Edmonton (alta ) 1982 transportation systems plan assessment of alternative strategies (1982 06) by Edmonton Tower Resource Centre Online Library

SO LIBRARY

IENT INATIVE STRATEGIES 1111111

5238

102012990/MAR

IS R-05-81

TRANSPLAN, EDMONTON -TRANSPORTA

lionsplan TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN

4020a .E3 E386 I UOLC

a SYSTEMS DESIGN

E3Eg

Vaal-

TSR/05/81

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN The City a Edmonton

ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES SEPTEMBER,1981 REVISED MARCH 31, 1982

THE CITY OF

fltOfl

@ITIO

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DESIGN

TSR/05/81: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

The Transportation System Plan consists of the following six reports:

TSR/02/81 Transportation System Plan:

Summary

TSR/03/81 Transportation System Plan:

Assessment of Future Demand

TSR/04/81 Transportation System Plan:

Development of Alternative Strategies

TSR/05/81 Transportation System Plan:

Assessment of Alternative Strategies

TSR/06/81 Transportation System Plan:

The Recommended Strategy

TSR/07/81 Transportation System Plan:

The Transportation Planning and Implementation Process in Edmonton

These reports were prepared in order to meet the requirements of the City Transportation Act 1970 and constitute the "comprehensive transportation study report" required by the Act.

This series of reports was received as information by City Council as the "comprehensive transportation study report(s)" required by the City Transportation Act, 11 May 1982.

These documents were used as the basis for the development of the "Transportation System Bylaw 6707", as required by the Act.

Finally, the Recommended Strategy was used as the basis for amendments to the "General Municipal Plan Bylaw 6000".

June, 1982

R.A. Heise, P. Eng. General Manager TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DESIGN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 SUMMARY

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

2.2 APPROACH

2.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

2.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION

3.0 BASIS OF THE COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT

3.1 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES

3.2 MEASUREMENT OF SYSTEM OBJECTIVES

4.0 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

4.1 PARKING

4.2 USER FEES

4.3 COSTS

4.4 EFFICIENCY

4.5 RESTRAINT

4.6 IMPACTS

4.7 TRANSIT

4.8 FLEXIBILITY

4.9 URBAN DEVELOPMENT

4.10 MOBILITY

4.11 SUMMARY

5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED STRATEGY

5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

5.2 THE PREFERRED STRATEGY

5.3 REFINEMENT OF THE PREFERRED STRATEGY

LIST OF APPENDICES

PAGE

APPENDIX A

Public Support of the Preferred Strategy

APPENDIX B

Compatibility with the General Municipal Plan

APPENDIX C

Public Attitude Survey February 1982

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

PAGE 1.1

Objective Statements

1.2

Concensus Ranking and Weightings

1.3 Performance Measurements of Alternative Strategies

1.4

Performance Ranking of Alternative Strategies

1.5

Comparison of Alternative Strategies

3.1

Objective Statements

3.2

Weighting of Objectives by Groups

3.3

Concensus Ranking and Weighting

4.1

Perfolmance Measurements of Alternative Strategies

4.2

Performance Ranking of Alternative Strategies

5.1

Comparison of Alternative Strategies

A.1

Summary of Responses

A.9

Edmonton Transportation Study

B.1

Relative Support for G.M.P.

B.4

Growth Strategy

B.2

Relative Use of Radial Upgrading

B.7

B.3

G.M.P. Growth Strategy Support by

B.9

Alternative Transportation Strategies

C.1

Comparison of Alternative Strategies

C.3

C.2

Consensus Ranking and Weighting

C.4

1.0 SUMMARY

This report is the fourth in a series of six reports documenting the Transportation System Plan, and describes the comparative assessment of four alternative long range transportation strategies. The development of the alternative strategies is described in the previous report, of that name.

The comparative assessment was carried out on the basis of ten distinct objectives of the transportation system, shown on Exhibit 1.1. The relative importance (weight) of these objectives was obtained from the concensus of opinion of a group which included government officials and the general public (see Exhibit 1.2). The performance of each alternative strategy against the several objectives was measured quantitatively, using output from the transportation model. The perfoLmance measurements are shown in Exhibit 1.3. The order of performance of the alternatives was then ranked, from "best" to "worst" (Exhibit 1.4). Finally, a simple arithmetic procedure was used to calculate a total score for each alternative, reflecting the relative weights of the objective, and the performance ranking of the alternatives. This final comparison of the alternative strategies is shown on Exhibit 1.5.

The Balanced alternative performed best overall, and was therefore identified as the preferred strategy. This strategy was used as the basis for the development of the Recommended Strategy, as described in the subsequent report of that name.

trans ortation s stem plan transportation system plan

trans ortation s stem Ian

trans ortation s stem plan

The transportation plan should be flexible and hence capable of being adapted to cater for changing future travel conditions (Flexibility)

The cost to build, maintain and operate the transportation system (i.e. payable out of taxes) should be as low as possible. (Cost)

The transportation system should complement an overall urban development

The use of existing roadways should be maximized before new facilities are constructed. (Efficiency)

757711V1rDliEllliit

strategy. (Urban Development)

The overall transportation system should enable everybody (i.e. young, aged, handicapped, car owners, non-car owners) to get to work places, shops, schools, hospitals, leisure areas etc. easily. (Mobility)

For all people who do not own or cannot or choose not to use a car, the transportation system should include a readily available public transit component. (Transit) •-c Community intrusion, vehicle noise and air pollution should be as low as possible. (Impact)

In certain high demand areas, the use of private vehicles should be discouraged and the use of public transit encouraged. (Restraint)

The use of private vehicles should not be restricted by a lack of parking space. (Parking)

be as low as possible. (User Fees)

=ansportationSystem Plan

efirionton trans • ortation system plan

OBJECTIVE STATEMENTS

trans • ortation system plan

EXHIBIT 1.1

trans ortation s stem plan

e d wai sifs d one) io • sue,

The "out-of-pocket" expenses (eg. transit fares, parking fees) should

3 trans ortation s stem plan

trans ortation s stem plan

ortation s stem plan transportation system plan

Qt hers 0

Parking User Fees

Co .

1.11

Cost

Efficiency

c4.

Restraint Impact

Transit Flexibility Urban Dev.

lo•

Mobility

•

CO CO

N 0 CO

O BJECTIV E

Cs•I

Tr N 0

WEIGHT %

TansportationSystem Plar

eltlionton S • ortation system plan

CONCENSUS RANKING AND WEIGHTING

trans ortation s stem plan

transportation system plan

EXHIBIT 1.2

trans • ortation s stem plan •

trans ortation s stem plan

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY

OBJECTIVE Measurement

DEFAULT

AUTOORIENTED

TRANSITORIENTED

BALANCED

PARKING *Number of auto trips

116,015

114,478

110,327

Market Market

Low Market

Market Low

High Low

1,206

1,452

1,111

1,295

91_09

87.14

92_11

97.65

Some

Least

Most

44.0

44_0

47.0

57.0

5617

5850

5384

5549

4.37

4.28

4_30

4.09

43.60

45_14

42.43

41_74

Some

Least

Most

22.5

22.2

23.3

26.2

5.5

36.5

37.9

35.7

35_5

16.89

15.60

16.94

16.18

23.1

20.8

23.4

22.6

88.3

94.7

86.4

90.9

115.598

USER FEES Qualitative: Parking fees Transit fares

Rid Luoi safs uo i3 e io dsuei

ns • ortation s stem plan transportation system plan

COST Capital ($1979 million) 1981 to 2001 Annual Operating (S1979 million) 2001

Qualitative RESTRAINT *Transit modal split to downtown % IMPACT Noise Impact Index *Air pollutants emitted -tonnes Daily energy requirement BTUx109 TRANSIT Qualitative

e dtuos sits uoi,ei J o. sue)

EFFICIENCY

URBAN DEVELOPMENT Relative degree of GMP support MOBILITY *Average transit travel time mins. *Average auto travel time mins. *Jobs within 30 mins_ by transit % *Jobs within 30 mins. by auto %

*Data refers to A.M. peak hour.

