LAKE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY Ticket and Transportation Center Walt Disney / Reedy Creek Improvement District CR 535 John Young Parkway 441 17 92 Florida s Turnpike VE 92 mee Hall JOHN YOUNG PKY 192 OAK ST 27 Osceola Regional Medical Center 17 92 ETTE ST MABBETTE ST. T STREET ounty use ment POLK COUNTY VE OSCEOLA COUNTY Irlo Bronson Memorial way CENTRAL AVE. OBT MAIN ST CHURCH ST. EMMETT ST 92 17 Downtown CRA SMITH ST 192 EAST OAK STREET Kissimmee AMTRAK Station BLVD MICHIGAN AVE World Drive Celebration Lake Bryan US 192 Alternatives Analysis ORANGE COUNTY OSCEOLA COUNTY Tier 2 Screening and Selection522 192 of the Short List Alternatives Lake Cecile Celebration 4 Health OCTOBER 2012 OSCEOLA CORRIDOR Poinciana Blvd. 17 Poinciana Station 92 Osceola Pkwy Osceola Square Super Stop Hoagland Blvd. Kissimmee Airport Pleasant Hill Rd. 531 17 92 CRA Orange Blossom Trail Florida Hospital Kissimmee KISSIMMEE Osceola Regional Medical Center 527 Kissimmee AMTRAK Station Lake Tohopekaliga Osceol Parkwa Station KISSIMMEE CORRIDOR
(THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives T Table of Contents Introduction... 1 1.1 Introduction and Background... 1 Evaluation Methodology... 3 2.1 Alternatives Evaluation Process... 3 2.2 Alternatives Evaluation Methodology... 3 2.3 Tier Two Screening Methodology: Long List to Short List of Alternatives Evaluation. 4 Tier Two Screening... 7 3.1 Tier One Screening Results and Selection of Long List Alternatives... 7 3.2 Tier Two Screening... 11 Next Steps... 19 4.1 Next Steps... 19 Table No. Description Page Table 3 1: Final Long List of Alternatives... 7 Table 3 2: Consolidated Final Long List of Alternatives... 10 Table 3 3: Tier Two Evaluation of Consolidated Long List Alternatives... 13 Table 3 4: Tier Two Evaluation Summary by Goal... 16 Appendix A Goals and Objectives Appendix B Long List of Alternatives (LLA) Maps Table of Contents
(THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction and Background This technical memorandum continues the alternative evaluation and screening process described in the Task 5 Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development Technical Memorandum ( Task 5 Technical Memorandum ). That memorandum described the three tiered process used to define, evaluate and progressively screen the range of alternatives that can reasonably satisfy the US 192 Alternatives Analysis Study s purpose, need and established goals and objectives. The three tiered alternative development and screening process will conclude with the recommendation of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). This memorandum describes the Tier Two screening of the Long List of Alternatives (LLA) to a Short List of Alternatives (SLA). Fact Sheets detailing the LLA were provided in the Task 5 Technical Memorandum. Data from these Fact Sheets informed the Tier Two screening presented herein. The SLA will be further developed and detailed in a subsequent technical memorandum. The LLA is comprised of all reasonable transportation solutions to address the needs identified in the Purpose and Need Statement. Each of the alternatives in the Long List has been developed to support the five project goals that have been developed and documented in the Goals and Objectives for the Study: 1. Improve mobility and transportation access; 2. Enhance the livability and economic competitiveness of the Study Area through an improved transportation system; 3. Develop the most efficient transportation system, which maximizes limited resources for the greatest public benefit; 4. Develop a transit system consistent with adopted local and regional plans and policies; and 5. Preserve and enhance the environment, natural resources and open space. Each of the alternatives was developed to a consistent level of detail that allows for comparison and evaluation during the Tier Two Screening. Introduction 1
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 Introduction
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives 2 Evaluation Methodology 2.1 Alternatives Evaluation Process The alternatives evaluation process is the method by which project alternatives are developed, evaluated, and either advanced or eliminated from further consideration. The process is designed to narrow the number of considered alternatives as the level of detail describing the alternatives increases. The ultimate objective of this process is the recommendation of the selection of a single alternative for advancement: the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). It is critical that the evaluation process is developed and conducted collaboratively so that stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute to the process. This consultation ensures defensible screening results, widespread support of the alternatives, and an efficient progression to the next level of alternative development and evaluation. The Evaluation Methodology describes this process including the criteria that will be applied to the alternatives to identify which alternatives will advance, and the documentation that will support the ultimate selection of a LPA. Proper documentation of the process is critical so that eliminated alternatives do not re emerge at later phases of project development. 