Francisco J. Alonso, P.E. T.Y.Lin International I H.J. Ross 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 900 Coral Gables, FL 33134, Tel: (305) ext.

Transcription

1 A Benefit Cost Analysis for the Proposed UniversityCity Prosperity Project By Francisco J Alonso, PE TYLin nternational HJ Ross 2 Alhambra Circle, Suite 9 Coral Gables, FL 3334, Tel: (35) ext 267 Pallab Mozumder, PhD Assistant Professor, Dept of Earth & Environment and Economics Florida nternational University, MARC 36 FU, 2 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL 3399 Tel: (35) ; Fax: (35) June 3, 23 Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Survey Results Benefit -Cost Analysis Calculations and Methodology 25 Sweetwater Center Collegetown District Charrette FDOT D6 SW 9`h Avenue /SW 8th Street Safety Study Appendix E: Victoria Transport Policy nstitute Report Excerpts (Chapters 5 and 5)

2 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal Executive Summary Per the request of DOT in Appendix A of the 23 NOFA the following executive summaries for each major project components were compiled: Complete Street mprovements, including the improvements to SW 9th Ave, City Hall Plaza, CHPPA (refer to TGER proposal documents for description), FU Campus Entry Plaza and Pavilions, FU MMC Campus Walkways and Boardwalks 2 Pedestrian Bridge over US 4 Current Status Baseline & Problem to be Addressed Change to Baseline/ Alternatives Type of mpacts -M- Population Affected by impacts Economic Benefit Summary of Results Page Reference in BCA The current Complete Street Drastically Affected population Monetized The estimated Section 3 of infrastructure is improvements improved includes the Value of monetized the BCA hostile to with widened pedestrian population that reduced travel benefits for this document pedestrians with and textured environment resides in times, reduced components constrained or non -existent walking corridors The existing US 4 crossing is extremely dangerous attracting only sidewalks, boardwalks, plazas, pavilions, landscaping, traffic calmed streets consisting of choked causing a modal shift resulting in reduced travel time to and from FU (no parking searches), reduced vehicle Sweetwater and commutes to and from FU, FU students /staff commuting to and from Sweetwater for entertainment/dining, population using new parking vehicle costs, reduced emissions (GHG and non- GHG), and pedestrian accident reduction contribute to approximately % of the overall benefit of $26,94,6852 at a 7% discount rate and $492,683,976 2% of current roadways and costs, reduced facilities in at a 3% discount commuters to textures emissions Sweetwater to rate use at -grade surfaces, and (GHG and non- modally shift to crossings at -grade improvements to the US 4 crossing as well as a pedestrian bridge over US 4 at 96 Ave GHG), and pedestrian accident reduction walking or transit, and student populations of new housing developments 3 Community Transit Vehicles Current Status Baseline & Problem to be Addressed Change to Baseline/ Alternatives Type of mpacts Population Affected by impacts Economic Benefit Summary of Results Page Reference in BCA No transit Re -tool existing New modal Affected population Monetized Value The estimated Section 3 component or City of options includes the population of reduced travel monetized of the other modal Sweetwater resulting in that resides in times, reduced benefits for BCA option currently exists to take community transit vehicles reduced travel time to and Sweetwater and commutes to and from vehicle costs, reduced these components document students/staff to operate from FU (no FU, FU students /staff emissions (GHG contribute to residing in Sweetwater to and from the FU campus exclusively along the SW 96 Corridor to provide a parking searches), reduced vehicle costs, commuting to and from Sweetwater for entertainment/dining, population using new and non -GHG), and pedestrian accident reduction approximately 5% of the overall benefit of $26,94,685 viable transit reduced parking facilities in option for emissions Sweetwater to modally 2 at a 7% students /staff (GHG and non- shift to walking or discount rate residing in GHG), and transit, and student and Sweetwater pedestrian populations of new $492,683,976 commuting to and from the FU campus = accident reduction housing developments at a 3% discount rate 2

3 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal 4 FU /Sweetwater Smart Parking Garages and AMS Current Status Baseline & Problem to be Addressed Change to Baseline/ Alternatives Type of mpacts Population Affected by impacts Economic Benefit Summary of Results Page Reference in BCA Two existing New parking Reduced travel Entire FU Monetized The estimated Section 3 of the parking garages garages will be times due to student body and Value of monetized BCA document offer "smart" and reduced parking staff, and all reduced travel benefits for conventional parking methods, no integrated with the TP system to provide search times, comfortable direct access to subscribers to the regional TP system times, reduced vehicle costs, reduced these components contribute to reserved reserved bus- rapid- transit emissions (GHG approximately parking, and no link to transit parking, and pay -ahead that is fully accessible and non -GHG), and pedestrian 5% of the overall benefit system through the accident of ntegrated transit station in new smart parking garage with climate controlled commercial waiting spaces complimentary complete street improvements throughout Sweetwater and the FU campus reduction $26,94,6852 at a 7% discount rate and $492,683,976 at a 3% discount rate 5 nformed Traveler Program & Applications (refer to TGER proposal documents for full description) Current Status Baseline & Problem to be Addressed Population Affected by impacts Economic Benefit Summary of Results Page Reference in BCA Change to Baseline/ Type of mpacts Alternatives No viable way Development and Reduced travel times nitial Monetized The estimated Section 3 finding software deployment of a (%-2% reduction deployment Value of monetized benefits of the currently exists for fully functional of commute times will include reduced for these BCA the Miami -Dade nformed Traveler expected, % will 2, travel times components document County area Program (TP) that be used for this users with a contribute to Commuters are at the will predict optimal analysis) due to projected approximately mercy of weather, accidents, and commute routes and be integrated with predicted optimal traffic routing and increase in usage of 75% of the overall benefit of parking availability smart parking reduced parking % per $26,94,6852 so predicting optimal features, and be search times due to year at a 7% discount commute routes and fully accessible integration with thereafter rate and subsequent times are through a "smart- smart parking $492,683,976 currently impossible phone" application features at a 3% discount rate 6 SW 7th Avenue mprovements Current Status Baseline & Problem to be Addressed Change to Baseline/ Alternatives Type of mpacts Population Affected by impacts Economic Benefit Summary of Results Page Reference in BCA SW 7`h Avenue between West FDOT has Reduced travel 26 users A Monetized The estimated Section 3 Flagler Street and US4 is a 4- designed is times through conservative Value of monetized of the lane roadway with a median with moving the 7th assumption that reduced benefits for BCA AADT of over 52 a day forward with Avenue the main travel times these document Congestion is extreme and construction corridor, and a commuters components queuing times are long As a of a 6 -lane complementary through the contribute to result excessive cut -through configuration impact to the corridor are approximately traffic is forced onto City roads to alleviate UniversityCity taking both 5% of the through Sweetwater further traffic Project by outgoing and overall benefit congesting SW 96 Ave with conditions reducing cut- incoming trips of vehicle and creating a hostile through traffic was made $26,94,68 pedestrian environment flows through the proposed Consequently, only half of the 52 at a 7% discount rate 3

