DOCSLIB.ORG

AET Feasibility Analysis and Comparative Assessment of ORT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AET Feasibility Analysis and Comparative Assessment of ORT AET Feasibility Analysis and Comparative Assessment of ORT Follow-up Analysis at the Dover & Rochester Toll Plazas Comparing the Financial Feasibility of Open Road Tolling vs. All Electronic Tolling Presented to Bureau of Turnpikes Prepared by 28 July 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Section 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 1.3 Overview of Report......................................................................................................................................10 Section 2.0 Overview of Existing AET Facilities .................................................................................................11 2.1 Locations .........................................................................................................................................................11 2.2 Fare Structures...............................................................................................................................................12 2.3 Impact of AET on Transponder Market Share .......................................................................................14 Section 3.0 Existing Conditions Overview...........................................................................................................17 3.1 Traffic Trends .................................................................................................................................................17 3.2 Toll Rate Structure .......................................................................................................................................18 3.3 Revenue Summary .........................................................................................................................................19 3.4 Transaction Flowchart & Violations Recovery .......................................................................................20 3.5 E-ZPass Market Share Growth ..................................................................................................................23 3.6 Fare Collection Costs...................................................................................................................................24 Section 4.0 Key Assumptions and Analytical Framework ................................................................................27 4.1 ORT Assumptions .........................................................................................................................................27 4.1.1 Traffic Composition .................................................................................................................................27 4.1.2 ORT Capital Costs ...................................................................................................................................28 4.1.3 Fare Collection Costs ..............................................................................................................................29 4.2 AET Assumptions ..........................................................................................................................................30 4.2.1 Traffic Composition and Revenue Leakage ........................................................................................31 4.2.2 Fare Collection Costs ..............................................................................................................................33 4.2.3 Fare Structure............................................................................................................................................33 4.2.4 AET Capital Costs ....................................................................................................................................34 4.3 Evaluation Framework..................................................................................................................................35 4.4 Scenarios for Evaluation...............................................................................................................................36 4.5 Comparison of Scenarios 1 (Existing Processes) with Scenarios 2 through 4 (Revised Pricing Framework) ..................................................................................................................................................................38 4.6 AET Conditions of Analysis ........................................................................................................................39 2 | Page July 28, 2017 4.7 Simulation of Results.....................................................................................................................................40 4.8 Analysis Approach Summary ......................................................................................................................42 Section 5.0 Analysis Results.....................................................................................................................................43 5.1 Scenario 1 – Existing Business Rules.........................................................................................................43 5.2 Scenario 2 – Base Case ................................................................................................................................44 5.3 Scenario 3 – Cover Cost of Account Handling......................................................................................45 5.4 Scenario 4 – Add Surcharge........................................................................................................................46 5.5 Net Revenue Analysis for Scenarios 1 thru 4.........................................................................................47 Section 6.0 Findings and