Task 7: Offline Ridership Modeling

The objective for the Task 7: Offline Ridership Modeling is to develop ridership estimates for the project alternatives identified in 1 Background ...... 3 Task 5: Identification of Alternatives and Task 8: Alternatives 1.1 Task Objectives ...... 3 Review. The ridership estimates will be developed from ridership 1.2 Ridership Forecast Methodology ...... 3 forecasting tools that are within the Federal Transit

Administration’s (FTA) range of acceptable approaches. 2 Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST ...... 4 2.1 Alternatives ...... 4 2.2 Results ...... 17 2.3 Level 3a Screening ...... 20 3 Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS ...... 21 3.1 Background ...... 21 3.2 Model Updates ...... 22 3.3 Calibration Results ...... 24 3.4 Ridership Forecast ...... 28 4 References ...... 32

SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Background

List of Figures Figure 1: Preliminary Station Locations ...... 6 Figure 2: HART MetroRapid Station ...... 8 Figure 3: STOPS Reporting Districts and Station Groups ...... 26 Figure 4: Alternatives Identified for Level 3b Screening ...... 30

List of Tables Table 1 – Level 3a TBEST Scenarios ...... 5 Table 2: BRT Ridership Adjustment Factors – Summary of Scores ...... 9 Table 3: BRT Ridership Adjustment Factors – Limited Stop ...... 11 Table 4: BRT Ridership Adjustment Factors – Partial BAT Lanes ...... 12 Table 5: BRT Ridership Adjustment Factors – Full-BAT Lanes ...... 13 Table 6: BRT Ridership Adjustment Factors – Median/Curbside Exclusive Lanes ...... 14 Table 7: Speeds by Transit Type ...... 15 Table 8: Travel Speeds by Time, Direction and Segment– Base Scenario ...... 16 Table 9 - Weekday Hours of Service by TBEST Period ...... 17 Table 10: Level 3a Weekday Ridership Modeling Results using TBEST ...... 18 Table 11: SR 436 STOPS Model Update ...... 23 Table 12: Weekday Linked Trips Comparison ...... 24 Table 13: Weekday Ridership by System ...... 24 Table 14: Route-level Ridership for SR 436 ...... 25 Table 15: Ridership for Station Groups on SR 436 ...... 28 Table 16: Alternatives Identified for Level 3b Screening ...... 29 Table 17: Future Year (2025) Weekday Corridor Linked Trips ...... 30 Table 18: Future Year (2025) Weekday Corridor Incremental Transit Trips ...... 31 Table 19: Future Year (2025) Weekday Incremental Auto PMT ...... 31 Table 20: Future Year (2025) Weekday Corridor Boardings ...... 31

List of Appendices Appendix A: Premium Transit Speed Reference Appendix B: District and Zone Boundary Map

2 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Background

guidelines from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the 1 Background Department of Transportation (FDOT).

The purpose of this task is to develop ridership estimates for the 1.2 Ridership Forecast Methodology short list of alternatives selected for Level 3 Screening. Level 3 is the As with other analyses in this study, the ridership forecasting culmination of a tiered alternatives analysis process that consisted of methodology and software was tailored to the study phase. To three levels: estimate ridership on the numerous Level 3a alternatives, a • Level 1 Screening – Transit Mode. A broad selection of previously-validated Transit Boarding Estimation and Simulation Tool 1 transit modes—from local bus to gondolas to heavy rail—were (TBEST) model was used . TBEST allowed for more efficient assessed against 14 criteria to develop a comprehensive list of analysis of multiple permutations of headways, spans of service, appropriate trunk and feeder transit modes for the corridor. transit runtimes, and other service characteristics. The Level 3a • Level 2 Screening – Trunk Alignments and Segments. Screening using TBEST is covered in §2 of this document. Level 2 Screening evaluated potential alignment and segments Once the number of potential alternatives had been reduced through for trunk modes, including logical endpoints along SR 436 for Level 3a screening, ridership on the remaining alternatives was premium transit service. analyzed using FTA’s modeling software, STOPS (Simplified • Level 3 Screening – Transit Trunk Alignment, Operating Trips-on-Project Software). STOPS was specifically developed to Plans, and Station Location and Access. support FTA’s Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program and funding o Level 3a examined many alternatives using coarser data eligibility analysis related to New Starts and Small Starts funded sources and high-level analysis techniques. projects. The Level 3b Screening using STOPS is covered in §3 of o Level 3b evaluated a smaller number of alternatives using this document. more sophisticated tools and data sources. Complete Streets planning was also conducted as part of Level 3b. The highest-ranking alternatives and segments in the Level 2 Screening were paired with the Level 1 candidate modes and advanced to Level 3 Screening. Ridership forecasting was performed on the Level 3 alternatives.

1.1 Task Objectives Ridership models were developed to measure the ridership impacts of the alternatives as part of the Level 3 Screening. The ridership models were developed using tools and platforms that follow the

1 The previously-validated TBEST model was prepared by LYNX and delivered as a TDS file covering the entire LYNX system. This model was completed in August 2017.

3 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

2 Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

This section describes the alternatives, parameters, and results of the Level 3a ridership modeling using TBEST.

2.1 Alternatives TBEST ridership estimates was conducted on a baseline no-build alternative as well as four premium transit alternatives, each of which included several variants of alignments. The baseline and twelve alternatives that were modeled are summarized in Table 1. The local bus alternative serves as a baseline for evaluation. The other alternatives maintain local bus service throughout the study area, such that comparisons to the baseline are between local bus service only to local bus service plus the enhanced service. In each case, existing local service along SR 436 is not modified.

4 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Table 1 – Level 3a TBEST Scenarios

Ref Description Notes Headway Southern Northern # (minutes) terminus terminus 1 Local bus Baseline, no change from validated model (i.e. 436S and 436N). 30- 30 OIA SR 434 minute headways. 2 Limited-stop bus (LSB) Uses preliminary station locations (see Figure 1), assumes to have 30 OIA Aloma Ave queue jumps and conditional Transit Signal Priority (TSP), small 3 increase from BRT Average travel speed adjustment. 30-minute 30 Aloma Ave SR 434 BRT headways. 4 Same as above, with 15-minute headways 15 OIA Aloma Ave

5 15 Aloma Ave SR 434

6 Partial BAT lanes (<50%) Uses preliminary stations, assumes to have some Business Access 15 OIA SR 50 and Transit Lanes (BAT) lanes, queue jumps, and always-on TSP, 7 small-moderate speed increase from BRT average travel speed 15 OIA Aloma Ave adjustment (slightly higher than LSB), as BAT lanes drops would 8 likely be in slower, more congested areas. 15-minute premium 15 OIA SunRail transit headways. 9 15 Aloma Ave SR 434

10 Full BAT lanes Uses preliminary station locations, runs on BAT lanes, and has 10 OIA SR 50 always-on TSP, moderate speed increase from BRT average travel 11 speed adjustment. 10-minute premium transit headways. 10 OIA Aloma Ave

12 10 OIA SunRail

13 10 Aloma Ave SR 434

14 Median-running or Uses preliminary station locations, runs in the median or exclusive 10 OIA SR 50 exclusive curbside curbside, and has always-on TSP, higher speed increase from BRT 15 average travel speed adjustment. 10-minute premium transit 10 OIA Aloma Ave headways. NOTE: Two variations on the local bus service scenario (#1) were considered: a 15-minute headway service and a 60-minute headway service. The 15-minute local service is projected to increase ridership over existing conditions, but at relatively high operating cost. The 60-minute local service cuts operating costs but was projected to reduce ridership even when paired with a premium transit alternative.

