PAWG Meeting #9 - SR 436 Transit Corridor Study...Jul 11, 2018 · C2

Meeting #9

July 11, 2018

LYNX Central Station, 2nd Floor Open Area1

Which alternatives best meet our goals and objectives?

2017 2018Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov 2018 Mar May Jul Sep Nov

What are the issues, opportunities, and objectives?

What are our alternatives?

Which alternatives do we want to move forward?

How can we best fund and implement the preferred alternative?

Schedule

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS

Ongoing Work

Ongoing

TASKS ONGOING

1 - Project Management

11 - Health Impact Assessment

Ongoing Tasks

8 – Alternatives Review

2 - Public Outreach

7 – Ridership Modeling

6 - Traffic Impact/Access Study

10 – Funding Program Eval.

Ongoing

TASKS ONGOING

1 - Project Management

11 - Health Impact Assessment

Ongoing Tasks

8 – Alternatives Review

2 - Public Outreach

7 – Ridership Modeling

6 - Traffic Impact/Access Study

10 – Funding Program Eval.

Community

Events

EVENTS

Fern Park SuperStop Pop-Up

OIA SuperStop Pop-UpRecent Events

Curry Ford Pop-Up

Full Sail University Pop-Up

Bravo Supermarket Pop-Up

Orlando D2 Community

Meeting

Altamonte Springs

Rhythms at the Roost

MetroQuest Survey

150+SURVEY RESPONSES

Traffic Impact Analysis

Curry Ford

Red Bug Lake

Hoffner

SR 408

26 Study

Intersections

Potential Mitigations

Add turn lanesOptimize signal timing

Comparison of Alternatives

+5 MIN

(+7-25%)

+4 MIN

(+6-20%)

ALT. C1

Travel time impacts

20-60MIN*

EXISTING SIGNAL DELAY: 21 MIN**

OIA to University

* Based on Google PM Peak Period

Travel Time

** Based on Synchro Analysis

ALT. A

ALT. C2

<1 MIN

(less than 5%)

Change in Signal Delay(Relative change in travel time

compared to existing)

<1 MIN

(less than 3%)

ALT. B

Travel time impacts

35-100MIN*

EXISTING SIGNAL DELAY: 33 MIN**

OIA to SunRail

* Based on Google PM Peak

Period Travel Time

** Based on Synchro Analysis

Change in Signal Delay(Relative change in travel time

compared to existing)

Interim TIAS Report

▪ Estimates the impacts of each

alternative on:

▪ Motorists

▪ Pedestrians

▪ Bicyclists

▪ Currently under review

▪ Will be expanded when an

alternative is selected

Health Impact Assessment

▪ Final HIA Working Group

Meeting - May 31, 2018

▪ Study Update

▪Quality of Life Survey

▪ Station demonstration areas

▪Draft HIA Recommendations

Quality of Life Survey – Economic Health

▪Jobs typically filled by the transit

dependent groups (e.g. low

paying jobs) have higher

turnover due to unreliable

transportation

(Faulk and Hicks, 2016)

▪Among transit riders, 40% of

riders miss or are late to

work/school at least once a

Increased reliability could reduce turnover and improve economic

health for employers along corridorINTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS

Quality of Life Survey – Safety

▪ “…I was walking my bike home because

my route ended early on Sunday and I got hit

by a car. If they had the same hours on

Sunday that they do on weekdays, I would

have been on the bus at that time.”

– Survey Respondent

▪ “High speeds pose an obvious problem to

safety in terms of pedestrian routes to transit

and stop location by creating hostile

conditions for transit users” (Frumkin, 2002).

Complete streets can promote safe environments

Quality of Life Survey – Civic Engagement

▪ “There should be regular

meetings with neighborhoods

and associations within the

community to keep the residents

involved in the happenings

amongst public transit”

(Wellman, 2015)

