Appendix B Southeast Extension Technical Framework Report (RTD, December 15, 2011) Southeast Corridor Extension Scoping Report

Transcription

1 Appendix B Southeast Extension (RTD, December 15, 2011) Southeast Corridor Extension Scoping Report

2

3 I~fib FASYRACKS lliiiifl/ 1560 Broadway, Suite 700, Denver, CO phone December 15, 2011 Mr. Dave Beckhouse Federal Transit Administration Region VIII West Dakota Avenue, Suite 310 Lakewood, Colorado Re: FasTracks Southeast Extension Dear Mr. Beckhouse: This letter is sent to accompany the for the Alternatives Analysis of the Southeast Extension Project. This report is being sent to you via Aconex for your review and comment. Tony Loui is also advised of the Aconex submittal. If you would like hard copies of the report of if copies should be distributed to additional ETA offices or personnel, please advise and we will distribute them. Thank you for your assistance. Please call me at (303) with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Susan A. Wood Planning Project Manager RTD - FasTracks Attachments Cc: Anthony Loui, ETA William C. Van Meter, AGM, Planning Brian Welch, Planning Technical Services Manager Liz Telford, Manager Corridor Planning, Environmental Andy Mutz, Southeast Extension Engineering Project Manager Jeet Desai, Transportation Planner Ill Document Control

4 Project Prepared for: Federal Transit Administration Prepared by: Denver Regional Transportation District December 15, 2011

5 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION Project Background Purpose Need Project Scope Purpose of Report DETAILED ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternative Description of Alternative Service Levels TSM/Baseline Alternative Description of Alternative Service Levels Build Alternatives LRT Along I-25 Description of Alternative LRT on EE Alignment 1 Description of Alternative LRT on EE Alignment 2 Description of Alternative Connecting Bus Routes and Service Levels DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGIES Capital Cost Estimating Methodology Introduction General Cost Estimating Methodology Cost Items Unit Prices Contingency Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimating Methodologies Overview Ridership Forecasting Methodology Introduction Table of Contents - i

6 3.3.2 Updates to Highway Elements of the Model Updates to Transit Elements of the Model QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES/PEER REVIEW Quality Assurance Program Plan Control of Documents Quality Management System Planning Customer Related Processes Quality Management Oversight FasTracks Environmental Policies and Procedures Manual LIST OF TABLES Table 1: No Action Alternative Service Levels... 5 Table 2: The TSM/Baseline Alternative Service Levels... 7 Table 3: Build Alternatives: Service Levels Table 4: Number of Fare s Traveled for Premium Modes Table 5: RTD Zonal Fares for Premium Modes (2007 Fares in 1996$) Table 6: Mode Choice Coefficients - COMPASS 3.0 Model (old model) Table 7: Mode Choice Coefficients - COMPASS 4.0 Model (updated new model) Table 8: COMPASS 3.0 Mode Choice Nest Constants Table 9: COMPASS 4.0 Mode Choice Nest Constants Table 10: Denver RTD COMPASS Model - Transit Time of Day Splits Table 11: Time of Day Split Factors for Trips To and From DIA Table 12: Predicted vs. Observed - Spring 2008 On-Board Survey as Assigned to 2007 Networks and Parameters from COMPASS 4.0 Model Table 13: Predicted vs. Observed Success Rate - Spring 2008 On-Board Survey as Assigned to 2007 Networks and Parameters from COMPASS Table 14: 2007 Modeled vs. Observed (Spring 2008 On-Board Survey) Transit Assignment Summaries - COMPASS 4.0 Model Table of Contents - ii

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Study Area Map... 1 Figure 2: Build Alternative (Southeast Corridor Extension Environmental Evaluation, 2010)... 3 Figure 3: The No Action Alternative... 5 Figure 4: TSM/Baseline Alternative... 6 Figure 5: LRT Adjacent to I Figure 6: LRT on EE Alignment Figure 7: Build Alternative - Connecting Bus Routes Figure 8: Fare Boundaries - RTD Denver Appendix A Screening Methodology APPENDICES (Provided on CD) Appendix B OPSTATS 3.0 Methodology Report and User s Manual Appendix C DRCOG Compass 2007 Model Recalibration Appendix D FTA Presentations Appendix E The FasTracks Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP), Revision 2, (June 2010) Appendix F The FasTracks Program Management Plan (PMP), (June 2010) Appendix G The FasTracks Quality Management Oversight Manual (QMO Manual) (February 2011) Appendix H The FasTracks Environmental Policies and Procedures Manual, Volumes I (Revision 2, July 2008), II (Revision 1, April 2007); and III (September 2008). Table of Contents - iii