2.2 Alternatives Evaluation Methodology The US 192 Alternatives Analysis evaluation process is comprised of three tiers of alternative development and screening. At each tier, a rating system is defined that will be used to implement the screening. The rating system includes criteria that reflect the level of development of the alternatives; these criteria may be weighted based upon their importance in achieving the project s goals and objectives (Appendix A). The project s goals and objectives are included in Appendix A. The three tier process will be used to screen: 1. A range of transportation technologies to identify those modal technologies which are appropriate to be considered as transportation solutions in the Study Area. The modal technologies that advance beyond the Tier One Screening are used in the development of the LLA; 2. From the LLA to a SLA; and Evaluation Methodology 3
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives 3. Ultimately, from the SLA to a recommended LPA. 1 Each evaluation phase will be linked and will show the gradual progression from a qualitative to a quantitative evaluation of each alternative. Values or ranges of values will be assigned to each criterion/measure at each screening level so that scores for each candidate technology and subsequent alternative can be developed. Alternatives whose scores do not meet a defined threshold will be eliminated. The Tier One Screening Methodology and Results were presented in the Task 5 Technical Memorandum. 2.3 Tier Two Screening Methodology: Long List to Short List of Alternatives Evaluation The Tier Two screening incorporates a more comprehensive level of qualitative criteria with some quantitative criteria, tied to the goals and objectives, including a range of costs, travel time and potential environmental impacts. This screening includes a range of values for each criterion, identified in Table 2 1, which was applied to each Long List Alternative. For example: Criterion: Implementation Timeframe = Alternative can be fully implemented in 3 5 years Medium= Alternative can be fully implemented in 5 10 years =Alternative can be fully implemented in 10+ years The criteria associated with each of the five goals were then consolidated to develop a single score for each alternative for a given goal. This score reflects the overall ability of the alternative to achieve the project goal. Based on the alternatives scores against each of the five goals, an overall score was developed. 1 The screening will result in the recommendation of a Locally Preferred Alternative. Selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative will be informed by public input and will ultimately be at the direction of project decisionmakers, including MetroPlan Orlando, responsible for adopting the LPA into the fiscally constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). 4 Evaluation Methodology
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Table 2 1: Tier Two Screening Criteria PROJECT GOAL TIER TWO CRITERIA Improve Mobility and Order of magnitude travel time savings Transportation Access Number of potential transfer locations Number of proposed routes in Study Area Potential to serve employee/student commute and recreational trips Ability to provide system redundancy Ability to open/attract new markets to transit service Potential to increase average travel speed of all modes in corridor Enhance the Livability and Economic Competitiveness Potential need for right of way acquisition of the Study Area through an Improved Transportation Ability to serve major residential and employment centers directly System Ability to directly serve proposed DRIs Develop the Most Efficient Transportation System, Which Maximizes Limited Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit Develop a Transit System Consistent With Adopted Local and Regional Plans and Policies Preserve and Enhance the Environment, Natural Resources and Open Space Order of magnitude capital cost Order of magnitude operating and maintenance (O&M) cost Serves SunRail with a mix of route types (express and local) Compatibility with existing fleet and facilities Ability to implement project in stages Implementation timeframe Consistency with adopted plans Builds upon previous/current LYNX planning efforts Consistency with CRA objectives Potential to support compact development Potential to use low emission fleet Potential to impact sensitive environmental areas The No Build Alternative, the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative and the three Build Alternatives that are rated the highest after the evaluation will be advanced to the Short List of Alternatives for further development and evaluation. All other alternatives will be eliminated from further consideration. Reasons for elimination will be documented. Evaluation Methodology 5
