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 4 Celebration Lake Bryan US 192 Alternatives Analysis ORANGE COUNTY OSCEOLA COUNTY June 2013 Tier 3 Screening and Selection 522 192 of the Recommended Alternative Lake Cecile Celebration Health 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 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative 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... 25 4.1 Next Steps... 25 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 Table 4-1: Short List Alternatives Data Summary... 21 Table 4-2: Tier Three Evaluation Summary by Goal... 23 Appendix A Goals and Objectives Appendix B Representative Conceptual Engineering Plans Appendix C Service Plan Summary Appendix D Ridership Results Presentation to Technical Committee Appendix E Capital Cost Summary Table of Contents i
(THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative 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 Three screening of the Short List of Alternatives (SLA) which will result in selection of a Recommended Alternative. Fact Sheets detailing the SLA were provided in the Task 8 Technical Memorandum. Data from these Fact Sheets informed the Tier Three screening presented herein. The Recommended Alternative will be reviewed by the PAWG Steering Group and input will be solicited from the PAWG Community Liaison Group and the general public. The SLA is comprised of the most likely transportation solutions to address the needs identified in the Purpose and Need Statement. Each of the alternatives in the Short 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 Three 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 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative 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 as 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 is 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 3 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives 3. Ultimately, from the SLA to a recommended LPA. 1 Each evaluation phase is linked and shows the gradual progression from a qualitative to a quantitative evaluation of each alternative. Values or ranges of values are 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 are eliminated. The Tier One Screening Methodology and Results were presented in the Task 5 Technical Memorandum. The Tier Two Screening Methodology and Results were presented in the Task 8 Technical Memorandum. 2.3 Tier Three Screening Methodology: Short List of Alternatives to Recommended Alternative Evaluation The Tier Three screening incorporates a comprehensive level of qualitative and quantitative criteria, tied to the goals and objectives, including costs, travel time savings, ridership, costeffectiveness, consistency with local plans and potential environmental impacts. This screening was based upon actual values for each of the evaluation criteria and an overall interpretation of how well each of the alternatives met the project purpose and need. The final screening will lead to a recommendation of the Locally Preferred Alternative and 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 further 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 of costs and benefits. Criteria that will be used to implement the alternatives third level evaluation are summarized, by project goal, in Table 1-2. 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 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative Table 1-2: Level 3 Screening Criteria GOAL Improve Mobility and Transportation Access Enhance the Livability and Economic Competitiveness of the Study Area through an Improved Transportation System Develop the Most Efficient Transportation System, Which Maximizes Limited Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit Travel time savings Miles of exclusive guideway Screen 3 Criteria Reduction in number of transfers between major O/D pairs Number of stations with consistent and multi-modal amenities Number of proposed routes with headways of 15 minutes or less Routes structured to serve traditional and tourism-based trips Change in transit ridership Number of total linked trips Number of trips made by transit-dependents Number of stations with sidewalk, bike-path and/or park and ride connections Number of stations primarily accessed by walking Ability to effectively serve riders during maintenance and other outages Number of stations located at signalized intersections with sufficient pedestrian phases Change in person trip capacity of each corridor Number of TSP-connected traffic signals resulting from project Potential change in highway LOS (number of miles or locations improved) Percent of alignment on new right-of-way Number of major residential (within ¼ mile) and employment (within 1,000 feet) centers directly served by stations Ability to capture DRI transportation benefits Maintains or improves service to transit-dependent populations Capital Cost O&M Cost Cost-effectiveness Acreage of private property to be acquired Incremental Revenue Potential to qualify for Small or New Starts Funding Potential for public/private funding opportunities Direct, quality connection to SunRail (less than ¼ mile walk) Serves SunRail with consistent feeder and distributer headways Number of new support facilities required Evaluation Methodology 5