4 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal Complete 52 AADT and Streets along was considered $492,683,97 SW 96 Ave as the affected 6 at a 3% population discount rate 2 ntroduction The proposed UniversityCity Prosperity Project will signify a major milestone for promoting economic prosperity and environmental sustainability in this most vital area of Miami -Dade County At the core of this proposal is the strong partnership between the City of Sweetwater, Florida nternational University (FU), and a multitude of key community partners as described in the proposal narrative, including the Florida Department of Transportation, the Miami -Dade Transit Authority, the Miami -Dade Expressway Authority, and even local private enterprises The City of Sweetwater is a municipality adjacent to FU that wishes to become more integrated with the FU campus and building a sustainable community t has partnered with FU so that effective strategies for building a sustainable community and a sustainable campus can be simultaneously implemented Florida nternational University (FU) is one of eleven institutions of higher education in the State University System of Florida and is the nation's leading Hispanic serving university Against this backdrop, we conducted a Benefit Cost Analysis of this proposed University City Prosperity Project 3 Benefit Cost Analysis As part of the project development, a Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) for a 3 year period life span of the project was performed in order to determine the financial and economic feasibility of the project The summary of the analysis is listed below and the base year used for monetizing costs and benefits was 23 (using both 3% and 7% discount rates) Costs and benefits derived from previous years were adjusted to 23 dollars through inflation calculations based on GDP Price Deflators as reported by the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis The 23 price deflator factor was based on the 23 first quarter deflator Present Value of Total Benefits (at 3% discount rate): $492,683,976 Present Value of Total Costs (at 3% discount rate): $5,852,5487 Benefit -Cost Ratio: 425 Present Value of Total Benefits (at 7% discount rate): $26,94,6852 Present Value of Total Costs (at 7% discount rate): $3,77,4844 Benefit -Cost Ratio: 29 Provided in appendix B is the details of the Benefit Cost Analysis Table la and B provides the actual compilation of Benefits and Costs including net present value calculations The analysis was performed for a period of 3 years following completion of the project and the 4

5 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal discount rate of 7% (Table A) and alternate 3% (Table B) (as suggested by DOT 23 NOFA for projects including only public infrastructure) The following table summarizes the long term outcomes of the project as a whole and a summary of the types of societal benefits expected The benefits are further explained in the subsequent sections of this analysis Long Term Outcome Livability Economic Competitiveness Safety State of Good Repair Environmental Sustainability Types of Societal Benefits Changes the character of the neighborhood from vehicle -centric to multi -modal promoting reductions in VMT Make University Assets more accessible to the community Property Value ncrease Promotes a healthy lifestyle through promoting a more natural and friendly walking environment Travel Time Reduction Savings through complete street improvements and TP Vehicle operation savings Promotes the development of new business through more accessible real estate in the project vicinity Reduced Pedestrian involved traffic accidents through the implementation of complete streets, safe pedestrian environment, traffic calmed streets, and a new pedestrian bridge to cross the busy US 4 highway at the Ave intersection Long -Term replacement Maintenance and Repair saving associated with new construction and maintenance schedules Reduced VMT will result in less wear and tear on the infrastructure Reductions in VMT result in reduced emission benefits Landscaping and other sustainable surface treatments will be preferred throughout this project in lieu of traditional hardscape 3 Project Costs The cost side of the BCA equation consists of all monetized expenditures incurred by the grantee and its partners in order to fully develop the project to a usable and beneficial piece of infrastructure Project costs consist of the total project budget including design, administration, construction, and future maintenance as defined in the TGER 23 proposal budget and supplemented by this document (annual future maintenance was determined to be $K /year based on discussions with relevant departments in Sweetwater and FU) 32 Project Benefits As defined by the 23 TGER NOFA, "Benefits include the extent to which residents of the United States as a whole are made better off as a result of the project " With this key point in mind, the benefits associated with this project were derived solely from the societal benefits identified in each component of this project No transfer costs or economic impacts were 5

6 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal considered in the derivation of this BCA The benefits identified in this project consist primarily of four categories: Modal Diversion Pedestrian nvolved Accident Reduction Travel Time Reduction Residual Value of nfrastructure 32 Modal Diversion Modal diversion benefits were calculated by comparing a "No- Build" scenario to a `Build" scenario The difference in monetized values accounted for the benefits Modal Diversion benefits were generated by the following project infrastructure components: Complete Street mprovements, including the improvements to SW 9th Ave, City Hall Plaza, CHPPA (refer to TGER proposal documents for description), FU MMC Entry Plaza and Pavilions, FU MMC Campus Walkways and Boardwalks Pedestrian Bridge over US 4 Community Transit Vehicles FU /Sweetwater Smart Parking Garages and AMS Benefits were defined by deriving the following key data sets: Affected population Average commute distances and total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Current multi -modal users Future multi -modal users Monetized Vehicular Operation costs per VMT Monetized Air- Pollution (Non -GHG) costs per VMT Monetized Green House Gas Emissions costs per VMT The affected population was defined as the students and staff living in Sweetwater and commuting to and from FU as well as the FU students and staff commuting to and from Sweetwater for entertainment and dining The number of the affected population was then derived by first identifying a base population using 25 numbers taken from a Metropolitan Center Study as attached hereto (FU-MC 25) The base 25 population figures were then compared to the total student population in 25 and a ratio of affected population to total student population was calculated The affected population was then projected to future years based on that calculated ratio and on the FU Strategic plan which shows a 2 students -peryear increase after 2 to an enrollment capacity of 6, students in 28 n addition to this population an additional 5 students was added to the affected population in 25 and on to account for the new student housing match project to be built on the Northeast corner of SW 9th Avenue and 7th Terrace t should be noted that the method used for the derivation of the affected population is very conservative as it maintains the current ratio of FU student and staff (residing and commuting to Sweetwater) to total FU enrollment throughout the 3 year BCA analysis t is assumed that the 6

