purpose and need & evaluation methodology reportvolusiaconnectorstudy.com/pdfs/purpose and need...

Final

Purpose and Need & Evaluation Methodology Report

May 2015

PURPOSE AND NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT - FINAL

May 2015

PURPOSE AND NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT

FINAL

Prepared for:

FDOT District 5

Prepared by:

Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.

May 2015

PURPOSE NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT - FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS

i May 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Overview ...............................................................................................................................................1-1

2.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................2-1

3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED .....................................................................................................................................3-2

3.1 Consistency with Adopted Plans .........................................................................................................3-2

3.2 Capacity ................................................................................................................................................3-2

3.2.1 Impact of Traffic Congestion.......................................................................................3-2

3.2.2 Addressing Travel Demand ........................................................................................3-3

3.2.3 Limited Transit Mobility ............................................................................................ 3-17

3.3 Social Demand and Economic Development ................................................................................. 3-20

3.3.1 Needs of the Transit Dependent Population .......................................................... 3-20

3.3.2 Serving Population and Employment Growth ........................................................ 3-21

3.3.3 Transit as an Economic Development Tool ........................................................... 3-23

3.4 Modal Interrelationships .................................................................................................................... 3-23

3.5 System Continuity ............................................................................................................................. 3-23

3.6 Safety ................................................................................................................................................. 3-24

3.7 Input from Project Advisory Group ................................................................................................... 3-24

3.8 Final Purpose and Need Statement ................................................................................................. 3-25

4.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................4-1

5.0 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK .........................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Overview ...............................................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Initial Mode Screening .........................................................................................................................5-1

5.3 Initial Project Build Alternatives Screening .........................................................................................5-1

5.4 Viable Alternatives Screening .............................................................................................................5-3

PURPOSE NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT - FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii May 2015

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Existing Votran Service Frequency and Travel Times .................................................... 3-18

Table 3-3. LYNX Study Area Route Ridership.................................................................................. 3-20

Table 3-4. Transit Dependent Population in Study Area .................................................................. 3-21

Table 3-5. Existing and Projected Population and Employment by County ..................................... 3-22

Table 3-3. Study Area Crash Summary (2008-2012) ....................................................................... 3-24

Table 4-1. Goals and Objectives for Transit Improvements – Volusia Transit Connector Study ....... 4-1

Table 5-1. Initial Corridor and Viable Alternatives Screening Measures ............................................ 5-4

Table 5-2. Initial FTA Project Justification Criteria and Measures ...................................................... 5-6

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 1-2

Figure 3-1. Change in Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................ 3-4

Figure 3-2. Subarea Aggregation for Demographic and Travel Pattern Analysis .............................. 3-5

Figure 3-3. 2040 Total Weekday Person Trip Flow Pattern ............................................................... 3-6

Figure 3-4. 2040 Weekday Work Person Trip Flow Pattern ............................................................... 3-6

Figure 3-5. 2040 Weekday Non-Work Person Trip Flow Pattern ....................................................... 3-7

Figure 3-6. Work Trips Originating from Greater Daytona .................................................................. 3-8

Figure 3-7. Work Trips Originating from New Smyrna ........................................................................ 3-9

Figure 3-8. Work Trips Originating from DeLand .............................................................................. 3-10

Figure 3-9. Work Trips Originating from Lake Helen & Cassadaga ................................................. 3-11

Figure 3-10. Work Trips Originating from Orange City/DeBary ........................................................ 3-12

Figure 3-11. Work Trips Originating from Deltona ............................................................................ 3-13

Figure 3-12. Work Trips Originating from Sanford & Lake Mary ...................................................... 3-14

Figure 3-14. 2010 and 2040 Person Trips from CFRPM .................................................................. 3-16

Figure 3-14. Top Three Issues and Needs from PAG Survey .......................................................... 3-26

Figure 3-15. Top Three Purposes from PAG Survey ....................................................................... 3-26

Figure 5-1. Mode/Corridor Evaluation Process ................................................................................... 5-0

Figure 5-2. Transit Modes to be Initially Screened ............................................................................. 5-0

Figure 5-3. Initial Corridor Analysis Segments .................................................................................... 5-2

PURPOSE NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT - FINAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-1 May 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

This memo summarizes the Purpose and Need for premium transit improvements in the Volusia Transit Connector Study Area, and provides an overall framework and measures for evaluating the mode and alignment alternatives and selecting a locally preferred alternative. The framework presented in this report is consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance for the evaluation of alternatives provided in FTA’s Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning. This report includes:

Project background, including a description of the Study Area and the Purpose and Need

Evaluation framework

Alternatives screening methodology, and

Goals, objectives and evaluation measures to be applied during the screening and evaluation of alternatives.

The Study Area (see Figure 1-1) extends northeast approximately 40 miles from S.R. 46 in the City of Sanford, and terminating in the City of Daytona Beach. Portions of the cities of Sanford, DeBary, Deltona, Orange City, Lake Helen, DeLand and Daytona Beach, Florida are included within the Study Area boundary.

PURPOSE NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT - FINAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-2 May 2015

Figure 1-1. Study Area

PURPOSE NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT - FINAL 2.0 BACKGROUND

2-1 May 2015

2.0 BACKGROUND

The Volusia Transit Connector study will lead to a local decision on the best set of potential transit operational and capital improvements within the Study Area. This includes identifying the appropriate transit mode(s), and the particular transit technology that may be advanced for implementation. It also includes the routing along streets or other rights-of-way that the transit alternatives would utilize, the relative alignment of the improvements within the right-of-way, as well as the termini for the potential new service.It is anticipated that the study will also support local decisions on:

Optimal operating strategy for the transit improvement,

Modifications to local bus service to support the improvement,

Location and configuration of transit service and facilities within the roadway or other right-of-way cross section, transit vehicle and stop amenities.

Cost/benefit of potential improvements

Availability of funding/financing

Transit priority treatments, and

Approximate station locations While subsequent phases of project development will offer opportunities to refine some of the project details, the goal of the Volusia Transit Connector Study is to reach decisions that will be sustainable as the project advances through design and implementation.