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Table 1-2: Level 3 Screening Criteria GOAL Develop a Transit System Consistent With Adopted Local and Regional Plans and Policies Preserve and Enhance the Environment, Natural Resources and Open Space Screen 3 Criteria Ease of physical expandability of proposed project Implementation timeframe Consistency with adopted local transportation plans Consistency with adopted regional transportation plans Consistency with adopted local land use plans Consistency with adopted local economic development plans Builds upon previous/current LYNX planning efforts Consistency with CRA objectives Potential to support compact development Connectivity to other planned, funded transportation improvements Use of low-emission fleet Weekday Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Reduction Minimizes level of potential Noise impact Minimizes level of potential hazardous materials impact Minimizes water quality impact Minimizes cultural resources impact Minimizes air quality impact Minimizes wetland impacts Minimizes protected species impact Minimizes visual quality impact Of the Short List Alternatives: No Build Alternative, the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative and the three Build Alternatives, the one alternative that is rated the highest after the evaluation will be advanced as the Recommended Alternative. All other alternatives will be eliminated from further consideration. Reasons for elimination will be documented. 6 Evaluation Methodology
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative 3 Tier One and 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. Table 3-1: Final Long List of Alternatives Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern Alternative 0-1 No Build US 192, US 441 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 Bus Rapid Transit Alternative 2-2 Bus Rapid Transit US 192, US 441 US 192, US 441 US 192, US 441 cost Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and intersection improvements Queue jumps, TSP, offboard fare collection, substantial stations; branded buses Queue jumps, TSP, offboard fare collection, substantial stations; branded buses Local and Express Bus service; +/- 15 min. minimum headway; some route modifications Three route skip stop service; 15 min. minimum headway; local bus overlay Four route zone express; 15 min. minimum headway; local bus overlay Tier One and Tier Two Screening 7
Table 3-1, cont. Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern Alternative 3-1 Bus Rapid Transit with Streetcar US 192, US 441 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, US 441 US 192 US 192, US 441 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 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); local bus overlay and express feeders/distributors Three routes all stop service, (15 min. minimum headway); local bus overlay Single route all stop service; local bus overlay and express feeders/distributors Three routes all stop service, (15 min. minimum headway); local bus overlay Subsequent to the development of the Long List Alternatives, it was concluded that sufficient information was not yet available to differentiate between the two BRT proposed service plans (skip stop or zone express). As such, the Tier Two Screening was applied to the consolidated Long List Alternatives presented in Table 3-2. 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 One and Tier Two Screening 9
Table 3-1, cont. Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern Alternative 3-1 Bus Rapid Transit with Streetcar US 192, US 441 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, US 441 US 192 US 192, US 441 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 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); local bus overlay and express feeders/distributors Three routes all stop service, (15 min. minimum headway); local bus overlay Single route all stop service; local bus overlay and express feeders/distributors Three routes all stop service, (15 min. minimum headway); local bus overlay Subsequent to the development of the Long List Alternatives, it was concluded that sufficient information was not yet available to differentiate between the two BRT proposed service plans (skip stop or zone express). As such, the Tier Two Screening was applied to the consolidated Long List Alternatives presented in Table 3-2. 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 One and Tier Two Screening 9