7 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal population of students and staff that reside in Sweetwater will increase drastically over the coming years based on the current comprehensive plan of Sweetwater (which promotes the UniversityCity concept) and currently planned developments within the City, and therefore the ratio will increase However, since at this time, that growth is not quantifiable it was not included in the analysis The average two -way commute distance was conservatively determined to be 2 miles and was derived using scaled drawings to map logical commute routes The current percentage of multi -modal users, that is commuters using modal options other than single- occupancy vehicles, was taken from a recent FDOT District 6 safety study at the 9th Avenue intersection which found only 7 pedestrians per day (approximately 2% of the affected population) This ratio was used in the "No Build" scenario For the `Build" scenario it was determined that 4% of residents traveling to and from FU would choose to walk, ride bike, or use transit circulator The percentage is reasonable based on a recent FU /Sweetwater survey taken in response to this UniversityCity Project effort (see appendix A) The final step in the modal diversion benefits calculation was to actually monetize the benefits derived from the 38% modal shift Vehicle operation costs, vehicle ownership costs, air pollution (non-ghg) costs, and green house gas costs were derived from per vehicle - mile -traveled (VMT) cost estimates presented in the report: "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and mplications, Victoria Transport Policy nstitute" (VPT 22, excerpts included in appendix E) Finally Benefits are derived by comparing the "No- Build" scenario (more people in personal cars = more vehicle costs, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions) to the "Build" scenario (38% less people using cars= less vehicle cost, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions) and the difference in cost is the monetized benefit Table 2 in appendix B provides the actual spreadsheet calculations for Modal Diversion 322 Pedestrian nvolved Accident Reduction Benefits were also calculated for the projected reduction in accidents involving pedestrians due to the surface improvements at 9th Avenue and US 4 as well as the construction of the new pedestrian bridge at the same intersection From current FDOT crash statistics over last years, the average number of pedestrian injuries occurring along this corridor of state road 4 (Tamiami Trail) was determined to be per year Furthermore, per the accident reports injuries ranged from moderate to serious in severity n addition, per the departmental guidance memorandum, published in 2 a Value of Statistical Life (VSL) was determined to be on average $62 million A relative disutility factor by injury severity level was determined in that memo with regard to VSL A Maximum Abbreviated njury Scale (MAS) was determined for 6 severity levels Factoring the severity of recorded accidents, the MAS for the annual accidents at this intersection was determined to be between MAS 3 and 4 An average of the two monetized values was taken and used as the annual "No- Build" cost of pedestrian involved traffic accidents This cost was compared to the "Build" scenario, where an average of pedestrian involved accidents per year is projected, and the calculated difference was the benefits 7

8 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal Although the benefits generated by this part of the analysis were not significant when compared to Modal Diversion or Travel Time Reduction, the benefits of providing a safe crossing at US 4 is critical to the overall success of this project Without these improvements, commuters will be hesitant to cross US 4 by other modes as is currently the situation This is supported by the results of the student survey in appendix A 323 Travel Time Reduction Travel time reduction benefits were calculated by conservatively projecting the reduction of commute times generated by the following project components: nformed Traveler Program and Applications (refer to TGER proposal documents for full description) Complete Street mprovements, including the improvements to SW 9th Ave, City Hall Plaza, CHPPA (refer to TGER proposal documents for description), FU MMC Entry Plaza and Pavilions, FU MMC Campus Walkways and Boardwalks Pedestrian Bridge over US 4 Community Transit Vehicles FU /Sweetwater Smart Parking Garages and AMS SW 7th Avenue mprovements The main contributor for travel time reduction benefits in this project is by far the nformed Traveler Program (TP) and smart parking garages Refer to the main TGER proposal documents for a full description of all this project intricacies The estimated population of users as defined by Naphtali Rishe and BM for initial deployment of the TP program is 2, A conservative annual growth of user population of % was projected for the project's useful life Commuter travel time reduction for TP users are projected to be between % -2% per BM's experience with similar deployments around the world (2% is the intended goal for the project and % was used in the analysis to be conservative) n order to monetize the travel time reduction, the % reduction factor needed to be applied to an actual commute time To accomplish this, average commute times for Miami -Dade County residents were taken from the 2 census data for Miami -Dade County Cost associated with travel time was derived from the DOT document: "Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis" per the 23 NOFA The derived costs per hour of travel time reduction was multiplied by the calculated time reduction and benefits were generated Additional travel time reductions were calculated by accounting for the reduced commute times for users of the "complete streets " The logic behind this benefit is simply that finding parking on campus is a timely process By providing multi -modal options to access the campus, in addition to the smart parking garages and TP, the affected population would see significantly reduced commute times between their front door and the classroom The affected population was calculated per the same methodology described in section 3, and a population of 8 daily users of the CHPA parking facilities was also included The projected travel time reduction for these users was determined to be minutes based on the parking experience of students and staff on the FU -MMC campus Table 3 in appendix B provides the Travel Time Reduction Benefits 8