mmmTansportationSystem Plan

eirnonton ns • ortation system plan

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES trans • ortation system plan

trans • ortation system p an

EXHIBIT 1.3

trans ortation s stem plan

e d wai sAs uoil el io • suei

*System transit modal split %

e d use sAs u oti epo • sue.,

FLEXIBILITY

trans ortation s stem plan

S • ortation s stem plan transportation system plan

trans ortation s stem plan

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES OBJECTIVE DEFAULT

AUTOORIENTED

TRANSITORIENTED

BALANCED

PARKING

USER FEES

COST

EFFICIENCY

RESTRAINT

IMPACT

TRANSIT

FLEXIBILITY

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

MOBILITY

1 to

1 - Best Performance

!mmE:m:jazuw —

0rtMl=;EMZ

4 - Worst Performance

=ansportationSystem Plan

Edmonton s ortation system plan

PERFORMANCE RANKING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

trans ortation s stem plan

trans ortation system plan

EXHIBIT 1.4

trans • ortation s stem plan

6 trans ortation s st m •la

DEFAULT

AUTOORIENTED

TRANSITORIENTED

AUTORESTRAINT

PARKING

3.2

0.75

1.00

0.50

0.25

USER FEES

5.4

0.50

0-75

1.00

0.50

COST

5.7

1.00

0.50

1.00

0.25

EFFICIENCY

8.5

0.50

0.25

0.75

1.00

RESTRAINT

9.2

0.50

0.75

1.00

IMPACT

9.7

0.50

0.75

1.00

TRANSIT

11.3

0.50

0.25

1.00

0.75

FLEXIBILITY

13-9

0.50

0.25

0.75

1.00

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

14.6

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

15.1

0.50

0.75

0.50

1.00

48.31

46.61

73-48

84.40

MOBILITY

% TOTAL SCORE

NOTES: Performance Ranking (see EXHIBIT 4.2) Unweighted Score

1.00 0.750.50 0.25

TOTAL SCORE for each alternative strategy = sum of (WEIGHT x UNWEIGHTED SCORE) for all objectives. Maximum possible total score .7. 96.6%

elitionton ns • ortation system plan

1717T17r.WATIT7

due to exclusion of OTHER objectives

1=ansportationSystem

Plan

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES trans • ortation system plan

trans • ortation system plan

e d ula sits u onepo. suei

WEIGHT %

e d we s s do r e JO.sue.,

OBJECTIVE

eddies sifs uon epo. sue,

UNWEIGHTED SCORES OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

el . Leap s uo li epo. sue.,

rans or a ion s s em plan

EXHIBIT 1.5 trans • ortation $ stem plan

Ell71117

sott • s t

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report is the fourth in a series of six reports documenting the Transportation System Plan, and describes the comparative assessment of the four alternative long range transportation strategies. These are described in the previous report entitled "Development of Alternative Strategies".

The purpose of this report is to identify the preferred strategy, to be used as the basis for the development of the Recommended Strategy. The development of the Recommended Strategy is described in the subsequent report.

2.2 APPROACH

The comparative assessment of alternative strategies was carried out on a quantitative basis. Use was made of the physical parameters of the alternative strategies, and of their performance under simulated 2001 demand conditions. Wherever qualitative comparisons were used, these were kept simple. The general methodology, and many of the specific measurements and parameters used, were originally described in Transportation Plan Part 3 - Volume 1 (1977).

The first step in the comparative analysis was to develop a set of objective statements, describing the various expectations of a transportation system. The relative order (rank) and relative importance (weight) of these objectives was then obtained, using the opinions of a group of government officials and members of the general public.

A measurement of the performance of a transportation system against each objective was identified, and the performance of the four alternative strategies was thereby measured. The ranked relative performances of

each alternative against each objective was combined with the weighting of the objectives, to give a total score for each alternative strategy. This total score, which reflected the overall perfoLmance of the alternatives against the full range of objectives, was used to identify the preferred strategy.

2.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

In the ranking and weighting of the comparative performance of the alternative strategies against the objectives, no attempt has been made to assess how much better one alternative performed as compared to another, only in what order the alternatives best fulfilled the objective. This was because no absolute standards exist for either the generalized objective statements, or the quantified measurements used, especially when considering system-wide perfoLwance, twenty or so years in the future.

The entire Transportation System Plan process is based on the fundamental premise that the city will "do something" over the next twenty years, to deal with the increasing demands for transportation as the city continues to grow. The "do-nothing" alternative could therefore not be logically compared with the four "do-something" alternatives, but it is clear that the overall performance of a "do-nothing" approach would be very much worse than any "do-something" alternative especially in terms of Mobility, Support for the City's Growth Strategy, Flexibility and Impacts.

The limitations of the transportation model, and the land use scenario (2001 A) used in this comparative analysis, are fully documented in the report "Assessment of Future Demand".

2.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION

The first section is a summary of the comparative assessment of alternative strategies. The general purpose, approach, scope and limitations of the report are discussed in this second section.

The third section describes the basis of the assessment, in terms of the system objectives and their measurement. The comparative assessment of the four alternative strategies is described in Section 4.

Section 5 identifies the preferred strategy, and briefly discusses the refinement of this into the Recommended Strategy.

3.0 BASIS OF THE COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT

The comparative assessment of the alternative strategies was based upon the relative performance of the alternatives on a system-wide basis, as measured against a set of transportation-related objectives. These objectives had been ranked and weighted to define their relative importance by the public and by government officials.

3.1 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES

3.1.1 Formulation of Objective Statements

In order to foLmulate a set of objective statements, a review of available documentation relating to general expectations or objectives of the transportation system was carried out.

These documents included Transportation Plan Part I, and the then-draft General Municipal Plan and its working papers. This was supplemented by input from the general public, through specific meetings relating to the System Plan and through meetings on other current projects, and by informal discussion within the City Administration.

Considerable effort was expended in ensuring that each statement was very clear, concise and easy to understand, and also did not overlap any other statement. An initial set of objective statements was thoroughly scrutinized by the staff of Transportation Systems Design Department. As a result, further refinements and clarifications of the statements were made. The final set of objective statements is shown in Exhibit 3.1.

It should be noted that these objectives do not form a totally-consistent and mutually-supportive set. They are intended to represent the wide and diverse range of expectations that the city's transportation system must, to some degree, strive to fulfill. For example, the Parking

11 ortation system plan transportation system plan

trans ortation s stem plan

trans ortation $ stem plan

e d Lue,sifs uon e,i odsuei

The transportation plan should be flexible and hence capable of being adapted to cater for changing future travel conditions (Flexibility)

The cost to build, maintain and operate the transportation system (i.e. payable out of taxes) should be as low as possible. (Cost)

The transportation system should complement an overall urban development

e d wa s s u cni ej.m. suei

strategy. (Urban Development)

The use of existing roadways should be maximized before new facilities are constructed. (Efficiency)

transit component. (Transit)

Community intrusion, vehicle noise and air pollution should be as low as possible. (Impact)

In certain high demand areas, the use of private vehicles should be discouraged and the use of public transit encouraged. (Restraint)

The use of private vehicles should not be restricted by a lack of parking space. (Parking)

The "out-of-pocket" expenses (eg. transit fares, parking fees) should be as low as possible. (User Fees)

=ransportationSystem Pa

@hi-onion s â&#x20AC;˘ ortation system plan

OBJECTIVE STATEMENTS trans ortation system plan

transportation system plan

EXHIBIT 3.1

trans ortation s stem plan

e d we sits uo iaepo. suei

the transportation system should include a readily available public

.1:I LM.EILLEMCM215

For all people who do not own or cannot or choose not to use a car,

objective statement is a reflection of the strongly-expressed desire of some members of the public that their freedom of choice and ability to utilize their automobiles should not be reduced. This could clearly be in conflict with the Restraint objective.

3.1.2 Ranking and Weighting of Objectives

In order to determine the order of importance (rank) and the relative importance (weight) of each objective statement in the set, each member of several groups of people was asked to rank the objectives, and then to allocate 100 points between the objectives to reflect their weight. An overall ranking and weighting for each group was then obtained by summing the points allocated to each objective, reducing these to a percentage of the total number of points, then ranking the objectives according to their weight.

The several groups of people who completed this exercise were combined into two major groups - the general public, and government officials. The results from these two groups are shown on Exhibit 3.2, and discussed below. Finally, an overall concensus of opinion of both groups was obtained, using the same method. This is shown in Exhibit 3.3, and also discussed below.

In completing the ranking and weighting exercise, the option was left open for any individual to substitute new or modified objective statements, as they thought appropriate. Very few modifications were made, and these are shown as "Others" in Exhibits 3.2 and 3.3.

3.1.3 Government Officials' Weighting

The results obtained from government officials are shown in Exhibit 3.2. This group included five aldermen and three senior civic administrators, five professional employees of the Engineering Department, and six professional employees of Alberta Transportation. It should be noted that the Transportation Systems Design Department was deliberately excluded from participating in this exercise, so as to make the results as impartial as possible.

13 trans ortation $ stem plan

trans ortation s stem plan

eid wai sifs don epodsuei

ortation s stem plan transportation system plan

Others

e d wai sifs uon epo. su e.,

Parking User Fees Cost Efficiency

edweisifs uon epo. suet

Restraint Impact Transit Flexibility Urban Dev.

Mobility cv

11".

•

CO CD et N 0

=ransportationSystem Plan

elitionton s ortation system plan

WEIGHTING OF OBJECTIVES BY GROUP

trans • ortation system plan

transportation system plan

EXHIBIT 3.2

trans • ortation s stem plan

e d waj sAs u onej J 0 sue,

WEIGHT %

The Urban Development objective was clearly the most important to this group, followed by long-term Flexibility. Mobility, Efficiency, availability of Transit, and the use of Restraint were the next most important objectives, followed by Impact and Cost. User Fees and Parking were the least important.

The small number (3) of "Other" objective statements were variations of the parking objective, and a statement relating to energy.

3.1.4 The Public's Weighting

The results obtained from members of the public attending System Plan public meetings are shown in Exhibit 3.2. This group numbered thirty individuals from all parts of the city.

Mobility was clearly the most important objective to the general public. Flexibility, Urban Development, Transit and Impacts were next in importance. Of lesser importance were Restraint, Efficiency, User Fees and Cost, while Parking was the least important. The five "Other" objectives were related to truck routing (3), energy, and staging of transit.