5 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Figure 1: Preliminary Station Locations

6 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

based on the average speed of trips in OIA time point 2.1.1 Modeling Assumptions segments. Ridership estimates were not adjusted. In TBEST, the Level 3a alternatives were distinguished by their alignments, average speeds, and premium transit characteristics. 2.1.1.2 Premium transit station locations Additional assumptions and parameters used for TBEST scenario Station location was based on a set of preliminary stations modeling are described below. o identified through a high-level review of existing boardings and 2.1.1.1 Alignments alightings, land use, and connecting routes. These preliminary o Wherever possible, TBEST segments for the premium transit stations were assumed to be the same among alternatives. alignments mirrored those used by the local 436S and 436N routes to permit comparability. Each alignment only included a o No stations were designated as “special generators” in TBEST single pattern in each direction. except Altamonte Mall, which is the only on-corridor stop that has already been designated as a special generator in the o For purposes of Level 3a ridership modeling, the premium baseline validated TBEST model. Hence, it was retained for transit alternatives were assumed to make short deviations this application of TBEST. into the Altamonte Springs SunRail station and the Altamonte Mall (where applicable). As described in the TBEST 4.4 User Guide, “Special generators are stops that attract specific demographics that o Though the alternatives were not expected to deviate to Super cannot be accounted for in the socio-economic characteristics Stops or the Altamonte Mall, transfer opportunities to and accessibility computation of the ridership estimation connecting local service at those locations were preserved in model.” The guide provides no standard for assessing whether TBEST scenarios. Alternatives were shown in TBEST as a stop qualifies as a special generator, but suggests that local deviating to these transfer locations, but premium transit travel knowledge and judgment be used to make an assessment. times were set as though no deviation was made. In this way, the TBEST model recognized both the speed of premium 2.1.1.3 Premium transit characteristics transit services as well as transfer opportunities between o Characteristics of premium transit alternatives are described in premium transit services and existing local services. Table 1. Each alternative was scored in TBEST on 14 measures covering characteristics of vehicles, stations, travel Premium transit alternatives and local service were evaluated o way, and branding/marketing. TBEST uses scores from these as though the OIA South Terminal was complete and LYNX inputs to calculate ridership adjustment factors which impact service operated from the new terminal. Rather than modeling expected ridership improvements for premium services that these land use and service pattern changes in TBEST, model cannot be explained by vehicle travel time alone. The outputs based on service to the North Terminal were adjusted methodology for these ridership adjustments, along with the in a spreadsheet. An additional 1.25 revenue miles per trip interpretation of various scores for the TBEST model, are were added to all transit trips to OIA. A corresponding increase described in Transit Boardings Estimation and Simulation Tool in revenue hours and cost was also added to these services (TBEST) Calibration for Guideway and BRT Modes (2013).

7 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Simplified guidance is also available in the TBEST 4.4 Users Guide (2016).

o Scores for SR 436 alternatives are summarized in Table 2, and described in more detail in Table 3 through Table 6. These scores are based both on guidance from the TBEST Users Guide and on scores for the Hillsborough Area Transit (HART) MetroRapid BRT system, which were provided by the TBEST Calibration document referenced above (see scores in Table 2 and example HART MetroRapid stop in Figure 2). Note that many scores are assessed against existing transit service, such that if a transit alternative does not differ from existing service on a particular metric, it receives a “0” for that metric.

Source: TBEST 4.4 Users Guide (2016) Figure 2: HART MetroRapid Station

8 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Table 2: BRT Ridership Adjustment Factors – Summary of Scores

bus

anes l

anes top l - s running | | - running

Category and Metric TBEST Guidance (Abbreviated) Limited Partial BAT BAT Full Median Excl. curbside HART MetroRapid Vehicle Characteristics Floor height Level boardings across the system would be assigned a score of 5 on a 0–5 scale 0 3 3 5 0 for floor height. If there were no differences between station and vehicle floors relative to traditional bus service, this factor would be assigned a score of 0. Articulated The articulated bus factor is scored proportionally to the percentage of articulated 0 2 2 4 0 buses in the BRT fleet, with a maximum score of 5. Aerodynamic/Aesthetic Distinctive vehicles with a modern appearance, such as the Civis (French- 1 3 3 4 1 designed, highly-stylized, articulated, vehicle guidance equipped) bus, would be assigned a score of 5 in this category. Vehicles that were identical with the existing service with the exception of paint schemes would be assigned a score of 1. Alternative Fuel A fully electric or hydrogen fuel-cell coach, for example, might be assigned a 2 3 3 4 0 score of 5 in this category. A diesel hybrid coach might be assigned a score of 3, and a compressed natural gas (CNG) coach might be assigned a score of 2 or 3, depending upon whether or not it was present only in the BRT line. Guided/steering If a vehicle incorporated additional technologies to help steer or guide it or to 0 3 3 4 0 Technology enhance its precision docking at stations or otherwise minimize right-of-way requirements, it might be assigned a score of 5 in this category. Absent any special treatment, it would be assigned a score of 0. Station Characteristics Physical A station with a significant physical presence that would be easily noticed and 1 3 3 4 3 Presence/Architecture positively regarded by passengers and other potential customers would be assigned a score of 5. More modest facilities would have lower scores reaching 0 if the stop/shelters were comparable to the norm in that community for other transit routes. Shelter A well-sheltered location would be assigned a score of 4 or 5, and an exposed 2 3 3 4 3 shelter whose primary purpose was physical presence, not passenger protection, would be assigned a score of 1 or 2.