9 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal Finally, travel time reduction benefits were calculated for the projected reduction in travel times for the SW 7th Avenue improvement project The affected population for this component was derived from recent traffic counts provided by the available FDOT online tools Average travel times through the corridor were determined from previous traffic studies in the area which suggest 4 to 75 minutes A conservative travel time reduction of minute was projected for the affected population, and the benefits were derived thereof 324 Residual Value Residual value of the remaining project infrastructure after 3 years was determined by isolating "hard" infrastructure value This meant taking the total project costs and eliminating soft costs (engineering, contractor's administrative costs, etc), eliminating overall administrative costs, and eliminating labor costs (2% of construction cost was determined where not defined) Life - Span estimates were made for each separate component of the project and are based on industry standards Straight -Line depreciation for the life span of each component was assumed and the value at 3 years was taken as the residual value and added to the project benefits tabulation on the 3th year following project completion per the 23 NOFA Table 4 in appendix B provides the Residual Value Calculation 4 Benefit Cost Estimation versus Economic mpacts Based on 3% and 7% discount rate (as recommended by DOT 23), the project has a benefit cost ratio higher than one implying net benefit from the project However, in our view the presented Benefit Cost Analysis provides a very conservative estimate of this project Probably the most important benefit of this project is linking a small town with a major university campus in order to establish a sustainable community The value of this interlinked sustainable community goes beyond what can be quantified by a Benefit Cost Analysis For example, over the long run a major portion of value creation will occur through: i) increased demand for real estate within a more densely developed urban form and resulting investment; ii) job creation due to increased connectivity to university education and higher living standards designed into the built environment within the area; iii) healthier lifestyles in walk -able communities; iv) benefits of TP enabled optimal utilization of existing transportation infrastructures (eg underutilized parking facilities at Miami nternational Airport (MA) can be used more efficiently with park and ride option) and, v) lower cost and dependable mobility through the local community, throughout the metropolitan area and the region, and to modes of state, national and international transport These indirect and induced benefits are not easily captured in Benefit Cost Analysis and so the reported Benefit Cost ratio is highly conservative But these indirect and induced benefits can be measured through Economic mpact Analysis and by collecting data on user's demand and preferences over the long run (a suggested year period) 5 Tracking the Annual Trend of Users Demand and Preferences Considering that broader economic impact of the project can be substantial, we suggest annual tracking of users demand for services and amenities provided by this project We propose to survey potential users at the beginning of the project (in August 23) and then do follow up 9

10 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal survey (in August 24) when the project is partially operational to estimate the intended and realized demand for using the services and amenities provided by the UniversityCity Prosperity Project Then subsequent annual surveys can be conducted for next 8 years funded by FU in 24 to 22 would measure the trend of changing demand and preferences for key services and amenities provided by this project By complementing primary survey data on users demand and preferences with secondary economic data, we will estimate the broader economic impacts (including generative, redistributive and financial transfer impacts) of the UniversityCity Prosperity Project (see TRB 998) References FDOT Safety Study: "TECHNCAL MEMORANDUM, FM No by CONSUL -TECH Enterprises, nc, Subject: Section 872/SR 9 /SW 8th Street at SW 9th Avenue (MP 6795) 25 Sweetwater Center Collegetown District Charrette, presented November 8, 26 to The City of Sweetwater Prepared by FU Metropolitan Center in partnership with the FU School of Architecture Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and mplications, Victoria Transport Policy nstitute (wwwvtpiorg /tca), 22 TRB 998 Economic mpact Analysis of Transit nvestments: Guidebook for Practitioners, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC

11 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal Appendix A: Sweetwater -FU Survey of Potential Users of University -City Project The survey was distributed through s (with requests to forward it), and with some intercept responses at Sweetwater City Hall There were 57 total responses, 34 from students, 266 from FU employees, and 55 from Sweetwater residents The survey asked to document preferences related to living and visiting in Sweetwater (SW), and whether various elements (main street, ATMS, local shuttles, pedestrian crossing improvements for US4 - including bridge) of the of University -City Project would change their current preferences and behavior (consider living in SW, visit SW more, travel through SW more) Major findings of the survey are listed below Non -Sweetwater residents responded that they would consider moving to Sweetwater at least 4% of the time if any of Project elements were put in place 2 At least 45% of all respondents indicated they would eat/entertain more in SW if any of the project elements were put in place, but only 28% would eat/entertain if only student housing were built 3 At least 36% of all respondents indicated they would walk or bike through SW more often if Main Street, ATMS, and Local Shuttles project elements were put in place (the percentage rose to almost 53% if only the Pedestrian Cross elements were built, and was only 25% if only Student housing was built) 4 6% of all respondents indicated they would be more likely to take express bus service to the MC and rail connections if the ATMS or a fast dedicated lane travel path, but only 35% indicated that the Main Street environment would make them more likely to do so 5 More than ten percent (9 %) of student respondents indicated they already walk or bike to school, and 2% of them say they already live in SW 6 46% of student respondents indicated they would consider moving to Sweetwater for Main Street, 53% for ATMS, 57% for local shuttles, and 5% for pedestrian crossing/bridge improvements 7 More than 5% of student respondents indicated they would eat/entertain more in SW if Main Street, ATMS, local Shuttles, and pedestrian crossing/bridge improvements were put in place, and 4% would do so even if only new student housing were built 8 58% of student respondents would walk/bike more through SW if pedestrian/bridge improvements were made 9 More than 6% of students would use express service to the MC and rail connections if the ATMS, and dedicated lanes were in place

12 UniversityCity Prosperity Project Benefit -Cost Analysis for TGER 23 Proposal Appendix B: (BCA Calculations) 2

13 UniversityCity - Benefit Cost Analysis TGER 23 Benefit Cost Analysis Time Year Vehicle Operation Diversion Benefits Modal Diversion Benefits Air Pollution (Non- GHG) Reduction Benefits GHG Reduction Benefits Pedestrian Crash njuries Reduction Benefits DOLLAR VALUES Residual Value Travel Time Reduciton Benefits Total Benefits Maintenance Design and Permitting Costs Construction Cost 23 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,565,5 $ - $ 2,565, $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,565,5 $ - $ 2,565, $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,, $ 38,339,38588 $ 4,339, $ 447,7429 $ 59,576 $ 72,94689 $ 6,2229 $ - $ 3,662,7628 $ 4,459,23287 $, $ 2,, $ 38,339,38588 $ 4,439, $ 925,98675 $ 23,9995 $ 357,67728 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 7,86,5788 $ 9,499,86665 $, $ - $, 6 28 $ 956,49292 $ 27,2587 $ 369,4678 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 8,442,26633 $,27,9333 $, $ - $, 7 29 $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 9,75,25393 $,87,23936 $, $ - $, 8 22 $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 9,695,9762 $,427,9654 $, $ - $, 9 22 $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $,378,7752 $ 2,,75594 $, $ - $, 222 $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $,29,84436 $ 2,86,82979 $, $ - $, 223 $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $,956,2559 $ 3,688, $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 2,864,82494 $ 4,596,836 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 3,864,5422 $ 5,596,48965 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 4,964,544 $ 6,696,3686 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 6,73,76337 $ 7,95,7488 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 7,54,3365 $ 9,236,3292 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 8,967,96694 $ 2,699,95237 $, $ - $, 8 23 $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 2,577,9643 $ 22,39,94585 $, $ - $, 9 23 $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 22,348,95326 $ 24,8,93868 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 24,297,4538 $ 26,29,38 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 26,439,9467 $ 28,7,9323 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 28,797,387 $ 3,529,2359 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 3,39,4877 $ 33,22,342 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 34,242,2544 $ 35,974,23587 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 37,379,67228 $ 39,,6577 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 4,83,83629 $ 42,562,8272 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 44,627,67 $ 46,359,24 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 48,83,258 $ 5,535,6 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 53,396,52448 $ 55,28,599 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 58,449,37372 $ 6,8,3595 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 64,7,5789 $ 65,739,4933 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 7,2,45547 $ 7,853,4489 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ - $ 76,846,7978 $ 78,578,78323 $, $ - $, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 $ 6,23,4293 $ 84,244,67437 $ 2,8,6273 $, $ - $, $,2,6,74294 $ 26,99,79376 Total Benefits: Total Costs: $,2,6,74294 $ 26,99,79376 Total Costs Maintenance Cost based on estimate by City of Sweetwater Public Works Staff and FU Operations and Maintenance Staff