3.1.5 Consensus Weighting

The overall concensus of opinion of both groups is shown on Exhibit 3.3. As there were thirty members of the public, and nineteen government officials, the concensus was weighted in favour of the public's views. This was considered to be reasonable and acceptable.

The most important objective was Mobility, closely followed by Urban Development, and Flexibility. Transit was next, followed by Impact, Restraint and Efficiency. Cost, User Fees and Parking were the least important.

r777Z7117M1c WTMI nM ;MME

Others 0

Parking

User Fees

trans ortation s stem plan

trans • ortation s stem plan

Cost

1%.

Efficiency

Restraint

Impact

1:1I1dlli rMMMIIIi

ortation s stem plan transportation system plan

Transit cc

Flexibility el!

Urban Dev.

Mobility

WEIGHT %

CN1

=ansportationSystem Pia

elrnonton S • ortation system plan

CONCENSUS RANKING AND WEIGHTING

trans • ortation system plan

EXHIBIT 3.3

trans ortation s stem plan

e d wai sA's uon e3 J 0 • sew

OBJ ECTIV E

CV 0

RA NKING

0 CO CO Cs 1

It is interesting to observe that while the government officials were most concerned about the more esoteric and abstract planning-oriented objectives of Urban Development and Flexibility, the general public was most concerned with the obvious and pragmatic objective of Mobility. The other areas of divergence of opinion between the two groups, were the general public's greater concern for Impacts, and the government officials' greater concern for Efficiency. It should also be noted that Cost and User Fees were consistently given a very low weighting, and that the general public were sufficiently interested in and aware of the importance of planning aspects to rate these as second in importance behind mobility.

Of the "Other" objective statements suggested by individuals completing the exercise, truck routing and staging of transit could not be considered, as these are aspects of the implementation of transportation facilities which were not being explicitly addressed at this long-range systems planning stage. The suggested revised parking statements were felt to be adequately covered by the Restraint objective The remaining suggestions relating to energy were taken into consideration by including a measure of direct energy consumption under the Impact objective.

The final concensus ranking and weighting of the ten objective statements, as shown in Exhibit 3.3, was used to assess the relative performance of the alternative strategies.

Reference should be made to Appendix C for a review of the attitude survey undertaken in February, 1982.

3.2 MEASUREMENT OF SYSTEM OBJECTIVES

It was necessary to develop specific measurements for each system-wide objective. As far as possible, these were quantifiable parameters taken from the system-wide performance parameters output from a full transportation model run on each of the alternative strategies. A previous report, "Assessment of Future Demand", briefly described the transportation modelling process. Wherever a non-quantifiable measurement had to be used, it was kept simple. The general methodology used, and many of the

specific measurements and system parameters that were used were originally described and discussed in Transportation Plan Part 3 - Volume 1 (1977). The measurements used for each objective are described below, starting with least important objective.

3.2.1 Parking

This objective stated that the use of private vehicles should not be restricted by a lack of parking space. The measurement of this was the total number of a.m. peak hour automobile trips generated by each alternative strategy. The more auto trips generated, the better the objective was fulfilled.

3.2.2 User Fees

This objective stated that the "out-of-pocket" expenses (eg. transit fares, parking fees) should be as low as possible. These expenses are reflected in the modal split component of the transportation model. With the exception of the Balanced Strategy, where long-term employee parking costs in the downtown were significiantly increased to act as a restraint technique, it was assumed throughout the modelling process that the two most visible out-of-pocket expenses (transit fares and parking fees) would retain the same value relative to each other. Therefore, as no quantifible comparison between alternative strategies could be obtained, it was necessary to consider the logical policy implications of each strategy as regards out-of-pocket expenses.

The two most visible out-of-pocket expenses, transit fares and parking fees, were considered. Three levels for these expenses were selected: low, representing lower than a reasonable market cost; market cost; and high, representing costs set higher than a reasonable market cost. Each alternative strategy was then ranked according to the logical level of expense implied by the philosophy of that strategy. The lower the levels set, the better the objective was fulfilled.

3.2.3

Cost

This objective stated that the cost to build, maintain and operate the transportation system (ie. payable out of taxes) should be as low as possible.

The capital investment required to construct and upgrade the transportation system of each alternative strategy up to the planning horizon of 2001 is fully documented in the preceeding report, "Development of Alternative Strategies". The networks which these capital costs represent were input to the modelling process.

The annual operating costs of the roadway network and transit network components of each alternative strategy were an output of that process. Roadway operating costs were obtained from the length of arterial roadway included in each strategy, and an average arterial roadway maintenance cost prepared by the Engineering Department. This cost included pavement maintenance, concrete maintenance, auxiliary structure maintenance, cleaning, snow removal, signs and markings, and 15% overhead costs. The average annual roadway maintenance cost per mile in 1978 was $21,991. This was inflated to 1979 dollars, at 8% per annum, to become $23,750 per mile.

Annual operating costs of the transit networks were output from the modelling process, and included costs per vehicle, per vehicle mile, and per vehicle hour, for both buses and LRT vehicles, as well as maintenance per kilometre of LRT trackage and per LRT station.

Transit operating costs were calculated on the basis of the following unit costs in 1979 dollars.

$ PER VEHICLE $ PER MILE

$ PER HOUR

Buses

0.42

11.14

24,321.00

LRT cars

0.82

15.63

45,000.00

PER YEAR

19 LRT track maintenance - $ 60,000 per kilometre LRT station maintenance - $200,000 per station

The lower the costs, the better the objective was fulfilled.

3.3.4 Efficiency

This objective stated that the use of existing roadways should be maximized before new facilities are constructed. It is an on-going function of the Engineering Department to optimize the operation of the roadway system, on a discrete or area-wide basis, as problems arise. The longrange roadway networks could not reflect this kind of optimization, but did include (where strategically appropriate) one-way and tidal flow facilities, which also tend to maximize the use of existing roadways.

In order to reflect both the on-going optimization and the use of largerscale facilities, it was decided to use a simple qualitative assessment (ie. least, some, more, most) of the relative degree to which each alternative strategy allowed for efficient use of the existing roadways.

The higher the degree, the better the objective was fulfilled.

3.3.5 Restraint

This objective stated that in certain high demand areas, the use of private vehicles should be discouraged and the use of public transit encouraged. The Balanced Strategy, with attention focussed on the downtown area, explicitly attempted to achieve this objective.

To compare the relative effect of each alternative strategy in achieving restraint, the a.m. peak hour transit modal split to the downtown was extracted from the output of the modelling process. The higher the transit modal split, the better the objective was fulfilled.

3.3.6 Impacts

This objective stated that community intrusion, vehicle noise and air pollution should be as low as possible. A satisfactory method of defining community intrusion on a system-wide basis could not be identified. Furthelwore, this kind of impact tends to be of a local, facilityspecific nature, and can often be mitigated by detailed modifications to the facility at the design stage. The identification of such details was clearly beyond the scope of the System Plan. Therefore, community intrusion was not specifically included in the measurement of Impacts. However, air and noise pollution, which were quantified on a system-wide basis, are to some extent reflective of community intrusions, in addition to being primary environmental impacts. As noted above in Section 3.1.5, direct energy consumption of the alternative strategies- was included under Impact, as being a manifestation of some secondary impacts of the transportation system.

A composite Noise Impact Index was calculated for the roadway network of each alternative strategy, being the sum for all arterial roadway links in the network of the product of the length of the link, the noise level, and the average sensitivity to noise along the link. The length of roadway links in the networks was obtained directly from the network description. The Ldn (ie. average 24-hour) noise level on each roadway link was calculated using the standard "Manual for the Prediction of Surface Transportation Noise and its Control through Facility Design" methodology. Factors obtained from actual detailed surveys in Edmonton during 1975 and 1976 were used to transform the a.m. peak hour automobile volumes generated by the transportation model into traffic volumes broken down by time of day and by traffic flow composition. An estimate of the sensitivity to noise of the various land uses was obtained by carrying out a paired-comparisons exercise within the Transportation Systems Design Department. The average land use along each roadway link was obtained by scanning the 1976 City of Edmonton land use map for existing areas, and by using the most likely land use in as-yet undeveloped areas. The average sensitivity to noise along both sides of each arterial roadway link could then be identified. The lower the Noise Impact Index, then the lesser the system-wide noise impact would be.

The air pollutants emitted by automobile traffic during the a.m. peak hour was output by the transportation modelling process. Emission rates are predicted to decline over the next twenty years; furthermore, emission rates are a function of operating speed. The matrix of emission rates, varying by year and by operating speed, input to the model is described in Transportation Plan Part 3 - Volume 1. The total weight of emissions generated by a.m. peak hour automobile traffic was calculated, and reflected the roadway operating conditions in each alternative strategy. The lower the weight of emissions, the less the pollution, and hence the less the impact was considered to be.