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 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 US 192, US 441 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 Bus Rapid Transit Alternative 2-3 Bus Rapid Transit Consolidated Alternative 2-4/2-5 Bus Rapid Transit Alternative 2-6 Bus Rapid Transit Consolidated Alternative 2-7/2-8 Bus Rapid Transit Alternative 2-9 Bus Rapid Transit US 192, US 441 US 192, US 441 US 192; US 441; Osceola Parkway US 192, US 441 US 192; US 441; Osceola Parkway US 192, US 441 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 fare collection, substantial stations; branded buses Some dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, offboard fare collection, substantial stations; branded buses Full length dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, offboard fare collection, substantial stations; branded buses Full length dedicated bus lanes on US 192, queue jumps, TSP, offboard fare collection, substantial stations; branded buses Local and Express Bus service; +/- 15 min. minimum headway; some route modifications Zone express or skip stop service; 15 min. minimum headway; local bus overlay Four route zone express; 15 min. minimum headway; local bus overlay Zone express or skip stop service; 15 min. minimum headway; local bus overlay Four route zone express; 15 min. minimum headway; local bus overlay Zone express or skip stop service; 15 min. minimum headway; local bus overlay Four route zone express; 15 min. minimum headway; local bus overlay 10 Tier One and Tier Two Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative Table 3-2, cont. Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern Alternative 3-1 Bus Rapid Transit with Streetcar US 192, US 441 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. minimum headway; local bus overlay 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, US 441 US 192 US 192, US 441 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); local bus overlay and express feeders/distributors Three routes all stop service, (15 min. minimum headway); local bus overlay Single route all stop service; local bus overlay and express feeders/distributors Three routes all stop service, (15 min. minimum headway); local bus overlay 3.2 Tier Two Screening Results 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 was 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 Recommended Alternative. As such, the No Build and TSM alternatives automatically qualified 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 One and Tier Two Screening 11
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 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 One and Tier Two Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 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 Bus Rapid Transit (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 One and Tier Two Screening 13
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Table 3-3, cont. Consolidated Long List Alternatives Tier Two Criteria Bus Rapid Transit (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 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Order of magnitude operating and maintenance (O&M) cost Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Serves SunRail with a mix of route types (express and local) Compatibility with existing fleet and facilities Medium Ability to implement project in stages 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 Medium Medium Medium Medium Builds upon previous/current LYNX planning efforts Medium Medium Medium Medium Consistency with CRA objectives Medium Medium Medium Medium Potential to support compact development Medium Medium Medium Medium SUMMARY GOAL 4 Medium Medium Medium Medium 14 Tier One and Tier Two Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Short List Alternatives Table 3-3, cont. Tier Two Criteria Consolidated Long List Alternatives Bus Rapid Transit (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 Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Potential to impact sensitive environmental areas Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium SUMMARY GOAL 5 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 One and Tier Two Screening 15
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 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 Bus Rapid Transit (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 One and Tier Two Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative Bus Rapid Transit The Bus Rapid Transit (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). Bus Rapid Transit 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 One and Tier Two Screening 17
