sidewalk
loading and regular live loading. Although HDR is skeptical, this conclusion needs to be further
verified, as the wheel loads of the train will not be true point loads but will spread out somewhat
through the guideway and guideway support. These factors may yield less conservative results
that will make the location on the overhangs acceptable.
Based on the HDR initial conclusion, using the median of the bridge does not require any
special provisions for the guideway to be incorporated in the bridge construction, except that
entering the median 16.5 ft above the north traffic lane and lowering the guideway to the median
surface level may not be desired or even possible for the preferred station location. To address this
possibility, the Alternative 2 alignment was developed with the Downtown Station in a less desired
location.
Should using the north lane become feasible, the bridge's automobile and pedestrian traffic
lane configuration would have to be modified or the north sidewalk eliminated. We recognize that
this possibility will have an impact on the decision-making process and on the bridge construction
schedule. However, it is our obligation to advise the City of Clearwater that using the new bridge
offers substantial cost savings to the planned guideway system. The advantages and disadvantages
of such a decision need to be further evaluated.
It should be made clear that use of the new bridge for the planned People Mover is not
required (but strongly preferred), as a separate guideway can be built. The guideway could be
supported by new, dedicated foundations or the foundations of the existing, old bridge. If using
the new bridge is not preferable, we can exercise the possibility of reusing the existing, selected
bridge foundations. However, a comparable 360-ft span would be extremely expensive and
technically problematic. The columns and beamways would have to match the aesthetics of the new
bridge which is a high-cost design. Figure No. 30: "Existing Memorial Bridge" shows the bridge
structure that is scheduled for demolition. Part of it will be reused for a small fisherman's wharf.
The planned demolition of the old bridge should be put on hold until final decisions are made. The
funding allocated for bridge foundation demolition could be used for the guideway project.
6.4 Gondola Alternative Alignment and Station Locations
As a less expensive and tourist-oriented alternative, we have analyzed alignment for an
aerial gondola system. The design constraints of gondola technology dictate station locations and
route because the alignment must be straight. The only possibility for making turns is at the
intermediate station (Island Estates), which becomes necessary for the gondola solution. The span
between the towers can vary, but we assume up to 400-ft distances. Placing tower foundations in
the waterway should be avoided as much as possible for cost reasons. Therefore, we consider two
options.
The Base Alignment (magenta line) is based on the more economic approach of having
most of the towers located on land as opposed to the waterway. We selected it as a base alignment
as the gondola option should be chosen only (due to the limitation of gondola technologies for
future expansion) if the guideway is deemed too costly. As a result, the Downtown Station should
be relocated from the bluff next to Harbor View Center to the Bayfront Tennis Complex area and
the Beach Station to the east end of the marina. Figure No. 31: "Location of the Proposed Gondola
Station" illustrates the area suitable for the gondola terminal including maintenance facility.
The Alternative Alignment (yellow line) is routed through the most convenient station
locations. These gondola stations are in the same locations as the proposed guideway system
stations.
95
II
I
I i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 30
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Existing Memorial Bridge
--
-----
t
-'"
'....-
-~
J
The foundations of the existing bridge can be used to support guideway system.
,
..
,
'.
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 31
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Location of the Proposed Gondola Station
The location of aerial cable ways is determined by technology constraints.
~ ----------
~-----
~
'4~'.
_ _ -~~~c
+~, '.-~~~'
~~~,-,
I
I
I
I !
I I
I
I !
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Drawing No. CW-GO-AL-Rev. 1: "Gondola Alignment-Aerial View" illustrates the
Gondola Base Alignment (magenta line). It also shows the alternative alignment (yellow line). This
configuration consists of an aerial, bi-directional, loop transit system. All stations are elevated. We
assumed 112 ft by 20 ft terminal station size and 250 ft by 27 ft for the intermediate angle station
size depending on selected gondola technology. Figure No. 32: "Typical Gondola Return!Tension
Terminal" presents representative design of the terminal. Figure No. 33 (two pages): "Typical
Gondola Terminal Floor and Section Plan" shows representative terminal design details. Figure
No. 34: ''Typical Gondola Intermediate Angle Terminal Floor Plan" explains the angle terminal
concept for the Island Station.
Table No.3: "Gondola Alignment Characteristics" summarizes the features of the gondola
route option. Because the Base Alignment is substantially shorter than the Alternative Alignment
(by 735 ft), its cost would be lower; it requires fewer cabins, towers and cableways and-most
importantly-it avoids the waterway for most tower locations.
Figure No. 35: "Representative Eight Passenger Gondola Cabin" shows a sample
applicable cabin (larger cabins are available). The gondola system vertical rise would be between
200 and 300 ft, thus providing spectacular views of the waterways and the beach.
98
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I~~
!
!!
~I
I~ ~ I
hl~ I J
I~;I i
Be ~
II Ie i ~
ell! e =
I fg
~ii l~
.. !!JJJ
10110
r
'"
"il...
t:)",
1l!
i~ ....
0
~~
all
jl! :(
! ,] I
g
....
:lI II
.
I I I 1 -
I
u ~
~ ~n
0\ ~::;H~
"
. '. .... ..'U
'. s - - ~
.;:;I;~
~ <-
'" j;;: ~ :f... i
~ ]<6~Tl
~ "1g'l.. j
; ~I' . :;J..
.; ~t~~U I
....
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
-=~
I
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 32
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Typical Gondola Return/Tension Terminal
I I
J J
I I
~
24'-0'
fILL
eoTfOf OF FOOTING El. . 2329.57'
"11---""'--""---"---"---"--,,,,---,,---,,---,,---,,--,,,,---,,---,,--,,,,---,,---,,---,,--li~
" 'I " " " ,I " " " " " " " " " " ,I " ,'\\
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ,I ,'\\ IlOIHHLL
~- ~___L___L___L__~_ -~--_~___ll___ll___ ---~--~___L___L__~__~___~___~~~-----___~
,
I ,
~~I _~. I
- ___ _ -1- ...illlIERL I t!E ...QQ.N!:lQ!,A-1,. IE!.
," --
,
I :: I
!!l USJ1I2.124 :
~- jr--,r--,r--ir--r- -r---p---~---~- -, - -~--,r--,r--ir--jr--r---r---p~=J--~!~~
,I ,I ,I ,I " " " I' " II ,I " " " " " " " ,'II
.J!.. - - -l!.. - - -l!.._ - -l!.. - - -l!.._ _ -l!.. _ _ -l!.. __ -l!.. _ _ -l!.. _ _ -l!.. _ _ -l!.. _ _ -l!.. __ -l!.. _ _ -l!.. __ -1L _ _ -1L _ _ -1L__ -1L___ILf
Best Copy
Available
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 33 (1 of 2)
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Typical Gondola Terminal Floor and Section Plan
.01;
.01:
~I
.,.uuon!o
1.~''''~.I.i
,-, ..~
':'
.01;
DOD
"-, ....., ~~
.Ot
..'V .IUOJS pue ..U.",UI."
D
Best Copy
Availabi;e
.at
D
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 33 (2 of 2)
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Typical Gondola Terminal Floor and Section Plan
I
I
I
"."
I
I
I
I
I I
I
Best Copy
Availabl~'!
FIGURE NO. 34 Y
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEW A
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Typical Gondola Intermediate Angle Terminal Floor Plan
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
1--'
~.~./" h' //'.('/',(///'-Y//////>:-/:(/:('?(/:(//'/(/:(/:(///:,f':(////7 # ~
~'N~~UH~U~UUUUUUUNUUUUUN'~
I
I
I
I
//////////:(/:(/:(/:(////./(.///:(/:(/////:(/'//'/////, .
NNUUUUNNNNHNHHHHNHHNU~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO.3
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Gondola Alignment Characteristics
ALIGNMENT ELEMENTS ALIGNMENT CHARACTERISTICS
BASE ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT
(Magenta Line) (Yellow Line)
Stations:
Number 3 3
Type 2 Terminals and 1 Transfer 2 Terminals and 1 Transfer
Terminal Platform Size (feet) 112X20 112X20
Transfer Plantform Size (feet) 250X27 250X27
No. of Platforms per Station 1 1
Cableway:
Total Length (feet) 8,074 8,809
Beach-Island Length (feet) 2,142 2,982
Island-Downtown Length (feet) 5,932 5,827
Type Aerial Aerial
Configuration Anglular Angular
Maintenance Facility:
Type At the End Station At the End Station
Cabin Wash Included Included
Cabin Parking Shelter:
Size (feet) 75X130 or 50X200 75X130 or 50X200
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 35
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Representative Eight Passenger Gondola Cabin
i--'------ -5B 1/4 ----
- 27 1/2 ~
4 1/4
~
If'l
r--
76 1/4
74-~
65 314-,
~V
W
I I I I
, ~
I I ....
....
....
I Es
I Cl:
I >>9
l12112-
N '. ,t
~ 40 I 41 1/4 fS
N
r--
rr
I.
.1
I "
I
I
I.
. :1
I
I
I
I
I' .
I
I
I.'.
-I.
I
I
I
. .7. PATRONAGE PROJE,CTION-
-- -. ."'-"-- . .' , . -.' '. - . ......
, , .<.'-.... ..... -' '. .....:.> '.' ""'.' ..
:.'- "":: .-- -'.,'."--, .
I
I
I
.1
'1
I
I
I
, "1
'I
.' I
. I
I
. I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7. PATRONAGE PROJECTION
7.1 Order-of-Magnitude Guideway System Patronage Overview
This section describes the patronage forecasting process adopted for estimating ridership
levels on a guideway system that will link downtown Clearwater with the beach areas. The
methodology is functionally independent of the guideway technology selected, as long as it is fully
automated and located entirely on an exclusive right-of-way.
Patronage levels are typically dependent upon a variety of factors, including overall travel
demand, station accessibility, travel time, schedule, trip cost, and other available travel options.
Our approach is based upon generally accepted and standardized guideway system industry
patronage forecasting techniques. These techniques are customized to reflect the unique nature of
the Clearwater guideway system application.
7.2 Approach
In order to establish an inventory of existing and proposed Clearwater guideway system
conditions from which to derive potential guideway system patronage levels, Jakes Associates has
gathered, reviewed, and analyzed the information available. We thoroughly examined the existing
downtown and beach area parking situations, hotel, restaurant, retail, residential unit, and
convention center locations along with other complexes and attractions in order to better understand
the magnitude of key land-use patronage generators. In addition, we reviewed shuttle and public
bus ridership statistics to identify recent patronage levels and trends.
In summary, the following activities were conducted:
· Collected and reviewed applicable background information, including:
- Downtown and beach activity centers and other trip generators
- Applicable drawings and maps
- "Parking Study City of Clearwater," dated July 1996, prepared by Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
- "North Beach Traffic Study" by Michael Wallwork, P.E. (Alternate Street Design,
P.A.)
- "Coronado Drive and S. Gulfview Boulevard Traffic and Parking Lot Study" by
Michael Wallwork, P.E. (Alternative Street Design, P.A.), dated June 17, 1999
- "Clearwater Beach Traffic Study" by DKS Associates, dated October 1998
- Existing shuttle bus service patronage statistics
- Existing public transit bus service statistics
- Other
· Interviewed key staff of the City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, and Jolley Trolley
107
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Estimated patronage based on the existing and planned conditions, including
- Station boardings
.
- In-season and off-season system ridership
(passengers per day and per hour per direction)
Forecasted Added Value as generated by the guideway system
Compared our findings and conclusions with the applicable ridership projections
included in the following reports:
- "Proposal for a Downtown People Mover," City of Clearwater, dated June 30,
1976 (City staff report on a Bluff-to-Beach guideway)
- Final Task 10.2-10.4 Technical Memorandum: Mobility and Transportation
System Operational Assessment for Tier 2, Pinellas Mobility Major Investment
Study, Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization in coorperation with
the Florida DOT, State Project Number: 15007-3891, Work Program Number:
7816714, prepared by Dames & Moore, dated July 2000
.
- Locally Preferred Alternative Report, Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning
Organization, October 2000.
To enable the estimation process, Jakes Associates made several specific assumptions
about factors that impact potential patronage levels, including:
.
The proposed guideway system will primarily be patronized by tourists,
employees, and residents of Clearwater
.
The initial guideway system will be fully built with no immediate expansions
.
An expected reasonable distance for people to walk in order to board/de-board the
proposed guideway system is approximately 2,000 ft
.
Clearwater guideway system facilities that exist beyond the above-mentioned
2,000-ft radius of each station have been eliminated from subsequent patronage
analysis
Daily trip generation rates for parking facilities (as used in subsequent analysis) are
approximately 1.0 per space, inclusive of Clearwater guideway system properties
(0.7 per space for peak hour trip generation conditions).
Jakes Associates has collected data for nearly all of the properties in proximity to each of
the proposed stations. The Data Processing Office of the Clearwater Planning Department has
supplied Jakes Associates with information from their database detailing the address, owner name,
land use type, and total gross square footage (or number of rooms available) of nearly all
properties located within a 2,000-ft radius of each of the proposed stations. All other important
properties that are not included in the property information package (e.g., Clearwater Beach) have
been identified along with each property's respective area and land use type. In addition, the City
of Clearwater has supplied a list of all of the existing parking available in the beach and downtown
areas.
.
108
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In addition to tourists, visitors, and residents, we have taken into account that the guideway
system will serve as a means of commute for individuals employed at Clearwater Beach who are
predominantly low level wage earners. Many low income workers depend on public
transportati on.
The guideway system will also provide needed transportation service for elderly and
disabled persons. Furthermore, we have taken into account the seasonal nature of the beach. This
seasonal variation is discussed in Chapter 3.9: "Spring Break Peak Traffic" of this report.
From a system engineering perspective, the projected ridership (expressed in passengers
per hour per direction) is necessary to establish the capacity of the system, including vehicles,
station platforms, and adjacent facilities. From an economic point of view, the daily ridership
projection is crucial for revenue projections.
7 . 3 Existing versus Future Conditions
The adopted methodology is based on the existing and future conditions, which are of
particular importance to developing ridership. The objective is to determine whether the guideway
system is justified based on existing conditions which are void of near-term development, and
(more importantly) on the currently planned redevelopment of the downtown and beach areas. We
offer specific redevelopment ideas that are limited to the areas directly adjacent to the planned
stations. This redevelopment should be conducted in concert with station construction so that
implementation of the guideway system is an inherent part of the City of Clearwater future-both in
terms of traffic congestion and economic development.
As discussed in Chapter 6.2: "Guideway Transit Alignment Concept" and shown on
Drawing No. CW-GDA-AL-OO: "Guideway Alignment-Aerial View" and No. CW-GON-AL-OO:
"Gondola Alignment-Aerial View", we have included the following commercial and residential
developments for the downtown station location:
· Multi-Story Parking Garages (total 1,000 spaces):
West Garage (which would incorporate the guideway station)
East Garage
· Expansion of Harborview Center (10,000 sq ft)
· High-density Development
Luxury condominiums (250 dwellings)
Restaurants/entertainment/retail (10,000 sq ft)
· Conversion of the existing parking lot into a City park:
North City Park Redevelopment (5.2 acres)
South City Park Redevelopment (4.1 acres)
We have included the following commercial developments for the Beach Station location:
· High density Commercial Development (which would incorporate the guideway
station):
109
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hotel with parking for hotel guests only (100 rooms)
Restaurant, entertainment, and retail complex (20,000 sq ft)
.
Commercial Development (along E. Shore Drive)
.
Hotel with parking for hotel guests only (70 rooms)
Restaurants/ Entertainment/Retail (20,000 sq ft)
Maniott Hotel Project (250 rooms, 400 spaces)
Mack Project (1500 spaces)
City Beach Park Development (3 acre).
.
.
Among the developments being planned for non-station areas, the Marriott Hotel and Mack
projects appear likely to be approved, and we therefore included them in our analysis. No major
parking garage projects (such as Mack project) should be considered in Clearwater Beach.
7 . 4 Additional Ridership Potential
We did not take into account the possibility of Olympic events being held in Clearwater and
associated planned development as winning the bid is uncertain at present. However, should it
become a reality, the guideway system would be vital in terms of providing accessibility to the
beach and promoting the Games' overall success. The ridership projection would have to be
increased if Florida is awarded the 2012 Olympic Games, as larger and/or more vehicles would be
required to accommodate participants and visitors. The Olympic Games facilities and related
improvements would remain after the Games, thus contributing to the ridership for years to come.
We also did not take into consideration the possibility that a regional high speed rail and
light rail transit might be implemented within the next few years. In our estimation the likelihood is
low, particularly in the case of a countywide light rail network, which has been studied from the
early 1970's without tangible progress. Should there be any advance in these developments, the
ridership projections should be increased accordingly to accommodate intermodal transfers.
The ridership projections assume that no major policy changes will occur that would
increase guideway system ridership. New policies should be considered by the City to relieve
traffic by directing visitors and residents towards guideway transit stations.
7.5 Clearwater Shuttle and Public Transit Bus Operations
The existing Clearwater Jolley Trolley and Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PST A) bus
operations (line 80 to the beach) are described in Chapter 3.8: "Transit in Clearwater" of our
report. We obtained their ridership data for information only as they are not representative of what
guideway systems offer in terms of attracting ridership.
The ridership for the Jolley Trolley in 2000 was 170,659 or an average of 468 riders per
day. The peak months were March and April with 23,900 and 21,512 riders, respectively. The
lowest ridership occurred in December (964 riders). According to Jolley Trolley, the true ridership
figures are likely a bit higher as drivers often neglect to keep track of boarding passengers.
110
r----------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The ridership for PSTA bus line 80 in 1998-1999 (the latest) was 204,732 or an average of
561 riders per day. The peak months were February, March, and May with 19,088, 20,086, and
19,995 riders, respectively. The lowest ridership occurred in September (14,989 riders). The
ridership during 1997-1998 was similar (204,472 riders). The PSTA ridership will likely increase
with on-going redevelopment on the Beach.
7 . 6 Patronage Projection Methods
To conduct the patronage estimate for the Clearwater guideway system, Jakes Associates
developed a simple index of the guideway system's trip-making potential to highlight relative
differences among potential service sites and to estimate system patronage. The factors utilized in
this index were extensively analyzed and refined, with subsequent patronage estimates computed
on the basis of proposed alignments and operational schemes.
The guideway system trip generation index considers three primary factors that are
influential in determining patronage levels, including:
.
Land use intensity
.
Trip affinity
Guideway transit propensity.
Land Use Intensity. Land use intensity is commonly considered a measure of land (facility)
use activity and patronage generation, which can be applied to any mode of transportation. Key
existing and planned land utilization activity sites within the general vicinity of the proposed
alignment alternatives and stations were identified. An intermediary station identified on
subsequent alignments was also taken into account. Common measures, such as parking facilities,
public buildings, office complexes, commercial centers, hotels, motels, restaurants, apartments,
condos, and others were multiplied by both standard daily and peak-hour trip rates and then
adjusted accordingly to reflect actual person trips.
.
Trip Affinity. Trip affinity is a measure of the likelihood of trips both to and from a given land
use that have both an origin and a destination within the same geographic area to be served by the
guideway system. High, medium, and low affinity factors were applied to each land use site,
depending on the specific use of that site and its interaction with other origin and/or destination
sites in the study area. For example, various high demand/use facilities such as shopping centers,
business and retails areas, beaches and beach parks have a high (H) affinity rate. All trips to land
uses with minimal guideway service potential were eliminated.
Guideway Transit Propensity. Guideway transit propensity is a measure and a function of the
likelihood of a guideway system's utilization, based upon the relative access distance to and from
station locations. Access factors were assigned for individual land use activity sites based upon
criteria related to the ease of pedestrian travel from the site to the station locations.
7 . 7 Patronage Projection Analysis
The following methods have been used:
Derivation of Land Use Intensities. To derive land use intensities, Jakes Associates divided
the Clearwater guideway system into six primary development/trip generator areas (destinations)
that will subsequently dictate the guideway system alignment(s). These six areas include:
· Parking facilities
111
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Public buildings, offices and centers
· Hotels and motels
· Commercial, service and restaurants
· Apartment, condominiums and homes
· Beaches, beaches, beach parks, marinas and recreational facilities.
The specific guideway system major trip generators for each of these areas are grouped
according to the relative location of each facility.
Application of Trip Generation Rates. Both daily and peak-hour trip generation rates, as
developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), were adjusted by Jakes Associates,
Inc., to reflect person trips by assuming a one to three percent guideway usage rate depending
upon the specific land use type. Peak-hour rates were further adjusted to account for generally
accepted empirical data (in accordance with the "Quick-Response Urban Travel Estimation
Techniques and Transferable Parameters Guide," Transportation Research Board, 1978).
Recognizing Clearwater Beach as a world-renowned beach and international tourist destination,
Jakes Associates, Inc. used a higher generation rate than for "typical" beaches nationwide (i.e.,
those considered by lTE researchers). Table No.4: "Trip Generation Rate Summary" describes
our derived trip generation rates (both daily and peak-hour) in accordance with various land use
types.
Derivation of Trip Affinity. Jakes Associates developed high, medium, and low trip affinity
rates for major activity sites (inclusive of center facilities) using the following percentages:
.
High:
30%
.
Medium:
20%
.
Low:
10%
Trip affinity rates were applied to various land use types as follows:
. Retail business areas High
. Shopping centers High
. Beaches, beach parks and marinas High
. Recreational facilities (including commercial) Medium
. Administrati ve office areas Medium
. Conference center areas Medium
. Educational/training areas Medium
. Auto care centers (none on the beach) Medium
112
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
~
I ~
~
~
i-oI
I ;J
~~t>
=5=
U~e
I ~rJ'le
~ ~ ~ J5
O~U~
I ZOZ~
~~~=
~ ,rJ'lQ
~ rJ'l ....
~~i-oI~
I ~;J~t
~~z=
~z~
~o~
I ~ u....
~~~
~
~
I ~
~
~
~
I u
I
I
I
I
II
~
-
~
~
= .- .- .- .- .- .-
Q .- .- c:tl c:tl .- .- .- .- c:tl .- c:tl
.... c:tl tl:: c:tl c:tl c:tl c:tl c:tl c:tl c:tl .-
-
= .- .- .- .- & & 0" 0" .- & & s:::
8 & a & & & & & & a)
l-< .- .- ~ ~ 00 00 ~ 00 00 ~
~ ~ ~ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
= ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 00 ~ 0 8
u 0., u 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u
~ ~ 00 ~ 0 0 0 & q q 0 8 0 0 8 0 00
~ """ 0 """ """ """ 0 o~ 0 """ 0 0 0 t)
""" a) """ a) a) a) - - a) - -
a) a) - 0., 0., - - - - - 8 - - -
0., 0., 0., 0., """ 0., -- -- """ """ """ """ """ """ """ t) """ t) 0.,
.... -- -- """ """ --
l-< -- -- & 0'\ tr) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 0 a) a) a)
~ tr) 0 0 ~ 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0., 0
t"-: ~ 0., 0., ~ -- --
- r- tr) -- r- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- tr)
l-< 0 "<t 0 - - 0 0 0'\ tr) r- - "<t r- 0 ~ 0 ~ o:i
:: - t"-: ~ ""': ~ ~
~ N ""': "<t t"-: ~ "<t tr) \0
Q \0 - 0 00
:= 00 ~ \0 - ~ ~ \0 0'\ ~
~ r- - N
,.:;d
=
Q.i
Q..
Q.i
-
= .- .- .- .- .-
~ .- 0 c:tl .- .- .- .- .-
c:tl c:tl c:tl ~ c:tl c:tl c:tl .- c:tl
tl:: tl:: tl:: c:tl .-
= s:::
Q .- & .- .- .- & & & 0" 0" & & .- & & & & a)
.... ~ .- .- a ~ ~ 00 00 00 ~ & 00 ~
- ~ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
= ~ a) 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 00 0
l-< ~ U 0 8 0 0 0 & 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
Q.i """ 0., """ """ q q """ 0 0
s::: a) """ 0 """ a) a) 0 - 0 0 a) 0 0 0 0 - t)
0., 00 a) - a) 0., 0., - - - - - 0., - - -
Q.i """ 0., - """ - t) 0.,
~ -- a) """ 0., -- -- """ """ """ a) """ """ """ -- """ """ """ --
-- a) -- a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) """
~ 0., 0 0 a) 0., 0 a) 0., 0
0., ""': -- 0 0., 0 N N 0., 0., 0., -- 0., 0., 0., 0 0., 8 0., 0., --
0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ~
.... - ~ 0 -- tr) 0 -- -
l-< ~ ~ 0 \0 tr) tr) ""': tr) 0 tr) N N ~ 0 00
~ N ~ 0'\ - N t"-: N ~ 00 tr) ~ "<t N t"-: ~ ~ tr)
t"-: 0'\ o:i 0 N ~
'" ~ 0'\ 0'\ r- r- r- r- ~ 0'\ 00 ~ tr)
- r- ~ r- ~ ~ - - \0
.... - ~ - -
= -
Q
00 00
""" 0.,
2 S
s::: ::l
a) 0.,
Q.i U
0., s::: ~
'"
~ 0 t:l
....
- ..s::::
Q.i s::: ..... """ ~
00 a) .... 2 .....
p ;> """ ~ ....
a) -
s::: s::: ....
'"0 ..... "t) u
0 s::: a) 00 ~
= u a) ~ u a) ~
= ..s:::: ....... U u
~ 00 00 ~ ~ ~
~ - .-
'" 2 """ - :E 4-<
..... 2 'a 0 s:::
.... a) 0 00 ~ u u ....
- ~ t:: s::: "t) a) I
.... :E d ~
~ a) ::l a) 0::: 00 u 0 a) .D ~
""" u ..... s::: ..... - ::l ~
~ a) u '"0 0 s::: a) CIj .... - ~
~ ~ a u ~ ~ .... .D U 00 00
00 ~ ..... s::: - 0 -- """
~ ~ 4-< ~ ca ~ ..s:::: 00 e ~
s::: 0 00 ..... ~ a) a ..s:::: 8 ~
s::: .... .... 2 1
- 00 ;> .... ;> ..... a) 00
.... ~ a) s::: u 0 ca
~ ..... ~ .... ..... s::: 0., .E ~ ;> s::: a)
a) 00 ..... s::: .D ..... a) 00 -s
0 0 a) u 0., a) 0 0., a) 4-< 0 0 ..s::::
:E 0.. 0 0.. ::t Eo-< 0.. ~ <: CIj 0::: U <: <: ::t u 0 t:l u ~ Eo-<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Convenience store/gas stations Medium
. Restaurants (high turn-over) Medium
. Hotel and motels Medium
. Churches/educational/training Medium
. Financial institutions Medium
. Theaters Medium
. Government offices Medium
. Post office Low
. Apartments, condos and homes Low
. Parking facilities Low
. Miscellaneous As applicable.
The City of Clearwater experiences a dramatic fluctuation of population and business
activity between seasonal and non-seasonal months. Considering this fluctuation, the trip affinity
values (demand/attractiveness of ridership) in our ridership model were split to reflect seasonal and
off-seasonal periods. For instance, the seasonal affinity value of Clearwater Beach (High - 0.3 for
seasonal) is expected to experience a reduction of 60 percent in affinity value for the off-season
(0.12), which will also reduce the ridership generated by the beach by 60 percent. Other property
types have been modified to reflect affinity reductions in the same manner, thus providing a more
realistic projection of ridership throughout the year.
Derivation of Guideway System Trip Propensity. Jakes Associates created the following
criteria to determine guideway system trip propensity:
Type of Access
Guideway Propensity
Propensity Class
Access to station in or directly
adjacent to land use type
100%
A
Access to station on a site
very close (within 500 ft)
80%
B
Access to station within 1,000 ft
walking distance
50%
C
Access to station within 2,000 ft
walking distance
10%
D
In applying trip propensity criteria, Jakes Associates gave consideration to applicable
physical boundaries (such as arterial roads) that may actually hinder access to a guideway station.
114
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.8 Patronage Projection Spreadsheets
Utilizing the methodology described above to derive patronage estimates for the Clearwater
guideway system, Jakes Associates developed a customized spreadsheet to estimate system
patronage.
To derive a ridership range for the guideway system, Jakes Associates grouped and
quantified all land use types for the destinations that will be served by the guideway system. Trip
generation rates were then multiplied times the number of land use units to derive both the number
of daily and peak-hour person trips. These values were subsequently multiplied by the product of
the land use intensity, trip propensity, and induced travel impact values to derive an adjusted
number of daily and peak-hour person trips. The product of the adjusted number of person trips
and trip affinity values yielded the final number of daily and peak-hour person trips.
Jakes Associates assumed a reasonable statistical uncertainty range of +/- 5%, which was
applied to the final number of daily and peak-hour person trips to yield a range of boardings (by
land use type). This statistical range was assumed for the purpose of this calculation. Actual future
ridership levels may have a much higher spread that cannot be determined without very extensive
survey work, which is outside of the scope of this study.
Table No.5: "Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach Guideway Reconnaissance Study Gudeway
System Patronage (ten pages)" analyzes the projected patronage for the proposed Clearwater
guideway system.
7.9 Patronage Projection Summary
Table No.6: "Guideway System Patronage Summary" summarizes daily and peak-hourly
passenger boardings per travel direction for in-season and off-season trips for the Clearwater
guideway system. The trips are estimated for both existing and limited future conditions.
Based on existing conditions, the projected off-season and in-season patronage per day per
direction is 3,640 and 8,662, respectively. This would yield an approximate annual ridership of
2,849,963. The low season is during the months of December and January. Based on limited
future development, the projected off-season and in-season patronage per day per direction is
4,804 and 10,915, respectively. This would yield an approximate annual ridersip of 3,605,093.
Based on existing conditions, the projected peak-hour off-season and season patronage is
826 and 1940 per direction respectively. Based on limited future conditions, the projected peak-
hour off-season and in-season patronage is 1,142 and 2,558 per direction, respectively.
These types of ridership levels are very attractive, not only from a congestion relief point of
view (number of vehicular trips eliminated), but also from an economic point of view, which will
be discussed in following chapters. In summary, the 3.6 million annual guideway riders per
direction will generate substantial revenues to make the transit system profitable and supplement
the local economy. They will eliminate 1.8 million vehicular trips from roadways (at an average of
two passengers per car) and subsequently reduce traffic congestion and resultant pollution. No
additional parking spaces (requiring valuable land) will be needed at the beach areas.
115
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
'"0
..,
o
"0
g
'"
'<
n
~
'"
'"
g~n:or90.Q
c ~ ~ [ :E ::I. :< <"
2n2po=:r::p
~:::r:::rv. ~'5 ~J
S2.~ ~n~.V1- to
[ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~.
~O:::~;:;:gzn
6VlSV;n;:OOg-
o:!1~ c.n~g ~ ri
- Ol1l9:g:::r
+-~~~g-~p
0..,l1ll1lc.. >-
9 (;;' ::?. 0 Vl <
\1' 0 e E _. (tl
< ::3 -- '-"
l1l ~
pO
::l
c..
~
Vl OJ
~. ~
::J ~
2) 0 OJ
o :-,'~
Iq ).- ~.
< 3 :c
o ~ n
~ Q" ~
() l--. ..,
l1l 0\ g.
V; 0
W 0
- n
'T1 ~
.., <
~ l1l
:>;" P
::l
~c..
~
:!1n
.., ..,
:!l.. ('tl
n ~.
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C"l 0
(tl (fJ 0 ~
=...,S-~~
~-s.....:s~.
~ ~. o' 8" S"
o = ~ IJ(l
;;1 =
:;;-n:r::'tlo....,
~ ~ p = 0 :E
2. ~ g- ~ :E 0
r; ~ ~ ~. ~ 5 8
n c: ~ ~ E. ; ~
~ 2' '<' n c: Vl ;3'
tJ ~ ~ g ~. @ ~
n -~~~:J
2)~C'" "'IQ
;;l;:l0" 03'0
O;~~ Sl1lEo;
- ..,.., ,., ~ "'
- ~ lJl ~ ~
~ --- g
Q. Vl
(1 g
g o'
;;- ::l
.,
'"
~ ~ ~
+- I" -
~ +- W - 0 0 n z :r:: 0
gw~~~~~Oa.g
:r:: :E ~ g :r:: Vl 3 a ~ ~
~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~. ~
otT1sc.. >- c
;\i~:::TVl ?? ;\i~5-
:1~g :Z';:l8.,
:r:: 0 o' ~ 8., 'T1 ~ r
~. :E::l 0; ~
g ~ Eo; ~
pO ::I.
::l '"
c.. g
~
'T1
p
~
o
..,
00 l-J
S? lJ.
~ :z
Vl 'T1
~ ;
p
3.
'"
o
~
3: 3: 3: 3: 3: r 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: :r::
- Iv - - :j:;: ... 00 -..J ... VI
:::;~g~~~~8tc!5;
fJJ +-- ~ VI 00 0 0 00 VI -.)
'f. \0 '1::'1:: \0
~~~~1l1l~:::.~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ? ~
o::r;v;~-
aa!~~~
'....; --.j IJ 'Jl ..-
~~~~~
------+---w--_w-
'.JJ 'JJ f.JJ \0 \0 W 00 VJ \0 .\0 '.JJ \0 l;J \0 \0
IJ I J I.J --.J -.) I.J iJ1 I-J --.} -J I.J --.J l-J --.J --.J
I .J I.J I J I .J I .J I .J -.) I.,..; I J 'Jl I .J I.J I J VI 1.J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
--.......------------
000000000000000
000000000000000
000000000000000
l:O?;O 0;:;;0 ;o;o~~~~~~;o
;::;;::::;~;::;;:::-:::-;::-';::':::::-;:P;::-;:::'::P
~-~~~~~~:....r:....:....:....~~
::P:::-
\0 \0 \0 W '''-' \0 Vl \0 W 0\ :0 W :0 0\ \0
::j ::j ::j ~ ~ ::j gg ::j ~ N ::j ~ ::j iv ::j
~~~~~~f2f2~~~~f2~r2
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-
--0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
v. 1'1:: 1'1:: '" '" '" I~ I;!; 1'1:: '1::. '1::,
917'17'~~~~~~~,LJ""';O
E~~~~=~====SE~E
o 0
o 0
o 0
~ ?
:i: /Jl I...J ~
'..II L--: ~ ~
~tj~~
- tJ t'J VI 0\ - \0 :0 w
;~~ u-; ~ - 0 ~ +- 0\ I-J 0\ e
~ ~ 0: ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ 6 t
o - ..._
o lJJ :i: t'J ...... - - w 00 +:0. t-J 0.. W ~
N jj W ~ ~ !=' ~ ::g Vl ~ ~ 00 ~I ~ ~
~ G' 0 ~ 0\ \0 -..J U, 0\ \0 0 -..J~, U.
- I J 0 00 \0 IJJ 00 IJ W -.j 0\ 0\ 0 ~j
o 0 !=' !=' !=' 0 !=' !=' !=' !=' 0 !=' !=' !=' _
I" I" I" v, VI U, I" Vl 0 t-J I" N Iv N 0
v, Vl VI 0 0 0 Vl 0 Vl Vl Vl Vl v, Vl 0
~;:;:Vljj--..J~O~
~t~~~li~~~
-_ ...w
~2~~~~
~N- O\~
N\OWN W-..J_I"- --..J:j:;:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WVIVl... 00\0 W-..J NN~
o !=' 0 0 0 0 0 0 !=' !=' 0 0 !=' 0 !='
00000000000000_
VI VI VI VI VI Vl VI Vl Vl Vl VI Vl VI Vl UI
!=' 0 0 0 !=' 0 0 !=' !=' !=' 0 !=' 0 0 !='
-------...-------v.J
000000000000000
- 0\ I...J ~ 0 0 ~ VI 0 jj 00 1 -J _ ~ t;;
00 0-, LII Ul \0 :..- \0 G-; U. 0 - - t'...J ~ ~
~~N~\O
_-NW-:::;
-
~~~;j:-oo!='~o-o' t
~, _ 0 ~ 00 \0 '"
- +..
W -..J
_ N
:-00 0\ !=' 0 00:- W !=' _ Vl 0 0 W
WNW OO-N-..J~OOOO-..J
-..J
N\OWNO!=,W-..JO~=O_-..J~
0\ l..JJ CJ--, 0\ W VI CJ--, UI t'J 'JI ~ -....) a-. -.J ~
norrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
~ @ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
;\i :>:
g- ~
c..
Vl
0. n 'tl
:< :; ~
o 0 ~
Eo; Eo; ~
fq fq ...,
l1l l1l III
OJ>-~
~ 0 r;.
c ~ '"
::l a.
r;" (tI
-9' ::l
~ ::;
Vl l1l
l1l
..,
<
o'
l1l
'"
~ ~ ~
IJ I.J IJ
rJJ I.J _
>- VI
~ Q
c
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I...) - ....... - ....- ....- - - ....- --J VI
o
'"Oonn
~ ~ g g
---- >- ::+ ::+
'"0 < Vl ~,
(ii' l1l
ri OJ
l1l ~
~ ~
~ 8., :r::
~ ~ ~.
o l1l "'0
C 0
::+ ~ ::l
?? >-
n <
:::T l1l
l1l
'"
5'
~
Vl
~ ??
