**North Shore LRT Connector**

**Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania**

(November 2005)

The Port Authority of Allegheny County (Port Authority) is proposing to
design and construct a light rail transit (LRT) extension that would
link the Golden Triangle area of downtown Pittsburgh across the
Allegheny River to the rapidly developing North Shore and Strip District
areas. The proposed project would be constructed primarily underground,
extending 1.2 miles from the existing Gateway LRT station to the North
Shore via two bored tunnels below the Allegheny River. This LRT line
would continue through the North Shore area as a mix of below-grade and
elevated alignments. The project as currently scoped also includes a
0.3-mile spur from the existing Steel Plaza LRT station in downtown
Pittsburgh to the David L. Lawrence Convention Center. Four stations
would be constructed as part of the total project: a reconfigured and
expanded Gateway station to facilitate the tie-in to the existing
system; two new stations on the North Shore; and the Convention Center
station to be located underground at 11^th^ Street near the Convention
Center. Four new light rail vehicles would be procured through the
project. Service would be provided at better than three-minute
frequencies during peak periods.

Pittsburgh's North Shore is one of the fastest redeveloping areas in the
city. Traffic congestion is prevalent in the area during peak commuter
periods, weekends, and before and after events at PNC Park and Heinz
Field, which reduces the speed, reliability, and effectiveness of bus
transit. Physical barriers created by the Allegheny River and the
surrounding terrain prohibit any feasible roadway expansion. The
proposed project is designed to improve transit service in the area by
providing quick, convenient, and reliable LRT connections between key
downtown trip generators. The project is further intended to serve a
variety of travel markets, including LRT riders now transferring to
buses in the Golden Triangle to continue to the North Shore, commuters
using fringe parking on the North Shore to travel to the Golden
Triangle, and students of Allegheny County Community College located on
the North Shore.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Summary Description**            |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Proposed Project:**              | Light Rail Transit              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ** **                              | 1.5 Miles                       |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | 4 Stations                      |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Total Capital Cost (\$YOE):**    | \$393.0 Million (includes \$0.2 |
|                                    | million in finance charges)     |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Section 5309 New Starts Share    | \$217.7 Million (55.4%)         |
| (\$YOE):**                         |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Annual Forecast Year Operating   | \$8.5 Million                   |
| Cost:**                            |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Ridership Forecast (2025):**     | 15,800 Average Weekday          |
|                                    | Boardings                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ** **                              | 4,100 Daily New Riders          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Opening Year Ridership Forecast  | 10,000 Average Weekday          |
| (2010):**                          | Boardings                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2007 Finance Rating:**        | # Medium                        |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2007 Project Justification    | **Medium-High**                 |
| Rating:**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2007 Overall Project          | ### Medium                      |
| Rating:**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

##### 

##### FTA expects to execute a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the Pittsburgh North Shore LRT Connector project in FY 2006. The project was recommended for an FFGA in the FY 2006 President's Budget; congressional review of the agreement and attendant documents was completed in July 2005. Execution of an FFGA for the project, however, has been delayed due to an unanticipated cost increase associated with construction of the Allegheny River tunnel. FTA is working with the Port Authority to reconfigure the project scope to conform to the \$393.0 million cost estimate - while delivering the anticipated benefits - on which the FFGA recommendation was based. Pending completion of this work, a full re-evaluation of the project is not possible; therefore, FTA is reporting for the *FY 2007 Annual Report on New Starts* information which supported the project's FY 2006 evaluation and rating and the submitted FFGA, which results in an overall rating of *Medium*. Based upon analysis completed by the Port Authority to date, FTA expects that the final project scope, budget, and resulting benefits will continue to support execution of the FFGA.

##### 

**Project Development History and Current Status**

In Fall 1997, the city of Pittsburgh and the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Commission (the local metropolitan planning organization) initiated a
major investment study to evaluate possible transportation linkages
within the North Shore/central business district (CBD) segment of the
Spine Line Corridor. Upon completion of the *North Shore Connector Draft
Environmental Impact Statement*, the Port Authority's Board of Directors
selected the Gateway LRT Alternative as the locally preferred
alternative in August 2000. FTA approved the North Shore LRT Connector
for preliminary engineering in January 2001. FTA issued the NEPA Record
of Decision in July 2002 and approved the project's entry into final
design in April 2003. The project was recommended for an FFGA in the
President's FY 2006 Budget*.* Due to increases in the project cost
estimate, the Port Authority is developing a revised project scope and
budget for FTA consideration.

