2035 Long Range Transportation Plan space coast transportation Planning organization

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "2035 Long Range Transportation Plan space coast transportation Planning organization"

Transcription

1 FINAL REPORT 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan space coast transportation Planning organization PREPARED by: Renaissance Planning group JanuaRY 2011

2 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 Overview of the 2035 Plan Development Process... 1 Anticipated Year 2035 System Capacity Transportation System Needs Needs Plan Cost Estimates... 6 Financial Resources... 7 Cost Feasible Plan... 8 MOBILITY ASSESSMENT About the Space Coast TPO About the LRTP LRTP Planning Factors Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Targets (GOMTs) Community Engagement Socio-Economic Conditions and Trends Existing and Projected Transportation System Performance Testing Alternative 1 Congestion Reduction Strategies Transportation Needs Plan Needs Plan Cost Estimates Anticipated Financial Resources TRANSPORTATION PLAN Introduction Cost Feasible Plan Cost Feasible Plan System Performance and Cost-Effectiveness Streets and Highways Element Transit System Element Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element Freight and Goods Movement Element Congestion Management Element Transportation System Safety Element Transportation System Security Element i

3 Table of Contents APPENDIX A: ADOPTION RESOLUTION APPENDIX B: GOALS, OBJECTIVES, MEASURES AND TARGETS APPENDIX C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN APPENDIX D: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT APPENDIX E: FDOT MODEL CALIBRATION & VALIDATION RESULTS APPENDIX F: FLUAM LRTP SE DATA DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX G: SPACE COAST TPO ADOPTED SOCIOECONOMIC DATA APPENDIX H: FINANCIAL RESOURCES APPENDIX I: BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN MAPS The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant(s) from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. ii

4 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Transportation Needs... 3 Figure 2: Inflation Rates Figure 3: Transportation Needs Vs Available Funds... 7 Figure 4: 2035 Cost Feasible Plan... 8 Figure 5: Public Opinions on Transportation Funding Priorities Figure 6: Historic Population Estimates Figure 7: Historic Employment Trends Figure 8: Annual Transit Passenger Miles Figure 9: Truck Traffic on SIS and Regional Roads Figure 10: Alternative 1 VMT per person Figure 11: Alternative 1 VHT & VHD per person Figure 12: Needs plan VMT per person Figure 13: Needs plan VHT & VHD per person Figure 14: Inflation Rates Figure 15: Example Project Cost Inflation Over Time Figure 16: 2035 Transportation Needs vs. Transportation Funds Figure 17: Cost Feasible plan VMT per person Figure 18: Needs plan VHT & VHD per person Figure 19: 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Results Figure 20: Example Phasing of Multimodal Improvements in Walkable Areas Figure 21: Annual Transit Passenger Miles Figure 22: Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT on SIS and Regional Roads ( in millions) Figure 23: Truck Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT on SIS and Regional Roads Figure 24: Florida's Traffic Safety Target Areas Figure 25: Florida Crash Rates iii

5 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Cost Feasible State Strategic Intermodal System Projects Table 2: Cost Feasible Projects (State / Federal Funded) Table 3: Cost Feasible Projects (Local / Developer Funded) Table 4: Cost Feasible Operations/ITS/Multimodal Projects Table 5: Cost Feasible Transit Projects Table 6: LRTP Goals and Federally Required Planning Factors Table 7: Projected Population Table 8: Projected Employment Table 9: Alternative 1 Performance Measures Table 10: Needs Plan Performance Measures Table 11: Needs Plan Projects Table 12: Revenue Estimates Table 13: Transportation Needs vs Available Funds Table 14: Cost Feasible State Strategic Intermodal System Projects Table 15: Cost Feasible Projects (State / Federal Funded) Table 16: Cost Feasible Projects (Local / Developer Funded) Table 17: Cost Feasible Operations/ITS/Multimodal Projects Table 18: Cost Feasible Transit Projects Table 19: Phasing of Cost Feasible Plan Allocations Table 20: Network Performance Measures Table 21: Cost Feasible Plan $53 Million Surplus Table 22: Street and Highway Objectives, Measures & Targets Table 23: Transit Objectives, Measures & Targets Table 24: Bicycle/Pedestrian Objectives, Measures and Targets Table 25: Freight Goods Objectives, Measures and Targets Table 26: Congestion Management Objectives, Measures and Targets Table 27: Critical Transportation Safety Problems in Florida Table 28: 2009 Table of High Crash-Rate Roadway Segments Table 29: 2008 Table of High Crash-Rate Roadway Segments Table 30: Brevard County Crash Rates Compared to All U.S. Counties Table 31: Safety Objectives, Measures and Targets Table 32: Security Scenarios Table 33: Security Objectives, Measures and Targets iv