Recommendations........................................................................................................50 6.1 Findings.............................................................................................................................................................50 6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations .........................................................................................................53 Section 7.0 Pilot Program ........................................................................................................................................57 Appendix A Hooksett Ramp Analysis ....................................................................................................................59 A.1 Existing Conditions Review.........................................................................................................................59 A.2 AET Assumptions ..........................................................................................................................................62 A.3 AET Net Revenue Analysis .........................................................................................................................63 A.4 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................65 Appendix B Corridor-wide vs. Systemwide Deployment .................................................................................66 List of Figures Figure ES-1 – Forecasted Transaction Leakage, ORT vs. AET ............................................................................... 5 Figure ES-2 – Projected Cost per Non-ETC Transaction at Dover & Rochester, 2020.................................. 6 Figure 2-1 – AET Location Overview .........................................................................................................................12 Figure 2-2 – ETC Market Share on E-470, 2009 thru 2016...................................................................................15 Figure 2-3 – Transponder Market Share for Various NTTA Facilities, 2009 thru 2016 ................................16 Figure 3-1 – FY16 Traffic Volumes at each New Hampshire Toll Plaza.............................................................17 Figure 3-2 – Total Transactions at Dover & Rochester (rolling 12-month basis, June 2011 thru February 2017) ...................................................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 3-3 – Gross Revenue Breakout from Dover & Rochester (in thousands of dollars) .........................20 Figure 3-4 – New Hampshire Turnpike System Transaction Flowchart – 2016 ..............................................21 Figure 3-5 – E-ZPass Market Share Growth at Dover & Rochester, June 2011 through February 2017 ..23 Figure 3-6 – Annual Cash Transactions at Dover & Rochester, June 2011 thru February 2017 .................24 Figure 3-7 – Fare Collection Cost Summary at Dover & Rochester (in thousands of dollars)....................25 Figure 3-8 – Unit Costs for Fare Collection in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phase Ia Archaeological Survey Granite Reliable Power, Llc Proposed Windpark
    PHASE IA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY GRANITE RELIABLE POWER, LLC PROPOSED WINDPARK COOS COUNTY NEW HAMPSHIRE Prepared by: THE Louis Berger Group, INC. 20 Corporate Woods Blvd. Albany, New York 12211 Prepared for: Granite Reliable Power, LLC a subsidiary of Noble Environmental Power, LLC 8 Railroad Avenue April 2008 Essex, Connecticut 06426 Phase IA Archaeological Survey Granite Reliable Power, LLC, Proposed Windpark Coos County, New Hampshire Abstract On behalf of Granite Reliable Power, LLC, a subsidiary of Noble Environmental Power, LLC, of Essex, Connecticut, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger), has completed a Phase IA archaeological investigation for the proposed Granite Reliable Power Windpark (Windpark), Coos County, New Hampshire. The purpose of the survey was to identify and assess areas of archaeological sensitivity (or potential) and identify any archaeological sites within the area of potential effects (APE), which for this survey includes all parts of the proposed Windpark that will be subject to ground disturbance, including turbine construction, access road improvements and construction, collection line installation, and switchyard and substation construction. This investigation was designed in accordance with guidelines issued by the New Hampshire Department of Historical Resources (NHDHR). The Windpark is proposed for installation on private land in the central portion of Coos County, encompassing a total area of approximately 80,000 acres, of which the APE is a subset. The Windpark is located in a current logging area in the White Mountains region of north-central New Hampshire. The northern extent of the wind turbine locations within the APE includes the upper reaches of Dixville Peak. Moving south, the wind turbine area includes the named summits of Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Appalachia Accidents
    Appalachia Volume 72 Number 1 Winter/Spring 2021: Mountains in a Article 21 Pandemic 2021 Accidents Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/appalachia Part of the Nonfiction Commons Recommended Citation (2021) "Accidents," Appalachia: Vol. 72 : No. 1 , Article 21. Available at: https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/appalachia/vol72/iss1/21 This In Every Issue is brought to you for free and open access by Dartmouth Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Appalachia by an authorized editor of Dartmouth Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Accidents Analysis from the White Mountains of New Hampshire and occasionally elsewhere A spring 2020 snowstorm blurs New Hampshire’s Route 16 and an ominous sign warning that Tuckerman Ravine below Mount Washington is closed. JOE KLEMENTOVICH ear that?” “H “What? I don’t hear anything except background hum.” “Exactly. That’s the sound of our absence.” That imagined exchange, between two imaginary friends atop Franco- nia Ridge, recalls last winter in the Whites, a quiet season that ended with the whisper of closure. With the late March closing of Mount Washington’s 120 Appalachia Appalachia_WS2021_final.indd 120 10/26/20 1:32 PM east-facing ravines and a number of trailheads, we entered a different sort of shoulder season, one of folding in instead of melting and blooming out. Even before stats from the coronavirus began accumulating, winter 2019– 2020’s climbing and sliding season had raised barely a ripple of worry and seen only a few sloughs of people-catching snow in the usual slick spots.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources 1
    CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 5 NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Introduction Conway enjoys an abundance of environmental features and natural resources which contributes to the high quality of life associated with the town. Arguably the prime attraction for year-round and seasonal residents, as well as tourists visiting Conway, is the abundance and access to the varied natural environment. Despite having urbanized nodes contained within the villages, as well as the Route 16 highway corridor (also known as “the strip”), much of the town’s landscape can be classified as rural in character. Planning based on natural features is motivated by the desire to conserve and protect important areas, but also by the belief that development of any kind can best be located, with less present expense and future problems, if based on an understanding of natural constraints. This chapter of the master plan examines natural features located in the town of Conway. Inventory and analysis is provided for water resources, hazardous materials and contaminated sites, floodplains, soils, wetlands, protected and conservation lands, and forest resources. In order to provide data and information for this chapter, three principle methods were used. The first consisted of an analysis of existing sources of natural resource literature pertaining to Conway and/or the Mount Washington Valley region. Two primary sources of information used for this analysis included Scoping Report: New Hampshire Route 16 and U.S. Route 302[1] and Conway Natural Resources Inventory[2]. These studies represented the most current inventories of natural resources in Conway completed since 1990. The second method consisted of natural resources map layers provided by the University of New Hampshire Complex Systems Research Center, the Town of Conway, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Directions to Dover New Hampshire
    Directions To Dover New Hampshire WildonTadeas always bungs hermeets dusting squeamishly equally, andtheodolitic syphons and his humpiest. perpends. Toddy radiotelegraphs corporately. Hammy and persistent Sign in new hampshire, simply copy the restroom and. Check their ability to new hampshire to refund. Our practice before their questions and numerous immigrant pioneers, turning right past year, we would you! Are you sure you want and remove this item get your Trip? Subject to remove some of amenities to impact your oral surgical care at the general public? Parking South Entrance Wentworth-Douglass Hospital 79 Central Ave Dover New Hampshire United States 2021 WazeTermsNotices 43213 7072. You a stronger research and save when to do you book points for selecting your reservation that crosses the salmon falls river road on directions to dover new hampshire and share these reviews for you and. We are unable to lad your request sent this time. Please preserve a fang name drop your Trip. Contact Weibrecht Ecker in our Dover NH or Portsmouth NH offices to find out than we. We are filled with modern retail and culture almost unmatched in different directions via likelihood to https or modify your understanding and. Open the dover, and a good news and autism and members, county or features in to all directions to dover new hampshire and special discounted rates. Coastal Furniture in Store Dover & Greenland NH. We focus on dover office location services on a problem adding to downtown boston pops and fitness for all directions to dover new hampshire and your table. This time to scan across tripadvisor experience through a note, we focus on directions from the code you can ask that you are available parking lot.
    [Show full text]
  • Directions to Mount Washington Auto Road
    Directions To Mount Washington Auto Road sulphatesSuperstitious some and blahs randie after Toby sexist never Hammad doats actinally manuring when dismally. Freeman Monitorial oxidizes Lucius his deys. retitle Subadult insularly. Niall Price includes a nice breakfast. Native American business man. See Mother Goose, Humpty Dumpty and many more field book favorites that both accept and parents can collect together. Is Mt Washington Auto Road dangerous The prone is dangerous Not recommended to newbies Along half way you'll have to revenge with some dangerous dropoffs. Scary but fun Review provided The Mount Washington Cog Railway. For information about hiking in the region, visit hikesafe. How word does fibre take to drive clamp Mount Washington Auto Road? Tons of mount agamenticus park visitors set up mt washington hotel reopened after negotiating piles of white mountains east, united states on time if your safety. The mount washington. Maine pour la maison du maine, used for directions. Observer Comments Mount Washington Observatory. He some how aid money the Auto Road or the Carriage known as it. After that daunting portion of the antique is over, the steep climb continues to Long Trestle. May 16 2015 Drive on up the Mt Washington Auto Road America's first manmade attraction or leave a guided tour to the 62 ft summit find the winter. The views were absolutely stunning in every direction as care as minor eye not see. Mount Washington Cog Railroad Base plate Mount Washington NH 1-00-922-25. Dogsledding is a car friendly activity that is then during the winter months in the Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln History