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6 Evaluation Methodology
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives 3 Tier Two Screening 3.1 Tier One Screening Results and Selection of Long List Alternatives Each of the four technologies that advanced past the Tier One screening bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail, and streetcar was further developed to formulate the Long List of Alternatives (LLA) which includes potential routes, alignments, stations and service patterns. A No Build Alternative was developed and will be included in the Alternatives Analysis as a basis of comparison with the TSM and Build alternatives. The Long List of Alternatives was described in detail in the Task 5 Technical Memorandum and was presented to the project s Project Advisory Working Group Steering Group, the Project Advisory Working Group Community Liaison Group and the public. Based upon the feedback from this outreach, the Long List of Alternatives was finalized. Table 3 1 provides a summary. For reference, maps of the LLA from the Task 5 Technical Memorandum are included as Appendix B to this memorandum. Table 3 1: Final Long List of Alternatives Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern Alternative 0 1 No Build Committed, funded transportation infrastructure improvements in 2013 2017 TIP Committed, funded transit service improvements in the LYNX TDP Alternative 1 1 TSM Alternative 2 1 Alternative 2 2 cost Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and intersection improvements Queue jumps, TSP, offboard Queue jumps, TSP, offboard Local and Express Bus service; +/ 15 min. some route modifications Three route skip stop service; 15 min. Four route zone express; 15 min. Tier Two Screening 7
Table 3 1, cont. Alternative 2 3 Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern US 192; US 441; Osceola Parkway Alternative 2 4 Alternative 2 5 Alternative 2 6 Alternative 2 7 Alternative 2 8 US 192; US 441; Osceola Parkway Queue jumps, TSP, offboard Some dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, off board Some dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, off board Some dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, off board Full length dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, offboard Full length dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, offboard Four route zone express; 15 min. Three route skip stop service; 15 min. Four route zone express; 15 min. Four route zone express; 15 min. Three route skip stop service; 15 min. Four route zone express; 15 min. 8 Tier Two Screening
Table 3 1, cont. Alternative 2 9 Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern US 192; US 441; Osceola Parkway Alternative 3 1 with Streetcar Alternative 4 1 Light Rail Transit Alternative 4 2 Light Rail Transit Alternative 4 3 Light Rail Transit Alternative 4 4 Light Rail Transit US 192 US 192 Full length dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, offboard Preferred BRT infrastructure 2 on US 192 with Kissimmee/ US 441 Streetcar circulator Partial dedicated guideway and mixed traffic alignment with TSP; off board fare collection; substantial stations Partial dedicated guideway and mixed traffic alignment with TSP; off board fare collection; substantial stations Full dedicated guideway on US 192; off board fare collection; substantial stations Full dedicated guideway on US 192 and Osceola Parkway; off board fare collection; substantial stations Four route zone express; 15 min. Preferred BRT service plan 3 with multi stop Kissimmee Circulator; 15 min. minimum headway; local bus overlay Single route all stop service (15 min. minimum headway); and express feeders/distributors Three routes all stop service, (15 min. minimum headway); Single route all stop service; local bus overlay and express feeders/distributors Three routes all stop service, (15 min. minimum headway); Subsequent to the development of the Long List Alternatives, it was concluded that sufficient information is not yet available to differentiate between the two BRT proposed service plans (skip stop or zone express). As such, the Tier Two Screening will be applied to the consolidated Long List Alternatives presented in Table 3 2. The two proposed BRT service plans will be further developed and a preferred service plan will be applied to each Short List Alternative in Task 8. 2 Preferred BRT infrastructure would be the most effective infrastructure selected from the nine BRT alternatives with modifications to incorporate streetcar circulator 3 Preferred BRT service plan would be the most effective infrastructure selected from the nine BRT alternatives with modifications to incorporate streetcar circulator Tier Two Screening 9