The evaluation framework and measures in this report are designed to differentiate among the potential transit technologies which can be applied and the available routes and termini.

Common elements that will be included in all of the alternatives will be identified through discussions among the study participants in collaboration with local stakeholders and the public.

The proposed evaluation methodology identifies first, a “fatal flaw” mode screening of a broad set of rail and bus modes to identify which modes would be applicable in the Study Area given existing and future demographics, existing transit services and planned improvements, and physical and operating conditions on the transportation system. Second, an initial corridor screening will be performed for segments of the Study Area to identify the initial project build alternatives; these initial project build alternatives will be evaluated based on a limited set of screening measures and applicability of a refined set of premium transit modes advanced from the mode screening. The viable build alternatives will then be compared to the No-Build alternative, in identifying a final Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) at the conclusion of the planning process.

The screening of alternatives is not only a technical process, involving a comparative evaluation as described in this methodology report, but also part of a broader public involvement and decision-making process. The findings and conclusions of the analyses described in this report will be vetted through the Project Advisory Group (PAG), briefings with elected officials, and the general public involvement process. It is assumed that decisions on which alternatives are advanced beyond the initial screening will be made by the PAG, and that decisions on the LPA will eventually be made by the River to Sea TPO Board based on recommendations from the PAG and public input.

The evaluation process described in this report is designed to inform those decisions by offering technical information that will be helpful to decision makers at each of the decision points. Decisions on which alternatives to advance, and on which final alternative to select, may reflect a broader set of considerations emanating from the public process.

PURPOSE NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT - FINAL 3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

3-2 May 2015

3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

This discussion of Purpose and Need is based on conditions and trends as identified in the Volusia Transit Connector Study Existing Conditions Report – Draft Final, April 2015, and initial assessment of recent 2010 and projected 2040 demographics in Volusia County, as well as 2040 travel patterns identified from the Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM) Version 5.6. Defining the Purpose and Need is a critical step in the planning process. A sound Purpose and Need Statement, associated with a set of locally adopted goals and objectives, guides the development and evaluation of alternatives. It also lays the foundation for future federal review of the project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Purpose and Need Statement for NEPA will build upon and refine the discussion that follows.

The Florida PD&E process identifies six components of a Purpose and Need related to capital transportation capital investment. These include but are not limited to:

Consistency with adopted plans

Capacity o Existing deficiencies o Travel demand o Mobility

Social demands/economic development

Modal interrelationships

System continuity

Safety

The relationship of the Study Area to each of the factors is described in the following sections.

3.1 Consistency with Adopted Plans

The need for and desire to have premium transit within Volusia County beyond the existing SunRail service to DeBary has been identified in several regional and local plans. Foremost, the 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) of the River to Sea Transportation Planning Organization (R2CTPO) includes the extension of commuter rail service to the DeLand Amtrak station, with a spur east of that station to serve central DeLand. New Bus Rapid Transit service from DeLand to Daytona Beach is also identified as well as local circulator service in Daytona Beach, DeLand, and Deltona. The Votran 2012-2021 Transit Development Plan Update includes new intercity bus service connecting the DeLand Station with Daytona Beach and with Central Florida Regional Hospital in Sanford.

The desire for enhanced local and intercity transit service in Volusia County is also expressed through the various City Comprehensive Plans. Those plans identify areas for new and more intensified development that would support greater transit investment.

3.2 Capacity

3.2.1 Impact of Traffic Congestion

The ability of the roadway network to handle the current and future travel demand is an indication of the need to make improvements to the transportation system, either though modifications to the existing road network, modifying the demand for vehicular travel, or by providing additional modal options for travel (such as transit). Traffic volumes along the major roadways in the Study Area have


3-3 May 2015

increased substantially in recent years. According to the FDOT 2013 Traffic Information Online, weekday traffic volumes on I-4 range from a high of 110,000 vehicles a day at Dirksen Road to 40,000 vehicles at I-95. Traffic volumes on U.S. 17/92 range from 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles a day. U.S. 92 east of DeLand has volumes ranging from 20,000 east of DeLand to 40,000 in Daytona Beach. Each of these roadways is approaching capacity, and will experience increased traffic in the future with the anticipated growth in Volusia County and increase in through traffic.

This degradation of traffic is clearly shown in Figure 3-1, which compares volume to capacity ratio and hence level of congestion on the Study Area roadway system today vs. projected for 2035. Nearly all of the arterial roads and the interstate highways within the Study Area are projected to be operating over capacity by 2035. While there are projects planned or under construction that will help to ease congestion, for example, I-4 is being widened to a complete six-lane roadway in Volusia County, projected future traffic volumes will still necessitate additional roadway capacity in the longer-term. However, the ability to add capacity is precluded because of right-of-way constraints and environmentally sensitive areas. Restricted right-of-way and environmental impacts likewise will limit the ability of widening both U.S. 17/92 and U.S. 92.

3.2.2 Addressing Travel Demand

Travel patterns within Volusia County, coupled with future roadway capacity/congestion information, will provide guidance as to what extent intracity vs. intercity connections could be made by enhanced transit. To date, an assessment of 2040 travel patterns has been conducted, using socioeconomic data obtained from the R2CTPO 2040 LRTP update.

The Volusia County Comprehensive Plan was used as the basis for describing area to area travel patterns. Subareas were created by aggregation of different communities for analysis of demographic and travel patterns, as identified in Figure 3-2.

Figures 3-3 through 3-5 show the number of weekday trips projected in 2040 by trip purpose (including total trips, work trips and non-work trips) between subareas covering the Study Area. The greatest number of overall trips in 2040, shown in Figure 3-3, are projected to be from SW Volusia (DeBary, Orange City, and Deltona) to Seminole/Orange Counties, with 76,500 total weekday trip productions. Over 42,000 trips are projected in the reverse direction, from Seminole/Orange Counties to SW Volusia. The extension of SunRail to DeBary was intended to serve this demand. The second highest overall trip pattern is projected to be between SW Volusia and NW Volusia (primarily to DeLand), with over 55,000 trips from SW to NW and over 42,000 from NW to SW. The third highest overall number of trips in 2040 was between NW and NE Volusia, with 30,000 trips from NE to NW and over 24,000 from NW to NE. Trips between NE and SW Volusia and NE and Seminole/Orange Counties are less than those previously discussed. The share of trips between districts is consistent among the total trips, work trips and non-work trips. The roadways currently used to travel between the top three areas discussed above, are the roads that are projected to be over capacity in 2040 (including U.S. 92, I-4 and 17/92).