~ ~
"
3: :r:: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: :r:: 3: :r:: :r:: 3: 3:
I-J -..J 0\ I-J Iv W
ti ~ GJ 0\ 0\ --J
'" '" ro ro -0 -0
>-> rg >-> ~ >-> p
n n ~ ~ ~ ~
Dl f); C/l Vl Vl Vl
0\ I-J
hJ IJ
-0 ro
~ ~
() n
l1l l1l
Vl Vl
"'Vl~::::;~\OO\O\c!5;~
00\0 oo",oo-+-_
.5!: .5!: .5!:.5!: ~
u ',J U ',J -0 I~ fO fO ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ I~ I~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Vl C/l Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl
~D:&.o~::r;~~
2t? "'ro~roro-2
>->~I-Op~p>->p
n n ~ n (tI () n n
f); ~ ~ ~ Vl ~ ~ ~
----------- ------ ----- - ---
00000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000
:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"'200-o~-2-2-o-o0022-orororo-2-2roro-oro-O-2
~ p p p >-> p ~ p p >-> ~ p >-> ~ ~ p p p ~ ~ ~ p p ~ p ~
ann n a n a n ann n n n n n n n n n n n n n () ()
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o 0 0 !=' 0 0 !=' 0 !=' 0 0 !=' 0 0 !=' 0 0 0 0 !=' !=' 0 !=' 0 0 !='
~~-..J-..J-..J~-..J~-..J~-..J-..J-..J-..J-..J~~-..J~-..J-..J-..J-..J-..J-..J-..J
00000000000000000000000000
~~~~~~~~OQO~r2r2~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ (tI ~ ~ (tI (tI ~ ~ ~ (tI (tI (tI (tI (tI (tI (tI (1;1 (tI (tI ~ (tI (tI (tI
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"'2-o-orororo2002rorororo-o-oro-2ro-O-O-0222
p p >-> ~ >-> p p >-> p p ~ ~ p ~ ~ p p p ~ p >-> p ~ >-> p ~
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n ann n n n n n n n n n
~~~~~~(tI~~(tI~~~~~~~~~~~~(tI~(tI~
IJ -....) 0\ tJ tJ (...oJ W IJ -....... W -....) 0\ t'-.J ~ VI Vl ....... t-J ................J:;;.. t'J
I-J V, W 0\ 0\ -..J 0\ VI 0 0 0\ \0 +- -..J Iv I-J 00 \0 _ -..J ... \0 0\ 0\ 00 -..J
Via Via a ooooo-.+:...-
00000000000000000000000000
0000000000 00 0000000 0000
-VI+:;.__NN_--.I I'.JVl .,p..-w.,p..w_- --W-
~ D: ... 00 00 Vl ~ -..J W 6 ... -..J - ~ W v, W - v, - ~ ~ :::; N ~ ~
~ g 0 ~ 13 ~ ~ ~ ::g 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ 23 8 g 0 g 23 ~ ~
o - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !=' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0
NON t" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N NON N NOON 0 NON
Vl 0 Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl v, Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl 0 Vl 0 Vl Vl Vl
Vl ~ ....... 0\ - - - - VI a 9 - W 9 ....... Vl N - - .,p.. ~ N ~ .p.. N 0\
~ 0 ~ u. W 00 00 N Iv U. W \0 ~ W ~ U. ~ ... !v NooN 00 ON' N~-..J
N 0 -..J 0 0 Vl 0 Vl ~ 0 0 VI 0 VI ~, 0 0 -..J -..J Vl ~ Vl 0 -..J
VlOVl 0 VlVl 0 OVlOVl
W ;-:; = ... 0 - - !=' W 0 !=' - N 0 0 W - 0,- 00 N ;:;: _ = N ;; ...
\OVl U.~WNOOO\WNWU.N 00'" \O~oou.-..Joo -..J
woo Vl - 0 0\ 00 00 Vl _ -..J \0 VI 00 Vl 00 W W 00 00 00 '" 00- \0 ~
ooow Vl W 00 0 ...W
;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ~ ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;:: ;::
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 0 V, Vl 0 0
o !=' 0 0 0 !=' 0 0 !=' 0 !=' 0 0 0 0 0 !=' 0 0 !=' !=' 0 0 0 0 0
I" W t" iv N t" I'" iv I" t" N I" N i" N i-J Iv iv i" N W i0 W W N 10
00000000000000000000000000
~ g ;: e; :: ~ G :: Eo :: 6 ~ ~ 6 ;: ~ i=: Co ;: ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 t ~
_ N
_NW;-:OOOO
;, Vl N ~ W ~ ~ W
~ 0
- !=' !=' 0 !=' !=' !---'
---~-..J-_
-OWNO~O~N"';:;:
-UIOO\\ou.U.~_oo",
W ;-:; - 0 !=' !=' !=' !='_ 0 !=' 0 0 0 0 _ 0 !=' _ !=' !='~. !=':::;... _ -""
~u.-u.--- ~oO-WO-~NO\OWooNO\N~-..J
-..JVlNOO!='OOO!='O!='OONO!='!"'_O OVloow\O
~ ; t" \0 iv W W i-J -..J - 0 W U. 0 N 00 W _ 00 '" ~ W : u. ~ u.
-
>-
~ ~
2. -0'
.:;
....,
o
~
c: r
2. ~
;:l
V< c..
c:
'"
l1l
-
o
e;.
'< ....,
~.
o
l1l
::l
l1l
..,
~.
o
::l
'"0 ~
g n;
:>;"
:r::
o
c
..,
.--
o
e; . '"0
'< l1l
..,
'"
o
-::l
'"0 ....,
g ~.
7" v.
:r::
o
c
..,
L..-
-
>-
02-:
e;. 1;.
'< ~
c..
'"0
'"0 ~
l1l '"
>-> 0
:>;" ::l
::r: ....,
g ~.
.., '"
f..-
o
~.
7-
;{l ....,
p ~.
g >-
~.
::;,
Vl ::l
g :;
'"
o
::l
I--
o '"0
...., l1l
~ ~
g :r::
'" 0
o C
::l ..,
'"0
l1l
..,
Vl '"
l1l 0
P ::l
~ ::;-l
;:l ~.
-
-
r
p
::l
c..
c:
'"
l1l
....,
'<
"0
l1l
'"0
n
'T1
*
(1
t""
trj
>
~
~
>
~
trj
~
ec
t""
~
~
~
I
~
o
I
Oec ~
:::. trj >
fr>ec
<(1t""
~==trj
~C1Z
~~O
(1) _.
30Ul
'l:1 trj .--.,
I'>~iooo"
=1<0
0'1-,.,"'"
::llo""'"iooo"
~~C
(1)~'-"
trj
(1
o
z
z
>
-
r.FJ
r.FJ
>
Z
(1
trj
r.FJ
~
~
o
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
'1:i
'"1
o
-a
t1l
::l
~.
.:;
Q
0. ~
fl~
~ ~
'"1 r,
o ~
::I v.
B 0-
_, r:
-I"- ;or
I-J ::l
~>->-<~
3 3: >- .'
~. Vi Vi n r-
v, c c (/) ~
n5-&~~
~ 0" ...... t1l _
'J. ~ V..I +---
v, ::l ~ .j...
>-;><;"~:=:\O
~iJ~nn
Z-I:Jg,o~~
':'J~IZ-J::;O;;; ~
~ 0 n ;:-::" ~
Z 0 -::l
::r:: ~~5..e:
~ ::o::D t1l
(;;' ::r: g
2- ~~. 2;
'" 0
o ::l
::l ~
5~~~3:~~
'"1t1l::l;:.;<0.'"
~ C/) ~ 7:-- ~ rJl-
~::roov.'1:i
t~t1l-,'TlVi~
~~~R'8~;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ::
0~""'\ JJ~(1;l
~~~::;:~;,~
S=~C~~:r
n U. ~ Q ;:;.
~n-~C,
;;;~~oio
_ <: t1l ~ 0
~ t1l ~ ::l Z
g, ~ ;:l 2;
~;:lrS ::0
P
n Vi (j >-l Vi
::r ~ 0 '"1 ~
,;<'a~g,
a g. a t1l D
~::I~t;~
-...J >- C. - ~
~ 3 ~ ::: I-J
v<:;r~8
fil~~~:Z
~ 0 n. ;5 0
~ ~ -- VJ
~ Z ~ ~ g
::D Iii e:: ::2.-
s- ~
c:: >-
""l <:
~ 0'
a ~
~
v.
v,
'Tl
~
r,
o
'"1
::r:
~
3.
'"
o
::l
~
3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: 3: ::r: ::r: 3: ::r: 3: ~
\C IJ +:-. VJ \0 VI ...... ::
a~~IJ.~~~~
v.
.c ~ .c ~ .c ~ ~ ~
;:::. ;::, ;:::. ;:::. ;::-. ::::-. ?"' ;:::.
-...JW-..J--W-~
t i f'3 0 ~ 'J, :::: 0'
00 'j.) 0 !j woo+- ;;;
~~~v.~~~~
~, ~, ~,~, ~, ~, ~, ~,
-
'~J
-...J
:j~~~w~:jlN
\O~\O~O'~t;~
VI 'Jl !J, VI ~ VI VI __
~~~~~~~~
....., ....., ...., ""'\ ...., (tl ...,
...... _ _ 0 .....,
000000-0
00000000
OOOOv.080
~. ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ '" ~
~~~r--;:::>.f?:l.....,
~~E~~==::===~~E~~
v..JVJWWWW
-...J -...J -...J -...J -...J -...J
'-C \C \.0 \.0 \0 \0
'Jl rJI 'JI 'JI 'Jl VI
-...J
\0
~ 6:
.;g-?~~~~~~
..., ~ ...., ..., .., ....., ..., ....,
- -
oC;oooooo
00000000
00000000
~ ~ .c ~ ~ 0 0 is
O'~O'O'O'O'O\O\O'O\O\O'VJO\ VJ
:... -...J :... :... :... :... :... :... :... :... :... :... N :... jj ~
-\0----------\0- -....J
~:g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....., ~ ...., ....., ""'\ ""'\ ""'\ ..., ""'\ ....., ...., ""'\ ""'\ ....., - ""'\
-
------------0-
o 8
00
~ ~
;=:;'
~~::==~=s~=:~=
o - 0 0
o 0 g 0
08:'-:0
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ::::f.::t.
..- -' -=- ..:-
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'JJ =-1 ;:;: 13 ~ ~ VI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +:.. ::
--.j (J\ \0 1-.1 00 Q'\ 00 I.J I.J tJ 0\ 0 vJ \.C
00 00 VJ W ~ 0 I-J 0 0- 0 -...J _ 0- 00
--.j I...) VI \0 - VI I..) a-.. VI VI -J 00 -.J v,
r :::: ~ ~ ~ ~ \0 jj :'j ~ ~ :3 VJ ~ ~ ~
o ~ I-J ~J - ~ ~ a i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
9099909900900900
I-J I-J I-J I"; I-J I-J I-J 1-"'> 1'0 1-"'> I'-J ~-J 0 ~..; 0 0
VI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v, VI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
...... - - -
\0 1-"'> ~ ? ~ ~ ~ 0 -...J VJ iON 1'0 ~ i
~ ~ 00 0\ N 0 lh 6 ;; t;: - 6 ;:;; ~ ~ N
o-l'-OVJ-'JINO\-'-O'JI O\woo
- ~ 0' 'JI U. :-0 1'0 ex; :: 0\ N ::::; 9 'JI 0' -...J
0- 00 ;-:-! - lh - :... 1'0 \0 0 lh -...J 1'0 0 00 :...
o \0 - -...J 00 N 0' -I'- -I'- 0 VJ -I'- 0 0' \0 -...J
o 0
9999---99909999
----------------
I-J I-J I-J I"; I"; 1-...> ~..; I-J I'-J 1'0 I-J I.-J I-J 1-"'> 1'0 1-"'>
0000000000000090
10 j.-.J i-J 1-"> l--J i..J j'J iJ i.J i-J t-..) i-J iv l'...J IJ tv
0000000000000000
:~~~:~:~~t~~E~e~
:: ti 00 !=" ex; 0 1'0 ~ :;: -...J ~ ~ 0 0' t:; :;
~ 00 0 - :... 00 \0 0- _ - 00 0 :... 0 lh ~
9 1-"'> 0 0 - - 9 1'0 - 9 - 1'0 0 0 9 0
~..; -...J oc 0- ~ - W N :... -...J (j\ - 0 0' 00 ~
o -I"-
'JJ 0'
:6~~c:~t;:
I.-J VJ
iJI VI
0--
o 0 ~
w -
W -I"-
.j... 00
0' 'J,
0- 0'
vJ 00
-
::r:
~
'"1
:1.
'"
o
2..
-
-
-
-
-
-
C':l 0
~ CIl 0 tTl
::s >-l - ~ ~.
~ ""l ~ ::s ~
~ -6' o' S S'
o ::l ~ C1Cl
;;; ::s
'TI :I:
o 0
:1 _
::r: !!.
~ ~
3. ::::
'" 0
o -
;:l ~
:r:: 1;;
o
ro
e J:'
::l. ;:;;
ro
~ [
~ n
ru g
'" ;:l
;0-<
~ U.
:::.-
I-J
~Vi
:J
o n ti
o 0 t1l
;i ~ ra
:3 ::r :1
333
~ ~ g
~ '1:i ~
to ~ 8.
E. ;>;"' n
~. r- 0
- cr: ::J
::l '"1 t1l
'0 ~ Q
<: o'
- ;:l
'"
8a;
Z $:
o '1:i
'" E;
g ;><;"
o CIl
E~
-
-
~
n' ::D ;;;
t1l ::r: Vi
E; ;:!;1
:1.
'"
o ::r:
2.. ~
3.
'"
o
2..
to 'Tl >-l
'"1 '"1 0
o t1l ::l
~ 3. t1l
::l 0 .j...
;; 3 0
9 ;;: W.
~ ~ e:
n ;:0 ::l
O~lqVi
~~ O;~
~f:lVJe;
::l N \0 t1l
r.n ;;;' n ~
r- ro~'
~J:'<:o
~ f:j ~ ~
o:.~~ro
fQ:; 0. <:
Vlw'.-'("D
n'JI p;-
ro n ;:l
<: ro 2;
<1> <:
P;- t1l
;:l ~
2; ;:l
2;
>- 'TI
~. ;;
3 ~
o ro
..., '"1
'"
Z
~
::D
::r: ~
3. ~.
'" 0
o ;:l
2..~
::r:
~
3.
'"
o
2..
~ ~ ~lIIr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~
10 10 10
000
000
333
'" '" '"
\0 \0 \0
~o-o-
:::~~
'"1 '"1 '"1
'"1 '"1 '"1
000
000
333
~ ~ ~
909
-...J ~ -...J
VJ VJ VJ
~:g:g
t1l t1l t1l
'"1 '"1 '"1
'"1 '"1 '"1
000
000
S2.S
-
~ :::: j
-...J I..; -...J
0-00-
000
N 0\ ;:;
I"; :-0 1-"'>
e:;~~
009
01'01'0
'JI 'JI 'JI
_ 1'0 -I'-
-I'- ~ $:
00 0 :...
00 0 0
- VJ
- -...J VJ
~ ~ 8
000
000
00 00 00
090
i..; I-J ~-J
000
-;;;~
l-J I-J 00
VJt;~
oo-~
9 - N
-~o-,
c: IE :;: ~
W-W-I'-\O
8:=:::::l=Ej
0:3:=:~0'
"'~~~~
;::' ~, ::r' ;::-. ;::-,
........ -~NOOO\----.lWNQ\WVl.p:... w
~ ~ ~ f'3 ~ ~ f) ~ :: 0\ ~ ::; ~ g; :3 ~ ~ Ej
::; 0 R:; lJ: - -I'- ~ ~ 0 .J:.. ::::; W -...J W 00 0 8 0
b"'.~,~. ~I~",,,,,,,I~,,,I~I~I~I~I~"'I~
-:-"~.13~~~~~~~~>-:-'~r--r--~r-:-
::r' :=to :::. ~ :::-. ?' ~, :::. =- ?' ? ~ ? ~ ? ? ?-' ~
j g; g; ~ g; ~ ~ ~ ~ g; g; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
w \0 \0 -..I \0 ~ --..j -..I -..I \0 \0 IJ --.) -J -.....J 1--..) -..I --.l --..J -..I -..I I-J 10
-. W IJJ 'Jl W l-J l--J IJ I...J W W 1-..) 10 '-J IJ 10 1-...) 10 1--.) 10 Iv I-J hJ
t1l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0------ -- ---- --- - - - - - --
08888888888888888888888
00000000000000000000000
'"
~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~
? ;:tJ
~ ~
-- -- r..:- -..:-
- -
00 _
N 0
-I'- VJ
- 0' -
01'00
VJ~VJ
- ? t? f?1' fQ
~~~:~
000808
888~8~
"'o~~~f?:l
;::::< :::<';:p
-2C-":-:=--
1'0
'J,
\0 - a
\0 0 -...J
o N t,JJ
1'0 -...J
- 0
=2==~~==E====~=~===
- :: \0 VJ VJ VJ :-0 :---' VJ VJ VJ VJ :-0 \0
o~:"':"':"':j-l'-:"':"':"':"':j:j
w -..._-... ._...._...._...._...._...
~ Q ~' ~ fg ~ fg fg fg fg fg ~ ~
~ ~ ~ : : ~ : : : : : ~ ~
00888088888C;0
8800080000088
~.' ~, ~ I~ '" I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ '" '"
~""~7-'~~>-:-'>-:-'>-:-'>-:-'>-:-'~~
_~~~E~?2=~~2~~
VJVJVJVJ-
:... :... :... :... 0
c,-",,_,,,,_,,,w
'g' ~. ~. ~' ;;'
..., ..., ..., ..., ?5
- - - - ...,
000 -
o 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
o
~ ~ .c ~
::::::- :::-. ::t-
'-' -=- .:-. ~.
::i~~
~+--w
:... I-J W
\0--1'-
W
c::; ~ t3 v; ~ ~ ~ ~ v: ~ ~ N ~ :: 00 L3 ~
900.j...oo\OO\\OEN'J\OO~~:~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :j ~ 8 'JI ~ ~ :3 'J. ~ 0' -I"- \0
1...;--I'-N--I"-N.p..'JII-"'>\OO''J,WNVJ N---\OVJ
.p.. ~ u. j ~ -...J 1'0 ~ :j -I"- -I'- ~ 1'0 -...J 'JI ~ : 1'0 1-"'> ~ VJ ~ 6
~ - 00 ~ i0 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 6 00 ~ 00 _ 00 w ~ _ 00 ~ _
I, 00 ~ 0'\ \0 00 -.J tJ _ \0 ~ \0 _ 0'\ ~
00000000000000000090000
o 0 0 I-J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 1'0 1'0 ~-J N N i-...> 1-"'> 1'0 N 1'0 1'0
'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI 'JI
-w-+:-'w- -- I-.)N~VlW--W_NNuJ_
- o~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ 1'0 ~ -...J \0 N 0\ ~ -...J U. I~ 1'0 -...J 00 9 W 1'0
o \c 0- ~ ~, 'JI S 0 jj ~ VJ ~ -...J lh -...J 00 :... ~ ";:::' :: ~ 0
O'JI-l"-N -...J _ -I'-o-...J-I'-VJOONo\..--o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ t;: ~ : ~ tj ?O
-I'- - \0 _ - 0' W -...J 0 -I'- - ~ 1'0 .p.. -...J VJ 1'0 \0 0\ 'JI -...J ~ ~
00090009000900090000000
00000000000000000000000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 oc 00
9 :=> 9 9 9 :=> 9 0 9 9 9 0 9 9 9 9 9 0 9 0 9 :=> 0
-----------------------
00000000000000000000000
o I-J \0 (j l-J - 0 0
00 '='" ~ \0 U, 6 Ul \0
-w;:;tw
:..... ~ 0 \0 t..;J
- -
- :=> Iv VI ~oo'
~ ~ i-J ~
;J- IJ 00
- 00 ~
--- I'v
o ~
- IJ - IJ :=>
uJ - VI UI \0
;: ~
'N-V;~N~~~W::~t..;J.OO-
0- 00 ~ N -...J ~, 00 0- ~ 1'0
1'0 1-"'> VJ -
00 0 :... 1-"'>
9 0 - 'JI 0 9 9 9 1'0 9 0 :: - 0 0 ~ 0 0 9 0 0 - 9
- :... 0- - :... 1'0 - 1'0 0 - :... w 0 ~ lh N N :... 1-"'> :... VJ 00 0\
e~~
E~~~~eEe~
:-:000090009~";0
~~o-NI-",>o-WV1VJ:"'~
-
~
(j
o
::s
-
~
>-
S ~
;:l -.
"::l
,:;
e
g. r
'" 5-
c::::
'"
(;j
ti
=:.
'< >-l
[5'
o
t1l
;:l
t1l
'"1
~
o'
::l
'1:i C'
g r;
;>;"'
:r::
o
c:
'"1
ti
=:. '1:i
'< t1l
'"1
V.
o
;:l
'1:i >-l
t1l ::J.
~~
::r:
o
c:
'"1
r-
>-
tig
=:, c:
~~
0.
'1:i
t1l
;p ~
~ 0
;>;"' ;:l
::r: >-l
g ~.
'"1 '"
-
o
...,
~.
en >-l
~ ~.
5 )>
...,
::71
Vi ::l.
g <
v.
o
;:l
o
......
.,., 0
~ =:
1;; <'
o '1:i
;:l t1l
'"1
'"
o
Vi ;:l
g >-l
'" ~.
g ~
r--
o '1:i
..., t1l
7' ~
Vi ;><;"
g ::r:
v. 0
o c:
::l '"1
'1:i
t1l
'"1
Vi '"
t1l C
~ ;:l
o >-l
;:l ~.
Of>
--
-
-
r-
~
;:l
0.
c:
Of>
t1l
>-l
'<
-a
t1l
>-l
o
~
r--
('1
e-c
trJ
>
~
~
>
...,
trJ
~
~
e-c
~
~
~
I
...,
o
I
a ~ ...,
::. trJ >
g.> ~
~('1e-c
~=:t:trJ
C/)~z
~~o
(\l _.
30Ul
'l:l trJ ,-..,
~<.!N
q~o
g>""
~~~
ClQ"",,O
(\l~'-'
trJ
('1
o
z
z
>
-
rJ1
rJ1
>
Z
('1
trJ
rJ1
...,
~
o
~
-
"0
n
'Tl
*
-
-
-
*
'"0
....
o
"1:l
'"
::l
~.
,:<
n
"/.
"J.
~
r,
S
....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C'.l 0 t"j
~ \r1 0
::s ..., t:i ~ ~.
~
"1 "1 - ::s ell
~ -6' o' :;- -
- 5'
0 ::s ~ I1CI
"1 ::s
ell
~ ~ ~ ...... VI ~ W W 1..;.., ~ 0 0 0 0 z ::r:: ::r:: C/l to a to C/l 'Tj N 'Tj :!l o---l )> Cl n C/l n ..... ::r:: to )> ..... 9 n )> a C/l n
~ 0 0 0 0 c. ~ ~ ~ p ::.. '" 0 ::l" P p P ("; C 0 p :1. c c .... ~. (i) 0 a :1. ..... 3 0 ;:J. p 0' 0
;:;, 0 '"
0 +- 0 00 '<[;. ;.;- r.n 3 ~ r.n < :1 ~ 2. 0 0' n 0' '" !S. ::'l 8 3 r.n < .... 3
IF. r.n r.n 3 ~ r.n ;.;- 0 :1. ;.;- ..... ~. P IF' o---l 2. 3 '"
;;a ~ z z z z Z "1 n n co co r- '" ~~ ~ C/l C/l 0- ';I ::. 3 C/l ? 3
- p 3 f:o .... ::0 2 ::l" P (i) o---l n ... C/l < '"0 C/l '" :;:: < c 2 -
'J 0 0 2" 2" c :1 a :v .... ?~ 2 0 ni 0 P ::l" r.n V> C +- ro
0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... 3 ;;0 f:o ~ n ..... P 2. p -
c: y.~ ro ni ni -. -. co ;::, c '" '" ~ .... '" .g C/l to ::r: e, "1
.... IF. r.n IF. r.n V> a ..... ..... 0' C 0 :1. - c n a '" n ::l" ;;0 C/l (]'. ,.,
::l '" 0 n n ("; n n - ::.. ... 0 Q~ r.n ~ ;.;- -- .... '" c ::.. '" :< 0 0 t;i'
'"0 '" '" '" '" '" z ;;0 ;;0 '" 3 5 ..... 0 <? -...j '" tT1 -- .g r-
- r.n ell IJ .... - 0 '" tT1 ~. ;;0 n r.n -
(7 .... "J 0 0 0 0 0 -- ::r: - ~ ~. -g. :< /q '" - R? 9. :: ;;0 V; e: 8 C/l - .... p <:::::
0 n ~ 0 (]'. ;:;- c 3 '" c '"
-- ~ '" p p p p n 0 ::j' n Z 5" 3 ~ :3 Iq N ?;c ;;0 (ll 0 c \r1
~ 0- p .... (ll (ll .... '< ~R ::.. r.n ::l C .... - ....
c 0 0 (ll (ll ::' 0'. ;:;-~ s:: r- ~ Cl -...j 0' (ll .... < VI P ro
Z )> )> )> )> )> ::s to C/l Cl p 0; p s:: 8. ~ :< o---l Q r.n p - "1
0 r, p - 3 3 N P .... .... -::::J n 3 8 ;:j' Z ~ <
< < < < < 0- 0 0; p v, 2 < ~ c (ll 0 0 .... p _. r.n -- 8. C/l ;::, ,'-' r-
:l 0 :D ;- 0' '" (ll 0' 0' 0 0 '" '" r.n .... a; w :1. .... r.n < - n C/l (i) 0' c (ll w ;;:;. p
IF. r.n C/l V> ;::, ;::, 'jJ n (ll '" 0 ::l p r.n '" 0: +- C/l ::l ... ;;0 2 g. r- .... ~ - :D ~ ro ::l
::l ::l r, 'jJ - r.n - ::l" n '" ... .... p z
co IF. it (i) +- r- C/l - - ni - :;;a c...
::r: - '" z n VI v, Q\ tT1 -...j ~ - n ~ 'J V> 0- 0' 0 (ll ;::, vJ 0
P - 'J 0 0 a 0 < co I'-J P (i) -...j (i) 8 o' P :1. ::r: c:
.... 'jJ P 0 ::r:: tT1 ~ Q\ - (i) 0 .... V; z - :D ro
'J r.n p .... 0 '" 0 n 00 c n +- ~ - C ::l ::l r.n r.n
- 'J 3. 3 n '" ..., v, ... C/l v, Z P
'J, - (ll - ~ :< C/l p 8 (i) n p 5. ni -...j -...j .... V; e: ?;c Iq - 3. t:i '"
Z IF. ro 0 )> +- ::l ::l r- Cl - 0 p u; 1'-' - ~ ::r: o---l
'..;.J 0 Z ell W < (i) C/l n P p Vl ? - ;::, - 'Tj VI ::
0 p < w C/l ~ e ;:j' (ll - :3 \0 n ~ r.n p '<
::l 0' N N < n c ::l l' n .... - ::r:: 0 ::J "1
'"0 :D ~ 0 )> to ..:. ::.. p (ll ~ .... < e - n p ~ (i) ::r:: ::l ~ "1:l
p ~ to ::r:: ::l ::' p (ll p ;:J. (i) - 3 < (ll ~ ::r:: ~ (7.' ::s '"
r.n < ~ ~ ~ p c (i) 0 (i) '"0 ::l 0 -
.... ::r:: n e C/l < '" (ll 3.
~ (ll P ::l - ~ .... - < p 0- :1,
p (ll 3. w e -...j (..- p )> !!. '" V; .... P :1. r.n 2- n
.... 0 ~ p P \0 - !5 C/l ;.;- ::l 0
P < r.n ~ ~ ;€ ~ n 0 '"
:1, < 00 w e 2- ::s
'" 0' (1) 0 n e Cl ::l - C/l ;.;- 0
0 )> (..- ::l (i) P ~.:.... e '" 2- ~
~ p n
::l < ~ c ..., ~ C/l
~ (ll < .... 0- n; -
'"
~ ~ p (ll < ~
C/l ::l (ll
::l ~ ~
e ~ ;:l
0-
)>
..... o---l
r- r- r- r- r- r- l' r- r- s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: :::1 :l.
2. "1:l
-<
- -...j Vl o---l
IJ +- \0 '..;.J to \0 (]'. - - - - - - N 0
0 'J DC v, 'J (]'. +- ~ -...j \0 w Vl ~ \0 1'-' Vl ~ Vl Q\ Q\ (]'. -...j w -...j 00 Vl -...j N ~ N N - N W
'..;.J W a to 0 w Q\ 0 0 0 N 1'-' DC \0 -...j \0 10 N N 0 ~ \0 -...j N Vl N - w N 00 w \0 00 ~ ~ ~
V, a a ~ a a -...j VI W IJ Q\ 0 ~ - -...j \0 DC 0 tJ \0 0 0 -...j - 0 Vl N 0 \0 -...j -...j -...j Q\ Q\ -...j 00 \0
~ a ~ ::: ::: ::: ::: :;: "J -...j \0 -...j ~ IJ - 00 Q\ 'J, V, 0 V, 0 0 0 Q\ 0 w 0 0 tJ 0 Q\ Q\ -...j 0 ~ 0 V, 0 10 c: r-
::: n; V, oe 0' 0 0 'J 00 00 ::l
n; n; n; n; n; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ V> ~ ~ ~ r:; r:; r:; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p
r; n; r; v. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r:; r:; (7 ::l
5' 5 0-
::l ::l ;:l ::l ::l ::l ,q ;::-, ? ;::-. ~. ?"' ?"' ;::-. ;::-. ;::-. ;::. ~. ;::-. ?"' ?"' ?"' ?"' ?"' ~' ;::-. ;::-. ?"' ~. ;::-. ? ? ? ? ?" ;::-. ;::-. c:
::l Iq ,q Iq Iq r.n Iq ;::-. ?"'
Ie; Ie; '" r.n r.n r.n r.n V>
(Ie; If, r.n (ll
IF.
,.--
W - W W W W - W W W - W W w w w - - w w w w
- -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j 0 w -...j w w ;-.J w -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j -...j
0' Q\ Q\ Q\ Q\ Q\ Q\ Q\ - - - ~ \0 w w \0 :-0 \0
W '.;.J W W \0 oe \0 \0 \0 \0 ~ Q\ \0 Q\ Q\ Q\ \0 Q\ Q\ \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 ~ \0 \0 \0 \0
IJ IJ 'J 'JJ IJ IJ ,.) IJ IJ +- ~
- v, iJ' v, v, v. v, v, ~~ v, v, VI V. v, v, v, v, v, V. VI
\0 \0 \0 r2 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 '? '? ~ +- ~ ~ ~ ~ v, VI v,
- - '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - '? :g '? :g ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~.
r2 r2 ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" '" ~ -2 "1:l -2 .g -2
"1:l rg '" .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
.... (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll
(', " (ll (ll - - - - .... (ll .... .... .... .... '" - .... - - - .... - - .... (ll .... .... .... .... .... (ll (ll .... .... .... .... a
.... .... .... c... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
0- 0- 0- :;: 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0 0 0 0 - - 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 - - - - - - 8.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:< ~ ~ ni ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '< o---l
(ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll '" ~ ~ ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ .f3 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ....
- - 5' - 0 0 0 0 0 0'
-. _. _. ~ ~ ~ .0 .0 .0 ~ ~ r.n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ~ ?
;:l ;:l ;:l ~ ::l ;:l ;:l ;:l ::l ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ~ ;::-> ;::-> Cl
[/q Ie; /q /q Iq Iq !S.. ~. "
~ ~ ~ ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ~ ;::-> ~ .:.... ~ ;::-> ~ ~ ;::-> ;::-. ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-> ;::-. ;:l
f:-.- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .:.... ~ ~ ~ .:.... ~ .:.... ~ ~ "
~ ~ ~ ....
Q\ Q\ ?' ?' ?' w Q\ W w w Q\ w W Q\ W Q\ Q\ Q\ Q\ Q\ w w Q\ Q\ Q\ Q\ ~
0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::=> ::=> ::=> ~ -...j ~ 10 ~ tv ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ c'
~ ::=> ~ u, Vl Vl Vl N ~ -i:>- ~ 00 N N tJ N N ~ ~ ~ ;:l
Q\ Q\ Vl Q\ 0' Q\ 0' - - - - - \0 - \0 \0 \0 - \0 \0 - \0 - - - - - \0 \0 - - - -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - .g :g :g 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ -2 :g :g :g :g ~ ~ - -2 ~ :g :g :g :g :g :g :g :g :g :g ;;0
~ ~~ -2 -2 ~ ~ ~ ~ (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll "1:l :g :g :g '"0 p
.... .... .... .... (ll .... (ll (ll (ll (ll .... (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (ll (') " (ll (ll '"
" .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... (ll .... .... .... .... .... (ll (ll .... .... .... .... p
(ll (ll " .... (ll - - .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... - - - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - - ;.;-
0- 0- 0- 0- 0- c... c... 0- 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
"0 c;i 0
..., tt en 0 ""l
0 ::l ..., ~ ~ C
"0 tt ~
<';> ., ., ~ ::l ~
;:l ~ 06' o' ~ c
vo ~ 0 .,
0 ::l ~ tt
Q .,
'" ::l
n
p ::t C/l Z ;, ;l> en
vo e; 0 0 0- ~
vo C ;4 rq g, ~
CT ;- ;:l" ~
'T1 0 ;:l" o.
~ ..., 0 Q :;tl 0 (3' ::l
n (1) (1)
S n ;:l
~ vo ;:l ::. (j
(1) S
..., ::l ~. 0
;; "0 "0 c ~ :3
e; e; ...,
..., Il> C
tTl ;.;- ;.;- g ~ ;-
;.< :;tl :;tl vo en :><!
(1) (1) m ~ l'
0- 0- ;:l S Il>
(1) (1) ;; :;1 ;:l
< < 0-
(1) (1) ;4 3 0 0 c:::
0- 0- Il> (1) '"
5' g ~ ~ vo
tt (1)
3 3 3 vo Il> 0 .-.j
(1) (1) (1) rq g
g g ;:l (1) '<
~ V> "0
(1)
(1)
E
-
-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Vl N
Vl
0 .j:>- Vl 0 0
0 0 N 0 0
0 0
0 0- N 0 ~ l' (1
;l> ;l> Il>
vo vo ~ ;:l ~
n n 0-
(il ..., 5' tr:1
?' (1) ?' c:::
,q V> >
vo (1)
~
~
>
~
tr:1
~
.-.j ~
::1.
~
~
~
~
I
~
0
I
a~~
E. tr:1 >
~>~
~(l~
~=tr:1
~C1Z
~~O
\0 W (l> I-i .
00 Vl SOOl
00 N 0 -.l -.l
0- Vl \0
8 0 t v, N 'i:ltr:1--
0 v, !:ol~""
0 q 0
g>~
!:ol~~
.j:>- OG 0
0\ Vl 0\ 0\ 0\ (l>~"-"
00 0 V, f'- 0
V, 00 w 0 0 tr:1
0 0 (1
0
;:::> 0 0 Z
00 v, 0 0 v. Z
0 0 0 0 0 >
I-i
00
-.l .j:>- W -.l 00
00 0 -.l 00 >
00 0 Vl \0 0\
00 ~ V, N Z
0 .j:>- 0 Vl
(1
tr:1
w 0\ 00 00
-.l N 0\ ~
.j:>- v, v, f'- 0
00 .j:>- w 0 ~
0 0 0
0
~
;:::> ;:::> ;:::> ;:::> ;:::>
00 00 00 00 00
0 0 0 ;:::> ;:::>
w w w w w
0 0 0 0 0
:; -.l 0\ .j:>-
N ~ \0 00
0 0 w v,
N W N
W ~ W
0\ '=" W Vl
'=" w \0 \0
~;:::>'N .j:>-
v,Vl v,~
-
N;:::>N\O~
~OOONO
-
-
*
'i:l
...,
a
"0
(1)
;:l
~
,<
n
p
c/.
C/.
'T1
p
r,
~
...,
-
-
-
-
-
n ::r::
a a
;:l 3
Q.. '"
a v-
::r::nnnnnn
a a a a a a a
~ 5.5.5.5.5.5.
'" a a a a a a
o
(1)
'"
Q..
a'
a
'i:~3r-
o_~~~~
;:l ~ '" E:;
Q.. ..., Q..
:;E ~ ~ V;'
p p- IJ P
..., ::J I'J ::J
CLe:~~_,_
v-
p-
;:l
Q..
~
~
v
n ;.-
g rg
Q.. .,
a -
- - - - 3
'JI I.J 00 l"J (tl
: :~: 0 ~ a
v-,...,IO......'"
p-vgv-?)
g,~~~o
-<:: ::. v- Q.. 6-
~;:lI/J~s;
~;:9-~=c
~ 0
3
re
'"
I...> 0
- u.
...... ......