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative 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 One and Tier Two Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative 4 Tier Three Screening 4.1 Tier Three Screening The goal of the Tier Three screening is to qualitatively evaluate the Short List Alternatives and select the alternative that best meets the project s purpose and need. The determination of which alternative best satisfies this goal was made by evaluating each of the Short List Alternatives against the Tier Three Screening criteria, which are based upon the project s goals and objectives. Each of the Short List Alternatives was further developed to include the following components: Conceptual Engineering o See Appendix B for representative plans Development of Service (Operating) Plans o See Appendix C for service summary Demand Forecasting (including Revenue) o See Appendix D for presentation to PAWG-Ridership Technical Subcommittee (5/9/13) Mobility Assessment (traffic impacts, connectivity to SunRail, efficient use of capacity, reduction in VMT) Capital Cost Estimation o See Appendix E for summary for major elements Operating Cost Estimation Assessment of Consistency with Adopted Local and Regional Plans Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts Implementation Timeframe As a result of the development of the service plans, it was determined that the zone express stopping pattern would result in the most efficient and effective provision of BRT service. Accordingly, the Short List Alternatives that included the skip stop stopping pattern were eliminated from further consideration. In addition, recent Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance eliminated the need for a TSM Alternative. However, the features of the TSM alternative developed for this project had potential to meet the project s goals and objectives and as such it was retained and renamed the Enhanced Bus Alternative. These developments resulted in the following revised and renamed Short List Alternatives: Tier Three Screening 19
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative No Build Alternative: Make no improvements beyond those already committed; Enhanced Bus Alternative: Improve the existing bus system with transit signal priority, queue jumps and service modifications but make no additional capital investments; Alternative 1: BRT service and infrastructure with transit signal priority and queue jumps; Alternative 2: BRT service and infrastructure with transit signal priority, queue jumps and dedicated bus lanes for part of the US 192 alignment; and Alternative 3: BRT service and infrastructure with transit signal priority, queue jumps and dedicated bus lanes for the majority of the US 192 alignment. Table 4-1 provides details for each of the Short List Alternatives as related to the Tier 3 Screening Criteria. When reviewing the quantitative and qualitative data presented in the matrix, not only the Purpose and Need and five project goals should be considered. Since the project is intended to serve transportation and economic needs, the following alternative elements beyond transportation, ridership and cost should be considered as critical to the evaluation process: a. The need for a transformative project that serves as a foundation for overall improvement of the corridor b. Maximizes the benefits for transit dependent citizens c. Maximizes the ability to attract choice riders d. Consistent with the adopted plans of LYNX (2030 Vision and TDP), Osceola County (Long Range Transit Plan; Transportation Funding Study, etc.) and Kissimmee. e. The ability to leverage economic development; With consideration of these elements, Table 4-2 presents the Tier Three scoring of the SLA. 20 Tier Three Screening
US 192 Alternatives Analysis Tier 3 Screening GOAL Screen 3 Criteria Unit No Build Enhanced Bus Build #1 Build #2 Build #3 Improve Mobility and Transportation Access Transit travel time savings Hours per weekday 0 2,300 3,200 3,800 4,100 Number of miles (per Miles of exclusive guideway direction) 0 0 0 6 20 Enhance the Livability and Economic Competitiveness of the Study Area through an Improved Transportation System Reduction in number of transfers between major O/D pairs 4C/WDW No No Yes Yes Yes 4C/OP No No No No No 4C/KIF Yes/No YES Yes Yes Yes Yes WDW/OP No Yes Yes Yes Yes WDW/KIF Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes OP/KIF No No No No No Number of stations with consistent and multi-modal amenities Stations 4 4 19 19 19 Number of proposed routes with headways of 15 minutes or less OP to KIF Yes/No (headway in min No Yes (15) Yes (15) Yes (15) Yes (15) KIF to 4C for new routes in No No No No No KIF to WDW parentheses) No Yes (10) Yes (10) Yes (10) Yes (10) WDW to 4C No Yes (15) Yes (15) Yes (15) Yes (15) Routes structured to serve traditional and tourism-based trips Yes/No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Percent above 2010 Change in transit ridership baseline 64% 137% 169% 188% 196% Number of total linked transit trips 2030 weekday trips 6,342 8,792 9,686 10,251 10,478 Number of trips made by transit-dependents 2030 weekday trips 3,101 4,436 4,507 4,745 4,830 Number of trips made by choice riders 2030 weekday trips 3,241 4,356 5,179 5,506 5,648 Number of stations with sidewalk, bike-path and/or park and ride connections