Figures 3-6 through 3-13 provide further detail on trip patterns, specifically for home-based work trips between subareas and within subareas. This information was derived from the CFRPM Version 5.6 with socioeconomic data obtained from the 2040 LRTP update. Daytona Beach is shown to have the highest percentage of internal work trips (people both living and working in Daytona Beach) at 89%, due to the high number of jobs within the City. The percentage of internal work trips within cities further south, and hence with greater proximity to the Orlando metro area, is much lower (54% internal work trips within DeLand, vs. 33% in Orange City and DeBary, and 20% in Deltona).


3-4 May 2015

Figure 3-1. Change in Traffic Conditions

2005 Traffic on Existing Roadway Network 2035 Traffic on Existing plus Committed Roadway Network

Source: River to Sea TPO, 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan


3-5 May 2015

Figure 3-2. Subarea Aggregation for Demographic and Travel Pattern Analysis


3-6 May 2015

Figure 3-3. 2040 Total Weekday Person Trip Flow Pattern

Figure 3-4. 2040 Weekday Work Person Trip Flow Pattern


3-7 May 2015

Figure 3-5. 2040 Weekday Non-Work Person Trip Flow Pattern


3-8 May 2015

Figure 3-6. Work Trips Originating from Greater Daytona


3-9 May 2015

Figure 3-7. Work Trips Originating from New Smyrna


3-10 May 2015

Figure 3-8. Work Trips Originating from DeLand


3-11 May 2015

Figure 3-9. Work Trips Originating from Lake Helen & Cassadaga


3-12 May 2015

Figure 3-10. Work Trips Originating from Orange City/DeBary


3-13 May 2015

Figure 3-11. Work Trips Originating from Deltona


3-14 May 2015

Figure 3-12. Work Trips Originating from Sanford & Lake Mary


3-15 May 2015

Figure 3-14 shows the comparison of 2010 and 2040 intra-city and intercity person trips using the updated 2040 LRTP socioeconomic data aggregated within the subarea boundaries as shown in Figure 3-2. The trends for Greater Daytona and DeLand show a higher number of intra-city trips, both for 2010 and 2040; for Lake Helen/Cassadaga and cities located in southwest Volusia (Orange City, DeBary, and Deltona) the trends show higher number of intercity person trips, for both 2010 and 2040. This indicates that there is the potential to develop enhanced transportation/transit options between cities to support the demand for the intra-city travel, particularly within cities like Daytona Beach and DeLand, as well as improved travel for intercity trips such as from DeLand to Daytona.

Recognizing that Volusia County has a vibrant tourist industry, and is the location for major special events such as the Daytona 500, an assessment of typical weekend and race weekend patterns was analyzed. Cellular trip data was obtained for the Daytona Speed Weeks, the weekends of February 15-16 and 22-23, 2014, as well as for weekdays and other weekends in February and March 2014. The patterns revealed that on the two race weekends, total person trips to NE Volusia (including Daytona Beach) increased by 45,000 per day, while person trips within NE Volusia increased by 142,000 per day, reflecting the higher number of local trips associated with race weekend activities. Comparing overall travel within Volusia County on a typical weekend vs. weekday basis, a typical weekend generated 88% of the weekday trips, indicating a strong trip demand on weekends reflective of normal tourist travel on the weekends. This suggests that roadway capacity issues that exist during the week are also experienced on the weekend as well.


3-16 May 2015

Figure 3-14. 2010 and 2040 Person Trips from CFRPM


3-17 May 2015

3.2.3 Limited Transit Mobility

Today transit service in the Study Area is focused on SunRail service to DeBary, and Votran local bus routes serving SunRail and the local communities. The express bus service operated by LYNX, from the Saxon Boulevard park & ride lot on I-4 was eliminated when SunRail service was initiated. Service in general is oriented to the peak periods, with service limited to 30-60 minutes during peak periods, and 60-120 minutes during off-peak periods. There is currently no weekend service on SunRail. The limited transit service today impacts mobility needs for the transit-dependent population and the offering of broader trip options for desired choice riders.

The traffic congestion in Volusia County and lengthy transit headways also has resulted in some long travel and transfer times for local bus service. Table 3-1 shows the service frequency and travel times for various connections around the County. To travel from Daytona Beach to DeBary, it takes 165 minutes on the route 23 local bus, including 46 minutes of transfer wait time. Even the Votran express service making this connection takes 125 minutes, including 29 minutes of transfer wait time. While other connections require less travel time, the bus service is not competitive with the auto. Providing a more frequent, faster transit service connecting the major trip attractions in the County, particularly major employment concentrations and future growth and economic development, should be a key priority.

Table 3-2 depicts the ridership trend for Votran routes, over the one fiscal year period between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014. In fiscal year 2014, the highest monthly ridership was experienced during the month of October 2013, while the lowest ridership was experienced in June 2014. Votran’s service area is heavily focused on the eastern side of Volusia County as is evident in the ridership numbers for fiscal year 2014. The Votran routes serving the east side provided 3,285,098 rides during 2014 while the west side only experienced 459,823 rides during the same period.

The ridership in the Study Area indicates that the transit service that is provided is utilized. The demand for additional transit service within the Study Area will be evaluated through this study.


