27 us 192 alternatives analysis orane lss rail technical ... memo - evaluation methodology and...
TRANSCRIPT
192
17 92
27441
92
17
27
192
17
17
92
92
192
441
522
54
527
531
547
474
527
4
\\flordata\proposals\81529.11 US 192 BRT\Submittal\Presentation\Graphics\GIS\US192_B&W Base 11x17.mxd
0 4500 9000
Feet US 192 Alternatives AnalysisOverall Study Area
Figure __
October 2011
JOH
N Y
OU
NG
PK
Y OB
T
192192
17
17
92
92
VINE ST
OAK ST
THA
CKE
R A
VE
COLUMBIA AVE
MAI
N S
T
CEN
TRAL
AVE
.
CLY
DE
AVE
PATRICK ST
MIC
HIG
AN A
VE
EMMETT ST
EAST OAK STREET
MABBETTE ST MABBETTE ST. CHURCH ST.
LAKESHORE BLVDEMMETT STREET
SMIT
H S
T
PALMETTO AV.CLAY ST Downtown Kissimmee
Lake Tohopekaliga
Celebration
Irlo Bronson Memorial Highway
Wor
ld D
rive
John
You
ng P
arkw
ay
Flor
ida’s
Tur
npik
e
Ora
nge
Blos
som
Tra
il
Hoa
glan
d Bl
vd.
CR 535
Neptune Rd.
Plea
sant
Hill
Rd.
LAKE
CO
UN
TY
ORA
NG
E CO
UN
TY
POLK
CO
UN
TY
OSC
EOLA
CO
UN
TYWalt Disney / Reedy Creek
Improvement District
Lake Cecile
Lake Bryan
CRA
Poinciana Station
Osceola Pkwy
Ticket and Transportation Center
Kissimmee AMTRAK Station
Osceola Regional Medical Center
Kissimmee City Hall
Osceola County Courthouse
& Government
Downtown CRA
Osceola Square Super Stop
Kissimmee AMTRAK Station
Osceola Parkway Station
Celebration Health
Poinciana Blvd.
ORANGE COUNTY
OSCEOLA COUNTY
KISSIMMEEOSCEOLA CORRIDOR
KISSIM
MEE C
ORRIDOR
Osceola Regional Medical Center
Florida Hospital Kissimmee
Kissimmee Airport
US 192 Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum: Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives DevelopmentOCTOBER 2012
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Table of Contents
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 One Screening Methodology: Modal Technology Evaluation .................. 4 2.4 Tier Two Screening Methodology: Long List to Short List of Alternatives
Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 5 2.5 Tier Three Screening Methodology: Short List to Locally Preferred
Alternative ....................................................................................................... 6
Tier One Screening ...................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Tier One Screening Results .............................................................................. 9
Development of the Long List of Alternatives .............................................................13
4.1 Introduction and Background ........................................................................ 13 4.2 Existing Conditions, Issues and Needs ........................................................... 13 4.3 Long List of Alternatives ................................................................................ 15 4.4 Stakeholder Outreach .................................................................................... 24
Next Steps ..................................................................................................................25
5.1 Next Steps ...................................................................................................... 25
Table No. Description Page
Table 4‐1: BRT Alternatives Comparison ................................................................... 20 Table 4‐2: LRT Alternatives Comparison ..................................................................... 21 Table 4‐3: Final Long List of Alternatives .................................................................... 22
Figure No. Description Page
Figure 1: Queue Jump Schematic ............................................................................... 16 Figure 2: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit ............................................................ 19 Appendix A – Goals and Objectives Appendix B – Modal Fact Sheets Appendix C – Long List of Alternatives (LLA) Fact Sheets
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Introduction 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction and Background
This technical memorandum details the process that will be 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. This three‐
tiered alternative development and screening process will conclude with the
recommendation of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). While this memorandum describes
the overall process, it concludes with the definition of the Long List of Alternatives (LLA). The
LLA will be screened (Tier Two) to a Short List of Alternatives (SLA) which will be further
developed and detailed in a subsequent technical memorandum.
The LLA is comprised of all reasonable transit 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. Fact sheets were developed for
each of the LLA and include information about each alternative’s proposed mode, alignment,
potential stations to be served, conceptual service plan, environmental impacts, order of
magnitude costs and other features. The fact sheets are included as Appendix C to this
memorandum.
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
2 Introduction
This memorandum presents:
The guidelines utilized for the progressive evaluation and selection of the alternatives
(Evaluation Methodology);
The Tier One Screening and results;
Development of the Long List of Alternatives; and
Next Steps
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Evaluation Methodology 3
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 important that the evaluation process is developed and conducted publically and
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 applied to the
alternatives to identify which alternatives will advance. Documentation associated with this
process will ultimately support 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. The project’s goals and objectives
are included in Appendix A.
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
4 Evaluation Methodology
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 Long List of Alternatives (LLA);
2. From the Long List of Alternatives to a Short List of Alternatives (SLA); and
3. Ultimately from the Short List of Alternatives to a recommended Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA).1
Each evaluation phase will be linked and will show the gradual progression from a qualitative
to a quantitative evaluation of the alternatives. Values or ranges of values will be assigned to
each criterion/measure at each screening level to be applied 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.
2.3 Tier One Screening Methodology: Modal Technology Evaluation
The first “technology” screen eliminates modal technologies that are:
Least consistent with the Study Area’s operating environment and existing rights‐of‐way
(scale and suitability);
Least able to flexibly and effectively connect the key travel origins and destinations
(small, medium and longer distance trip‐making);
Not technically mature and proven for effective passenger transport (reliability and
availability);
Discouraging to broad competition by multiple manufacturers and suppliers, which may
result in higher implementation and long term costs; and
Not consistent with desired short‐term (implementation period) and long‐term staged
solutions (expandability).