**Significant Changes Since FY 2006 Evaluation** (**November 2004**)

The capital cost of the project has increased since last year, requiring
additional cost analysis and scope modifications which are continuing at
the time of this evaluation.

**[Project Justification Rating: Medium-High]{.underline}**

FTA's evaluation of the project justification criteria is based upon
information submitted by Port Authority in 2004. Since that time, FTA
has revised the breakpoints for assigning ratings for cost
effectiveness, resulting in an improvement in the project's cost
effectiveness rating from *Medium-Low* to *Medium*, and an improvement
in the project's justification criteria from *Medium* to *Medium-High*.
The project received a *Medium-High* rating for transit-supportive land
use.

####### *Cost Effectiveness Rating: Medium*

The *Medium* cost effectiveness rating reflects the travel-time benefits
(4,100 weekday hours) relative to the project's annualized costs. The
cost effectiveness estimate assumes the present scope and cost, both of
which are being re-examined; therefore, the current cost effectiveness
carries some risk.

+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Cost Effectiveness**                   |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Cost per Hour of Transportation System   | **[New Start vs.          |
| User Benefit                             | Baseline]{.underline}**   |
|                                          |                           |
| Incremental Cost per Incremental Trip    | \$21.89\*                 |
|                                          |                           |
|                                          | \$15.80                   |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+

####### \* Indicates that measure is a component of Cost Effectiveness rating.

The North Shore LRT Connector is expected to provide benefits to a
number of downtown-oriented travel markets, including trips between the
four major activity centers in Pittsburgh's urban core: the Golden
Triangle, Strip District, North Shore, and Station Square. Nearly 15
percent of travel-time benefits are anticipated to be accrued by patrons
utilizing less-expensive fringe parking facilities on the North Shore
for travel to the Golden Triangle. In addition to improving access
*within* the corridor, the project would provide improved LRT access
from various points in the region *to* the corridor, particularly the
North Shore area, which currently requires LRT passengers to transfer to
bus. For example, commuters from Pittsburgh's South Hills suburban
communities bound for the North Shore would benefit from a one-seat ride
and experience annual travel-time savings of over 80,000 hours.

####### *Transit-Supportive Land Use Rating: Medium-High*

The *Medium-High* land use rating is based on the *Medium-High* ratings
assigned to each of the subfactors summarized below.

**Existing Land Use: Medium-High**

-   Existing employment within ½ mile of proposed station areas is
    approximately 150,500. Population within ½ mile of station areas is
    approximately 8,100.

-   Land use in the downtown area is dense and transit-supportive, with
    the exception of vacant land on the North Shore that is awaiting
    redevelopment.

-   A new street grid and pedestrian facilities have been established on
    the North Shore.

**Transit-Supportive Plans and Policies: Medium-High**

-   There are no coordinated regional growth management policies,
    although efforts are being undertaken to promote transit-oriented
    development in various parts of the region.

-   The Pittsburgh *1998 Downtown Master Plan* and the *2002 Master Plan
    for the North Shore* reflect a strong emphasis on development with
    transit-supportive densities and design.

-   Former industrial and warehousing structures are being adapted for
    retail/entertainment, residential and office use in the Strip
    District.

-   Pittsburgh's zoning code allows for increased development densities
    in proximity to transit.

-   Off-street parking requirements have been eliminated in the downtown
    area and reduced by 25 percent in the North Shore area in proximity
    to transit.

-   Emerging policies reflect the view of city officials that LRT is an
    amenity for potential North Shore tenants and a mechanism to help
    reduce downtown parking needs.

**Performance and Impacts of Policies:** **Medium-High**

-   The North Shore is being redeveloped with two major sports
    facilities, new infrastructure, and high-density, mixed-use
    development on a reconstructed street grid. Initial public
    investments in infrastructure and sports stadiums have been
    instrumental in leveraging additional private investment in the
    North Shore area.

-   Development proposals for the North Shore are integrated with plans
    for the LRT project and reflect transit-supportive design
    principles.