3-18 May 2015

Table 3-1. Existing Votran Service Frequency and Travel Times

From To Route Service

Frequency (min)

Running Time (min)

Transfer Time (min)

Total Travel Time (min)

Daytona Beach Transfer Plaza

DeBary City Hall Route 23 60 min M-F/60 min

Sat 119 46 165


DeBary Sun Rail Station

Route 31 Express

60-75 minutes M-F (9 hr gap between

morning and afternoon service)

96 29 125


DeLand Intermodal

Transfer Facility Route 20

60 min M-F/60 min Sat

86 1 87


Deltona (Providence &

Fort Smith) Route 23

60min M-F/60 min Sat

134 11 145

DeLand Intermodal

Transfer Facility

Deltona (Providence &

Fort Smith) Route 23

60min M-F/60 min Sat

50 10 60


DuPont Lakes Shopping Center

- Deltona Route 33

60 min M-F (9 hr gap between


52 52


Deltona Plaza Route 32



30 30

DeBary City Hall DeLand

Intermodal Transfer Facility

Route 20 60 min M-F/60 min

Sat 37 10 47


DeLand Intermodal

Transfer Facility

Route 31 Express



27 27

*SunRail routes between DeLand, Deltona, and the DeBary SunRail Station operate on weekday, peak schedules only.


3-19 May 2015

Table 3-2. Votran Existing Transit Ridership

Route No. Annual Ridership One-Year

Trend 2013 2014

All 3,718,110 3,744,921 0.7%

1 241,129 217,434 -9.8%

3 237,577 298,444 25.6%

4 267,358 347,447 30.0%

5 67,047 62,137 -7.3%

6 154,306 154,559 0.2%

7 214,493 207,336 -3.3%

8 92,276 97,062 5.2%

9/19 159,533 154,235 -3.3%

10 270,848 258,152 -4.7%

11 194,874 185,028 -5.1%

12 168,628 172,301 2.2%

15 194,679 184,118 -5.4%

17 288,168 295,895 2.7%

1B/18 172,991 181,437 4.9%

40 66,906 63,206 -5.5%

41 44,883 41,599 -7.3%

60/61 247,123 243,010 -1.7%

700 41,818 0 -100%

20 240,569 208,966 -13.1%

21 52,601 48,441 -7.9%

22 46,891 43,591 -7%

23 48,237 44,771 -7.2%

24 16,070 16,277 1.3%

200 25,811 15,077 -41.6%

901 35,871 30,409 -15.2%

903 30,899 31,549 2.1%

904 32,967 32,409 -1.7%

910 35,503 31,787 -10.5%

915 40,593 37,187 -8.4%

917 29,279 31,260 6.8%

30* 0 2,777 100.0%

31* 0 2,443 100.0%

32 0 2,510 100.0%

33 0 2,067 100.0%

SunRail Routes 30, 31, 32, and 33 began services effective May 1, 2014. *Route 30 merged with Route 31 effective December 1, 2014. Route 200 was eliminated and replaced with SunRail service effective May 1, 2014.


3-20 May 2015

LYNX annual ridership for fiscal year 2013 Study Area fixed-routes is provided in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. LYNX Study Area Route Ridership

Route Route Description Total

46E Central Florida Regional Hospital/Downtown Sanford 44,754

34 Sanford/Goldsboro 117,582

46W W. S.R. 46/Seminole Towne Center 121,026

Total 283,362

3.3 Social Demand and Economic Development

3.3.1 Needs of the Transit Dependent Population

Transit dependent populations include those households who rely on public transportation for

daily needs such as commuting to work, medical appointments, school, shopping, and other

trips. This includes minority and elderly populations and households which are economically

disadvantaged (below the poverty level) and those households with access to zero or one

vehicle.

Data on transit dependent populations is based on the 2010 U.S. Census at the block and tract

geography levels. Table 3-4 summarizes the transit dependent population within the Study

Area.

The Study Area ranks fairly high in all measures of transit dependent populations. Minority

populations account for nearly a third of the population at 32.5%. Within the Study Area,

minority populations are mainly concentrated in downtown Sanford, southeast of DeLand, and

northern portions of Daytona Beach.

Elderly populations, at 17.9% of the Study Area population, are fairly evenly distributed

throughout the Study Area. There are above average pockets near the I-4/S.R. 44 intersection,

and southern Daytona Beach area.

Households below the poverty level are concentrated near the U.S. 17-92/S.R. 44 intersection

and the area to the immediate northeast of the Daytona Beach Airport.

The percentage of households with access to 0 or 1 vehicle is evenly distributed across the

Study Area, with the exception of the rural area primarily between I-95 and S.R. 415. Higher

concentrations of households without access to a vehicle or one vehicle have a similar

distribution as households below poverty and minorities.


3-21 May 2015

Table 3-4. Transit Dependent Population in Study Area

Transit Dependent Population Overview

Minority 32.5%

Elderly 17.9%

Households Below Poverty Level 13.1%

Households with 0 or 1 Vehicle 39.3%

Source: US Census Bureau, 2010; ECFRPC, 2014.

Socio-demographic analyses indicates a large percentage of the Study Area population, along

with surrounding Volusia and Seminole counties, includes transit dependent populations,

specifically those without access to two or more vehicles, households below the poverty level,

and people under the age of 16 or over 65.These populations may depend on adequate transit

service for basic trip making. The limited service frequency and span of service of Votran

routes in the Study Area limits the ability of such a population from using such service. This

includes access to employment opportunities within and external to the County. While Votran

does operate Transportation Disadvantaged service, this service requires an eligibility

application process, advanced reservations, and a pick up window of two hours for scheduled

trips.

3.3.2 Serving Population and Employment Growth

Volusia County has experienced extensive population and employment growth in recent years, with added growth expected over the next 30 years. Table 3-5 shows the 2010 and projected 2040 population and employment for Volusia and other Central Florida counties. By 2040, population in the County is expected to increase by 163,000, to 732,000 (a 29 percent increase). Employment is expected to grow by 89,000, to 288,000 (a 45 percent increase). Specific city allocations are still being assessed, but all communities in the Study Area are expected to grow substantially. Although employment is anticipated to grow at a higher percentage rate than the population, there is still projected to be fewer total jobs than people in Volusia and surrounding counties. This is reflective of the unemployment rate, high number of retirees, and number of underage children not yet in the work force. In Volusia County, for eligible workers, there is some deficiency of jobs.