▪ 35% of respondents never have

positive interactions with their

community

Stakeholder engagement is a key mechanism for enhancing a positive

effect on sense of place for riders

Station Demonstration Areas

▪ Station area planning and

demonstration areas

▪ Existing, short term and long

term conditions at 3 station

▪ Curry Ford

▪ Full Sail

▪ US 17/92

Full Sail

University Blvd

Banchory RdLong Term

Full Sail

University Blvd

Banchory RdShort Term

Full Sail

University Blvd

Banchory RdExisting

Full Sail Station Area Plan

Station Demonstration Areas

▪ Station area planning and

demonstration areas

▪ Effects of redeveloping

surface parking on land

Existing to Short Term Existing to Long Term

Demonstration Areas – Percent Change in Just Value per Acre

Curry Ford Full Sail US 17/92

HIA Recommendations

Study Goal Area

Access to Health & Employment

Cyclist and Pedestrian Safety

Economic Health

Quality of Life

Mental Health and Chronic Disease

35PRELIMINARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

14RECOMMENDATIONS

Transportation Planning for Healthy

Communities

POLICY

INFRASTRUCTUREMARKETING

PROGRAMMING

Recommendations Goal AreasResponsible

Agency

1 Create SR 436 Implementation Group LYNX

2 Preserve Affordable HousingCities

Counties

3Institute TOD Policies & Land Development Regulations

CitiesCounties

4 Subsidize Student Passes for Corridor Colleges LYNX

5Create Functional, Attractive Stations that Incorporate Art and Landscaping

6Engage Community through Social Media and Interactive Station Programming

7 Market Health Benefits of Transit LYNX

Recommendations Goal AreasResponsible

Agency

8 Create Common Wayfinding System FDOT

9Implement Roadway Design that Discourages High Speeds

FDOTCities

Counties

10 Assess Station Area Bike and Pedestrian Connectivity

LYNXCities

CountiesMetroPlan Orlando

11Teach Bike/Pedestrian Safety Education in Schools and at Community Events

SchoolsNeighborhood Organizations

12 Implement High Visibility Crosswalk Enforcement Law Enforcement

13 Fund Reliable Service LYNX Funding Partners

14 Locate Key Destination in BRT Station Areas MetroPlan Orlando 24

Public Feedback

▪ Qualitative: Face-to-Face Interviews

▪ Quantitative: Transit Alternatives Survey (paper & online)

Rider Experience

“I think LYNX does a good job.”

“I depend on the bus every day.”

“436S offers a straight path to

the airport”

“Traffic flows pretty well”

Rider Experience

“The typical wait time is long and

unpredictable.”

“You find yourself fitting into the

bus’s schedule instead of the bus

fitting into your schedule.”

1-2 hour commute times

A lot of time spent transferring

“Not enough bike rack space.”

“Walking and waiting at a station

without a shelter is too hot.”

Who Responded?

Race/Ethnicity

Black/African American

Hispanic

White/Caucasian Non-Hispanic

Who Responded?

25 and under

26 to 40

41 to 60

61 to 80

80 and over

Who Responded?

How often do people use transit on SR 436?

At least once a week

At least once a month

At least once a year

Who responded?

SR 436

+ZIP CODES

Alternative A

AVG RANKING

3.045 stars

4 stars

3 stars

2 stars

1 star

OIA to University Blvd

Alternative A

“Seems like very limited

service area. Won't benefit as

many people. “

“I see where this would be a

good idea for folks who live in

that area”

“We needs true BRT with its

own dedicated lane.”

Alternative B

AVG RANKING

OIA to SunRail

5 stars

4 stars

3 stars

2 stars

1 star

Alternative B

“This would expand service to

many more people and SunRail”

“University seems a more notable

boundary... or indeed, just hold up

at 17/92 and the Fern Park

Superstop if you aren't going to go

into Altamonte. ”

AVG RANKING

Alternative C1

5 stars

4 stars

3 stars

2 stars

1 star

Alternative C1

“436 is bad enough without

adding to the confusion for

drivers”

“Not feasible - expensive and

traffic.”

“Obviously ideal in my opinion,

but if the funding takes 20 years,

I'd go with ‘B’ to get it done now.”

AVG RANKING

Alternative C2

5 stars

4 stars

3 stars

2 stars

1 stars

Alternative C2

“I see what you're goal is, but

436 is bad enough without

adding to the confusion for

drivers..”

“Needs to be true BRT with its own

dedicated lane…Better yet, reduce

the number of lanes.”

Ranking based on Public Input

Alternative B

Alternative C2

Alternative C1

Alternative A 3.04

On our Investments

Investment

Quicker Buses Less Travel Time

More Frequent Buses

Late Night Early Morning Service

More Routes to Key Destinations

Bike and Pedestrian Connections

Nicer Bus Features

Nicer Station Features

Average Budget Allocated

Number of Times Ranked in Top 3

Connected Neighborhoods

Fund Reliable Services

Subsidize Student Passes

Affordable Housing

Attractive Stations

Health Promotion

Safety Education

Community Interaction

Rider Experience

What would a more efficient bus

service mean to you?

“I could get to class earlier, I wouldn’t

need to wake up as early.”

“I don’t ride the bus that often to get

places for fun because of the delay. I

would go to more places if there was

15-minute service.”

“More time spent with my family.”

