3.8 ECONOMIC IMPACTS

3.8.1 Existing Conditions

Lincoln and Lancaster County have experienced a growing and prosperous economy, resulting in the sustained population growth, employment and aggregate income observed over the past three decades. The City has continually expanded the area of the urban service area to meet the demands for new residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and recreational land uses.

3.8.2 Impacts of the Four Finalist Alternatives

Construction Cost. The preliminary construction cost estimates are summarized in Table 3.9. Costs are within 8 percent of each other for the end-to-end beltways, and within 14 percent for the stand alone east beltway alternatives. This is within the 20 percent contingency contained in all cost estimates. It should be noted that the common interchange at N-2 results in a $12 million cost savings with the EM-1 alternative which is not realized with the other two east alternatives. In contrast, the SM-4/EC-1 alternative requires two interchanges at N-2, one

0.8 km (0.5 mi) east of 98^th Street and the other at 120^th Street. The two N-2 interchanges for the SM-4/EF-1 alternative are located at 120^th Street and 0.8 km (0.5 mi) east of 134^th Street.

Cost Effectiveness and Economic Efficiency. Construction of the beltway involves commitment of fiscal resources, requiring a substantial expenditure of public funds. The commitment of these funds is based on the idea that residents of Lincoln and Lancaster County, as well as travelers through the region, would benefit by improving the quality of the transportation system. The economic benefits are those derived from increased transportation efficiency. Transportation cost savings that result from improvements to a corridor are true benefits to society as a whole. When travelers experience time savings, greater safety, or reduced vehicle operating costs, their gain is not offset by losses to other people. From an economic standpoint, these cost savings are the same as a direct increase in income by making resources available for other purposes. Based on the economic analyses in Sections 2.4.4, 2.4.5 and 2.3.6, all four of the beltway alternatives were considered to be cost-effective and to provide substantial road user benefits, including travel-time savings, vehicle operating cost savings, and accident reduction savings. These benefits are considered to outweigh the commitment of financial resources.

Property Values. Currently, the Stevens Creek Basin Initiative is proceeding on development of a land use plan for the east beltway area. It is unknown at this time whether the subarea plan will or will not include development along the east beltway alignment. (No similar effort has been initiated for the south). Although no proposed land use plan has been developed for a beltway scenario, property values in the vicinity of a freeway typically increase, especially at the interchanges. This would result in greater net gain in tax revenue over existing conditions, or with loss of tax base from acquisition of public right-of-way. If a land use plan is developed with a no growth scenario, property values would not be expected to increase as dramatically.

Tax Revenue. Based on average County tax valuations, the acquisition of private property to construct an end-to-end beltway would remove up to $3.8 million from the County property tax base, and reduce annual property tax revenue for the County by an estimated $100,000. This amount is far less than 1 percent of the annual property tax revenues in the County.

Acquisition Costs. Construction cost estimates for acquisition of right-of-way, residences and businesses are substantially higher than the average County tax valuations. For the purposes of this study, acquisition costs were estimated at are $10.3 million for SM-4, $16.3 million for EC-1, $12.1 million for EM-1, and $13.9 million for EF-1 (see Tables 2.16 and 2.17).

3.8.3 Proposed Mitigation

No mitigation is proposed.

3.8.4 No Build Alternative

The no build alternative will avoid commitment of fiscal resources for a beltway, but will require further investment for the existing arterial street system which may include widening streets. This is in addition to that required for construction of the proposed future roadway network improvements.