9 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

bus

anes l

anes top l - s running | | - running

Category and Metric TBEST Guidance (Abbreviated) Limited Partial BAT BAT Full Median Excl. curbside HART MetroRapid Real-Time Information The presence of information on the BRT route might be assigned a score of 4, 0 3 3 5 1 with 5 assigned in situations in which connecting service information is also available. The absence of information would result in a score of 0. Fare Vending The presence of kiosks or other means of selling fare media at the station (versus 0 2 2 3 2 on the vehicle) would be assigned a score of 5 if available throughout the system. Lower scores would apply depending on the extent of coverage of fare vending services and system stations. Off-Vehicle Fare The extent to which the system has an honor fare system or other off-vehicle fare 0 3 3 5 0 Collection collection strategy that would decrease dwell times and increase customer convenience could result in a score of 5. Partial deployment would reduce the score if traditional on-vehicle fare collection were used throughout the BRT line. Travel Way Characteristics Exclusiveness A BRT system operating on exclusive travel way throughout its length would be 1 2 2 4 0 assigned a score of 5. Lower scores would be received based on the proportion of exclusive right-of-way offered. Shared lane use with the presence of queue jumps at a number of intersections might result in the score of 1. Signal Preemption/Priority Extensive deployment of these features that produced travel time savings would 1 4 4 5 1 result in a score of 5. More modest levels of deployment across the route and/or less evidence of actual operating time savings would result in lower scores. Visual Distinctiveness The extent to which a travel way has identifiable visual characteristics signals a 0 4 4 5 1 stronger presence to the community and travelers and can enhance safety and operating speed. Branding/Marketing Characteristics Branding/Marketing High-profile systems with distinctive branding and aggressive promotion and 1 3 3 5 2 complementary initiatives would be assigned a score of 5, with scores reduced proportionately, reaching 0 if the route were indistinguishable from traditional bus services beyond the route name.

10 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Table 3: BRT Ridership Adjustment Factors – Limited Stop

Description: Uses preliminary stations, assumes to have queue jumps and conditional TSP, and has small increase from BRT Average travel speed adjustment. Score Rationale Vehicle Characteristics Floor height 0 Similar to existing fleet, with no additional benefit. Articulated 0 Articulated buses not used. Aerodynamic/Aesthetic 1 Identical to existing vehicles with exception of paint scheme. Alternative Fuel 2 Identical to existing Lynx fleet, which is CNG-based. Guided/steering Technology 0 No special benefit in this category. Station Characteristics Physical Presence/Architecture 1 Similar to FastLink service, with stops almost indistinguishable from local service stops. Shelter 2 Shelters would be provided, but that passengers would still be exposed to the elements. Real-Time Information 0 Real-time information will not be available at stops. Fare Vending 0 Fare vending machines will not be available at stops. Off-Vehicle Fare Collection 0 Fare collection for limited-stop service would work identically to local bus. Travel Way Characteristics Exclusiveness 1 Queue jumps provided at select intersections. Signal Preemption/Priority 1 Signal preemption/priority implemented at some intersections, but that impact on operating time would be limited. Visual Distinctiveness 0 Transit way characteristics would not be distinguishable from that of local bus service. Branding/Marketing Characteristics Branding/Marketing 1 Level of branding/marketing similar to FastLink service.

11 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Table 4: BRT Ridership Adjustment Factors – Partial BAT Lanes

Alternative Description: Uses preliminary stations (see Figure 1), assumed to have some BAT lanes, queue jumps, and always-on TSP, small to moderate speed increase from BRT average travel speed adjustment (slightly higher than LSB). Score Rationale Vehicle Characteristics Floor height 3 New vehicles with near-level boarding. Because existing fleet is low-floor, improvement is tempered. Articulated 2 Approximately 40 percent of fleet used for BRT service would be articulated vehicles. Aerodynamic/Aesthetic 3 Assumed that new, more distinctive vehicles would be purchased for BRT Bronze or Silver service. Alternative Fuel 3 Existing fleet is CNG based (scoring 2), but newly purchased vehicles may be more energy efficient. Guided/steering 3 Assumed guided/steering technology will be used at some stations for near-level boarding. Technology Station Characteristics Physical 3 Assumed to be comparable to HART MetroRapid stations, which scored a 3 in this category. Presence/Architecture Shelter 3 Assumed to be comparable to HART MetroRapid stations, which scored a 3 in this category. Real-Time Information 3 Assumed that real-time information would be available at many stations, but that connecting service information would not be provided. Fare Vending 2 Assumed that fare vending machines would be available only at a few stations, comparable to HART MetroRapid stations. Off-Vehicle Fare Collection 3 Assumed all-door boarding would be implemented throughout the BRT system (described in TBEST user guide as “honor fare system”), but that on-board fare collection would still be needed due to a limited number of ticket vending machines. Travel Way Characteristics Exclusiveness 2 In addition to queue jumps that would be provided at select intersections, assumed that BAT lanes would provide some improvement in exclusivity over mixed traffic lanes. However, BAT lanes would be provided on less than 50% of the alignment, and would not be present in more-congested areas. Signal Preemption/Priority 4 Assumed that signal preemption/priority would be implemented to a greater extent than LSB service. Visual Distinctiveness 4 Assumed that BAT lanes would provide additional visual distinctiveness through use of red paint. Branding/Marketing Characteristics Branding/Marketing 3 Assumed to be slightly more significant than HART MetroRapid service, which scored a 2 in this category.

12 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Table 5: BRT Ridership Adjustment Factors – Full-BAT Lanes

Alternative Description: Uses preliminary stations (see Figure 1), runs on BAT lanes, and has always-on TSP, moderate speed increase from BRT average travel speed adjustment. Note that scores on this set of alternatives differ from partial BAT Lanes only on the exclusiveness of the travel way characteristics (score increased from 2 to 3). Score Rationale Vehicle Characteristics Floor height 3 New vehicles with near-level boarding. Because existing fleet is low-floor, improvement is tempered. Articulated 2 Approximately 40 percent of fleet used for BRT service would be articulated vehicles. Aerodynamic/Aesthetic 3 Assumed that new, more distinctive vehicles would be purchased for BRT Bronze or Silver service. Alternative Fuel 3 Existing fleet is CNG based (scoring 2), but newly purchased vehicles may be more energy efficient. Guided/steering Technology 3 Assumed guided/steering technology will be used at some stations for near-level boarding. Station Characteristics Physical 3 Assumed to be comparable to HART MetroRapid stations, which scored a 3 in this category. Presence/Architecture Shelter 3 Assumed to be comparable to HART MetroRapid stations, which scored a 3 in this category. Real-Time Information 3 Assumed that real-time information would be available at only at many stations, but that connecting service information would not be provided. Fare Vending 2 Assumed that fare vending machines would be available only at a few stations, comparable to HART MetroRapid stations. Off-Vehicle Fare Collection 3 Assumed all-door boarding would be implemented throughout the BRT system (described in TBEST user guide as “honor fare system”), but that on-board fare collection would still be needed due to a limited number of ticket vending machines. Travel Way Characteristics Exclusiveness 3 In addition to queue jumps would be provided at select intersections, assumed that BAT lanes would provide some improvement in exclusivity over mixed traffic lanes. Signal Preemption/Priority 4 Assumed that signal preemption/priority would be implemented to a greater extent. Visual Distinctiveness 4 Assumed that BAT lanes would provide additional visual distinctiveness through use of red paint. Branding/Marketing Characteristics Branding/Marketing 3 Assumed to be slightly more significant than HART MetroRapid service, which scored a 2 in this category.