Funding Options

How much does each alternative cost?

▪ High-level planning costs

▪ Considered baseline transit project separate from Complete Streets improvements

▪ Referenced recent case study projects

▪ Assumed 40% contingency

▪ Does not include ROW cost for stormwater

Transit Project Cost Estimates

CAPITAL COST(millions of dollars)

ROW COST*(millions of dollars)

Corridor-based (Bronze) Fixed Guideway BRT (Silver)

BAT using Aux LanesMedian

Exclusive by

Widening

Curbside

Exclusive by

Lane Repurpose

12.9 18.9 12.9 12.9

Alt A Alt B Alt C1 Alt C2

$57M $71M $160M $78M

$8M $8M $100M $0

Length (miles)

*ROW costs does not include potential ROW for stormwater

Transit Project High-Level Cost Estimates

$250M+

Alternatives A, B, C2 Alternative C1

Complete Streets Cost Estimates

Complete

Streets Capital

Costs $14M $35M $14M $14M

BAT using Aux Lanes Median Exclusive

by Widening

Curbside Exclusive

by Lane Repurpose

12.9 18.9 12.9 12.9

* Costs do not include potential ROW needs

How does local match work?An example

$80M $20MTRANSIT COMPLETE STREETS

$100M“PROJECT”

How does local match work?Example with 50% federal contribution

$50M $50M

Feds Local

Feds FDOT Central Office Remaining Local

Potential local projects on SR 436(From MetroPlan Orlando PPL-Ranked)

Jurisdiction From To Miles Description

Altamonte Springs

I-4 US 17/92 3.0 Context Sensitive Improvements

Newburyport AveCR 427/Ronald

Reagan Blvd0.12 Intersection Improvements

Casselberry

US 17/92 Wilshire Dr 1.0 Context Sensitive Improvements

Orange/Seminole Co.

LineWilshire Dr 3.5 Context Sensitive Improvements

Seminole Co.Maitland Ave Palm Springs Dr 1.0 Add 4th lane

Montgomery Road - - Extend dual LT lanes

Orange Co./

OrlandoOIA

Orange/Seminole Co.

Line11.0

Context Sensitive Improvements

(incl. BRT)

= Construction cost has been determined

Source: MetroPlan Orlando Prioritized Project List, pg. 9 (2017)

Potential local projects on SR 436(From MetroPlan Orlando PPL-Unranked and Others)

Jurisdiction From To Miles Description

Casselberry- Casselton Rd - Operational improvements

Carmel Cir - Operational improvements

Orange Co. Forsyth Rd SR 436 1.07 Shared-use path and overpass

Orlando TG Lee Blvd Frontage Rd Fiber optic

= Construction cost has been determined

Source: MetroPlan Orlando Prioritized Project List (2018)

What is a context

sensitive

improvement?

▪ Non-capacity projects

▪ Designed to improve traffic flow

▪ Without adding lanes

▪ For example:

Widen or enhance

sidewalks

Bicycle facilities

Landscaping and

street trees

Transit

enhancements

Potential local projects on SR 436(From MetroPlan Orlando TIP)

Agency From To Constr. Yr. Total Cost Description

FDOT I-4 Ramps I-4 Ramps ? ? Safety

Boston Ave Anchor Rd 2017-18 $4.9M Resurfacing

Wilshire Blvd Lake Howell Rd <2017 $51M Red Bug Lake Rd Flyover

Orange/Seminole Co. Lake Howell Rd <2017 $650K Drainage

Old Cheney Hwy Orange/Seminole Co. 2017-18 $530K Drainage

SR 50 Old Cheney Hwy <2017 $1.9M Safety/Access Mgmt.

Seminole

Ronald Reagan Blvd Ronald Reagan Blvd 2017-19 $1.5M Intersection Improvements

Maitland Ave Palm Springs Dr 2018-19 $1M Intersection Improvements

I-4 US 17/92 2021-22 $5M Multimodal Improvements

Orange Co. SR 50 Orange/Seminole Co. <2017 $800K Lighting

Source: MetroPlan Orlando TIP (2018)

Feds FDOT Central Office TIP (ex: 2017-22) Remaining Local

USDOT grants

Core Capacity

Small Starts

New Starts

Project ≥ $300M or

grants ≥ $100M

Project < $300M and

grants < $100M

Grants ≤

$25MCIG

Other federal sources▪ Section 5307 - Formula Grants

▪ Albuquerque Rapid Transit

▪ IndyGo Purple Line

▪ Orange Line BRT (MN)

▪ Virginia Street Rapid Transit (NV)