3-22 May 2015

Table 3-5. Existing and Projected Population and Employment by County

County 2010 2040 Growth Growth (%)

Population* Employment** Population* Employment** Population* Employment** Population* Employment**

Volusia 569,000 199,000 732,000 288,000 163,000 89,000 29% 45%

Seminole 434,000 228,000 559,000 372,000 125,000 144,000 29% 63%

Orange 1,388,000 826,000 2,000,000 1,156,000 612,000 330,000 44% 40%

Osceola 380,000 89,000 742,000 270,000 362,000 181,000 95% 203%

Lake 328,000 122,000 558,000 226,000 230,000 104,000 70% 85%

Brevard 556,000 230,000 823,000 324,000 267,000 94,000 48% 41%

Marion 331,000 116,000 553,000 252,000 222,000 136,000 67% 117%

Sumter 106,000 28,000 245,000 89,000 139,000 61,000 131% 218%

Flagler 107,000 24,000 208,000 52,000 101,000 28,000 94% 117%

Polk 170,000 33,000 291,000 94,000 121,000 61,000 71% 185%

Indian River 49,000 17,000 75,000 49,000 26,000 32,000 53% 188%

Total 4,418,000 1,912,000 6,786,000 3,172,000 2,368,000 1,260,000 66% 118%

Source: CFRPM 5.6 updated with socioeconomic data provided by the local municipalities

Population* - Includes single family, multiple family, and hotel population Employment** - Includes service, industrial, and commercial employment


3-23 May 2015

3.3.3 Transit as an Economic Development Tool

Land development is largely controlled by local municipalities. In order to best serve transit, local government regulations should be assessed and modified as appropriate. There are several examples of areas in Volusia County where the municipalities have already revised their regulations to allow for higher density development. This higher density zoning partnered with potential enhanced transit service is a foundation for continued economic development. New developments within the Study Area that would benefit from enhanced transit service. In particular, the new Daytona Rising and One Daytona developments adjacent to Daytona Speedway would benefit from enhanced intercity transit connections, as well as the planned major Development of Regional Impact at the I-4/SR 472 interchange. With new station development along a new premium transit investment, transit-oriented development can be attracted, whether it is from a rail or premium bus service investment.

3.4 Modal Interrelationships

FDOT in recent years has aggressively pursued improvements to the I-4 corridor serving Volusia County. This has included a new bridge over the St. Johns River, projects to widen the interstate to six lanes in three segments from the river to S.R. 472, S.R. 472 to S.R. 44, and S.R. 44 to I-95, and improvements to the I-4/I-95/U.S. 92 interchange complex on the west side of Daytona Beach. In each of these projects, there have been provisions for a “rail” envelope in the corridor. Maintaining such an envelope for transit purposes has recently been verified by the Volusia County Council. Any provision of premium transit along I-4 would provide a direct connection to Daytona Beach from southwest Volusia County and the Orlando metro area.

In its recent “Beyond I-4 Ultimate” studies, FDOT has evaluated the feasibility of extending the managed lanes concept for I-4 improvements being implemented in Orange and Seminole Counties into Volusia County north to the S.R. 472 interchange. The ability of managed lanes to accommodate a premium transit improvement, particularly express bus or bus rapid transit, as opposed to rail in its own envelope, is a key evaluation toward identifying what would be the major cost-effective investment for transit long-term in that corridor.

3.5 System Continuity

The implementation of new SunRail commuter rail service to DeBary in June 2014 provided for the first time an all-day premium transit connection from Volusia County to the Orlando metro area. This service however only directly serves the far southwest portion of Volusia County, and is weekday and to a large extent peak period-oriented. FDOT has taken the initiative to proceed with project development and hopefully final FTA approval and funding for extension of SunRail further north into Volusia County to the existing Amtrak station on the west side of DeLand. While serving more of the County, this extension as currently proposed does not directly serve the two largest cities in the County: Deltona and Daytona Beach. Thus there is a need to identify at least what enhanced transit connections can be made to serve both the existing DeBary SunRail station and a future DeLand station from these two communities. Votran has taken the initiative to provide two new feeder bus routes serving the DeBary station, in the absence currently of further advancement of SunRail into the County. Ridership on these feeder routes was approximately 2,000 riders on each route in fiscal year 201. But such service is still oriented to the weekday peak period, and doesn’t directly connect Daytona Beach with SunRail.

The former express bus service from Saxon Road provided some level of enhanced access for Deltona residents, but with its elimination there is no current service on I-4 into Seminole and Orange


3-24 May 2015

Counties. Prior to the express service elimination, the park & ride lot at Saxon Road was performing well, reaching nearly 100 percent capacity of its 125 spaces, when gas prices were at a peak in 2014. The park-n-ride lot continues to be highly utilized by carpools and vanpools. There currently are no plans by LYNX or Votran to implement another express bus route in the I-4 corridor, either to the Orlando area or to the north to serve Daytona Beach.

3.6 Safety

Crashes were also tabulated within a one mile buffer around the existing DeBary SunRail station, the DeLand Amtrak station (future SunRail station), and the potential intermodal station by the Daytona Speedway and International Airport. During the period of 2008 through 2012, there were 9,195 crashes involving 45,336 vehicles, resulting in 814 injuries and 131 fatalities. Of the 9,195 crashes, there were 469 that involved bicycles or pedestrians and 98 fatalities. The majority of crashes occurred with private automobiles, operated by unimpaired drivers in an angled/left turn direction. Table 3-3 summarizes the crash statistics on the roadways within the Study Area; more than half of the total fatalities were from bicycle and pedestrian crashes, even though the total number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes is approximately five percent of the total number of crashes.