13 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Table 6: BRT Ridership Adjustment Factors – Median/Curbside Exclusive Lanes

Alternative Description: Uses preliminary stations, runs in the median or exclusive curbside, and has always-on TSP, higher speed increase from BRT Average travel speed adjustment Score Rationale Vehicle Characteristics Floor height 5 New vehicles with near-level boarding at all station stops. Because existing fleet is low-floor, improvement is tempered. Articulated 4 Approximately 80 percent of fleet used for BRT service would be articulated vehicles. Aerodynamic/Aesthetic 4 Assumed that new, highly distinctive vehicles would be purchased for this service Alternative Fuel 4 Existing fleet is CNG based (scoring 2), but newly purchased vehicles will be more energy efficient than those used for Partial and Full BAT Lane alternatives Guided/steering Technology 4 Assumed guided/steering technology will be used at all stations for near-level boarding. Station Characteristics Physical 4 Assumed to be more distinctive than HART MetroRapid stations, which scored a 3 in this category. Presence/Architecture Shelter 4 Assumed to provide more shelter than HART MetroRapid stations, which scored a 3 in this category. Real-Time Information 5 Assumed that real-time information would be available at all BRT stations, and that connecting service information would be provided. Fare Vending 3 Assumed that fare vending machines would be available at many stations. Off-Vehicle Fare Collection 5 Assumed all-door boarding would be implemented throughout the BRT system (described in TBEST user guide as “honor fare system”), significantly reducing the amount of on-board fare collection required. Travel Way Characteristics Exclusiveness 4 Assumed that median and curb-running service would be a significant improvement in reliability over mixed traffic, though not as significant as a dedicated transitway. Signal Preemption/Priority 5 Assumed that signal preemption/priority would be implemented throughout the corridor. Visual Distinctiveness 5 Assumed that BRT service operating in the median would be especially distinctive. Branding/Marketing Characteristics Branding/Marketing 5 Assumed that branding and marketing would be especially distinctive.

14 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

2.1.1.4 Speed mph along Los Angeles’ Ventura Boulevard, and in general this service type is reported to be 23 to 28 percent faster than o Speeds of alternatives were specified by segment, direction, and time-of-day, and varied based on the type of transit comparable local service. A set of reference cases is provided service. To estimate premium transit speeds, baseline speeds in Appendix A of this memo. for 436S and 436N services were increased by a factor Though reported speed improvements varied throughout the corresponding to the type of transit used (see Table 7 for o literature, professional judgment was used to determine cases adjustment factor). For instance, speed of LSB service (i.e., most comparable to the SR 436 case. In particular, LSB service with no dedicated transit lane) was 27% faster than service speed increases used here (27%) are lower than those local service in mixed traffic (the base scenario) at every used for the LYNX Route Optimization Study (33%), but segment, direction, and time-of-day. Alternatives using partial remain comparable to other LSB speed increases observed in BAT lanes were not modeled using faster speed on the partial Los Angeles. For the purposes of this stage of analysis, this BAT lanes segments—rather, higher average speeds of partial methodology applied provides an appropriate general BAT lanes were applied to all segments, though not as fast as approximation of the expected speeds of each type of full BAT lanes. premium transit service. Table 7: Speeds by Transit Type o The speed increases noted in Table 7 were applied to existing Type Average % Increase transit speeds in the TBEST model to obtain the expected Speed Over Base speeds under each alternative. The existing (base) speeds in Local Service, Mixed Traffic 15 mph N/A the TBEST model are presented in Table 8 for ease of (Base Scenario) reference. Limited Stop 19 mph +27%

Partial BAT Lanes 23 mph +50%

Full BAT Lanes 26 mph +71%

Median-running or Curbside 30 mph +100% Exclusive Lane

o These speed adjustment factors are based on observed average speeds of other BRT systems in the literature as reported in Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (2013), , Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit (2003), and Characteristics of BRT for Decision- making (2004 and 2009). For instance, LSB service (approximately every 0.75 miles) operates at an average of 19

15 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Table 8: Travel Speeds by Time, Direction and Segment– Base Scenario

From To AM MPH Off-Peak MPH PM MPH Night MPH Saturday MPH Sunday MPH Toward SR 434 OIA Dixie Belle 19.2 15.6 14.0 18.7 19.0 18.2 Dixie Belle Curry Ford 10.8 10.4 9.5 13.0 12.2 11.7 Curry Ford Colonial 11.4 12.0 10.8 16.5 14.1 15.9 Colonial University 15.6 15.3 14.7 19.5 17.3 20.4 University Fern Park 14.9 13.8 14.5 18.1 17.8 18.0 Fern Park Altamonte SunRail 14.6 12.3 11.0 14.8 10.3 10.5 Altamonte SunRail Altamonte Mall 16.1 14.8 12.4 17.7 10.1 10.3 Altamonte Mall West Town Pkwy 12.4 11.7 11.1 16.0 13.1 12.8 West Town Pkwy Apopka 18.3 17.0 16.1 24.4 19.2 19.7 Toward OIA Apopka West Town Pkwy 19.2 18.5 17.4 22.5 20.2 19.4 West Town Parkway Altamonte Mall 12.4 10.9 10.8 13.9 12.5 12.6 Altamonte Mall Altamonte SunRail 11.5 11.0 14.4 16.0 8.9 10.2 Altamonte SunRail Fern Park 16.0 14.7 15.4 16.8 11.0 12.5 Fern Park University 15.5 15.3 13.8 18.5 18.4 18.6 University Colonial 16.0 15.5 16.4 21.9 19.2 19.4 Colonial Curry Ford 13.0 11.4 9.9 16.4 18.8 18.5 Curry Ford Dixie Belle 13.9 12.4 12.2 16.5 13.8 13.3 Dixie Belle OIA 17.0 17.1 16.8 22.2 21.6 20.0

16 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

2.1.1.5 Service hours: 2.1.1.7 Report settings

o Only weekday service was modeled in TBEST. Service hours TBEST allows for variable Costs per Revenue Mile and Costs per were assumed to be similar to current hours of local bus service Revenue Hour. In these model runs, a cost of $80.74 per revenue on 436S and 436N, as shown in Table 9. In cases where the hour was used, based on guidance from LYNX. Percent In-Service current hours of service vary by direction, pattern or route, the Layover Time was set to 15% to account for scheduled layovers. maximum span of service was used for premium transit services. Specifically, the following TBEST inputs will be used for the span 2.2 Results of service in both directions: Table 10 summarizes the results of the Level 3a Screening using TBEST. The results are expressed as projected percent increase in Table 9 - Weekday Hours of Service by TBEST Period weekday ridership and operating cost. AM Peak Off Peak PM Peak Night Local Service 3 6 3 8 Premium Service 3 6 3 8

2.1.1.6 Additional model assumptions

o The base scenario and transit network was the “Base – December 2016 to April 2017 Network” file provided by LYNX. The alternatives were evaluated only for the base year. o Because of the base scenario selected, the land use Scenario Model used was the “TBEST Land Use Model 2016 – LYNX.” The base year was 2017, with mean annual wage of $39,468.30. Default sources for employment and parcel data were used. o Other model settings included: • Apply Capacity Constraint – True • Run Full Socio-Economic Market Capture – True • Write Temporary Model Output Tables - False • Sync Scenario Routes with Validation Collections – True