8 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Background The Southeast Rail Line currently includes 19.1 miles of light rail transit with 13 stations along I-25 from Broadway in downtown Denver to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County. This line opened in 2006 and was constructed as a part of the T-REX multi-modal project. The proposed action would extend transit service in the Southeast Corridor south from the existing end-of-line light rail (LRT) station at Lincoln Avenue to RidgeGate Parkway to serve the southeast Denver Metropolitan area, northern Douglas County, the City of Lone Tree, the Town of Parker, and portions of Highlands Ranch (Figure 1). Figure 1: Study Area Map 1

9 Previous studies to extend transit into the study area began in 2000, when the City of Lone Tree and the Rampart Range Metro District initiated the Southeast Corridor Light Rail Extension Limited Major Investment Study (LMIS). For the LMIS, several alternatives were evaluated and the study concluded in 2003 with the selection of an alternative that would extend light rail transit 2.3 miles to south of RidgeGate Parkway and add three new stations. The results of the LMIS were supported by the local governments and by the public. In March of 2010, RTD completed the Southeast Corridor Extension Environmental Evaluation (EE). This study was completed at the direction of the RTD Board to complete environmental studies on all FasTracks corridors (whether Federal funds were involved in the project or not) that were equivalent to the environmental requirements of the federally funded corridors. The environmental mitigation measures from the EE were adopted by the RTD Board to show a commitment to the environmental mitigation measures as outlined in the EE. The EE confirmed the LMIS Preferred Alternative including the station locations (Figure 2). The results of the EE were supported by the local governments and by the public. Subsequently, an Alternatives Analysis (AA) and an Environmental Assessment (EA), consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements, has been initiated to further evaluate the Southeast Extension project. The following Purpose and Need for the project has been proposed and was presented in Scoping meetings held on November 2 nd and 9 th, Purpose The purpose of the Southeast Extension is to extend transit service from the existing end-of-line LRT station at Lincoln Avenue south to RidgeGate Parkway. 1.3 Need The needs for a transit alternative include the following: The need for improved regional connectivity. The need to meet travel demand resulting from growing population and employment in the study area. The need to provide a transit alternative to congested I-25. The need to provide a transit alternative that connects activity centers in the I-25 transportation corridor, south of Lincoln Station, that are located on both the east and west sides of I-25. The need to provide a transit alternative compatible with the existing and planned transit network. The need to meet voter s 2004 mandate. Voters in the Denver Metro area approved the 2004 FasTracks Plan. The purpose of the plan was to provide 2

10 improved transportation choices and options for the citizens of the Regional Transportation District (RTD), increase transit mode share during peak travel times, and establish a proactive plan that balances transit needs with future regional growth. The need to reflect community and regional plans and be consistent with existing and planned land uses. The need to attract new transit riders. Figure 2: Build Alternative (Southeast Corridor Extension Environmental Evaluation, 2010) 1.4 Project Scope The Southeast Extension AA/EA was initiated with a public Scoping meeting that was held on November 2, Following Scoping, an evaluation of the alternatives is being conducted. Based on the results, a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) will be selected and an AA report prepared. The LPA will be further analyzed for impacts to environmental resources and appropriate mitigation measures will be identified and 3

11 documented in the EA. The AA process is projected to conclude in March 2012 so that the results can be included in an application for Small Starts Project Eligibility and Project Development. 1.5 Purpose of Report The purpose of this is to provide FTA with a description of the detailed alternatives to be analyzed, a discussion of the technical methods that will be used to assess each alternative (including the determination of capital costs, operations and maintenance costs), forecasts of ridership and the mobility benefits of the alternatives, and information about the quality-control procedures applicable to the project and to the FasTracks program. 2.0 DETAILED ALTERNATIVES A No Action, TSM/Baseline, and three Build (LRT) Alternatives are currently being analyzed using a two-level screening approach as proposed in the Project Initiation Report previously submitted to FTA (and as adjusted per FTA comments) The alternatives are detailed below and the screening methodology can be found in Appendix A. 2.1 No Action Alternative This alternative assumes no new improvements would be constructed other than currently committed projects identified in the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Description of the No Action Alternative Included in the No Action Alternative are existing bus routes and a new bus route connecting Parker and the Lincoln Station along RidgeGate Parkway. These routes can be seen on Figure 3. A Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) project that includes I-25 widening from RidgeGate Parkway to C-470 is also included as part of this alternative. 4

12 Figure 3: The No Action Alternative Service Levels The following services levels are currently assumed for the No Action Alternative. Table 1: No Action Alternative Service Levels No Action Route Changes from No Action AM/PM Peak Service Midday Service Late Night Service 402L NA 30 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes 403 NA 30 minutes 60 minutes No service 410 NA 30 minutes 120 minutes 70 minutes 411 (new route) Travels on RidgeGate Parkway between the Parker Park-n- Ride (PnR) and the Lincoln station. 2.2 TSM/Baseline Alternative 30 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes The TSM/Baseline Alternative requires that the existing bus system is maximized to best meet the Purpose and Need for the project and also serves the travel markets identified in the corridor which are served for the build alternatives. 5