Stations N/A 19 19 19 19 Number of stations primarily accessed by walking Stations N/A 19 19 19 19 Ability to serve riders effectively during maintenance and other outages /Med/ Med Number of stations located at signalized intersections with sufficient pedestrian phases Stations N/A 19 19 19 19 Change in person trip capacity of each corridor Person trips per hour 0 0 0 1,620 1,620 Number of TSP-connected traffic signals resulting from project Number 0 21 26 26 26 Potential change in highway LOS (number of miles or locations improved) Intersections 0 1 0-1 -1 Percent of alignment on new right-of-way Percent 0 0 0 0 0 Number of major residential (within ¼ mile) and employment (within 1,000 feet) 1 residential center/ 6 center/ 6 6 employment 6 employment Number of centers centers directly served by stations N/A employment centers employment centers centers Ability to capture DRI transportation benefits Adjacent DRIs with commitments to fund station-related infrastructure N/A 9 DRIs 9 DRIs 9 DRIs 9 DRIs Maintains or improves service to transit-dependent populations /Med/ N/A Med Med 6/12/13
US 192 Alternatives Analysis Tier 3 Screening GOAL Screen 3 Criteria Unit No Build Enhanced Bus Build #1 Build #2 Build #3 Capital Cost Year 2013 Dollars $1.8M $26M $60M $117M $208M Annual Systemwide O&M Cost (O&M Cost vs. No Build) Year 2030 Dollars $187M($0) $232M(+$45M) $246M(+$59M) $241M(+$54M) $235M(+$48M) 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 Annual O&M Cost on Corridor Routes vs. No Build Year 2030 Dollars $0 $20M $36M $30M $31M Cost-effectiveness: New Starts (Small Starts) Ratio N/A N/A 17.86($9.50) 16.07($16.40) 15.19($19.60) Acreage of private property to be acquired Acres 0 0 7.5 12.2 17.3 Incremental Revenue vs. No Build Year 2030 Dollars N/A $784,000 $1,118,000 $1,328,000 $1,423,000 Potential to qualify for Small or New Starts Funding /Med/ N/A Not Eligible Med- Med- Med- Potential for public/private funding opportunities /Med/ N/A Med Med Direct, quality connection to SunRail (less than ¼ mile walk) /Med/ Med Serves SunRail with consistent feeder and distributer headways /Med/ Med Number of new support facilities required Facilities 0 1 1 1 1 Ease of (physical) expandability of proposed project /Med/ Med Implementation timeframe Range of Years N/A 1-2 years 4-5 years 5-6 years 6-7 years Consistency with adopted local transportation plans /Med/ Med Consistency with adopted regional transportation plans /Med/ Med Consistency with adopted local land use plans /Med/ Med Consistency with adopted local economic development plans /Med/ Med Builds upon previous/current LYNX planning efforts /Med/ Med Consistency with CRA objectives /Med/ Med Potential to support compact development /Med/ Med Med Connectivity to other planned, funded transportation improvements /Med/ Med Med Med Med Med Use of low-emission fleet /Med/ Med Weekday VMT reduction Vehicle miles per weekday 0 20,400 30,800 38,300 42,100 Minimizes level of potential Noise impact (low = greater impact) /Med/ Med Med Med Minimizes level of potential Parklands/4f impact /Med/ Minimizes level of potential hazardous materials impact /Med/ Minimizes water quality impact /Med/ Med Med Med Med Med Minimizes cultural resources impact /Med/ Minimizes air quality impact /Med/ Med Med Med Minimizes wetland impacts /Med/ Med Med Minimizes protected species impact /Med/ Med Med Minimizes visual quality impact /Med/ Med Med 6/12/13
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative Table 4-2: Tier Three Evaluation Summary by Goal Project Goal 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 Final Short List Alternatives No Build Enhanced Bus Build 1 Build 2 Build 3 Medium Medium Medium Medium GOAL 4: Develop a Transit System Consistent With Adopted Local and Regional Plans and Policies Medium GOAL 5: Preserve and Enhance the Environment, Natural Resources and Open Space Medium Medium Medium Medium Overall Evaluation Medium Select as Recommended Alternative? No No No Yes No The No Build Alternative represents no changes to the existing transit system within the study area. The study area s significant, projected demographic growth is reflected in the No Build Alternative s ridership. However, this alternative scored low on all of the project goals because it would fail to meet the study area needs and would not provide sufficient transit capacity to meet the projected growth. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would provide an incremental change in the corridor s transit capacity by providing more frequent bus service. However, the reliability of that service could not be assured since only easily implemented infrastructure improvements were included. In addition, the Enhanced Bus Alternative was not supportive of the stakeholders vision of a transformative corridor, would not attract choice riders and would not be in compliance with adopted plans and policies. All three Build alternatives provided improved transportation infrastructure, service (identical for all three alternatives) and overall system capacity with an improved potential for reliability. While Build Alternative 1 provided for BRT improvements including branded buses, BRT stations, queue jumps and traffic signal improvements, the BRT would mostly operate in mixed traffic and would be subject to the increasing congestion in the corridor. Therefore, of the three build alternatives, Build 1 was likely to provide the least reliable transit service. The lack of dedicated lanes in the most congested segments of the corridor also would impact the ability of Build Alternative 1 to achieve a transformative change. Build Alternative 3 provided the greatest change in corridor infrastructure by providing a dedicated busway, BRT buses and BRT stations for the majority of the alignment. As a result, Build Alternative 3 would attract the highest ridership. However, this level of infrastructure modification would be expensive (relative to Build Alternative 2) and would result in a diminishing return on the potential investment in the western portion of the study area. In other words, a busway west of Celebration was simply not necessary to meet the projected demand and it was therefore not cost-effective. Build Alternative 2 provided for a significant change in corridor infrastructure by providing a dedicated busway for part of the corridor, queue jumps in the remainder of the corridor, and BRT Tier Three Screening 23
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative buses with BRT stations throughout the corridor. The infrastructure investment of the partial busway combined with the targeted queue jumps enabled a precise investment in infrastructure and resulted in adding capacity where it would have the greatest impact on mobility. The results showed that this investment would attract 98% of the ridership of Build Alternative 3 but with only 53% of the capital cost of Build Alternative 3. In addition, Build Alternative 2 would result in the transformative corridor envisioned by stakeholders and as documented by previous planning efforts. Overall, transit would be elevated to a high level of visibility and permanence that would result from the investment which would attract choice customers, would greatly improve service and reliability of transit service for transit-dependents and would support further economic investment in the study area. In consideration of the information represented in this technical memorandum and in particular for the reasons outlined above, Build Alternative 2 is recommended for advancement as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Until adopted as the LPA, Build Alternative 2 will be known as the Recommended Alternative. 24 Tier Three Screening
Technical Memorandum Tier 3 Screening and Selection of the Recommended Alternative 5 Next Steps 5.1 Next Steps The following are the next steps in the evaluation of alternatives, progressing toward a single recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA): Additional Community Input The Recommended Alternative and Tier 3 screening results will be presented to the Steering Group and Community Liaison Group for review and comment. Additionally, the Tier 3 screening results will be shared with the public through the project website and through a final Open House meeting to be held in summer 2013. Advancing the Recommended Alternative to the Locally Preferred Alternative Once all stakeholder input is received and the Recommended Alternative is approved by the LYNX Board of Directors and the Osceola County Board of County Commissioners, LYNX and Osceola County will request that the MetroPlan Orlando Board adopt it as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the US 192 Alternatives Analysis project. This action will allow MetroPlan to include the LPA in the regional transportation improvement program (TIP) so that the project can become available for funding to advance it through further stages of development and implementation. Production of the Alternative Analysis Report The project team will assemble all data generated as part of the US 192 Alternatives Analysis project into a final Alternatives Analysis Report. Next Steps 25
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 192 Irlo Bronson Memorial way World Drive ORANGE COUNTY OSCEOLA COUNTY Lake Bryan Osceola Pkwy 522 Orange Blossom Trail 527 VE 92 mee Hall JOHN YOUNG PKY OAK ST 27 Osceola Regional Medical Center 17 92 ETTE ST MABBETTE ST. T STREET ounty use ment POLK COUNTY VE OSCEOLA COUNTY 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 4 Celebration Health Celebration 192 OSCEOLA CORRIDOR Lake Cecile Poinciana Blvd. 17 Poinciana Station 92 Osceola Square Super Stop Hoagland Blvd. Kissimmee Airport Pleasant Hill Rd. 531 Florida Hospital Kissimmee KISSIMMEE Osceola Regional Medical Center 17 92 CRA Kissimmee AMTRAK Station Lake Tohopekaliga Osceol Parkwa Station KISSIMMEE CORRIDOR www.vhb.com