▪ Section 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilities Formula

Grants

▪ Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End BRT (PA)

▪ Advanced Transportation and Congestion

Management Technologies Deployment

(discretionary grant)

▪ Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End BRT (PA)62

Other federal sources▪ Flexible Highway Funds

(Congestion Mitigation/Surface Transportation Program) –

obtained through State and/or MPO

▪ Division Street BRT (OR)

▪ IndyGo Purple Line

▪ Madison Street (WA)

▪ Milwaukee East-West

▪ Orange Line BRT (MN)

▪ Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End BRT (PA)

▪ Virginia Street Rapid Transit (NV)

▪ Woodhaven Boulevard (NYC)

Capital Investment Grants (CIG)

▪New Starts

▪Rail and Fixed Guideway Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with a capital cost of $300M or more

▪Small Starts

▪Rail, Fixed guideway BRT or corridor-based BRT

▪Cost less than $300M

▪Seek less than $100M in section 5309 funds

▪Final Interim Policy Guidance - August 2016

▪FTA will be issuing revised guidance this summer64

Bus Rapid Transit

Element Fixed Guideway Corridor-Based

Majority of ROW Dedicated to Transit Use During Peak Hour

Substantial Investment in a Defined Route

Substantial Investment in a Defined Corridor

Stations and Signal Priority

Weekday Peak and Off-Peak Bidirectional Services

Weekend Bidirectional Services

Project

Development

2–4 years

Grant Agreement(Begin Construction)

2–3 years

Service

2021 – 2025

Alternatives

Analysis

Capital Projects

1 – 2 yearsFall 2016

Project

Development

2 years

Engineering

2–4 years

Grant Agreement(Begin Construction)

2–4 years

Service

2024 – 2028+ + =

New Starts

Small Starts

Timeline

Marathon, not a sprint▪Pre-Project Development - 1-2 years

▪ Initiate NEPA

▪ Select Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)

▪ Establish budget and schedule to complete NEPA and PD, as well as identify which entity will lead NEPA/PD work

▪ All expense is a local responsibility and not eligible as match

▪Project Development - 2 years

▪ Complete environmental clearance

▪ Complete 30-35 percent engineering (at a minimum)

▪ Adopt LPA into the Long Range Transportation Plan

▪ Prepare information for FTA to evaluate and rate project6

Marathon, not a sprint

▪Request to Enter into Engineering - 6 months FTA

review

▪ 20 year Financial Plan and supporting

documentation

▪Engineering - 2-4 years

▪Grant Agreement Negotiations - 6 months

▪Full Funding Grant Agreement

Project Justification

▪ Six criteria that receive equal weight

▪ Five point scale - High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low and Low

▪ FTA has established rating “breakpoints” for the criteria

▪ Must receive an overall rating of Medium across the six criteria but most New

Starts received a Medium-High rating for project justification

▪ For Small Starts Cost Effectiveness and Environmental Benefits measured

against only the federal share and not total project cost

Land Use

FTA sets breakpoints for measures (*)

▪Existing corridor and station area

development (*)

▪Existing corridor and station area

development character

▪Pedestrian and disability access

▪Corridor and station area parking

supply (*)

Land Use

(cont’d)

▪Proportion of “legally binding

affordability restricted” housing within

one-half mile of station areas to

proportion in the counties in which

the project is located (*)

▪ Lien, deed of trust or other legal

instrument attached to property or housing

structure that restricts units affordable to

households

Economic Development

▪ Extent to which the proposed project is likely to induce change in land use

- qualitative measure

▪ Transit supportive policies

▪ Existing and planned densities, as well as market trends in terms of

development

▪ Performance of those plans and policies, i.e., have they been

developed and adopted local governments

▪ Zoning changes to that support investment in station areas

▪ Affordable housing plans are adopted and being implemented

Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD)

$25MCAP/PROJECT (2018)

2018 BUILD Program Facts

▪ $1.5B available

▪ Applications due July 19, 2018

▪ Congress mandated the following

− $15M will be available for planning, preparation,

and design work

− Up to 20% ($300M) for credit assistance

− Urban area grants are to be between $5M and

− Cap of 10% ($150M) to any single state

− Not less than 30% to rural areas ($450M) and

grants must be $1M+

Build (Tiger)BUILD

Las Vegas SX

Case Study

▪ Funded with TIGER grant

▪ 22-mile corridor

▪ 13 miles with dedicated

▪ ~1/3 mile station spacing

▪ Packaged with:

▪ Wide sidewalks

▪ Trees

▪ Benches

▪ No transit-supportive land use

policies packaged with project

MetroPlan

Orlando

DDR policy(District Dedicated Revenue)

77Source: https://metroplanorlando.org/wp-

content/uploads/TIP-1822-Adopted-P.pdf

30%OF DDR FOR PREMIUM

TRANSIT OPERATIONS

http://tiboaz.biz/2018/04/25/a-look-at-albuquerques-new-bus-rapid-transit-line/

Other requirements

AA STUDY 2045 CF LRTP

How much do we need to operate

the alternative?