13 2.2.1 Description of the TSM/Baseline Alternative The TSM/Baseline Alternative includes the addition of a new Park-n-Ride on the east side of the I-25/RidgeGate interchange. The new Park-n-Ride would be connected to the Southeast Extension light rail line with feeder bus service to the existing Lincoln Station (Table 2). The feeder bus service would be provided with increased frequency and rerouting of bus routes included in the No Action Alternative. The TSM/Baseline Alternative can be seen in Figure 4 below. Figure 4: TSM/Baseline Alternative Service Levels The service levels that are currently assumed for the TSM/Baseline Alternative are shown in Table 2 below. 6

14 Table 2: The TSM/Baseline Alternative Service Levels TSM/Baseline Route Changes from No Action AM/PM Peak Service Midday Service Late Night Service 402L Same as No Action 30 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes 403 Modified to serve the new RidgeGate PnR 30 minutes 60 minutes 410 Same as No Action 30 minutes 120 minutes 70 minutes 411 (new route) RGLin Extended to the Pinery PnR. Also serves the new RidgeGate PnR. Continues on to serve the Lincoln station. Operates between Lincoln LRT Station and new RidgeGate PnR 30 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes 30 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes 2.3 Build Alternatives Three Build Alternatives are currently being evaluated in the AA. The three Build Alternatives are described below Description of the Light Rail Adjacent to I-25 Alternative The LRT Adjacent to I-25 Alternative includes a double-track LRT alignment, along the west side of I-25, which would originate at the existing end-of-line station at Lincoln Avenue. The alignment would continue south over Lincoln Avenue to north of SkyRidge Medical Center to the SkyRidge Station (proposed as a kiss n ride station without parking). From there the alignment would continue south to just past RidgeGate Parkway where there would be a new end-of-line station. Parking for this station will be provided on the east side of I-25. At the southeast quadrant of the RidgeGate interchange a 2,000-space Park-n-Ride, connected to the new end-of-line station via a pedestrian bridge over I-25, would be constructed (Figure 5). 7

15 Figure 5: LRT Adjacent to I Description of the LRT on EE Alignment 1 Alternative The LRT on EE Alignment 1 Alternative includes a 2.3mile, double-track light rail extension that runs south from the existing Lincoln Station along the west side of I-25, crosses to the east side of I-25 just north of Sky Ridge Medical Center, and continues south to the RidgeGate Parkway interchange. The LRT crosses RidgeGate Parkway via an underpass. 8

16 This alternative provides three new stations, including two Kiss-n-Rides, one just north of Sky Ridge Avenue across from the Sky Ridge Medical Center, and another, the Lone Tree City Center Station, which is situated in the core of the RidgeGate Planned Development. A new end-of-line station at RidgeGate Parkway would provide 2,000 parking spaces (Figure 6). Figure 6: LRT on EE Alignment 1 9

17 2.3.3 Description of the LRT on EE Alignment 2 Alternative The LRT on EE Alignment 2 Alternative is the same as the LRT alignment described above with one exception. The alignment includes an overpass at RidgeGate Parkway instead of an underpass (see Figure 6) Connecting Bus Routes and Service Levels Service and frequencies proposed are the same for all build alternatives. Bus routes are shown in Figure 7 below and the service levels are shown in Table 3. Figure 7: Build Alternative - Connecting Bus Routes 10

18 Table 3: Build Alternatives: Service Levels LRT Build Alternatives Route E Line F Line 402L Changes from No Action Extended LRT service to RidgeGate PnR Extended LRT service to RidgeGate PnR Same as No Action 403 Modified to serve the new RidgeGate PnR 410 Same as No Action 411 (new route) RGLin Extended to the Pinery PnR. Also serves the new RidgeGate PnR. Continues on to serve the Lincoln station. Same as No Action (Baseline/TSM service only) AM/PM Peak Service Midday Service Late Night Service 30 minutes 30 minutes No service 15 minutes 15 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes 30 minutes 60 minutes No service 30 minutes 120 minutes 70 minutes 30 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes No service No service No service 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGIES 3.1 Capital Cost Estimating Methodology Introduction This section presents the cost assumptions and methodology that will be used to estimate capital costs for the Southeast Extension project. The following is included in the capital cost estimating methodology section below: 1. General cost estimating methodology. 2. List of cost items and cost assumptions. 3. Details of the methods used to derive unit costs. 4. Methodology for estimating contingency. The primary breakdown of all estimated capital costs for the project will be in accordance with the FTA s Standard Cost Categories (SCC). These cost estimates will provide consistency in the evaluation of the Baseline/TSM and Build alternatives. 11