14 UniversityCity - Benefit Cost Analysis TGER 23 Benefit Cost Analysis Table A: PRESENT VALUES (7% Discount Rate) Time Year Vehicle Operation Diversion Benefits Modal Diversion Benefits Air Pollution (Non- GHG) Reduction Benefits GHG Reduction Benefits Pedestrian Crash njuries Reduction Benefits Residual Value Travel Time Reduciton Benefits Total Benefits Maintenance Design g Permitting Costs Construction Cost 23 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,54,6838 $ - $ 2,54, $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,836,525 $ - $ 8,836, $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $,632,59575 $ 3,296,3593 $ 32,928, $ 34,57892 $ 45,4462 $ 3,9436 $ 88,6578 $ - $ 2,794,342 $ 3,4,9274 $ 76,28952 $,525,7942 $ 29,248,93392 $ 3,85, $ 66,2575 $ 87,83986 $ 255,896 $ 65,755 $ - $ 5,64,48353 $ 6,773,27363 $ 7,29862 $ - $ - $ 7, $ 637,3562 $ 84,79785 $ 246,8732 $ 54,8743 $ - $ 5,625,43852 $ 6,748,64962 $ 66,63422 $ - $ - $ 66, $ 64,65343 $ 8,77792 $ 237,4978 $ 44,74235 $ - $ 5,65,624 $ 6,73,2552 $ 62,27497 $ - $ - $ 62, $ 574,44246 $ 76,42797 $ 22,88764 $ 35,27322 $ - $ 5,643,4638 $ 6,65,7766 $ 58,29 $ - $ - $ 58, $ 536,862 $ 7,428 $ 27,3763 $ 26,42357 $ - $ 5,645,36349 $ 6,587,4488 $ 54,39337 $ - $ - $ 54, $ 5,7429 $ 66,7555 $ 93,8526 $ 8,5287 $ - $ 5,657,8485 $ 6,538,327 $ 5,83493 $ - $ - $ 5, $ 468,966 $ 62,38799 $ 8,264 $,42324 $ - $ 5,68,2263 $ 6,53,7543 $ 47,5928 $ - $ - $ 47, $ 438,2394 $ 58,3653 $ 69,2772 $ 3,9929 $ - $ 5,72,363 $ 6,48,5837 $ 44,42 $ - $ - $ 44, $ 49,56953 $ 54,4928 $ 58,2282 $ 96,44794 $ - $ 5,753,27634 $ 6,47,98872 $ 4,49644 $ - $ - $ 4, $ 382,77526 $ 5,9278 $ 47,853 $ 9,3826 $ - $ 5,83,35592 $ 6,475,4973 $ 38,7872 $ - $ - $ 38, $ 357,73389 $ 47,5955 $ 38,847 $ 84,2436 $ - $ 5,862,66 $ 6,489,86738 $ 36,2446 $ - $ - $ 36, $ 334,3374 $ 44,4877 $ 29,463 $ 78,7325 $ - $ 5,929,32438 $ 6,56,777 $ 33,87346 $ - $ - $ 33, $ 32,45863 $ 4,5775 $ 2,6928 $ 73,57967 $ - $ 6,4,77257 $ 6,553,748 $ 3,65744 $ - $ - $ 3, $ 292,742 $ 38,852 $ 2,79643 $ 68,7665 $ - $ 6,88,27596 $ 6,6,7795 $ 29,58639 $ - $ - $ 29, $ 272,9347 $ 36,338 $ 5,4722 $ 64,26733 $ - $ 6,79,678 $ 6,658,582 $ 27,6583 $ - $ - $ 27, $ 255,5932 $ 33,93493 $ 98,5277 $ 6,6293 $ - $ 6,278,8824 $ 6,726,3968 $ 25,849 $ - $ - $ 25, $ 238,3732 $ 3,7489 $ 92,7548 $ 56,3358 $ - $ 6,385,5934 $ 6,83,8929 $ 24,53 $ - $ - $ 24, $ 222,77869 $ 29,648 $ 86,585 $ 52,4629 $ - $ 6,499,8932 $ 6,89,8252 $ 22,5732 $ - $ - $ 22, $ 28,2438 $ 27,7 $ 8,42229 $ 49,2924 $ - $ 6,62,63296 $ 6,986,98988 $ 2,9469 $ - $ - $ 2, $ 94,58353 $ 25,8888 $ 75,62 $ 45,8272 $ - $ 6,75,74393 $ 7,92,99 $ 9,7466 $ - $ - $ 9, $ 8,85377 $ 24,954 $ 7,24395 $ 42,8244 $ - $ 6,887,7387 $ 7,26,2976 $ 8,42492 $ - $ - $ 8, $ 69,95679 $ 22,6228 $ 65,64855 $ 4,2246 $ - $ 7,3,88599 $ 7,329,267 $ 7,2955 $ - $ - $ 7, $ 58,8383 $ 2,3297 $ 6,35378 $ 37,447 $ - $ 7,8,85828 $ 7,46,58733 $ 6,934 $ - $ - $ 6, $ 48,44685 $ 9,7544 $ 57,33998 $ 34,9577 $ - $ 7,34,8296 $ 7,6,5774 $ 5,422 $ - $ - $ 5, $ 38,73537 $ 8,45835 $ 53,58877 $ 32,6725 $ - $ 7,55,5658 $ 7,749,856 $ 4,5628 $ - $ - $ 4, $ 29,65922 $ 7,258 $ 5,8296 $ 3,53295 $ - $ 7,678,32573 $ 7,95,8566 $ 3,367 $ - $ - $ 3, $ 2,7685 $ 6,2224 $ 46,865 $ 28,53546 $ - $ 7,858,3949 $ 8,7,3525 $ 2,2773 $ - $ - $ 2, $ 3,24939 $ 5,6752 $ 43,7444 $ 26,66866 $ - $ 8,45,8488 $ 8,244,54484 $,474 $ - $ - $, $ 5,8455 $ 4,879 $ 4,88262 $ 24,92398 $ - $ 8,24,64322 $ 8,426,3725 $,72347 $ - $ - $, $ 98,964 $ 3,655 $ 38,285 $ 23,29344 $,623,89442 $ 8,442,9466 $,24,4893 $,293 $ - $ - $,293 $ 26,94,6852 $ 3,77,4844 Total Benefits: Total Costs: $ 26,94,6852 $ 3,77,4844 Benefit Cost Ratio (present value): 29 Maintenance Cost based on estimate by City of Sweetwater Public Works Staff and FU Operations and Maintenance Staff Present Value = [ /( +r)t]a r = Discount Rate: 7% t = time in years A = amount of benefit or cost in dollars Total Costs