This Tier One screen is based on primarily qualitative data on each modal technology.
The modal technologies that emerge from the Tier One screening are paired with
infrastructure improvements, initial routings/station stops and operating characteristics to
create the LLA.
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 decision‐makers, including MetroPlan Orlando, responsible for adopting the LPA into the fiscally constrained Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Evaluation Methodology 5
2.4 Tier Two Screening Methodology: Long List to Short List of Alternatives Evaluation
The Tier Two screening will incorporate 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. The screening will include a range of
values for each criterion, identified in Table 2‐1, which will be applied to each Long List
Alternative.
For example:
Criterion: Implementation Timeframe
5= Alternative can be fully implemented in 3‐5 years
3= Alternative can be fully implemented in 5‐10 years
1=Alternative can be fully implemented in 10+ years
Weighting of certain criteria to reflect their importance to the project stakeholders may also
be assigned.
Table 2‐1: Tier Two Screening Criteria
PROJECT GOAL TIER TWO CRITERIA
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
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
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
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
Implementation timeframe
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
6 Evaluation Methodology
PROJECT GOAL TIER TWO CRITERIA
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
Potential to support compact development Preserve and Enhance the
Environment, Natural
Resources and Open Space
Potential to use low‐emission fleet
Potential to impact sensitive environmental areas
A scoring threshold will be established consistent with the desire to advance only the most
feasible alternatives with the best potential to meet the Study Area needs and satisfy the
project goals and objectives. Alternatives that do not meet this threshold will be eliminated.
The reasons for elimination will be fully documented.
Alternatives that pass the Tier Two screening will be advanced to the SLA for further
development and evaluation. It is anticipated that up to three build alternatives, along with
the No Build Alternative and TSM Alternative, will comprise the SLA.
2.5 Tier Three Screening Methodology: Short List to Locally Preferred Alternative
The Tier Three screening will be the final screening and will lead to a recommendation of the
Locally Preferred Alternative. 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.
Criteria that will be used to implement the Tier Three evaluation are summarized, by project
goal, in Table 2‐2. Values will be assigned for each criterion, similar to the paradigm used for
the Tier Two Screening.
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Evaluation Methodology 7
Table 2‐2: Tier Three Screening Criteria
GOAL TIER THREE CRITERIA
Improve Mobility and
Transportation Access
Travel time savings (total and between major
origin/destination pairs)
Transportation system user benefits Miles of exclusive guideway
Reduction in number of transfers between major
origin/destination pairs Number of stations with consistent and multi‐
modal amenities
Number of proposed routes with headways
between 10‐15 minutes
Routes structured to serve traditional and
tourism‐based trips Change in transit ridership
Number of new transit trips
Number of stations with sidewalk, bike‐path
and/or park and ride connections
Number of stations primarily accessed by walking
Ability to serve riders effectively during
maintenance and other outages
Number of stations located at signalized
intersections with sufficient pedestrian phases
Change in traveler‐transport capacity of each
corridor
Number of TSP‐connected traffic signals resulting
from project
Potential change in highway LOS (number of miles
or locations improved) Enhance the Livability and
Economic Competitiveness
of the Study Area through
an Improved Transportation
System
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
Transit‐oriented development potential
Ability to utilize DRI transportation commitments
Maintains or improves service to transit‐
dependent populations
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
8 Evaluation Methodology
GOAL TIER THREE CRITERIA
Develop the Most Efficient
Transportation System,
Which Maximizes Limited
Resources for the Greatest
Public Benefit
Capital Cost (Total and Per Mile) O&M Cost Cost‐effectiveness
Acreage of private property to be acquired Revenue and potential subsidy (annual total and
per rider) 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
Ease of expandability of proposed project
Implementation timeframe
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
Potential to support compact development
Connectivity to other planned, funded transportation improvements
Preserve and Enhance the Environment, Natural Resources and Open Space
Use of low‐emission fleet
Reduction in the growth of Vehicle Miles Travelled
Level of potential impact: Noise, Parklands/4f, Hazardous Materials, Water Quality, Cultural Resources, Air Quality, Visual Quality
A scoring threshold will be established consistent with the desire to select only the most
feasible alternative as the recommended Locally Preferred Alternative – the Alternative with
the best potential to meet the Study Area needs and satisfy the project goals and objectives.
Alternatives that do not meet this threshold will be eliminated. The reasons for elimination
will be fully documented.
Table 2‐2, cont.
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Tier One Screening 9
3 Tier One Screening
3.1 Tier One Screening Results
The goal of the Tier One screening was to qualitatively evaluate potential alternative
technologies and determine whether or not they are suitable for use in the corridor.
Nine modal technologies (listed below) were selected for evaluation based on technologies
evaluated in other studies, public and stakeholder input, and technologies that are currently
being used (or proposed for use) in the surrounding region.
Bus
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Light Rail
Streetcar
Commuter Rail
Heavy Rail
Monorail
High Speed Rail
Maglev
Short descriptions of these technologies’ operating, infrastructure and system cost
characteristics are provided in Appendix B.
Five evaluation criteria were developed for the first screening, based on the Goals and Objectives
of the overall study (Appendix A). These criteria capture the region’s desire to develop a proven
alternative which can be implemented in a timely fashion and adapt to the changing
transportation needs of the US 192 Study Area. The five criteria are:
1. Consistency of the technology with the Study Area’s operating context and existing right‐of‐way characteristics.
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
10 Tier One Screening
Technologies were ranked based on whether they were compatible with the scale and travel
characteristics in the Osceola and Kissimmee corridors and whether the technology was currently
in use in the Study Area. Technologies scored better if they were lower in overall footprint (right‐
of‐way and station size) and more able to be integrated into the existing cross‐section of US 192
and US 441. Those technologies which were currently not operational in the Study Area and
those that would require fully separated rights‐of‐way or aerial guideways scored worse.