19 3.1.2 General Cost Estimating Methodology Capital costs for the alternatives will be estimated using cost estimating worksheets and estimate summaries. The level of detail included in the worksheets is directly related to the level of corridor design. Material Costs Material quantities will be obtained from measurements taken from aerial photos, maps and engineering drawings. Costs will be derived by multiplying the quantities and the unit costs developed by the RTD FasTracks Team to arrive at the estimated construction costs for the corridor. These costs will include all the pertinent and temporary materials, all direct and indirect labor costs, all imposed labor burdens by unions or government taxes, cost of equipment and equipment operating expenses, the cost of small tools and supplies, field home office overhead, and other general administrative expenses and allowances. Construction Costs The project construction cost summary will combine all line item costs for all corridor segments within a selected corridor alternative. The construction costs at this level are those defined as FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCCs) Quantities and costs associated with SCC levels 60 and 70 will be provided by the RTD FasTracks team. SCC level 80 costs will be calculated based on generally accepted industry standard percentages and/or lump sums, depending on the stage of corridor development. SCC level 90, Unallocated Contingency, is discussed in more detail below. The total project construction cost categories in the SCCs cost categories will be combined with the remaining FTA SCCs 60 thru 90 to arrive at a total project cost. SCC level 100, Finance Charges, will be added when financial models are run with level input Cost Items Cost Items will be defined at the level of detail for which a design definition currently exists. For instance, a conceptual (~15%) level of design for one or more alternative alignments will only have enough basic engineering data (rough horizontal and vertical alignment, with conceptual grade level separation and utility/roadway conflicts indentified) to estimate costs at the level 1 SCC items; i.e. ROW and Sitework (where common units = acres), Guideway (common units = lineal feet/miles, including grade separations), Stations, Parking and Vehicles (unit = each), Controls Systems (lineal feet/miles) Unit Prices The cost estimating methodology will apply the most recent historical unit cost rates against known design quantities for major cost items. The approach for this methodology begins with identifying as many sources as possible for historic unit prices within the appropriate local and regional markets. The next step is to establish a high and low price range of possibilities and then calculate the average unit cost as the standard for basic estimates. For normalization of 12

20 the sample data set, where 5 or more unit prices have been qualified, the lowest and the highest unit cost values will be eliminated. The average of the remainder will be used for the estimate. When applying these averages, additional adjustments may be made according to availability of materials and resources Contingency A contingency for risks associated with scope changes and estimating uncertainties, allowing for probable escalation, will be calculated at appropriate project milestones. Contingency will then be categorized as either allocated (where risks are well defined) or unallocated (for undefined risks) depending on the stage of the project in the project development process. Typically, RTD calculates unallocated contingencies as a varying percentage of the total construction bid items (CBI), based on the defined project stage and certainty of design. The RTD CBI total does not reflect soft costs (professional services and management), ROW acquisition and relocations, vehicle procurement, and park-n-ride construction. Contingencies for these items will be developed separately and will be included in their respective unit rates and/or line items. 3.2 Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimating Methodologies Overview RTD currently uses a Transit Operating Statistics Model (OPSTAT), version 3.0, to forecast operational statistics by route, period, mode, and system from travel demand output. RTD s current transit system statistics are used to generate costs per hour by class of service. These data are reported annually to the FTA for the National Transit Database (NTD) submittal. These statistics are also used as the basis for travel model calibration as they are reported to the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), the Denver region s MPO, during triennial review and certification for the travel model itself. RTD, DRCOG, and FTA have jointly reviewed and participated in the transition of the Denver Region model from the previously used MINUTP software to the currently adopted TransCAD software. The current OPSTAT 3.0 model is calibrated based on the 2007 TransCAD model output. The Operations Statistics model reads travel model data (primarily route hours and route miles) to calculate route-level fleet needs. Route level data are aggregated for system revenue bus hours, revenue train hours, and fleet needs. Like the travel model, forecasts are calibrated to match regional totals and corridor totals. The OPSTAT model uses objective rules to equilibrate service frequencies to forecast peak line loads and to network travel times. Route miles are derived from geographically-correct GIS/CAD representations of the bus network. Route hours are the product of the travel model, calibrated with link speeds throughout the region, and forecast demand which generates congested peak travel times. The OPSTAT 3.0 model user s guide can be found in Appendix B for reference. 13