17 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Table 10: Level 3a Weekday Ridership Modeling Results using TBEST

Weekday Southern Northern Headway Ridership % Operational Ref # Transit Type Runningway Type Terminus Terminus (minutes) Change1 Cost % Change1

1 Local bus Mixed-flow OIA SR 434 30 5,024 $14,242

2 OIA Aloma Ave 30 16% 34%

3 Aloma Ave SR 434 30 18% 29% Limited-stop bus Mixed-flow 4 OIA Aloma Ave 15 24% 65%

5 Aloma Ave SR 434 15 27% 60%

6 OIA SR 50 15 20% 44%

7 OIA Aloma Ave 15 28% 58% Corridor Based BRT Partial BAT lanes (<50%) (Bronze) 8 OIA SunRail 15 39% 82%

9 Aloma Ave SR 434 15 31% 49%

18 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

Weekday Southern Northern Headway Ridership % Operational Ref # Transit Type Runningway Type Terminus Terminus (minutes) Change1 Cost % Change1

10 OIA SR 50 10 24% 58%

11 OIA Aloma Ave 10 34% 75% Full BAT lanes

12 Fixed Guideway BRT OIA SunRail 10 49% 111% (Silver) 13 Aloma Ave SR 434 10 36% 64%

14 OIA SR 50 10 25% 49% Median-running or exclusive curbside 15 OIA Aloma Ave 10 37% 65%

1 Ridership and operational costs presented for the entire SR 436 corridor on a weekday basis as a percentage of the local bus baseline (#1, in gray shading)

19 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3a Ridership Modeling using TBEST

• Because Fixed Guideway BRT (Silver) has the potential to have 2.3 Level 3a Screening higher capital costs and/or more automobile traffic impacts, a The TBEST results from Table 10 were paired with several other Corridor-Based BRT (Bronze) alternative covering the OIA to metrics that reflected the project’s diverse goals—including University Boulevard alignment was also advanced as part of enhancing the transit experience, providing for safe walking and Level 3b. This alternative would run in BAT lanes where feasible. bicycling, encouraging redevelopment, maintaining reliable vehicular mobility, targeting implementable improvements, and supporting community health. These goals and metrics are described in more detail in the Task 5: Identification of Alternatives report. The following recommendations were developed with the help of the Partner Agency Working Group (PAWG) and based on a holistic screening process where ridership projections were just one of many performance measures of how well an alternative perform. • LSB service at 30-minute headways is projected to result in a notable increase in ridership throughout the entire corridor. Because LSB service can be implemented at relatively low capital cost and in a short time frame, LSB was advanced as a short-term recommendation. The LSB service alternative will not be evaluated as a project alternative in the Level 3b screening. Rather, LSB will be advanced separately by LYNX through the ROS implementation. • Although the OIA to SunRail alignment is projected to cost the most to operate, it is also projected to result in the largest ridership gain (+39 to +49%). Therefore, a transit alternative running in partial BAT lanes from OIA to SunRail was advanced as a Level 3b candidate. • The second largest projected increase in ridership (+37%) is associated with Fixed Guideway BRT (Silver) service between OIA and Aloma Avenue running on exclusive median or curbside lanes. This alternative was advanced as a Level 3b candidate— with a modification to use University Boulevard as its northern terminus. (During the Level 3a operational analysis, the team concluded that the Full Sail campus on University Boulevard make for a better turnaround location than Aloma Avenue.)

20 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS

• On-board survey on the SunRail commuter rail system 3 Level 3b Ridership Modeling using conducted by ETC Institute for LYNX (survey period: February 2017 to April 2017) STOPS • On-board Survey on the bus route conducted by FDOT District 5 (survey period: September 2017) This section describes the alternatives, parameters, and results of • Automatic Passenger Counter (APC) Data collected by the Level 3b ridership modeling using STOPS. LYNX (data period: Fall 2016 and Spring 2017) • Station-level boarding counts by time of day collected by 3.1 Background SunRail In response to the 2013 Final Rule on Major Capital Investment There are three application approaches in STOPS: Synthetic, Projects [1], FTA developed STOPS for project sponsors to predict Synthetic with Special Markets, and Incremental. The Synthetic the trips-on-project and automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) approach relies on the Census Transportation Planning Products metrics needed for the environmental measure. While other ridership (CTPP) data and demographic data from the regional travel model. forecasting methods, such as regional travel demand models and The Synthetic with Special Markets approach also uses the CTPP incremental models, are accepted by FTA, STOPS model has data as the basis to which special market trips are added. The several advantages over them. The FTA review time for projects incremental approach uses an on-board survey as a starting point seeking New Starts or Small Starts funding will be considerably less instead of relying on the CTPP data. Due to the high quality of the if STOPS is used to generate the needed ridership information. LYNX on-board survey, the incremental approach was used to STOPS also allows users to test alternatives and conduct analyses develop the LCF model. An expansion of the multiple surveys was with relatively less resources and time [2]. STOPS is also carried out based on the APC data [5]. recommended for alternatives screening and evaluation conducted The LCF STOPS model was made available for the SR 436 study as part of the FDOT’s Transit Concept and Alternatives Review effort. However, because of its scope, the system-wide LCF STOPS (TCAR) process [3]. model does not provide detailed reporting of activity patterns along The LYNX Central Florida (LCF) STOPS model was developed by SR 436. This was expected as the LCF STOPS model was not LYNX for the Central Florida region in STOPS version 2.01, which developed for corridor-based project evaluations, but rather system- was the latest available version at the time of development. The LCF wide analyses. In consultation with FTA and local experts, the study STOPS model was calibrated to match the observed rider and travel team used the calibrated LCF STOPS model as a starting point, patterns for both bus and rail services in the Central Florida region. updated the model to operate on STOPS version 2.50, refined the The following data sources [4] were collected and used for the LCF zones and districts along the SR 436 corridor, and developed an STOPS model: SR 436 corridor STOPS model as described in §3.2 below. This SR 436 corridor STOPS model provides the necessary detail to • On-board survey on the LYNX bus system conducted by analyze travel patterns of SR 436 at the corridor level while ETC Institute for LYNX (survey period: November 2016 to maintaining the integrity of the LCF STOPS model calibration, it May 2017) could also offer reasonable ridership forecasts of Level 3b alternatives.

21 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS

The spatial extent of the SR 436 STOPS model is limited to the LYNX service area, consistent with the spatial limits of the LCF STOPS model. The full fixed guideway visibility factor of 1.0 is used for the base year, which is also the same as the LCF STOPS model because the SunRail operates in an exclusive right-of-way and has fully developed stations. Table 11 presents the major changes between the LCF STOPS model and the SR 436 STOPS model developed for this project. The updated districts in the SR 436 STOPS model could be found in Appendix B.