Commuter Rail was considered to be operationally feasible in the Study Area since SunRail is
currently under construction.
2. Flexibility of the technology in connecting key travel origins and destinations.
Technologies were ranked based on whether they could serve the short, medium, and long trip
distances exhibited by travelers in the Study Area today and expected to continue into the
future. Technologies scored better if they were able to have stops spaced close enough to serve
short and medium distance trips, while still improving overall travel times. Those technologies
which required stops spaced far apart in order to achieve travel time savings scored worse.
3. Availability of technology from multiple vendors.
Technologies were ranked based on whether various elements were available from a variety of
different vendors, which would enable competitive bidding, cost‐effective implementation and
cost‐effective short‐term and long‐term maintenance. Technologies available from multiple
vendors scored better, those which were proprietary to single (or only a few) companies scored
worse.
4. Maturity of the technology.
Technologies were ranked based on whether they had been implemented in a variety of
locations (in Florida, the United States or North America) and were proven as a reliable transit
mode. Technologies scored better if they were used by multiple transit properties, and if the
technology had been used long enough to have a proven record of reliability. Technologies which
had not been implemented for public service, those that had only been implemented in a
handful of locations, or those that had not been used for a long period of time to prove their
reliability scored worse.
5. Expandability of the technology.
Technologies were ranked based on whether they could be expanded easily to meet the short‐
term and long‐term needs of the corridor. Technologies scored better if they were able to be
expanded with minimal impact and cost. Technologies which would require significant
investment in guideways, propulsion, or stations to expand service scored worse.
The summary results of this analysis are reported in the Table 3‐1, with a brief description of why
each alternative advanced or was eliminated following the table. Alternatives were scored from
one to five for each criterion, with five being the best and one being the worst.
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Tier One Screening 11
Table 3‐1: Tier One Screening Results
Evaluation
Criteria Bus
Bus
Rapid
Transit
Light
Rail Streetcar
Commuter
Rail
Heavy
Rail Monorail
High
Speed
Rail
Maglev
Consistency 5 5 4 4 3 2 3 1 1
Flexibility 5 5 3 3 1 1 3 1 1
Availability 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 2 1
Maturity 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 2
Expandability 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2
Total 25 25 21 21 17 16 13 9 7
Maximum score=25; 5=Best, 1=Worst
Bus and Bus Rapid Transit Implementing additional or improved Bus Service or introducing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service
would be consistent with the operating environment of the Study Area, and both technologies
could be expanded easily to meet demand. Also, due to their operational characteristics, Bus and
BRT systems would be able service short, medium, and long distance trips while simultaneously
improving the travel times of each. Bus and BRT systems are mature technologies proven in
many cities throughout the United States. There are multiple bus manufacturers that compete
for bus delivery contracts which ensures price, delivery and quality competitiveness. Both Bus
and BRT have been advanced for further evaluation in this study.
Light Rail and Streetcar A Light Rail and/or Streetcar system would be consistent with the Study Area’s operating
environment and existing right‐of‐way. Both Light Rail and Streetcar systems require moderate
infrastructure and are flexible enough that they can be modified/extended to serve future
demand and travel patterns. While they require more infrastructure and a longer
implementation timeframe than Bus systems, they are equally mature and available in the
United States. Streetcar systems are best suited for compact, downtown areas where multiple
short distance trip‐making is present. As such, Streetcar may be only suited for the downtown
Kissimmee portions of the Study Area. The Light Rail and Streetcar technologies have been
advanced for further evaluation in this study.
Commuter Rail Commuter Rail would be consistent with the Study Area’s operating environment, but would be
inconsistent with the existing right‐of‐way. Commuter Rail requires a dedicated rail alignment for
operations. In order to optimize travel time savings, Commuter Rail station spacing is typically far
apart and stations require broad footprints. This makes it not suitable to serve short and medium
distance trips. Additionally, extensions and modifications to Commuter Rail lines are quite costly
as they require new track systems and stations. Commuter Rail is a proven and cost‐competitive
technology. Commuter Rail was not advanced for further consideration in this study.
Heavy Rail A Heavy Rail system would be inconsistent with the Study Area’s operating environment and
existing right‐of‐way. An aerial guideway and/or physically separated right‐of‐way would be
primarily required for operational and safety reasons. While Heavy Rail is a proven technology it
is best suited for dense, urban environments. Extensions and modifications to Heavy Rail lines
are quite costly as they require new structures, track, systems and stations. Heave Rail is fixed to
a guideway and while it can serve trips of varying lengths, it is inflexible. Heavy Rail would have a
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
12 Tier One Screening
long implementation timeframe. Heavy Rail was not advanced for further consideration in this
study.
Monorail A Monorail system would not be consistent with the Study Area’s operating environment and
existing right‐of‐way. An aerial guideway and/or physically separated right‐of‐way would be
required for operational and safety reasons. Additionally, extensions and modifications to
Monorail operations are quite costly as they require new track and stations. While Monorail
systems are operational in the United States, they are not well proven as a reliable technology
for consistent commuter service over the distance considered in the Study Area. Monorail is a
proprietary technology with few manufacturers which may result in short or long‐term cost
issues. Monorail was not advanced for further evaluation in this study.