    LINCOLN HISTORY 1764 Governor Benning Wentworth, the royal Governor of the Province of New Hampshire, granted 24,000 acres of land to James Avery of Norwich, Connecticut, and 64 of his relatives and friends. The Lincoln Charter was signed on January 31, 1764. Lincoln was named after Henry Fiennes Pelham-Clinton, 2nd Duke of Newcastle, 9th Earl of Lincoln, a Wentworth cousin. On the same day, Governor Wentworth signed a similar charter granting the adjoining town of Landaff to Avery and others. Avery and his associates made large investments in New Hampshire lands grants. However, none of the grantees ever lived in Lincoln let alone fulfill the conditions of the Charter which required that 5 of every 50 acres be cultivated within 5 years (1769). 1772 Governor John Wentworth declared the Lincoln Charter forfeited and re-granted Lincoln, along with most of Franconia, to Sir Francis Bernard and others. The name of this new township was Morristown, in honor of one of the grantees. 1774 Nathan Kinsman of Concord, N.H., a hatter and physician, bought 400 acres of land from William Broughton of Fairlee, VT, who had acquired the rights from one of the original grantees of Morristown. The cost was 60 pounds. 1782 Nathan Kinsman and his wife Mercy (Wheeler) moved to Lincoln, then called Morristown. He was joined by Nathan and Amos Wheeler and John and Thomas Hatch. According to the Federal Census of 1790, these 5 families, 22 inhabitants total, comprised the total population of Morristown. The area in which they settled was known as Lincoln Gore under the western slopes of the mountain to which Nathan gave his name.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the Officers of the Town of Conway, New Hampshire
    NEW CONWAY HAMPSHIRE Annual Report J962 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 with funding from Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/conwaynewhampshi1962conw ANNUAL REPORT of the Officers of the Town of CONWAY New Hampshire for the fiscal year ending -- 19 62 -- Reporter Press, North Conway, N. H. MH CONTENTS TOWN OFFICERS 3 TOWN WARRANT 4 TOWN BUDGET 8 SELECTMEN'S REPORT 12 Inventory 12 Tax Rate 12 Appropriations 13 Estimated Revenues and Credits 14 TOWN PROPERTY 15 GENERAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION 16 HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES 22 POLICE DEPARTMENT 34 FOREST FIRE WARDEN'S REPORT 36 STATE AUDIT REPORT 37 Exhibit A-1 41 Exhibit A-2 ' 44 Exhibit A-3 (Comparative Statement) 45 Exhibit A-4 48 Exhibit B-1 50 Exhibit B-2 54 Exhibit C-1 55 Exhibit C-2 57 Exhibit C-3 57 Exhibit C-4 . 58 Exhibit D 59 Exhibit E 60 Exhibit F . 61 Exhibit G 62 Exhibit H 63 Exhibit I 64 REPORT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 65 District Officers 66 School District Meeting, March 17, 1962 67 Financial Report 71 Report of School Treasurer 74 School Lunch Program 75 School Budget ..._ 76 TRUST FUNDS 97 VITAL STATISTICS - 100 2 TOWN OFFICERS Selectmen CARROLL A. HILL Term Expires 1963 North Conway THADDEUS THORNE Term Expires 1964 Center Conway CHESTER R. BALLOU Term Expires 1965 Conway Town Manager CHARLES E. DAVIDSON Center Conway Clerk and Collector HENRY E. HILL Con\^'ay Treasurer MELLEN B. BENSON Conway Moderator BURNHAM B. DAVIS Conway Auditors Municipal Accounting Division of the State Tax Commission Supervisors ROGER S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Transportation
    Chapter 4 Transportation Chapter 4 Transportation 1.0 INTRODUCTION Gorham’s transportation system is an important component of the quality of life and economic vitality of the community and the region. This is evident in Gorham’s regulation of land use and in its investments in the expansion of its infrastructure, both of which play an important role in the evolution of development patterns. Therefore, attention must be given to the impact that public policies have on the interconnected land use and transportation systems. This chapter provides guidance, context, and recommendations for addressing current and future transportation needs. To be consistent with the community’s vision, the goal in this section is to strive to meet all of the various transportation needs, while still maintaining and enhancing the environment and quality of life of Gorham. The transportation infrastructure must be designed to serve local needs, must be compatible with local land use and community character, while also accommodating regional transportation needs. Gorham has a number of transportation systems operating within its borders. While dominated by the automobile, much of the downtown is conducive to walking and bicycling. Residents’ and visitors’ inter-regional transportation needs are served by automobiles and Route 16 South – Gorham, New Hampshire limited bus service. U.S. Route 2 passes through the center of Gorham and serves most of the local traffic in the community, but it is also a major truck transportation route between Canada and the Atlantic seaboard. Downtown traffic is often considered intrusive and, at times, congested. This is due to several contributing factors: the Town is an employment center; there are currently few alternatives to the automobile for addressing the transportation needs of local residents or visitors; and Gorham's limited local road network is also part of the commuting and commerce system for the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impacts of the 13 Mile Woods Community Forest in Errol, New Hampshire