21 Transit system statistics are used as inputs into the cost model that then calculates the estimated annual system costs. This spreadsheet-based bus and LRT cost model is designed to provide estimates that are consistent with RTD s reported 2007 NTD budget productivity and consumption rates and historical RTD cost trends. The cost model consists of three worksheets in Excel. These are: An input worksheet for service statistics. A table of detailed line item costs that are estimated based on specific driving variables and productivity factors. A summary of input statistics, the resulting cost estimate and various cost efficiency measures. 3.3 Ridership Forecasting Methodology Introduction Denver s metropolitan planning organization (DRCOG) maintains the regional travel demand model (as noted above) called COMPASS. This model is a traditional four step trip-based model, which estimates typical weekday trips for an eight-county planning region. The planning region is divided into 2,815 Traffic Analysis s (TAZ). Estimates from this model are based on data from the Travel Behavior Inventory (TBI), which was completed in 1997 and included a detailed household travel survey. Travel forecasts using the current version, COMPASS 4.0, have been approved by FTA for recent New Starts submittals by RTD. For the Southeast Extension, the travel demand modeling will be conducted using COMPASS 4.0. As part of the AA, alternatives will be evaluated for the opening year of the project (2017) and will be reported for 2035 for informational purposes. RTD will utilize SUMMIT to optimize the TSM/Baseline scenario relative to the No Action Alternative (consistent with FY2011 Small Starts Reporting Instructions, relative to the CEI derivation process). RTD will also use this process to evaluate the Locally Preferred Alternative. RTD will use the COMPASS 4.0 model, which has been improved from the previous version in the following areas. 1. Highway elements of the model were improved including: Revised k-factors Revised highway assignment procedures Revised value of time parameters 2. Transit and mode choice elements were updated in the following areas: Analysis of network parameters and transit networks using Before and After on-board surveys Implementation of zone based fare structure Update to mode to mode transfer penalty Revision to drive access to transit connectors Updates to bus dwell time at rail stations Updates to premium transit preference 14

22 Updates to mode choice model Removal of bifurcated transit wait times Updates to value of time coefficients Model re-calibrated to spring 2008 on-board survey Update to time of day split factors for transit assignment Base year 2007 model validation Updates to Highway Elements of the Model Several refinements to the highway elements of the model, including trip generation and trip distribution steps, were identified by DRCOG and consultants to RTD. The following updates to the highway elements of the model have been implemented by DRCOG. The district to district k-factors used in the model are updated based on the trip distribution patterns, at summary district level, suggested by CTPP 2000 Journey to Work Flow data (for home-based work [HBW] person trips) and 1997 TBI Household Survey (for non-work person trips). The value of time in the model is updated and made consistent, where possible, across the model stream. The peak highway assignment procedures are updated to assign HBW drive alone trips based on three income groups, each with a respective value of time assignment, in the composite impedance. The non-work trips to Denver International Airport (DIA) are assigned using a different and higher value of time. The updated value of times used in the model are as follows: o Highway skimming: Peak - $12/Hr; Off-peak: $6/Hr o Highway assignment: Peak HBW purpose drive alone trips assigned by income class with following values of time: Low Income - $4/Hr; Medium Income - $12/Hr; High Income - $24/Hr Non work trips to DIA assigned using value of time of $24/Hr For details about the updates made to the trip generation, trip distribution, highway assignment procedures and value of time updates, refer to the memo prepared by DRCOG (Appendix C) Updates to Transit Elements of the Model This section outlines the analysis and updates made to the transit and mode choice elements of the model. Consultants on behalf of RTD (AECOM) worked closely with the FTA staff during 2009 to review the after rider survey provided and the results of tests of the COMPASS 3.0 model against the ridership patterns revealed by the survey. Technical meetings were held between FTA and AECOM to review the survey and determine model updates. The attachments in Appendix D contain the handouts and presentation material used during these meetings. The rest of this memo outlines the final model updates identified and applied to develop COMPASS