6 Table of Contents LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Anticipated Year 2035 Congestion... 2 Map 2: Year 2035 Roadway Needs Plan... 4 Map 3: Year 2035 Transit Needs Plan... 5 Map 4: Cost Feasible Plan Roadway Projects... 9 Map 5: Cost Feasible Plan Transit Projects Map 6: Existing Network Map 7: Committed Projects through Year Map 8: Year 2035 Congestion Map 9: Destinations / Employment Hubs Map 10: Year 2035 Destination Accessibility Map 11: Alternative 1 Year 2035 Congestion Map 12: Year 2035 Roadway Needs Plan Map 13: Year 2035 Transit Needs Plan Map 14: System Performance with 2035 Needs Plan Map 15: Cost Feasible Roadway Projects Map 16: Cost Feasible Transit Projects Map 17: Cost Feasible Plan by Implementation Period Map 18: Cost Feasible Plan System performance Map 19: Year 2035 Congestion with commitments Map 20: Cost Feasible Roadway Improvements Map 21: Cost Feasible Transit Improvements Map 22: Existing Sidewalk and Trail Network Map 23: Existing Bicycle and Trail Network Map 24: Regional Trails Plan Map 25: Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan Map 26: Cost Feasible Improvements on the Freight and Goods Network Map 27: Cost Feasible Improvements for Congestion Management Map 28: High Crash Locations Map 29: High-Value Transportation Assets v

7 This page intentionally left blank

8 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF THE 2035 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS A team of TPO staff and consultants developed the 2035 plan in coordination with a technical advisory committee of staff from local, regional and state agencies; citizen advisors; the general public; and local decision-makers. Working together, the study team and the community developed and assessed anticipated transportation needs and weighed alternative transportation improvement strategies. The resulting 2035 Cost Feasible Plan includes a balanced array of projects that provide the best possible mobility and accessibility for the region s people and goods in the most cost-efficient manner. Key projects include a select number of critical highway and transit capacity expansion projects, such as additional lanes and routes along major corridors, supported by a broad array of multi-modal strategies to improve traffic and transit operations, such as intersection signal coordination, roadway connectivity, transit service frequency and pedestrian and bicycle route development. Highlights from the analysis, findings, and development of the 2035 Plan are summarized below. More detailed information is presented in subsequent chapters. ANTICIPATED YEAR 2035 SYSTEM CAPACITY One of the first steps in the plan development process was to update the travel demand model in order to identify probable future system performance based on anticipated future transportation and land use conditions. Based on this analysis, the study team identified corridors and networks that needed additional capacity in order to handle increased travel demand. The following maps and statistics describe the levels of traffic congestion projected to occur by the year The results of the analysis assume the completion of short-range transportation improvement projects to which funding has been committed through the year 2015, as identified in the TPO s Transportation Improvement Program. As shown on Map 1, increased traffic congestion is anticipated along several major facilities, particularly in once-rural southern areas of the County that are attracting increasingly high levels of suburban development. The analysis reveals several important anticipated changes in regional mobility conditions between now and the year 2035, including the following: An increase in overall Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) from 12 miles per person to 14 miles per person An increase in total Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) from 45 minutes per person to almost 90 minutes per person; and An increase in county-wide Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) from 5 minutes per person to more than 50 minutes per person. 1

9 Executive Summary Map 1: Anticipated Year 2035 Congestion 2

10 2035 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NEEDS Executive Summary The package of transportation investments summarized on Maps 2 and 3, collectively referred to as the 2035 Needs Plan, would address anticipated future congestion to a point where the system operates at acceptable performance levels. Roadway investments in the Needs Plan are focused upon strategic widening projects, new regional and local network connections, and optimization of the existing network through traffic operations and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies, as well as Complete Streets improvements to make corridors safely accessible for all travel modes, including pedestrian, bicycle and motorized vehicles. Transit investments include increased frequencies on existing popular routes as well as new regional express-route connections. The projected transportation improvements needed to support future growth and development are estimated to be over $1.8 billion dollars. Figure 1: Transportation Needs 3