'" v-
p p
;:l ;:l
C. Q..
~ ~
p p
< ~
r' r' r' r' r' r' r' r' r' r' r'
~~ :D~~~~~~
?7~?~~99;?7~
~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
00 W
00 00
0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\
IJ IJ I-J I'...) 1--.) I...) IJ ,....) I'..) tJ I'.J
\0 \C \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \C \0 \0
-g-g-g-g~~~~~~ri
..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ...,
Q.. C. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~ ro 0 0 ~ 0 0 ro 0
-.
;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l
r~~rq erq e~~e~~
000;=>;=>000000
0\0\0\0\0\c,..,c,..,c,..,0\c,..,c,..,
.jO. .jO. .jO. .jO. .jO. .jO. .jO. .jO. .jO. .jO. .jO.
-o.g.g.g.g.g.g.g.g~~
o 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 (1) (11 (11 0
..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ...,
c. C. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q.. Q..
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(";)!::..(1l(1l00~C1l0!!.~
-. -.
;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l ;:l
feeeeeeeee/Q e
VJ ...... VI I'...) ...... tv -.) 00 00 VJ 1'-.,)
t-J ~ VI W ...... 00 N 00 ~ VJ 0
-.I tN v.,) \0 \0 \Q \0 Q\ VI W ..-
o 0, ~l 6 VI W ~ 00 ~ W I.J
00 -I- I ...> I ...> - -I- -I- \0 -I- -..J 00
W-V'tJ-N-J\OOOWN
Wo\o\.jO.h.l\O.jO.;=>-..Jwo
I"'> a, W W - :p. N tJ 0 \0 :p.
00 -I- IJ I"'> 0\ .jO. .jO. .jO. .jO. N 00
;=>oooooooo;=>;=>
NOOOONNNNNh.l
Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl
~?ON=Vl-JOO~~OOVl
_-..J \o!'.lN_wwO
:::joog;~oo~:::id~~id
OOON-;=>-..Jo;;[::;~OO~_
WOOOONo\WVtVt-..J:p.
NWNN-o\O\O\O\OON
;=>0000000000
-0000000000
VI 00 00 00 DO 00 00 00 00 00 00
;=>o;=>;=>;=>;=>o;=>;=>;=>;=>
tJ ...... ...... ...... ...... - --- ...... - - -
00000000000
-'J 0 l-J 0 0 VI l ' ........... ~ 0-. lj.)
'.;J 0' ....... \C ~ 4-- ~ ~ 6 ;..IJ 00
~;~~~~~~~~6
-;=>0;=>00---00
N - tJ - :::> a, :p. ~ a, 0\ :p.
::::;~c:~:::::=;~~~~~
-
:; ~
rq P
:::r ::1.
Rc i'i
o ~
:;l (ii'
~ g
(1)
~. n
;:l (1)
P ;:l
N (D
0:'
I...> , J
~ ;t
5' ~
~ -.
E:; ;:l
~ ~
a
~
-
-
-,-
~
re CIl.... trl
::l>-3-"'~
~ ~ a ;- ~
~ .:a' o' ::l S'
o ::l Q.. IJCl
.,
'Jl
~2~
~ ~ ;::.'
~ ~ Rc
to <
::-. Cd ....,
o a P
::l f:: ~
I/J r;
P I/J
r; S
'" ...,
~ (1)
N ~
W Iv
U. -I-
~ ~
;:l _.
~ ~
..., P
~e
o 10 ....,
...., a (1)
Z! 'J) ><
n IJl D
;;, ;< ~
5. n VI
o:::~
:;' t..J f./l
~~~
tt. ~ Q..
...... :;' ~
~~2.
;:l pi
~ e
...,
~
n::1~
~ ~ [
::r:: z Q..
2 ;:? D:
[Jl o' EJ
(U ::J ~
N ~ [Jl
OCdCd
...... P P
v- ;:l ;:l
p ~ ~
;:l ~
Q..-~
~ 0 _
<; 0 0
P
-<
~
......
'" ~
g; p-
Q.. g,
~ ~
l~ P
l-::' t$
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o 00
00 0\
1-.; ~
~ B
(tI :::-'
\0
IJ -..J
W N
~'9
v> (1)
- ...,
(1) 0
..., 0
~ 0
~~
\0
W
-..J
U;-2"
~ (1)
...,
(1) -
..., 0
P 0
q 0
~~
_ W
\0::;
"J _
- \0
-
N ~
W :p.
o -..J
o 0
N N
Vl Vl
.jO. ~
0000
o 0
W t;
00\
00 N
o 0
o 0
u. Vl
o ;=>
t-J t-J
o 0
;=> -I-
IJ ~
-
o :
o N
N iv
;=>00
0\ -..J
~~~E3C;;~
0-. -f.::.. - 0-. lJI 0
-.l +- v) 00 0\ ~
v, I;!: I;!: I;!: I;!: v-
~~r:--r:--,b
~, ~, ?" ?" ?" :::-'
tJ N -..J Iv U.
-..J -....l 0 UI
'-D \C -....l v) 0\
OO-l--....l~!j
;!:.' ;!:. ~
~~""'~I.P
:::-' ;::-, ;::-, ?" ?"'
ww-w::iwoow......w
-..J-..J\O-..J.jO.-..J\O\O-..JW-..J
\0 \0 -....l \0 00 \0 ~ ~ \0 Iv \0
Vl. Vl. t'-J VI VI VI +::-. -f.::.. Vl. t....) VI
---.- - --u
(1) ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -9 'g' 'g (1)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.....- ........ ........ ........
8888;;
00008
'" ~ I~ I~ v-
:-' r:-- r:-- ,b
o ;;
o 0
o 0
~
~ ~
- 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
8 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ?
;:;>
~
:::t':::t'~:::t';::<?,;:::t;;::::;;:::t;?':::-'
0\0!-"0-..J0~
:p..jO..jO..jO.N.jO.a,
........ -...... .- t.J,J
~.g.gIQ~'9~
(D (t) (t) (tl ""1 (tl ~'
""1 ""1 ""1 ""1 ........ ""1 ""1
~O\\OO\
~ ::: ~ :::
-2"~~~
~ ...., ...., ....,
?
~
;; 0;; _
o 0 0 0
o ~ 0 8
~ ~ .~ '"
:-' ...., ~ ,b
;::,::::r'::::r. :::t.:::::r';:::t;::p;::::;;:::t;:::t'
000
000
000
'" ? ?
o 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
B ~ ? ~
1'>J ........ - w id
.jO.
UI
I...>
I...>
.jO. W Iv Iv
\oO.jO.\O
O\O\OVl
0\ I"'> - -
\0---1-
N N
0\ -
00 j:3
\0 -..J
\0 UI
........ ........ -f.::.. -
Vl - 0 -..J
o -.l 1-..> iJ,
0\ IJ -..J -....l
W-NVll::ooOOO\.jO.:O~
O\OO.jO.WwW;=>N\OOO\
8~~~2i~::~~8;~
;=>;=>000000000
NNNNNNNNNOO
Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Ul Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl
VlNW-..JOOj:3-..JO\-..J_;;
W-..JVl\O::.jO.o\OWWVl
~\COWw VtO-..J:p.c,..,
-..JW-..J\Co::::iVlWOOVl.jO.
\o.jO.O\l::~~?U;j:3\O::::i
o -..J 0 :p. :p. \C 0 ~ :p. Vl 00
OONo\__-..JWOo\W.jO.
;=> ;=> ;=> ;=> ;=> ;=> 0 ;=> ;=> ;=> ;=>
Iv Iv I"'> Iv I'J Iv Iv IJ IJ N IJ
00;=>;=>0;=>00000
~J N t-J t-J t-J N l'J N i,....) t..J N
00000000000
0\ W -I- '-D ~ :;: ;0 -....l 00 - j:::;
VI :..- i J VI :..- \0 I -J I-J '-0 ~ --J
-
~b:~~~:~~:~:
-OO-.jO.NN---!'.l
-o,~c,..,oVt:p.\oVt--
'OO-f:::-'NN0.jO..jO.WN-W
~ -..J-....lNO-Vt\oo\
-
-
-
~ G' ~
o /q 0
_ ~ 0
VJ 'Jl P>
~ I/J ~
>:: >
~ ~
10 ::? ::?
(1) ;:l ;:l
~~~
(1) ~ ~
~. n n
.. a a
055
:;H< f<
n 'i:l ....,
(1) $:.l tTl
~;;i-n
Q.. 5' I/J
q rq (1)
=: -f.::.. ~
_ .jO. ('i'
Vl 0 (1)
n()~
a a .jO.
5. 5. 0
~~~
~~;:l.
I/J
::
~~~~~~~~
t;W-..JN_
-..J \0 00 00 u.
000 C;; ~ 8 o.jO.
o 0 0
v-l?~~l?
1O ..
? ;:::. :=r' ;::r, ;::. ? ? :=:-'
0\ .jO. -
0\ 0\ \0
o 0 \0
00 Q\ VI
v-l?l?
0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
\0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \C
WWWWWWWW
~lQtQtQlQlQlQlQ
('tl ('D ('D ('D (D ('D (tl ('D
""1 ...., ""1 ""1 ...., ...., ..., ""1
00000000
00000000
00000000
"'~~~$$$~
;::p ;:::to :4' ;::::; ? ;:::t; ::::r. ;::p
...... ...... ........ ...... ...... ...... - -
............--..............--
000000,-,0
VJlNWWWWWW
~.gglQlQlQlQ'9
(tl (tl (tl (tl (tl (D co (tl
..., ..., ""1 ..., ..., ..., ..., ""1
00000000
00000000
00000000
'Jl???l?l?~~
~;::P~~;::p;:r;::r-~
'-" '-" ~ '-" '-"
.jO.W-~N~-
~:::i:j:::i~\O
~~~~gC:
u. W
-..J Vl N
N;=>N
00000
\0 0 0
~.jO.OOW_
~wRi56~
~~8:~\O
W
00000000
00000000
Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl
f::3t;;0
~oooo
-..J -..J 00
-
Vl l:: ~ \0 Vl
56Vl' \00w
VtVl_
ggONO
W N
c,..,Vt
.jO. .jO.
-~!'.lt;U;0
o~;;:......~~
VI W.jO.
00000000
00000000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
;=> ;=> ;=> ;=> ;=> ;=> ;=> ;=>
00000000
-
:r:oW69-JE
VI i-J l-J I-J
-
!'.l :- ;=> 2S,' :- ~ \0 OVl'
W u' -..J \0 ..... 0 -..J
;=>O;=>~OW-;=>
UJN-,.....NNN-
O;=>;=>NO.jO._;=>
:p.W-tNwVt-
\0 ;;
~ 0\
o -
+- VI
-
O"'tl;?;?
a = .., ...,
~S2:~~
3 ;:;' ;:l ;:l
3 I:l:l rQ rq
(1) = r r
;:l ;?;?
~c:~~
Cd -. 00 -
E.~ 0 0
5-~g~
~Sari
00 I"l r.>
o ~ ~ ~
10 ~ '-' '-'
g ::l
(1) Q..
;:;l ()
I/J ~
~ ~
.,
'Jl
~ ~
-....l W
1'>J t'>J
Vl~
P P
n n
(1) (1)
v- v-
:~
.., ...,
'" -9
$:.l P
n n
~ (1)
o 0
-..J -..J
:::ri
.., ..,
v-
~
$:.l P
n n
(1) (1)
-..J W
N N
o 0
o 0
Vl N
o N
:p. :p.
o 0
o 0
o 0
Vl Vl
W -
c,.., 0\
o 0
Iv -
Vl -
N Iv
;=> ;=>
o 0
o 0
tv f..J
o 0
o 0
:..- IJ
o 0
~ W
-
'i:l
to
.,
:0;-
~'
'Tl
to
a:
;::,:
;;.
'"
>
3-:l
::J ~.
~
....,
a
E.
c: r
;:l P
;:l
v- Q..
c:
'"
(1)
.----
o
8.
'-< -:l
.g.
o
(1)
;:l
(1)
...,
f::
o'
;:l
'"0 C'
~ r;
~
::r::
a
c:
...,
o
,~ ~
..,
v-
a
;:l
'"0 ....,
g .g.
~ v-
::r::
a
c:
..,
-
>
0.9:
8. ~
--<8
Q..
'"0
'"0 ~
(1) v-
P a
~ ;:l
::r:: -:l
g .g.
..., v-
i-
o
....,
....,
~ -:l
(1) ..,
~ roo
g >
:;:;
I/J ;:l
g ~
on
a
;:l
o
::::: 0
~ ~.
~ :::-
a '"0
;:l (1)
...,
v-
a
I/J ;:l
(1) -:l
1;; ~.
g [Jl
-
o 'i:l
...., (1)
7' ~
;=> 0 I/J ~
W - g::r::
~ a
a c:
;:l ...,
EI!~
I/J 0
o 0 (1):
VI iv ~::;1
;:l t-O'
v-
I....
-
-
r
p
;:l
c..
c:
'"
(1)
-:l
'<
"0
(1)
f--
('j
t"'"
tr'J
>
~
~
>
~
tr'J
~
~
t"'"
~
~
~
I
~
o
I
O~~
S. t'li >
~>~
<('jt"'"
~=t'li
~~Z
~~O
~ -.
3001
'"0 tr'J UI
~~o
g>~
P...,ol~
aq.........o
~~--
tr'J
('j
o
z
z
>
-
rJ)
rJ)
>
Z
('j
tr'J
rJ)
~
~
o
~
-
'"0
n
'T1
*
-
-
-
*
'i:l
..,
o
'0
~
:J
~.
-<
n
~
'"
'"
2:
~
o
..,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>-1
..,
r9.
(")
E:..
o tT1 CIl ~ 0
g ~ g; p g.
1r~0.:?~
-. ~ 0 :J ::.
~ ~ 0 ~ :J
~~~~~g:'
~~!!.~O-<
~!!.~O[~
W--~[::[
::;;;to:::~:::
::r:: to ~. ~ to +-
3 :J. ::r to ~. ~
0. ~ ~ ~. ;:r :J.
~~~;:r~~
~ ~ ~ p.l .....
_'""1~ pjO~
- 0 ~ g
~ 3-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
~ ..... ~
:s >-l '" ><
~~;-~.
~ ii' &. S'
::; IJtI
CIl
'i:l >-1 to
~. ~ ~
p en to
:J ~ (il
~ ~ ~
o ~ ~
ro - ~
~ 0
+-~~[
~OVltT1~
v, W rn Vl _
g::3:~~r;
::r g ,~
0. 0 ~ ~~
2- @ - Q
~
O>>Vl>-1
< g 5 ~ 8
3 ",' ",- 0. ~
~. ~ ~ ~ ~.
~o~~5-
o [ ~ en
ro~~o~
N~(O~
~Vl"""_!!..
Nrnrn~
W 0
o
rn
~&:~~;,>
~;4P5o~
~ e- n -< :J :J.
1f&g~og
~ to g. 0 g ~
o C'tl ::s ~ cr
ro ~ ~ ~ ro g:
::r~0>-1[
::r::!!.VI'"
g n ~
Vl ~ 0
~ 0 ..,
+_ 0 g
1'-' ~ P
-..I -< 0.
'i:l g S
o ~
:i"
en
~
E
CIl 0
P.i 0
::s ~
::s ~.
3! 0.
p ~
~ ~
o ~
ro ~
~~~
~ ~ Cl
::r:: :J p;-
o to en
t:: ~ en
~ ~ ~
'7 ::r 0
S ~ ro
~ ~
~ !!.
~
~ ~
~
o
~oo
~rn
tT1 ~
VlVlQ
5::r~
(il Q
~ ~
~
t
o
~
P
:J
0.
p
~
r-::-
rn~~
Vl Q Q
g (D !:-
~
s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s::: s:::
:;0 :;0
o 0
o 0
3 3
en en
N - -- +_ - N-.l>-VlWNO>Noo
_ W VI -..I VI 0> 0> 00 .l>- 00 +>. +>. W '-0 0 VI N -..I 00 0> g NOW +>. VI 0
G' G' G' G' :;0 G' G' G' :;0 :;0 G' G' :;0 G' :;0 G' :;0 :;0 :;0 :;0 :;0 :;0 :;0 :;0 :;0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 000
3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
en en en en 3 en en en 3 3 en en 3 CIl 3 en 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl
'-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 '-0 ~ '-0 '-0
~~O>O>O>~~O>~~O>O>O>O>O>~O>~~~~O>O>O>O>O>O>
000000000000000000000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1
'""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2~~~~2~~~~~~~2~~2~2~~~~2~~~
000000900000000000099000999
~-..I~ ~~ ~-..I ~~-..I~~~~~~~-..I-..I -..I -..I ~~~-..I-..I-..I
W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
~gQ~~???gQg~~~~~~???????ggg
~ 0 (D 0 (D (tl (tl (tl (tl (D (tl (tl (tl (D (tl (tl (D 0 (tl (tl (tl (tl (tl (D (tl (D (tl
'""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1
'""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1 '""1
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2~~~~~~3~~~~~~~222~222~~2~~
N l~ ~ ~ ~ VI ...... ~ w ~ - - N 00 W ~ ...... ~ N - ~ N N ~ N ~
;::00000, -..1000, :::~o>~?,~~oo~~oov.-..I2:6~~~gg::5+>.2)2:6
~ 00 ~J v' 0> 00 ~ 00 ~ ~ 00 ~ 0 0 N 1'-' 00 0> 00' N 0 00 ~ 0 0
000000000000000000000000000
u; ~ w
~ ~ ~
- -- N N-NWN-+>.-v,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~
990009999900099999990009999
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N i,_, N N N N
VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI
Vl -.l ...... ...... ...... - VJ - \0 ...... l.;J W -.l ~ \0 - N ...... 0\ VJ ~ N -.l Vl U; 0\ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ g; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
wOO-O
ooV,\ON\O
WVl-OO-
._-N-:::'-NNO--.lO~
\o~-..I~v,v,v,~w\o-
o N 0> wO>O> 0> VI +>. 0 - '-0
-~N~'-OVI+>.=+>.:j;:
N-\oO~~N~V,~
oo-NO'-OooOooO>o
9 9 0 9 9 9 9 !=' 9 !=' !=' !=' !=' 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
...... -- - - ------- - - - - - -- -- - - -- -- ---
N N N 1'_' N I.J N N N N N N N N N N N N 1'_' N N N N N N N N
9 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 !=' !=' !=' !=' 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 9 9 9 !='
1'_' i,_, N N i,_, N N t'_' t'_' N N N N N N N N i,-, N N ~'-' N 1'_' N N N 1'_'
O>O-~J--+>.I'_'-N+_+_ON=-WI'-'oo+-- 000> -..II
o\o~O~~~WNWOO\o~;'I~v,o~~:~' . ~ ~
~ i,-,OO>O>~NO
(3 :: N W N N -..I W :: wO>O> :: +>. ~ N VI W ;:::; -..I ~ ~ :j;: = 2:5 N ~
~~~~~\o~oo~oo~~~WN~oo~~~~o~o~o~
o 9 9 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 9 0 !=' 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 00 - 0 0 - 0 -
~ -- -- N ~ -- ~ N - N W W -- N ~ -- ~ N ~ ~ 00 - ~ ~ ~ VI 00
99000000900090-000-0---9NON
oo-NWNN~W-WV,V,-WV,N~WO~:\o-oow\o\o
-
>
:;~
:J -.
_. '0
Q
c
s. r
en 5-
c
'"
~
-
o
~.
-<'>-1
g.
o
~
:J
~
..,
g
o'
:J
'i:l C'
g ~
;><;"
::r::
o
t::
..,
o
~;p
..,
en
o
:J
'i:l >-1
g 2,
;><;" I~
::r::
o
t::
..,
~
>
otE-:
e:. ~
'< Fe
0.
'i:l
'i:l ~
~ en
p 0
;><;" :J
::r:: >-1
g ~.
.., en
-
o
7i
~ >-1
~ .g.
o )>
:J ....,
:::<
Vl 2.
g -<
en
o
:J
o
....,
7'0
~ ~.
~ -<
o 'i:l
:J ~
..,
en
o
C/l :J
~ >-1
~ ~.
g CIl
-
o 'i:l
...., ~
7' p
Vl ;><;"
~ ::r::
~ 0
o t::
:J ..,
'i:l
~
..,
C/l en
~ 0
p :J
~ >-1
:J ~.
'"
'--
-
-
r
p
:J
c..
c:
V>
~
>-1
'<
'0
~
>-1
o
~
-
(]
~
~
>
~
~
>
~
~
~
~
~
e
i"rj
i"rj
I
l-3
o
I
O~l-3
s.~ >
~>~
:E(]~
~=~
C/)~z
'feo
(t) _.
3~0l
'ij~'-'
..,~O\
=1-<0
g>-'
..,~....
C1Q'"'--<O
(t):;:o---
~
(]
o
z
z
>
-
rJ1
rJ1
>
Z
('j
tfj
rJ1
l-3
e
~
~
'--
'i:l
n
'T]
*
-
. -
- - - - - - - - - I . \ , -
~
, ~
'"C l'll 'JJ t:l:I t'j
..., = ..., s- ~.
0 l'll l'll
"0 .., .., .... ~ 'Jl
(') ~ -6' o' ~ ....
::l .... ::l" S'
"- 0 = (JQ
..,
'< '"
r Cl -l C/J C/J Cl C/J C' tTl -l C/J CJ tTl CJ ;;>::: CJ ~ ::r: '\i -l CJ tTl C/J C/J CJ C/J CJ '\i -l t:ll 0 P P
~ " ..., " !oj 0 .... S ..., (1J 3; ~ 0 0 :J. 2- 0 ..., 0 OJ> ~ (1J 0 8 0 (1J 0: p q ::l ::l
v. :3 ~. 00 p 0: ::; < 0 @. ~ ;!; -s: 0 ;:; @ () () ::l ~ 2: ::l () o' (1J < ::l_ :::l
"- -2 Q :J. ;:D' p to ;0:-' 0: < ;>;" -Q 0. :? ;>;" OJ> t:ll :3 OJ> OJ>
;:r :j r, " v, ..., r, ;:: C/J =. ::: ~, ~ c:: () OJ> CJ =. ::l ~. ~ -2.
::l r, 00 C/J 0 :::r 0: (1J ::l :::l 3:: ..., 3:: 3::
p ..., .... p p ..., :::l ..., 0 n < (1J ~ :::l :Q 0. (1J
~ ~ 00 0 (1J 0 :s: 2- (1J ~
ni < ;:0 :s: :s: 0 ..., r' :s: (1J OJ> (1J :s: 0 (1J 0 0
C/J < ~. 0. :s: (1J 0. ::r: t:ll t:ll ~ N :s:
0 r_ OJ> (1l ~ p r; [ r;
..., r, ~ 3:: 3:: "- so. 0 - '<' 0 0 ..., :s: 0 :s: ~ :s: :s: 0 (1)
..., ~ :s: ..., r; :s: 0 5' (1J r; ..., < r; - 0
- < 0 0 +- [ 0' c:: r; 0 0 3::
0 ..., " :s: a. ::l t:ll OJ> (1J 3:: 0 0 ~ r; ~ ~
'~ r; ~ 0 0 r; :s: r;
:s: r; VJ r; (1J (1J N ~ r; r; 0
+- IJ - ~ r; 0 +:: r; +:: - (1J - 0 +:: 0 N +-
'jJ - IJ IJ 'J rn ~ - ~ :s: - r; 0 \0 r; - VI -
0 IJI " - - () - ~ 'J ~ r; - i: 0 +-
- IJ IJ --.J 0- 0 VJ -
n [ 'jJ - +- 'J :::r 0 - 0 - vJ V, tTl - IJ rn rn
0 ,-'"' n \0 - IJ - CJ C/J +- VI +- r; VJ - t:ll - VJ .j..>. 0 +- VJ
- --.J rn ~ n VJ a. - .jO.. - VJ tTl
..., - 0 n n a. ,-'"' (1l :::r - rn 0 :J. "J - VI Vl - tTl Vl C/J
0 'jJ ..., 0 0 'JI ... 0 \0 - 0 ::r: t:ll t:ll +- rn :::r - :::r :::r
::l 'jJ n 0 ..., ::r: 0 ..., rn rn Vl 0 +- ..., 'Q 00 0 ::r: Vl 0 0 0
00 'jJ :::l 2 CJ " C/J 0 ~ :J. ~ :J. ~ :::r rn C/J
0 0 00 ~ ~ :::r :::r Cl \0 :3 t:ll C/J ..., ..., ...,
C- ..., ~ :::l ~ C/J 0 V, :::l 'Q 'Q t:ll :3 0 (1J :::r (1J ~
0 n 0 0. ~ ~ :::l C/J 0 :::r @ c:: ~ 0. :::r ::: :J. :::r :J. :::r ..., - C/J 0 -
0 :::l S 0. 0. 0.. 0 :::r ..., 0 ~ Cl 0. (1l ~ po 'Q ~ 0. 0 ~ ...,
..., p c ~ ~ .s r; 'Q (1) ..., :::r ~
0 S (1J ~ ..., c:: ~ :::r ~ (1J 0
0 0. ..., ~ ::r
~ :::l (1J ;:D' :2 po ~ ~ po ~ ...,
:::l .s ~ ~ 0- 0- ~ ~
po s po
0. ;:D' ~ 0- ~ po
.s S ~ 0-
~
:s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s:
--.J a. 'J' 'J, - IJ IJ - - 'J V, 0- --.J - - 'J - IJ 1'-' VJ V, --.J V, a. - 00 +- 00 - - VJ
0 ,-'"' 'jJ a. +- VJ 0 0 V, VJ IJ - a. .jO.. .jO..
;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0
Q 0 0 0 0 Q Q 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:3 :3 :3 :3 :3 :3 3 3 :3 3 :3 :3 3 3 3 :3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
v. v- v, v, v- "- v, v, v- v- v- "- v- OJ> V> OJ> V> V> V> OJ> V> V> V> OJ> V> OJ> V> V> V> V> v- OJ>
\0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 :-0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 :-0 \0 \0 \0 \0
~ ~ a. a. a. ~ a. a. 0"- ~ ~ 0' a. a., a., a. a. 0\ a., 0\ 0\ a., a. a., 0\ 0\ 0\ a., a., a., a.,
co co co co co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r9 r9 ~ .g .g .g ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
"0
" " (1J (1l " (1J
..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ...,
..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., (; ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., a ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., a ..., ..., ...,
c 0 c 0 c 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Q 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2- 3 :3 3 3 ~ 3 ~ 3 2- 2-2- 2- ~ ~ 3 3 ~ 3 3 3 3 3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 :=> :=> 0 0 0 0 :=> c:> :=> 0 0 0 0 :=> 0 :=> :=> :=> :=> 0 0 c:> c:> c:> 0 0 0 :=> 0 0
--.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J ~ --.J ~ --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J --.J ~ ~ --.J ~ --.J
,~ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ VJ
.:g~ .:g ~ ~ ~ '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 '2 I? f9 f9 f9 :g :g :g :g '2 2' I? r2 r2 ~ '2 '2 '2 '2~
(') (1J (1l (1l (1J (1J (1l (1J (1J (1J (1l (1J (1l (1l (1l (1l (1J (1l (1l (1J (1J (1J (1J (1l (1J (1J (1J (1J (1J (1l (1l
..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..... ..... ..., ..., ..... ..... ..., ..., ..., ..... ..... ..... ..., ..., ...,
a ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., a ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., a ..., a ..., ..., ..., a a ..., ..., a a ..., ..., ..., a a ..., ..., ...,
C Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 3 :3 :3 3 3 3 3 :3 :3 3 3 ~ ~ 3 3 3 :3 :3 3 3 :3 :3 3 3 3 ~ ~ 3 3 :3 3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0"- 'J, +- +- \0 'J IJ - - 'J +- v, 0\ \0 \0 N - N N 'J .j..>. 0\ +- v, - --.J VJ --.J - - IJ
1-' 'J v, 'jJ IJ +- 'J - 0 v, VJ VJ
~l -,J 00 00 0\ c:> 0 tjJ +- :=> 00 --.J --.J 0\ 0\ 0 +- - - 00 00 --.J 00 --.J vJ 0\ 00 0\ .jO.. +- 00
IJ 0"- 6 g 6 00 00 a., ~ 00 6 0\ IJ 6 6 6 00 'J a., 00 6 IJ 6 a., a., 00 ~ 00 ~ ~ 00
co co co co co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'JI +- w ,~ --.J - - - - - VJ +- v, --.J --.J - \0 - - !" VJ v, VJ f'- - v, 1'-' VI - - !"
0\ 0\ - 0 0\ 00 0\ VI - :=> :=>
- VJ 0"- a., ,~ a., 0\ w - W w :.. - 0\ - 0\ VJ a., 00 \0 (Xl -
- 00 'J, 'J, 0 --.J --.J IJ --.J v, (Xl - 0 0 'J \0 0 VJ \0 v, - v, (Xl +- IJ .jO.. IJ 1'-' \0
\0 \0 00 IJ \0 v, 0\ VJ (Xl IJ IJ
0 :=> 0 0 :=> 0 0 c:> :=> c:> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c:> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 6 6 1'-' N i,-, ,'-' N N 6 6 0 0 0 N N i,-, N N N 1'-' N N N N N N N 1'-' N
VI VI v, VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI
VJ I.J N N N VI VI VJ VJ VI N N VJ .jO.. .jO.. a. VJ VI Vl --.J - - - - VJ - \0 - VJ VJ --.J
.jO.. Vl v, (Xl VJ Vl 0 - N 0 N 0\ N .jO.. (Xl \0 \0 VJ VJ
VJ (Xl :.. :.. 0 N N :.. 0, N :.. (Xl w (Xl (Xl 0 N (Xl :.. 1-.) 0 (Xl 0 :.. :.. N 0\ N 0\ 0\ N
0\ (Xl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Xl 0\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 :=> :=> - +- +- 1'-' N +- :=> :=> 0 0 0 .jO.. N +- VJ 0 0 - 0 - N - 0 - N N 0
N 1'-' - - 00 N N \0 U, N - IJ N VJ VJ U, W 0 (Xl U, \0 N \0 - \0 :.. ~ :.. u, VI U,
0\ N (Xl (Xl VJ 0 0 N 0\ 0 (Xl IJ 0\ --.J --.J 0\ --.J N VJ VI - (Xl - 0 N 0\ w 0\ 0\ 0\ Vl
:=> :=> :=> :=> 0 :=> c:> :=> :=> :=> :=> :=> :=> :=> :=> 0 :=> :=> :=> c:> :=> :=> :=> :=> :=> :=> :=> c:> c:> :=> :=>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IJ IJ IJ IJ 'J IJ IJ IJ 'J IJ IJ tJ IJ IJ IJ 'J IJ IJ IJ "J IJ 1'-' 'J 1'-' 'J 'J 1'-' 'J "J 1'-' IJ t
0 0 0 0 :=> :=> 0 0 0 :=> 0 0 0 :=> 0 0 0 0 :=> 0 0 :=> 0 0 0 0 :=> :=> 0 <::> :=>
iJ IJ IJ IJ ,'-' 1'-' 'v iJ 1'-' IJ IJ I'J i.J IJ IJ IJ ~,J N tJ N iJ IJ i,-, IJ iJ i,-, IJ N iJ tJ 1'-' i
0 <::> 0 0 ,-' a. 0- +- +- 0- 0 0 0 0 0 --.J vJ 0\ 0\ 0 - 1-' - - +- IJ - IJ +- +- :=> !
~ ,~ 'J.J VJ \0 a., a., 0\ 0 a., VJ w :.. a., a. iJ ~ VJ 0 \0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0\ VJ 1'-' VJ 0 0 \0
0 0 0 0 .jO.. - - --.J 0- - 0 0 0 - - - 0\ - - - N VJ 1'-' 1'-' --.J VJ - VJ 0 0\ -
- - - N 0 :=>
~ a., u, v, (Xl 6 6 --.J --.J 0 U, a., ~ 0 0 6 N a., - :.. :.. :.. :.. \0 --.J (Xl \0 (Xl --.J ~ :..
0 0 0 0 :=> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :=> 0 0 :=> 0 0 c:> :=> 0 :=> :=> 0 :=> :=> 0 :=> :=> :=>
0 0 0 0 N v, v, :.. VJ u, 0 0 0 0 0 u, w U, U, - - N - - :.. N - N VJ VJ -
0 :=> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :=> :=> :=> :=> :=> :=> 0 0 :=> c:> :=> 0 c:> 0 :=> 0 :=> c:> :=> 0 0 :=>
- 0 co 0 ~ 00 00 0\ v, (Xl 0 0 - - - \0 v, (Xl 00 - IJ VJ i-.) N 0, VJ - VJ VI VI -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C/J -l -l Z C/J C/J :; P Cl Cl C/J t:ll CJ ~
~ ..., ..., 0 (1l c:: 3 p- o (1) P
:::l P po ;:; P :::l 0 0: < ~ ::;
0. 0. < n :::l (1l V> () '"
(1J (1J :::r < ::l ..., OJ> (1J Cl :::r v;-
:? ~. ro- ;;;.; p o' :::l 5'
:s: CJ ::r: ~ -l ~
..., po p 0 t:ll V> :::l
(1J :::l :s: ~. 0 0 ::l c:: '" 0
..., 0. t:ll c:: ~ (1l ::: :=..
V> :::l r; v- ~ :s:
:s: 0 (1J 0- ::r: (1l () (;> 0 l'll
:s: p ...,
r; () :s: r0- o 3:: :::r 0 v- 0 v;-
0 r;
r; 0 :::r 0 -l [ 0 :s: :s: n
[ +:: r; 0 n
::r: VI ..., r; 0 0 0
0 (1J 0 r'
~ 0 n (1) [ tJ ;;; 0
~ (Xl c:: +:: ..... ~ p
0 V> 0 t tJ VI 0 :::l
0 0 rn (1J 0 ..., N ::l c..
0\ 0 ,'-' Cl I.J po
rn C/J +:: CJ :::l 0 \0 0 0- c:
rn c::
:::r IJ (1) ~ :s: Cl \0 0 v-
C/J C/J 0 --.J < 0- c:: Cl <' Cl (\>
:::r ..... 0 .s ~
0 :::r (1) '\i ~ ::l ~ c:: ;:D' c:: -l
@ 0 ~ 9. 0- S '-<
..., po ;:D' <' <' "0
(1J ::l (1J
V> P S ;:D' ;:D'
~ :E :E
g ~
\0
;:0
:s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s: :s:
-l
:J.
"0
(Xl
a.
+-
o
+- N +- VI VJ N 0\ 1'-'
0 VI N --.J (Xl 0\ 0 1'-' 0 VJ .jO.. v,
;:0 ;:0 0
;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 r' (1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 po
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :::l t""
:3 3 3 3 3 :3 0 3 :3 3 3 3 0-
v- OJ> '" V> V> V> 3 V> V> V> V> V> C ~
V> V> >
(1l ~
~
>
~
~
~
-l ~
:J.
t""i
~
~
~
I
~
;:0 0
~ I
;;; O~~
S. trj >
~>~
:;: (1t""i
~ =~
'-<
C/)~Z
'fc::O
VJ N VJ +- N 1'-' 0\ 1'-' (1) _'
+- 0\ (Xl 3~Ut
(Xl (Xl --.J 0\ VI +- \0 (Xl ,'-' +-
+- 6 VI i,..) (Xl w 0 \0 (Xl :=> +- 0 '"O~.--
6 'J 00 a., S 'J 6 00 ~ 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~'1
:::; 0
g>~
~~l--'
1'-' (Jq 0
1'-' VJ (Xl ~ N \0 w N .jO.. (1) ~'-'
\0 ~ 0 N --.J 0\ 0\ (Xl
'J 0\ :.. 0, 0 \0 \0 --.J ~ IJ trj
0 v, a. +- (Xl 0\ 0 \0 1'-' VI
0 (1
0
0 :=> :=> 0 0 c:> :=> 0 0 0 :=> 0 Z
N N N N N N N N N N ,'-' N Z
Vl Vl VI Vl Vl VI Vl Vl Vl VI Vl Vl >
-
\J)
\0 N 0\ VJ \0 --.J VI 0\ \J)
0\ N v, >
0\ N (Xl ?' --.J (Xl 0 +- N VI VJ 0
6 0 (Xl (Xl N :.. 0 (Xl 0 N 0\ 0 Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1
trj
--.J \J)
--.J 0 !" ~ N VJ \0 VI +- +- ~
VJ \0 N \0 0 :.. :.. N a., u, c::
0 \0 (Xl N 0 \0 (Xl 0 (Xl 0\
~
~
:=> :=> :=> c:> :=> :=> c:> :=> :=> :=> :=> :=>
1'-' 1'-' 1'-' 1'-' tJ 1'-' N N IJ tJ ,'-' "J
0 0 :=> c:> 0 0 c:> 0 0 0 c:> c:>
i,-, i,-, IJ N 'J IJ N i,-, N N 1'-' 1'-'
0\
Vl
--.J
o
N
VI
N
0\
o
0\
+-
o
j
o
'-'
W l....J ;JO f- Ul VI 00 0\. 00 -.J
O\u,~VIO O\NOO\O\:"'J
.J
.jO..:-oNVIVJVJ--.J\O~.jO.. 2:3N
VJ N :.. (Xl :.. :.. --.J ~ 6 :.. 0 --.J 6
o
N
0 :=> :=> 0 0 0 (Xl 0 0 0
\0 VJ N 0, :.. (Xl ~ u, :.. u,
'\i
(1J
...,
'"
0
0 0 :=> 0 .jO.. 0 ,,-, 0 ::l
VI N :.. VJ 0 0, 0, \0 00 W \0 -l
:J.
o
VJ
-
-
'"0
...,
o
'0
<1>
::l
~.