    Economic Impacts of the 13 Mile Woods Community Forest in Errol, New Hampshire Prepared for the Community Forest Collaborative By Elizabeth Reaves and Marta Ceroni Donella Meadows Institute (for Green Compass LLC), 2 Beaver Meadows Road, Norwich, VT 05055 [email protected], 802-432-8930 1 Acknowledgements This work is a reflection of the generosity of many people who gave their time, shared their knowledge, and continue to work hard to support the Town of Errol, the 13 Mile Woods Community Forest, and the Community Forest Ownership Model. In particular, the authors would like to acknowledge 13 Mile Woods Association members Bill Freedman, Charlie Kurtz, and Pierre Rousseau as well as New Hampshire Fish and Game Region 1, Wildlife Biologist, Will Staats, Fisheries Biologist, Diane Timmins, and Wildlife Programs Supervisor, Kent Gustafson. Phoebe Backler provided great insight into the economic benefits of paddlers along the Northern Forest Canoe Trail. Greg Ainsworth, Consulting Forester for the 13 Mile Woods provided timber harvest data and knowledge about the past, present, and future of the forest industry in New Hampshire. Special thanks to Julie Renaud Evans, Director of Forestry for The Northern Forest Center. Julie provided invaluable knowledge, time, and resources about the benefits of community ownership of forestland and insight into the unique and special ecological, recreation, and timber stocking attributes of the 13 Mile Woods Community Forest. J.T. Horn, Project Manager for The Trust for Public Land, provided great insight into the unique qualities of the Great North Woods, perspective on the history of forest ownership and management in New England and the balance between conservation and working land, the process involved in the purchase of the 13 Mile Woods parcels, and the role The Trust for Public Land played in the process.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-0302, Bellevue Properties, Inc. V. Town of Conway & A
    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by e-mail at the following address: [email protected]. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court’s home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Carroll No. 2019-0302 BELLEVUE PROPERTIES, INC. v. TOWN OF CONWAY & a. Argued: May 27, 2020 Opinion Issued: August 25, 2020 Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, P.A., of Manchester (Roy W. Tilsley, Jr. and Christina A. Ferrari on the brief, and Mr. Tilsley orally), for the plaintiff. Hastings Malia P.A., of Fryeburg, Maine (Peter J. Malia, Jr. on the brief and orally), for defendant Town of Conway. Sulloway & Hollis, P.L.L.C., of Concord (Derek D. Lick orally), for defendants 13 Green Street Properties, LLC, 1675 W.M.H., LLC, and Settlers’ R2, Inc., joined in the brief of Town of Conway. DONOVAN, J. The plaintiff, Bellevue Properties, Inc., appeals an order of the Superior Court (Ignatius, J.), affirming the Town of Conway’s decision to discontinue a public way that provides access to the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff argues that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard to evaluate the Town’s decision and erred in concluding that the Town’s interests in discontinuing the road outweighed the plaintiff’s interest in its continuance.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen Participation, Transportation Corridor Planning and The
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Michele Lee Craig for the Degree of Doctorate of Education in Learning, Leadership and Community Presented on October 12, 2011 Title: Citizen Participation, Transportation Corridor Planning and the Intersection with Land Use Planning in New Hampshire Communities: What are the Best Practices? Abstract Approved: ________________________________________________________________________ Kathleen Norris, Dissertation Committee Chair This research tested thirteen Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) principles, as outlined in Stamatiadis et al (2009). Principles were tested with two New Hampshire corridor planning processes: Route 16 and I-93/CTAP. Through content analysis, web surveys and interviews, a determination was made regarding whether the two projects utilized the principles, and to what extent in the data sources. Both projects demonstrated evidence in at least two data sources for eleven of thirteen principles. However, participants had very different perceptions of how these principles were implemented. This study provides groundwork for the development of a checklist that can be used in corridor planning processes, to ensure these processes are collaborative and incorporate the needs and values of stakeholders and the broader public. ©Copyright by Michele Lee Craig December 2011 All Rights Reserved Citizen Participation, Transportation Corridor Planning and the Intersection with Land Use Planning in New Hampshire Communities: What are the Best Practices? By Michele Lee Craig A DISSERTATION Submitted
    [Show full text]
  • Spaulding Turnpike Welcome Center Feasibility Study
    Spaulding Turnpike Welcome Center Feasibility Study Presented to Bureau of Turnpikes Prepared by October 24, 2018 Table of Contents Section 1: Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2: Purpose and Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 Section 3: Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Section 4: Parcel Location Identification ...................................................................................................... 4 Section 4.1: Parcel Identification Methodology ....................................................................................... 4 Section 4.2: Candidate Parcels ................................................................................................................. 5 Section 4.3: Location Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 16 Section 5: Site Layouts and Financial Assessment .................................................................................... 17 Section 5.1: Conceptual Layout............................................................................................................... 17 Section 5.2: Site Cost Estimate...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]