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Table 3 2: Consolidated Final Long List of Alternatives Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern Alternative 0 1 No Build Committed, funded transportation infrastructure improvements in 2013 2017 TIP Committed, funded transit service improvements in the LYNX TDP Alternative 1 1 TSM Consolidated Alternative 2 1/2 2 Alternative 2 3 Consolidated Alternative 2 4/2 5 Alternative 2 6 Consolidated Alternative 2 7/2 8 Alternative 2 9 US 192; US 441; Osceola Parkway US 192; US 441; Osceola Parkway US 192; US 441; Osceola Parkway cost Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and intersection improvements Queue jumps, TSP, off board fare collection, substantial stations; branded buses Queue jumps, TSP, off board fare collection, substantial stations; branded buses Some dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, offboard Some dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, offboard Full length dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, offboard Full length dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, offboard Local and Express Bus service; +/ 15 min. minimum headway; some route modifications Zone express or skip stop service; 15 min. Four route zone express; 15 min. Zone express or skip stop service; 15 min. Four route zone express; 15 min. Zone express or skip stop service; 15 min. Four route zone express; 15 min. 10 Tier Two Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Table 3 2, cont. Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern Alternative 3 1 with Streetcar Preferred BRT infrastructure 4 on US 192 with Kissimmee/ US 441 Streetcar circulator Preferred BRT service plan 5 with multi stop Kissimmee Circulator; 15 min. Alternative 4 1 Light Rail Transit Alternative 4 2 Light Rail Transit Alternative 4 3 Light Rail Transit Alternative 4 4 Light Rail Transit US 192 US 192 Partial dedicated guideway and mixed traffic alignment with TSP; off board fare collection; substantial stations Partial dedicated guideway and mixed traffic alignment with TSP; off board fare collection; substantial stations Full dedicated guideway on US 192; off board fare collection; substantial stations Full dedicated guideway on US 192 and Osceola Parkway; off board fare collection; substantial stations Single route all stop service (15 min. minimum headway); and express feeders/distributors Three routes all stop service, (15 min. minimum headway); Single route all stop service; local bus overlay and express feeders/distributors Three routes all stop service, (15 min. minimum headway); 3.2 Tier Two Screening The goal of the Tier Two screening was to qualitatively evaluate the Consolidated Long List Alternatives and select the alternatives that best meet the project s purpose and need. The determination of which alternatives satisfy this goal is made by evaluating each of the Consolidated Long List Alternatives against the Tier Two Screening criteria, which are based upon the project s goals and objectives. Alternative 0 1 (No Build) and Alternative 1 1 (TSM) are benchmark alternatives against which the Short List Alternatives will be compared to select the Locally Preferred Alternative. As such, the No Build and TSM alternatives automatically qualify as Short List Alternatives 4 Preferred BRT infrastructure would be the most effective infrastructure selected from the nine BRT alternatives with modifications to incorporate streetcar circulator 5 Preferred BRT service plan would be the most effective infrastructure selected from the nine BRT alternatives with modifications to incorporate streetcar circulator Tier Two Screening 11
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives and were not evaluated against the Tier Two criteria. It is possible that the No Build or TSM Alternatives could be selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative after the Tier Three Screening. The remaining eleven build alternatives (Alternative 2 1 through Alternative 4 4) on the Consolidated Long List were evaluated against the criteria. Each alternative was given a rating of (effectively satisfies the criterion), Medium (partially satisfies the criterion) or (does not effectively satisfy the criterion) for each of the Tier Two criteria. The alternatives that received the highest ratings in meeting the five project goals were advanced to the Short List. Table 3 3 presents the results by criteria and Table 3 4 includes a summary of the results by goal. 12 Tier Two Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Table 3 3: Tier Two Evaluation of Consolidated Long List Alternatives