<<
n
"'
C/.
0/'
J1
r,
0'
...,
-
-
_._.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*
o
III rJl trl
::: ..., S' t:l:l :><
~-s,..~~.
~ ~. o' n 50
o :::::r (IQ
;;l
::r: p en t;:j
~. ~ g g
::::r ('tl n
C/) 0 v, ::r
~ ; Gl 8
5 ~ IJJ 3
~ ::l t;:j ~
f.JJ ~
IJ -<~.
~t3:5
n :: 0 ~
~ l-J ~ ~
5 S 'Jl
E. n .jc..
o c ~
...., 9.
o ::l
::l 0/'
& ~
2- E
~ 3:: CJ
" "' 2
~ 5. Ie;
::r "' en
...-: ~ ~
v, < ....,
n en <1>
~. ~ ~
,.. ......,.... 0\
~
::: Q 3::
t;:j .jc.. 5
::: \0 0..
:3 \0 ~
o '/ ~
~ ~ -'
0..
~
~
~
::r: 7l en
~. en ~
3" ::r "
~ 5'-
::l 0 t;
'Jl ~ 00
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
..., .jc.. ~
~ I'J i3"
;a 3:: <
~ 5
.l- 0..
~ p
i3"
<
~
'"0
()
r:;"
~
::l
::::
~
;>;-
en
::r
i8
.l-
00
'jJ
3:: :!1 :P. ~
(tI 'Jl rtl ('tJ
9-: ::r :"0 ;:;
;:; 3:: p ::r
~ Eo; ~ ~
g :: g' g
::l I"J ~ 0......
en~~
g 0 n 8..
'Jl - D
t.~~~
IJ P ~ CT1
'<, < ::: .
~ t;:j t;:j [:9
e-K~@
~~~~
-:..-
~~
:E ~
~ V>
~ 0
n :1.
~
ro'~
-.p:~
- '"0
0-, 9.
m ~
~ ~
s; E
(1)
~
I"J I"J
\0 \0
U, ~
3:: 3::
5 5
0.. 0..
~ ~
~~
3:: 3::
~ ~
::l ::l
0.. 0..
~ ~
i3" i3"
-< <
~ ~
3::
~
::l
0..
~
r[
3::
~
::l
0..
~
~
-:..-
3::
5
0..
~
i3"
..:S
<"
po n
::l S;
0.. 0
~ ::l
- ~
~ 0..
-:..-2-
'<'
po
::l
0..
~
~
3::
~
::l
0..
~
g
3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3::
- I..) \0 - ~ I"J VI \0 00
~~~~~~~8~
.D D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
stj~~
~~~ti
V> I~ I~ ~
~ r:-' r:-' 7"'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
\0 I'..) I"J - I"J
~ool'..)o-,
-I>- I'..) I"J :5; VI
Iv I"J \0 IJ 0-,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"""NW;:3NN
~~~I"J::::j
VlOI'-'~I'..)~
~ I~ I~ V> i~ ~
~r:-'r:-'fOr:-'7"'
;::<~=-'??"'??"'?'??
- VI N W
~ I"J 00 ~
I"J I"J 0 0-,
\00000
.p .D .p .p
--\oU,1'..)
- I"J 0 U, VI
I"J -I>- I'..) -I>- 00
OO-l>--.jc..O
~~~~.D
-\o-I>-I"J
--I>-~\O
-I>- 0 u, ~
OO-l>-.jc..
.p ~ ~ ~
'j) 'JJ 'JJ Ij..) l-J-J ::i v..) W :::i IJJ W W ::::i w I~ W :::J w l.;J W W W W W W W W W W wow W W W w ::::i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \0 ~ ~ \0 ~ ~ ~ \0 ~ ~ ~ \0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6; ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
]~~~~~~~9~~~~~~~9~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~
. ...., ...., ...., ...., ~ ...., ...., ~ ...., ...., ...., ~ ...., ...., ...., ~ ...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ~ ...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ~
~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ,..... - ,..... - - - - - - - - -
o coo coo 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000
.D.p.D.p~~~~~~~~~?~.p.p.p~~~?~~.p.p~~~~D~?~~~.p
======22~==SSS2=~22=S========2=S=S==~
0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, ~ 0-, 0-, ~ 0-, 0-, 0-, ~ 0-, 0-, 0-, ~ 0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, 0-,0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, 0-, ~ 0-, 0-, 0-, ~ 0-, ~
::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ~ ::: ::: ~ ::: ::: ::: ~ ::: ::: ::: ~ ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ~ ::: ::: ::: -I>- ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~?~g~~~~~~~gg~~~~~~?gggg~~
...., ...., ...., ...., ...., ~ ...., ...., ~ ...., ...., ...., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- - -----
8888808808880888088888888888880888880
0000080080008000800000000000008000008
~~~D?.p~~.p~.p~.D~~?~~~~~~~~?~~~.p~~~~~?~~
;::. ;::< ;::::-. ::::-. ::;:- :...,., ;::; ? ~ :::- ? ? .....,. :=- ::P ::::-. :...,., ~ ::P ;:p ;:::< ;:p ;::; :::+- ;::; :=t:. ;::p ;::; ;::p ~ ;:P??:::-;:P
------.--s~------~-------------E-----~
~~~~~~g~~t:=:
~~~o+----8~~-::og
lJJ +___
W\o W-JV1+::..-Wlvlv- w-- -
~ 'e 23 ~ 0-, t. ~ ~ ~ ~ :=: ~ t ~ g'5 ~ g; 23 ti
~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ti ti ~ s:: ~ ~ ~ tj ::: ::: u: ~ $
~-\OO\N+::"O\
~~~6~~~
~Iv-O~o-,I"J
~ ~ VI ~ ~ w ~ ~ -J 00 VI ~ ~ 0\ ~ \0 -J N 0\ ~ I~ N -J 0\ W N 0-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =
- \0 ~ I..) 9 I"J 9 0-, ~ 0-, v' I'..) .~ 0-, ~ I"J VI 0-, ~ ~ 0 0 VI v' I"J ~ v.
~~vl~_\O~OOW~~OOI~~I~\OS::W~I-~w~b~iv~~~~N_W~-U"
I"J I'..) ~ I"J ~ I"J 00 I'..) -I>- -I>- VI ~ 1'-' I"J 0-, 00 00 00 VI ~ ~ v' ~ I"J 0-, 00 -I>-
-
I"J 00 _
;I'- I'..) \0
::io~
0000000000000 - 9 99 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 99 9 0 0 0 0 0
ceo 0 0 coo 0 0 iJ i,-, iJ 0 1'-' rJ rJ I'J I..) 1'-' 00 00 iv t..) iJ i,-, r..) 1'-' I'..) 1'-' 1'-' I'..) 0 0 0 0 0
VI ~ VI ~ VI ~ ~ ~ VI ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ VI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- oor..)--~ _ool'..)\O\O_--I"J\OI'..)I'..)-I>-_oo-l>-I"J_I'..)I"JI"J1'..) -I'..)I"J
~ :: ~ 6 c: ~ :; 6 6 ~ I'..) VI ~ 0 ~ ;D ~ ~ -I>- 0-, \0 ::: 0 0 \0 VI ~ VI -I>- :: ~ VI t I"J 9 ;I'- I"J
VI I..) ., 0 ~ 0 ~ _ _ 0-, ~ VI ~ _ " ~ I"J ~ 0-, ~ ~ N 0 00 -00 -0 ~ 0 I"J ~ _ ~ _ ~ -_ I"J ~
.~ v' ~ VI \0 I'..) ~ ~ -I>- -I>- \0 \0 00 0 00 I'..) 0 -I>- 00 .~ 0-, I"J 0 -I>-
c: ::3 I'..) c: w ~ :; 6 w 0 !'-' ~ t c; v; I"J ~ ~ VI c; :j t3 0-, - v; ~ 0-, I'..) ;I'- VI ~ -I>- 0 0 :; ;I'- VI
I"J 0 ~ - ~ VI 0 -I>- R'3 ~ v; ~ ::? ~ ~ ~ v; t3 ~ ~ :: ~ j ~ ::? Ri :j ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 0 ~
9999 9 ~ 9 9 9 999 9 999 9 99 9 99999 999 9 0 9 99 9 9 9 9
IJ 1'-' IJ I'J IJ 1'-' 1'-' 1'-' I'..) I'J 1'-' I'..) I..) IJ I'..) I'..) I'..) I'..) I'..) I'..) I'..) I'..) I'..) I'..) I'..) r..) I'..) I'..) 1-..) I'..) I'..) I'..) 1'-' I'..) I'..) I'..) I'..)
0990000000990000009900999999000009999
I..) tJ I-J i~ IJ i-...J I~ iv tJ l-J I"'> l-J i-J i...> i--J iJ t-J IJ l-..J l-..J l-"; I"'> 1'.J l-J Iv I-...J IJ l-J tv ~ t'J iJ N N N 1--"> N
o 0
~ iJ,
~ E ~ t ;-: :~ ~ 'jJ ;: E ~ E :: ~~ ~ ~ t
o 0
VI ~
- IJ +-
I..> '" 0
- I--..J I..;.J f'o'J I"J
00 \0 00 ~ :.-
=~~f--
~~_OO!J.J
- VI .J;;;..
e :.- G,
99I"J9~VlI'..)I"JV;eN~~~~W~~0-,~t~001'..)~\o~I"J-I>-o-,~~09I'..)-I>-o-,
0-, 00 VI 0-, _ ~ 0 0-, ~ ~ 0-, _ ~ ~ ~ 00 I"J '" \0 I"J \0 I'..) 0 I'..) 00 0 ~ 0 \0 I"J N - '" ~ 0 \0 ~
9 9 0 9 - 0 0 0 - 0 9 - VI I'..) - 0 I'..) I'..) 9 I'..) +- ;I'- 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 9 0 9
- - ~ - ~ ~ N ~ ~ 0 I"J ~ I"J 0 ~ ~ ~ I"J ~ 0 ~ - 00 Iv 00 \0 00 I"J ~ 0-, : ~ ~ ~ I'..) ~ ~
9 0 0 9
- - ~ -
rJ - 0 0 I'..) 9 0 I'..) 00 I"J I"J 0 -I>- I"J - I"J ~ 0-, - 0 I"J
~ 0 I"J ~ 00 - ~ ~ 00 I"J - ~ 00 '" i,-, I"J ~ 00 ~ ~ 0
-~00999-
-1'..)~iv-I"JooN
~ :: ~ ~
-
-
-
~ ~
a S1:
(1) r;.
~ t:l:l
* t:
c:
~.
:" t3 I"J 0
000;
~:r::\O[:
:::l p n
,.., 3 S;
D: 0.. 0
~ (1) ::l
::: ::l g.
0.. 0
(j
III
:::
....
III
.,
[/l
I'..) 1'-'
I"J 0
~ I..)
I"J 0
~~
..., ...,
~ ~
n n
..., ...,
(1) '"
~ '-'
3:: 3::
o 0
~ N
o \0
~ ~
n n
..., ...,
(1) (1)
-
VI -
o N
o VI
~~
~ ...,
~ ~
n n
..., ...,
~~
\0 VI
I"J 00
~ 0-,
0-, 9
OI"J
o 0-,
o 0
o 0
\0 VI
I"J 00
~ 0-,
0-, 9
o I"J
o 0-,
o 0
o 0
~ ~
Vl Ul
99
o 0
~ :.-
o 0
~ ~
o 0
VIO
w ~ ::r:
p ::J ~
en 0.. III
~ 3 Vi"
..., ~ :::-
'7 ::l
~ ?" 0'....
o .:::.
;:; S III
- (1) c:ii"
3:: 3::
I'..) N
o 0
:;0 :;0
o 0
o 0
3 3
V> V>
\0 \0
0-, 0-,
o 0
~~
..., ...,
..., ...,
o 0
o 0
3 3
~ ~
o 9
~ ~
I"J I"J
~~
'" (1)
..., ...,
..., ...,
o 0
o 0
3 3
\0 \0
1'-' 1'-'
o 0
o 0
-I>- ;I'-
0-, 0-,
o 0
o 0
o 0
VI UI
\0 \0
~ 0-,
o 0
9 0
~ ~
I"J I"J
9 9
I'..) I'..)
o 0
tv iJ
i-..J IJ
'" '"
9 9
~i~
p
::1 ....,
::J .g.
0.<
....,
o
~
c: l'
::l ~
- ::l
V> Q.
c:
V>
'"
-
o
f::.
'-< ....,
~.
o
'"
::l
(1;
...,
-g.
o
::l
'"0 C'
g r;
;>;-
::c
o
>=
...,
o
f::.
,:z ;:p
...,
V>
o
:J
'"0 ....,
g ~'
;>;- V>
::c
o
'"
...,
-
p
CJ~
8. ~
-<';:;
0..
'"0
'"
'"0 ...,
(1) V>
p;; 0
;>;- ::l
::r: ....,
g ~.
..., V>
-
o
.....,
......
c:n ....,
~ r3'
g );.
3
en ::l
(1)
PJ -<
V>
o
::l
o
......
7' 0
K' f::
r;; <
o '"0
::l (l>
...,
V>
c
en ::l
2 ....,
V> ~.
g V>
-
o '"0
...... (1)
7' ~
en ;>;-
2 ::c
V> 0
o >=
::l ...,
'"0
(1;
...,
en V>
(1; 0
~ ::l
:s ....,
::l ~.
V>
-
-
-
l'
p
::l
0..
c:
~
(1;
....,
'<
'0
(1)
-
('j
t""4
~
>
~
~
>
~
trl
~
eo
t""4
~
~
~
I
~
o
I
Oeo ~
::.~ >
~> eo
~('jt""4
~=~
~C1Z
~~O
(1) _.
3~Ul
>-cJ ~ ,.-.,
p.o~OO
q<o
g>~
p.o~~
(Jq'-<"'O
(1)~'-'
~
('j
o
z
z
>
-
rJl
rJl
>
Z
('j
~
rJl
~
~
~
~
-
'"0
n
"11
*
-
~
Q
;:J
~
rJl
~
U
Z
~
rJl
rJl
~
~
z
z
o
u
~
__~<l.l
o~~
~~c:::
~>o
0.....1-
Q\ r~1 (;j
'-" _ 0...
l.()QE
. ~ <l.l
O;:Jt;;
Z~~
~=~
~U~
~~~
~ ~.-
~~;:l
,0
o
~
,
~
~
;:J
~
~
~
~
Eo-<
~
~
~
~
~
~
U
-
~t
f-< ~ 0 0 0 0 r--: \0 '"': 0 00 N 7 \0 I"- --:t: --:t: 00
-.ci - r<) N - 00 '-c: 0 ..,t
c: ('j ci ci ci ci '" - ci ci ci ci ci ci 00 ci ci 00 ci \0 -
o v 7 r<) - '" - r<) 00 - -
V) U) '"
....
v
0....
.... c:
::l 0
0 V)
::r: ('j 0 0 c: 0 00 r<) '-c: l"-
V \0 c: 7 - N r<) - r--: - 0 N 7 I"- 0 0\
~ U) ci ci 0 ci N 00 ci '" ci ci ci ci ci ..,t ci ci ci - N 00
('j ~ N - N 0 0\ N N
V "- -
0.... 0
-
.9- c: 00
0 r<) (<"I r<) 00 "':
V) \0 \0 \0 \0 ~ <'-! r<) "! 00 N '-c: r--: \0 '"': r<) ..,t I"- '-c: 00
'- ('j ci ci 0 ci V) N ..,t ci ci ci - ci l"- V) ci 00 00 00
f-< V \0 '" - - - 0 I"- - -
- - - \0 0
c: U) N V) r<)
0
V)
....
V c:
0.... 0
..2: ~ "7 "7 "7 "7 '-c: 01 I"- \0 r-! r-I
'03 V -.ci 0\ - \0 - r<) "7 - 00 00 - r<) 00 r-I
Vl ci ci ci ci N ci r...: ci ci ci ci ci ci -;: r<) ci 0\ I"- r-I
Cl ~ r<) r-l r<) 'n r<) 'n rl - I"-
'- - I"-
0
-
c:
0 - - - - r<) r<) 0! N
.q V) ('J l"'! N N 01 N 0! - r-! r-,! l"'! r-~ N N r<)
('j ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0
c: Vl
!,::
'- c:
<( 0
9 ~ V) 'n 'n 'n V) V) 'n 'n
.... V r- r- r- r- - - - - - - - - - - - N V) V) 'n 'n V) V) r-
f-< Vl 0 0 c: c: ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci c: 0 0 c: 0 0 0 0
~ ci ci 0 0 0 ci ci 0 ci ci ci ci
"-
0
-
.9- ....
::l
0 N 00 0 0 0
.... ::r: \0 \0 \0 \0 r<) c: - 00 0 - \0 0 r<) 00 0 c:
f-< 00 0 7 r<) 7 "! - c:
r<) r<) r<) r<) N "': N 0\ 00 00 '-c: "! r--: \0 - <'-! l"'! l"'! \0
c: ~ ci ci 01 0\ ..,t ci \0 0 r<) N
('j 0 0 V) N \0 - N 0 0 ..,t 00 0\ 0 r<) r- -
0 - - 7 N 7 V) l"-
V) V - 7
.... 0.... -
V
0....
-0 0 0
8 ..2:' 0 0 V) 0 0 c:
V) \0 \0 \0 \0 '-c: "': V) 0 0 V) 0 V) 0 V) 0\ \0 - c: r<) 0 N
.~ '03 00 00 00 00 - N c: '"': '-c: c: 00 0; l"'! r--: "! '-c: N \0
r- 7 ,....; 7 r<) r<) 0\
-0 a V) 'n V) V) - r- 0\ \0 - N 7 0 I"- 00 V) \0 \0 r- r<) 0\ 7 N
r- r<) V) 00 r- 0
<( N - V) r<) 0
- N -
-
* 'n V) V) V) 0 0 V) V)
u... V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) 0 V) V) V) 0 0 0
U N 0 01 c: 00 00 0 N N 0 0 c: c: 0 N N 00 N 0! N 00 00 00
0.... 0 ci ci 0 ci 0 ci ci ci ci ci 0 0 ci ci ci ci ci 0 ci 0 ci ci
-
....
::l
0 \0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
::r: N \0 N 7 \0 - V) \0 - \0 \0 7 0 r<) 0 0 c:
'"': 00 l"'! - c: 0; 0;
0; Of! - ci N 00 0\ r-..: ci r<i Of! - ..,t 00 ci "! V)
g ~ - V) N 'n 0\ V) N 0\ \0 00 \0 - r<) \0 N v) 01 ci - 7
('j - - - r<) 'n - r<) r- 7 I"- -
V - - - - 'n - I"- 'n
f-< 0.... r-I
c:
0
V) 0
.... \0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0
V 2:' I"- \0 r-I 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 - ~ 0 c:
0.... 00 0; c: c: 0 0 c: I"- r-I c: r<) 0 c:
- r<) 0 c: c: c: c: - r<) ci 0
'03 00 0 v) ci N 00 r<) 'n ..,t 00 r<) r<i 00 \0 \0 0\ r-
a V) r- - 00 00 \0 r<) 0 r- 'n r<) 0 0 0\ r<) "7
- N 'n N N 'n 00 - r-I r-I - r-I 00
- N N - N r- N - r<) ('I 7 N
7 r<) -
I-
e;; bi, w e;; ~
'0 ~ ~ ~ ~ '0 /""' ~ '0 ~ <t ~
c: c: c: c: V V V V '0 V V V '0 c: ~
.... u u u u u u u u u u u ~ c! OJ ~ ~ ~ ~
::l V V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !? !? ~ ~ !? ('j '- V OJ OJ V
V OJ g U V) .... u .... .... ....
0 ;;: ;;: ;;: ;;: 0. ('j 0 u ('j u u u
::r: V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) ('j r::l r::l
-0 -0 -0 -0 '- '- '- .... .... '- '- '- .... .... .... '- .... 0 '-
E: E: 0 '- E: '- '- '-
~ .... .... .... .... E: E: E: E: E: ~ ~ E: E: ~ OJ ~ E: ~ ~
r::l 3 E: E: OJ 0. -
OJ OJ ~ '-
Cj 0.... ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\ V) ~ V)
r--: l"'! 'f"] N 0 0 0
C>!: 7 7 7 7 r- l"- I"- r- r- r--: r--: r--: r- l"- I"- V) 'n V)
c: \0 \0 \0 \0 ci ci ci ci 0 0 0 0 0 ci ci - - 7 -
ci ci r<) \0
.2 0 0 7
Cj
....
OJ
c: ~ e;; e;; e;; ~
OJ 01 ,-., ~ ~ '0 '0
lJ c: c: ~ c: ~ '0 '0 ~ '0 '0 0 ~ <t '2 0
V OJ OJ OJ OJ ~ '0 ~
.9 u u u u u u u u u u u OJ 0 OJ OJ OJ
V V ~ ~ g g g g g g ~ g ('j .... .... OJ .... .... .... ....
.... OJ OJ 0. u u V) .... u u u u
f-< ..2:' ;;: ;;: ;;: ;;: V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) ('j ('j 0 U r::l ('j r::l ('j
'03 -0 -0 -0 -0 .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 0 V) .... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... ~ ~ E E E ~ ~ ~ E E V E E 0 g ~ ~ ~ ~
Cl ~ ~ ~ OJ 0. -
~
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl r-I .... rl 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~
0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: -.ci \0 00 ci 0 0 0
l"'! l"'! N N - r-I 'n N r<) r<) r<)
- - - - - - - - - - - r<)
\0 \0 -.ci -.ci 0
7
-
V
V) V) V) ~I V)
::J OJ V) V) V) V) V) V) V)
01 c: OJ V U V V V) V) V) V) V) OJ OJ V V <t c: V V V V
-0 c: c: c: u u u u V OJ V OJ V U U '- .... .... .... .... ....
~ g g .~ ~ u u u u u ,~ ('j u u c! V U U U U
c: n:; .~ .~ ~ .~ g <( <( V <( <( <( <(
('j '2 v V v V) ....
..J ;;: Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl u
::J ;;: ;;: ;;: U) U) U) Vl U) r<) r<) - U) \0 00 r<) 0\
c; a a a a N 00 r<) 'n 7 \0 r<) 0 r- oo r<) "': - \0 \0 ci --:t: N
I"- - 00 00 N N V) 00 - 'n r<) - ..,t \0 01 ci - - 7
(5 r<) 7 7 00 N N - N r- N r- -
f-< N
-
>-,
0. .'::
._ c: ..J ..J ..J .....l ::r: ::r: :;E :;E :;E :;E :;E :;E :;E :;E :;E .....l :;E :;E :;E :;E :;E :;E ::r:
~ E
<(
-'
Vl
~ S'
c:
~ ('j
('j v
0.... >-
V "- OJ
0. 0 U
>. ..c: C r<) ~
f-< '" '5
OJ .S: 0 V
V e -ci -ci 0 - :'! >- 0
V) - ;: Vl <:l ~ <( \0
::J 0 >- ..2: ..2: C; OJ ....
~ ('j V V V OJ ... OJ C ....
Cj co co -0 Vl V
-0 C; '0 '0 >- t: c -0 u t:: Cj OJ C C p:;
C '" -0 .... ;;: .... ;;: ;;: <( U) OJ ('j -0 OJ OJ -0 .2 .2
('j 0 c 0 0 ~ ::.c c ] ~ ::l ..c: ~ Cj
.....l -0 i=1 OJ OJ ~ ('j 0 ?1 Cj
('j ..c: ..c: '" ~ u... ~ U f-< lJ
c :;E U) Vl OJ ~ -- P.: '" C;) ..c:
;;: ~ OJ U)
0 'C ;E r::l 0 C; c V) ::.c -= V) 7 i u
u.i u.i "5 r::l ~ N
U V) co C \0 ::l -0 0 U.l e.> '2 .... ..c: ..c: ('j
-- r<) '0 'C .... lJ lJ c ~ C; ::.c -0 Vl ~ ('j 0.. 00 u u OJ
.'!l :'! r<) 0 0\ ('j OJ ('j U >- U c <:l OJ C 0.... ('j ('j co
00 - I"- ~ :;E i 0 >- ('j r::l OJ ~ r-l OJ OJ
C :'! - :'! ~ p:; vi :;E C>!: <( co :;E Vl OJ Ee f-< c E ~ co co ....
OJ .V) .... '- OJ
~ OJ: Ul '" C ('j <( ~ Cj
B >- Vl Vl Vl 0 - N 01 7 \0 r- oo 0\ 0 ~ E >- .... "- "-
..c: 0 0 0 C r<) r<) r<) r<) r<) r<) r<) r<) r<) 7 C 0 lJ ('j 0 0 ~
::2 ..c: ..c: C 0....
... u -0 -0 -0 '**' '**' '**' '**' '**' '**' '**' '**' '**' '**' u 'C ~ u ..c: ..c:
~ c: c: c: C ... ('j ('j f-< C; C '5 t:: ('j
OJ 0 0 0 ~ (5 '5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 (5 OJ ~ 0 co 0 0 OJ
.... ~ ('j 0 0 U
<( [..L. U U U 0.... ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J co co U f-< ~ U) Z
'"
~ ...
.S -= c 0
.S: Co -
- e.> 'C ~
'" ~ - ...
.~ OJ ~ f-< OJ
i:Q - c
~ Vl OJ
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
3
'..J
('j
u...
Vl
V)
('j
u
c-
';;:}
c
OJ
0.
o
....
0....
*
-
-
;;-
~
;:J
~
IJl
~
U
Z
<
IJl
IJl
~
<
z
z
o
u
~
--~
c........~
...-i~ro
Col-l<t::
0>2
c~'(;j
...-i ~ p..
'-'~6
1O~<l)
.0....
O~~
Z=~
~Uro
~..-4~
~ "'<.J.., '"d
< ~'5
~~O
o
~
I
~
~
;:J
~
~
~
~
~
<
~
~
<
~
~
U
-
r<")\O
r-- ~
O:;~oo\O
~or<")OOo
............ r--
0- -7
N~
~C:""l""l-7
If) \0 If)r<")O
0-
C:oci
\0 If)
0- r<")
r<")NC:1f)
~~ONr--
00 r-- 00 0-
...... If)
"": ~
;.'g "'T
~'1')0C:00
("f') ~ (".i II') In
r-- r<") r-- "7
N N
o 0
N N r<") r<") N
00000
00 00
o 0
o 0
ooNNNN
o ......
o 0 0 0 0
05;
""l~
\0
r<") r<")
00-7 r<") 0
o~\OIf)O
OooIf)NC:
r--~-7~r<")
o 0
o If)
o ~
00 0-
-7 r--
~~g~~
......r--Clf)oo
~oo~~"7
N
o 0
If) If)
o 0
001f)1f)0
oooo~Noo
00000
o 0
c:oo
r<")1f)
r-- ~
000
~00""lC:1f)
If)NO~
~r<")oo:gr<")
\0 ......
o 0
o 0
o 0\
\0 00
0- ~
0000
ooc:oo
No\OO\O
1f)00000
...... If) -7 If) \0
........ ('() N ........
'C
f-<
<l)
::;
"0
c:
<':J
.....l
~ ~ t.n
6 6
g <fJ g
..... 0 ex:
000
N 0 If)
~ N
<fJ
<l)
U
<':J ~
C/l u
o -<
or<")
II')
E .:::
o
o <fJ
ex: 0
00
o g
N
~~ ~~~~~
...;
Cl
<l)
.....
0
~ ..c: ~
'(; C/l '(;
ti u.i ti
<l) ~ ~ ~
0-
;;.., <fJ c: c: <l)
<l) <l)
f-< ~ 6 6 6
<l) <l) c: c:
<fJ 6 .;; .;; 0
~ ~
"0 t:: t:: >
<l) <l) u <l)
c: ~ ~ U "0
<':J 0 <l)
.....l ~ ~ <l) <l)
~ 0 ex:
<fJ > <fJ ..... 0
~ <l) ~ 0.. ..... ]
<':J Cl <':J ~ 0..
..... ..... <l) 0..
~ :l "i :l '0 01
'Vi ~ <':J ~ <':J ..c: .....
'u <l) ::r: 0
c: '0 Vi ..... '0 <fJ ~ i;:l u
<l) <l) <l) <l) 0
Cl ::r: ex: ::r: ex: '0 <l) Cl
6 'E ...><: CO w...
..c: 6 u C 'f)
01 0 C':l <':J 'fJ
i u :::2 :::2 0 Cl
U
~ C
Q.l ..c: I:: 0 'Vi
r- .S c.. - c:
:::l u .;: ~ <:J
- ~ - r- c..
:::l Q.l ~ r-o Q.l 0
~ - I::
~ [J) .....
Q.l 0..
C-'
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
~
~
Q
5~~
~Qe
=;:Je
u ~ =
~~~
~~~~
o~u=
ZOZb
~~~=
~ I ~ =-
~~~e
~~~~
~;:JZ~
~Zoo
~O""
~U;
~ ~ ~
~......:-S
~ ~ =
~ \J
~
~
~
~
U
I
I
c- oo 0 or- ClO
0 LlJ Z 0 "" "" ClO
en TI a::: 0 ("I') or- or- It)
Q) ~ E N
~ ..... or- or- or-
,- Cl - - - -
Z 0 z "" ("I') ex:> 0)
C ..... 8 L{) It)
Q) "" C\J
a: ll.. CD V ,..
<t I ,..
0 z
m 0
00
a: <(
:J LlJ
0 00
--
:I: z
~ 0 00 or- 0
00 <!J ~ "" or- IIIIIt
<t <( ~ ("I') 0> 0)
or-
W w ~ F 0> ex:>
a. 00 (5 - or- - ,..
ex:> - L{) -
LL ~ Z ("I')
LL 8 L{) 0> co
Q. v "" C\J N
ClO
- L{) ex:> ClO
c 00 L{) 0
,Q z CD v 0>
~ V ,..
u Q 0 v
("I') ,..
Q) ~ I- CD
..... B - or- - ,..
en (5 C\J - V -
~ ..... z v L{) ex:> ,..
Q) 8 ex:> CD ("I') 0)
Z ll.. CD
C I or- C\J ClO
IIIIIt
a: z
<t 0
00
0 <(
m w
~ 00
--
z v C\J N
<t 0 00 ("I') L{) ex:> co
00 <!J z V
C <( ~ 0 L{) 0 0 co
w ~ C C\J L{) ClO
00 - or- - -
0 v -
LL ~ Z L{) or- 0
LL 8 or- CD CD IIIIIt
Q. ("I') <0 CD co
or- or- eW)
-
ca
z -
0 0
i= I-
<t
z
l- e
en 0
w '';:;
ca
C - e e
Z CJ) 0 0
+= +=
0 e ca ca
I- 3: - -
<t 0 CJ) CJ)
- .c
l- e "0
en 3: e 0
ca ca
0 Q)
0 (/) (D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Clearwater guideway system, with only two trains, will achieve ridership levels similar
to those of many light rail systems that have large fleets of trains. This superior performance
results from automated operation on exclusive right-of-way. Few domestic public transit systems
of large magnitude enjoy similar patronage levels on an hourly basis. The hourly peak capacities
certainly justify the implementation of an automated guideway system for both the existing and
future conditions, even for the limited future development that is imminent.
Furthermore, these values are very conservative and allow the system to be properly sized
for future growth. These values may be further enhanced by including the induced demand as
outlined below.
Induced Demand. The induced demand concept considers potential guideway system riders who
may be "induced" or influenced to patronize a new guideway system as a result of an improved and
more attractive circulation system. In addition, induced travel may involve new guideway trips due
to a "novelty" value that is particularly associated with guideway transportation technology.
Jakes Associates has not integrated the induced demand concept into our patronage
estimation tables. However, based on our experience with similar types of systems, the person
trip values resulting from our patronage estimates can be increased by 8-10 percent to reflect the
effects of additional induced demand, particularly during the initial months of operation.
7.10 Comparison with Other Patronage Studies
In comparison with the "Proposal for a Downtown People Mover" authored by the City of
Clearwater in June 1976, which optimistically estimated a daily patronage average of 13,056 for a
similar system with a similar alignment, our projections are more conservative, as they are
entrenched in potential riders' behavioral pattems and derived from a more detailed analysis.
However, we fully agree with the 1976 opinion that the guideway system implementation would
generate solid ridership and is thus fully justified.
As highlighted in Chapter 3.3, the Pinellas Mobility Major Investment Study (MIS) of
2000 analyzed a 40-mile light rail mass transit corridor that included a segment from Clearwater
Beach to Downtown Clearwater (Segment A). Segment A, 1.9 miles in length with two stations,
was fully elevated. Based on the MIS evaluation, the Clearwater Beach to Downtown Clearwater
segment ranked fourth in Alternative 1 and seventh in Alternative 2 analyses. This segment was
not favored for early development due to its low rankings by the MIS consultant and the allegedly
low ridership level of 1,100 passengers per day in the year 2020. The highest estimated ridership
(Segment E) was forecasted to be 6,300 daily passengers. This difference is simply due to the
lengths of the segments and the different number of stations planned along each segment
(Clearwater Beach to Downtown Clearwater, 1.9 miles with two stations, versus Segment E, 5.7
miles with five stations).
As pointed out in Chapter 3.3, the impact of the MIS on our study is marginal, as the MIS
approach is based on importing solutions that were applied in other urban communities with
completely different transportation needs. The MIS study was oriented toward light rail county-
wide solutions and thus utilized the mass-transit-oriented methodology of the Federal
Transportation Authority. Subsequently, it did not adequately consider the impact of land use
changes on ridership figures. In contrast, the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach corridor connects two
districts specifically targeted for major redevelopment. The primary concern is to stimulate tourism
and provide increased convenience to the guideway system's users. Our ridership projections take
future development into consideration and thus, contrary to findings of the MIS, our ridership
levels strongly support the guideway system investment.
127
I
'1
I
I
I .
I
:1 .
'I
-.
~ I.., .
I
.1' .
I.
I
,I
: I, .
'1
I
:.1
-I
. , '
8. ,OPERATIONAL SCENARIO
,. " . ~
, ' I
I
I
I
,1'
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I,
'. I
. I
'1.
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8. OPERATIONAL SCENARIO
8.1 Operational Scenarios for the Alternative Alignments and Technologies
The following is a detailed analysis of both the guideway and gondola system alternatives.
8.1.1 Guideway System Operational Scenario
Table No.7: "Guideway System Operational Characteristics" provides basic guideway
system operational characteristics such as maximum speed, acceleration, deceleration, travel and
dwell time, and system capacity for the Base (magenta line), Alternative 1 (yellow line), and
Altemative 2 (aqua line) alignments. The system capacity was determined for both existing and
future conditions. The capacities correspond to the needs estimated in Chapter 7: "Patronage
Projection". Two trains with 108 passenger per train capacity (seated and standing) are needed for
all altematives to accommodate existing conditions. Three trains would be needed to meet the
future condition travel demand. The travel time with an intermediate station would be in the 5.2-
5.3 minute range, and without an intermediate station, in the 4.3-4.4-min range for all alternatives.
Headways (or waiting time at the stations) for the two-train scenario would be equal to the travel
time. For the three-train scenario (which would require track switches) the time would be cut in
half.
From the operational point of view all three alternatives are comparable, and operational
characteristics do not play an important role in the alternative selection decision-making process.
8.1.2 Gondola System Operational Scenarios
Table No.8: "Gondola System Operational Characteristics" provides basic system
operational characteristics such as maximum speed, acceleration, deceleration, travel and dwell
time, and system capacity for the Base (magenta line) and Alternative (yellow line) alignments.
The system capacity was determined for both existing and future conditions. The capacities
correspond to the needs estimated in Chapter 7: "Patronage Projection". We assumed 127 eight-
passenger gondola cabins to achieve the 2,000 passengers per hour per direction capacity for the
future seasonal demand, which is lower than the estimated patronage for the guideway system.
We do not anticipate that the gondola implementation would result in as extensive a development as
for the guideway system due to the technological and operational constraints. Furthermore, this
capacity is also limited by the use of typical eight-passenger cabins. Larger cabins can be used, if
deemed necessary, subject to refined engineering analysis. With large-capacity cabins, it may be
necessary for most of the occupants to step out and then back in to allow one or two passengers to
disembark.
The travel time with an intermediate station (which is necessary because of the
technological constraints) would be in the 9.1-9.8-min range. The gondola technology offers a
very short headway of approximately 10 sec (practically no waiting time), which is underutilized
most of the time during operation. Cabins move at a slow, constant velocity during loading
operations (0.5 to 1.2 fUsec). Designs feature doors on only one side of the cabin. Doors open
and close automatically. When empty, the cabin floor usually is one or two inches higher than the
loading platform, which may require attendant assistance for passengers in wheelchairs.
129
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
From the operational point-of-view both alternatives are comparable, and operational
characteristics do not play an important role in the alternative selection decision-making process.