High Speed Rail High Speed Rail would be inconsistent with the Study Area’s operating environment and existing
right‐of‐way. An aerial guideway and/or physically separated right‐of‐way would be required for
operational and safety reasons. Additionally, since the travel time savings of a High Speed Rail
system are largely dependent on long distances between stops, this option would be unable to
serve short and medium distance trips. High Speed Rail is a relatively unproven technology in the
United States. While High Speed Rail projects in the U.S. have spurred competition, the selected
technology would most likely be proprietary. High Speed Rail requires a separate dedicated right‐
of‐way with significant infrastructure. As such, its ability to be expanded is highly limited. High
Speed Rail has a very long implementation timeframe. High Speed Rail was not advanced for
further consideration in this study.
Maglev Maglev would be inconsistent with the Study Area’s operating environment and existing right‐of‐
way. An aerial guideway and/or physically separated right‐of‐way would be required for
operational and safety reasons. Additionally, since the travel time savings of Maglev systems are
largely dependent on long distances between stops, this option would be unable to serve short
and medium distance trips. Maglev is not a proven technology in reliable passenger service in the
United States today. Additionally the technology is proprietary to only a few manufacturers
which may result in short and long‐term cost issues. Extensions and modifications would require
new track, structures, systems and stations. Maglev was not advanced for further evaluation in
this study.
The best technology alternatives for the US 192 AA Study Area were determined to be: Bus, BRT,
Light Rail, and Streetcar (for certain segments). The remaining alternatives, Commuter Rail,
Heavy Rail, High Speed Rail, Maglev, and Monorail, were significantly lower performing than the
top four technology types. Based on this evaluation the technology alternatives that advanced to
be included in the development of the Long List of Alternatives were the Bus, BRT, Light Rail and
Streetcar technologies. These technologies are utilized in the development of the Long List of
Alternatives, which are described in Section 4.
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Development of the Long List of Alternatives 13
4 Development of the
Long List of Alternatives
4.1 Introduction and Background
Each of the four technologies that advanced past the Tier One screening was further developed
to formulate the Long List of Alternatives to include 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 along with the Transportation System Management (TSM) and
Build alternatives.
Each of the Long List Alternatives was developed based on the issues and opportunities identified
in the Existing Conditions Report and Purpose and Need Report. A brief summary of the existing
conditions as related to the transportation system and the transportation issues to be mitigated
in the Study Area are presented in Section 4.2.
4.2 Existing Conditions, Issues and Needs
Existing Traffic Summary Two corridors comprise the Study Area: the Osceola Corridor, centered on US 192, and the
Kissimmee Corridor, centered on Orange Blossom Trail and John Young Parkway. Both corridors
are comprised of roadways that are projected to operate at poor levels of service (LOS F) for the
Year 2030. Currently, the segments with the highest levels of congestion include: US 192 from
Celebration Avenue to Poinciana Boulevard and US 192 from Hoagland Boulevard to Michigan
Avenue. Osceola County has indicated it is not supportive of US 192 being widened beyond six
general purpose travel lanes. This position is supported by the County’s long‐term strategy to
provide additional transportation capacity through increased investment for transit
infrastructure and service improvements.
The few parallel alternate highway routes to US 192 are also projected to be over capacity by
2030. Roadway infrastructure, high speed limits (40 mph to 55 mph) and congestion found in the
majority of the corridor present a challenge for pedestrians and bicyclists, resulting in safety
concerns related to those modes and discouragement of their use.
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
14 Development of the Long List of Alternatives
Existing Transit Summary LYNX operates 13 routes in the Study Area – seven local routes, four Downtown Disney Direct
(3D) routes which provide express service oriented towards Walt Disney World employees, one
FastLink (limited stop) route, and one NeighborLink (on‐demand) route. The annual (2011)
ridership for these routes was just over 4.6 million and average weekday ridership (2010) for
eleven of these routes was just over 12,500. Ridership in the Study Area does not display typical
AM/PM peaks, but reflects a consistent, all day demand. Weekend ridership on operating routes
accounts for 40‐50 percent of the average weekly ridership. LYNX system ridership increased by
12 percent in the 2006‐2011 period, with some Study Area route ridership growing by over 50
percent.
Of the seven local routes that operate in the project Study Area, three operate on 30‐minute
weekday headways and four operate on 60‐minute weekday headways. Only three of these
routes operate on Sundays. The FastLink service also operates on 30‐minute headway but only
on weekdays and only for five hours per day. A transfer is required to traverse the entire Osceola
Corridor by bus or to access one of the corridors from the other.
With numerous stops along each route and the persistent traffic, LYNX routes in the Study Area
do not provide a competitive travel time advantage over auto travel and have chronic issues with
on‐time performance. Therefore, the LYNX system in the Study Area is primarily used by riders
with no other means of travel. In fact, only three percent of the riders in the Study Area define
themselves as tourists.
Existing transit trips within the Study Area are typically short‐to‐medium distance and generally
do not include travel from one end of a corridor to the other end (i.e. Kissimmee to Four Corners
WalMart). The average transit trip length varies by route, ranging between 4.3 and 9.0 miles. Trip
making is highly concentrated to/from the City of Kissimmee, Celebration, Walt Disney World,
Valencia College and along Orange Blossom Trail between Poinciana and Osceola Parkway. Travel
in the core of the Study Area is highest, with travel to/from the western and eastern extremities
of the Osceola Corridor the lightest.
The Osceola Square Mall SuperStop is the only major transfer point for LYNX services within the
Study Area. The SuperStop is located at Armstrong Boulevard north of Vine Street. The
SuperStop serves as a central location where passengers can transfer routes in a safe and
efficient manner. This location includes one bus bay with benches and sheltered waiting areas,
an information kiosk and designated taxi parking; it serves all of the local routes operating in the
Study Area as well as FastLink 441.