The direct energy consumed by all vehicles in each strategy was calculated on a daily basis. It was considered that comparisons on a daily rather than an a.m. peak hour basis would be more equitable, as the differences between the transit components of the alterantive strategies included different levels of route coverage, off-peak and nightime service, all of which were already reflected in capital and operating cost estimates. Daily bus and LRT miles were output directly from the transportation model; a.m. peak hour auto miles output from the model were factored up to 24-hour miles using actual survey data obtained in Edmonton. It was assumed that all buses were diesel-powered: any net energy savings achieved by the use of trolley buses would most likely apply to all strategies, and would therefore not significantly affect the comparison between strategies. Auto gas consumption was assumed to be 35 miles per gallon, being the projected average fleet consumption in 1985, with one gallon of gasoline being equivalent to 147,200 BTU of energy. Diesel bus consumption was assumed to be 5.10 miles per gallon, one gallon of diesel fuel being equivalent to 163,200 BTU of energy. LRT energy consumption was assumed to be 6,500 BTU per mile of operation. These last two consumption rates were obtained from Edmonton Transit. The lower the total daily energy consumption of a strategy, the less the impact was considered to be.

The lower the combined effect of the three impact measures, the better the objective was fulfilled.

3.3.7 Transit

This objective stated that for all people who do not own or cannot or choose not to use a car, the transportation system should include a readily-available public transit component. All alternative strategies included a transit component. Use of a transit modal split as the measurement of this objective would not reflect the provision of transit as a social service in areas and times of low demand.

It was therefore decided to use a simple qualitative assessment (least, some, more, most) of the relative degree to which each alternative strategy provided transit service, through route coverage and service in other than peak periods. The better the provision of transit services, the better the objective was fulfilled.

3.3.8 Flexibility

This objective stated that the transportation plan should be flexible and hence capable of being adapted to cater for changing future travel conditions. True flexibility of transportation planning in Edmonton will lie in the adoption and application of a continuous planning and implementation program, which allows for on-going monitoring of all aspects of the system, and for regular reviews and updates of long-term policies and plans. This is fully documented in the later report "The Transportation Planning and Implementation Process in Edmonton".

However, a quantitative measure of the relative flexibility of the alternative strategies was felt to be the system-wide a.m. peak hour transit modal split for each alternative as generated by the modelling process. In that a transit system is inherently more flexible to changes in demand than a roadway system, both in time of day and in location, the degree to which the transit component of the transportation system is being used is a reflection of its established attractiveness and hence of the likelihood of people continuing to use (or starting to use) the transit component of the transportation system as conditions change.

The higher the system-wide transit modal split, the better the objective was fulfilled.

3.3.9 Urban Development

This objective stated that the transportation system should complement an overall urban development strategy.

The city's urban development strategy is described in the General Municipal Plan. An assessment was made of the extent to which the several generalized transportation investment policies used to build the alternative strategies (reference the previous report "Development of Alternative Strategies) were supportive of the General Municipal Plan growth strategy, and then of the degree to which each alternative strategy used the investment policies in terms of actual facilities provided. The resultant rating indicated the relative support each strategy gave to the General Municipal Plan. In view of the importance of this objective, the full methodology briefly described above has been included as Appendix B to this report.

The more support provided to the General Municipal Plan, then the better the objective was fulfilled.

3.3.10 Mobility

This objective stated that the overall transportation system should enable everybody (ie. young, aged, handicapped, car owners, non-car owners) to get to work places, shops, schools, hospitals, leisure areas, etc. easily.

Measurements of mobility were obtained directly from the transportation modelling process. The model deals only with a.m. peak hour home-based work trips, but the data obtained from it gives a good reflection of the degree to which the above broadly-stated objective of personal mobility would be fulfilled. This is because the home-to-work trip has the highest probability (of all the different types of trips) of being made;

it is therefore the most predictable type of trip, and the easiest to collect accurate data about; 85% of all trips occuring in the a.m. peak hour are work trips, and surveys in Edmonton have shown that a.m. peak hour travel demand is exceeded only 10% of the time during an average day.

The most readily-appreciated measurement of the mobility provided by a transportation system is the travel time for each trip. The average trip travel time for both auto and transit modes was therefore obtained. The most important social goal of the transportation system is to provide accessibility between home and place of work. The accessibility provided by both auto and transit was expressed as the percentage of employment opportunities (ie. jobs) that could be reached within a certain time limit. It was found that all roadway networks provided 100% accessibility within 45 minutes, and that no transit network provided more than 5% accessibility within 15 minutes. Therefore, the 30-minute time limit was selected, so as to provide an effective comparison between strategies.

The lower the average trip travel time, and the greater the accessibility, then the better the objective was fulfilled.

4.0 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

The transportation modelling process used to derive the quantitative measures of system perfoLmance has been described previously in both Transportation Plan Part 3 - Volume 1 (1977), and in "Assessment of Future Demand" (1981). The land use scenario used for this comparative assessment (2001 A) was also described in detail in the latter report. While the total number of trips generated by each alternative strategy was the same, because the same land use scenario was used throughout, the modal split between auto-driver, auto-passenger, and transit rider varied for all four alternative strategies. This was because the modal split component of the model takes into account both the physical parameters of the networks being tested, and also the simulated operating conditions on those networks.

The results of the comparative assessment of the four alternative strategies, as described in the previous report "Development of Alternative Strategies", against the ten measureable system-wide objectives, described above in Section 3.0, follows starting with the least important objective. In the ranking of performance, 1 indicated the best performance, and 4 the worst.

4.1 PARKING

The Auto-Oriented Strategy had the largest number of auto trips, and therefore best fulfilled the Parking objective. The restraint measures applied in the downtown area resulted in the Balanced Strategy having the least number of auto trips, and therefore rating worst.

AUTO

TRANSIT

DEFAULT ORIENTED ORIENTED BALANCED

Total number of auto trips RANKING

115,598

116,015

114,478

110,327

26 4.2 USER FEES

The Default Strategy, having no particular strategic goals or orientation, could be expected to have both parking fees and transit fares set by prevailing market forces. The Auto-Oriented Strategy could logically be expected to have low parking fees, as compared to market-level transit fares. Conversely, the Transit-Oriented Strategy could be expected to have low transit fares, and market parking fees. The Balanced Strategy could be expected to utilize both options for encouraging transit usage for work trip access to the downtown, having low transit fares and high parking fees. The individual and combined rating, and final ranking of alternative strategies against this objective is shown below. It was found that the Auto-Oriented and Transit-Oriented would likely have lower overall user costs than the other two alternative strategies.

AUTO

TRANSIT

DEFAULT ORIENTED ORIENTED BALANCED Parking Fees

Market 2 Low

Transit Fares

Market 3 Market 3 Low

1 Market 2

High 4

Low 1

Combined Rating

RANKING

4.3 COSTS

Capital construction costs of the four strategies are documented in the previous report "Development of Alternative Strategies". The TransitOriented was the least expensive to build, followed by the Default, Balanced and Auto-Oriented.

Operating costs consisted of roadway maintenance costs, and transit operating costs. It was found that the Auto-Oriented Strategy had the lowest annual overall operating costs, followed by the Default, TransitOriented and Balanced Strategies.

27 On combined ranking of both capital and operating costs, it was found that the Transit-Oriented and Default Strategies ranked best (ie. cheapest), and the Balanced Strategy worst (ie. most expensive).

DEFAULT

Capital Cost ($ 1979 billion)

AUTO

TRANSIT

ORIENTED

1.452

1.111

1.206

Rating

BALANCED

1.295

Roadway Operating ($ 1979 million) 20.59

22.54

20.01

20.45

Transit Operating ($ 1979 million) 70.50

64.60

72.10

77.20

Total Operating Cost

91.09

87.14

92.11

97.65

Combined Rating

RANKING

Rating

4.4

EFFICIENCY

The Auto-Oriented Strategy was the least efficient alternative, as it depended heavily upon new construction and major upgrading of roadways. The Default Strategy made some attempts to maximize use of existing roadways. The Transit-Oriented Strategy, although it did virtually nothing by way of roadway improvements in the inner city, would be a prime candidate for traffic management schemes aimed at optimizing roadway operating conditions. The Balanced Strategy made the most deliberate use of existing roadways, by way of one-way and tidal flow systems. The Auto-Oriented Strategy therefore ranked worst, and the Balanced Strategy best.

AUTO

TRANSIT

DEFAULT ORIENTED ORIENTED BALANCED

Efficiency RANKING

Some

Least

Most

4.5 RESTRAINT

The Default and Auto-Oriented Strategies achieved the same transit modal split to downtown. The additional transit facilities and lack of roadway facilities included in the Transit-Oriented Strategy resulted in an increase in the transit modal split, while the restraint measures included in the Balanced Strategy induced a further increase.

AUTO

TRANSIT

DEFAULT ORIENTED ORIENTED BALANCED Transit Modal Split to

44.0

47.0

57.0

Downtown % RANKING

4.6 IMPACTS

It was found that the Transit-Oriented Strategy had the lowest noise impact index, ie. the shortest length of noise-sensitive arterial roadways. The Balanced Strategy was next, followed by the Default Strategy, and finally the Auto-Oriented Strategy with the highest noise impact index. It appeared that the most significant factor involved was the length of arterial roadways in each alternative strategy.

The Balanced Strategy produced the least weight of air pollutants, followed by the Auto-Oriented, the Transit-Oriented and finally the Default Strategy with the most air pollutants. This was because the auto demand management measures reduced the total number of vehicles operating on the most congested parts of the roadway network (the downtown), whilst maintaining reasonable conditions on the rest of the inner city network. The performance of the Transit-Oriented Strategy was a reflection of the extreme congestion created on the inner city network by lack of roadway improvements.