23 Analysis of Network Parameters AECOM performed a comparison of transit travel markets in the southern Denver Metro area using the before and after on-board surveys. After the opening of the Southeast Rail Line, comparisons were made between the change in transit trips by mode of access, trip purpose, and trip destination based on income groups in south Denver. The after survey was processed and rail survey records of the station level boardings/alightings by direction and mode of access were expanded to 2007 average counts using the latest FTA guidelines. An observed transit trip table was developed using the after survey and was assigned to the model COMPASS 3.0. To determine required model adjustments, network parameters of the model that provide a best match between the survey trips assigned to the model and the reported transit ridership patterns were identified. The distribution of transit trips by LRT station, by bus route class, by LRT-only, LRT-bus, and bus-only were compared between the survey and the model. The after survey was used to understand the circumstances where the survey trip tables and model transit trip tables diverge. Analysis was done to understand whether discrepancies between the survey and model are driven by the input trip tables, the input highway and transit speeds, and the input networks and parameters. The task of comparing station-to-station ridership results from both the survey and the model was used to test the performance of the overall package. A final set of model network parameters, transit calibration targets and model inputs were developed for the model calibration Implementation of Based Fare Structure A zone based fare structure was developed and implemented in the COMPASS 4.0 version of the model. This structure defines fare zone boundaries for transit travel in the Denver region and uses the zonal fare structure that is used for fares on light rail in Denver. The zone based fares are applied to premium modes (Rail, SkyRide bus, and Regional bus). For Local, Limited and Express bus modes, flat fares are used. Due to a limitation of the modeling software in modeling mixed fares (zone based for premium modes and flat fares for Local, Limited, and Express bus), a strict zone based fare structure was developed and applied to all modes but the fares for non-premium modes are set to a flat fare for all fare zones in the model. The map in Figure 8 shows the fare zone boundaries developed for COMPASS 4.0 model. The region is divided into total of 24 fare zones and the transit fare is computed based on the total number of fare zones traveled. The map shows 23 fare zone boundaries. A special fare zone, zone # 24, has been created for travel to zones that have zero transit fares (University of Colorado at Boulder and Auraria Campus zones). Table 4 shows the number of fare zones traveled for premium modes and Table 5 shows the matrix of 2007 fares, expressed in 1996 $, computed for premium transit based on the number of fare zones traveled. The fare zone boundary definition is stored in the input TAZ2999.DBD file. The average fare by mode is also updated to observed average 2007 values. 16

24 Update to Mode to Mode Transfer Penalty The zone based fares in TransCAD apply full transfer fares when transfers occur between modes. In reality, the transfer fares are either free or the result from the difference between fares of different modes. In order to mitigate the effect of higher fares paid in the model when transferring between modes, the mode to mode transfer penalties in the COMPASS 4.0 model are reduced to zero as the additional transfer fare acts as a transfer penalty. 17

25 Table 4: Number of Fare s Traveled for Premium Modes Fare

26 Table 5: RTD Zonal Fares for Premium Modes (2007 Fares in 1996$) Fare

27 Figure 8: Fare Boundaries - RTD Denver 20

28 Revision to Drive Access to Transit Connectors The algorithm to compute drive access time from production zone to transit parkand-ride lots has been refined to include additional back-tracking penalty, and to define a parking catchment area. In the revised algorithm, the various Park-n- Rides are categorized based on the attributes of the Park-n-Ride lot. The model currently has defined the catchment areas based on the following characteristics. 1 for all end of line rail Park-n-Ride lots (e.g. Nine Mile, Lincoln and Littleton Mineral) 9 for I-25 and Broadway due to its uniqueness as major transit center. Null or zero for the remainder of the Park-n-Rides. The Park-n-Rides at the end of line have a longer drive access catchment area. The Park-n-Ride lot at I-25 and Broadway is categorized in a separate category due to its uniqueness as a major transit center. The revised drive access logic also restricts the catchment area of Park-n-Ride lots that are very close to the Denver central business district (CBD). The fare zone boundary definition is used to identify the proximity of the parking lot relative to the Denver CBD. For all Park-n-Ride lots, additional logic is added that determines the orientation of Parkn-Ride connector (production zone to parking node) with respect to the Denver CBD. The observed Park-n-Ride origin data was used to calibrate the parameters that define the catchment area of the Park-n-Ride lot Updates to Bus Dwell Times at Rail Stations The input file, LAYOVER.DBF, has been updated to include additional bus routes and Southeast Rail Line stations. The bus dwell times at rail stations are updated to the current 2009 published schedule Update to Premium Transit Preference The comparison of reported transit paths from the 2008 on-board survey and the assignment of the survey to the network model showed that the model was unable to attract short trips to rail, as well as trips that require boarding rail at the stations that have less frequent service. The model, COMPASS 3.0, applied rail preference during path building by discounting the rail in-vehicle time by 30%. For short trips, this rail discount advantage would be very small due to less time spent riding transit. The model instead assigned such short trips to local buses due to the combined frequent service and/or frequent stops made by buses which results in lower wait time and shorter access and egress walk time respectively. On the other hand, the survey shows desire for using rail for such short trips even though the rail wait times are longer or access/egress walk distances are longer. This was also evident from the station to station flows obtained from the model which showed lower modeled demand for stations that have less frequent service or lower flows between stations that required short rail trips. The model consistently underutilized the stations along inner part of Lines C and E (Denver Union Station, Pepsi Center, Sports Authority Field and Auraria West). 21