3.2 Model Updates In Fall 2018, FTA released STOPS version 2.5—a substantial improvement over previous versions of STOPS. STOPS v2.5 incorporates additional data from BRT projects in Nashville, Grand Rapids, and Kansas City. According to FTA, previous STOPS versions had limited BRT calibration data—leading to potential ridership over-predictions. To improve the model’s forecast ability for BRT projects, the STOPS model developed for the SR 436 Transit Corridor Study was updated to version 2.5 in February 2019. As part of this update, additional refinements to the model were performed following informal consultation with FTA. In STOPS, walk access and egress are only available for a zone if the airline distance between transit stops and zone centroid is one mile or shorter. If the zones are very large, the model may result in over-aggregated access times or be unable to build walk connectors for some transit trips. In the LCF STOPS model, the default CTPP zones shapefile was replaced with the CFRPM 6.2 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) structure as the basic geographical unit to obtain better resolution across the system. The CTPP zones within a one-mile buffer of the SR 436 study segments were further examined and refined if the area size was bigger than half (0.5) square mile. The zone splits were based on the geography, land use, and station spacings. The changes made to the existing zone are included in Appendix B. The imported trip table for the incremental mode was then reconstructed due to the relocation of the trip ends from the onboard survey.

22 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS

Table 11: SR 436 STOPS Model Update

Setting LCF STOPS Model SR 436 STOPS Model

Model Version STOPS v2.01 STOPS v2.5

Base Year: 2015 Base Year: 2016 • Horizon year forecast was not developed for • The year of expanded survey data and system-wide this application boarding data are 2016. Archived 2016 GTFS data Analysis Year were used. • Year 2016 population and employment data was interpolated from the 2015 and 2045 data from Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM) v6.2

48 Districts: 39 Districts: • SunRail station service area has its own • Combined SunRail station service area with the nearby district district • Combined districts that are at least 25 miles from the District Boundary corridor based on their characteristics • Refined districts within one-mile buffer of corridor • Special area such as downtown CBD, OIA, UCF, and Lake Nona were assigned to their own districts

48 Station groups: 52 Station groups: • Consistent with the geographic districts that • Generally consistent with the geographic districts that Station Group contain the station. contain the station. • Refined station groups along SR 436

All access connectors were built according to Highway skims were used to develop a better estimate of Kiss- GTFS Connector straight-line distances. and-Ride and Park-and-Ride travel time. Other access modes use the default setting in the LCF STOPS model.

23 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS

Table 12: Weekday Linked Trips Comparison 3.3 Calibration Results The LCF STOPS model was calibrated at several levels, including Household Trip LCF SR 436 access mode, transfer rate, fixed-guideway share, routes, and (HH) Car- Target1 Purpose STOPS STOPS stations. Detailed calibration procedures were documented in [4]. Ownership The SR 436 STOPS model inherited fundamental inputs and 0-Car HH 13,232 13,250 12,862 assumptions from the LCF STOPS. The refinements of the district Home- boundaries and station groups provided for more detailed reporting 1-Car HH 11,794 11,829 11,583 Based of results along the corridor. Work Trip 2-Car HH 7,535 7,669 7,445 To potentially refine the model estimates for SR 436, additional Subtotal 32,562 32,748 31,890 calibration methods, such as stop group calibration and route 0-Car HH 12,821 12,796 12,536 calibration, were tested using station-level and route-level counts. Home- 1-Car HH 7,705 7,750 7,588 The model showed relatively better results at the station-level when Based special calibration approaches were applied but sacrificed the overall Other Trip 2-Car HH 6,924 6,969 6,823 system-wide travel pattern results. Thus, no special calibration group Subtotal 27,450 27,513 26,947 approach was used for the SR 436 STOPS model. 0-Car HH 2,938 2,895 2,808 To further support the validity of the SR 436 STOPS model, various Non- 1-Car HH 1,603 1,578 1,544 types of metrics were evaluated and compared to those from the Home- 2-Car HH 2,368 2,375 2,336 LCF STOPS model. Based Trip Subtotal 6,909 6,848 6,688 Table 12 shows the comparison of estimated linked trips and target 66,921 67,109 66,728 linked trips by trip purpose and market segment. Overall, the Total 1 estimated linked trips from the LCF STOPS model and the SR 436 The target is summarized based on the expanded survey result. STOPS model closely match the target linked trips. The linked trip Table 13: Weekday Ridership by System percent difference between the SR 436 STOPS model and the target are two percent for all purposes. Agency Target1 LCF STOPS SR 436 STOPS The weekday ridership results for the base year by service agency LYNX 89,155 88,874 89,057 were also examined. According to the statistics in Table 13, the SR 436 STOPS model’s estimated ridership is close to observed VOTRAN 2,286 2,052 2,111 values. SunRail 3,248 3,758 3,516 Systemwide 94,689 94,684 94,684 1The target is summarized based on the expanded survey result.

24 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS

Additional analyses focusing on the study corridor were conducted to further explore the performance of the SR 436 STOPS model. Table 14: Route-level Ridership for SR 436 According to the Task 3: Existing Conditions report, there are two main routes that operate on the SR 436 study corridor (Link 436S Route Route LCF SR 436 Target1 and Link 436N), nine routes partially operate on the study corridor, Type ID STOPS STOPS and eight routes that cross the study corridor. Weekday ridership 436S 3,622 4,132 3,889 was summarized for these routes and is presented in Table 14. Both Full Routes on 436N 1,762 1,570 1,512 the LCF STOPS model and the SR 436 STOPS model exhibit SR 436 weekday route-level ridership that are in line with the target ridership Total 5,384 5,702 5,401 values. Across all routes, the LCF STOPS model overestimates by 1 352 343 352 seven percent and the SR 436 STOPS model overestimates by 4.86 3 911 759 746 percent. 6 152 332 286 Stations groups are used for calibration and reporting. In the SR 436 11 1,375 1,736 1,984 STOPS model, station groups first followed the district boundary, Partial then additional groups were developed for the stations directly on 111 757 1,375 1,287 Routes on SR 436. Detailed station group settings can be found in Figure 3. SR 436 28 1,486 1,350 1,167 29 1,763 1,407 1,422 42 2,664 2,770 2,398 51 857 837 820

Total 10,317 10,909 10,462

102 2,360 2,466 2,291

103 1,144 1,151 1,108 104 2,370 2,759 2,840 13 872 721 995 Feeder Routes of 15 1,941 2,208 2,150 SR 436 23 554 568 557 407 48 177 301

434 519 673 644

Total 9,808 10,723 10,886

Total 25,509 27,334 26,749 Total Percent Difference 7.15% 4.86% 1The target is summarized based on the expanded survey result.