29 It was found that the Balanced Strategy had the lowest direct daily energy requirment, followed by the Transit-Oriented, Default and Auto-Oriented Strategies. The overwhelming importance of automobile energy consumption was clearly shown (see below), and therefore any measures which tend to discourage the use of the automobile would result in overall energy savings; the converse is also true.

In the combined rating and overall ranking of impact measurements, it was found that the Balanced Strategy has the lowest overall impacts and therefore ranked first, with the Transit-Oriented Strategy being second.

AUTO

TRANSIT

DEFAULT ORIENTED ORIENTED BALANCED

Noise Impact Index

5617

5850

5384

5549

4.37

4.28

4.30

4.09

Auto Energy Requirement 9 BTU x 10

40.51

41.99

39.85

38.91

Bus Energy Requirement 9 BTU x 10

3.06

3.13

2.51

2.77

LRT Energy Requirement 9 BTU x 10

0.03

0.02

0.07

0.06

43.60

45.14

42.43

41.74

Rating Air Pollutants Emitted (Tonnes) Rating

Total Energy Requirement 9 BTU x 10 Rating Combined Rating RANKING

4.7 TRANSIT

The Transit-Oriented Strategy provided the most transit service, in terms of route coverage, off-peak service etc., followed by the Balanced Strategy and the Default Strategy. The Auto-Oriented Strategy, with its severly rationalized and peak hour downtown-oriented system, provided the least overall transit service.

AUTO

TRANSIT

DEFAULT ORIENTED ORIENTED BALANCED

Transit

Some

Least

Most

RANKING

More 2

4.8 FLEXIBILITY

The Balanced Strategy had the highest system-wide transit modal split, largely due to the effect of restraint mechanisms in increasing the downtown transit modal split. The second highest was achieved by the Transit-Oriented Strategy, followed by the Default, and the AutoOriented Strategies.

AUTO

TRANSIT

DEFAULT ORIENTED ORIENTED BALANCED

System Transit Modal

22.5

22.2

23.3

26.2

Split % RANKING

4.9 URBAN DEVELOPMENT

The methodology used to assess the degree of support for the General Municipal Plan Growth Strategy provided by each alternative strategy is contained in Appendix B to this report.

It was found that the Balanced Strategy gave the most support for the General Municipal Plan Growth Strategy, mainly due to its emphasis on providing a good and comprehensive transit system, and also on improving conditions in the downtown. The Transit-Oriented Strategy provided the second most support, the Auto-Oriented and Default Strategies provided the least amount of support.

AUTO

TRANSIT

DEFAULT ORIENTED ORIENTED BALANCED

Relative GM? Support

5.5

RANKING

4.10 MOBILITY

The lowest average trip travel time by transit was provided by the Balanced Strategy, followed by the Transit-Oriented, Default and AutoOriented Strategies. However, the Auto-Oriented Strategy provided the lowest average trip time by automobile, as would be expected, followed by the Balanced, Default and Transit-Oriented Strategies.

The greatest percentage of jobs accessible within 30 minutes by transit was provided by the Transit-Oriented Strategy, followed by the Default, Balanced and Auto-Oriented Strategies. The Auto-Oriented Strategy however provided the greatest percentage of jobs accessible within 30 minutes by auto followed by the Balanced, Default and Transit-Oriented Strategies.

The combined rating and ranking indicated that the Balanced Strategy provided the best overall level of mobility, followed by the AutoOriented Strategy. The Default and Transit-Oriented Strategy provided the lowest level of mobility.

AUTO DEFAULT

Average Transit Travel

ORIENTED

TRANSIT ORIENTED

BALANCED

36.50

37.90

35.70

35.50

16.89

15.60

16.94

16.18

20.8

23.4

22.6

94.7

86.4

90.9

Times (Minutes) Rating Average Auto Travel Time (Minutes) Rating % Jobs within 30 Minutes

23.1

by Transit Rating % Jobs within 30 Minutes

2 88.3

by Auto Rating Combined Rating RANKING

4.11 SUMMARY

A summary of the performance measurement of each alternative strategy against the defined set of system-wide objectives is shown on Exhibit 4.1. The ranking of the relative performance of the alternative strategies against each objective is shown on Exhibit 4.2.

33 ortation s stem plan transportation system plan

trans • ortation s stem plan

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY

OBJECTIVE Measurement

DEFAULT

AUTOORIENTED

TRANSITORIENTED

BALANCED

PARKING

*Number of auto trips

115.598

116,015

114,478

110,327

Market Market

Low Market

Market Low

High Low

1,206

1,452

1.111

1,295

91.09

87.14

92.11

97.65

Some

Least

Most

44.0

47.0

57.0

5617

5850

5384

5549

4.37

4.28

4.30

4.09

43.60

45.14

42.43

41.74

Some

Least

Most

22.5

22.2

23.3

26.2

5.5

36.5

37.9

35.7

35.5

16.89

15.60

16.94

16.18

23.1

20.8

23.4

22.6

88.3

94.7

86.4

90.9

USER FEES

Qualitative: Parking fees Transit fares COST

Capital ($1979 million) 1981 to 2001 Annual Operating ($1979 million) 2001 EFFICIENCY

Qualitative RESTRAINT

a, a

*Transit modal split to downtown % IMPACT

Noise Impact Index *Air pollutants emitted -tonnes Daily energy requirement BTUx109 TRANSIT

Qualitative

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Relative degree of GMP support MOBILITY

*Average transit travel time mins. *Average auto travel time mins. *Jobs within 30 mins.. by transit % *Jobs within 30 mins. by auto %

*Data refers to A.M. peak hour.

wwiff

ransportationSystem Plan

elihonton s • ortation system plan

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES trans ortation system plan

trans • ortation system plan

EXHIBIT 4.1 trans • ortation s stem plan

e d wai sits uon epo. sue)

*System transit modal split %

e d wai sifs u onepo , sup)

FLEXIBILITY

34 trans ortation s stem plan

trans ortation s stem plan

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES OBJECTIVE

AUTOORIENTED

TRANSITORIENTED

BALANCED

USER FEES

COST

EFFICIENCY

RESTRAINT

IMPACT

TRANSIT

FLEXIBILITY

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

MOBILITY

J Osue.,

sits d o; e

PARKING

e d we sifs uo ti el J o.

DEFAULT

AS uolj 1,110)S

e) J 0 • sue.,

ns ortation s stem plan transportation system plan

e d we sits uon epo ' SUE!

1 - Best Performance

e d wool 's uon ei i o. sue.:

4 - Worst Performance

=ansportationSystem Plan

eltirionton ns • or

system plan

PERFORMANCE RANKING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES trans ortation system plan

transportation system plan

EXHIBIT 4.2 trans • ortation s stem plan

5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED STRATEGY

Having measured and ranked the perfotwance of the alternative strategies against the identified objectives of the transportation system, the preferred strategy was identified by applying the concensus weighting of the objectives to the performance ranking matrix, to obtain an overall performance score for each alternative.

5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

In order to arrive at a comparison of the relative overall performance of each alternative strategy, the concensus weightings that had been derived for each objective (see Section 3.0 above, Exhibit 3.3) were applied to the ranking of the performance of each strategy as measured against each objective. The weightings had been expressed as a percentage, with the sum of all weightings being 100. So as to arrive at a total score for each strategy which was also expressed as a percentage, the performance rankings, ie: 1 (best), 2 (second), 3 (third). 4 (worst), were transformed into decimals, reflecting a simple unweighted score, thus: 1 (best) became 1.00; 2 (second) became 0.75, 3 (third) became 0.50, and 4 (worst) became 0.25. In this way, a strategy which (for example) performed perfectly, ranking best throughout, would end up with a weighted score of 100%. Similarly, the lowest possible score would be 25%. In practice, the "Other" objective statements which had a weight of 3.4% were not explicitly included in the comparative analysis, and therefore the maximum possible score was 96.6%.

The total score for each alternative strategy, expressed as a percentage, was calculated as the sum for all ten objectives of the concensus weighting of the objective multiplied by the unweighted score. Exhibit 5.1 shows the unweighted score matrix, and the final total score for each strategy.

Reference should be made to Appendix C for a review of the attitude survey undertaken in February, 1982.