8.1.3 Operational Comparison Between the Guideway and Gondola Systems
The guideway system can be extended at any time to other destinations such as North and
South Beach and/or adjacent downtown areas, whereas the gondola system is practically non-
extendable unless transfers between systems would be acceptable.
The guideway system's capacity can always be expanded by adding additional trains and/or
adding additional cars to the trains subject to the station design, whereas the gondola system cannot
be expanded unless larger cabins are initially used and the system is designed for the additional
cabins, which has design limits. The gondola system is not a long-term solution.
The travel time on the guideway system is almost half of that on the gondola system,
although the gondola solution offers practically no waiting time.
130
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO.7
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway System Operational Characteristics
OPERA TIONAL FEATURES BASE AL TERNA TIVE 1 AL TERNA TIVE 2
ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT
Performance:
Maximum Speed (mph) 30 30 30
Average Speed (mph) 25 25 25
AccelerationlDeceleration (mphps) 2,2 2.2 2.2
Average Dwell Time (seconds) 30 30 30
Travel Time -with Intermediate Station* (min) 5.3 5.2 5.2
Headway with Intermediate Station** (min) 5.3 5.2 5.2
Travel Time - No Intermediate Station (min) 4.4 4.3 4.3
Headway - No Intermediate Station** (min) 4.4 4.3 4.3
Trains:
Number of Trains Based on Existing Conditions 2 2 2
Number of Trains Based on Future Conditions 3 3 3
Number of Cars Per Train 4 4 4
Capacity (passengers per train)
Seated*** 28 28 28
Standing 80 80 80
Total Capacity 108 108 108
System Capacity (pphpd****):
With Intermediate Station
Based on Existing Conditions 1223 1246 1246
Based on Future Conditions 2446 2492 2492
Without Intermediate Station
Based on Existing Conditions 1472 1620 1620
Based on Future Conditions 2208 2430 2430
* Intermediate station optional ** Headway for two-train scenario
*** Other configurations possible (including all seated)
**** Passengers per hour per direction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO.8
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Gondola System Operational Characteristics
OPERATIONAL FEATURES BASE ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE
ALIGNMENT
Performance:
Speed (ft/min) 1000* 1000*
Loading Speed (ft/min) 50 50
Gondola Beach to Island Travel Time (min) 2.2 3
Terminal Time (min) 0.4 0.4
Total Travel Time (min) 2,6 3.4
Headway (see) 10 10
Gondola Island to Beach Travel Time (min) 5.9 5.8
Terminal Time 0.4 0.4
Total Travel Time 6.3 6.2
Headway (see) 10 10
Gondola System Total Travel Time (min) 9.1 9,8
Cabins:
Number of Cabins: Beach to Island 34 47
Number of Cabins: Island to Downtown 93 91
Cabin Capacity (passengers) 8 8
Size**
Passenger Area (sq ft) 176 176
Distance Between Seat Backs (in) 66.5 66.5
Height from Floor to ceiling (in) 63 63
Door Width (in) 31.5 31.5
System Capacity (pphpd***)
Beach to Island 2000 2000
Island to Downtown 2000 2000
* The systems may be slowed or stopped for operational conditions, therefore, decreasing capacity.
** Larger cabin sizes available
>'./ .'
I
I .
",1' .
I
I.
I. .
I
I,
I
I' . .
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I,'
I
I
. '~'.' '.. ,.,
.....,.:.:.: -.;
. .. .
9. CLEARWATER GUIDEWAY SYSTEM
., .
. ORDER-OF-MAGNIT.UDECO.ST
. .
". ". ",". "" . . ". . " . "',." . ...". , ." ,. . -: "'.." . '.; " '. . ,. '. . . ." ';.. .' ". ..c .~" ";"; ..'~ .../ ", '. .'
I
. .: I.
I
I
-I'
I
I
. I.
I
. I
I
,_I..
I
I
" I
I
. . I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.
CLEARWATER GUIDEWAY SYSTEM ORDER-OF-
MAGNITUDE COST
9.1 Guideway System Capital Costs
Order-of-magnitude capital cost estimates were developed for the selected alternatives and
representative technologies. These order-of-magnitude cost estimates are based on cost information
available from similar projects worldwide, suppliers, and consultant experience.
The order-of-magnitude nature of these cost estimates needs to be emphasized.
Considerably more detailed engineering studies would be necessary in order to provide more
precise cost estimates. Actual construction costs could turn out to be either lower or higher; specific
engineering and/or right-of-way complexities could increase costs. Financial formulas (such as Net
Present Value and other allowances) are not considered. In practice, the actual cost will greatly
depend on the selected general contractor's responsiveness and reasonableness during the bidding
process. A competitive situation should be created to the greatest extent possible. This will require
developing detailed procurement documents in order to assure comparable quotations.
Capital cost elements include the following components:
.
Right-of-way
Guideway or Aerial Structures
Utilities
Train or Gondola Fleet
Track Switches
Stations and Station Equipment
Maintenance Facility and Equipment
Systemwide Equipment
Pre-Revenue/Start-up Costs
EngineeringlProfessional Services
Contingencies.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For all alternatives, it is assumed that there is no right-of-way cost. Some legal and
consulting fees may be necessary to develop an agreement with the City of Clearwater for the
elevated system alignment, which involves public land.
At this preliminary stage, modifications to the existing building structures, "transit plazas,"
streetwork, landscaping and beautification costs are not included in the cost analysis. Likewise, no
allowance is made for architectural treatments to the stations and maintenance facility. The station
costs are for the open, stand-alone type of stations. However, it is envisioned that station
structures will be totally integrated into real estate redevelopment, which must be determined in
subsequent phases of the project. Consulting and architectural fees are also excluded.
The following discussion provides a brief description of each cost component.
Guideway. Guideway costs include excavation, construction of foundations, columns,
horizontal beams, some street restoration and traffic control/detouring. They also include on-line
and off-line automatic track switches, which may not be applicable for the initial project phase in
Clearwater.
134
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Stations. Station equipment includes enclosed elevated platforms, limited seating, stairs,
elevators, escalators (optional), lighting, automatic doors, Public Address (PA) system (including
a two-way communication system to/from the control center and security), telephone, and station
signage. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that all stations are single, center platform of
open type (no air conditioning) unless they are fully integrated into larger, multipurpose buildings.
Trains. Vehicles would be designed for optimum passenger convenience, service, and ADA
compliance. All vehicles would be air-conditioned.
Systemwide Equipment. Systemwide equipment costs include traction power distribution and
sub-systems for the guideway and stations. The power will be collected from the power rails built
into the guideway. It also includes train control systems (also for the guideway and stations),
security and communications.
Maintenance Facility and Equipment. Maintenance and storage facilities consist of a
maintenance building (including a shop), equipment and supplies storage, and an office for
administration. The purpose of the maintenance area is to conduct train maintenance, cleaning,
inspection, and unscheduled/scheduled repairs of vehicle(s).
A basic Central Control Center will be included in the maintenance facility. Its purpose is to
monitor safe train operations and ensure passenger safety in stations and on-board trains. A single
operator will oversee CRT monitors showing the current operational status of all vehicles. CCTV
monitors to provide coverage of all stations are optional.
Design/Engineering. Engineering and professional services include costs for design,
project management, construction management, and other professional services necessary for
construction and start-up.
Other Costs. Other costs associated with construction can be significant (for example traffic
management or utility relocation). Pre-revenue costs include those associated with start-up of the
system, including Operation and Maintenance agreements or arrangements, owners insurance, pre-
revenue testing and operation, and training.
Finally, an allowance has been included for contingencies. At this preliminary planning
stage, the contingency percentage has been assumed at 10%. The contingency reflects the
uncertainty about detailed alignment decisions and actual field conditions that may be encountered
during construction.
9.2 Utilities Along the Alignments
Although utility analysis is not a part of the conceptual study, we have reviewed the utility
drawings of the City of Clearwater, Florida, to assess the potential impact of the elevated guideway
alignment on utilities. We have determined that there are no serious issues that cannot be easily
mitigated, particularly because there is sufficient flexibility in the placement of guideway columns.
Detailed utility impact engineering will have to be performed in subsequent phases of this project.
For the purpose of this task, we have made a conservative allowance for utility relocation.
In summary, the elevated guideway may have limited impact on utilities both above ground
and underground, such as traffic lights, streetlights, and telephone poles. Along the guideway
route, there are underground water, sewer, and gas lines, and electrical conduit banks that may
interfere with the elevated guideway. In addition, there may be some trees that need to be removed
or trimmed. We have gathered available utility information and generated summary drawings as
follows:
135
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Drawing CW-GD-WU-A V: "Water Utilities in Study Area"
· Drawing CW-GD-SU-A V: "Sewer System in Study Area"
· Drawing CW-GD-GU-A V: "Gas Utilities in Study Area"
· Drawing CW-GD-OU-A V: "Cableffelephone."
The overall impact on various utility structures resulting from the implementation of a
guideway system is typical and manageable and can be effectively mitigated. Thus we anticipate
no major utility impact problems with the implementation of this system. However, as stated
above, a detail engineering utility review should be conducted in the subsequent engineering phase
of our work to pinpoint potential conflicts and to formulate strategies to overcome any potential
problems.
9.3 Soil Condition Along the Alignment
We have also obtained recent soil analysis reports in the study area. However, the
information contained in the reports is quite limited and primarily dedicated to the new bridge
location. The limited soil information does not reveal any unusual conditions. However, additional
borings will be necessary prior to the release of the Request for Proposals and Technical
Specification documents. At that time, we recommend performing a few representative borings
(five or six) along the selected system alignment down to a depth of 30 ft (unless the investigators
reach the bedrock sooner) to determine the soil pressure. This will allow the candidate proposers
to make some assumptions regarding the design of the footings (spread footings or cast and drill
piles). The selected soil investigator will need to use professional judgement in selecting the best
locations for boring. Upon selection of the system supplier, the guideway designer will determine
the extent of further soil investigation at the appropriate time.
9.4 Representative Guideway System Cross-Section
As indicated in the Technology Assessment chapter of this report, a variety of elevated
guideway cross-sections are available. Selection will depend on the local physical constraints and
the proposed guideway's capability to overcome them at a reasonable cost. Figure No. 36:
"Representative Elevated Guideway Cross-section (Self-Propelled Technology)" illustrates the
desired dimensions with a 15-ft overall, concrete guideway width. Most of the other candidate
technologies have wider guideways, which is fully acceptable as long as it is understood that a
wider guideway leads to a more severe visual impact. Figure No. 37: "Representative Elevated
Guideway Cross-section (Cable-Propelled Technology)" presents a steel guideway for
comparison. We have estimated the order-of-magnitude costs based on these cross-sections.
9.5 Order-of-Magnitude Costs for Candidate Guideway Systems
Table No.9: "Representative Self-propelled Guideway System Order-Of-Magnitude Cost
Breakdown" summarizes cost breakdowns for the representative self-propelled Automated People
Mover technology (monorail type).
The 9,441-ft-long Base Alignment system cost is estimated at $39.2 million. The 9,273-ft-
long Alternative Alignment system cost is estimated at $39 million. The 9,155-ft-Iong Altemative
2 Alignment system is estimated at $38.8 million. As all alignments have similar lengths, the costs
are similar. Use of the existing bridge remains an unforeseen factor subject to further engineering
analysis.
136
ill!
I.
"
,I!
.51
Ii.
jll'i
.' I
~:~i
hil ~
Iii. i.
II!! ! ~
! ! ! ! ! .B !
~~~~~~~Jl
!il~t~~t~~~
;9 N___OCID"1'
]
I I I
n
j
Jl
~
1l
.~
~
~
j is ~ - ~' .
.- ~ :5
6.g g ;;;; ~
'5~ ~ - ~
~ ~ ~ J
S = ~ cr.
t:!:.i!i i!l
.:g ~ ~
~ @ 5 ~
~ ~ ::l 6
f !(. 'i'
d r:~
I I
'4f
4~.r
~
a ~
..
.K_ I
::;~ loJ! 1 I
:~ ~ 6 SS
\ "d "- l! . ~
; ~ .;.~
I g" H
I. : ~ ~$,
. ~, rf
!'l j~ ~.
::;~" H
~:!~ u ~
-
.
~ '
.' .
II · I I 1"1
1'1
"I -::0
...
II)
.!3
.....:l
t
"t;l
~
J
~
i:o
-
.
c
N
-
~
!
. .
. .
[ .
.
~ t
Ii
.. .
'IA.
~ --!!co
. .TJ
CC]';-".
,. t J.
':1 ~...
~I
/
-------------------
r --
-------------------
II
,. ~ J ~
,I
II ffi ~ f G 1
, ! I ~ ~llJ
Iii ~ J
j. I ! I 10
.11 ·
il. I ~
II! I:
~
j
99
~' '"" . I ~!. -- "
,'~a:: It, ol...r.... ~;.~... 0: I'" ;I~. .'I~" ';:"f.., I,t"~' fl" ':-, ~~I.'l :!: . E!".'I" :I
- ~ t '''~ ' ....n '" . - '.^ ... .. 'i r" .... It 'I...
. I"'.... t:... . ..... . -., ""0. I-
. #~1Ii; ,If ~'" II . .-" . .:;~ '. ".'1 fff! :..;1... ~ .'. 0' lit":':
I' ~ Iii. l I" · fl I ", . . . 1_ . ~ _..::i::: l;r" lill! - ~
~ . ~!h"I?l1 . ,t ~ t ~ i 1"1'11-':-11.' .. ,I f.l J...~~ 1 J"~-~
.1 II II d!111 I -;;!fJ ).- ~-~lU ~ . ':' ~,I;G:' I J'G
l . III ,I~ !!11~ ;h.~i I f~!MI5 oT.! il\
- I~I. ~ Id 1 ~ ~~ rc~" 1.~ 3 ~
~ ~~ ~ ~-I:II!I ~h~ ~~1~~ (~ ..' :. ," ~
, .......... I -~l" II 'I'I:lift .. ~4..-? " "
. ~ . _ - 10_.ot1 /
5 I I - ~:;::;;:::::; ~ I
5 1IIIl Y' I I' I
'" " · I L. iit I I I
~ ~ 5 ,/ V Ii ~ ~ ~ !
~ 1 ~ t .~ ...... -~ "-
.13 9 ~ 'I{j ~ .) _ ~
~ 0 I ~ -
~ "*-' , .j &
<:r
N
~
cQ .
.
.
" ~ j
;
---
j
""
.
i I
,'1 r;
bi
I'"
Jj 'f
,
.13
<II
~
o
o
...
o
j:I.;
o
N
j
j
..
.
,
.13 8
'<II <II
~~
I~ .13
'0 '0
j:I.; 0
:egg
'0 ;:l
c::-
oP-.
'0 0
c::-
o
,c:g
en
";1 . II . · !I.~ ,~, .~ ~I ~ ~ :!., .~.~ I · Ii .. I. ~II r-.-
. - - .;--.. .' .~.. 'r to""': ~ "l..;/'~o[' 0'
""'1l~-....... I . . , . ~If~t ~d-t. ..I-:-JLI 'J.L ......
!!' I !. _ - - - - - - - ~..~ t -=-! --In.~' ~l~.J.. '~.'-I':-
-"'" .. . _'Y . . "": ~ .,.,.: 0.11 .. a
;0, ~ ... ..--..... ~ ~ R ~ I
~,~ /
- .. -,.I II I .h~ I ~ .....nt.
~ i . ~ ,;J.'. ,,""t!~ ':~r 1 "'.. .~~ '!"I ~ 'I I · ~~I. I '''''I~. .
\. . ! Ill] -l t
r; !!!!!! I ,~ll'l~~ "-:":':'" ;1.:: ~;:r~,,;~tf
~ ~.~ ~?'
~~
. ....< '! , l'>-"
~-- ..........,.,.. '."-1'. ."n~,
. . · _. ..... .....1 .......... i.. . r
'., Ia~' -yo,
~""~I I.!' I I ., I I! ~ ~'f: !' 1.1. -"','::"". llil ~,I ~."7"
. . r. T LT., ~- -or ..' ;-...- 'I .1
~ ~ .' > . <~ -
~T:" "~ :~~ ~: I., =." :~I '-l~ '-ljl"
~'Q\g - - - - . ~~-
.-s--~J....!:-7=-;"i - ['i ~. ,,1 ~ /.
~ riP ~ ~.!' ~.,
" "!~.~ ~' 1.1: ....
~liJ& ',- ... :.-~~ -I '!'~
I~. \~II~Ib--~~~ 1~~ .,:? ~ ~~
f Ii \ "~iI<!~~"~ y, ~".
ul ~~~~:. _1'. WA ",' ~
. i o;...,.:&.~~ -..' . ~K.'- ~
'W'~ ... rl...~ / ~ ~
, f...... X. ii~.~ ::,:. \P'I
.~: ~'/~.~' .~. I
.... .... -.~.
~ .~.~.
". .' ,~
. J '/
ffj~_. ,'~ I
/~. ~.
-., /'
/ ~
. ,
't
~/
'/?
;-' 'i'
~
~
o
. ~ .~
, ::E
~
.
~~
1!r?
-I' ~j
H 4/- I
-;
.
I ~I
.13
o
~
o
o
~
o
j:I.;
;;.,
-
,/{f,
"-
....'"
~ l.~-, il
: ~:~. ': "1w' ~. ~~.\i~~~. " ..
,!,~ ... ~ ~iI.SV -~"
~ ~ " - 'r :'t ~\l '\ I
,~.~~ '~.. ~t;\\\\ Ili:tx
';1~ ~ !A.'i ..'~ \ I \
Jl!i1i~~ ~. ~[\\I.~\\- 8 '~I /)
~~ "' . --- ~----, ~
L J!..~ 1~1 . ,,~" ~i:' 111'"'4 .~. .i r/..~L -.~- -
r ~~ ~~;" ':'.~c .~I ~f~'1"\ ~.
__ It I_J'- ~ · H fit:. f~," ':; I. ;tl:; -;-.,,: :;-0 IJ
_ .-/ I:!}, ~ ~ f.1- _ - III I' I IJ
d. ~ 1. :: t:!; ~I ~.~~:J ;'1 .' - ,- ·
it ,;.. ::i I!I....:~ ~ ~ .~. ... ." ,..
..... .... \ . !!: ,-:..: · lIS 10-.1; ,t,:,~'~' · ,
Il l ~. ~ ~. . -~ :J~'" ~, alF.a "'i':1i
V ~. ........' · ~~ ~ 1: ~ ~~:~~ '.j" ;rc.
jif" ~ " .., -0' '0 tJ ~ 0
o . ~l: '- "0 0 . . . 0 ~;:::-,!c .. "..., II
"I' ..j;n'13..0 ~ :, . .13 ;. a. ~ ~'::'.. If" , , "(. %
. 'I!" .. : .....l . . !:.I II." ~,~ ~.".
0'11>'II1. ... " iii' --~' .!>1 ,-;co if/. ·
l 1111'. .1-+-1 .:,1/:1' · fI, l -..;.. -f .. ~ 1 i 0 := :-;;.. , .,
.'. _, ~ . · 0 'I~. ; E! L- o~. ~:::=- ~::E . ~.
. ...J- -4; ~ Iii ~ :;;: · ~ . to
i "1IlIoI -I :f ".: 0 II .i... .' , I". -;':;". . :~.
nrm .~_,.---.;..JftM ~ 1;; j. ~~~! ~ I~ . 0 I . .i-i. fj: ~ dt /::~ ;:
I!ffftl. "l~ -=."""" L.:I ,I "i.fj .....r-.-s... .Jl. .;.., . I,'.;....y, 0/11- -
: 'i~fr ., 10. .,I....ljiI_~i . . -1.; ..Io..-I;r.:: .~. ~_-~..._ -~. Iii";; - 11 ...... l::,nt---
::..... iclJl "" :00: . ";::\iiii; ,;;<r, :--'~ .1!l:!. I. J.,.:, .~ ,~"~ I~ '-- "11
ll-~ . I I ~E-. ~ . 1fj.1"i::'. ....~,r 0 ".c: .. ~.~, I
t i · -..1il"1 .Ji ~ .,.. .~. t'.-,: -'. · ..
~ ..,. r iilIJ' II 1'1.' I'''!:u, ._~,,:~.. . ~
_____ '- ~ . - -~...." "~~Ekr~~~ :;..~ l U~ ~I~' " ~.; .~ -"~' ~.J~ ~~
~ ~ ir ....'..i..TJ:-.~.~';rm~ ~m:L!. 'l ~~i;1 ~
~1r ~ L J .l.LJ!lJ!tclh II' ~ ',' I ,~fr'"\ \! ~~. !
d ~fr, ~ ......J.. I I I . I I I
j " \ \ .
v
~ .13
<II
~
o
~
o
j:I.;
...;
.
~
.
I
.I
..
~
.,"
Jj
I,
i I
..
~
I,; '; ,
1 I.l '" J
.P i!i.
.: I: I
"il
iJ ~
j I ~
u
~
a ~
I 1 I I
8
U ~
:::: ~n
:Ii 8 ~ IS Ii
'" N -"1
~ .~ ~l,
~ " !!' ~
~ 1 ;+1
.; . ~ ~-Il
....f' !!.~.
~ ~ 0 :!-~ ~
:;H ~~"
-
.
-------------------
-------------------
~
i'
i,'1
!I
Iii! I
i!!ll s J
II' I
,il
Ill, I ~
.11i I:
I ~
~ ~
ffi ~] j
~ :~ J 11
~ < ...
I I l>
.-
.. .... In
.
-- -...
(t
""
i
Gl
-
U
""
o
~
:=
---=
~....
""
.2l
III
t
Gl
U
--
""
o
~
:=
-
"-
~
~
.....
=-
:::;;-
-=
~--
~
"'"
I
I P I !I \
"",.
~
c
-
o
.r
111 l; i
s i ~ I
~~ ~
~J ~ ~
j ~ ~
U
~
a ~
I I J I I
"8
tJ ~
~ ~~~
~ ~"h~
.... JI'" .,'6 ~
~ ~k~ II
~ i:;;~d
~ j<l:;~!
~j~":~~~
'" ~ IS ~;! ".
~ ~ ~ ~;1 ~
... ~_J,.. o~
-
.
-------------------
-------------------
.il
!ll a f
i~ I ! a
il,i.1 h oJ ~ I
Ii. 1 I I
.1,
Iii. I ~
III! I:
"-J~tJ ~
:JW~~ roDDqp~DDf!ill;i
~ G ~I ."J
-ai is
~ = ~~ ~
B! ~ ~
j ~
u
e
o
~
S
~
o
~
o
...
~
~
a ~
'4r
(i ~.r
(.)
'.J:l
8'
I J J I I
u ~
::; ~H
::l ~!:;He
~ ~HJj
~ ].~..
ill j,,~eJf
<I1f. <u~!s
rdUiltii
~. ~,,-n
., d,,~.~
-
.
rJ:l b
0.0
~i
~u
o~
:E g
o
~ !5b
o I-<
.~ 0
o~
>:3
-- .
j
~
8
~I
/
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 36
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Representative Elevated Guideway Cross-section (Self-Propelled Technology)
7'=!. ~. "
n7'=4 1/2"
8'-9"
--1
,
,
I
.._~_...
~j=----~~-,
JIJ '+1
I I .,
. . ! I
i ! i I
: I
i I
i i :!
....... ..-~-
rt
4'-0"
I 1
,+ I n--
11-ti
II I I
II I II
. -'=F=- .~.,
4'-0"
I'
I
,
,
....J
.~
5'-4 1/2 "
ALL CORNERS
CHAMFERED
f" AT 45
DECREES
J]
::: A VERAGE HEIGHT.
:::;: WILL VARY WITH
~ TERRAIN AND
VERTICAL CURVES
4'-0"
l-
i
Best Copy
Availablv!
t.___
~__L_____i-
_l_
__"'___ i- _j,____~______
,
Nci
~
I 5'-0" DIAMETER
DRILLED SHAFT
25'-0"nEEP
-YPICI\L_ B=-:NT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 37
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Representative Elevated Guideway Cross-section (Cable-Propelled Technology)
4' (1220 mm)
9.8' (3000mm) E E
E E
"' 0
... "'
'" N
- -
in -
..r ..r
E E
;:...E E
"';00
0 "'
e N
-
...
i 2.5' (770 mm) ci
13,9' (4,241 nvn)
3.5' (1 66mm)
.c
....
c:n
c:
\1)
~
\1)
3:
.::
4.2' (1,270 mm)
---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO.9
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Representative Self-Propelled Guideway System Order-Of-Magnitude Cost Breakdown
Description Base Alignment Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alignment Alignment
Number of Trains for Existing Conditions 2 2 2
Number of Trains for Existing Conditions 3 3 3
Train Size (passengers) 108 108 108
Number of Stations 2 2 2
Number of Optional Stations 1 1 1
System Length (ft.) 9,451 9,273 9,155
System Type Self-Propelled Self-Propelled Self-Propelled
Speed (mph) 28 28 28
System Supplier Cost
Dual Elevated Guideway ($) 12,492,000 12,249,633 12,093,755
2- Trains ($) 3,552,000 3,552,000 3,552,000
3- Trains ($) 5,328,000 5,328,000 5,328,000
Power Distribution ($) 1,950,000 1,950,000 1,950,000
Drives and Train Control ($) 3,265,000 3,265,000 3,265,000
Engineering and Design ($) 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000
General Conditions ($) 2,640,000 2,640,000 2,640,000
Subtotal for System Supplier Cost
For Existing Conditions ($) 25,699,000 25,456,633 25,300,755
For Future Conditions ($) 27,475,000 27,232,633 27,076,755
Higher Cost Suppliers and Unforseen Cost
Allowance (Contingency) ($) 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Stations* ($) 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000
Maintenance Facility ($) 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000
Emergency Generators ($) 500,000 500,000 500,000
Utility Relocation Allowance ($) 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Aesthetic Enhancement Allowance ($) 500,000 500,000 500,000
Surveys, Environmental Work, and
Approvals ($) 500,000 500,000 500,000
Procurement Management/Engineering ($ 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total Estimated System Cost
For Existing Conditions ($) 39,199,000 38,956,633** 38,800,755***
For Future Conditions ($) 40,975,000 40,732,633** 40,576,755***
* Including optional Island Estates Station (open type, stand alone).
** Old bridge demolition not included. Use of old foundations subject to further engineering analysis.
*** New bridge lane relocation and other modifications not included.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Estimated cost can be reduced by approximately $1.5 to $2 million by placing the guideway
partially at-grade along the causeway for a distance of 4,450 ft. An additional $1.5 to $2.5 million
could be saved by eliminating the intermediate station. Cost can be further reduced by more
detailed engineering, particularly in the station design area. The cost would increase by
approximately $1.8 million with the purchase of a third train (assuming it is part of the initial
purchase).
Table No. 10: "Representative Cable-Propelled Guideway System Order-of-Magnitude
Cost Breakdown" summarizes the cost breakdown for the representative cable-propelled
Automated People Mover technology (shuttle type).
The 9,441-ft-Iong Base Alignment system cost is estimated at $38.2 million. The 9,273-ft-
long Alternative 1 Alignment system cost is estimated at $38 million. The 9,155-ft-Iong Alternative
2 Alignment system is estimated at $37.9. Estimated cost can be reduced approximately $1.5 to $2
million by placing the guideway partially at-grade along the causeway for a distance of 4,450 ft.
This cost can be further reduced by $2 to $2.5 million by eliminating the intermediate station. It
can be further reduced by more detailed engineering, particularly in the station design area. This
cost would increase with the purchase of a third train by approximately $1.9 million (assuming it is
part of the initial purchase). The cost of the train could be lower if fewer but larger vehicles are
used.
Written input from candidate suppliers was received and considered. For the purpose of
this analysis, we have included an additional cost allowance for more expensive technologies
within the range of technologies being considered. The demolition of the old bridge and
modifications to the new or old bridge are not included in the cost estimates as they are subject to
engineering analysis in subsequent phases of the project.
In summary, the project can be implemented for $38.2 to $39.2 million for the Base
Alignment. Considering the magnitude of the project, these costs are very reasonable in
comparison to many other projects. Their preservation, however, depends on an experienced
procurement manager with extensive experience in low-cost guideway projects.
9.6 Order-of-Magnitude Costs for Candidate Gondola Systems
Table No. 11: "Representative Gondola System Order-of-Magnitude Cost Breakdown"
summarizes the cost breakdown for the representative detachable (selected due to the occurrence of
hurricane) gondola system consisting of eight-passenger cabins and including the intermediate
station. Station building costs are excluded, but could be comparable to the guideway system
stations depending on the adopted design concept. Approximately 30 towers will be needed. The
8,074-ft-Iong Base Alignment gondola system is estimated to cost $19.2 million. The 8,809-ft-
long Alternative Alignment gondola system is estimated to cost an additional $500,000 to
accommodate more tower foundations to be placed in the intercoastal waterway (subject to detailed
engineering) and also longer length. Written input from candidate suppliers was received and
considered.
9. 7 Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs are made up of two components: fixed and
variable costs. Fixed costs are independent of vehicle fleet size and the frequency of service.
Examples of such costs include administrative personnel salaries, rent and property taxes (if
applicable), liability insurance, electric power for lighting stations, janitorial and landscaping
services, among others.
144
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO. 10
CLEARWATER BLUFF -TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Representative Cable-Propelled Guideway System Order-Of-Magnitude Cost Breakdown
Description Base Alignment Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alignment Alignment
Number of Trains for Existing Conditions 2 2 2
Number of Trains for Future Conditions 3 3 3
Train Size (passengers) 108 108 108
Number of Stations 2 2 2
Number of Optional Stations 1 1 1
System Length (ft.) 9,451 9,273 9,155
System Type Cable-Propelled Cable-Propelled Cable-Propelled
Speed (mph) 28 28 28
System Supplier Cost
Dual Elevated Guideway and Equipment ($) 11,380,000 11,164,692 11,022,620
2- Trains ($) 3,790,000 3,790,000 3,790,000
3- Trains ($) 5,685,000 5,685,000 5,685,000
Power Distribution ($) 1,120,000 1,120,000 1,120,000
Drive and Train Control ($) 6,030,000 6,030,000 6,030,000
Design, Engineering, General Conditions ($) 2,890,000 2,890,000 2,890,000
Subtotal for System Supplier Cost
For Existing Condition ($) 25,210,000 24,994,692 24,852,620
For Future Conditions ($) 27,105,000 26,889,692 26,747,620
Higher Cost Suppliers and Unforseen Cost
Allowance (Contingency) ($) 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Stations* ($) 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000
Maintenance Facility ($) 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000
Emer2ency Generators ($) 500,000 500,000 500,000
Utility Relocation Allowance ($) 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Aesthetic Enhancement Allowance ($) 500,000 500,000 500,000
Surveys, Environmental Work, and
Approvals ($) 500,000 500,000 500,000
Procurement ManagementlEngineering ($ 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total Estimated System Cost
For Existing Condition ($) 38,210,000 37,994,692** 37,852,620***
For Future Conditions ($) 40,105,000 38,889,692** 39,747,620***
* Including optional Island Estates Station (open type, stand alone).
** Old bridge demolition not included. Use of old foundations subject to further engineering analysis.
*** New Bridge Lane Relocation and Other Modifications Not Included
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO. 11
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Representative Gondola System Order-Of-Magnitude Cost Breakdown
Description Base Alignment Alternative
Alignment
System Capacity (PPHPD) 2,000 2,000
Cabin Size (standing passengers) 8 8
Number of Stations 3 3
System Length (ft.) 8,074 8,804
System Type Cable-Propelled Cable-Propelled
Sveed (FPM) 1,000 1,000
System Supplier Cost
Engineering and Equipment ($) 6,080,000 6,080,000
Cabins ($) 1,800,000 1,800,000
Installation ($) 2,500,000* 3,000,000**
Miscellaneous (Automated ParkingPower
Feed, Drainage, Permits, Taxes) ($) 800,000 800,000
Subtotal for System Supplier Cost ($) 11,180,000 11,680,000
Higher Cost Suppliers and Unforseen Cost
Allowance (Contingency) ($) 500,000 500,000
Stations and Maintenance Facility ($) 4,500,000 4,500,000
Building Integration Allowance ($) 500,000 500,000
Utility Relocation Allowance ($) 600,000 600,000
Aesthetic Enhancement Allowance ($) 400,000 400,000
Surveys, Environmental Work, and
Approvals ($) 500,000 500,000
Procurement ManagementlEngineering ($ 1,000,000 1,000,000
Total Estimated System Cost ($) 19,180,000 19,680,000
* Includes $900,000.00 allowance for foundations, including foundations to be placed in the waterway.
** Includes $1500,000.00 allowance for foundations, including foundations to be placed in the waterway.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Variable costs are directly related to the level of operation and include energy costs for
traction power (related to the number of vehicle-miles operated) and maintenance personnel (related
to the fleet size and the number of vehicle-miles operated). Many costs have both a fixed and a
variable component.
The three major categories of fixed and variable costs are:
· Labor costs (including direct labor, fringe benefits and unscheduled overtime)
· Spare parts, supplies, and other services like legal, accounting, etc.
· Contract costs (for services which might be less expensive to purchase than to
perform in-house, i.e., station elevator maintenance).
Labor costs include the salaries of administration, maintenance, and operating personnel.
There are two types of operating personnel: electronic technicians for the control system and
mechanical technicians for vehicles and other equipment hardware. For People Movers, two
options are generally available in regards to staffing: operating system with a dedicated, in-house
staff or purchasing a long-term operating contract as part of a turnkey contract with an equipment
supplier.
Other operation and maintenance cost items include spare parts, supplies, and other non-
labor costs such as the following:
· Vehicle maintenance (spare parts and materials, i.e., tires, seat inserts, glazing,
paint)
· Facilities maintenance
Electrical system parts (fuses, switches, wire)
Traction power system consumable materials (carbon brushes, bus bars,
insulators)
Building facility supplies
Shop equipment consumable materials (drill bits, cutting blades)
· Utilities
Traction power costs
Lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning (if provided), and power
Water for station and vehicle cleaning, rest rooms, etc.
Trash removal (consumable materials)
Telephone service from the office, maintenance facility, and Control Center
· Office supplies
· Others (training aids, insurance, claims handling, legal expenses, travel).
Non-operating functions are assumed to be contracted out to the greatest extent possible to
minimize staffing and reduce costs. Contracted functions include station and maintenance building
cleaning and maintenance, elevator maintenance, and heavy motor repairs and overhauls of
vehicles. The following kinds of services should be contracted out:
147
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
Component major repair including the repair of traction motors, compressors, on-
board air conditioning units (if provided)
.
Computer maintenance for the central control system including display equipment,
computer hardware and software, and wayside train control hardware
.
Communications equipment including Public Address system (2-way
communication), telephones
.
Stations including
landscaping/grounds
elevator
maintenance,
janitorial
maintenance,
.
Office and maintenance building maintenance
.
Shop equipment (maintenance, inspection, calibration).
Table No. 12: "Guideway System Life Cycle Order-Of-Magnitude Cost Analysis"
summarizes the 20-year life cycle cost for the Alignment alternatives (guideway systems are
designed and built for a life span of more than 20-years). The order-of-magnitude cost of $1.8
million per year represents the average yearly cost for the candidate automated systems being
considered (both self- and cable-propelled) for the Clearwater application.
The operation and maintenance of the gondola system will be similar. The minimum
operating personnel required consists of an operator and at least one attendant at each loading and
unloading area. The operator may serve as the attendant at one of the terminals (provided this does
not interfere with his/her monitoring of the system). Also, an individual skilled in the trouble-
shooting and repair of mechanical and electrical systems should be present at all times. In addition,
adequately trained personnel must be available to evacuate the system should this be necessary. A
minimum of at least four to five full-time employees would be required during operation for a
three-station system. To achieve a high capacity and more efficient, passenger-friendly experience,
more station operators may be required.
Items that experience wear through operation include sheave liners, bearings, grips, and the
haul rope. Rope life is a function of the number of clamping cycles and turns of the rope around
the bull wheels. Grip hits cause wear; generally, the shorter the rope, the shorter its life. Rope
life is highly reliable with the typical life span being 12,000 to 15,000 hours. Grip life expectancy
is approximately 20 years, which includes a major overhaul every 6000 hours. Large systems may
have a small work force dedicated to grip overhaul. This includes rebuilding each grip every three
or four years according to a set schedule. It takes approximately three worker-days to rebuild a
grip. Since proper functioning of grips is essential to safety, this maintenance requirement cannot
be neglected. Cabins have a lifetime of 15 to 20 years, which may involve an overhaul around
mid-life. Command and control systems become obsolete after 10 years.
148
I~
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
;;;;J
~
rJ1
~ II:l
U ....
z~
<'i
rJ1 =
;!a <
<~
Z Q
ZU
o ~
ul-
~ii
~eu~
~~~i
. r~' Q ~
O-'1I:l
Z~t=
-"ClQ
~;;;;Ja.U
~~O~
~=~1I:l
<u~"Cl
~ < ~a
~UII:l
~;!l=
I .Iiiil Q
O~-=
~ee
~~
~ II:l
;;;;J~
~rJ1
~~
~ ~
~~
~ .6
~~
~
<
~
~
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ 8 ~ 0 on on 8 0 0 0 0 8 ~ 0 0 0 0
M - N M 00 on on M 00 -
= N - 0\ - ...... 8 M M 8 c::l N
N N
~ 0 ~ 0 on on ~ ~ 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
...... M - M 00 on on M 00 ......
