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

PAWG

Meeting #9

July 11, 2018

LYNX Central Station, 2nd Floor Open Area1

2

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

3

Ongoing Work


Ongoing

Tasks

TASKS ONGOING

/11

4

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

TASKS ONGOING

/11

5

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

6

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

7

150+SURVEY RESPONSES


8

Traffic Impact Analysis

OIA

Curry Ford

Red Bug Lake

SR 50

SR

43

4

I-4

Hoffner

Aloma

SR 408

26 Study

Intersections


Potential Mitigations

9

Add turn lanesOptimize signal timing


Comparison of Alternatives

10


Comparison of Alternatives

11


+5 MIN

(+7-25%)

12

+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)


13

<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

14


Health Impact Assessment

15


▪ 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

week

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

35%


Station Demonstration Areas

19


▪ Station area planning and

demonstration areas

▪ Existing, short term and long

term conditions at 3 station

areas

▪ Curry Ford

▪ Full Sail

▪ US 17/92

SR

436

Full Sail

University Blvd

Banchory RdLong Term

SR

436

Full Sail

University Blvd

Banchory RdShort Term

SR

436

Full Sail

University Blvd

Banchory RdExisting

Full Sail Station Area Plan

Station Demonstration Areas

20


▪ Station area planning and

demonstration areas

▪ Effects of redeveloping

surface parking on land

value

12%

35%

5%

15%

9%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

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

21


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

22


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

LYNX

6Engage Community through Social Media and Interactive Station Programming

LYNX

7 Market Health Benefits of Transit LYNX

23



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

25


Public Feedback

26

▪ Qualitative: Face-to-Face Interviews

▪ Quantitative: Transit Alternatives Survey (paper & online)


Rider Experience

27


https://youtu.be/JYnNyA1wrcc

Rider Experience

28


Rider Experience

29


“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

30


“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?

31

Race/Ethnicity

3%

5%

12%

24%

56%

Asian

Other

Black/African American

Hispanic

White/Caucasian Non-Hispanic


Who Responded?

32

Age

25%

37%

30%

7%

1%

25 and under

26 to 40

41 to 60

61 to 80

80 and over


Who Responded?

33

How often do people use transit on SR 436?

10%

29%

17%

10%

33%

Daily

At least once a week

At least once a month

At least once a year

Never


Who responded?

34

SR 436

+ZIP CODES


Alternative A

35


AVG RANKING

3.045 stars

4 stars

3 stars

2 stars

1 star

18%

22%

23%

19%

18%

OIA to University Blvd

Alternative A

36


“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

37


AVG RANKING

3.70

OIA to SunRail

5 stars

4 stars

3 stars

2 stars

1 star

36%

23%

23%

10%

7%

Alternative B

38


“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

3.29

Alternative C1

39



5 stars

4 stars

3 stars

2 stars

1 star

29%

25%

12%

14%

20%

Alternative C1

40


“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

3.37

Alternative C2

41



5 stars

4 stars

3 stars

2 stars

1 stars

30%

27%

14%

10%

19%

Alternative C2

42


“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

43

Alternative B

Alternative C2

Alternative C1

Alternative A 3.04

3.70

3.37

3.29


On our Investments

44

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

2.34

2.09

1.59

1.30

1.03

.74

.61

Average Budget Allocated


Number of Times Ranked in Top 3

45

Connected Neighborhoods

Fund Reliable Services

Subsidize Student Passes

Affordable Housing

Attractive Stations

Health Promotion

Safety Education

Community Interaction

54

40

34

33

27

23

22

21


Rider Experience

46


What would a more efficient bus

service mean to you?

47


“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

48


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

49


Transit Project Cost Estimates

CAPITAL COST(millions of dollars)

ROW COST*(millions of dollars)

50

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


$60M-

$80M

51

Transit Project High-Level Cost Estimates

$250M+

Alternatives A, B, C2 Alternative C1


Complete Streets Cost Estimates

52

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

53


$80M $20MTRANSIT COMPLETE STREETS

$100M“PROJECT”

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

54


$50M $50M

Feds Local


55


$50M

$25M

$25M

Feds FDOT Central Office Remaining Local

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

56

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)

57

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:

58

Widen or enhance

sidewalks

Bicycle facilities

Landscaping and

street trees

Transit

enhancements


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

59

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

Co.

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)



60

$50M

$25M

$12M

$13M

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


USDOT grants

61

BUILD

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)

63


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

65


Project

Development

2–4 years

Grant Agreement(Begin Construction)

2–3 years

Begin

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

Begin

Service

2024 – 2028+ + =

+ =

New Starts

Small Starts

Timeline

4

66


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

7


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

6

8


11

69


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 (*)

below

▪Existing corridor and station area

development (*)

▪Existing corridor and station area

development character

▪Pedestrian and disability access

▪Corridor and station area parking

supply (*)

71


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

72


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

73


BUILD

74

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

$25M

− 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

76

▪ Funded with TIGER grant

▪ 22-mile corridor

▪ 13 miles with dedicated

lanes

▪ ~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

78

AA STUDY 2045 CF LRTP

2045


How much do we need to operate

the alternative?

79

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?

80

$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


https://metroplanorlando.org/wp-content/uploads/TIP-1822-Adopted-P.pdf

How much is eligible for funding?

81


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!

82

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 ([email protected])

▪ 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

mailto:[email protected]

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

84


85

Check out our website

lynxsr436.com


86

Thank You!


Documents

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