DEFAULT

AUTOORIENTED

TRANSITORIENTED

BALANCED

PARKING

3.2

0.75

1.00

0.50

0.25

USER FEES

5.4

0.50

0.75

1.00

0.50

COST

5.7

1.00

0.50

1.00

0.25

EFFICIENCY

8.5

0.50

0.25

0.75

1.00

RESTRAINT

9.2

0.50

0.75

1.00

IMPACT

9.7

0.50

0.75

1.00

TRANSIT

11.3

0.50

0.25

1.00

0.75

FLEXIBILITY

13.9

0.50

0.25

0.75

1.00

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

14.6

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

MOBILITY

15.1

0.50

0.75

0.50

1.00

48.31

46.61

73.48

84.40

% TOTAL SCORE

NOTES: Performance Ranking (see EXHIBIT 4.2) Unweighted Score

1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25

TOTAL SCORE for each alternative strategy = sum of (WEIGHT x UNWEIGHTED SCORE) for all objectives. Maximum possible total score 7. 96.6%

e d wej sAs u onej io • suei

due to exclusion of OTHER objectives

=ansportationSystem Pia elitionton trans ortation system plan

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES trans ortation system plan

trans ortation system plan

e d wei sifs u onel i o • sum

WEIGHT %

e d we s A's dew y °• suei

OBJECTIVE

e d tuei sAs uon es io • sueJ

UNWEIGHTED SCORES OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

e d wei sAs uo li ej i odsuei

trans ortation s stem plan

trans ortation s stem plan transportation system plan

EXHIBIT 5.1 trans ortation s stem plan

37 5.2 THE PREFERRED STRATEGY

The relative ability of the four alternative strategies to fulfill the transportation system objectives is shown by the percentage total score on Exhibit 5.1. The Balanced Strategy best fulfilled the wide range of objectives, with a score of 84.40% out of an actual possible maximum of 96.6%. The Transit-Oriented Strategy was second best, scoring 73.48%. The other two alternative strategies, Default and Auto-Oriented, both scored less than 50%, and need not be discussed further.

At this point it may be pertinent to review the way in which the Balanced and Transit-Oriented Strategies were conceived, modelled and tested through the Transportation System Plan process, as opposed to the plurality of connotations and interpretations that have been applied to their relatively abstract titles.

The basic philosphies are documented in Transportation Plan Part 3, Volume 1: (The) "transit-oriented strategy in which the majority of available transportation funds is invested in major transit improvements", and (the) balanced strategy in which automobile drivers are dissuaded from entering designated restraint areas by some form of out-of-pocket charge. The majority of available transportation funds is invested in roadway and transit facilities to accommodate those auto-drivers who are diverted around the restraint areas or who are diverted to the transit mode". "In effect, the balanced strategy is a transit-oriented strategy with powerful, direct controls". (The controls being the imposed outof-pocket charges).

The roadway and transit networks that have been modelled to reflect the transit-oriented philosophy include a full LRT system, focussed on the downtown, with a comprehensive complementary bus system, combined with a roadway network that has virtually no roadway construction or upgrading in the inner city (ie. within the truck route loop). This approach could be variously described as the negative, or passive approach to transit orientation, as it depends solely upon roadway congestion in the inner city to force people to use the available transit option.

The balanced philosophy has been modelled by networks which include an LRT system almost as extensive as in the transit-oriented network, with an express bus link substituted for one LRT line, but with a roadway network in the inner city which provides improvements to ring routes and bypass movements, including around the CBD, in association with a significant increase in out-of-pocket charges for long-term employee parking in the downtown. This is a much more positive, or active approach to inducing changes in travel habits and patterns: while out-of-pocket parking fees are significantly increased to encourage people to use transit into the downtown for work trips, the roadway network is improved to provide bypass routes so as to induce a further reduction in vehicles entering the downtown.

The benefits of proactively pursuing the objectives of the transportation system along the lines described by the Balanced Strategy, as compared to the more passive approach described by the Transit-Oriented Strategy, have been demonstrated. The Balanced alternative provided more mobility, was more supportive of the General Municipal Plan Growth Strategy, had more inherent flexibility, had less environmental impact, effectively reduced the demand for auto access to the downtown, and made more efficient use of existing roadways. The most apparent disadvantage of the Balanced Strategy was that it cost more to build, to operate, and user fees would be higher, than the Transit-Oriented Strategy. In considering this disadvantage, it should be remembered that the objectives of cost and user fees were by concensus ranked as being only eighth and ninth, ie. very minor, in importance.

5.3 REFINEMENT OF THE PREFERRED STRATEGY

Of the four alternative strategies assessed, the Balanced Strategy has been identified as the preferred strategy. However, it is NOT the Recommended Strategy.

The level of detail throughout the Transportation System Plan process has varied greatly. Very simple, broad philosophical statements were developed through transportation measures, into basic investment policies, into specific facilities, which were then defined quantitatively to a very fine level of detail. The comparative analysis of alternative strategies was carried out on a quantitative basis, and resulted in the identification of a preferred strategy.

In developing the Recommended Strategy from the preferred strategy, the logical steps were retraced, with reâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;evaluation and refinement of the Balanced policies defining the Recommended Strategy. This is described in detail in the subsequent report, "The Recommended Strategy".

APPENDIX A

PUBLIC SUPPORT OF THE PREFERRED STRATEGY

Al THE RECOMMENDED STRATEGY

A.1 PUBLIC SUPPORT OF THE PREFERRED STRATEGY

In late July and early August, 1981, eight hundred and fifty random surveys were conducted on transportation in Edmonton. A copy of the survey is attached hereto.

Although many questions were related to transportation in Edmonton, the following is a summary of the conclusions reached on the questions related to alternative transportation strategies.

Four alternative transportation strategies were explained to the respondents. These strategies were entitled and explained as follows:

- Plan-As-You-Go (Default) Strategy - The first approach would be to solve traffic and public transportation problems as they arise. For example this means that after a traffic problem occurs, City planners analyze the situation and take appropriate action. This concept is called the Plan-As-You-Go approach. - Auto-Centered (Auto-Oriented) Strategy - The second approach would be to place a greater emphasis on the automobile and our roadway system. This approach would mean such things as a Downtown Ring Road and considerable expansion of our roadway network. This concept is called the Auto-Centered Approach. - Transit-Centered (Transit-Oriented) Strategy - The third approach would be to place a greater emphasis on public transit. There would be a very high level of transit service into the downtown area, while roadway improvements within the inner city would be given a low priority. This concept is called the Transit-Centered approach. - Balanced (Auto-Restraint) Strategy - The final approach has been called the Balanced approach. It would place greater emphasis throughout the city on auto usage than does the Transit-Centered approach, however compared to the Auto-Centered approach it would lessen the use of automobiles especially in the downtown area. Again, this approach is called the Balanced approach.

Based on the total responses 55.4% favoured the Balanced (Auto-Restraint) Strategy, followed by 22.0% who favoured the Transit-Centered (TransitOriented) Strategy (Exhibit Al).

Of the regular users of Edmonton Transit (both LRT and bus) the strategies were favoured in the following order:

- Balanced (Auto-Restraint Strategy) - Transit-Centered (Transit-Oriented) Strategy - Auto-Centered (Auto-Oriented) Strategy - Plan-As-You-Go (Default) Strategy

The same order occured when asked which plan they thought would be the best for Edmonton.

Of the regular auto users the strategies where favoured in the following order:

- Balanced (Auto-Restraint) Strategy - Auto-Centered (Auto-Oriented) Strategy - Transit-Centered (Transit-Oriented) Strategy - Plan-As-You-Go (Default) Strategy

The following order occured when asked which plan they thought would be best for Edmonton:

- Balanced (Auto-Restraint) Strategy - Transit-Centered (Transit-Oriented) Strategy - Auto-Centered (Auto-Oriented) Strategy - Plan-As-You-Go (Default) Strategy

Based on this random survey, it would appear that the preferred strategy identified in this report will be supported by both regular auto and transit users.

Telephone Survey Edmonton Transportation Survey

July/Aug 4 Hello, my name is and I have been employed by two of Edmonton's advertising agencies to help them in an opinion poll. These agencies prepare advertisments for the City of Edmonton and they want to know what Edmonton's public thinks about the City's transportation system. We are not selling anything. Your telephone number is a number which was randomly generated by the computer. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Bear in mind that your answers will be kept strictly confidential. Would you be willing to participate in the opinion poll? THANK YOU. [If YES, then say] The first question is: NOTE SEX 6

1 Male

2 Female

1. How often do you use the city bus to get aroung Edmonton? [Let the interviewee give his own answer, but circle the appropriate number OR write the answer down if it doesn't fit] 7

Once or more every weekday 3 Every weekend 5 3-4 times a week 7 About once a week 9 2-3 times a month 11 One a month 13 5-10 times a year 15 1-4 times a year 25 On very special occasions (e.g., football or hockey games, Klondike Days, etc.) 75 Hardly ever (i.e., once every five years) 90 Never used the bus 1

Telephone Survey Edmonton Transportation Survey

2. Do you work in the City? 9

1 Yes

2 No

(Go to question 5a.)