Along the Osceola Corridor, many of the LYNX bus stops within the limits of the US 192
streetscaping project (from Black Lake Boulevard east to Hoagland Boulevard) feature upgraded
amenities including a covered waiting area, bench, trash receptacle, water fountain, branded
color scheme and information kiosk. Outside of this area, many bus stops consist of a bus stop
sign pole, with few benches or covered shelters. The Kissimmee Corridor has few bus shelters
outside of downtown Kissimmee.
The Long List of Alternatives, described in Section 4.3, have been developed to address the needs
in the Study Area which are primarily based upon existing system deficiencies; expected future
travel demand that will result from Study Area growth in population, employment and
development/redevelopment; the desire for the Study Area to be comprised of more livable
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Development of the Long List of Alternatives 15
communities supported by a low cost and multi‐modal transportation system; and feeder/
distributor demands that will result from the 2016 start‐up of the SunRail commuter rail line in
Osceola County.
As noted in the project Purpose and Need statement:
“Transportation improvements are needed in the Study Area to support existing and
projected travel demands that are resulting from continuous growth in population and
employment, increased land use densities, and exceptional and consistent tourist travel.
There is a need to address existing deficiencies in both the transit infrastructure and transit
service (coverage, frequency, access and performance) to improve the attractiveness and
effectiveness of the transit system so that travelers increasingly choose it over auto travel.
Improvements are needed to better serve the highly transit dependent population, to attract
new riders so that congestion can be reduced, and to provide improved connectivity between
existing and proposed transit‐supportive land uses and other modal transportation systems,
including SunRail and future High Speed Rail. Transportation investments are needed that are
cost‐effective and utilize existing transportation rights‐of‐way to the maximum extent
feasible by employing advanced and accepted transportation technology.”
4.3 Long List of Alternatives
Each of the four technologies that advanced past the Tier One screening was further developed
to formulate the Long List of Alternatives (LLA) to include 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 Transportation System Management
(TSM) and Build alternatives.
A consistent analysis year is required for the comparative assessment of the alternatives.
Consistent with FTA’s requirement that forecasts are based upon the current, regionally adopted
LRTP, year 2030 has been defined as the analysis year for the study. The MetroPlan 2030 Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) was first adopted in August 2009 and has been amended
periodically since then. While the 2040 LRTP is currently under development, it is not adopted
and is not expected to be adopted prior to completion of this study. Based upon the nature of
the Study Area needs, it is expected that the project implementation year will range from 2016
to 2025.
Logical termini and key transit stops for each of the Build alternatives were defined based on
existing high ridership locations and areas with existing/proposed significant land development.
The logical termini include:
Four Corners WalMart (intersection of Osceola, Orange, Lake and Polk Counties)
Walt Disney World
Kissimmee SunRail Station/Kissimmee Intermodal Facility
Osceola Parkway SunRail Station
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
16 Development of the Long List of Alternatives
Sixteen Long List Alternatives (one No Build, one TSM and 14 Build alternatives) were developed
using various combinations of the following elements:
Mode/Technology – The four technologies that advanced from the Tier One screening – bus,
BRT, Streetcar and LRT.
Alignment – Service is primarily located along US 192 between downtown Kissimmee and
the Four Corners WalMart with supplementary alignments along World Drive and US 441
(Orange Blossom Trail) providing service to Walt Disney World and the Osceola Parkway
SunRail Station respectively. Several BRT alternatives also propose use of Osceola Parkway
for Express Service.
Service Type – The main service goal for all of the alternatives is to provide expeditious
service between the logical termini; the nuances of the proposed service types are described
below.
Infrastructure – The following infrastructure improvements are proposed to help improve
the speed of the BRT or LRT vehicles throughout the Study Area:
o Queue jumps: There are at least two widely‐used categories of queue jumpers—those
with a physical lane only and those that are integrated with traffic signals. Physical
queue jump lanes are designated for use by transit vehicles and only allow transit
vehicles to pass a queue of general traffic (“jumping the queue”) at a traffic bottleneck.
When queue jump lanes are not integrated with traffic signals, they typically require a
merging lane or bus bypass lanes on the far side of the bottleneck to allow the transit
vehicle to safely merge into traffic. Queue jumpers integrated with traffic signals have a
special traffic signal that gives an early green light to buses, allowing them to move into
the general lanes ahead of other traffic. A right‐turn‐only signal is often displayed in
advance of the bus‐only green to clear any right‐ turning vehicles from the lane. Figure 1
shows the basic setup of a queue jump lane.
Figure 1: Queue Jump Schematic
Source: Transport Canada
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Development of the Long List of Alternatives 17
o Transit Signal Priority (TSP): TSP can alter signal timing to give priority to BRT vehicles.
Signal timing is changed by either extending the green for the detected vehicle,
truncating an opposing movement to provide an early green, or inserting a bus
movement to reduce delay to the BRT. This allows BRT vehicles to improve schedule
adherence, reliability, and speed. The technology requires installation of sensors on
buses and at intersections along bus routes. Available strategies include green extension
(extending the green phase to allow BRT vehicles to travel through) and early green
(providing an early green signal to allow BRT vehicles to spend less time at an
intersection). Sometimes transit signal priority treatments may be coupled with
dedicated queue bypass lanes, or a special “buses only” signal, where BRT vehicles stop
on the near side shoulder to provide buses with the right‐of‐way for rejoining the
general purpose travel lanes. Several TSP technologies and signal priority methods are
available. A basic TSP system consists of communication from a BRT vehicle to a receiver
at signalized intersections. A signal is sent from the BRT vehicle to the signal at the
upcoming intersection. In turn, priority may be given to that vehicle. Emitters on board
buses use short range communications such as infrared and radio frequency (RF) to
communicate with the receivers. The controllers within the Study Area are currently
enabled to accommodate TSP.