Consolidated Long List Alternatives Tier Two Criteria (BRT) BRT+Streetcar Light Rail Alt. 2 1/2 2 Alt. 2 3 Alt. 2 4/2 5 Alt. 2 6 Alt. 2 7/2 8 Alt. 2 9 Alt. 3 1 Alt. 4 1 Alt. 4 2 Alt. 4 3 Alt. 4 4 Goal 1: Improve Mobility and Transportation Access Order of magnitude travel time savings Number of potential transfer locations Number of proposed routes in Study Area Potential to serve employee/student commute & recreational trips Ability to provide system redundancy Ability to open/attract new markets to transit service Potential to increase average travel speed of all modes in corridor SUMMARY GOAL 1 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Goal 2: Enhance the Livability and Economic Competitiveness of the Study Area through an Improved Transportation System Potential need for right of way acquisition Ability to serve major residential and employment centers directly Ability to directly serve proposed DRIs SUMMARY GOAL 2 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Tier Two Screening 13
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Table 3 3, cont. Consolidated Long List Alternatives Tier Two Criteria (BRT) BRT+Streetcar Light Rail Alt. 2 1/2 2 Alt. 2 3 Alt. 2 4/2 5 Alt. 2 6 Alt. 2 7/2 8 Alt. 2 9 Alt. 3 1 Alt. 4 1 Alt. 4 2 Alt. 4 3 Alt. 4 4 Goal 3: Develop the Most Efficient Transportation System, Which Maximizes Limited Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit Order of magnitude capital cost Order of magnitude operating and maintenance (O&M) cost Serves SunRail with a mix of route types (express and local) Compatibility with existing fleet and facilities Ability to implement project in stages Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Implementation timeframe Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium SUMMARY GOAL 3 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Goal 4: Develop a Transit System Consistent With Adopted Local and Regional Plans and Policies Consistency with adopted plans Builds upon previous/current LYNX planning efforts Consistency with CRA objectives Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Potential to support compact development Medium Medium Medium Medium SUMMARY GOAL 4 Medium Medium Medium Medium 14 Tier Two Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Table 3 3, cont. Consolidated Long List Alternatives Tier Two Criteria (BRT) BRT+Streetcar Light Rail Alt. 2 1/2 2 Alt. 2 3 Alt. 2 4/2 5 Alt. 2 6 Alt. 2 7/2 8 Alt. 2 9 Alt. 3 1 Alt. 4 1 Alt. 4 2 Alt. 4 3 Alt. 4 4 Goal 5: Preserve and Enhance the Environment, Natural Resources and Open Space Potential to use low emission fleet Potential to impact sensitive environmental areas SUMMARY GOAL 5 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium OVERALL EVALUATION Medium PASS TO SHORT LIST Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No No Tier Two Screening 15
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Table 3 4: Tier Two Evaluation Summary by Goal Tier Two Criteria GOAL 1: Improve Mobility and Transportation Access GOAL 2: Enhance the Livability and Economic Competitiveness of the Study Area through an Improved Transportation System GOAL 3: Develop the Most Efficient Transportation System, Which Maximizes Limited Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit GOAL 4: Develop a Transit System Consistent With Adopted Local and Regional Plans and Policies GOAL 5: Preserve and Enhance the Environment, Natural Resources and Open Space OVERALL EVALUATION Consolidated Long List Alternatives (BRT) BRT+Streetcar Light Rail Alt. 2 1/2 2 Alt. 2 3 Alt. 2 4/2 5 Alt. 2 6 Alt. 2 7/2 8 Alt. 2 9 Alt. 3 1 Alt. 4 1 Alt. 4 2 Alt. 4 3 Alt. 4 4 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium PASS TO SHORT LIST Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No No Medium 16 Tier Two Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives The (BRT) alternatives are differentiated by alignments that would include east west transit service on US 192 and alignments that would split east west transit service between US 192 and Osceola Parkway. Additionally, the alternatives are differentiated by infrastructure improvements that will affect travel time. The BRT alternatives that would provide east west service on US 192 alone (Alts. 2 1/2 2, Alts. 2 4/2 5 and Alts. 2 7 and 2 8) scored better against land use and planning consistency goals (Goals 2 and 4) because these alternatives would directly serve the US 192 businesses, Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs) and Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs). The BRT alternatives that would split the planned east west service routings between US 192 and Osceola Parkway (Alts. 2 3, 2 6 and 2 9) would limit access for some riders to the existing and planned land uses on US 192. Since none of the Osceola Parkway routes would stop on Osceola Parkway, they would also fail to