Table 3-3. Study Area Crash Summary (2008-2012)

Overall Study Area Statistics

Statistic Number

Total Crashes 9,195

Total Vehicles 45,336

Total Injuries 814

Total Fatalities 131

Study Area Crashes by Type

Bicycle / Pedestrian Crashes 469

Bicycle / Pedestrian Fatalities 98

Number of Crashes for Station Area Sites

DeBary Station Area 57

DeLand Station Area 74

Daytona Beach Potential Intermodal

Station Site 380

A review of the crash data identifies that modal improvements in the area could potentially impact the

level of transportation incidents. While crash levels vary based on the characteristics noted above,

when compared to other corridors the data may support investments to alleviate future crash levels.

By improving transit service in the Study Area, some diversion of trips from auto to transit will occur, which will reduce the potential for crashes on such roadways as I-4, U.S. 17/92 and U.S. 92.

3.7 Input from Project Advisory Group

As an aid in developing a final Purpose and Need Statement for this project, the Project Advisory Group for the Volusia Transit Connector Study was sent a survey through Survey Monkey to identify what their priorities are with respect to Purpose and Need. Figure 3-14 identifies the responses. The top priorities were:

Improving system linkage

Meeting capacity/transportation demand


3-25 May 2015

Serving transit-dependents and fostering economic development

Probing further into desired attributes, Figure 3-15 identifies what would be the three top purposes of an enhanced transportation system for Volusia County. The top responses included:

Livability

Economic health

Alleviate future congestion

Improve mobility

These responses focused on what premium transit could do to improve the overall quality of life for residents, workers, and tourists in the County.

3.8 Final Purpose and Need Statement

Based on the characteristics of the various factors related to Purpose and Need as applied to the Volusia Transit Connector Study Area, and input from the PAG on their relative values and priorities, the following Purpose and Need Statement for the project is identified:

To provide increased transportation choices and to better serve the transit-dependent population in Volusia County, - an expanded premium transit investment in the Study Area is needed. This transit improvement should improve access to employment and other major trip attractions help alleviate congestion and improve safety on I-4, U.S. 17/92, and U.S. 92 and major local roadways, and serve as a stimulus for transit-oriented development. SunRail has provided a connection for travel to employment and economic opportunities between Volusia County and Seminole County. Based on future congestion from planned developments and population growth, there is an opportunity to provide enhanced transit service in the reverse direction for new development, the protection of natural resources, and resident access to employment and recreational destinations. The final identified improvement should be accepted into locally adopted plans, and be cost-effective with minimal social and environmental impacts.


3-26 May 2015

Figure 3-14. Top Three Issues and Needs from PAG Survey

Figure 3-15. Top Three Purposes from PAG Survey

Planning Consistency

10%

System Linkage 31%

Capacity/ Transportation

Demand 22%

Social Demands/ Economic

Development 21%

Modal Interrelationships

14%

Safety 2%

PURPOSE NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT - FINAL 4.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

4-1 May 2015

4.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Based on the identified Purpose and Need, a set of five goals with associated objectives have been developed to guide the development and evaluation of mode and routing alternatives for the Volusia Transit Connector Study, presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Goals and Objectives for Transit Improvements – Volusia Transit Connector Study

Goal Objective

1. Improve Transportation Mobility, Accessibility and Safety in Study Area

1. Improve service to areas with densities supportive of transit

2. Improve Service to areas with transit-dependent population

3. Improve connectivity between transportation systems and increase opportunities for future local and regional transit services

4. Reduce transit travel time for longer distance trips

5. Accommodate the added variable travel demands associated with special events

6. Provide safe, multi-modal access to the transit system

2. Develop a Transportation System that is the Most Efficient, which Leverages Limited Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit

1. Maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and infrastructure

2. Maximize the potential for a variety of project funding sources, including federal, state and local government agencies and the private sector

3. Develop transportation options use proven transportation technologies suitable to the Study Area

4. Provide a transportation improvement that can be implemented in a phased manner

3. Preserve and Enhanced the Quality of the Environment and Cultural Resources

1. Minimize potential adverse impact on residences, businesses, and the built environment

2. Minimize potential adverse impacts on the natural environment

3. Improve air quality by reducing auto emissions and pollutants

PURPOSE NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT - FINAL 4.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

4-2 May 2015

Goal Objective

4. Stimulate Transit-Oriented and Overall Economic Development

1. Provide transit investments supportive of City and County development/ redevelopment and land use plans

2. Maximize the economic benefits gained from transit capital investments

3. Promote eco-tourism and use of cultural resources

5. Relieve Traffic Congestion on Regional and Local Roadway System

1. Increase the transit mode share of trips made within the County and external to adjacent areas

2. Develop transit infrastructure improvements that will facilitate transit usage without undue increase in roadway traffic congestion or reduction in safety

The goals and objectives are consistent with those identified in other premium transit studies sponsored by FDOT and other agencies in Central Florida, and consistent with the Volusia County Long-Range Transportation Plan.

PURPOSE NEED & EVALUATION METHODOLOGY REPORT - FINAL 5.0 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

5-1 May 2015

5.0 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

5.1 Overview

The evaluation methodology is designed to help FDOT, the River to Sea TPO, and local governments to select an enhanced transit mode and service configuration that will improve transit speeds and system reliability, increasing the competitiveness of transit for commuting and other trip-making purposes, while supporting regional goals for development, redevelopment, and sustainability.

The evaluation framework to be applied in the Volusia Transit Connector Study consists of an initial Mode Screening, then a two-tiered Corridor Screening process (see Figure 5-1).

5.2 Initial Mode Screening

The initial Mode Screening will address the following alternatives:

Commuter rail

Light rail transit

Streetcar

Monorail/Automated guideway transit

Express bus

Bus rapid transit

Local bus enhancements

These modes are illustrated in Figure 5-2. At the outset of this screening, a basic question will be answered related to any modes which have been eliminated in previous studies/discussions for reasons that are still considered valid. Upon applying this to every mode and corridor, the screening would then proceed to a basic evaluation of mode applicability in each corridor. The major criteria to be applied in this mode screening will be consistent with the process applied in the recent U.S. 441 Corridor Study, as documented in its Initial Alternatives Development and Screening Memorandum1, as well as a couple of added criteria. The criteria will include:

Consistency of the technology with the Study Area’s operating environment and

existing rights-of-way. Technologies will be ranked based on whether they would be

compatible with the scale and travel characteristics for specific corridors in the Study Area,

and whether the technology is in current use in the Study Area.