To support the goal of providing expeditious service, running the service in dedicated lanes is
also proposed for several of the alternatives. Three levels of dedicated lanes are considered for
the LRT and BRT alternatives: no dedicated lanes (BRT alternatives only); providing dedicated
lanes over a portion of the US 192 corridor – where the existing congestion is heaviest (the area
has generally been defined as being between Celebration Avenue and downtown Kissimmee); or
providing dedicated lanes along US 192 from the Four Corners WalMart to downtown
Kissimmee. Dedicated lanes may be incorporated into the roadway cross‐section by constructing
additional lanes to the outside of the existing general use lanes, or by converting existing general
use lane to be designated for transit use only. Dedicated lanes and queue jumps are
implemented exclusive of one another, so queue jumps would not be used in locations where
there are dedicated lanes.
The LLA are summarized in Tables 4‐1 through 4‐3, and fact sheets for each alternative that
include further information about the potential stations to be served, environmental impacts,
order of magnitude costs and other features of the alternatives. The fact sheets, located in
Appendix C, also include a figure showing the alignments and infrastructure improvements
associated with each alternative.
No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative (0‐1) reflects the continuation of existing traffic and transit operations
within the Study Area. It is assumed that LYNX will maintain its current vehicle type and schedule
for bus operations along the corridor. The No Build Alternative includes programmed
transportation infrastructure and service improvements in the Study Area that have committed
funding and are included in the MetroPlan Transportation Improvement Program (FY2013‐2017).
Projects included in the No Build generally expand the capacity of the transportation system and
are generally located in the eastern section of the Study Area in and around Kissimmee. The No
Build projects include capacity expansions along US 192, MLK Boulevard, John Young Parkway
and other roadways within the Study Area; start up of the SunRail commuter rail system (Phase
II); construction of the Kissimmee Intermodal Facility; increased service (lower headways) on Link
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
18 Development of the Long List of Alternatives
26; additional express service from downtown Orlando to Osceola County; and construction of a
bicycle/pedestrian path.
The No Build Alternative assumes relocation of the significant transfer and bus activity that
currently occurs at the Osceola Square SuperStop to the Kissimmee Intermodal Facility; this is
also true of the TSM and Build alternatives which include all projects and assumptions from the
No Build Alternative. A table of the specific projects included as part of the No Build Alternative is
shown in the fact sheet for the No Build Alternative in Appendix C.
Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative The TSM Alternative (1‐1) consists of the No Build Alternative plus other low‐cost roadway and
transit system improvements that can be accomplished with little or no additional infrastructure
requirements and with low capital costs. In addition to those improvements that are part of the
No Build, the TSM also includes projects that have been identified in MetroPlan Orlando’s 2030
Long Range Transportation Plan or the LYNX Transit Development Plan (TDP) Major Update
(FY2013‐2022); no funding has been identified for these improvements to date.
The TSM projects are intended to improve the overall functionality of the study corridor to
achieve the project goals and objectives. They include increasing the amount of FastLink 441
service to provide 30‐minute frequencies (all day and on weekends), and implementing the
following new, limited‐stop services:
Express service along US 192 from downtown Kissimmee to the Four Corners WalMart at
approximately 15‐minute headways;
Express service along US 192 from downtown Kissimmee to Disney at approximately 15‐
minute headways; and
Express service along US 192 from downtown Kissimmee to St. Cloud at approximately 15‐
minute headways.
The TSM will make stops at existing stop locations. Limited Transit Signal Priority or queue jumps
could be considered as part of the TSM.
The TSM is intended to capture the maximum effectiveness afforded by proposed and
committed transportation infrastructure improvements including the Kissimmee Intermodal
Facility. To implement the proposed transit improvements in the TSM, the capital improvements
noted in the No Build Alternative will be necessary as well as additional transit vehicles and
infrastructure to support the enhanced service levels. Details about the improvements proposed
as part of the TSM Alternative are included in the TSM Alternative fact sheet in Appendix C.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternatives Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a rapid mode of transportation that can provide the quality of rail
transit and the flexibility of buses. BRT systems are characterized by being flexible, permanently
integrated premium systems with a strong focus on branding. Key attributes of BRT systems
include: speed, reliability, identity/image, and passenger friendly design. Figure 2 illustrates some
of the key characteristics of a BRT system.
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Development of the Long List of Alternatives 19
Figure 2: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit
Source: Government Accountability Office analysis of bus rapid transit research
The BRT alternatives (2‐1 through 2‐9) are comprised of a range of infrastructure improvements
along US 192, US 441 (Orange Blossom Trail) and Osceola Parkway that include: queue jumps,
traffic signal priority (TSP), partial alignments with dedicated bus lanes, full alignments with
dedicated bus lanes, improved and substantial stations, a real‐time information system, and off‐
board fare collection. These infrastructure improvements will be applied to the primary
alignments that the BRT will utilize: US 192, US 441, World Drive and the Osceola Parkway.
Overall, the BRT alternatives would stop at fewer stops than local buses do today. At the long list
stage, the same station locations are proposed for all of the BRT alternatives. The BRT
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
20 Development of the Long List of Alternatives
alternatives propose one of the following three service patterns to provide rapid service from
one end of US 192 (downtown Kissimmee) to the other (Disney or Four Corners WalMart):
1. Skip‐Stop Service: Two services (“A” route and “B” route) make alternating BRT station stops
through the “trunk” section of the corridor, between Celebration Avenue and Armstrong
Boulevard. A third route (“C” route) makes all stops. The skip‐stop service allows for faster
movement along the corridor by reducing the amount of BRT station stops made.