'" N - 0\ - 8 M M \0 .... 00
...... ...... -
~ 0 0 0 on :!:l 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
c::l N M N M 00 on on M 00
oc - 0\ - - 8 M M \0 l:: 00
...... ......
~ 0 ~ 0 on :!:l ~ ~ 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
c::l M M 00 on on M 00
r-- - 0\ - 8 M M \0 l:: ~
..
~ 0 0 0 on on 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
- N M - N M 00 on on M 00
Ie N - 0\ - - 8 M M \0 l:: 00
...... -
~ 0 ~ 0 on :!:l ~ 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0
c::l M N M 00 on on M 00 8
ltl - 0\ - 8 M MN 00 ;::
...... N
~ 8 0 0 on on 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
N M - N M 00 on on M 00
~ N ...... 0\ - ...... 8 M M \0 l:: 00
...... -
~ 8 0 0 on on ~ 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
N M - N M 00 on on M 00
M N - 0\ - 8 M M \0 l:: 00
...... -
~ 0 ~ 0 on on ~ ~ 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
c::l M ...... M 00 on on M 00 -
N - 0\ ...... 8 M M \0 l:: 00
.. -
~ 0 0 0 on on 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
...... N M - N M 00 on on M 00
...... N ...... 0\ - ...... 0 M M \0 r- oo
...... - - -
~ 0 ~ 0 on on ~ ~ 0 0 0 8 0 ~ 0 0 ~
c::l M - M 00 on on 00 00
= - 0\ - 8 M M '<t - N
...... ...... N N
~ 0 ~ 0 on on ~ ~ 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
c::l M - M 00 on on M 00
- 0\ - 8 M M \0 l:: 00
'" -
~ 8 ~ 0 on on ~ ~ 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
M - M 00 on on M 00 ~
N 0\ 8 M M \0 l::
oc
~ 0 ~ 0 on on ~ 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
c::l M ...... N M 00 on on M 00
...... 0\ - 8 M M \0 r- oo
r-- - ......
~ 8 0 0 on on ~ 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
N M ...... N M 00 on on M 00
N - 0\ ...... 8 M M \0 .... 00
Ie ...... -
~ 0 0 0 on on ~ 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
c::l N M - N M 00 on on M 00
- 0\ - 8 M M \0 l:: 00
ltl ......
~ 8 0 0 on on ~ ~ 0 0 0 8 ~ 0 0 0 0
~ M ...... M 00 on on M 00 ~
N 0\ - 8 M M 00 0\
~ -
~ 8 ~ 0 on on ~ 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
M ...... N M 00 on on M 00
N 0\ - 8 M M \0 l:: 00
M -
~ 0 0 0 on on ~ ~ 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
c::l N M ...... M 00 on on M 00
...... 0- 8 M M \0 .... 00
N - -
~ 0 ~ 0 on on 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8
c::l M - N M 00 on on M 00
- 0\ - - 8 M M \0 r- oo
.. - ......
~ ~ u ~ ..l ~ ..l *
'" < ~ ::;
III ~ fo< r.l
... :c .c S .c 0 fo<
c: = ii = = fo< ~
rI.l rI.l = 6 rI.l =
~ ., ., '"
'" ., ~ '" tl'< ::;
EJ .~ ~ 0 olS
i ~ 1 '" i5 ~ 0
13 r-. Q)
U -g ~ r-. 6 ~ c ..l
..J ~ <.::: ,:; < u ~ 1! ~ g
~ Q) ""' c fo<
~ ~ i OJ 0 0 -< '" i) ~ c
.g ~ .=
~ .f! ;0 B ~ ~ 6 fo<
.= ;0 ~
0 Cl .... 0 r=: V5 '" ~ &. ~ 0 u
-0
CI)
"0
:::J
~
CI)
(J)
CI)
(.)
.~
CI)
(J)
Cl
c:
:2
(J)
as
~
CI)
'0
:2
~
"0
c:
as
~
o
""
c:
as
...,
-0
CI)
"0
:::J
~
CI)
.l!l
c:
CI)
E
CI)
Qj
o
Cl
(;;
(.)
"0
c:
as
(J)'
o
1ii
a;
~
CI)
iii
o
1ii
ill
Qj
'0
CI)
(.)
c:
as
c:
CI)
C
'(ij
E
"0
c:
al
c:
o
ii
Oi
Q.
o
.
.. ,- '" ~" ~
. .
. I- .
.1 .
II
I:
1"1
1'1
I
I .
I
I.
I
I .
I .
I
I
I
I
I .
I
. , . ,
, .
10. ORDE'R-OF-MAGNITUDE'
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
. \- . ",', ..'. ~'.. '
r' "
'. .c'" ....,_..;'. ':"',
...... "-"- " .,"':. "
.......,.'.... ',''-. d..j ,'.'." ...,....,. _
---------.---~-._~<>.
I
I
I
'1
. I
.1
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
. 'I. '.
, .
. .1
I'
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10. ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
10.1 Economic Impact Factors
The primary objective of this limited economic analysis is to determine the order-of-
magnitude financial requirements of project implementation, and then evaluate the project's ability
to absorb these requirements based upon project-derived benefits. Several economic aspects can
be highlighted in anticipation of subsequent, more in-depth phases of this study.
The economic impact of a guideway system implementation can be characterized from the
following two perspectives:
· Tangible Elements
- Patronage Projections
- Capital and Life Cycle Costs (investment)
- Revenues
- Project Schedule
- Cash Flow.
· Intangible Elements
- Risks
- Traffic and commute time decrease
- Societal Cost Savings Resulting from Pollution Reduction
-Image improvement
- Property and Area Value Enhancements (indirect revenue)
- System Extension Potential.
10.2 Revenue Potential
Guideway system investment costs should not be taken out of the potential revenue
context. There are three distinctive revenue types. The first source is derived directly from the
guideway system, the second from added revenues to the downtown and beach business
operations that are generated by additional visitors riding the attractive guideway system, and the
third is the intangible enhancement of the properties and surrounding areas. The projected
guideway system revenues should offset the operation and maintenance costs.
10.3 Projected Tangible Revenues
The following are the projected tangible revenues:
151
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.3.1
Fare Collection Revenue Potential from Ridership
Considering the projected annual ridership of 3.6 million per direction and a fare of $1, the
fare collection revenue would be $3.6 million per direction. With fares of $2 or even $3, which are
very reasonable for this type of system and compare favorably with the cost of parking at the
beach, tpe fare collection revenue would multiply. In addition, charging a higher fee would
discourage undesired passengers from riding continuously on the guideway system. An analysis of
fare collection sensitivity should be performed in the subsequent phases of the project to establish
the ridership levels for various fares. Future system extensions and further redevelopment of the
area would further increase the projected revenue from ridership.
As an option, the cost of riding could be included in parking fees for garage users. The
parking fees could be slightly increased and the parking ticket could be used for accessibility to the
guideway system. A transit pass should be introduced for the Harborview Convention Center
registrants (for example, at a $4 daily level). This could be included in the registration fees. An
agreement could be developed with the bus and Jolley Trolley services to allow intermodal passes.
With the emergence of smart magnetic cards, a variety of options exists for deriving revenues.
In addition, a system of surcharges could be incorporated into hotel room fees in order to
provide hotel guests with a Transit Pass to further enhance financial returns.
For the purpose of this study, we conservatively assume $7.2 million annual revenue from
fare collection at $1 fare per rider to and from the beach.
10.3.2
Revenue Potential from Downtown Parking Garage
We have assumed a 1,000-space new garage in addition to the existing 750 parking spaces
in the Downtown Station area. At present, beach parking maximum daily fee is $10.00 in
accordance with the Public Works Administration Parking System Beach Parking Information. In
order for the garage to be competitive with beach parking costs, we assumed a daily rate of $5.00
per space (50% lower). Assuming an average 70% garage occupancy rate, this would result in
$1.5 million annual revenue to the City. The rates would certainly substantially increase with major
improvements at the beach. Cost-sensitivity analysis should be performed in the subsequent
phases of this project to determine the best percentages. It should be noted that the downtown
garage can only be successful in conjunction with the planned guideway system.
It costs approximately between $5,000 and $10,000 per space (depending on design) to
construct a multi-story parking garage, which at an assumed cost of $6,000 per space would
required a $10,500,000 investment for a 1,750-space garage. As the new downtown parking
revenues would be substantial, they would quickly offset the initial construction investment.
10.3.3
Revenue Potential from Advertising and Sponsorship
The advertising revenue amount will have to be determined by city policies and marketing
strategies of potential investors (if any) and/or funding authorities. This may require joint
decisions in the case of on-board advertising (video monitors, interior and exterior advertising
displays) and at stations. Although use of advertising in public transit is quite limited in North
America, it is extensively used in Europe and Japan. Entire rail cars become moving billboards of
companies ranging from McDonald's to Coca Cola. Figure 38: "Sample Vehicle Exterior
Advertising" illustrates a transit system in Wroclaw, Poland. Figure 39: "Sample Vehicle Interior
Advertising" presents the plasma monitor and backlit panels on the Bellagio People Mover in Las
Vegas and Haneda Monorail in Tokyo, Japan. Figure 40: "Sample Station Advertising" shows
advertising panels at the Haneda Monorail station in Tokyo, Japan.
152
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 38
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Sample Vehicle Exterior Advertising
~
-~~'(..
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 39
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Sample Vehicle Interior Advertising
I
I
I
I ~
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE NO. 40
CLEARWATER BLUFF - TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY RECONNAISANCE STUDY
Sample Station Advertising
I
\ "'.11 .
""ll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For the purpose of this analysis, we performed a limited survey of advertising rates on
transit stations and trains elsewhere, to arrive at potential advertising revenues. Studies performed
by BART indicate that consumers notice advertising that helps pass time and provides information.
We considered a variety of advertising options including, but not limited to, backlit square panels,
backlit concourse and platform posters of various sizes, and cards. An LED scrolling system and
video advertising on large flat screens can also be explored. We believe that with adequate
promotion there may be a potential for $200,000 in annual advertising revenues for the guideway
system.
Sponsorship revenue can be derived from a variety of sources, subject to detailed analysis.
If the Olympic Games are held in Clearwater, the revenue could be very substantial. Major
companies could be approached for their interest in considering such an opportunity. Currently, it
is premature to solicit any commitments or even enter into more detailed discussions at this stage of
the project. Therefore, we have assumed a very moderate level of sponsorship. We suggest a
conservatively budgeted level between $50,000 and $100,000 for sponsorship annual revenue. A
sponsor would be automatically entitled to a certain level of free advertising.
In addition, the City of Clearwater may want to use travel time for introducing the
Clearwater area utilizing video screens and a variety of other promotional means.
For the purpose of this analysis, we conservatively assume a total of $250,000 combined
sponsorship/advertising revenue.
10.3.4
Revenue Potential from Right-of-Way Leasing for Utilities
The Cabinlift system guideway structure in Ziegenhaim, Germany, carries utility service
lines. Similarly for the Clearwater application, the guideway could be used to support
communication and other utility lines for beach area use on a lease-based arrangements.
For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has recently signed an
agreement to receive a minimum of $3 million in operating revenue over the next ten years from the
Williams Companies, Inc., for the installation and operation of a fiber optic cable system for an
initial I5-mile segment of cable. Williams' network is the fifth largest fiber optic network in the
United States. The installation of the fiber optic cable entails attaching the fiber optic cable in
protective sheaths to the walls of tunnels and in buried duct banks along the surface portions.
Metro already has in place fiber optic contracts with several clients, including MCI Metro,
Metropolitan Fiber-ICC, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Based on the Washington example, we could assume approximately a $3.80 per foot per
year lease as a basis for negotiations. Considering the initial length of the Clearwater guideway
(the Base Alignment: 9,44lft), this would result in an annual revenue of $35,876 per single lessee.
In addition, the guideway columns and horizontal elements could be used for mounting of
lighting fixture, traffic signs, and even advertising.
This type of opportunity will require lengthy and detailed negotiations with candidate
lessees; however, their outcome (if any) cannot be predicted at this time. Therefore, we allocate
limited potential revenue only from one potential lease contract for the purpose of this analysis
($36,000 per year). This is just to highlight an opportunity.
In addition, there may be some potential to use the guideway system for light cargo
movement to the beach areas. However, this would require a dedicated study to explore its
feasibility.
156
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.3.5
Revenue Potential from Station Retail Activities
Most of the transit systems overseas derive supplemental revenues (often substantial) from
food and retail activities in the station areas (coffee, gift, and flower shops, newsstands, and
other). Some guideway systems in tourists areas sell their own souvenirs (monorail post cards,
photo albums, and train models).
In our ridership analysis, we assumed approximately 10,000 sq. ft and 20,000 sq. ft of
restaurant, entertainment, and retail space directly adjacent to the planned stations. As those
developments are uncertain in the near term, for the purpose of this analysis, we conservatively
assumed 15,000 sq. ft of leaseable space at all stations.
The station leasable space at the 2001 average lease rate of $10.00 in Clearwater would
result in annual revenue of $150,000.00. It is also reasonable to assume that the leasing rates
would substantially increase given the projected ridership on the guideway system and resultant
passenger flow through the station areas. The assumed 2001 average lease rate is based on the
downtown area and was derived from two sources, including the Clearwater Economic
Development Response Team and Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce. There are no
available lease rate statistics for the beach area, as the range is difficult to determine because most
properties are privately owned and typically leased within their own companies (lower than market
price); or under the same leases for several years (which do not reflect the market price). Also, the
lease rate around the beach area fluctuates greatly. The lease rate can be relatively low compared to
the market value, or it can be very high.
10.3.6
Shuttle Bus Service Reduction Savings
The guideway system implementation would present an opportunity for either eliminating
or restructuring the Jolley Trolley service. The Jolley Trolley currently operates seven City-owned
trolley vehicles and two leased vehicles. The Jolley Trolley could continue its operation as a
supplemental service between all guideway system stations and nearby destinations, particularly
along the beach areas. The Jolley Trolley operation could continue either as part of the guideway
system operating entity or as a separate service. The service could be scaled down, depending on
priorities of adjacent neighborhoods. The annual operation and maintenance costs of the Jolley
Trolley is primarily in drivers' salaries as the vehicle maintenance is just $50,000.00.
It needs to be emphasized that trolley vehicles have a service life of approximately 8-12
years in contrast to a guideway system, which can effectively operate for at least 30 years. It can
therefore be assumed that each trolley vehicle will require replacement every 10 years. As the
guideway system will not require vehicle replacement during the foreseeable life of the system, this
feature can be considered a cost saving element for the guideway system in comparison with the
existing trolley service.
10.4 Intangible Contributors to Revenue
The following are the projected intangible revenues, which will be quantified in more detail
in the subsequent phases of this study:
10.4.1
Increase Business Patronage
The aforementioned revenue figures do not reflect the fiscal impact of new patron business
captured from guideway system development. Further, an approximate monetary value can be
projected for each additional visitor captured by downtown and beach businesses resulting from
the guideway system.
157
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
10.4.2
Hotel Room Rates Increase
It can be expected that hotel room rates in close proximity to the guideway stations will
increase. For example, complementary monorail service has been clearly shown to have a dramatic
impact on the Disneyworld hotel room price along the service alignment ($150-$250 per night
room charge with a monorail connection versus $60-$100 without monorail service).
10.4.3
Land Value Increase
Land value increases typically follow a successful transit improvement around the stations.
Furthermore, no additional parking spaces (requiring valuable land) will be needed at the beach
areas. From a larger economic perspective, transit advocates for several years have highlighted
how transit improves the land value and economies of the communities they serve. There are
specific examples of how transit investments benefit metropolitan areas. In Portland, for example,
the MAX light rail system has generated more than $1.2 billion in private and public development
along its line, including 9 million sq. ft of space either completed or under construction.
10.4.4
Job Creation
Typically over 60% of the total guideway system implementation cost is in local
conventional construction of stations, maintenance facility, and the guideway structures. This
work can be undertaken by local companies. The operation of the system will require permanent
operation and maintenance personnel. The projected economic benefits of the guideway system to
the beach and downtown areas will stimulate the local job market.
10.4.5
Transit Improvement Assessment Fees on All Future Developments
The City should consider assessing developers special fees towards the guideway transit
funding as a condition of future development.
10.4.6
Societal Benefits
The 3.6 million annual guideway riders will eliminate 1.8 million vehicular trips from
roadways and subsequently reduce traffic congestion, resultant pollution, and number of accidents.
Furthermore, time lost in traffic is not utilized to patronize local beach businesses.
10.4.7
Clearwater Image Enhancement
The overall image for an international tourist destination is vital to preserving a sound
economy. The guideway system will certainly boost this image and become Clearwater's icon for
years to come.
10.4.8
Tax Revenue Increase
As a result of the above variety of economic benefits, the guideway will generate a
substantial increase in annual tax revenues for the City.
10.5 Rapid Project Schedule to Minimize Costs
The guideway system project appears attainable in a short time frame without major
technical constraints. Table No. 13: "Guideway System Project Schedule" illustrates the flow of
activities, which are necessary for the project implementation.
158
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5
, ...
......1.. ....
........ .. ................
............................................................1..............
..u~..
.
"
..
.
"
~
i~
~
Q
~
z
u
Il
~
.... ............. ..........................1
~
c
,
.
"
......
~
~
~
~~
o =
U 'C .....
~ ~ <
;;.. 00 :ii
~-<~
.... ~ ~ ~
" f;I;:l "0'
~ ~ ~ ~
::s~e
=:lO~ ~
-< -< ~ ~
E-of;l;:lOO
=il ~ i~
S ~ ~
~:; ~
~ ~ Il
=:l
lll:i
~
-<
~
d
.
"
~
~ Ii
N'
~
.....
~
.. I.....
.......
.....
.____n_m.._____....___.......
................................................................ .......... .........illl~
[
'"
~
~
Ul
..... .
..... il
j
:l!
-
...'S.......
.
................................... ..... .. ..1 ....
~
~
I~~---
"
;
t
....
I~
.
"
I
~
.. ..l
~ .. .. .1 ..
8 Ii
N'
~
.
I!
~
z
i
_ t~ ~.~ ~
~ '" ~ fIe .~i 1 i ~ ~ ~
i I I~ i j X" ~fdl - ~~
j I i lfl~ hj~Hi]l~~1 j Ii
to) i .~ Q. = I ~ : ~ "6 ~ ~ ", i .~ i ~ 1 l ~ ~ ! f
Lid ~~f ~l1~& ""ijp{..;~"i!ll ~ ~ q..t
~i'~~ .....~c - ~t! e~~<;i~i!j~1S."'..~o . iE6j
q~~H~.!'!Xq!~:~~!!s~~~iI>l~;8~';!t _J! ~8~!
!llfliiillJlll'lljllflflllllJllllllliiflff
:!.~wLLo.....J--l :;) C) t:J:l crwa co..woOQ. ~ Cl W:I:WI- ci
e- IN INI.I_I_I~I_I. ~ I~ I~I~I: 1= =1~1=1=lgl~ I~I~I~ = 1= I~I= =I~I~I~ ~ I~I= 1= I~ =I=I~I.
~
~
"Ii
.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
According to this schedule, the system could be implemented by April 2005, assuming that
supplemental project activities are initiated in November of 2001. This means a three and one-half
year schedule depending on the time necessary to secure the management consensus and obtain
financing. A gondola installation could be completed much sooner; however, it is doubtful that the
economic development around the stations would follow that rapidly.
10.6 Adjusted Annual Revenue
In Chapter 9 of this report, we projected the target capital investment to be $39 million.
The following payment schedule can be assumed for the purpose of this analysis:
.
5% with the Notice-to-Proceed
.
5% upon approval of project schedule and design review schedule
5% upon approval of preliminary design review (all major subsystems)
.
.
5% upon approval of final design review
.
50% in progress payments upon receipt of billings from the Contractor for any of
the major subsystems listed below, after delivery to or completion by Contractor
and acceptance by the City of Clearwater:
- Guideway
- Power Feeding System
- Station and Maintenance Equipment
- Major Vehicle Subsystems (Carbody, Suspension, Doors, Bogies, Power
Supply, Lighting, HV AC)
- System Propulsion and Control
10% upon successful testing (including load testing)
.
.
10% upon completion, and acceptance of the People Mover System as certified by
the City of Clearwater
5% upon approval of draft manuals and training program
.
.
5% upon delivery of all spare parts, diagnostic equipment, tools, subject to the final
payment provisions.
The above schedule of values is a desired schedule; however, it is likely that the selected
supplier will attempt to negotiate it in order to increase the down payment from 5 to 20%. For the
purpose of this analysis, we have assumed a worst-case Payment Schedule with a 20% down
payment. We assumed that this payment would occur by the end of April 2002. We have assumed
the system completion date of April 15, 2005.
In addition, in Chapter 9 we assumed an average annual operation and maintenance
expenditure of $1.8 million per year in 2001 dollars. This amount needs to be increased to allow
insurance coverage. The insurance coverage costs depend on many factors such as type of
installation, insurability of the operating party, current market conditions, and extent of coverage.
For the purpose of this study, we assumed an additional $200,000 per year which includes a 3%
annual cost-escalation factor. This, however, also applies to the revenues, which should grow over
time. As indicated previously, the expected life of a guideway system is at least 30 years.
160
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Based on the above analysis, we expect to generate approximately $9,136,000 in revenues
during the first year of the guideway system operation ($7,636,000 without the garage revenues
which the City may want to isolate from the guideway system revenues). This is based on the
following potential revenue contributors:
· Fare Collection Revenue: $7.2 million (minimum)
· Parking Garage Revenue: $1.5 million
· Shuttle Bus Service Reduction or Elimination: Not included
· Station Space Lease: $150,000
· Advertising/Sponsorship: $250,000
· RoW Lease: $36,000.
Based on the projected annual investment expenditures and revenues, we have projected
related guideway system cash flow. We have assumed the investment expenditures in 2002 to
consist of a 20% downpayment ($7.8 million) to the selected supplier (there may be other limited
expenditures). We have also assumed for simplicity that the remaining contractual amount will be
paid in three annual equal accumulative installments. No revenue will occur until the end of 2005.
The operations and maintenance expense starts when the system opens (middle of 2005).
Table No. 14: "Guideway System Cash Flow in Constant 2001 Dollars" shows the
anticipated cash flow in 2001 dollars and does not include the garage revenues or the garage
construction cost. Table No. 15: "Guideway System and Parking Garage Cash Plow in Constant
2001 Dollars" includes the garage in the calculation (we have slightly increased the operation and
maintenance costs to accommodate the garage maintenance needs). In Tables No. 14 and 15, the
annual profit or loss is calculated by subtracting the cash outflow (guideway system investment,
parking garage investment, and operation and maintenance expenditures) from the revenue. Even
though all values in the tables are expressed in 2001 dollars, we assume (with a negligible error for
the order-of-magnitude analysis) that the same values will still apply in 2002 when the contract for
the guideway system supplier is signed.
Using 2001 constant dollars, the above calculations clearly show substantial annual
revenues for both scenarios: with the garage, $5.6 million in a typical year; without the garage,
$6.9 million in a typical year. The garage is essential for the entire concept success; however, its
funding may come from a separate source (and further improve the anticipated guideway system
cash flow), as downtown Clearwater needs a new garage regardless of the guideway system
implementation.
10.7 Order-of-Magnitude Return on Investment Analysis
The overall cost effectiveness of the guideway system must be balanced with the tangible
and intangible benefits previously identified as well as with investment considerations, which
altogether may very well further offset the cost and risk. In this initial analysis, we focus on
conservative tangible benefits.
In order to determine the benefits of such an investment for the City of Clearwater, we have
used return-on-investment (ROI) and cash flow financial formulas. We have tabulated our findings
to derive financial surplus/deficit (financial commitment versus return on investment).
161
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The expenditure and revenue values from Tables No. 14 and 15 have been adjusted for
inflationary effect with a 3.5% annual inflation factor. This value is determined under the
assumption that the inflation rate over the next 35 years will fluctuate between 3.0% and 4.0%.
However, this factor does not apply to investment and expenditures from 2002 to 2008 because the
fixed-fee contract will be in effect until 2008.
We have performed our analysis based on both public and private funding scenarios. In
the subsequent phases of this project, a public/private venture scenario will be evaluated. For the
private funding scenario, income tax is taken into account at an estimated annual rate of 35%.
Since the guideway system, as well as the parking garage, is a depreciable asset, a depreciation
deduction can be applied to the taxable income. Under the expectation that the useful life of the
guideway system is over 25 years, depreciation tax savings are determined under the 20-year
Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) property class. As a result, a depreciation
tax deduction is applied only from 2006 to 2026.
Finally, the net present value (NPV) is calculated. For the public (municipal) sector, the
hurdle rate is normally 8% to 12%, which should be determined internally by the City of
Clearwater. Thus, the average value of 10% is. used for the NPV calculations. For the private
sector such as a general contractor, the hurdle rate typically ranges from 10% to 15%. Therefore,
the average of 12.5% is used.
A small margin is also included to cover necessary fees and disbursements and is routine
practice for financial institutions. If the hurdle rate increases, our NPV would decrease. We believe
that the City of Clearwater or other funding entity may be able to improve this rate based on its
leveraged "borrowing power" and the utilization of innovative financing methods.
Rather than calculating ROI by dividing income by investment as it is generally done, we
have calculated ROI by dividing NPV by investment, as more variables are included in the NPV
and the investment is being paid off.
Table No. 16: "Guideway System Investment versus Revenue (Public Fund)" presents in
tabular form the order-of-magnitude net present value analysis at year-end for thirty years (from the
start up of the system) and discounted to the base year (2002). This table is also presented in
graphic form in Figure No. 41: "Guideway System NPV versus Year of Investment (public
Fund)" .
The calculated ROI over the life of the system (in the year 2035) is 70.2% (based on $39
million initial investment), which presents an economically justified financial undertaking,
particularly considering that no intangible benefits of the system implementation are taken into
consideration in this initial analysis.
The payback of the $39 million will occur during the year 2016. The time interval
necessary to realize the economic benefits of the system development is very reasonable for the
infrastructure investment and matches the best performing investments on public/private transit
systems in Japan.
Table No. 17: "Guideway System and Parking Garage Investment versus Revenue (Public
Fund)" presents in tabular form the order-of-magnitude net present value analysis at year-end for
thirty years (from the start up of the system) and discounted to the base year (2002). This table is
also presented in graphic form in Figure No. 42: "Guideway System and Parking Garage NPV
versus Year of Investment (Public Fund)".
162
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO. 14
CLEARW A TER BLUFF- TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway System Cash Flow in Constant 2001 Dollars
(Parking Garage Revenue Not Included)
Guideway Operation & Direct Benefit
System Maintenance Costs Revenue (ProfitfLoss)
Investment
Year ($)Million ($)Million ($)Million ($)Million
2002 7.80 -7.80
2003 10.40 -10.40
2004 10 .40 -10.40
2005 10.40 -10.40
2006 2.00 7.64 5.64
2007 2.00 7.64 5.64
2008 2.00 7.64 5.64
2009 2.20 7.64 5.44
2010 2.00 7.64 5.64
2011 2.00 7.64 5.64
2012 2.00 7.64 5.64
2013 2.00 7.64 5.64
2014 2.00 7.64 5.64
2015 2.30 7.64 5.34
2016 2.00 7.64 5.64
2017 2.00 7.64 5.64
2018 2.00 7.64 5.64
2019 2.00 7.64 5.64
2020 2.20 7.64 5.44
2021 2.00 7.64 5.64
2022 2.00 7.64 5.64
2023 2.00 7.64 5.64
2024 2.20 7.64 5.44
2025 2.00 7.64 5.64
2026 2.00 7.64 5.64
2027 2.00 7.64 5.64
2028 2.30 7.64 5.34
2029 2.00 7.64 5.64
2030 2.00 7.64 5.64
2031 2.00 7.64 5.64
2032 2.20 7.64 5.44
2033 2.00 7.64 5.64
2034 2.00 7.64 5.64
2035 2.00 7.64 5.64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 15
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GlJIDEW A Y
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway System and Parking Garage Cash Flow in Constant 2001 Dollars
Guideway Parking Operation & Direct Benefit
System Garage Maintenance Costs* Revenue (Profit/Loss)
Investment Investment
Year ($)Million ($)MiIlion ($) Million ($)Million ($)Million
2002 7.80 0.50 -8.30
2003 10.40 3.00 -13 .40
2004 10.40 3.00 -13.40
2005 10 .40 4.00 -14.40
2006 2.20 9.14 6.94
2007 2.20 9.14 6.94
2008 2.20 9.14 6.94
2009 2.40 9.14 6.74
2010 2.20 9.14 6.94
2011 2.20 9.14 6.94
2012 2.20 9.14 6.94
2013 2.20 9.14 6.94
2014 2.20 9.14 6.94
2015 2.50 9.14 6.64
2016 2.20 9.14 6.94
2017 2.20 9.14 6.94
2018 2.20 9.14 6.94
2019 2.20 9.14 6.94
2020 2.40 9.14 6.74
2021 2.20 9.14 6.94
2022 2.20 9.14 6.94
2023 2.20 9.14 6.94
2024 2.40 9.14 6.74
2025 2.20 9.14 6.94
2026 2.20 9.14 6.94
2027 2.20 9.14 6.94
2028 2.50 9.14 6.64
2029 2.20 9.14 6.94
2030 2.20 9.14 6.94
2031 2.20 9.14 6.94
2032 2.40 9.14 6.74
2033 2.20 9.14 6.94
2034 2.20 9.14 6.94
2035 2.20 9.14 6.94
* Adjusted for parking garage maintenance cost.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
TABLE NO. 16
CLEARWATER BLlJFF-TO-BEACH GlJlDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STlJDY
Guideway System Investment versus Revenue (Public Fund)
(Parking Garage Revenue Not Included)
Investment! Benefit
Expenditures Revenues (Income/Loss) Net Present Value
Year ($)Million ($)Million ($)Million ($)Million*
2002 7.80 -7.80 **
2003 10.40 -10.40 **
2004 10.40 -10.40 **
2005 10.40 -10.40 **
2006 2.00 7.64 5.64 -31.22
2007 2.00 7.90 5.90 -26.97
2008 2.00 8.18 6.18 -22.93
2009 2.44 8.47 6.03 -19.34
2010 2.30 8.76 6.47 -15.84
2011 2.38 9.07 6.69 -12.55
2012 2.46 9.39 6.93 -9.45
2013 2.54 9.72 7.17 -6.53
2014 2.63 10.06 7.42 -3.79
2015 3.13 10.41 7.27 -1.35
2016 2.82 10.77 7.95 1.08
2017 2.92 11.15 8.23 3.37
2018 3.02 11.54 8.52 5.52
2019 3.13 11.94 8.81 7.54
2020 3.56 12.36 8.80 9.37
2021 3.35 12.79 9.44 11.17
2022 3.47 13.24 9.77 12.85
2023 3.59 13.70 10.11 14.44
2024 4.09 14.18 10.10 15.87
2025 3.85 14.68 10.84 17.28
2026 3.98 15.19 11.21 18.60
2027 4.12 15.73 11.61 19.84
2028 4.90 16.28 11.37 20.95
2029 4.41 16.85 12.43 22.05
2030 4.57 17.44 12.87 23.08
2031 4.73 18.05 13.32 24.06
2032 5.38 18.68 13.30 24.94
2033 5.06 19.33 14.27 25.80
2034 5.24 20.01 14.77 26.61
2035 5.42 20.71 15.28 27.38
* NPV calculations are based on a 10% hurdle rate, which already accounts for a 3.5% annual inflation.
** NPV calculations not applied for frrst four years with payback expected in 2016.
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .-
~
0
....
-
-
....
I ~
'-'
~
=
-
=
I ;;>
-
=
~
~
~
I ~
-
~
z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
30.00
20.00
10.00
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
-40.00
FIGURE 41
CLEAR WATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEW A Y
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway System NPV versus Year of Investment (Public Fund)
(Parking Garage Revenue Not Included)
- .. ----,-. ~r---- .--~---
,---,-,--,.- -----,.-.-r----,...... --'---~---r----,--~-, ~r--.-.~.-.-r--.----__.._~~-.-....__-._____r--l
I I I , I I I I I I I I t 1 I t I . I I ! I I I
I I I t I
I I
I
,
I I I I I t I I I I I , I I
- .J _ _1_ _ 1 _ _I _ _ 1_ _ 1 _ _I _ _ '_ _ 1 _ _' _ _ L _ J _ _1_ _ L _ .J _ _1_ _ .L _ _' _ _ 1_ _ 1 _ _I _ _ '_ _ 1 _ _I_
I I lIt I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I t
I I I I r
- "j - - r- - T - -I - - ,- - T - -I - - ,- - I - -,- - r - "i - -,- - I - -, - - - - I - -
I I I t
i
I
i
I I I I It!
I t I I I 1 I i
- ~ - -'- - L - ~ - -'- - 1 - ~ - - i
: 1
I
I
I
I
j
I
I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I
- ,- - T - -, - - .- - I - -,- - r - I - - t - - i" - I - - ,- - i" - -, - -!
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
,
,
,
I
0.00
I
I I I I I I I I I I
- -l - - 1_ - ... _ _I - - I- _ ~ _ -1- _ I- _ ~ _ -I-
I I I I I I I I
I
,
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I- - -I - -1- - .. - ~ - -1- - .... - -1- - I- - .... - -1- - I- - of _ _1_ _ I- _ ... _ _1_ _ f- _ -l _ _
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I' 'lit I 1
, ,
,
,
I ,
_ ..I _ _'_ _ J.. _
I
.
.
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
,
,
_ _ ,_ _..! _ _ _ _!.. _ J _ _,_ _!. _ _, _ _1_ _ 1. _ _,_ _1_ _.!. _ _ _ _ ,_ _..! _ _1_ _!.. _ J... _1_ _!. _ _1..._
I' 1 1 'I I I I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
1 , 1 1 1 , , , 1 1 , , 1 J 1 1 , 1 , 1 , t I 1 I
1 - - r - T - -,- - r - , - -, - - r - , - - ,- - r - , - - ,- - T - -, - - .- - T - -,- - r - , - -,- - r - , - -,- - r - , - -
, , , , 1 t , '" I" 1 1 , I , I , I I
1 'I 1 1 'I I I 1 1 I 'I 1 I 1 ,
I " 1 1 'I' I 1 I 1 I I 1 ,
1 I I 1 . " 'I' 1 I 1 I
lit' 1 I 1 'I 1 I t 1
t 'I I I 1 1 I
" I 1 ,
,. ,
,
1 I , , 1 , 1 , 1 1 , 1 I I I 1 1 , I 'I I' 'I'
- 1- _ J.. _ _I _ _ '- _ .J. _ _, _ _ l. _ .J _ _I _ _ L _ J _ _ 1_ _ J.. _ J _ _ ,_ _ J. _ -' _ _ L _ .J. _ _1_ _ '- _ .J _ _1_ _ L _ ..J _ _1_ _ J.. _ J _ _
1 I 1 1 , 1 1 1 , , , 1 I 1 1 I I 1 r 1 I 1 , I I , I ,
1 1 I' 1 1 'I' I I 1 f , , I I' I" I I
1 1 1 1 1 '" I' I I , I I I 1 I' 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 'I' l' 1 I , I , I 1 I
I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I
1 1 I I 1
I I
I I
,
I
I
_J____~_~__~_!_~__~_1._
'I 'I I'
I I I 1 1 ,
- , - -1- - r - , - - 1- - T -
1 I . r 1
I
I
N
o
o
N
~
o
o
N
'D
o
o
N
00
o
o
N
o
-
o
N
N
-
o
N
~
-
o
N
'D
-
o
N
o
N
o
N
00
-
o
N
N
N
o
N
~
N
o
N
'D
N
o
N
00
N
o
N
o
C"l
o
N
N
C"l
o
N
~
C"l
o
N
Year of Investment
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 17
('LEAR\VATER BLllFF-TO-BEACIl GlJIDE\VA Y
RECO;\JNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway System and Parking Garage Investment versus Revenue (Public Fund)
Investment/ Benefit
Expenditures Reyenues (I ncome/Loss) Net Present Value
Year ($)lVIillion ($)i\lillion ($)lVIillion ($)lVIillion*
2002 8.30 -8.30 **
2003 13.40 -13 .40 **
2004 13 .40 -13 .40 **
2005 14.40 -14.40 **
2006 2.20 9.14 6.94 -39.67
2007 2.20 9.46 7.26 -34.44
2008 2.20 9.79 7.59 -29.48
2009 2.66 10.13 7.47 -25.03
2010 2.52 10.48 7.96 -20.72
2011 2.61 10.85 8.24 -16.67
2012 2.70 11.23 8.53 -12.86
2013 2.80 11.62 8.82 -9.27
2014 2.90 12.03 9.13 -5.90
2015 3.41 12.45 9.04 -2.86
2016 3.10 12.89 9.78 0.13
2017 3.21 13.34 10.13 2.94
2018 3.32 13.81 10.48 5.59
2019 3.44 14.29 10.85 8.08
2020 3.88 14.79 10.90 10.35
2021 3.69 15.31 11.62 12.56
2022 3.81 15.84 12.03 14.63
2023 3.95 16.40 12.45 16.58
2024 4.46 16.97 12.51 18.36
2025 4.23 17.56 13.33 20.09
2026 4.38 18.18 13.80 21.72
2027 4.53 18.81 14.28 23.25
2028 5.33 19.47 14.14 24.62
2029 4.85 20.16 15.30 25.98
2030 5.02 20.86 15.84 27.25
2031 5.20 21.59 16.39 28.45
2032 5.87 22.35 16.48 29.54
2033 5.57 23.13 17.56 30.60
2034 5.76 23.94 18.17 31.60
2035 5.97 24.78 18.81 32.54
* NPV calculations are based on a 10% hurdle rate, which already accounts for a 3.5% annual inflation.