3. Do you drive to and from work? 10

1 Yes 2 No

4. Do you drive a motor vehicle as part of your job, e.g., salesman, taxidriver, deliveryman, etc. 11

Yes

2 No

5a. What do the initials ETS and LRT stand for? [No prompting] 12

ETS 13

LRT 5a. The northeast route of the LRT has been in operation for some time now. Do you use it? 14

Yes 2 No

5c. Whether you use it or not, do you think its presence is worth the money the City of Edmonton has put into it? 1 5

Yes

2 No

5d. Why do you feel that way? 16

Telephone Survey Edmonton Transportation Survey

6. How often do you use the LRT? 8

1 Once or more every weekday 3 Every weekend 5 3-4 times a week 7 About once a week 9 2-3 times a month 11 One a month 13 5-10 times a year 15 1-4 times a year On very special occasions 25 (e.g., football or hockey games Klondike Days, etc.) 75 Hardly ever (i.e., once every five years) 90 Never used the LRT

7a. The City of Edmonton is planning to extend the LRT into the southern half of the City. In your judgment, do you think this should be done? 19

1 Yes

2 No

3 Couldn't Say

7b. What is the reason for this choice? 20

8. After the southern half of the LRT has been completed, would you approve or disapprove of further expansion? 22

1 Yes 2 No

9. If you could get to the LRT conveniently by busing or walking now and in the future, would you use it? 23

1 Yes 2 No

10. The City of Edmonton is concerned about passenger traffic in the City. This involves automotive traffic on the avenues and streets as well as LRT and Bus Transportation. How would you rate the City traffic planners' performance so far, using this scale? [Read the scale to the interviewee 24

1 Very Poor 2 Poor 3 Fair

4 Good 5 Excellent

Telephone Survey Edmonton Transportation Survey

Now I'd like to talk about a plan which the City of Edmonton is considering. The City is looking at the flow of all traffic and has decided that it could take four approaches in designing a future transportation system. The first approach would be to solve traffic and public transportation problems as they arise. For example, this means that after a traffic problem occurs, City planners analyze the situation and take appropriate action. This concept is called the PLAN AS YOU GO approach. The second approach would be to place a greater emphasis on PUBLIC transit. There would be a very high level of transit service into the downtown area, while roadway improvements within the inner city would be given a low priority. This concept is called the TRANSIT CENTRED approach. The third approach would be to place a greater emphasis on the automobile and our roadway system. This approach would mean such things as a downtown ring road and considerable expansion of our present roadway network. This concept is called the AUTO CENTRED approach. The final approach has been called the BALANCED approach. It would place greater emphasis thoughout the City on auto usage than does the TRANSIT CENTRED approach. However, compared to the AUTO CENTRED approach, it would lessen the use of automobiles, expecially in the downtown area. Again, this approach is referred to as the BALANCED approach. 11a. Which approach would you favor from your personal point of view? 25

1 PLAN AS YOU GO 4 BALANCED 2 TRANSIT CENTRED 5 OTHER 3 AUTO CENTRED [For OTHER, write the interviewee's answer below] 26

Telephone Survey Edmonton Transportation Survey

11b. What were your reasons for this choice? 28

12a. Which approach would you favor as good for all the people in Edmonton? 30

1 PLAN AS YOU GO 4 BALANCED 2 TRANSIT CENTRED 5 OTHER 3 AUTO CENTRED [For OTHER, write the interviewee's answer below] 31

12b. What were your reasons for this choice? 33

THANK YOU for your time. Just three more questions. 13. Into which age bracket do you fall? [Read the age brackets to the interviewee 35

1 Between 10 and 20 2 between 20 and 30 3 between 30 and 40

4 between 40 and 50 5 between 50 and 60 6 60 or older

Telephone Survey Edmonton Transportation Survey

14. What is your occupation? 36

15. Could you tell me the name of your subdivision or the Street and Avenue numbers of the corner nearest your residence? 39

THANK YOU

[There are a few things you should record RIGHT NOW.] Telephone Number 42

[Before you make another call:] Go back over the questionnaire and check your writing to see if it makes sense, and please clarify anything which need further explanation. Recodre the sex in the appropriate telephone exchange on the control sheet and determine the desired sexual gender of the next interviewee.

RESPONDENT GROUP STRATEGY

% LRT/BUS % LRT/BUS USERS USERS

% AUTO USERS

% TOTAL RESPONDERS

(personal choice)

BEST PLAN FOR CITY

(personal choice)

BEST PLAN FOR CITY

PLAN-AS-YOU-GO (DEFAULT) STRATEGY

5.0

5.9

4.0

5.8

AUTO-CENTERED (AUTO-ORIENTED) STRATEGY

16.4

7.6

2.5

8.0

7.6

TRANSIT-CENTERED tTRANSIT-ORIENTED) STRATEGY

23.2

22.2

17.0

20.0

22.0

BALANCED (AUTO-RESTRAINT) STRATEGY

49-7

55.3

51.0

60.0

55.4

5.6

9.0

3.0

8.0

9.2

0 -n

MEN=ME

rn 0 co

ueid waisA's uonesio sue,'

OTHER

ue d woisks uoilej.iodsuen

ueld waisits uoliejiodsuen

ue d weisifs uog ;LW() sue')

ueid waist% uonejiodsuen

. V,IA E r M I T 4 7 kk ff iI -I

Ltr .11811-1X 3

APPENDIX B COMPATIBILITY WITH THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL PLAN

B1 COMPATIBILITY WITH THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL PLAN

During the course of the Transportation System Plan, four alternative transportation strategies were developed and assessed. Each of these strategies was defined by a set of investment policies drawn from the following seven:

Provide good transit

Encourage transit use

Develop an inner distribution system

Develop ring routes

Extend the arterial network

Upgrade radial roadways and penetrators

Develop major highway corridors

A prime objective of the transportation system is to support the City's overall goals and objectives, as stated in the General Municipal Plan. Seven of the eighteen Growth Strategy objectives which are of prime importance and related to transportation have been extracted for examination.

Firstly, the Growth Strategy (G1) states that Edmonton must be prepared to accommodate whatever growth is attracted to the city, and that consideration should be given to staging to ensure an orderly and efficient pattern of development (Growth Objective G.9). All transportation system improvements are aimed at increasing the level of accessibility within the city to keep pace with urban growth. Timed provision of transportation facilities could be used to encourage or discourage development of particular areas, or alternatively, the staging of development can be used to maximize the efficiency of the transportation system, particularly public transit, in developing areas. Growth Objective G.5 states that over time, residential development should be increasingly compact. This objective would increase the efficiency of the urban system, using less land and making more extensive and efficient use of the public transit service. Growth Objective G.7 recommends that a strong viable downtown remain as the dominant centre within the Edmonton region. Many subsidiary

policies are included in the General Municipal Plan to reinforce this objective, which could be interpreted as one of the main thrusts of the Plan. The Plan does however recommend the decentralization of some proposed office development to areas of high levels of accessibility, particularly LRT station areas (Growth Objective G.8). Two other objectives recommend that a strong emphasis be placed on the public transit component of the transportation system (Growth Objective G.11) and that a downtown parking policy be developed to limit the amount of long term parking spaces available for commuter parking (Growth Objective G.12).

How, then are these Growth Objectives supported by the various transportation investment policies? Provision of a good public transit system certainly supports a high level of public transit service. The LRT system can provide the framework needed for successful employment decentralization and can also be instrumental in increasing residential densities, particularly in station areas. It, like all other transportation improvements, is planned to accommodate growth in the city.

The second transportation investment policy was to encourage transit usage. Specifically this referred to downtown parking controls, proposed in the Balanced Strategy to encourage the use of public transit to the downtown.

The development of an inner distribution system is aimed at improving the distribution of traffic destined for downtown and at improving the circulation of traffic around downtown. These facilities would help improve the downtown environment by reducing vehicle traffic within the downtown. In addition, the improved accessibility to the central fringe areas would increase transit access to the fringe and encourage a positive shift in modal split to transit.

Development of ring routes, such as the truck route loop, is desirable in order to increase crosstown capacity, providing routes which will encourage commuters and crosstown traffic to avoid the central city areas.

33 The upgrading of radial routes does accommodate urban growth, but by servicing automobile trips to the central area, could compete with the public transit system and add to vehicular conflict within the downtown.

The extension of the arterial roadway system into developing areas is designed to accommodate continuing urban growth and can be used to help ensure orderly land use development.

The final transportation investment policy was the development of major highway corridors. There is only one example of a major highway corridor contained in the four strategies. This is the Calgary Trail/105 Street/107 Street/113 A Street north-south corridor from the southerly city entrance to Castle Downs. This particular example, contained within the Default Strategy, is seen to be in conflict with the General Plan. While it can be said to be accommodating growth, this route would be in direct competition with the south and north LRT lines. In addition, this corridor in passing through the centre of the CBD would encourage through trips to enter the central area. This would reduce the possibility of improving the environment within the downtown area.

The relative support that each investment policy gives to the General Municipal Plan Growth Strategy is shown in Exhibit A.1, and summarized below:

Provide good transit

Encourage transit use

Develop an inner distribution system

Develop ring routes

Extend the arterial network

Upgrade radial roadways

Develop major highway corridors

-1

The tabulation of the relative use of each transportation investment policy within each of the four alternative strategies gives an indication of the relative strategic support for the General Municipal Plan Growth Strategy provided by each of them.

-LiLMTINLEMEirrilfaXIM '

i c/

e. e

increase Compactness

Strong Viable Downtown

Office Decentralization

Staging Considerations

Gil

Strong Public Transit

G12

Downtown Parking Policy

e d we' s s uonel io.suei

0A6

l•

064%

r4%

\e'

q•c)

•

t\I >

to\‘b

,ot

V V

X V

-1

S 1181 14X 3

RELATIVE SUPPORT FOR G.M.P.

b oo

\ gb

e d taws s uonew

U:1711177TVWFMITFU5PITI7E

Accommodate Growth

, G1

0t‘ \ ,ZP*

A.4

0. 0%.

•*cfs •e,1 a S q• q• , vs 0 si-e 40 #k •* b ‘ 044 01 09 ob° 60 0 0* 0 o? 0\ 4‘ t % 4‘ t° 0 4 o (01" 0 0 e 0444 <f 0454 '`

Growth Objective

O *1/4t‘ . .C.