11 Executive Summary Map 2: Year 2035 Roadway Needs Plan 4

12 Executive Summary Map 3: Year 2035 Transit Needs Plan 5

13 Executive Summary 2035 NEEDS PLAN COST ESTIMATES The total estimated cost for projects in the 2035 Needs Plan is $1.84 billion. The estimates were developed with techniques that reflect anticipated inflation rates over time. This was a two-step process. The study team first developed cost estimates in current (Year 2010) dollars. As shown in Figure 2 below, the team then multiplied the estimated costs by anticipated inflation factors developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Figure 2: Inflation Rates The resulting estimates indicate the TPO should anticipate project costs to increase by as much as 70% due to inflation. Projects that are scheduled to take many years, particularly if they are begun in the outer years of the plan, will cost more than projects that can be completed sooner. For example a project cost of a $6.5 million could grow to a total of $11 million over the years it will take to plan, design, and construct. 6

14 Executive Summary FINANCIAL RESOURCES In order to determine the limits of financial feasibility for evaluating the potential inclusion of Needs Plan projects in the Cost Feasible Plan, the project team developed projections of financial resources and revenues that are anticipated to be available by the Year of Expenditure (YOE). The revenue projections, which account for the effects of inflation over time, reflect committed and uncommitted transportation revenues expected to be generated at local and state levels, including funding sources dedicated to specific categories such as the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and maintenance/ operations activities. Transportation Needs Versus Available Funds After accounting for revenues allocated to specific projects or programs, $1.28 billion is expected to be available for new projects in the 2035 LRTP. However, as stated earlier, the estimated total cost of projects in the 2035 Needs Plan is $1.84 billion, a $554 million deficit. Figure 3: Transportation Needs Vs Available Funds 7

15 Executive Summary COST FEASIBLE PLAN In order to select the most cost-effective array of projects from the Needs Plan for inclusion in the Cost Feasible Plan, the project team used the regional travel demand model to test the performance of alternative packages of improvements. Concepts and ideas were weighed by the general public and by committees of technical staff and citizen advisors. In addition, the packages were evaluated for cost-effectiveness within the constrained amount of revenues expected to be available through the year Based upon this analysis, the project team identified a package of improvements for the Cost Feasible plan shown in Map 4 and Map 5 below. The plan includes strategic capacity expansions along a few selected corridors, but places the primary focus on making the existing system more efficient with a broad array of operational improvements and multimodal investments. Over the near term ( ) key projects include the following: Additional lanes on I-95, Ellis Road, and construction of the St. Johns Heritage Parkway North; Capacity improvements to the St. Johns Heritage Parkway interchanges; Multimodal and operational corridor improvements identified in the Needs Plan; Increased transit frequency on four major routes; and new Grissom Road transit route. Key projects over the longer term ( ) include the following: Remaining multi-modal corridor improvements; Capacity expansions to regional roadways such as South Street (SR405), US 1; US 192, Malabar Road, and Babcock Street; and Transit priority projects in accordance with the regional Transit Development Plan. Figure 4: 2035 Cost Feasible Plan 8

16 Executive Summary Map 4: Cost Feasible Plan Roadway Projects 9

17 Executive Summary Map 5: Cost Feasible Plan Transit Projects 10

18 Executive Summary Table 1: Cost Feasible State Strategic Intermodal System Projects STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM (SIS) FROM/ TO PROJECT PROJECT COST (2010 $'S) IMPLEMENTATION YEAR TOTAL COST I-95 I-95 Malabar Rd to Indian River County Volusia County to SR 406 Widen Freeway (4 to 6 lanes) Widen Freeway (4 to 6 lanes) $135,620, $135,620,000 $65,020, $79,272,000 Total Project Cost $200,640,000 $214,892,000 Total SIS Est. Revenue $222,610,000 Surplus/Deficit $7,718,000 11