15 UniversityCity - Benefit Cost Analysis TGER 23 Benefit Cost Analysis Time Year Vehicle Operation Diversion Benefits Modal Diversion Benefits Air Pollution (Non- GHG) Reduction Benefits GHG Reduction Benefits Table B: PRESENT VALUES (Alternative 3% Discount Rate) Pedestrian Crash njuries Reduction Benefits Residual Value Travel Time Reduciton Benefits Total Benefits Maintenance Design g Permitting Costs Construction Cost 23 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,937,38932 $ - $ 2,937, $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,327,56245 $ - $ 2,327, $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $,83,28332 $ 35,85,9692 $ 36,96, $ 397,845 $ 52,9277 $ 53,667 $ 3,253 $ - $ 3,254,373 $ 3,96,9765 $ 88,8487 $,776,974 $ 34,64,4778 $ 35,929, $ 798,7643 $ 6,27336 $ 38,53557 $ 2,4948 $ - $ 6,78,637 $ 8,94,66842 $ 86,2688 $ - $ - $ 86, $ 8,4776 $ 6,5777 $ 39,4759 $ 94,6593 $ - $ 7,7,2654 $ 8,48,95959 $ 83,74843 $ - $ - $ 83, $ 82,5258 $ 6,7732 $ 39,98649 $ 88,98245 $ - $ 7,379,94 $ 8,787,27458 $ 8,395 $ - $ - $ 8, $ 779,469 $ 3,66323 $ 3,95776 $ 83,478 $ - $ 7,654,938 $ 9,2,33837 $ 78,9492 $ - $ - $ 78, $ 756,45262 $,6439 $ 292,92 $ 78,349 $ - $ 7,954,46339 $ 9,28,886 $ 76,6467 $ - $ - $ 76, $ 734,422 $ 97,7253 $ 283,6855 $ 72,9457 $ - $ 8,28,64946 $ 9,57,4928 $ 74,4939 $ - $ - $ 74, $ 73,294 $ 94,86654 $ 275,4898 $ 67,9846 $ - $ 8,637,28727 $ 9,888,539 $ 72,2423 $ - $ - $ 72, $ 692,263 $ 92,343 $ 267,3977 $ 63,792 $ - $ 9,23,2938 $,237,99 $ 7,3799 $ - $ - $ 7, $ 672,9835 $ 89,428 $ 259,688 $ 58,26983 $ - $ 9,44,5273 $,62,4553 $ 68,953 $ - $ - $ 68, $ 652,52267 $ 86,8632 $ 252,4738 $ 53,663 $ - $ 9,893,6696 $,38,337 $ 66,78 $ - $ - $ 66, $ 633,576 $ 84,28769 $ 244,762 $ 49,8449 $ - $,38,32326 $,493,879 $ 64,869 $ - $ - $ 64, $ 65,652 $ 8,8327 $ 237,57883 $ 44,8393 $ - $,98,238 $,987,43986 $ 62,3669 $ - $ - $ 62, $ 597,568 $ 79,44923 $ 23,6596 $ 4,6269 $ - $,475,9394 $ 2,523,86 $ 6,564 $ - $ - $ 6, $ 579,75794 $ 77,358 $ 223,9484 $ 36,52494 $ - $ 2,87,38299 $ 3,4,7489 $ 58,73946 $ - $ - $ 58, $ 562,8779 $ 74,88852 $ 27,4829 $ 32,54849 $ - $ 2,745,29576 $ 3,733,2284 $ 57,286 $ - $ - $ 57, $ 546,47746 $ 72,773 $ 2,8572 $ 28,68785 $ - $ 3,452,68492 $ 4,4,64326 $ 55,36758 $ - $ - $ 55, $ 53,5664 $ 7,5896 $ 24,93759 $ 24,93966 $ - $ 4,22,7742 $ 5,43,872 $ 53,75493 $ - $ - $ 53, $ 55,742 $ 68,5336 $ 98,96853 $ 2,364 $ - $ 5,29,46 $ 5,932,9266 $ 52,8925 $ - $ - $ 52, $ 5,429 $ 66,53748 $ 93,7333 $ 7,76762 $ - $ 5,95,787 $ 6,782,6642 $ 5,6697 $ - $ - $ 5, $ 485,5385 $ 64,5995 $ 87,54692 $ 4,33749 $ - $ 6,844,982 $ 7,696,9426 $ 49,9337 $ - $ - $ 49, $ 47,39626 $ 62,7796 $ 82,8439 $,727 $ - $ 7,852,73966 $ 8,679,94554 $ 47,7656 $ - $ - $ 47, $ 457,66627 $ 6,8922 $ 76,7896 $ 7,7745 $ - $ 8,933,435 $ 9,736,562 $ 46,36947 $ - $ - $ 46, $ 444,3369 $ 59,769 $ 7,632 $ 4,635 $ - $ 2,9,63954 $ 2,87,3642 $ 45,89 $ - $ - $ 45, $ 43,39436 $ 57,39582 $ 66,633 $,58738 $ - $ 2,33,66779 $ 22,87,67835 $ 43,7768 $ - $ - $ 43, $ 48,82947 $ 55,7249 $ 6,77962 $ 98,62852 $ - $ 22,658,6292 $ 23,393,58264 $ 42,43464 $ - $ - $ 42, $ 46,6356 $ 54,6 $ 57,676 $ 95,75585 $ - $ 24,8,3688 $ 24,793,9234 $ 4,9868 $ - $ - $ 4, $ 394,78695 $ 52,5253 $ 52,4928 $ 92,96684 $ - $ 25,62,835 $ 26,294,95225 $ 39,9987 $ - $ - $ 39, $ 383,2883 $ 5,99544 $ 48,527 $ 9,2597 $ - $ 27,23,7585 $ 27,93,3523 $ 38,8337 $ - $ - $ 38, $ 372,2456 $ 49,53 $ 43,739 $ 87,637 $ - $ 28,973,25975 $ 29,626,2637 $ 37,7262 $ - $ - $ 37, $ 36,28598 $ 48,689 $ 39,55253 $ 85,7783 $ 5,93,73 $ 3,837,33339 $ 37,42,4982 $ 36,6449 $ - $ - $ 36,6449 $ 492,683,976 $ 5,852,5487 Total Benefits: Total Costs: $ 492,683,976 $ 5,852,5487 Benefit Cost Ratio (present value): 425 Total Costs Maintenance Cost based on estimate by City of Sweetwater Public Works Staff and FU Operations and Maintenance Staff Present Value = [ /( +r)t]a r = Discount Rate: 3% t = time in years A = amount of benefit or cost in dollars