25 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS

Figure 3: STOPS Reporting Districts and Station Groups

26 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS

27 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS

Ridership on the SR 436 corridor was summarized by station groups 3.4 Ridership Forecast and is presented in Table 15. The SR 436 STOPS model ridership estimates are generally comparable to the target ridership. Overall, 3.4.1 Key Assumptions the estimated ridership from the SR 436 STOPS model along the Any modeling exercise that aims to demonstrate the effects of a new SR 436 study area is 2.9 percent higher than the target ridership. project on an existing system needs a baseline scenario to compare Table 15: Ridership for Station Groups on SR 436 against. In many cases, the baseline scenario is identical to existing conditions. In fact, FTA’s CIG program guidance [6] dictates that—for Station Group Name Target1 SR 436 STOPS current year analyses—the project be compared to the existing transit system. In the same document, FTA mandates that 10-year OIA 1,364 1,392 project analyses be compared to the “no-build” transit system. The Gateway 140 283 no-build transit system is defined as existing service plus those investments committed in the current regional Transportation Lee Vista 130 169 Improvement Plan (TIP). For 20-year analyses, the definition is Pershing 535 375 expanded to cover projects identified in the Metropolitan Planning Curry Ford 856 815 Organization’s (MPO) fiscally constrained long-range plan. SR 50 369 489 It should be noted that LYNX is currently studying a complete Baldwin 346 254 revamp of their service through the Route Optimization Study (ROS). However, at the time of this writing, only a long-term, fiscally Full Sail 148 249 unconstrained ROS system plan was available. LYNX and its Aloma 159 223 regional partners are also evaluating a small number of regionally Howell 250 264 significant transit projects on SR 50, US 192, and between OIA and Casselberry 127 158 the /Convention Center area. Similarly, none of these regionally significant projects are in either the TIP or the Altamonte 417 334 MPO’s fiscally constrained long-range plan and will therefore not be Mall Area 383 393 included in the baseline or future year scenario. Weathesfield 156 136 Major transit projects currently underway include the SunRail Phase Forest City 68 72 2 South extension to Poinciana in Osceola County and the Brightline Total 5,448 5,606 higher-speed train service between South Florida and OIA. After consultation with the LCF STOPS modeler, it was determined that Total Percent Difference +2.9% the impact of SunRail Phase 2 South on bus ridership north of 1 The target is summarized using station counts. would be negligible. In addition, the SR 436 In conclusion, the SR 436 STOPS model captures the existing STOPS model does not support analyses outside of the LYNX system-wide and corridor-level transit trip behaviors and is an service area—which would be needed to capture the effects of acceptable tool for ridership forecasting at this stage of the study. intercity rail service. Although these projects are expected to be

28 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS operational within three to five years, they are not included in the Table 16: Alternatives Identified for Level 3b Screening SR 436 STOPS future baseline scenarios. Approx. With the input from the PAWG, the year of 2025 is assumed for the Alt. Trunk Mode1 Trunk Alignment Distance SR 436 STOPS model opening year. The opening year assumption (miles) is subject to change due to unknowns regarding the final recommended alternative and the uncertainties in the transit project A Corridor-based OIA to University Blvd. 12.9 delivery process. B BRT (Bronze) OIA to SunRail 18.9 3.4.2 Alternative Description C1 Fixed Guideway OIA to University Blvd. 12.9 During the Level 3a Screening, the following observations were BRT (Silver) developed: C2 OIA to University Blvd. 12.9 • Local bus service is considered necessary on SR 436. All Level 3b alternatives will be overlaid on top of local bus service. • The limited-stop bus alternatives are recommended as a short-term improvement that could be financed by LYNX and its funding partners. • The alternative from OIA to SunRail connects to Links 102 and 103 running on US 17/92—an important regional corridor. Therefore, four different alternatives as summarized in Table 16 and displayed in Figure 3 are advanced to Level 3b Screening. The detailed review and selection process could be found in Task 8: Identification and Review of Alternatives report.

29 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS

3.4.3 Forecast Results FTA’s CIG program evaluates transit project using various measures such as mobility improvements, cost-effectiveness, environmental benefits, and congestion relief. The SR 436 STOPS model was used to help generate the ridership forecast to the related measures, and the details are discussed below. Table 17 summarized the expected linked trips used by the alternatives on SR 436 by transit dependency. According to FTA’s CIG program guidance [6], Page 16 - “To ensure the federal investments in major capital investment transit projects address the travel demand of zero car households equitably, FTA uses a factor of two for the number of trips made by transit dependent persons.” Therefore, the weighted linked trip is also computed. Table 17: Future Year (2025) Weekday Corridor Linked Trips

Total From Non- From Total Weighted Alternative Transit- Transit- Linked Linked Dependents Dependents Trips Trips Alt A 1,647 1,136 2,783 3,919 Alt B 2,712 1,678 4,390 6,068 Alt C1 2,356 1,554 3,910 5,464 Alt C2 2,311 1,533 3,844 5,377

As shown in Table 17, in the year of 2025, Alternative A is expected to serve nearly 2,800 linked trips per day, with 59% non-transit-dependent riders and 41% transit-dependent riders, yielding 3,900 weighted link trips per day; the unweighted linked trips of Alternative B is estimated to be around 5,400 per day, with 62% non-dependent riders and 38% transit dependent riders, the total weighted linked trips will be around 6,100 per day. Alternative C1 and C2 are anticipated to have 3,900 unweighted linked trips per day, respectively. The differences in number of linked trips are mainly due to the service enhancement. Figure 4: Alternatives Identified for Level 3b Screening

30 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Level 3b Ridership Modeling using STOPS

Table 18 summarized the incremental changes of the linked trips The future ridership is also analyzed at the corridor level in Table 20. relative to the no-build condition in terms of the service changes. As In the no build alternative, only 5,900 boardings are estimated on the shown, Alternative A is forecasted to attract 565 more transit trips, of local buses. In the build alternative, the boarding on local buses is which 32% are initiated as transit-dependent riders. Alternative B is expected to decrease while BRT would bring in more trips, resulting expected to attract the most of new riders in the system, with 1,003 in new corridor boarding of 1,100 for Alternative A, 1,900 for incremental linked trips change on project. Alternative C1 and C2 Alternative B and C1, and 1,800 for Alternative C2. have very similar number of incremental trips. The number of Table 20: Future Year (2025) Weekday Corridor Boardings weekday incremental linked transit trips could be used to help evaluate congestion relief by FTA CIG program. No Build Build New Table 18: Future Year (2025) Weekday Corridor Incremental Transit Trips Alternative Corridor Local Local Total BRT Total 1 Bus Bus Boardings Non- Total Dependent Total Dependent Weighted Alt A 5,900 5,900 2,800 4,200 7,000 1,100 Alternative Linked Linked Linked Linked Trips Trips Alt B 5,900 5,900 4,400 3,400 7,800 1,900 Trips Trips Alt C1 5,900 5,900 3,900 3,900 7,900 1,900 Alt A 387 178 565 743 Alt C2 5,900 5,900 3,800 3,900 7,800 1,800 Alt B 707 296 1,003 1,299 The boarding estimates and differences are shown rounded to the nearest Alt C1 692 298 990 1,288 100. Alt C2 673 293 966 1,259

In addition, the changes in auto Person Miles Traveled (PMT) between the alternatives are summarized in Table 19. The results could serve as the basis to evaluate the changes in auto Vehicle- Miles-Traveled (VMT) as part of the environmental benefits of the CIG program. Table 19: Future Year (2025) Weekday Incremental Auto PMT

Auto Occupancy Alternative PMT VMT Factor Alt A -4,141 1.2 -3,451 Alt B -9,025 1.2 -7,521 Alt C1 -8,016 1.2 -6,680 Alt C2 -7,857 1.2 -6,548

31 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study References

4 References

[1] Federal Transit Administration, “Federal Register, 49 CFR Part 611, Major Capital Investment Project”, Vol. 78, No. 6, January 9, 2013.