2. Zone Express Service via US 192: Several routes providing express (non‐stop) service within
the trunk section along US 192 corridor enable speedy service from downtown Kissimmee
to Walt Disney World or the Four Corners WalMart. The zone express routes would be
paired with at least one route that provides all stops along the US 192 corridor.
3. Zone Express Service via US 192 and Osceola Parkway: Similar paradigm to the above zone
express pattern, but the non‐stop service is provided using Osceola Parkway. The zone
express routes would be paired with at least one route that provides all stops along the US
192 corridor.
These BRT service patterns also assume improved frequency (approximately 15 minute bi‐
directional headways). Existing local service (non BRT) will remain at potentially revised service
frequencies.
The BRT Alternatives include all possible combinations of the following infrastructure and service
options:
Infrastructure
1. Queue jumps and TSP only
2. Some dedicated bus lanes + TSP and Queue jumps
3. Dedicated bus lanes along US 192
Service
1. Skip Stop service
2. Zone Express service via US 192
3. Zone Express service via US 192 and Osceola Parkway
Table 4‐1 shows the Alternative number for each of the combinations of infrastructure and
service; Table 4‐3 includes a brief description of each Alternative.
Table 4‐1: BRT Alternatives Comparison
BRT Alternative
Infrastructure
Queue jumps
and TSP only
Some dedicated
lanes + TSP and
queue jumps
Dedicated lanes along all
US 192; TSP and queue
jumps along US 441
Service
Skip stop Alt. 2‐1 Alt. 2‐4 Alt. 2‐7
Zone express, US 192 only Alt. 2‐2 Alt. 2‐5 Alt. 2‐8
Zone express,
US 192 and Osceola PkwyAlt. 2‐3 Alt. 2‐6 Alt. 2‐9
The station spacing is approximately every mile apart; the BRT stations are spaced more widely
than the existing bus services in the Study Area to improve end‐to‐end travel speed.
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Development of the Long List of Alternatives 21
Bus Rapid Transit with Streetcar The BRT with Streetcar Alternative (3‐1) is a mixed‐mode alternative that attempts to combine
each (BRT and Streetcar) for their optimal use. This alternative will include a BRT alternative to
serve the Osceola and Kissimmee Corridors plus a mixed‐traffic streetcar providing circulation
between Florida Hospital and the Kissimmee SunRail Station and within downtown Kissimmee.
The BRT component of the alternative will include the most effective infrastructure and service
treatments studied and developed for the BRT alternatives, supplemented by strong connections
with the proposed streetcar alignment.
Light Rail Transit (LRT) The Light Rail alternatives (4‐1 through 4‐4) include fixed guideway light rail transit in a full‐
length dedicated guideway with either a single track with passing sidings or double tracks. A
mixed running LRT is not proposed due to the significant existing and forecasted congestion in
the Study Area. Given the limited maneuverability of LRT vehicles, the average speeds of an LRT
vehicle in mixed traffic could be slower than buses and make this a poor option operationally and
from a cost effectiveness standpoint.
The Light Rail alternatives are primarily located on US 192 with a connection to the Kissimmee
Intermodal Facility and to Walt Disney World. Service would operate as either a single trunk
route with off‐alignment destinations served by feeder/distributor bus service or as multiple
routes with LRT branches to off‐alignment destinations. Service would be provided at improved
frequency (minimum 15 minute bi‐directional headway).
The LRT Alternatives would include all possible combinations of the following infrastructure and
service options:
Infrastructure
1. Some single track w/passing sidings (in dedicated ROW), double‐track otherwise.
2. Double track throughout (in dedicated ROW)
Service
1. Single Route – One trunk route along US 192 plus express bus service to Walt Disney World
and Osceola Parkway SunRail Station
2. Multi‐Route – Three separate LRT routes that, in combination, provide service to each of the
logical termini
Table 4‐2 shows the alternative number for each of the combinations of infrastructure and
service; Table 4‐3 includes a brief description of each alternative.
Table 4‐2: LRT Alternatives Comparison
LRT Alternative
Infrastructure
Some single track w/passing
sidings (dedicated ROW)
All double track (in
dedicated ROW)
Service
Basic ‐ Single route via
US 192 Alt. 4‐1 Alt. 4‐3
Intermediate – Three
routes via US 192Alt. 4‐2 Alt. 4‐4
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
22 Development of the Long List of Alternatives
Table 4‐3: 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
US 192, US 441 Low cost
Transportation
Demand Management
(TDM) and intersection
improvements
Local and Express Bus
service; +/‐ 15 min.
minimum headway;
some route
modifications
Alternative 2‐1
Bus Rapid Transit
US 192, US 441 Queue jumps, TSP, off‐
board fare collection,
substantial stations;
branded buses
Three route skip stop
service; 15 min.
minimum headway;
local bus overlay
Alternative 2‐2
Bus Rapid Transit
US 192, US 441 Queue jumps, TSP, off‐
board fare collection,
substantial stations;
branded buses
Four route zone
express; 15 min.
minimum headway;
local bus overlay
Alternative 2‐3
Bus Rapid Transit
US 192; US 441;
Osceola Parkway
Queue jumps, TSP, off‐
board fare collection,
substantial stations;
branded buses
Four route zone
express; 15 min.
minimum headway;
local bus overlay
Alternative 2‐4
Bus Rapid Transit
US 192, US 441 Some dedicated bus
lanes on US 192, queue
jumps, TSP, off‐board
fare collection,
substantial stations;
branded buses
Three route skip stop
service; 15 min.
minimum headway;
local bus overlay
Alternative 2‐5
Bus Rapid Transit
US 192, US 441 Some dedicated bus
lanes on US 192, queue
jumps, TSP, off‐board
fare collection,
substantial stations;
branded buses
Four route zone
express; 15 min.