** NPV calculations not applied for first four years with payback expected in 2016.
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I .-
~
c
.....
-
-
.....
I ~
--
~
=
-a
I ~
-
=
~
II.l
~
I ,
-
~
z
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
-40.00
-50.00
FIGURE 42
CLEAR\;V ATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GlJIDEW A Y
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway System and Parking Garage NPV versus Year of Investment
(Public Fund)
-~._-'-.-----'~ --.--------.----..-....,------,.--.----.....------.--~--- -.------.--,------.----.--~-,----_,~---,--.~.T--~.,...._~_._-.___.___.__.___'__._~-___.__-.,
I I I r I I I t I I t I I I I It' I I I I . I t I I I
I I I I I I
0.00
,
I I t I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I r I 1 I I I I 1 1 I
- I - -1- - r - -.- -1- - 1" - -1- - r - 1 - -,- - r - -1- -,- - T - -,- - r -, - -,- - r - -I - -.- - T - -1- - t- -, - -1- - r - 1 - -,--
! I I I I I 1 I I 1 I fit I I
I 1 1 I I I 1 I
,
,
I lIt I I I I I I
- - - - - - t - - - - 1- - r - - - - 1- - "i - - - - i" - -, - - ,- - I - - - - I - "'j - - - - i" - -, - - - - 'i -
I I I I I I I I I
I I I t I
,
,
,
I I tit
-I-l----r-"i----T-~--~-
I I I t I
,
,
,
_ _I _ _ 1_ _ .!.. _ _, _ _ ,_ _ .! _ _' _ _ L _ J _ _ _ _ .!.. _ _, _ _ ,_ _ .! _ _ t _ _ !... _ .1 _
, ,
,
,
,
I
_.!.. _.! _ _,_ _1. _ _1_ _ L _ J _ _1_ _!. _ _I _ _1_ _!. _ _1_ _,__
I I I 1 I I I I t
,
,
,
, , ,
_ ~ _ _ 1_ _ ~
, ,
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I I I I I I I I I I I I
_ _1_ _ L _J _ _1_ _ L _ _,_ _1___ ! _ _1_ _ L_ .J _ _'_ _ L _ J _ _,_ _ 1 _ _1_ _'_ _
, , 1 I I , I I I , 1 1 I I I I 1 I
I I 1 I 1 I I I I ,
I 1 I I
, ,
I "
~ I I
I I
I , I 1 I I 1 I I' ", t t 1 It' I ,
_ -l _ _ 1_ _ J. _ _1_ _ L. _ J _ _L.. _ L_.J-::_ J.. __I.... _-':L. ... .J _ ":"1... '_ L _..J _ _1_ _ .L- ... ..J _.:.. L. _
1 I' 1 1 I 1 I 1 .. I , I t I , I ,
1 1 I ,t -I- 1 -. I , I I III ,
, 1 I 1 I ~ 1 I t 1- t' 1 , , I I
1 'I 1 ,t I I 1- 1 1 I ,
1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1
1 1 1 I I 1 1
1 , I I
I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 , 1 1 I 1 1 fl. I I , 1 I 1
- --4 - ....1- - ~ - -l - - 1- - ... - -I _ _ I- _ --4 _ _1_ - ... - -I - - 1- _ ... _ _I _ _ "" _ --4 _ -1- _ ... _ .... _ -1- _ .. _ -i _ _ .... _
, 1 1 1 I lit 1 I 1 , , 1 , I 1 , 1 1 1
I 'I "I 1 1
, 1 t 1
,
,
,
,
, I I 1 1 I \ I t I 1 , 1 l , I' I 1 I I , I , I
- -,- - r- -..,- -1- - r -...,- -\- -.,. - -,- - r- -., - -,- - t' - ...,-- -,~ - T -_-1- -'t'" -.., - --1-'" t' -.,... -1- - T - -1- -'-'"
, , 1 1 , I I I' 1 t t , I 1 I I 1 , I 1 I , I
I' 1 I t I 1 I I I' I 'I I 1 -, ,
, \ I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I
'I , I 1 I- I I t
1 t 1 " , 1
j I I 1
I 1 I 1
1 1 1 , I , I It' 1 1 , , I 1 I -I- 1 1 I 1 I . t I , I
- - ,- - i - -,- - r - ., - -,- - r - -, - - ,- - i - -, - - r - , - -,- - r - -. - - ,- - T - -I - - r - , - -,- - r - , - - ,- - T - -, - - 1- -
1 1 , I I I' 1 1 , 1 I , I I I I 1 , I , 1 , I
1 I , 'I t, 1 , 1 lit I , , 1 I I , I
1 1 1 I I I 1 'I I' 1 I' f I
1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I
I , , I' 1 I I ,
1 1 1 I' 1 I I I
1 I 1 I 1 'I
I 'I I'
,
,
1 1 , I
_ _' _ _ 1_ _ l _ _1_ _ L _ .J _ _ 1_ _ 1 _ _' _ _ 1_ _
, I I , 1 , 1 I , ,
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I , I I I 1 I I I I
_..J _ _,_ _ L _ -1_ _L _.1_ _I......L....J _ _I_
I I 1 I , I I 1 I
, , I
, I
, ,
, I
, ,
,
, I I ,
-I - - I- _ ... _ -I _ _
, , I I
,
I
, , ,
- .., - - ,- - 1" -
, ,
, ,
, I
,
,
,
, ,
, , ,
- ., - - ,- - T -
,
N
o
o
N
'<t
o
o
N
\0
o
o
N
o
-
o
N
'<t
....
o
N
00
o
o
N
N
-
o
N
\0
-
o
N
00
-
o
N
o
N
o
N
N
N
o
N
'<t
N
o
N
\0
N
o
N
o
~
o
N
N
~
o
N
'<t
~
o
N
00
N
o
N
Year of Investment
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The calculated ROI over the life of the system (in the year 2035) is 65.7% (based on $39
million initial investment). The return for the first thirty years is lower as the investment is
substantially higher. However, the system will continue its operation beyond thirty years upon
refurbishment of hardware and software which presents limited expenditure (the infrastructure will
only need cosmetic improvements). The payback of the $39 million will occur during the year
2016.
Table No. 18: "Guideway System Investment versus Revenue (Private Fund)" presents in
tabular form the order-of-magnitude net present value analysis at year-end for thirty years (from the
start up of the system) and discounted to the base year (2002). This table is also presented in
graphic form in Figure No. 43: "Guideway System NPV versus Year of Investment (Private
Fund)".
The calculated ROI over the life of the system (in the year 2035) is 7.1 % (based on $39
million initial investment). The payback of the $39 million will occur during the year 2027. This
results in a financially limited attractiveness to investors, primarily due to tax and hurdle rate
consequences. However, guideway investment cannot be treated in isolation from other
development opportunities, which are the driving forces in creating economic viability for the City
of Clearwater. The City should either consider a public/private venture and/or set conditions for the
redevelopment to benefit the guideway system implementation.
Table No. 19: "Guideway System and Parking Garage Investment versus Revenue (Private
Fund)" presents in tabular form the order-of-magnitude net present value analysis at year-end for
thirty years (from the start-up of the system) and discounted to the base year (2002). This table is
also presented in graphic form in Figure No. 44: "Guideway System and Parking Garage NPV
versus Year ofInvestment (private Fund)". The calculated ROI over the life of the system (in the
year 2035) is 4.9% (based on $39 million initial investment). The payback of the $39 million will
occur during the year 2029.
To summarize, it is certainly more financially rewarding if the system is implemented by
the public sector. However, the private sector may be attracted to it either in a public/private
venture or alone, particularly considering other developmental potential and further revenue. In
either scenario, with the debt paid off, all investment profits are returned from the system
development, generating a continuous substantial cash savings and smooth operation of a first-
class destination resort.
10.8 Risks
The implementation of a custom designed and built guideway system in the urban and
resort environment of Clearwater presents an array of risks, which are pointed out below. It is
difficult to assign any specific tangible value to these risks; however, they have to be taken into
consideration during the entire decision-making process. These risks are real but have revealed
themselves in only a very few instances of mismanaged projects worldwide. For example, two
early installations in Las Vegas (including suspended monorail and gondola systems) and two for
airports (the Manchester and deGaulle International Airports) were dismantled shortly after the
opening due to ill-balanced implementation and inadequate planning processes.
The following risks should be taken into consideration:
Schedule Risks. Our assumed schedule is based on achievable fabrication targets and
suppliers' willingness to negotiate. It may be beneficial to have contractual provisions for delay
penalties and early finish rewards. There may also be delays caused by the public authority
approval process. In general, our schedule should be easily achievable.
169
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE NO. 18
CLEARW A TER BLlJFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway System Investment versus Revenue (Private Fund)
(Parking Garage Revenue Not Included)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
Investment! Depreciation Tax After-Tax Cash
Expenditures Revenues Savings Flow Net Present Value
Year ($)Million ($)Million ($)Million* ($)Million** ($)Million***
2002 7.80 -7.80 ****
2003 10.40 - ] 0.40 ****
2004 10.40 -10.40 ****
2005 10.40 -10.40 ****
2006 2.00 7.64 0.56 4.23 -32.41
2007 2.00 7.90 I.l] 4.94 -29.01
2008 2.00 8.18 1.06 5.08 -25.90
2009 2.44 8.47 1.02 4.94 -23.2]
20]0 2.30 8.76 0.97 5.]7 -20.71
2011 2.38 9.07 0.93 5.28 -]8.44
2012 2.46 9.39 0.89 5.40 -]6.38
2013 2.54 9.72 0.85 5.51 -14.5 ]
2014 2.63 10.06 0.88 5.70 -]2.78
20]5 3.13 10.41 0.91 5.64 - ] 1.27
2016 2.82 10.77 0.94 6.] 1 -9.81
2017 2.92 II.] 5 0.97 6.32 -8.47
20]8 3.02 11.54 1.0 I 6.54 -7.24
20]9 3.13 11.94 1.04 6.77 -6.11
2020 3.56 12.36 1.08 6.80 -5.09
2021 3.35 ]2.79 1.09 7.23 -4.14
2022 3.47 13.24 1.13 7.48 -3.26
2023 3.59 13.70 I.l7 7.75 -2.45
2024 4.09 14.]8 1.2 ] 7.78 -1.72
2025 3.85 14.68 1.25 8.30 -1.04
2026 3.98 15.19 0.65 7.94 -0.45
2027 4.12 15.73 7.54 0.04
2028 4.90 16.28 7.39 0.47
2029 4.41 16.85 8.08 0.89
2030 4.57 17.44 8.36 1.27
2031 4.73 18.05 8.66 1.62
2032 5.38 18.68 8.64 1.93
2033 5.06 19.33 9.27 2.23
2034 5.24 20.01 9.60 2.51
2035 5.42 20.71 9.93 2.76
* Based Oil Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (M^Cl~S) 20-year property dass and depreeiatiollmethod.
** Based on a 35'} income tax rate.
*** NPV calculatiolls are based on a 12.5% hurdle rale. which already a<:<:ounts for a 3.5c;" annual intlation.
**** NPV calculatiolls not applied for first four years with payback expected ill 2027.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -.
~
Q
....
-
-
....
I 6
~
=
-
=
I >
....
c
~
~
...
I =-
....
~
z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-5.00
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00
-25.00
-30.00
-35.00
5.00
FIGURE 43
CLEAR WATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GlJIDEW A Y
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway System NPV versus Year of Investment (Private Fund)
(Parking Garage Revenue Not Included)
-~r- I ---~--r.-- T- -r----r---,---<-.----r-----.~----r--
j I I I I I I I
I t I I
-.--,--~~-----.------.-......--..,-.-.--.....,..--,-----
I J I j f t I . I I
, ,
,
,
I I I I I t I I I I I I I I
- -,- - T - -, - - r- - i - -,- - r - ., - -,- - r - ., - -,- - r - -, - -
I I I I I t I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I , f
, , ,
,
,
, ,
, ,
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- .., - - 1- - r - , - - ,- - r - -, - - r - T - -,- - r - ., - -,- - -., - - ,- - r - , - - ,- - T - -\ - - .- - "f - -,- - r - , - -,- - r - ., - -,- - r - ., - -
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I
I t I I I I I I r I I I I I I I t
I I I I t I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I f I I I r
I I I I I I I
I I I J: I I t
I I I-. I I I
I I I I I I I I I I , I , I I t t- I I I I t I I I I
-,--,--1' ,--,--t--,--r--'T--'- r-'--'--:r-,--,--r-'--j--: , r' -r-'-'-,--r--:,--,--r-j--
I I I I I I I I I I t I I , I I I I , I I I
I I I I t I I I I I I I J I I 1- I I
I I I I I I I I I t t t t tit I
tit 1 t I' I I I' -. J. 1 I t I
I I t r 'I I It' t t I I
t I 'I I 1'1 I I 1- I
t 1 'I I I _ct- I 1 I I
I I t I I 1 I I t I I
1 , lit 1 1 1 1 1 I , . I . I t I 1 I I I . 1 I 1 I , 1
, - - ,- - T - -I - - .. - 'T - -, - - r - , - -,- - r - , - -.- - r - , - --,- - T - - ~ - - t - i - -1-- - r - , - -1- - r - , - -1- - r - , - -
I , , , 1 . 1 I I t I 1 1 , , 1 I I 1 I
. 1 I , , 1 1 , 1 1 I I 1 I
, 1 I , 1 , , , I' ,
I t t I , 1 I 1 ,
1 , ,- I , , " ,
, I . "I' I
I ,. I I I I I I
I 1 I I' I I
, . . . I 1 , , , , 1 , , , , 1 . t I I , I I , I ,
-, - - r - 'T - -.- - r - , - -,- - r - , - -,- - r - , - - ,- - t - -. - - ~- T - -f- .-- r - , --,- - --'I - , - -,- - r - , - -
, 1 , , I . , , , 1 , I , It-' , I I , , , , 1 t 1
, I' I , , , 'I I' It' , If' t ., I , ,
, , 1 , ,t~ 1 1 , , I , I ,
, , It" 1-' 1 I I
" l-' I t I
. f I' , 'I
---. ,; 'I , I I
I l: l' , 1 I
. , , ~ I . 1 I , , , , , I 1 I I .. , r I , I I I , 1 ,
.- - T - -, - - r - i - -. - - r - , - -,- - r - , - -,- - T - , - - ,- - T - 1- - r - -T - -,- - r - , - -,- - r - , - -,- - r - , - -
, , , 'I I""" I , , , t , I , , , I , 1 I ,
, , , I I , , . , , , , , , 1- , , , t I I , I I ,
, , , , I , . , I I I . , I 1 I , I , , I , I I ,
I , , I I .. I . I . , I I': , I I , , , I , I ,
1 , , ". . I I I , , I 1- I "f' I I ,
, , " , I I 'I I' I , , , ,
, I " , I t- I I I I I I , ,
, , , , It' "I I , I ,
1 , , I I I I 'I' I It'
0.00
, ,
-,--,--
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
, , ,
-,--.--r
, ,
,
,
I
, , ,
-'--I--r-
, ,
,
, , ,
- , - - ,- - r -
, ,
,
,
,
,
N
o
o
N
~
o
o
N
-, -.-------------r--.,-------,---....,.-~,-_._
1 I 1 1 1 1
, ,
,
,
I 1 1 , 1 , I 1 1 , , , 1 I
- , - - 1- - T - -, - - 1- - i - -I - - r - , - -, - - i - , - -,- - T -
I 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 I I I I I .
1 1 1 I'
,
,
,
1 1 I I , 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I , I , . I 1 I
, - - 1- - T - -I - - r - T - -I - - r - , - -1- - i - , - -,- - r - , - - 1- - T - -I - - r - T - - -
1 I I 1 'I 'I I 1 1 I 1 I I . I
I 1 I I I 1 1 ,
, ,
,
I , I I I I
- , - -1- - r - ., - -,- - r - -. - -
I I I I . 1
,
,
,
,
\0
o
o
N
~
....
o
N
00
o
o
N
o
......
o
N
N
....
o
N
\0
......
o
N
o
N
o
N
N
N
o
N
~
N
o
N
\0
N
o
N
o
C'")
o
N
N
C'")
o
N
~
C'")
o
N
00
......
o
N
00
N
o
N
Year of Investment
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 19
CLEAR\VATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GlJlDEW A Y
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway System and Parking Garage Investment versus Revenue (Private Fund)
Investment/ Depreciation Tax After-Tax Cash
Expenditures Revenues Savings Flow Net Present Value
Year ($ )Million ($) Million ($)Million* ($}Million** ($)Million***
2002 8.30 -8.30 ****
2003 13 .40 -13 .40 ****
2004 13 .40 -13 .40 ****
2005 14.40 -14.40 ****
2006 2.20 9.14 0.71 5.22 -41.12
2007 2.20 9.46 1.40 6.12 -36.91
2008 2.20 9.79 1.35 6.28 -33.06
2009 2.66 10.13 1.29 6.14 -29.72
2010 2.52 10.48 1.23 6.40 -26.63
2011 2.61 10.85 1.18 6.54 -23.82
2012 2.70 11.23 1.13 6.67 -21.27
2013 2.80 11.62 1.07 6.81 -18.95
2014 2.90 12.03 1.11 7.05 -16.83
2015 3.41 12.45 1.15 7.03 -14.94
2016 3.10 12.89 1.19 7.55 -13.14
2017 3.21 13.34 1.23 7.82 -11.48
2018 3.32 13.81 1.28 8.09 -9.96
2019 3.44 14.29 1.32 8.37 -8.55
2020 3.88 14.79 1.37 8.45 -7.29
2021 3.69 15.31 1.38 8.94 -6.11
2022 3.81 15.84 1.43 9.25 -5.02
2023 3.95 16.40 1.48 9.57 -4.02
2024 4.46 16.97 1.53 9.67 -3.12
2025 4.23 17.56 1.59 10.26 -2.27
2026 4.38 18.18 0.82 9.79 -1.56
2027 4.53 18.81 9.28 -0.95
2028 5.33 19.47 9.19 -0.42
2029 4.85 20.16 9.95 0.10
2030 5.02 20.86 10.29 0.57
2031 5.20 21.59 10.65 1.00
2032 5.87 22.35 10.71 1.39
2033 5.57 23.13 11.41 1.76
2034 5.76 23.94 11.81 2.10
2035 5.97 24.78 12.23 2.41
* Based on Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) 20-year property class and depreciation method.
** Based on a 35% income tax rate.
*** NPV calculations are based on a 12.5% hurdle rate, which already accounts for a 3.5% annual inflation.
**** NPV calculations not applied for ftrst four years with payback expected in 2029.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I j
Q
....
-
-
....
I 6
~
=
'a
I ~
....
c
~
rI.l
~
...
I =-
1$
Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
-40.00
-50.00
to.OO
0.00
FIGURE 44
CLEARWATER BLUFF-TO-BEACH GlJIDEW A Y
RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
Guideway System and Parking Garage NPV versus Year of Investment
(Private Fund)
_."j-">'---""l"~.-''''''''-------r>'--' ''''''''''~-''r- ~ - ,.-- ....,.-.---.-~_.-----r.~--.--
, ,
, ,
-'--,--r
- _I _ _ I- _ .J. _ _I _ _ L.. _ ..... _ _ 1_ _ .L _ -I _ _ 1_ _ .J. _ _I _ _ l- _ ..J _ _1_ _ L _ -I _ _ 1_ _ .. _ _I _ _ I- _ -I _ _ _
, , I
- - 1_ - J,. - _I - - '- - 1
, : ' , I
I
I
I
I
,
,
_ ..! _ _ 1_ _ !.. _ _I _ _ ,_ _ .!. _ _ _ _ ~ _ .! _ _ 1_ _ .!.. _ _, _ _ ,_ _ ..!. _ _I _ _
I I I I I I I I I I I I
,
,
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- "; - - - - - - - - - ,- - "i - - - - ,- - - - - - - ;- - ~ - - - - - - - - - - -
,
-,
,
I I I I I t I I
r - -, - - ,- - T - -, - - r - ., -: -..- - r '"::
I I I I I I t t
, , ,
I I I I
- -l- - "" - -1- - +- - -4- -1-,;,.... - -1- _l- - "" - -1- - ~ _.~_ _1_ _ + _._1_ -l- -... - _1_ _. +- _.... _ _1_ _.. _ -1- -1-_
,
,
_J__'__.!.._
,
,
,
,
,
_L_l_____L_J____.!.._~__L_l__I__L_J____l_
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
_'__l_J____L_J__I__l_J__L__
) I I I
N
o
o
N
"<t
o
o
N
N
C")
o
N
"<t
C")
o
N
\0
o
o
N
o
-
o
N
00
o
o
N
N
....
o
N
"<t
-
o
N
\0
-
o
N
o
N
o
N
N
N
o
N
~
o
N
00
-
o
N
\0
N
o
N
o
C")
o
N
00
N
o
N
Year of Investment
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hardware Risks. Our intent is to contain the cost of the entire project under forty million
dollars, which is a very ambitious target. As a result, we anticipate to negotiate only with suppliers
in a competitive range and instantly eliminate some large suppliers with higher cost levels. We
may also use various creative design and implementation techniques to control the cost.
Regardless of the overall system cost, the central and wayside train control system is
always a very complex hardware and software package. For example, when Bombardier delivered
the UM III system to the Tampa International Airport, full automation could not be introduced until
six months after the opening, which caused bad publicity and financial damages to Bombardier.
Our contractual provisions will protect the City of Clearwater.
Cost Overrun Risks. We are confident in our cost estimates; however, there may be some
unforeseen events (hardware delivery delays, train control failures, etc.) or discoveries
(contaminated soil, archeological findings, etc.). In addition, the strength of the U.S. dollar may
have some impact, since a substantial percentage of the equipment may be foreign made
(depending on selection of suppliers), which may impact system costs.
Liability Risks. Liability can be a costly factor. We know this first hand because members
of our staff serve frequently as expert witnesses in transportation cases nationwide. For example,
in Las Vegas, there have been three or four legal actions against Circus Circus Enterprises by their
automated shuttle passengers in recent years.
However, based on our extensive experience in dealing with suppliers, authorities, and
lawyers, we have not observed liability issues as a paralyzing and overly destructive factor.
Transit systems are generally very safe, particularly those on elevated guideways.
There has not been a single passenger fatality in the thirty-year history of automated
guideway systems worldwide, and when one conceives of how many millions of passengers ride
systems such as Disney and Japanese monorails, it becomes a real achievement. The only fatalities
that have occurred were related to absolutely unpredictable events such a homeless person climbing
a column of the guideway in Miami and falling asleep on the guideway.
Security problems can also pose liability concerns. For example, the MGM Grand-Bally's
Monorail system has experienced problems with people walking on the guideway from Bally's to
the MGM Grand.
Long- Term Commitment and Exposure. This is a "no return" decision. Such a system
cannot be easily dismantled, has practically no salvage value, and could become a financial burden
for a variety of reason (for example, a supplier goes out of business). The "best bet" strategy is to
promote rapid system extension(s) to share the financial responsibilities.
Many of the above risks can be limited by adequate contractual provisions, including
liquidated damages in the case of construction and fabrication delays. There are proven methods to
mitigate most of them and, therefore, we do not envision a considerable exposure to any of them
by the City of Clearwater.
10.9 Candidate Procurement Methods
Procurement of an automated guideway system is a relatively new process for many
procuring agencies worldwide. With the exception of large airports, no single transit market sector
has enough experience to establish well-proven procurement methodologies for innovative
guideway technologies. Several methods, however, have emerged recently, which (together with
more conventional approaches) make the decision-making process quite complex.
174
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There are many aspects to implementation of a guideway system, especially one utilizing an
emerging technology. In addition to defining the system layout and performance, decisions must
be made regarding construction staging, system financing, and participants' roles in the project.
Procurements can be structured in several ways, each of which has advantages and disadvantages.
The method selected should maximize the benefits to the City of Clearwater, in terms of
cost, risk, financing, quality, and schedule. Evaluation criteria, including technical and financial
capabilities of the City of Clearwater, technical risk associated with the hardware or system being
purchased, legal restrictions, and resources of the expected bidders are frequently used to
determine the most appropriate system procurement methodology.
There are several basic approaches to procurements. Their methodologies frequently
include:
. Conventional
. Limited Turnkey
. Turnkey
. Super Turnkey
. Four Phase Turnkey
. Build/OperatefTransfer
. Partnership Franchise
. Full Franchise.
The turnkey category includes the Design-Build (D-B) and Design-Build-Operate-Maintain
(D-BOM) methods. Those methods toward the top of the list are more commonly used today; they
involve a significant design effort by the procuring agency. The owner is in effect acting as
architect, engineer, and general contractor, and is subcontracting out individual parts of the system,
with tightly written specifications. Contracts are generally awarded to the lowest priced qualified
bidder (meeting a minimum technical score), although sometimes a "best value"
evaluation/selection criteria is used. The owner maintains the maximum amount of control over the
project with Conventional procurement methodology compared with turning over nearly all control
to the contractor with a Franchise procurement.
Towards the bottom of the methodology list, the supplier does much more of the design
work, taking full responsibility for the system integration role and, ultimately, the performance of
the system. These methods allow the most innovation by the suppliers and facilitate a wide range
of technologies to be considered for a project. They can be structured to provide at least partial
private financing of the project. In addition, they could become attractive if conventional methods
such as tax measures are not successful in obtaining the necessary funding for the project.
However, those methods are only feasible if a supplemental economic stimulation scenario could
be introduced to the project. In general, the possibilities of obtaining outside funding sources can
be significantly impacted by the choice of procurement methodology, especially when private
funding is considered. With the more traditional contracting methods, private funding is more
difficult to obtain. Other methods, such as Franchise or Build-Operate- Transfer, are more
conducive to attract private capital and should be further explored for the Clearwater application in
the subsequent phases of the project.
175
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
10.10 Economic Impact to the City of Clearwater
Tangible, direct projected revenues are substantial and either alone, or together with
additional intangible revenues, they present an unique economic opportunity both to the City of
Clearwater and potential private partners (if a public/private partnership is established). The
projected cash flow is very attractive and can be easily further enhanced by combining the
guideway system with the redevelopment projects. It is conceivable that a private funding scenario
is feasible, subject to further analysis and discussions with potential private partners. In summary,
the 3.6 million projected annual guideway riders per direction will generate substantial revenues to
make the transit system profitable and supplement local economy.
Based on the extensive complexities associated with quantifying intangible elements, we
have not assigned specific corresponding dollar values, but they may be substantially beyond the
tangible revenue levels. They will be better quantified in the subsequent phases of our work with
particular emphasis on land value increase.
It should be also realized that the above initial analysis focuses only on the guideway
system and the adjacent garage rather than overall downtown and beach redevelopment, which
should be analyzed in greater detail during subsequent phases of the project and used for the final
financial model.
All tangible contributors will be further enhanced by continuing extensions of the guideway
system and further redevelopment of downtown and beach areas. The City of Clearwater will have
the luxury of dictating the conditions for future extensions. The future extension analysis should
take into account, additional patronage that will be generated by the guideway system if it is
extended to the north and south areas of the beach or linked in the future with light, commuter, and
high-speed rail lines.
176
I . '.. .
..
I
I
I .
.1
I:
.1
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
.1.
I
I
I.
~. .-
. .
'. - . .
. .
11. CLEARWATER GUIDEWAY PROJECT
FEASIBILITY AND ACTION PLAN
- ~ --,~ -''''-''-'.--''.- " '..
, '.
" ;",.' ':j,
I
I
I
I
I
I,
. I.
.. I
I
, I.
'.1.
I
, ",I
" I
I.
I,
I
. .. I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
11. CLEARWATER GUIDEWAY PROJECT FEASIBILITY AND
ACTION PLAN
11.1 Project Feasibility
This chapter concludes the initial conceptual study for linking Clearwater Beach with
downtown Clearwater. Our planning analysis has addressed seven fundamental issues:
.
What is the most desirable and feasible alignment?
.
What are the candidate transit technologies?
.
What is the projected patronage?
.
What are the proposed system characteristics?
.
What is the required investment level?
.
What is the public perception of the guideway solution?
.
Is the project worth further consideration?
We are pleased to report the following conclusions.
11.1.1
Integrated Project Concept
Because implementation of a guideway system requires a substantial investment,
supporting economic activity must exist or be developed around the stations. It is vital to the
success of the system to create reasons for beach residents and patrons to visit downtown. It is
also important to create sufficient parking capacity in the downtown area to encourage beach-goers
to park downtown instead of at the beach, where parking is expensive and in short supply.
The most promising downtown area for combining the station with parking facilities and
major redevelopment is the area confined between the waterfront and Osceola A venue and from
Drew Street on the North to the new SR 60/Court Street on the South. Within this area, the land
between the existing Harborview Center (which requires improvements) and the Library is ideal
for a station integrated into a multi-story parking garage. The system and the garage would be
designed to allow for future system extension to other downtown areas. Further, the existing
parking lot between Osceola Avenue and North Fort Harrison Street could be converted into a
supplemental multi-story parking garage. Both parking structures could be linked with overhead
walkways. The garage should accommodate county-wide buses and the downtown trolley, so that
passengers may transfer from one mode of transport to another.
As the bluff area is the most precious asset of the City of Clearwater, its redevelopment
requires an environmentally and economically sound approach. The existing waterfront parking
lots are being considered for conversion into a city park with trees and pedestrian areas. The
proposed garage with incorporated station would be located between two existing structures
(Harborview Center and the Library) and thus will not result in an out-of-place structure.
178
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The front of the garage would be designed as a first-class commercial and/or residential
complex, which would extend in front of Harborview Center to provide this flagship property with
a better image and increased use. A supplemental development such as a hotel could be created on
the nearby Church site (currently for sale) on Cleveland Street. Such a solution would serve both
downtown and guideway system needs with a positive impact on the entire bluff area.
On the beach side, the redevelopment should concentrate on the Clearwater Marina area,
where parking spaces could be developed into a multi-story parking garage containing the Beach
Station and commercial complex (including a hotel). Considering the pristine quality of the beach
itself, the existing beach parking lot should be converted into a city park to encourage pedestrian
activities and create a recreational rather than parking environment next to Pier 60 and the main
beach entry. Furthermore, the area north of Pier 60 (across the street from the marina) is a great
candidate for supplemental development.
The guideway system could be extended in the future either to the south or north beach
areas (or both). Jolley Trolley could temporarily serve remote destinations. The Beach Station
would be linked with the beach park area by an overhead pedestrian walkway over Coronado
Drive.
In the causeway area, the guideway can be either entirely elevated or mostly at grade. The
advantage of the elevated guideway is a spectacular ride experience with views of waterways and
islands. The system would become an attraction by itself. An optional station could be located on
the South side of the causeway at the Island Way intersection with SR 60.
The guideway system should be incorporated into a larger Clearwater redevelopment
project unless a dedicated funding source can be identified. Even with a dedicated funding source,
the guideway system cannot be planned in isolation from redevelopment as it requires supporting
Iidership distributed over the year, not just derived from peak beach ridership days. As the
guideway system can be built rapidly, its implementation will be driven by the entire
redevelopment rather than by the technology selected. This offers the opportunity to treat the
guideway project and the future stations as part of the proposed redevelopment. By combining
projects, we can rapidly create an economically sound scenario that is attractive to real estate
developers, candidate system suppliers, the City, and the general public.
11.1.2
Comparable Alignment Alternatives
The guideway system configuration consists of an elevated (or partially elevated), double
guideway, bi-directional system. All stations are elevated and of center platform type. A typical
span between columns would be between 70- and 120-ft. The guideway lengths are comparable to
the Base Alignment of 9,441 ft-long, the Alternative 1 Alignment of 9,273 ft-Iong, and the
Alternative 2 Alignment of 9,155 ft-long.
The only difference between the Base and Alternative 1 Alignments is the route over the
Intercoastal Waterway which requires either using the new bridge surface, selected old bridge
foundation, or dedicated guideway. The Alternative 2 Alignment was created solely to
accommodate use of the median on the planned Memorial Causeway Bridge.
Based on the evaluation methodology described in Chapter 4, all system alignment
alternatives offer attractive operational characteristics with short headways and sufficient number of
trips per hour per vehicle. This indicates that the alignments are conceptually well designed. In
addition, they offer excellent alignment feasibility, good destination coverage, attractiveness, and
transit system effectiveness. However, there are three factors that distinguish the selected
alignments as follows:
179
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· User convenience
· Affordability
· Economic development desirability.
The Alternative 2 Alignment offers the least convenience to riders and the least economic
desirability, as its Downtown Station would have to be placed away from redevelopment activities.
The Base Alignment (on the new bridge) is strongly preferred for aesthetic and cost reasons.
Alternative 1 Alignment is also acceptable; it may use old bridge foundations (subject to structural
analysis) or a separate guideway structure over the waterway (at a higher cost). This determination
will be made in the subsequent phases of the project.
As a less expensive and tourist-oriented alternative, an aerial gondola system was
considered. The design constraints of gondola technology dictate the selection of station locations
and route, as the alignment must be straight. The gondola configuration consists of an aerial, bi-
directional, loop transit system. The Base Alignment is 8,074 ft-Iong and the single Alternative
Alignment is 8,809 ft-Iong. The Base Alignment has most of its towers located on land, as
opposed to the waterway.
As a result of this analysis, the Base Alignment guideway system would best serve the
City. The following is a summary of primary characteristics of the Base Alignment:
.
Serves key destinations
.
Substantially less expensive
.
Few right-of-way issues to resolve with mitigation opportunities
.
Short distance and travel time
.
Technically simple alignment
Limited physical constraints
.
.
Integrates well operationally with downtown and the beach areas.
The recommended Base Alignment serves both downtown and beach destinations equally
well. It offers excellent user convenience, which is absolutely necessary for overall guideway
system success. In summary, it will meet City's goals and deserves further consideration and
refinement.
11.1.3
Feasible Use of the New Memorial Causeway Bridge
Using the planned new bridge for a dedicated guideway system lane was determined
feasible. There are several bridges (including drawbridges) worldwide, that accommodate transit
systems.
There are two guideway scenarios to be considered. The first scenario is to place two
concrete (or steel) beamways per guideway lane on the surface of the bridge for guidance
purposes. The designed 20-ft wide median has sufficient width to accommodate certain
technologies in a dual lane configuration. Furthermore, one of the bridge's sidewalks is twice as
wide as the other one; this extra width combined with wide shoulders, provides additional width
for the guideway system.
180
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The second scenario (providing the most favorable location) is to run the guideway system
on the north side of the bridge, as the system station is being proposed on the north side of the
bridge in the Harbor View Center area. As a result, entering the bridge median would be
technically and aesthetically challenging. This would require reducing the width of the median and
using the saved width (plus some extra space from the wide sidewalk and shoulders) for a
dedicated guideway lane on the north side of the bridge. Having the system on the north side
would require only one traffic barrier with a fence on top of it versus two barriers in the median.
The bridge automobile and pedestrian traffic lane configuration would have to be modified or the
north sidewalk eliminated.
The impact of this scenario is recognized from the decision-making and the bridge
construction schedule point of view. However, using the new bridge offers substantial cost
savings to the planned guideway system.
It should be made clear that to use the new bridge is not required (but strongly preferred),
as a separate guideway can be built. The guideway could be supported by new, dedicated
foundations or by the foundations of the existing, old bridge. However, a comparable 360-ft span
would be extremely expensive and technically problematic. The columns and beamways would
have to match the aesthetics of the new bridge. The planned demolition of the old bridge should be
put on hold until final decisions are made. The funding dedicated to bridge foundation demolition
could be used for the guideway project.
11.1.4
Diversified Technology Selection
Advanced guideway systems represent major changes and advances in equipment,
facilities, operations, and services in comparison to conventional rail, bus, taxi, and other street
modes. System performance and capacities can be tailored to match expected loads, which meet
the functional requirements for the Clearwater application. Vehicle size can be expanded or
reduced. Seats can be added or removed from vehicles. Various grades and curves can be
accommodated by altering guideway design and speeds.
For the Clearwater application, the most suitable vehicles are those with automatic controls
on exclusive guideways following the same paths repetitively with little or no use of switches. The
linear nature of the area with two end destinations can be best served by a shuttle-type operation
and does not require a complex guideway network.
Based on a preliminary guideway technology assessment, it appears that there are several
options for the City's consideration. The technologies that offer good promise for the selected
guideway alignments are medium capacity and performance, light guideway, automated horizontal
elevators and monorails.