[2] FDOT Freight, Logistics and Passenger Operations Office, “Guidebook for Florida STOPS Application”, November 2016.

[3] FDOT Freight, Logistics and Passenger Operations Office, “Transit Concept and Alternatives Review Guidance”, November 2016.

[4] LYNX, "LYNX Central Florida (LCF) STOPS Model Development and Calibration Report", February 2018.

[5] LYNX,”LYNX-SunRail Secondary Expansion Technical Memorandum”, October 2017.

[6] Federal Transit Administration, “Final Interim Policy Guidance, Capital Investment Grant Program”, June, 2016.

[7] Florida Deparment of Transportation, TBEST 4.4 Users Guide (2016)

32 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Appendices

Appendix A: Premium Transit Speed Reference The following cases were reviewed in determining the appropriate speed adjustment factor to use for various BRT technologies along the SR 436 corridor. Type Case Note Source Speed Local Service, 436S and 436N Unweighted average of SR 436 Existing Conditions, 14.5 mph Mixed Traffic Average Actual Speeds bidirectional speeds by August 2016 to July 2017 AVL (Peak Periods) segment, peak hours only data 436S and 436N August 2016 to July 2017 AVL 16.5 mph Average Actual Speeds data (All periods) 436S and 436N Unweighted average of speeds Lynx April 2017 TBEST 15.0 mph Average Scheduled by segment Distribution File Speeds (All periods) Typical baseline For agencies with 10-50 million Transit Capacity and Quality of 9 to 19 mph speeds reported in boardings per year based on Service Manual (2013), pg. 3-12 literature NTD data Limited Stop Proposed Lynx local Stop spacing for limited stop Remix files for “Lynx ROS Stops 33% increase over and limited stop routes not yet available Aid 2.2.2018”, accessed comparable local service services February 8, 2018 Existing Lynx limited Based on comparison of Lynx 2017 TBEST Distribution 53% increase over stop service scheduled segment of Link 107 and Link File, existing speeds comparable local service speeds 441 between Holden Ave and (Average of 18mph Florida Mall. Note that Link 441 compared to 12mph local stops are spaced an average of service) 2 miles apart in this area. This speed increase varies between 38% and 93% depending on the direction of travel and time period. Wilshire Boulevard LA Signal priority applied at Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: 15 mph service approximately 75% of Case Studies in Bus Rapid intersections for Metro Rapid Transit (2003), pg. 23 routes Ventura Boulevard LA Signal priority applied at Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: 19 mph Metro Rapid service approximately 75% of Case Studies in Bus Rapid intersections for Metro Rapid Transit (2003), pg. 23 routes

33 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Appendices

Type Case Note Source Speed Los Angeles Rapid Signal priority applied at Characteristics of BRT for 29.5% increase over local service approximately 75% of Decision-making (2004), 3-12 service intersections for Metro Rapid routes. Reported travel time savings over local service of 23%, 25%, 18%, 17%, 29%, and 20% for Ventura, Vermont, Wilshire, Van Nuys, and Florence lines, which correspond with an average of 29.5% increase in speed. Los Angeles Rapid Note the lower reported speed Characteristics of BRT for 25% increase over local service increase for 2009 compared to Decision-making (2009), 3-12 service 2004. Partial BAT n/a Estimated as between limited n/a n/a Lanes stop and full BAT lane implementation Full BAT Lanes Semi-exclusive transit Assumes stop spacing of 0.50 Transit Capacity and Quality of 71% greater than mixed lane miles and 30 second dwell Service Manual (2013), Exhibit traffic times. 3-252 Median-running Exclusive lane, street Assumes stop spacing of 0.50 Transit Capacity and Quality of 100% greater than mixed or Curbside median miles and 30 second dwell Service Manual (2013), Exhibit traffic Exclusive Lane times. 3-252 Estimated Average Bus Assumes stop spacing of 0.50 Characteristics of Bus Rapid 20 mph (50% increase Speeds on Dedicated miles and 30 second dwell Transit for Decision-making over 10 mph average for Arterial Street Bus times. (2003), Exhibit 3-2 local service) Lanes

2 Based on Exhibit 3-25: Illustrative Impact of Operating Environment on Average Transit Speed, pg. 3-37. Semi-exclusive (transit lanes) speeds are approximately 71% higher than mixed traffic (urban street), and exclusive (street median) speeds are approximately 100% higher than mixed traffic (urban street).

34 SR 436 Transit Corridor Study Appendices

Appendix B: District and Zone Boundary Map

35 SR 436 - STOPS Model Recommended District Boundary ±

VOLUSIA

E_SEMINLOE LAKE ATM_MALL FORESTCITY ALTAMONTE WEATHERSFEILDCASSELBERRY

HOWELL MAITLAND

WINTERPARK ALOMA UCF EURBAN_ORLANDO W_ORANGE WURB_ORANGE FULLSAIL E_ORANGE BALDWIN N_DOWNTOWN SR50

DOWNTOWN CURRYFORD

WINDERMERE PERSHING S_ORLANDO SW_ORLANDO LEEVISTA GATEWAY

OIA

IDRIVE LAKENONA DISNEY MEADOWCREEK

POLK

W_OSCEOLA

KISSIMMEE_STCLOUT

E_OSCEOLA

Legend County Boundary SR 436 - STOPS Model Recommended District Boundary

Florida Hospital

US 17/92/Fern Park SS ± ATM_MALL FORESTCITY ALTAMONTE (From Bruce Detweiler) WEATHERSFEILD CASSELBERRY West Town Corners

SunRail Casselberry Marketplace

Weathersfield/Westmonte Altamonte Mall

Altamonte Marketplace Lake Howell

FERN PARK TRANSFER CENTER

HOWELL Casselberry Commons

MAITLAND

WINTERPARK ALOMA Aloma

University

EURBAN_ORLANDO

WURB_ORANGE FULLSAIL Baldwin Park

BALDWIN

N_DOWNTOWN Colonial

SR50

Azalea Park

Engelwood DOWNTOWN CURRYFORD

Curry Ford

Michigan

Lake Fredrica

DIXIE BELLE DR AND GATLIN AVE TRANSFER CENTER

Gatlin-Pershing

PERSHING

Hoffner S_ORLANDO SW_ORLANDO

LEEVISTA Lee Vista

GATEWAY

TG Lee

OIA North Terminal OIATRANSFER CENTER

OIA

Legend

IDRIVE OIA South Terminal Future Stations SymbolID LAKENONA

SuperStop MEADOWCREEK Preliminary Station Other County Boundary Legend

Original Zone Boundary New Zone Boundary