attract new markets along their route. Therefore, Alternatives 2 3, 2 6 and 2 9 received lower evaluations than the alternatives with east west service on US 192 exclusively. The BRT alternatives (Alts. 2 4/2 5 and Alts. 2 7/2 8) that would provide partial or full length dedicated bus lanes on US 192 would result in the highest mobility benefits. These benefits would be partially offset by higher capital costs and longer implementation timeframes. It was assumed through initial qualitative assessments that existing right of way is available for these dedicated facilities (either existing lanes or new lanes). Thus, property would not need to be acquired and environmental impacts would not be expected to be significant. Overall, when considering all five goals, the pros and cons of the alternatives with dedicated bus lanes offset each other and thus these alternatives were evaluated equal with the alternatives that just provide TSP/queue jump infrastructure (2 1/2 2). All the BRT alternatives would require a transfer from some or all stations between the Kissimmee Intermodal Facility (KIF) and Celebration to access Four Corners or Walt Disney World (WDW). In addition all of the BRT alternatives would require a transfer between the Osceola Parkway SunRail station and Four Corners. In summary, the BRT alternatives 2 1/2 2, 2 4/2 5 and 2 7/2 8 were scored as overall for the five goals. BRT alternatives 2 3, 2 6 and 2 9 were scored as overall. These alternatives include service along Osceola Parkway and scored lower than the other BRT alternatives. This is a reflection of their inability to effectively satisfy the Tier Two criteria and thus the project s goals and objectives (in particular those related to consistency with adopted plans and policies promoting redevelopment and infrastructure investment along the US 192 corridor). and Streetcar Since Alternative 3 1 assumed combined results of the considered BRT alternatives, the evaluation of this alternative focused on its differentiating feature: the streetcar element. Since the streetcar would require an electric propulsion system, new substations would be required to power that system. Additionally, the streetcar would be a new vehicle type for LYNX and would require acquisition of new vehicles as well as a new storage and maintenance facility. In addition to these capital investments, the track infrastructure for a streetcar would be an added capital cost not required by the BRT alternatives. The streetcar element would also add operating and maintenance costs (over the BRT vehicles). The complexity of the installation of the track in the roadway right of way and propulsion infrastructure would result in a longer implementation timeframe for this alternative as compared with the BRT only alternatives. This alternative would require all of the transfers Tier Two Screening 17
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives described for the BRT alternatives as well as an additional transfer between the BRT vehicle and the streetcar circulator within Kissimmee. Therefore, this alternative received an overall evaluation of Medium, reflecting its lower effectiveness at meeting the project goals as compared with the BRT only alternatives. Light Rail Alternatives The Light Rail Transit (LRT) alternatives are differentiated by single route alternatives (Alts. 4 1 and 4 3) and multi route alternatives (4 2 and 4 4). The alternatives with a single route (4 1 and 4 3) require a transfer for all riders to access WDW and the Osceola Parkway SunRail station. The LRT alternatives with multiple routes provide full one seat ride access (no transfers) for all the stations between KIF and Celebration to WDW and Four Corners and thus they were evaluated higher for this criterion than the single route alternatives. Since the BRT alternatives would all require some transfers, Alternatives 4 2 and 4 4 would provide better service and connectivity. The LRT alternatives are also differentiated by infrastructure, with Alternatives 4 1 and 4 2 providing a single track with passing sidings in some locations and Alternatives 4 3 and 4 4 providing double track throughout. The alternatives with double track would have better travel times, system capacity and system redundancy. However, like the streetcar alternative (but to a greater extent) the LRT alternatives will all require a traction power system with substations, new vehicles, a new storage and maintenance facility and track. In addition, the LRT alternatives would require substantial stations which would be larger and more complex than the potential BRT stations. The LRT alternatives would require a train control (signal) system. These elements would result in a higher capital cost than the BRT and BRT + Streetcar alternatives. Additionally, the LRT alternatives would have a higher operating and maintenance cost. Though the LRT alternatives