minimum headway;
local bus overlay
Alternative 2‐6
Bus Rapid Transit
US 192; US 441;
Osceola Parkway
Some dedicated bus
lanes on US 192, queue
jumps, TSP, off‐board
fare collection,
substantial stations;
branded buses
Four route zone
express; 15 min.
minimum headway;
local bus overlay
Alternative 2‐7
Bus Rapid Transit
US 192, US 441 Full length dedicated
bus lanes on US 192,
queue jumps, TSP, off‐
board fare collection,
substantial stations;
branded buses
Three route skip stop
service; 15 min.
minimum headway;
local bus overlay
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Development of the Long List of Alternatives 23
Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern
Alternative 2‐8
Bus Rapid Transit
US 192, US 441
Full length dedicated
bus lanes on US 192,
queue jumps, TSP, off‐
board fare collection,
substantial stations;
branded buses
Four route zone
express; 15 min.
minimum headway;
local bus overlay
Alternative 2‐9
Bus Rapid Transit
US 192; US 441;
Osceola Parkway
Full length dedicated
bus lanes on US 192,
queue jumps, TSP, off‐
board fare collection,
substantial stations;
branded buses
Four route zone
express; 15 min.
minimum headway;
local bus overlay
Alternative 3‐1
Bus Rapid Transit
with Streetcar
US 192, US 441 Preferred BRT
infrastructure2 on US
192 with Kissimmee/
US 441 Streetcar
circulator
Preferred BRT service
plan3 with multi‐stop
Kissimmee Circulator;
15 min. minimum
headway; local bus
overlay
Alternative 4‐1
Light Rail Transit
US 192 Partial dedicated
guideway and mixed
traffic alignment with
TSP; off‐board fare
collection; substantial
stations
Single route all stop
service (15 min.
minimum headway);
local bus overlay and
express
feeders/distributors
Alternative 4‐2
Light Rail Transit
US 192, US 441 Partial dedicated
guideway and mixed
traffic alignment with
TSP; off‐board fare
collection; substantial
stations
Three routes all stop
service, (15 min.
minimum headway);
local bus overlay
Alternative 4‐3
Light Rail Transit
US 192 Full dedicated
guideway on US 192;
off‐board fare
collection; substantial
stations
Single route all stop
service; local bus
overlay and express
feeders/distributors
Alternative 4‐4
Light Rail Transit
US 192, US 441 Full dedicated
guideway on US 192
and Osceola Parkway;
off‐board fare
collection; substantial
stations
Three routes all stop
service, (15 min.
minimum headway);
local bus overlay
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
Table 4‐3, cont.
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
24 Development of the Long List of Alternatives
4.4 Stakeholder Outreach
The following outreach methods were used to solicit input from community stakeholders on the Preliminary Long List of Alternatives:
A meeting was held with the Project Advisory Working Group (PAWG) – Steering Group on August 16, 2012;
A meeting was held with the PAWG – Community Liaison Group on September 20, 2012;
Two Public Open House Meeting were held on October 2, 2012; and
Presentations were made to LYNX and Osceola County staff, as well as to the MetroPlan Orlando board.
These outreach efforts gave stakeholders the opportunity to become familiar with the alternatives and share their perspectives about what options would be most feasible and appropriate for the Study Area. The input received was used to develop the Final Long List of Alternatives as presented in this document. The input will also inform the Tier Two Screening which will narrow the Final Long List of Alternatives to the Short List of Alternatives (up to three Build alternatives, plus the No Build and TSM).
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Development of the Long List of Alternatives 25
5 Next Steps
5.1 Next Steps
The following are the next steps in the evaluation of alternatives, progressing toward a single recommended alternative:
Tier Two Screening – Long List to Short List The Long List of Alternatives will be evaluated based on the Tier Two screening methodology described in Section 2. The Tier Two screening will incorporate 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. Alternatives that pass the Tier Two screening will be advanced to the Short List of Alternatives for further development and evaluation.
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.
Technical Memorandum
Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
26 Next Steps
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.
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 alternative.
Additional Community Input The first set of public Open Houses was held in June to introduce the project. A second set of Open Houses is scheduled for early October to review the Long List of Alternatives summarized in this document. Two additional public meetings will be held at the following major project milestones:
After the Short List of alternatives has been developed and evaluated
Following the Draft Alternatives Analysis Report, including the recommended Locally Preferred Alternative
Additional community input will also occur through regularly scheduled meetings with the project’s Community Liaison 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 Locally Preferred Alternative. 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.
Technical Memorandum | Evaluation Methodology and Long List Alternatives Development
Table of Contents
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 One Screening Methodology: Modal Technology Evaluation .................. 4 2.4 Tier Two Screening Methodology: Long List to Short List of Alternatives
Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 5 2.5 Tier Three Screening Methodology: Short List to Locally Preferred
Alternative ....................................................................................................... 6
Tier One Screening ...................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Tier One Screening Results .............................................................................. 9
Development of the Long List of Alternatives .............................................................13
4.1 Introduction and Background ........................................................................ 13 4.2 Existing Conditions, Issues and Needs ........................................................... 13 4.3 Long List of Alternatives ................................................................................ 15
Next Steps ..................................................................................................................25
5.1 Next Steps ...................................................................................................... 25
Table No. Description Page
Table 4‐1: BRT Alternatives Comparison ................................................................... 20 Table 4‐2: LRT Alternatives Comparison ..................................................................... 21 Table 4‐3: Final Long List of Alternatives .................................................................... 22
Figure No. Description Page
Figure 1: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit ............................................................ 19
Appendix A – Goals and Objectives Appendix B – Modal Fact Sheets Appendix C – Long List of Alternatives (LLA) Fact Sheets