29 In order to reflect the observed travel patterns and to be able to apply rail preference in the path building step of the model rather than with a positive constant that is seen only by mode choice model, the weight on the rail wait time, both initial and transfer wait, was reduced to 1.0 from 2.0. This wait time weight is 2.0 for other transit modes. This rail preference was applied during path building step and carried over to mode choice step and transit assignment step thus producing consistent paths between the steps. The COMPASS 4.0 model continues to apply 30% rail in-vehicle time discount also Updates to Mode Choice Model The following updates were made to the mode choice coefficients and constants: i. Removal of bifurcated wait times: The COMPASS 3.0 model bifurcated the initial transit wait time to low and high initial wait time. Any wait time greater than 7 minutes was considered high initial wait time. The mode choice model applied a relative weight of 2.0 for low initial wait time and 1.0 for the remaining high initial wait time. This bifurcation of headways in the mode choice model caused inconsistency between the path building and mode choice steps. This inconsistency resulted in unexplainable transit user benefits (and dis-benefits) when using FTA s Summit program to compare two alternatives. In order to make the mode choice model consistent with the transit skimming and assignment step, the headway bifurcation step in mode choice model was removed and is not included in the updated COMPASS 4.0 model. ii. Update to value of time coefficients: The peak period value of time coefficients in the mode choice model was updated to be consistent with the changes applied to value of time for highway assignment. iii. Model was re-calibrated to the 2008 (spring) on-board survey: The earlier models (COMPASS 3.0 and before) were calibrated using limited observed data from 1997 household survey, the before southern metro Denver area on-board survey and counts obtained from ride-checks. The 2008 survey provides greater detail about the existing transit market in Denver. The 2008 on-board survey was expanded to average 2007 counts. The observed transit ridership by market, time of day, socioeconomic characteristic and by mode of access was computed from the comprehensive 2008 on-board survey and the 2007 mode choice model re-calibrated. The model re-calibration also included all the model updates described above including the updates made by DRCOG to various elements of the model. Table 6 and Table 7 summarize the mode choice model coefficients for COMPASS 3.0 and COMPASS 4.0 models respectively. Table 8 and Table 9 summarize the transit nest constants for COMPASS 3.0 and COMPASS 4.0 models respectively. The coefficients and constants that are updated are highlighted in the tables. 22

30 Table 6: Mode Choice Coefficients - COMPASS 3.0 Model (old model) Auto Parameter Home-Based Work Home-Based Non-Work 1 Non-Home-Based 1 Coefficient Relative Value Coefficient Relative Value Coefficient Relative Value In-vehicle time (min) IVTT IVTT IVTT Terminal time, drive alone (min.) *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT Terminal time, carpool (min.) (3*IVTT) / 2 HOV time saved (min.) IVTT Auto costs 2, low income (1996 $) $4/hour $8.8/hour $8.4/hour Auto costs 2, medium income (1996 $) $8/hour Auto costs 2, high income (1996 $) $16/hour Transit In-vehicle time (min.) IVTT IVTT IVTT Rail in-vehicle time factor *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT Rail wait time discount *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT Walk access time IVTT IVTT IVTT Drive access time IVTT IVTT 1 st wait time < 7 min *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT 1 st wait time > 7 min IVTT IVTT IVTT Transfer wait time *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT Transfer penalty time IVTT IVTT IVTT Fare, low income (1996 $) $4/hour $6/hour $6/hour Fare, medium income (1996 $) $8/hour Fare, high income (1996 $) $16/hour Drive access fraction HBNW and NHB models are not stratified by vehicle occupancy or income group. 2 Auto costs include operating costs (15 cents per mile), tolls and parking cost / = 0.3. A 30% reduction in IVTT is applied to rail. 4 Rail initial wait time and transfer wait time is weighted at 1.0xIVTT. 5 Walk time and Drive Access time are pre-processed and weighted by Area Type before skimming. 23

31 Table 7: Mode Choice Coefficients - COMPASS 4.0 Model (updated new model) Auto Parameter Home-Based Work Home-Based Non-Work 1 Non-Home-Based 1 Coefficient Relative Value Coefficient Relative Value Coefficient Relative Value In-vehicle time (min) IVTT IVTT IVTT Terminal time, drive alone (min.) *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT Terminal time, carpool (min.) (3*IVTT) / 2 HOV time saved (min.) IVTT Auto costs 2, low income (1996 $) $4/hour $8.8/hour $8.4/hour Auto costs 2, medium income (1996 $) $12/hour Auto costs 2, high income (1996 $) $24/hour Transit In-vehicle time (min.) IVTT IVTT IVTT Rail in-vehicle time factor *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT Rail wait time discount *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT Walk access time IVTT IVTT IVTT Drive access time IVTT IVTT 1st wait time < 7 min *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT 1st wait time > 7 min *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT Transfer wait time *IVTT *IVTT *IVTT Transfer penalty time IVTT IVTT IVTT Fare, low income (1996 $) $4/hour $6/hour $6/hour Fare, medium income (1996 $) $12/hour Fare, high income (1996 $) $24/hour Drive access fraction HBNW and NHB models are not stratified by vehicle occupancy or income group. 2 Auto costs include operating costs (15 cents per mile), tolls and parking cost / = 0.3. A 30% reduction in IVTT is applied to rail. 4 Rail initial wait time and transfer wait time is weighted at 1.0xIVTT. 5 Walk time and Drive Access time are pre-processed and weighted by Area Type before skimming. 24