OPERATINGCOST

(millions of dollars per year)

BAT using Aux LanesMedian

Exclusive by

Widening

Curbside

Exclusive by

Lane Repurpose

12.9 18.9 12.9 12.9

$2.3M $3.8M $2.1M $2.2M

Length (miles)

How much will be available?

$69MTotal MetroPlan Orlando DDR

funds in FY 2020/21

Source: https://metroplanorlando.org/wp-content/uploads/TIP-1822-Adopted-P.pdf (pg. III-5)

$41MRemaining after subtracting

I-4 Managed Lanes dollars

$12M30% of remaining DDR funds

in FY 2020/21

How much is eligible for funding?

80% of 1st year operational cost

60% of 2nd year operational cost

40% of 3rd year operational cost

20% of 4th year operational cost

Interactive Exercise

▪ Split into groups

▪ Cities

▪ Counties

▪ Regional Planning Agencies

▪ Power on your laptops!

Interactive Exercise

▪ Identify and screen regularly occurring meetings

▪ Elected Officials meetings (city council, board/committee meetings)

▪ Staff Leadership meetings

▪ Community meetings

▪ Non-profit meetings (CNU ReThinking City, WTS, etc)

▪ Set up meeting OR send meeting organizer contact to Study Team (JBARRIOS@KITTELSON.COM)

▪ What are the hot buttons / key messages to get across? How shall we tailor materials?

▪ Economic development story?

▪ Health story?

▪ Transit ridership story?

▪ Other?83

Next Steps

▪ Final PAWG meeting around October 2018

▪ Confirm recommended alternative to advance to LYNX board meeting

▪ Continued outreach meetings with stakeholders

▪ Continued pop-up meetings

▪ Be on the look out for draft reports

Check out our website

lynxsr436.com

Thank You!

PAWG Meeting #9 - SR 436 Transit Corridor Study...Jul 11, 2018 · C2

Documents

Corridor Purpose and Rationale · 2019-05-14 · Corridor 15-17 Section 368 Energy Corridor Regional Reviews -Region 5 May 2019. 1 . Corridor 15-17 . Reno Connector Corridor . Corridor

Task 9.1: Recommendations - SR 436 Transit Corridor Study · 2/9/2019 · Task 9.1: Recommendations The Task 9.1: Recommendations summarizes the recommended outcomes of the study

Meeting #4 Pole Attachment Working Group (PAWG) “Policy ... · 31-01-2017 · PAWG Meeting #4 Minutes 5 of 30. Agenda Items Comments . Mr. Harper: I think there are two fundamentally

436. ostrvo magle

Lottt 436-450

Corridor 30-52 Section 368 Energy Corridor Regional ... · Corridor 30-52 Section 368 Energy Corridor Regional Reviews ... Corridor 30-52 Section 368 Energy Corridor Regional Reviews

брой85 (436)

Corridor Rationale · 2018-05-18 · Corridor 81-272 Section 368 Energy Corridor Regional Reviews -Region 2 May 2018. 1 . Corridor 81-272 . Rio Grande Corridor . Corridor Rationale

Groove Guide 436

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting · PDF fileI-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting ... I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee

naruto 436

NC NE · 2016. 11. 30. · 36a corridor 36 corridor 36 corridor 36 corridor 36 36 corridor 21 corridor 21 corridor 21 corridor 15 corridor 15 corridor 15 corridor 38 57 57 22 22 49

Letras 436

skpress #436

Dublin Infocenter 436

Anboto 436

ASTM F 436

WG Visitor Guide 05 - Heritage Corridor Convention and ...heritagecorridorcvb.com/PDF/WG_Guide_05.pdf · 2545 Plainfield Rd. Joliet 815/436-9520 FAMILY Baci’s 407 W. Lockport Plainfield,

· POINCIANA INTERSTATE CORRIDOR *'CORRIDOR CORRIDOR Pkwy LOUGHMAN CORRIDOR Gomrnoli Corridots 17 Ernie Caldwell ... Project Study Area …

30 Street Industrial Corridor Greenway Corridor … · 30th Street Industrial Corridor Greenway Corridor Report ... Bioswales (Greenfield, ... Louisiana)