27 US 192 Alternatives Analysis Orane lss rail Technical ... Memo - Evaluation Methodology and L… · \\flordata\proposals\81529.11 US 192 BRT\Submittal\Presentation\Graphics\GIS\US192_B&W

$Page 1: 27 US 192 Alternatives Analysis Orane lss rail Technical ... Memo - Evaluation Methodology and L… · \\flordata\proposals\81529.11 US 192 BRT\Submittal\Presentation\Graphics\GIS\US192_B&W$
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

(THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)


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

(THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)



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



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.




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).




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




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.




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




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.



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.




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.



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




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.



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.



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




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




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




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




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.




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




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.




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




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‐



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‐



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,


branded buses


service; 15 min.

minimum headway;

local bus overlay

Alternative 2‐5

Bus Rapid Transit

US 192, US 441 Some dedicated bus



fare collection,


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



fare collection,


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‐



branded buses


service; 15 min.

minimum headway;

local bus overlay




Alternative Primary Alignments Infrastructure Service Pattern

Alternative 2‐8

Bus Rapid Transit

US 192, US 441

Full length dedicated





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





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


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


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


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.




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).




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.



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.



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

Documents

27 US 192 Alternatives Analysis Orane lss rail Technical ... Memo - Evaluation Methodology and L… · \\flordata\proposals\81529.11 US 192 BRT\Submittal\Presentation\Graphics\GIS\US192_B&W