Okaloosa County BOCC — August 16, 2016 — Access EC Rider TDP - August Draft Report — reading text

Relative Category Criteria Measure of Effectiveness Category Weighting Weight Public Public Level of interest in specific alternatives 30% 30% Outreach Input (Very High, High, Moderate, Low) Traditional Percent of corridor in “High” or “Very High” TOI 15% Market Transit Discretionary Percent of corridor in areas that meet “minimum” 15% 40% Markets Market DTA tier for employment or dwelling unit density Urban/Regional Connectivity to urban markets adjacent counties 10% Market Trips per hour (T-BEST-generated trips and Productivity Productivity 15% revenue hours of service) 30% & Efficiency Cost Efficiency Cost per trip (including new trips) 15% Total 100% 100% Public Outreach An extensive public outreach process was conducted for the Access EC Rider TDP planning effort that resulted in numerous opinions and suggestions on transit services from transit users, non-users, and various stakeholders. In addition, the public outreach process included discussions with political leaders and planning advisory committees to gauge their views on transit services. Based on an in depth review of input from these public outreach efforts, a particular route or type of service was categorized as “Low Interest,” “Moderate Interest,” or “High Interest” in the alternatives evaluation process. Transit Markets For the evaluation of alternatives, three transit markets were identified:  Traditional Market – For the existing population segments that historically have had a higher propensity to use transit and/or are dependent on public transit for their transportation needs, the proportion of each corridor operating within a “High” or “Very High” TOI area was calculated.  Discretionary Market – For potential riders living in higher-density areas of the county that may choose to use transit as a commuting or transportation alternative, the proportion of each corridor meeting at least the “Minimum” dwelling unit or employment density threshold in the 2015 DTA was calculated and used for the alternatives evaluation.  Regional Market – Each potential route was assessed for potential regional connectivity. Routes serving key areas outside of Okaloosa County were considered. Inter-county routes having connections to adjacent counties were scored higher than those limited to serving just Okaloosa County. Based on conclusions drawn from public involvement input, regional service to adjacent counties such as Walton County is a much-desired attribute for Okaloosa County routes. ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan 141  Section 8: Alternatives Evaluation Productivity and Efficiency Productivity is generally measured in terms of ridership. Service efficiency is used by transit agencies to gauge how well they are using their existing resources. Each measure is critical to the success of the agency, and services performing well in terms of their productivity and efficiency should receive a higher priority. Forecast ridership, revenue hours, and operating cost figures for each individual alternative are used in this measure.  Ridership Productivity – This is measured in terms of annual passenger trips per revenue hour of service. To provide for an equal comparison between alternatives, passenger trips and revenue hours of service were generated using output from TBEST 2026 ridership data.  Cost Efficiency – This is evaluated for each alternative using a standard transit industry efficiency measure, operating cost per passenger trip. Operating costs used are calculated using operating cost per trip based on Okaloosa County performance data and TBEST 2026 ridership data. Figure 8-4 shows the Access EC Rider TDP 10-year transit service alternatives evaluation process. A summary of various criteria and thresholds used in each tier and the evaluation results are presented in the remainder of this section. Figure 8-4: Transit Service Alternatives Evaluation Process Alternatives Evaluation TDP Steering Committee Public Outreach  Public Input Baseline Conditions Potential Priority Service Transit Markets Ranking of Public/ Alternatives1 Potential Stakeholder  Traditional Alternatives1  Alt A Input  Discretionary  Alt C  Alt B  Regional  Alt D Transit  Alt C Demand  Alt D  Alt A Assessment  Alt B Productivity & Efficiency  Ridership Productivity 1 For illustration  Cost Efficiency purposes only. See list of alternatives summarized previously. Situation Appraisal ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan 142  Section 8: Alternatives Evaluation Alternatives Scoring Thresholds Each criterion is assigned a weight; weighting affords the opportunity to measure the relative importance of each criterion among the group of criteria to be applied. For each transit alternative, a score was determined either through the computation of the selected measure of effectiveness or through the expert judgment of the analyst. Potential scores were assigned depending on the relative comparison of a given transit alternative with other transit alternatives as it relates to a given criterion. A higher score is consistent with a higher ranking for a given alternative for the criterion being evaluated. The thresholds for computation-based criteria (traditional market, choice market, trips per hour, operating cost per trip) were determined using the average of the entire data set and one standard deviation above or below the average. Table 8-2 shows the thresholds and scoring for each criterion used in the alternatives evaluation. Table 8-2: Alternatives Evaluation – Scoring Thresholds Criterion Range Score None 1 Public Input – Moderate 3 Interest in Improvement High 5 Very High 7 Less than (Average – 1 STDEV) 1 Traditional Market Between (Average – 1 STDEV) to Average 3 Potential (% Serving More than Average to (Average + 1 STDEV) 5 Traditional Market) More than (Average + 1 STDEV) 7 Less than (Average – 1 STDEV) 1 Discretionary Market Between (Average – 1 STDEV) to Average 3 Potential (% Serving More than Average to (Average + 1 STDEV) 5 Discretionary Market) More than (Average + 1 STDEV) 7 No 0 Regional Market Connectivity Yes 5 Less than (Average – 1 STDEV) 1 Between (Average – 1 STDEV) to Average 3 Trips per Hour More than Average to (Average + 1 STDEV) 5 More than (Average + 1 STDEV) 7 More than (Average + 1 STDEV) 1 More than Average to (Average + 1 STDEV) 3 Operating Cost per Trip Between (Average – 1 STDEV) to Average 5 Less than (Average – 1 STDEV) 7 Note: STDEV = statistical standard deviation. ACCESS EC RIDER | Okaloosa County’s 10-Year Transit Development Plan 143  Section 8: Alternatives Evaluation Alternatives Evaluation Once the