Flexibility of the technology in providing regional connectivity. Technologies will be

ranked based on whether they can serve the travel characteristics of travelers in the Study

Area today and in the future.

Availability of the technology from multiple vendors. Technologies will be ranked based

on whether various components of the system are available from a number of different

vendors, which would enable competitive bidding, cost-effective implementation, and cost-

effective maintenance.

1 US 441 Corridor Study, Technical Memorandum - Initial Alternatives Development and Screening, June 2014.


5-2 May 2015

Maturity of the technology. Technologies will be ranked based on whether they have been

implemented in a variety of locations and were proven as a reliable transit mode.

Expandability of the technology. Technologies will be ranked based on whether they can

be expanded easily to meet the short and long-term needs of the corridor.

Appropriate capacity to serve demand. Technologies will be ranked based on minimum

development thresholds shown to support such transit service for the designated corridors in

the Study Area, in terms of population and employment by density.

Impact of technology footprint on surrounding environment. Technologies will be

ranked based on whether the footprint and associated right-of-way (if needed) for the mode

can fit into a corridor, without significant adjacent property impacts.

The analysis will be summarized by rating each mode against each criterion as High, Medium or Low. In addition, the ability of the mode to connect with SunRail or another mode in Seminole County or Volusia County to provide access to the south to Orlando from Daytona Beach, DeLand and SW Volusia County will be evaluated.

The outcome of the initial mode screening will be a refined set of premium transit modes to be further evaluated for certain corridors.


5-0 May 2015

Figure 5-1. Mode/Corridor Evaluation Process


5-0 May 2015

Figure 5-2. Transit Modes to be Initially Screened

SunRail Extension

Light Rail Transit

Streetcar

Automated People Mover

Monorail

Bus Rapid Transit

Express Bus

Local Bus Enhancements


5-1 May 2015

5.3 Initial Project Build Alternatives Screening

A set of initial project build alternatives will be identified based on the outcome of the initial corridor screening. The initial corridor screening will evaluate routing and mode alternatives for seven segments within the Study Area based on a limited set of evaluation measures as identified in Table 5-1. The seven corridor segments are described below and shown in Figure 5-3.

South to Seminole: This segment is located to the south end portion of the Study Area; routing and mode alternatives connecting the Seminole County portion of the Study Area with to the DeBary SunRail station will be evaluated.

DeBary to DeLand: This segment comprises the portions of DeBary, Orange City and DeLand that are located within the Study Area. Routing and mode alternatives will be evaluated for the south-north connection of southwest Volusia with the city of DeLand.

Rail to I-4: The Rail to I-4 segment comprises the same area as the DeBary to DeLand segment; routing and mode alternatives will be evaluated for the east-west connection between the existing CSX railroad and I-4.

DeLand: This segment comprises the City of DeLand. The routing alternatives in this segment will evaluate potential connections and mode applicability from the existing DeLand Amtrak Station across DeLand to I-4 and U.S. 92.

East – West Connection: This segment comprises the portion of the Study Area connecting the cities located to east side of Volusia County with the Daytona Beach area.

West Daytona: This segment comprises the west portion of Daytona Beach. Routing alternatives will be evaluated for the connection and mode applicability between I-4/U.S. 92 and the potential intermodal station site located east of the International Speedway.

East Daytona: This segment comprises the Daytona Beach area east of Clyde Morris Blvd to U.S.1. Routing alternatives will be evaluated for the connection and mode applicability between the potential intermodal station site east of the International Speedway and the Votran Downtown Transit Center.

Data for the screening will stem largely from available demographic data, GIS data, local planning studies and documents, field reconnaissance, and PAG and Community Liaison Group feedback. For each evaluation measure, the routing and technology alternatives will be rated on a scale of High, Medium and Low, with the High rating representing the most promising alternatives and Low representing the least promising. If the differences are too small on one or more of the measures to differentiate among the alternatives in a meaningful way, then all of the alternatives may be given identical ratings. The PB team will present a summary matrix of the data and ratings for each measure by routing alternative for each of the seven segments within the Study Area and will recommend a set of initial project build alternatives. These alternatives will be rated on a scale of High, Medium and Low for each evaluation measure. The poorest performers will be recommended for elimination from further consideration. Because of the subjective nature of this process, it is not expected that the evaluation measures would be weighed or that the alternatives would be scored numerically.

The outcome of the initial project build alternatives screening will be the No Build Alternative with a set of the most promising mode and routing alternatives for more detailed analysis. An Initial


5-2 May 2015

Screening of the Alternatives Report will be prepared summarizing the initial mode and corridor screening.

Figure 5-3. Initial Corridor Analysis Segments


5-3 May 2015

5.4 Viable Alternatives Screening

The Viable Alternatives screening will evaluate a short list of full corridor alternatives at a level

of detail sufficient for local decision-makers to select an LPA. These complete corridor

alternatives could include one mode for the entire corridor or multiple modes for different

segments. The screening will include the development of ridership projections, and a more

detailed capital and operating cost breakdown for each alternative. The alternatives will be

refined, as conceptual station locations are identified and a limited level of conceptual

engineering performed to provide a basis for more detailed cost estimating and financial

analysis. More detailed environmental screening and impact studies will also be performed with

this screening. Documentation of the viable alternatives and their impact will be presented in a

Conceptual Definition of Alternatives Report and an Evaluation of Refined Alternatives Report.

Table 5-1 also identifies the measures to be applied in the Viable Alternatives evaluation.

Similar to the initial corridor screening process, a rating scale will be utilized to provide a relative

comparison between the No-Build and the remaining Build alternatives. The PB team will

assign ratings on a scale of High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low and Low for each

measure. Documentation of the viable alternatives and their impact will be presented in a

Definition of Refined Alternatives Report and Evaluation of Refined Alternatives Report. As with

the initial project build alternatives screening, numerical scoring of the alternatives is not

anticipated.

