View the step-by-step solution to:

100% Updated, complete, and clear question: A new Canada/United States border crossing was constructed to bypass the congested crossings at St.

100% Updated, complete, and clear question:

A new Canada/United States border crossing was constructed to bypass the congested crossings at St. Stephen, NB and Calais, Maine, as per the figure attached as "Figure".

A total of 6 alternatives were considered. Alternative 2A and 3 were the ones considered to meet the criteria, with Alternative 3, being the one eventually selected. 
Find the file attached as "File" and see the map on Page II-5 for the alternatives and see Page II-14 for additional discussion of the recommended alternatives.

Assuming the costs in the attached table named "Part a" (including a highway upgrade in year 25), and assuming a 25 year planning horizon with 7% discount rate:

a. Find the BCR and BCRM for both alternatives attached as “Part a”. Are both options viable with both ratios?

b. How do your BCR results change if you use a 10% discount rate?

c. Briefly profile one other of the 6 alternatives and briefly describe why you think it was not chosen.

Acronyms Explanations:

BCR, Is given by the ratio of the present worth of the net users' benefits (social benefits less social costs) to the present worth of the net sponsors’' costs for a project. That is,‬

‪Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)=(‬Benefit Cost Ratio)/(Benefit Cost Ratio)

Modified benefit-cost ratio: The ratio of the present worth (or annual worth) of benefits minus the present worth (or annual worth) of operating costs to the present worth (or annual worth) of capital costs, that is,
Modified Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRM) = (PW(benefits)-PW(operating costs))(PW(capital costs))

Background image of page 1
Page II-1 Section II — Alternatives Analysis II. A LTERNATIVES A NALYSIS A. O VERVIEW OF THE A LTERNATIVE S ELECTION P ROCESS This is a unique and complex study because the proposed action crosses an international border and waterway. The border between the United States and Canada in this area is located roughly in the middle of the St. Croix River. MDOT, in consultation with the FHWA, has coordinated its efforts with the proponents of the portion of the overall action in Canada. These include the NBDOT, the CCRA, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. MDOT not only assessed the needs of the Study Area (in Maine), but also considered the needs, requirements, and policies of NBDOT and their Canadian partners in the planning, development, and analysis of alternatives. NBDOT’s process for planning, developing, and analyzing alternatives is dif- ferent from the process derived from compliance with an integrated decision-making process for STPA and NEPA compliance. NBDOT creates a 300 m (984 ft.) wide corridor where they envision a road being built. Detailed fieldwork is performed in this corridor, and an alternative is developed within the corridor based upon the results of the fieldwork. For this study, the NBDOT considered preliminarily two corridors to match the build alternatives retained for further consideration in Maine at the border between the two countries. MDOT and NBDOT, each in consultation with those whom they are respon- sible to in each country, must identify a Preferred Alternative that would meet at a common location at the border and fulfill the needs, requirements, and policies of each country. Both MDOT and NBDOT have adapted their normal planning and study processes to achieve this objective. In addition to considering its own highway and bridge requirements, and those of NBDOT, MDOT also considered the needs and requirements of the GSA. The GSA is a cooperating agency under NEPA, for a new border crossing inspection facility. To satisfy the Purposes and Needs of the GSA, approximately 8 to 10 ha (20 to 25 ac.) of land would be required to accommodate an inspection facility of suffi- cient size to allow its tenants to fulfill their missions and function efficiently. A GSA- owned inspection facility was part of the planning and design of each alternative. Public involvement and outreach was an important component of the study. In Maine, a PAC was assembled with representatives from the various local organiza- tions and communities. The purpose of the PAC was to meet periodically with the study team to provide insight to local and regional issues and concerns. NBDOT and other Canadian partners attended and participated in the PAC meetings. The gen- eral public was encouraged to attend PAC meetings and participate in the question and answer sessions at the end of each meeting. Two public meetings were held to inform the general public of the progress of the study and to solicit feedback.
Background image of page 01
Page II-2 Calais-St. Stephen Area International Border Crossing Study The social and natural environmental features in the Study Area were identi- fied prior to developing alternatives (Environmental Baseline Study, October 2000). Using this information and input from the PAC, alternatives that satisfied the Pur- pose and Needs of the study were identified and developed to avoid and minimize impacts to the social and natural environmental features to the extent possible. A range of reasonable transportation strategies and alternatives were developed in accordance with the STPA and NEPA. When developing the alternatives, two important factors were considered: (1) the existing Ferry Point and Milltown bridges would remain in place and would allow vehicle traffic 24 hours a day, but would no longer allow truck traffic to cross, and (2) all trucks must use the new border crossing facility and inspection station. The reasonable strategies and alternatives were screened by their ability to sat- isfy the study Purpose and Needs. Alternatives that satisfied the study Purpose and Needs were further screened using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), New England District’s Highway Methodology . The preliminary impacts to the social fea- tures in the Study Area were considered. Matrices were developed that tabulated the preliminary environmental and social impacts and facilitated the preliminary screen- ing and analysis of the alternatives. The results of this analysis were used to dismiss alternatives from further consideration and to document the reasons for their dis- missal. The results of the preliminary alternatives screening and analysis were presented to the regulatory and resource agencies that attended MDOT’s monthly interagency coordination meeting on July 11, 2000. The agencies present concurred with the range of alternatives considered and the preliminary alternatives screening and analysis. The alternatives retained for further consideration were studied in greater de- tail, and additional information was collected and analyzed. The potential direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts for the alternatives retained for further consideration are presented in Section IV — Environmental Consequences and Miti- gation. B. M AINE S ENSIBLE T RANSPORTATION P OLICY A CT A NALYSIS In accordance with the STPA, transportation strategies that satisfy the study Purpose and Needs were considered. They were: transportation system management, travel demand management, and technology associated with intelligent transporta- tion systems. 1. Transportation System Management Transportation system management (TSM) consists of small highway and in- tersection improvements and operational strategies designed to improve traffic flow through an area. TSM improvements may reduce or delay the need for costly im- provements and upgrades that would be necessary if no action were taken. The most common TSM improvements available to smaller communities such as Calais in- volve the construction of turn lanes at intersections and improvements to traffic control.
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
Background image of page 1
(Values in millions) Initial capital cost Future construction costs (year 25) Annual operating cost Annual Social benefit Annual Social Cost Alternative 2A 6.8 12 0.4 1.3 0.2 Alternative 3 7.1 19.5 0.6 1.6 0.05
Background image of page 1
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Top Answer

Great question... View the full answer

Part c.docx

Alternative 1 — Upgrade Alternative is rejected because
Alternative 1 is the upgrade alternative and would consist of the reconstruction of the
GSA-owned inspection facility at the Ferry Point...

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.


Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online