16 UniversityCity - Benefit Cost Analysis TGER 23 Modal Diversion Population Data: 25 Data Based on FU Metropolitan Center Surveys prepared for November 26 "College Town" Charrette 29 Pedestrian Data based on traffic study prepared by FDOT District 6 for the SW 8th St and 9th Ave ntersection 25 and 2 total student enrollment figure based on published FU material Future Student Projections based on FU Strategic Plan: http: / /stratplan fiuedu /docs/worldsahead StrategicPlanpdf Student /Employee Residents Commuting to /from sweetwater to FU Students 25 report: Employees 25 report:: Projected Population for Student Housing Match Projects Total Student Enrollment Total Emplyee Staff Total: Student /Employee Commuting to /from sweetwater for off campus dining Students /Employees: Total Two -Way Trips to and from FU Campus from Sweetwater: Total daily Pedestrian Trips: 7 Student Enrollment Projected to grow 2 students per year following year 2 up to a cacpacity of 6, total students Total percentage of trips using alternate travel modes (pedestrian, bike, circulator, etc) actual data projected data hard inputs No Build Scenario: 2% Build Scenario: 4% Avg Daily Commute Distance between FU and Sweetwater (two -way): 2 miles Costs: Values are per vehicle -mile cost estimates from the report Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and mplications, Victoria Transport Policy nstitute (www vtpiorg /tca), 22 GDP Price Deflator Vehicle Operating Costs Vehicle Operation per mile: Vehicle Ownership per mile: Total Vehicle Operation Costs: 27 USD $ /mile 272 $ /mile 466 $ /mile 23 USD $ /mile 298 $ /mile 5 $ /mile Pedestrian njuries: From current FDOT crash statistic over last years, the average number of pedestrian injuries occuring along this corridor of state road 4 (Tamiami Trail) is per year: Vehicle Operating Costs (Bicycle) Vehicle Operation per mile: Vehicle Ownership per mile: Total Vehicle Operation Costs: Air Pollution Air Pollution Cost per mile: Green House Gases GHG Control Cost per mile: GHG Damage Cost per mile: Total GHG Costs 66 $ /mile 264 $ /mile 924 $ /mile 62 $ /mile 9 $ /mile 6 $ /mile 8 $ /mile 72 $ /mile 29 $ /mile 3 $ /mile 68 $ /mile 2 $ /mile 76 $ /mile 97 $ /mile Based on the departmental guidance memorandum, published in 2 a Value of Statistical Life (VSL) was determined to be on average $62million n addition a relative disutility factor by injury severity level was determine in this report with regard to VSL A Maximum Abbreviated njury Scale (MAS) was determine for 6 severity levels MAS 2 (moderate severity) = 55 of VSL $ 96, MAS 3 (serious severity) = 575 of VSL $ 356,5 Average Pedestrian njury determined to be moderate to serious: $ 226,3 2 USD 22 USD GDP Price Deflator Annual Cost of Crash njuries $ 226,3 $ 232,42458 'nflation calculation based on GDP Price Deflators as reported by the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, 23 factor based on 23 Q deflator (