would result in the greatest travel time savings of all the alternatives, they would require new right of way, would take longer to implement and would be less flexible at serving land uses directly. The LRT alternatives also are not consistent with previous planning efforts, which have recommended BRT infrastructure for the Study Area. Thus, the LRT alternatives were evaluated lower than the BRT and BRT + Streetcar alternatives, with overall evaluations. Selection of Short List Alternatives As a result of the evaluation, the Tier Two screening results in the advancement of the top three rated build alternatives to the Short List. The No Build and TSM alternatives complete the Short List. The Short List Alternatives are: No Build Alternative 0 1: Make no improvements beyond those already committed; TSM Alternative 1 1: Improve the existing bus system with transit signal priority, queue jumps and service modifications but make no additional capital investments; Alternatives 2 1/2 2: BRT service and infrastructure with transit signal priority and queue jumps; Alternatives 2 4/2 5: BRT service and infrastructure with transit signal priority, queue jumps and dedicated bus lanes for part of the US 192 alignment; and Alternatives 2 7/2 8: BRT service and infrastructure with transit signal priority, queue jumps and dedicated bus lanes for the full US 192 alignment. The following alternatives are eliminated from further consideration: BRT Alternatives 2 3, 2 6 and 2 9; BRT + Streetcar Alternative 3 1; and LRT Alternatives 4 1, 4 2, 4 3 and 4 4. 18 Tier Two Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives 4 Next Steps 4.1 Next Steps The following are the next steps in the evaluation of alternatives, progressing toward a single recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Refinement of Short List Alternatives The Short List of Alternatives resulting from the Tier Two screening will be defined in greater detail, with refinements made to transit service and infrastructure characteristics. Additional data collection and analysis will also be completed to further define each alternative, addressing the following issues: Transit service schedules Fleet analysis Conceptual engineering of transit infrastructure and stations Fare and fare collection assessment Capital costs Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs Ridership Analysis Ridership estimates will be developed for each of the Short List alternatives based on the service and infrastructure characteristics associated with the refined alternatives. Metrics generated through the ridership analysis will be incorporated into the Tier Three screening in the selection of a recommended alternative. Funding Assessment Concurrent with the refinement of Short List Alternatives, a financial plan will be completed to identify existing and potential transportation revenue sources at the local, state and federal levels. Next Steps 19
Technical Memorandum Tier 2 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic operations for the Study Area corridors will be analyzed for the Short List alternatives to assess impacts of the infrastructure and service improvements. The results of the traffic impact analysis will help inform the refinement of the alternatives. Metrics generated through the traffic analysis will be incorporated into the Tier Three screening in the selection of a recommended LPA. Additional Community Input LYNX and Osceola County held two public Open Houses in June to introduce the project. A second pair of Open Houses were held in early October to review the Long List of Alternatives summarized in the Task 5 Technical Memorandum. Two additional public meetings will be held at the following major project milestones: After the Short List of alternatives has been developed and evaluated; and Following the Draft Alternatives Analysis Report, including the recommended LPA. Additional community input will also occur through regularly scheduled meetings with the Project Advisory Working Group and through the project website. Tier Three Screening Short List to Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative The Tier Three screening will be the final screening and will lead to a recommendation of the LPA. The Tier Three screening will include a qualitative, quantitative, and comparative evaluation, all directly tied to the goals and objectives. This final evaluation will be more detailed than the previous screenings due to more developed engineering, operational, environmental, ridership and cost data that will be available for each Short List alternative. This final screening will include an analysis that will focus on the key differences among the alternatives across all of the quantitative and qualitative measures, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and identifying the key trade offs, costs and benefits. 20 Next Steps