The gondola is also feasible as the least expensive option but has a number of operational
constraints. The gondola solution would primarily serve as a tourist attraction having lower speed,
inherent alignment inflexibility, capacity increase limitations, higher susceptivity to winds, and no
future extension capability. In contrast, guideway technology offers long-term flexibility and
performance (beyond attraction features) meeting primary transportation needs of the area. The
final selection should balance the advantages of system performance against cost-reduction
options, and a financial effort should be made to implement the guideway system.
Figure No. 45: "Visualization of the Guideway System Along the Causeway" illustrates
candidate vehicle and guideway technology in the area Df the intermediate station.
181
n
t"'"
~
>
~
~
~~
~ ~
=
=:ec
N t"'"
ad
_. ~
o ~
= ,
o ~
:::0
:=""
~ ec
~~~
_. n ~
Q..=~
~~d
~ d ~
\I.)~Z
t..old 00
~ ~.
e~~
>~
~~
(JQ n
~o
~ z
nz
= >
c ~
00 \I.)
~ \I.)
~ >
~ z
n
~
\I.)
~
d
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.1.5
Substantial Patronage
Given existing conditions, the projected off-season and season patronage per day is 3,640
and 8,662, respectively. This represents an approximate annual ridership of 2,849,963. Based on
limited future development, the projected off-season and season patronage is 4,804 and 10,915
respectively. This represents an approximate annual ridersip of 3,605,093.
Given existing conditions, the projected peak-hour, off-season and in-season patronage is
826 and 1,940, respectively. Based on limited future development conditions, the projected peak-
hour off-season and in-season patronage is 1,142 and 2,558, respectively.
Such ridership levels are very attractive, not only from a congestion relief point-of-view
(number of vehicular trips eliminated), but also from an economic point of view. In summary, the
3.6 million annual guideway riders per direction will generate substantial revenues, which will
make the transit system profitable and supplement local economy. They will eliminate 1.8 million
vehicular trips from roadways and subsequently reduce traffic congestion and resultant pollution.
No additional parking spaces (requiring valuable land) will be needed at the beach areas.
The Clearwater guideway system, with only two trains, will achieve similar ridership levels
to those of many light rail systems that have large fleets of trains. This superior performance
results from automated operation on an exclusive right-of-way. Few domestic public transit
systems of large magnitude enjoy similar patronage levels on an hourly basis. The hourly peak
capacities certainly justify the implementation of an automated guideway system for both the
existing and future conditions, even for the limited future development.
Furthermore, these values are very conservative and allow the system to be properly sized
for future growth. These values may be further enhanced by including the induced demand
resulting from a "novelty" value that is associated with guideway transportation technology.
In comparison with the "Proposal for a Downtown People Mover" authored by the City of
Clearwater in June 1976, which optimistically estimated a daily patronage average of 13,056 for a
similar system with a similar alignment, the projections stated above are more conservative, as they
are entrenched in potential riders behavioral patterns and derived from a more detailed analysis.
This study further reinforces the 1976 opinion that the guideway system implementation would
generate solid ridership and is thus fully justified.
The impact of the Pinellas Mobility Major Investment Study (MIS) on this study is
marginal, as the MIS approach is based on importing solutions that were applied in other urban
communities with completely different transportation needs. The MIS study was oriented toward
light rail county-wide solutions and utilized the mass-transit-oriented methodology of the Federal
Transportation Authority. Subsequently, it uid not adequately consider the impact of land use
changes on ridership figures. In contrast, the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach corridor connects two
districts specifically targeted for major redevelopment. The primary concern is to stimulate tourism
and provide increased convenience to the guideway system users. These ridership projections take
future development into consideration and, contrary to findings of the MIS, the ridership levels
strongly encourage the guideway system investment.
11.1.6
Convenient Operational Characteristics
Two guideway system trains with 108 passengers per train capacity (seated and standing)
are needed for all alternatives to accommodate existing conditions. Three trains would be needed
to meet travel demands under future conditions.
183
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The travel time with an intermediate station would be in the 5.2-5.3 min range, and without
an intermediate station, in the 4.3-4.4 minute range for all alternatives. Waiting time at the stations
for the two-train scenario would be equal to the travel time. For the three-train scenario the time
would be reduced by half. From the operational point of view, all alternatives are comparable, and
operational characteristics do not play an important role in the process of selecting among
alternatives.
For the gondola system, we assumed 127 eight-passenger gondola cabins to achieve the
2,000 passengers per hour per direction capacity for the future seasonal demand, which is lower
than the estimated patronage for the guideway system. We do not anticipate that development
would be as extensive for the gondola implementation as for the guideway system due to the
technological and operational constraints. The travel time with an intermediate station (which is
necessary because of the technological constraints) would be in the 9.1-9.8 min range. The
gondola technology offers a very short headway of approximately 10 sec.
The guideway system can be extended at any time to other destinations such as North and
South Beach and/or adjacent downtown areas, whereas the gondola system is practically non-
extendable unless transfers between systems are acceptable. The guideway system capacity can
always be expanded by adding additional trains and/or adding additional cars to the trains, subject
to the station design. The gondola system cannot be expanded unless larger cabins are initially used
and the system is designed for the additional cabins (which has .design limits). The gondola
system is not a long-term solution. The travel time on the guideway system is shorter than on the
gondola system by almost half, although the gondola solution offers practically no waiting time.
11.1.7
Affordable Solution
In summary, the project can be implemented for $38.2 to $39.2 million for the Base
Alignment. This cost can be reduced by approximately $1.5 to $2 million by placing the guideway
partially at grade along the causeway for a distance of 4,450-ft. An additional $1.5 to $2.5 million
could be saved by eliminating the intermediate station. The cost can be further reduced by more
detailed engineering, particularly in the station design area. The cost would increase by
approximately $1.8 million with the purchase of a third train (assuming it is part of the initial
purchase). The demolition of the old bridge and modifications to the new or old bridge are not
included in the cost estimates as they are subject to engineering analysis in subsequent phases of
the project. The order-of-magnitude cost for the representative detachable gondola system 8,074 ft-
long with eight-passenger cabins is estimated to cost $19.2 million.
Considering the magnitude of the project, these costs are very reasonable in comparison to
many other projects. Their preservation, however, depends on an experienced procurement
manager with extensive experience in low-cost guideway projects.
The order-of-magnitude guideway system operation and maintenance cost of $1.8 million
per year represents the average yearly cost for the candidate automated systems. The operation and
maintenance cost of the gondola system will be similar.
Affordability can be improved through detailed engineering and the adopted procurement
process. In order to achieve leverage in negotiations with potential suppliers, technical
specifications and a formal Request for Proposals should be developed. The projected investment
level can typically be reduced by 10-15 percent through a smart competitive procurement using
techniques proven on similar projects.
184
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.1.8
Focused Visioning Sessions
The project team conducted various discussions with selected local officials, real estate
developers, community leaders, and other concerned parties. The purpose was to present the
project and gather input. The overall perception of the guideway system solution was very
encouraging and warrants further guideway concept development and promotion.
11.1.9
Rapid Project Schedule
The guideway system could be implemented by April 2005, assuming that the project
supplemental activities are initiated in November of 2001. It means a three and half year schedule,
depending on the time necessary to secure management consensus and obtain financing. The
gondola installation could be completed much earlier. However, it is doubtful that the economic
development around the stations would follow that rapidly.
11.2 Economically Attractive Solution
Guideway system investment costs should not be taken out of the context of potential
revenue. There are three distinctive revenue types. The first source is derived directly from the
guideway system, the second is from added revenues to the downtown and beach business
operations generated by additional visitors riding the attractive guideway system, and the third is
the intangible enhancement of the properties and surrounding areas. The projected guideway
system revenues should offset the operation and maintenance costs.
The guideway system will generate approximately $9,136,000 in revenues during the first
year of the guideway system operation ($7,636,000 without the garage revenues). The Return-on-
Investment (ROI) analysis has been performed for both public and private funding scenarios.
For the guideway system public investment scenario, the calculated ROI over the life of the
system (in the year 2035) is 70.2% (based on $39 million initial investment). This return presents
an economically justified financial undertaking, particularly considering that no intangible benefits
of the system implementation are taken into consideration in this initial analysis. The payback of
the $39 million will occur during the year 2016. For the guideway system (including parking
garage), the calculated ROI is 65.7%. The payback of the $39 million will occur during the year
2016. The return for the first thirty years is lower in the case of the garage inclusion as the
investment is substantially higher. However, the system will continue its operation beyond thirty
years and the increased revenues will also continue.
For the guideway system private investment scenario, the calculated ROI over the life of the
system (in the year 2035) is 7.1 %. The payback of the $39 million will occur during the year
2027. For the guideway system (including parking garage), the calculated ROI is 4.9%. The
payback of the $39 million will occur during the year 2029. These results are less financially
attractive primarily due to tax and hurdle rate consequences. However, guideway investment
cannot be treated in isolation from other development opportunities, which are the driving force in
creating economic viability for the City of Clearwater. The City should either consider a
public/private venture and/or set conditions for the redevelopment to benefit the guideway system
implementation.
In either public or private scenario, with the debt paid off, all investment profits are
returned from the system development, generating a continuous substantial cash savings and
smooth operation of a first class destination resort. Tangible, direct projected revenues are
substantial and either alone or together with additional intangible revenues, they present a unique
economic opportunity both to the City of Clearwater and potential private partners (if a
public/private partnership is established).
185
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.3 Recipe for Clearwater Project Success
The Clearwater guideway system project is a unique project constrained by limited funding
options and available technologies within the budgetary constraints. A true turnkey procurement
method is absolutely necessary for its success. An understanding of project constraints and risks
must be established early in the process, properly communicated, and mitigated as necessary.
Opportunities will follow. This clear understanding by all parties is vital for political and physical
success of this project.
Figure No. 46: "Recipe for the Clearwater Guideway Project Success" presents the
elements of a successful project implementation process. It emphasizes the probability of success
against the risk of failure as well as close adherence to adopted strategy. The project's
opportunities such as increasing the City's revenue and visitor convenience, based on this report's
findings and conclusions become apparent. The opportunities, however, are constrained by
limited funding availability and possibly legal issues. A rapid decision on the use of the Memorial
Causeway Bridge is needed by the City. Aggressive project promotion and development should
continue. Project risks, such the limited understanding of unique project requirements by local
authorities, should be mitigated through continuing educational activities. Upon detailed review of
this report and necessary discussions, the City of Clearwater should adopt a well-thought-out and
easily understood strategic action plan. A close adherence to that plan will be needed in order to
maintain the budget.
The City needs to establish a formal task force for the guideway system project, which
would be continuously supported by Jakes Associates, Inc. We will assist in shaping the
economic base and procurement process for this project. Furthermore, we will define scope of
work and develop a Request for Proposals for supplemental engineering firms and system
suppliers that will result in a highly competitive situation. In close cooperation with the task force,
we must assure that the preliminary design effort will not defeat the initial approach and
subsequently drive the cost of the project beyond the budget. We will attend the task force
meetings and conduct a series of strategy workshops with the task force in order to reach a
consensus for a true turnkey type of procurement method and action plan for the successful
implementation of the guideway system project.
The first objective is to adopt a specific action plan for project implementation from a
procurement methodology point-of-view. The second objective deals with inteIjurisdictional
interfaces. The procurement issue is internal to the City, which likely will manage the project.
However, this cannot be done in isolation from other public agencies, as several issues impact the
procurement process.
11.4 Beneficial Solution
In summary, the guideway system investment will enhance the overall Clearwater Beach
resort image, strongly improve its economic performance, provide unparalleled convenience of
movement for visitors and residents, reduce traffic congestion and pollution. The guideway
system proiect is worth immediate further consideration and support by the City of Clearwater.
local public agencies. developers. residents. and visitors.
186
I
I
I
I ~
Q
0
I ~
00
~
u
I Z 00
~ 00
~
00 u
~ u
I ~ =
ZOO
Z $.0
O~
I u ~
~.9'
~ ~
~~
I \C ~ ~
~~~
. ~ ~
OQ"O
Z .-
I ~ =
~o~
~~..=
0= u
I ~u~
~~~
~~6
I ~.!
o.
~.a
I~
~ $.0
I ~ ~
0.....
~ eo:
~ E
I ~ ~
~-
~u
~
I ~
~
~
~
I ~
u
I
I
I
-
I:
CI)
c E
lfl a.
1:5 ..c 3: 0 ...
.C U 0 Qj CI)
1ii rn c
Q) > -
'6 .0 3: CI) III
'C ~
0 Q) 0 'C :.0
- 3: .s "0 0 III
...- lI)1: 'E lI) CI)
CI) Q) c E .Ql 0 C3
='..c 0 0 '0.
-- lfl o C I: E ....
CI) c E o L- 0 0
O1Q) ... Q) 0 >> >>
Q) >
o Q) QjO CI) 5 -
:3: CI):O lI) C3
-0) CI) CI)
1:- o e Oc 0 ;j N~ CI)
CI) Q) 1:0. ='.>, I: I: '-Q)
E:: =.
.!!! 0) =.rn III CI) ~.s -
a.U I: c 0- =. > >>
o Q) ~~ llllfl I: CI) lI)- .c
-:t:: CI)~ CI) ... - C
lll.-
CI) Q) I: rn .c .- 'C lI) CI)::::: CI)
> U ..c Z. 0
00. e 3: I: ... .-
CI).- III :J I:
'Cm 0"0 III C3 CI).o ..!!!
... c ;j..c
=.e> o rn -u 'C =.Q) Qj
0 Q) :!::CJ) ;jrn CI) CI) -.0 0
III C lI).::.::. ....Q) ~ =. 01"0 ><
CI)>- .- U 1:.0 CI) - I:"S CI)
.c lfl > Q) OQ) lI) CI) .- 0
'CO) CI) c a...c lI) ~ U CI)
lI) Q) lll- lI) III >
I:.S: lll:;::; 0>> III CI) .~ E- :;:;
III e CI)- 0 CI) ... III
... 0 CI).~ ... 0 CI)
I: 0 0.0 =.C III .E 0 ...
::1: I: >, -Q) 0 - 0
0- -rn CI) 0 - CI) CI)
"E~ -
3: >- lI) ;j -
::~ Q) - >> lI) .c III
o lfl ...
lfl lI) rn CI) .~ -
o rn :J CI) Q) I: - lI)
'C.2 rn '(jj I: I:
CI) :J U o::~ ;j 0 0
i=E 0) 0) .c U E
c c CI)
rn ;;; ~ :: c
0) 0 rn CI)
c lfl E I:
ro >, >, t)
Q) .0 .0 III
U ...
-
-
<(
~
:.c
'" Vl
.0 Vl
e ~
0.0
"0 ;:>
(I) Vl
Vl .....
'" 0
(I)
b
c
1:1: _
o .2 I:
:;:;-'CCI)'C
t)J!!~I:Eo
Cl)1: 0 llle;;
'0' CI) .- I: ;j CI)
...E01lllO:i:
D..CI)$a:o
Q.~ ct
.5 en
.:z:.
Vl
.C ~
"0 ;:>
(1)=
Vl '"
"'.....
(I).....
L... 0
o
c
Q) lfl
:J Q)
0":;:::::;
'c "L
:J 0
..c
- -
o :J
O)rn
c-
.- rn
"0 U
C 0
rn-
->,
~.o
Q) lfl
"0_
C C
:J Q)
- E
o Q)
.Y. .!:::
U :J
rn 0-
- Q)
L-
~t5
c Q)
20'
o L-
c..o.
U
0:3
O):J
c a.
'gro ~ lfl
2~ c Q)
~>> Q) .8'
Q).o > 0
"Olfl Q) C
C Q) ro ..c
::J..;::::; > ()
'O'c 'L 2
.::.::.:J c..
u'E ~ ~
.!!1 a. :0 Z
-o.:J
rn 0 c..
~t5
Q) Q)
OB
c..a..
c
Q)
E~
Q)~
'--D
>>~iii
:!:orn
=~Q)
.c 0.1:
~"O .-
.- C >,
~rnro
<( ~ .g
O1-E
I: 0) 0
.- .Q c
'C 0 0
I: C U
;j ..c Q)
u.uQ)
"C2L
CI)- rn
- rn lfl
.- C "0
E 0 0
.- :;::; ..c
.Jc_
Q) Q)
E: E
o
-S
>-
rn
3:
CI) Q)
1/l:Q
::>:J~
CI) 0) 3:
O1L-O
o C
'C_
.- Q) Q)
.;; 0)"0
"'"Orn
>>.C E
III .0 Q)
::Q).o
CI)..c_
lI)-lfl
;j Q) :J
8~E
iii:J~
'C .8 U)
oc>,
E 0 lfl
CI) .iii
:i:u
Q)
~
lfl
Q) Q)
0) .:::
~ ~
ro . s:
noo
c ~
.Q 2
rn .~
L- ,
en:;:::::;
Q)"S
c E
1:5
Q)
.~
c..
0lU)'
C Q)
.- :J
"2 ~
rn ._
O)Q)
~ lfl
lI)"O:.c
CI) Q) U
;j"Oc
lI) Q) rn
"'Q)~
- c
- "0
III lfl C
01.- rn
j 5 E
:;:::::; ::J
rn"O
U c
'E Q)
L- L-
rn Q)
--
~~
"0
~
.cu
-
-
o
~
o
1ii
:.c
c
Ol
g .~
:.0 "0
"en CD
.;;; >
ro 0
U 0
~ \f-
o >>
a. g
..c Q)
0) "0
I ID
I-
1ii
rn
c..
-
I: lfl
CI) t::
E Q) 0
a..o :t::
01iiQ)
-:J"O
~ E ~
~E:s
'C:Jc
-co
- Q) U
l'lIE..c
g 0 ~
:;:; E 0
OE 1:5 1:
Q)-
ee--g
c.. a. c
- Q).CU
O..cc
Q) +-' .-
.~- CO
e E
c..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City should offer intermediate, limited funding for continued study and project
promotion for the consultant team to explore funding options, reinforce economic benefits
conclusions, and create a strategic scenario for the system implementation, perhaps based on a
public/private partnership scenario. Maintaining the current momentum and continuity of effort is
vital for the success of this project. Even limited funding at present would deliver a substantial
return-on-investment when the project is implemented.
11.5 Next Steps
The required next steps, outlined below, should primarily focus on the guideway system's
economic and funding issues which (when properly addressed) should lead to the guideway
system's implementation. If there is not immediate and sufficient funding to proceed with Tasks 1
and 2, an intermediate, limited task could be created in order to continue activities and maintain
momentum.
In summary, several additional tasks must follow this initial conceptual work. They
include:
Task 1:
Funding Issues
Task 2:
- Economic analysis
- Funding options
- Legal issues
- Project promotion
- Interface with public authorities
- Interface with public
Preliminary Engineering and Development of the Request for Proposals (RFP)
- Industry review/meetings with suppliers
- Preliminary system engineering
- Private ROW issues
- Public ROW issues
- Utility relocation issues
- Environmental issues
- Final alignment development
- Develop technical specifications and Request for Proposal (RFP)
- Produce technical specifications and RFP documents
Task 3:
Procurement Management
- Solicit and evaluate proposals
- Develop contractual documents
- Negotiate contracts
- Develop detailed work plan
- Provide document control
- Evaluate system and component design
- Conduct technical and fabrication process monitoring/inspections
- Conduct vehicle assembly qualifications testing and integrated system testing
- Participate in acceptance testing, safety certification, and commissioning
- Provide assistance in obtaining approvals
- Select staff for operation and maintenance
- Provide initial support in problem resolution
188
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Task 4:
Construction (by successful supplier)
- System design
- Guideway construction
- Station(s) construction
- Electrical system installations
- Hardware, including train fabrication
- Guideway erection
- Testing and inspection
- System commissioning
- Initiate operation and maintenance.
*
*
*
Jakes Associates, Inc. is fully prepared to stand behind our recommendations and assist the
City of Clearwater in the successful and complete implementation of the proposed guideway
system. A formal proposal for the project's "continuity task" will be submitted separately upon
discussions with the City on its appropriate and realistic scope.
189
,.", '" .",' . '....
,I'.
I
I
I.
I . . .
I
I . .
I
I
I
I
I
I .
01
I
I
I
I
.1
.12. APPENDICES
',":., "'-.- ; ,'.", '. :.... -':..' . . ".
. . .-..... ..''''.'.....
~'----:-:--:--',-------,- .. ,. . ~~-,--,.--.~.-;:-~~~~
.. .
.1
I
I
I
I
I
...
I.
..1
I
I.
I
I
:".. I
I
I
I
I
I
.' I
I
Clearwater Bluff - To - Downtown Clearwater Reconnaisance Study
Drawing Index'
Revision 08/3110 I
I
I
Pro'cet Prefix Drawinl! Numher Revision Drawin{l Date Filename Sheel Dc-seri tion Remarks
CW AV 1 11/7/00 Aerial! E.dwg 101' 1 Aerial V icw
GD-AL-AV 1 3/X/OI Ali 'nmcntlE r2.dw\;I lofl Guideway Alignment Aerial Conceptual
GD-AL-AV 1 3/X/OI AlicnmcntlC r2.dw' 1 of I Guideway Alignment Aerial Conceptual
GO-AL-A V 1 12/15/00 GonAli 'Olllent 1 E rl.ow' I of I Gondola Alignment Aerial Conceptual
GO-AL-A V 1 12115/00 GonAlii!nmcnt I C fl.owe lol'l Gondola Alignment Aerial Conceptual
BS-FP 2 3/X/OI BcachFPlan r2.dwl! lorl Beach Station Floor Plan Conceptual
DS-FP 2 3/2/01 DwnTwnFPlan r2.dw. I of I Down Town S1<ltion Floor Plan Conceptual
GD-SP-A V 1 SitcPlanlC rl.dwe lorl Guideway Site Plan Aerial Conceptual
GD-SP-A V 1 SitcPlanlE rl.ow' lorl Guideway Site Plan Aerial Conceplual
GD-SU-A V 1 11/7/00 ScwcrUtillC rl.t1w1 Infl Sewer Utilities in Stutly Area Provided by utility company
GD-GU-A V 1 IlnlOO Ga.,UliIIC rl.dwg I of I Gas Utilities in Study Area Provided by utility company
Powerrrelephone/Cablc Utilities in Sludy
GD-OU-A V 1 IlnlOO OtherUtillC rl.dw' I of I Area Provided by utility company
GD-WU-AV 1 IlnlOO WatcrUtillC rl.dwJ lofl Water Utilities in Study Area Provided by utility company
.R~nd~ring~ not im.:IUlkd
AL - Alignm~J1l
A V - Aerial Vk....
Gll-Guil.kway
GO-Gondola
BS - B~al'h Station
IS - bland ~tati()n
DS - Downtown Statioll
FP - Floor Plall
SP - Site Plan
su - S.:w~r Utilitks
OU -{)th~r Utiliti..:s
GU-Ga..Utilitics
WU-WatcrUtilitie"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Noh.:: Sampk Drawing Numh.:ring: C\V-A V-OI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jakes
I From:
Sent:
I To:
Cc:
Subject:
I
Butler, Doug [dbutler@hdrinc.com]
Tuesday, December 19, 2000 5:51 AM
jakes@jakesassociates.com
Ken Sides
FW: Memorial Causeway Bridge; People Mover System on Bridge
I
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Van Der Veen, Theunis
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 11:10 AM
> To: Butler, Doug
> Subject: Memorial Causeway Bridge; People Mover System on Bridge
>
> Doug,
I
>
I
> I have run some rough numbers on the people mover system. The
preference
> of Jakes Associates, Inc. to have the rail at the north side of the
> bridge, basically replacing the sidewalk currently present at that
side,
> appears to be unacceptable. I find stresses in the deck, near the web
that
> are double the ones that we found under the sidewalk loading and
regular
> live load. The less favorable location in the center of the structure
> appears to be working fine. Stresses due to the rail loads are of the
same
> magnitude as the regular AASHTO loads. These conclusions are based on
very
> rough estimates by using influence lines produced for the AASHTO truck
> (with an axle spacing of 14 feet, where the people mover has spacings
in
> the 20-foot range). In addition, the wheel loads form the train will
not
> be true point loads but will spread out somewhat through the rail and
the
> rail support. These factors may yield less conservative results, but
> probably not enough to make the location on the overhangs acceptable.
I
I
I
I
I
>
> Theun
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FOCUS GROUP MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
BLUFF-TO-BEACH GUIDEWAY STUDY
HARBORVIEW CENTER, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
JUNE 29, 2001 AND JULY 2, 2001
Six Focus Group sessions were conducted involving a sampling of key stakeholders and other
interested parties. The purpose of the sessions was to acquaint some stakeholders with the
findings to date on the draft Bluff-to-Beach Guideway Study conducted by Wade-Trim, Inc. and
Jakes Associates, Inc., to explore the concept with the stakeholders, and to solicit input
regarding the impacts of implementing a guideway linking Downtown Clearwater and Clearwater
Beach.
Each Focus Group session began with a general introduction by Mr. Ken Sides, PE, PTOE,
Transportation Projects Manager for the City of Clearwater. Mr. Sides noted that the $150,000
study is funded by the Governor's FastTrack grant program through the Florida Department of
Transportation's District Seven Transit Office.
Wade-Trim is serving as the Prime Consultant and Jakes Associates, Inc., an internationally
recognized firm specializing in guideway systems, is a subconsultant doing the majority of the
work on this assignment. Jakes Associates was selected because of their strong track record of
involvement in guideway projects that actually get constructed - a rarity in the United States.
In each session Mr. Sides made the distinction that this guideway project is not about "mass
transit" or "commuter transit", but rather is about linking two districts that the City of Clearwater
has designated for intensive redevelopment: downtown Clearwater and Clearwater Beach.
Coupling the two districts more tightly could create a synergy between them which would
amplify the redevelopment benefits, as well as solve a number of problems holding back
economic performance of the beach such as parking restrictions and the causeway bottleneck.
Mr. Andrew Jakes of Jakes Associates began each session with a presentation including an
introduction of his firm's past experience and a slide presentation outlining various guideway
technologies utilized throughout the world.
Mr. Jakes has been involved in projects of this type since 1978. Because of this extensive
experience, there is a high level of confidence in the preliminary conclusions reached in the
study. He noted that his goal is to help the City build a guideway system, not prepare another
study to be placed on the shelf. Over the past 20 years he has been involved in over 500
assignments working for both public and private entities including local, regional, state
governments, heads of state, as well as numerous private clients.
Examples of recent projects include a fixed guideway system in Las Vegas carrying
approximately 21 million passengers in its first year of operation. Slides depicted how easily the
guideway can be integrated into existing parking structures and how the system crosses major
highways and was built in approximately 8 months.
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Another project relevant to Clearwater's proposed guideway is currently underway in
Indianapolis, Indiana where Jakes Associates has negotiated a multi-year contract with the
Mayor's office to design, construct and operate a guideway system at no cost to the taxpayers.
The system is being built within existing public right-of-way provided by the City. This system
along with other systems designed by Jakes Associated in Las Vegas are two systems in the
United States that are virtually privately funded. A comparable system to Clearwater's Bluff to
Beach project in terms of size and function where Jakes Associates participated in the
technology is a system that connects downtown Sidney, Australia to the adjoining Harbor
District.
Jakes Associates participated in the technology
Regarding the Clearwater Bluff-to-Beach Guideway Study, Mr. Jakes noted that from the
preliminary work completed to date, the project is clearly feasible from both a technological and
cost standpoint. The system could work either at grade or elevated. No additional right-of-way
would be required along Memorial Causeway. Based on the conceptual alignment and
preliminary design the 9,500 linear foot guideway could be accommodated on the new Memorial
Causeway Bridge with very minor adjustments to the current design.
The travel time would be approximately 4.4 minutes from the bluff to the beach. If a station
were added to accommodate the Island Estates area, the travel time would increase to
approximately 5.3 minutes. During late evening and early morning hours of low demand, the
system would be idled and users could activate the system by pressing a button - much like
operating an elevator or the shuttles at Tampa International Airport. A station at Island Estates
is not anticipated as part of the first phase.
Approximately 3500 riders per day could be accommodated in two guideway vehicles.
Additional vehicles could be added as ridership increases. The vehicles can be aesthetically
designed to reflect a theme unique to the City of Clearwater. The system would not require on-
board attendants or operators, much like the shuttles at Tampa International Airport. Mr. Jakes
noted the estimated order of magnitude cost for the two-mile system is $40 million. If the new
Memorial Causeway Bridge were utilized the cost could be reduced.
Mr. Jakes noted that the critical issue associated with implementing a guideway system in
Clearwater is effectively educating elected officials and citizens of the numerous benefits to be
derived from the system. It is essential that stakeholders view the guideway system from the
standpoint of providing a viable solution to a number of existing issues including: (1) relieving
traffic congestion to and from the beach; (2) enhancing emergency response time, public safety
and ease of pedestrian movements between the downtown and beach; (3) reducing the need
for expensive, obtrusive parking structures on the beach; (4) redevelopment of the beach and
downtown; (5) providing a catalyst project that serves to merge downtown and the beach in
terms of identity and function; (6) enhancing the physical environment and quality of life; and
(6) creating a sense of place and making Clearwater a true end destination.
Thirty-two individuals attended the six focus sessions held on June 28,2001 and July 2, 2001.
The participants were:
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
John Doran, Clearwater Beach Association
Mike Meidel, President, Clearwater Chamber of Commerce
Katie Cole, Clearwater Chamber of Commerce
Bob Fernandez, Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
Linda Byars, Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
Albert Sakey, Owner, Jolley Trolley
Harry Reed, FDOT District Seven Transit Office
George Boyle, FDOT District Seven Transit Office
Brian Smith, Director, Pinellas County Planning Department
Sara Ward, Pinellas Metropolitan Planning Organization
Lucy Ayres, Director, Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Karen Cunningham, Pinellas Metropolitan Planning Organization
Buzz David, Pinellas County Economic Development Department
Ed Crawford, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART)
Sara Noyles, Executive Director, Bay Area Commuter Services (BACS)
Travis Dungan, Executive Director, Florida Coast-to-Coast Railroad Consortium
City of Clearwater participants
Bill Horne, City Manager, City of Clearwater
Gary Brumback, Deputy City Manager, City of Clearwater
Mahshid Arasteh, PE, Public Works Administrator, City of Clearwater
Ralph Stone, Director, Planning & Development Services, City of Clearwater
John Szabo, Library Director, City of Clearwater
Bill Morris, Marina Harbormaster, City of Clearwater
Cyndi Tarapani, Assistant Director, Planning & Development Services, City of Clearwater
Lisa Fierce, City of Clearwater, Planning & Development Services
Mark Parry, City of Clearwater, Planning & Development Services
Locken Wood, City of Clearwater, Planning & Development Services
Steve Moskum, Cash and Investments Manager, City of Clearwater
Paul Bertels, Traffic Operations Manager, City of Clearwater
Ken Sides, PE, PTOE, Transportation Projects Manager, City of Clearwater
Consultant participants
David Gildersleeve, Executive Vice President, Wade-Trim, Inc.
Andrew Jakes, President, Jakes Associates, Inc.
Marissa Wright, Wade-Trim, Inc.
Salient Comments by Presenters and/or Focus Group Participants
The following records discussions and comments by Focus Group participants following the
presentation made by Mr. Andrew Jakes.
Toward the end of each session, participants were asked to respond to the following Focus
Question:
"Assume with us for a moment that the guideway linking Downtown Clearwater and
Clearwater Beach were constructed and is successful. What impacts would it have upon
the areas of your agency's responsibilities?"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pinellas Metropolitan Planning Organization
A participant inquired about the number of systems in use in Las Vegas. Mr. Jakes responded:
eleven systems which are all private except for the airport system.
She noted the system would have positive impacts to countywide transportation system.
It would pull trips off the road. She also liked the idea of beautiful views available to riders.
Another participant noted the Guideway would enhance anything that anyone wanted to do at
either end of the system. She noted that it was an ideal example for the rest of the state to
follow Clearwater's lead.
She also noted that a lot of businesses don't do well in the summer. If fares were affordable,
and easy to access, it could help strengthen the local economy during the summer months. The
system would help redevelop the downtown area. She suggested that it might be easier to sell
the system to the public if it were constructed primarily at grade
She noted that while Clearwater has a beautiful downtown area, it was too difficult to get to the
beach. The solution to the problem appears to be political and the guideway could be an
element that brings the City together (Le. beach, downtown and Countryside). Mr. Jakes noted
that typically residents will support this type of project if presented in a proper way. It is a utility
improvement as well as economic development tool.
Planning and Development Services, City of Clearwater
A participant commented that the guideway would focus redevelopment activities for both sides
of the water and would create something different.
She asked what were the peak hours of operation and how would the guideway system handle
peak demands. Mr. Jakes noted that during peak demands would include such times as Spring
break, select beach events, HarborView Center activities, etc., which could be accommodated
through the activation of additional guideway vehicles.
With regard to questions concerning preliminary cost estimates for the guideway system, Mr.
Jakes noted that the cost could be reduced if the new bridge were utilized.
Another participant asked who would operate the guideway system. Mr. Jakes noted a supplier
would generally operate the system. The use of City staff for some functions could result in
some savings.
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
A participant expressed concern that there was not access to the downtown from the new hi-
span Memorial Bridge. He also noted that more developers would be interested in the beach
and downtown if the project were implemented. He noted that people on the beach have few
places to go. The system would enhance development by providing more destinations.
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
He noted that it's hard for working people to find parking in the downtown.
Another participant noted that continued growth is only going to cause more traffic jams on the
causeway. Parking in the downtown is essential for use by tourists, residents and businesses.
She felt the guideway would only spur redevelopment of the downtown.
Clearwater Chamber of Commerce
A participant commented that she would use a guideway such as this to commute to and from
work. The guideway system was very important and would have a huge impact bringing
businesses to the downtown. It would also result in better development on the beach.
A participant also asked whether the trains could be designed like buses to carry bicycles. Mr.
Jakes responded in the affirmative noting that bicycles can be placed inside the trains.
Jolley Trolley
A participant asked how many trains would the system require and would they be automated.
Mr. Jakes noted that initially two trains without drivers would be used. As demand increased,
additional trains could be added. The participant also inquired about how the system would
accommodate handicapped individuals. Mr. Jakes noted that the system would meet ADA
requirements and the system can be easily integrated into building and parking structure
designs.
The participant inquired as to who pays for running the guideway in Las Vegas. Mr. Jakes
noted that it is privately owned with no fee charged to each rider. Mr. Jakes also noted the 2.8
mile guideway system in Sidney, Australia connecting the downtown to the harbor charges
$1.00 to $2.00 to ride the system. The participant asked how many trains would be required for
the Clearwater guideway, would they be automated, at grade or elevated, and how long would
the rider have to wait for the train. Mr. Jakes responded that two trains would be required
initially, no drivers would be required, the guideway could operate at grade or elevated or a
combination of both, and a wait of 8 to 10 minutes would probably be the worst case scenario.
Mr. Jakes estimated the system to cost approximately $40 million excluding parking structure(s)
downtown. A participant inquired about anticipated costs of the system, noting that the
guideway would be good but $40 million was too much to go from point A to point B. Mr. Jakes
indicated the cost could be reduced if (1) the intermediate station at Island Estates were
eliminated, (2) the system were placed at grade over most of the Memorial Causeway, and (3)
if the new Memorial Causeway Bridge were used.
The participant asked how the handicapped would be accommodated. Mr. Jakes noted that
elevators would be used at stations and ADA requirements could be handled during design and
construction.
rl
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
.....,.
Director Planning & Development Services, City of Clearwater
A participant asked what type of energy is used for the guideway system. Mr. Jakes noted the
system would be totally electric resulting in no air pollution. He also noted that the guideway
could be extended into a downtown loop or to a central bus terminal facility.
City Marina, City of Clearwater
A participant noted that for this system and the ferry system to work, attractors are needed at
both ends and it needs to be a "friendly" experience. There need to be activities in the
downtown to draw tourists away from the beach on the guideway. He was pleased that the City
was looking at the feasibility of a guideway system. In response to his comments, Mr. Jakes
noted that the HarborView Center is under utilized and undersized and should be expanded to a
more ideal size to accommodate larger conventions.
The participant indicated that one of the alignments appears to go directly through the City's
Marina. Mr. Jakes indicated that whatever alignment is eventually selected would not adversely
impact the Marina. The participant also noted that a guideway system would have to withstand
harsh environmental conditions characteristic of the beach environment. With regard to the
guideway structure, he preferred less concrete and lower elevation.
The participant inquired about the number of persons anticipated to use the guideway and how
the system would accommodate coolers, beach chairs and other gear normally brought to the
beach by beachgoers. He noted that beachgoers having to carry their gear significant distances
was a perceived negative. In response, Mr. Jakes noted that in order for beachgoers to want to
take their gear, the distance had to be convenient and that guideway vehicles would provide a
comfortable environment with racks/storage space for beach gear. This issue has been
addressed in other guideway systems providing transportation to the beach (e.g. Sidney,
Australia). Mr. Jakes also noted that the construction of fewer parking lots on the beach would
result in more beachgoers utilizing the guideway system.
P:\CLW2041\01\WORD\off-admin\Guideway Focus Group minutes - R2_1.doc