-   At least 43 acres of new development are planned or under
    consideration, in addition to the new development that has already
    taken place or is underway.

-   Port Authority has worked successfully in existing station areas
    downtown to undertake joint development projects.

#### 

#### 

####  

####### *Other Project Justification Criteria* 

+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **Mobility Improvements Rating:          |              |            |
| Medium-High**                            |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **[Within ½-mile radius of boarding      | 150,500      |            |
| areas]{.underline}:**                    |              |            |
|                                          | 162,600      |            |
| Existing Employment                      |              |            |
|                                          | 450 (13%)    |            |
| Projected Employment (2030)              |              |            |
|                                          | 37,625\*     |            |
| Low Income Households (% of total HH)    |              |            |
|                                          | 113\*        |            |
| **[Average Per Station]{.underline}:**   |              |            |
|                                          | **[New Start |            |
| Employment                               | vs.          |            |
|                                          | Baseline]{.  |            |
| Low Income Households                    | underline}** |            |
|                                          |              |            |
| **Transportation System User Benefit Per | 23.09\*      |            |
| Project Passenger Mile (Minutes)**       |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **Environmental Benefits Rating: High**  |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **[Criteria Pollutant (Reduction in      | **[New Start |            |
| tons)]{.underline}**                     | vs.          |            |
|                                          | Baseline]{.  |            |
| > Carbon Monoxide (CO)                   | underline}** |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Nitrogen Oxide (NO~x~)                 | 33           |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)       | 5            |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Particulate Matter (PM~10~)            | 8            |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Carbon Dioxide (CO~2~)                 | 0            |            |
|                                          |              |            |
| **[Criteria Pollutant                    | 13,160       |            |
| Status]{.underline}**                    |              |            |
|                                          | **[EPA       |            |
| > 8-Hour Ozone (O~3~)                    | De           |            |
| >                                        | signation]{. |            |
| > Particulate Matter (PM~2.5~)           | underline}** |            |
|                                          |              |            |
| **Annual Energy Savings (million British | Subpart 1\*  |            |
| Thermal Units)**                         |              |            |
|                                          | No           |            |
|                                          | n-Attainment |            |
|                                          | Area\*       |            |
|                                          |              |            |
|                                          | 22,960       |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **Operating Efficiencies Rating:         |              |            |
| Medium**                                 |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **System Operating Cost per**            | > **         | **[New     |
|                                          | [Baseline]{. | Start]{.un |
| **Passenger Mile (current year           | underline}** | derline}** |
| dollars)**                               | >            |            |
|                                          | > \$0.534\*  | \$0.537\*  |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+

\* Indicates that measure is a component of rating for each criterion.

N/A indicates information was not available for this entry.

# [Local Financial Commitment Rating: Medium]{.underline}

The local financial commitment rating of *Medium* reflects the FY 2006
New Starts evaluation and rating, as updated for the Port Authority's
most recent FFGA submission. This rating is based upon a rating of
*Medium-High* for the capital plan, and *Medium* ratings for the New
Starts share of project costs and the project operating plan.

+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **Locally Proposed      |                       |                    |
| Financial Plan**        |                       |                    |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **[Source of            | **[Total Funds        | **[Percent of      |
| Funds]{.underline}**    | (\$mi                 | To                 |
|                         | llion)]{.underline}** | tal]{.underline}** |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **Federal:**            | \$217.7               | 55.4%              |
|                         |                       |                    |
| Section 5309 New Starts | \$76.2                | 19.4%              |
|                         |                       |                    |
| Flexible Funds (CMAQ)   | \$20.5                | 5.2%               |
|                         |                       |                    |
| Section 5309 Fixed      |                       |                    |
| Guideway                |                       |                    |
|                         |                       |                    |
| Modernization Funds     |                       |                    |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **State:**              | \$65.5                | 16.7%              |
|                         |                       |                    |
| Capital Grant           |                       |                    |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **Local:**              | \$13.1                | 3.3%               |
|                         |                       |                    |
| Allegheny County        |                       |                    |
| Appropriation           |                       |                    |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **Total:**              | **\$393.0**           | 100.0%             |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+

**NOTE**: The financial plan reflected in this table has been developed
by the project sponsor and does not reflect a commitment by DOT or FTA.
The sum of the figures may differ from the total as listed due to
rounding.

Map