17 UniversityCity - Benefit Cost Analysis TGER 23 No Build Scenario Year Population (2- way trips) Annual Vehicle Operation Costs Annual Air Pollution (Non- GHG) Costs Annual GHG Costs $ 2,293,2256 $ 35,673 $ 885, $ 2,37,3443 $ 35,575 $ 95, $ 2,449,4676 $ 325,89476 $ 946, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976, $ 2,527,5898 $ 336,28877 $ 976,32224 Year Vehicle Operation Diversion Benefits $ 895,4858 $ 925,98675 $ 956,49292 $ 986,9999 $ 986,9999 $ 986,9999 $ 986,9999 $ 986,9999 $ 986,9999 $ 986,9999 $ 986,9999 $ 986,9999 $ 986,9999 Table 2: Modal Diversion Benefits Air Pollution (Non -GHG) Reduction Benefits $ 9,49 $ 23,9995 $ 27,2587 $ 3,3748 $ 3,3748 $ 3,3748 $ 3,3748 $ 3,3748 $ 3,3748 $ 3,3748 $ 3,3748 $ 3,3748 $ 3,3748 GHG Reduction Benefits $ 345,89379 $ 357,67728 $ 369,4678 $ 38,24428 $ 38,24428 $ 38,24428 $ 38,24428 $ 38,24428 $ 38,24428 $ 38,24428 $ 38,24428 $ 38,24428 $ 38,24428 Pedestrian Crash njuries Reduction Benefits $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232, $ 986,9999 $ 3,3748 $ 38,24428 $ 232,42458 Pedestrian Crash njuries $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 $ 232,42458 Annual Benefits $,592,944 $,639,28857 $,685,637 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 $,73,98542 Build Scenario Population still Annual Costs Year using personal vehicles (2 -way trips) Annual Vehicle Operation Costs Annual Air Pollution (Non - GHG) Costs Annual GHG Costs Pedestrian Crash njuries Annual Costs $ 3,76, $,397,7498 $ 85,96554 $ 539,89995 $ - $ 2,23,6647 $ 3,835, $,445,35756 $ 92,379 $ 558,29262 $ - $ 2,95,9597 $ 3,953, $,492,9744 $ 98,6364 $ 576,68529 $ $ 2,268,29548 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998 $ 4,72, $,54,5972 $ 24,973 $ 595,7796 $ $ 2,34,63998

18 UniversityCity - Benefit Cost Analysis TGER 23 Travel Time Reduction nformed Traverler Program Estimated Population of Users: Estimated usage incrase per year: Estimated Travel Time Reduction: Miami -Dade Average Commute Time (based on 2 Census Figures): Complete Streets 2 users % % 289 min 48 hours Estimated travel time reduction when using Complete Street and tranist options (no parking search time) min 7 hours Users consists of FU students and faculty residing and using complete streets in Sweetwater and FU (see modal diversion calculations), as well users of CHPA parking system Number of Daily users of CHPA Parking System: 8 users SW 7th Avenue mprovement Project (FDOT Match) Traffic data taken from FDOT Florida Traffic nformation Web Service depciting Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) numbers Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT, one -way): Daily Average Travel Time Through Corridor (for reference): Daily Estimated Reduction in Travel Time: Annual Estimated Reduction in Travel Time: r 26 4 to users min min hours Travel Time Reduction Benefits Based on DOT document: "Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis" 29 USD 23 USD" Benefit for Local Travel (all purposes) 29 figures: $ 25 per hour $ 326 per hour GDP Price Deflators "nflation calculation based on GDP Price Deflators as reported by the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, 23 factor based on 23 Q deflator ( Year Population Trips Using Complete Table 3: Travel Time Reduction Benefits (Complete Streets and TP) Streets (from modal diversion tab) CHPA and Population Using TP Transit Greenway Travel Time Benefits 7th Avenue mprovements Travel Time Benefits TP Travel Time Benefits Total Travel Time Reduction Benefits $ 2,66,94797 $ 2,97,839 $ 4,663,57764 $ 7,325, $ 2,73,64267 $ 2,97,839 $ 5,29,9354 $ 7,86, $ 2,799,33738 $ 2,97,839 $ 5,642,92895 $ 8,442, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 6,27,2284 $ 9,75, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 6,827,9443 $ 9,695, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 7,5,73843 $,378, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 8,26,8227 $,29, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 9,87,9935 $,956, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 9,996,79285 $ 2,864, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $,996,4723 $ 3,864, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 2,96,935 $ 4,964, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 3,35,7328 $ 6,73, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 4,636,344 $ 7,54, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 6,99,93485 $ 8,967, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 7,79,92833 $ 2,577, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 9,48,927 $ 22,348, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 2,429,328 $ 24,297, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 23,57,946 $ 26,439, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 25,929,67 $ 28,797, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 28,522,668 $ 3,39, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 3,374,2835 $ 34,242, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 34,5,648 $ 37,379, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 37,962,842 $ 4,83, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 4,759,8462 $ 44,627, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 45,934,9938 $ 48,83, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 5,528,49239 $ 53,396, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 55,58,3463 $ 58,449, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 6,39,47579 $ 64,7, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 67,253,42337 $ 7,2, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 73,978,7657 $ 76,846, $ 2,868,329 $ 2,97,839 $ 8,376,64228 $ 84,244,67437

19 UniversityCity - Benefit Cost Analysis TGER 23 Residual Value Calculation Only includes project components expected to have a residual value after 3 years Project Cost Estimates Complete Streets ncluding ATMS modification to Parking Garage, Plazas, Pavillions, Walkways and Boardwalks Total Sub -Project Cost: $ 4,824,7354 nfrastructure Hard Value: $ 2,926,7 Life Span: 3 years Cable Stayed Pedestrian Bridge Total Sub -Project Cost: nfrastructure Hard Value: Life Span: FU Parking Garage Total Sub -Project Cost: Total Project Soft Costs Total nfrastructure Value: Life Span: CHPA Sweetwater mprovements Total Sub -Project Cost: Total Project Soft Costs Total nfrastructure Value: Life Span: FDOT 7th Avenue mprovements Project Total Sub -Project Cost: Total Project Soft Costs Total nfrastructure Value: Life Span: $ 6,, $ 3,5,4 5 years $ 35,47,356 $,684,42748 $ 23,722, years $ 2,247,9735 $ 4,654, $ 3,275,788 5 years $ 22,, $ 2,, $ 2,, 3 years Using Straight Line Depreciation Table 4 Year of Valuation Dollars $ 63,435,2732 $ 6,86, $ 6,286, $ 58,72, $ 57,37, $ 55,563, $ 53,988, $ 52,44, $ 5,84, $ 49,265,666 $ 47,69,27252 $ 46,6, $ 44,542, $ 42,968,928 4 $ 4,393, $ 39,89,352 6 $ 38,244,964 7 $ 36,67,586 8 $ 35,96, $ 33,52,732 2 $ 3,947, $ 3,372, $ 28,798, $ 27,224, $ 25,649, $ 24,75, $ 22,5, $ 2,926, $ 9,352, $ 7,777, $ 6,23,4293 check $ 63,435,2732

20 Based on: "Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors, "Estimates of Job Creation from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 29 ", ssued and Developed by Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors Amount of Government Spending to Create job per year: $ 92, Total Project Construction Budget: $ 45,454,53 Overall Project Schedule: 3 years Estimated "Short Term" Job Creation: 527 jobs