• .b0

,k,IP

0A 0t 9 co ,‘• 4.ti o

0 4."4‘42

0 ‘

ueld fuels/Cs uoneliodsum

ue d wassifs uoneliodsum

Amid waisits uoneiJodsum ueid waisofs uonepo •sum

ueld wajsifs uolleuodsuen

Provide Good Transit

In the Default Strategy, LRT is extended into Clareview and south across the river to Millwoods. On a relative scale, 1.5 points have been allocated for these improvements; 0.5 points have been allocated for the minimal improvements provided by the Auto-Oriented Strategy's extension to the University of Alberta. The Transit-Oriented Strategy development of a full LRT system has been allocated 4 points, one each for the south, north and west lines and one for the north-east extension and University branch combined. The Balanced Strategy has also been allocated 4 points for its transit system improvements which consist of the north, south and south-west LRT lines and an exclusive bus lane to the west end.

Encourage Transit Use

The Balanced Strategy is the only strategy which purposefully uses persuasive measures to encourage transit use. It employs long-term employee parking controls in the downtown, and provides a passive restraint roadway network in and around the downtown; 2 points have been allocated for these measures. A token 0.5 points have been allocated to the Default and Transit-Oriented Strategies for the effect increasing congestion could have in encouraging transit ridership.

Develop an Inner Distribution System

The Default and Transit-Oriented Strategies have no inner distribution system. The Auto-Oriented and Balanced both have such a system and have been allocated one point each. An additional point has been given to the Balanced Strategy as the distribution facility in that strategy has been developed on existing roadways, in accordance with General Plan policy 9.C.3:

"The City will develop and maintain a plan for public and private vehicle access to and circulation within downtown giving full consideration to ... the efficient utilization of existing arterial roadways within the downtown ...".

Develop Ring Routes

One point has been allocated to all strategies for the completion of the truck route loop. An additional point has been given to the AutoOriented Strategy for the inclusion of the complete Parkway Ring Road. An additional 0.5 points have been given to the Auto-Oriented and Balanced Strategies for key improvements to ring movements made within the truck route loop.

Extend the Arterial Network

The extension of the arterial system into developing areas of the city is common to all strategies and so, all have been allocated one point.

Upgrade Radial Roadways

The relative use of this investment policy by the alternative strategies is shown in Exhibit A.2. The Auto-Oriented and Balanced Strategies upgrade radial routes significantly more than the Transit-Oriented and Default Strategies.

Develop Major Highway Corridors

As previously mentioned, only the Default Strategy contains such a corridor.

Exhibit A.3 summarizes the relative use of each investment policy by the alternative strategies. The final column of the Exhibit shows the relative strategic support given by the four strategies. It is the sum

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY RADIAL ROADWAY

DEFAULT

AUTO ORIENTED

TRANSIT ORIENTED

AUTO RESTRAINT

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

Mackinnon - 100 Ave

1.0

119 Street

0.5

1.0

0.5

107 Street

1.0

0.5

1.0

97 Street

1.0

Fort Road

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

98 Avenue

1.0

3.5

8.0

Calgary Trail 111 Street

99 St., 98 Ave., Dawson, Capilano ramps TOTAL

2.5

6.5

TansportationSystem Plan

wilmm

@thonton s ortation system plan

RELATIVE USE OF RADIAL UPGRADING

trans • ortation system plan

transportation system plan

eld aumsifs u osj el i odsuei

trans ortation s stem plan

e d w s A"s u onel i o • SLIeJ

trans ortation s stem plan

EXHIBIT B2

trans ortation s stem plan

e d wa s s uon ej.to • suei

ortation s stem plan transportation system plan

of the products of the relative use of each policy and support given by that policy to the objectives of the General Plan. The Balanced Strategy offers the most support, by providing an LRT system, improving downtown circulation, developing ring routes to encourage crosstown movement, and extending the transportation system to accommodate urban growth. The Transit-Oriented Strategy, also including an LRT system but lacking necessary roadway improvements, is second-most supportive of the General Plan Growth Strategy, followed by the Auto-Oriented and Default Strategies.

rfl7NTIFITTSWMIEffLa

•

awl taw s uoi e 10 , suei;

cd4s

.).„ v .

wais s uoti ej J odsuel

HIM080 'crietl 'D

,i, ,

•1 0

o 0

•

e 04

•b°

Alternative Strategy

ii.

0\ 4004

0e4

107

42'‘

•

0* Q.+

•

Okr

42,

V-

041

•c•

oe)

•

• 0

• N.-

•iscs

0 04f

co° •

*c„

49/i-.°I)o

•,

6.6 SC

tI) N)Q

'0e4

:1/4.‘s

-44

Default

1.5

0.5

1.0

3.5

1.0

15.0

Auto- Oriented

0.5

1.0

2.5

1.0

8.0

19.5

Transit-Oriented

4.0

0.5

1.0

2.5

27.5

Auto-Restraint

4.0

2.0

1.5

1.0

8.5

39.5

9*,e•,P

-1

CS 11£11HX3

. 7./.4,11

S3IDRIVE1LS

ue d um;

uoilepodsuen ue d tuejsAs uoneiJo su J I

mid uialsAs uoneliodsuen

APPENDIX C

PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY FEBRUARY 1982

C.1 SURVEY RESULTS

In order to re-evaluate public attitudes in the light of the debate on Transplan and other transportation related issues, the attitude survey discussed in Section 3 was repeated during February, 1982. Participants in the survey included university students, community interest groups, civic employees and members of the general public who attended transportation functional planning meetings.

The concensus ranking of the objectives (excluding the "Other" objective which was not allowed in the 1982 survey) and the weighting of the objectives was found to be as shown in Exhibit Cl.

It is interesting to note that compared with the results obtained in 1979, the objectives Mobility, Transit and Cost have made major gains in their percent weights whereas Restraint and Flexibility have dropped.

The rank order is substantially the same as that observed previously. The only substantive changes are that the Transit objective has moved up and the Restraint ranking has moved down in the rank order.

Some brief discussion of the background to the survey and the respondents may serve to explain, at least in part, these apparent shifts in public attitudes.

The survey was undertaken immediately prior to the transit strike of mid February - late March, 1982 and respondents were aware of the likelihood of a strike at the time of responding. This has a strong bearing on the weights attached in 1982 to Mobility, Transit and Restraint, as people were perhaps feeling threatened by the withdrawal of transit service. The increasing capital and operating costs for transportation have also featured prominently in the media over recent months and this may explain the expressed interest in cost reductions. In the context of

the above, it is difficult to explain the reduced interest in Flexibility except perhaps to suggest that it is rather more nebulous than the other objectives and suffered for this. The shifts in weight of the objectives can also be partly explained because of the higher proportion of students in the 1982 sample.

In summary, however, comparison of the 1979 and the 1982 public attitudes on transportation reveals that the basic objectives and their relative weights are quite consistent, bearing in mind the relative sample sizes and sampled characteristics.

C.2 Comparison of Alternative Strategies

In order to establish the publicly preferred transportation strategy for the long term planning horizon, the technical exercise documented in Section 5.1 was repeated using the revised weights. The results of this are shown in Exhibit C2.

This confirms the public support for the Balanced Strategy. The TransitOriented Strategy performs marginally better than it did previously, probably because of the greater proportion of students involved in the 1982 survey. As was the case in 1979 neither the Auto-Oriented Strategy not the Default Strategy was highly regarded.

C.3 Conclusion

Public attitudes to transportation issues do not appear to have changed radically from 1979 to 1982.

The public appears from its responses to a detailed questionnaire on transportation to favour the Balanced Transportation Strategy over all other alternatives.

20 18

18.6

16 14

14.2 13.2

12 11.3

10 9.0

8.0 6.9

6.6

4 4.1 0.0

C.)

saaA lesn

4 ePUI3

OBJECTIVE

-a

2 luaw doi en ea u eq in

z uleilseu

0 RANKING

CONCENSUS RANKING & WEIGHTING - 1982 SURVEY

EXHIBIT Cl

UNWEIGHTED SCORES OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES OBJECTIVE

WEIGHT %

DEFAULT

AUTOORIENTED

TRANSITORIENTED

BALANCED

PARKING

4.1

0.76

1.00

0.50

0.25

USER FEES

8.6

0.50

0.75

1.00

0.50

COST

8.4

1.00

0.50

1.00

0.25

EFFICIENCY

9.0

0.60

0.25

0.75

1.00

RESTRAINT

6.9

0.50

0.75

1.00

IMPACT

8.0

0.50

0.75

1.00

TRANSIT

14.2

0.50

0.25

1.00

0.75

FLEXIBILITY

11.3

0.50

0.25

0.75

1.00

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

13.2

0.26

0.50

0.75

1.00

MOBILITY

18.6

0.50

0.75

0.50

1.00

52.07

55.93

76.80

04.08

% TOTAL SCORE

NOTES: Performa nco Ranking (see EX IiIBIT 4.2) Unweight 5d Score

1.00 0.760.50 0.25

TOTAL SCORE for each alternative strategy z sum of (WEIGIIT x UNWEIGIITED SCORE) for all objectives.

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES - 1982 SURVEY EXHIBIT C2