32 Table 8: COMPASS 3.0 Mode Choice Nest Constants DRCOG Travel Model (COMPASS) mode choice nest constants relative to drive alone Denver CBD Attraction DIA Attraction Boulder Attraction Other Attraction Home-Based Work COMPASS 3.0 (old model) Low Income Medium Income High Income SR SR Home-Based Non-Work Non-Home- Based Drive to Transit Walk to Transit SR SR Drive to Transit Walk to Transit SR SR Drive to Transit Walk to Transit SR SR Drive to Transit Walk to Transit Table 9: COMPASS 4.0 Mode Choice Nest Constants DRCOG Travel Model (COMPASS) mode choice nest constants relative to drive alone Denver CBD Attraction DIA Attraction Boulder Attraction Other Attraction Home-Based Work COMPASS 4.0 (updated new model) Low Income Medium Income High Income SR SR Home-Based Non-Work Non-Home- Based Drive to Transit Walk to Transit SR SR Drive to Transit Walk to Transit SR SR Drive to Transit Walk to Transit SR SR Drive to Transit Walk to Transit

33 Update to Time of Day Split Factor for Transit Assignment The time of day splits applied to the transit trip tables output from the mode choice model for transit assignment were updated to reflect time of day splits as observed from the 2008 on-board survey. Table 10 compares the transit time of day split factors between COMPASS 3.0 and COMPASS 4.0 model (as computed from 2008 on-board survey). Table 10: Denver RTD COMPASS Model - Transit Time of Day Splits COMPASS 3.0 COMPASS 4.0 Purpose Access Mode Peak Off-Peak Peak Off-Peak HBW Walk 68.9% 31.1% 59.2% 40.8% Auto 74.4% 25.6% 74.1% 25.9% HBO Walk 52.5% 47.5% 36.1% 63.9% Auto 57.8% 42.2% 38.5% 61.5% NHB Total 38.5% 61.5% 37.2% 62.8% It was also observed from the on-board survey and SkyRide ride check data that the time of day splits for trips to and from DIA are different from the time of day splits as observed in rest of the region. The DIA market has higher off-peak period travel than the rest of the region. The highway assignment procedures also use separate time of day splits for highway trips to DIA. In order to reflect this difference in travel market for DIA, a separate set of time of day splits are applied for passengers travelling to and from DIA. The new time of day split for DIA trips are set to be same as those applied for highway assignment. Table 11 summarizes the time of day splits applied to transit trips to and from DIA by trip purpose. For DIA transit trips, no distinction is made by mode of access when applying time of day split factors. Table 11: Time of Day Split Factors for Trips To and From DIA DIA TOD Splits Purpose Peak% Off-Peak% HBW 41.1% 58.9% HBNW 32.0% 68.0% NHB 32.0% 68.0% Base Year 2007 Model Validation This section presents various transit model validation summaries for the updated COMPASS 4.0 model. Table 12 and Table 13 summarize the results of assigning survey trip table to the networks and parameters of COMPASS 4.0 model. Table 12 compares the predicted path vs. observed path by modes used rail only, rail and bus, bus only. The table also compares the total transit boardings by mode and boardings by route for SkyRide and Rail modes. Finally the table compares the station level boardings between counts and as obtained by assigning observed survey trip table to the networks. Table 13 is continuation of Table 12 and summarizes the success rate of model in assigning observed trip. 26

34 Table 14 summarizes and compares the transit linked trips and transit assignment (boarding) summaries of the simulated 2007 model with spring-2008 survey expanded to 2007 counts. The linked trips summaries compare 2007 modeled trips by path (rail only, rail and bus, bus only) and mode of access with observed spring-08 survey. The boarding summaries compare modeled boarding by mode, by routes for Rail and SkyRide modes, and by rail station with the observed count data. Table 12: Predicted vs. Observed On-Board Survey as Assigned to 2007 Networks and Parameters from COMPASS 4.0 Model 27

35 Table 13: Predicted vs. Observed Success Rate On-Board Survey as Assigned to 2007 Networks and Parameters from COMPASS

36 Table 14: 2007 Modeled vs. Observed (2008 On-Board Survey) Transit Assignment Summaries - COMPASS 4.0 Model 29