An evaluation of the viable alternatives also will be conducted with respect to the specific FTA

Project Justification criteria for New Starts projects. This will give the PAG and general public

insights into how the refined alternatives would stack up against the specific criteria FTA uses in

evaluating and approving projects for funding. The criteria are shown in Table 5-2. Each

measure will be related to one of the following ratings: High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-

Low, and Low, based on ranges established by FTA. The Congestion Relief criterion is still

awaiting FTA designation of a specific evaluation measure. The parallel Local Financial

Commitment criteria will not be evaluated, given it would be premature to assume specific local

financial commitment until the LPA is adopted; however once an LPA is identified preliminary

revenue streams will be explored.

The outcome of the Viable Alternatives Screening will be a single LPA that could be advanced

for more detailed environmental and engineering studies.


5-4 May 2015

Table 5-1. Initial Corridor and Viable Alternatives Screening Measures

Goal Objective Initial Corridor Screening/

Initial Project Build Alternatives Viable Alternatives Screening

1. Improve Transportation Mobility, Accessibility, and Safety in Study Area

1. Improve service to areas with densities supportive of transit

2040 Population within 1/2 mile Population within 1/2 mile

2040 Employees within 1/2 mile Employees within 1/2 mile

2. Improve service to areas with transit-dependent population

2010 Transit-dependent population within 1/2 mile

Transit-dependent population within 1/2 mile

3. Improve connectivity between transportation systems and increase opportunities for future local and regional transit services

No. of connections to local and regional transit service, and to regional airports

Transfer ridership at stations

4. Reduce transit travel time for longer distance trips

V/C ratio on roadways where transit would operate

Transit travel time savings for different intracity and intercity connections in County

No. of signalized intersections traversed Average transit travel time for different trip lengths

5. Accommodate the added variable travel demands associated with special events

Proximity to Daytona Speedway ISB Corridor

Proximity to ISB Corridor

No. of other sport/community event venues within 1/4 mile

No. of other sport/community event venues within 1/4 mile

6. Provide safe, multi-modal access to the transit system

% of corridor with parallel sidewalk and bicycle connections

Density of sidewalk network around stations

No. of connections with local bus service

Miles of bike lanes within one mile of stations

2. Develop a Transportation System that is the Most Efficient, which Leverages Limited Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit

1. Maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and infrastructure

% of corridor on existing roadway right-of-way

Amount of new right-of-way acquisition

Available right-of-way for transit improvement

Qualitative-Ability to maintain existing freight rail operations and industrial activity with proposed transit alternative on shared tracks?

2. Maximize the potential for a variety of project funding sources, including federal, state and local government agencies and the private sector

Potential Overall FTA Project Justification rating

Applicable funding sources based on type/cost of project

3. Develop transportation options that use proven transportation technologies suitable to the Study Area

Application of mode evaluation criteria

4. Provide a transportation improvement that can be implemented in a phased manner

Ability to implement project in a quick timeframe

Ability to implement project in stages


5-5 May 2015

Goal Objective Initial Corridor Screening/

Initial Project Build Alternatives Viable Alternatives Screening

3. Preserve and Enhanced the Quality of the Environment and Cultural Resources

1. Minimize potential adverse impact on residences, businesses, and the built environment

% of corridor adjacent to residences and businesses

No. of potential residential/business relocations

% of corridor adjacent to Historic Districts No. of adjacent historic properties

2. Minimize potential adverse impacts on the natural environment

% environmentally-sensitive land along corridor

No. of river/creek crossings

Linear miles of floodplain/wetlands crossed by alignment

No. of contaminated sites around station locations

Number of contaminated sites adjacent to corridor

3. Improve air quality by reducing auto emissions and pollutants

Change in vehicle miles of travel

Change in vehicle hours of travel

4. Stimulate Transit-Oriented and Overall Economic Development

1. Provide transit investments supportive of City and County development/ redevelopment and land use plans

No. of planned new developments directly served in corridor

Consistency of station locations with adopted local government land use plans

Linear miles through designated economic development areas

Consistency with River to Sea TPO Long-Range Transportation Plan

2. Maximize the economic benefits gained from transit capital investments

Conceptual capital cost estimate based on length

Order of magnitude capital cost (2015 dollars) for different project elements

Order of magnitude O&M cost (2015 dollars)

Cost-effectiveness ratio

3. Promote ecotourism and use of cultural resources

Number of natural/cultural tourist attractions within ½ mile

Number of natural/cultural tourist attractions within ½ mile

5. Relieve Traffic Congestion on Regional and Local Roadway System

1. Increase the transit mode share of trips made within the County and external to adjacent areas

No. of miles transit operates on roadways with LOS E/F

% change in transit mode share for different trip connections

2. Develop transit infrastructure improvements that will facilitate transit usage without undue increase in roadway traffic congestion or reduction in safety

Reduction in roadway capacity Change in vehicle miles and vehicle hours of travel


5-6 May 2015

Table 5-2. Initial FTA Project Justification Criteria and Measures

Justification Criteria Evaluation Measure

Mobility Improvements Annual project trips (trips by non-transit dependent population + 2X transit dependent population)

Cost-Effectiveness Annualized cost per rider

Environmental Benefits

Monetized value of benefits from changes in air quality, greenhouse emissions, energy use and safety divided by annual capital federal share of project (Small Starts) (annual capital and operating cost for New Starts)

Economic Development

Extent of attracting transit-supportive Development – factors to be considered: Growth management policies (New Starts only) Supportive zoning near transit Tools to implement transit-supportive plans and policies Performance of transit-supportive plans and policies Potential impact of transit project on regional development Plans and policies to maintain or increase affordable housing in corridor

Land Use

Employment within ½ mile of stations; Population density within ½ mile of proposed stations; Average cost per day of downtown parking Downtown parking spaces per employee Ratio of current affordable housing in corridor to regionwide

Congestion Relief Still to be determined by FTA

purpose and need & evaluation methodology reportvolusiaconnectorstudy.com/pdfs/purpose and need...

Documents