19 Executive Summary Table 2: Cost Feasible Projects (State / Federal Funded) STATE / FEDERAL FUNDED CAPACITY PROJECTS St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Johns Heritage Parkway Interchange (North) Ellis Road St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Johns Heritage Parkway Interchange (South) South Street (SR 405) US 1 US 192 Babcock Street Babcock Street Malabar Road Malabar Road Babcock Street *St. Johns Heritage Parkway from US 192 to Malabar Road includes the section from Malabar to Pace Dr that will be constructed FROM/ TO US 192 to Malabar Rd John Rodes Blvd to US 192 at- I-95 / Ellis Rd John Rodes Blvd to Wickham Rd Babcock St to I-95 Interchange (South) I-95 Interchange (South) to Micco Rd at I- 95 (north of Micco Rd) Existing 4 lane section to State Road 50 Eyster Blvd to Pineda Causeway Wickham Rd to Dairy Road Malabar Rd to Foundation Park Foundation Park to New Parkway Interchange Babcock St to US 1 Minton Rd to St. Johns Heritage Parkway New Parkway Interchange to Indian River County PROJECT New 4 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New Interchange (urban) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) New 4 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New Interchange (Mainline) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) PROJECT COST (2010 $'S) YEAR OF EXPENDITURE TOTAL COST $9,760, $11,899,000 $12,300, $14,996,000 $18,000, $21,946,000 $15,780, $19,239,000 $5,460, $6,657,000 $5,390, $ 6,571,000 $18,000, $21,946,000 $31,960, $ 43,318,000 $34,180, $35,361,000 $26,000, $38,933,000 $7,660, $11,609,000 $38,400, $58,199,000 $32,760, $49,651,000 $40,400, $69,276,000 $46,860, $82,755,000 Total Project Cost $342,910,000 $492,356,000 Total Est. Revenue (Other Arterials / TMS funds) $520,300,000 Surplus/Deficit $27,944,000 12

20 Executive Summary Table 3: Cost Feasible Projects (Local / Developer Funded) LOCAL / DEVELOPER FUNDED CAPACITY PROJECTS Bombardier Blvd. Clearlake Road Culver Drive Fellsmere Connector Garvey Road Hollywood Blvd. Pirate Lane Powerline Road Powerline Road SR 524 St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Andrews Stadium Parkway Turtlemound Rd Extension US 192 Viera Blvd. Viera Blvd. Interchange Washingtonian Extension FROM/ TO St Johns Heritage Parkway to Degroodt Rd Michigan to Industry Emerson Dr to Palm Bay Rd San Filippo Dr. to SR 512 (Indian River County) Garbelmann Rd to Bombardier Rd US 192 to Palm Bay Rd Babcock St to Lipscomb St St Johns Heritage Parkway to Minton Rd Minton Rd to Hollywood Dr. I-95 Interchange (South) to Industry Rd Malabar Rd to Bombardier Rd Bombardier Rd to Babcock St Judge Fran Jamison to Stadium Pkwy Fiske Blvd to Viera Blvd Aurora Rd to Eau Gallie Blvd St Johns Heritage Parkway to Wickham Rd Herons Landing to Schenck Rd at- I-95 / Viera Blvd Wickham Rd to St. Johns Heritage Parkway PROJECT Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) PROJECT COST (2010 $'S) PROJECT COST (2010 $'S) DEVELOPER TOTAL COST (LOCAL PORTION) $10,759,000 $4,203,000 $6,556,000 $6,644,000 $1,292,000 $5,352,000 $1,646,000 $ $1,646,000 New 4 Lane Road $115,569,000 $48,572,000 $66,997,000 Widen from 2 to 3 Lanes / New 3 Lane Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) $15,019,000 $2,922,000 $12,097,000 $40,237,000 $ $40,237,000 $11,371,000 $2,212,000 $9,159,000 New 2 Lane Road $34,626,000 $34,626,000 $ New 2 Lane Road $13,000,000 $2,530,000 $10,470,000 Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) $13,000,000 $15,000,000 $17,932,000 New 4 Lane Road $25,699,000 $5,000,000 $20,699,000 New 4 Lane Road $40,133,000 $5,000,000 $35,133,000 New 4 Lane Road $16,618,000 $16,618,000 $ Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) $10,652,000 $10,652,000 $ New 2 Lane Road $6,012,000 $6,012,000 $ Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) New Interchange (urban) New 2 Lane Road (ROW for 4 Lanes) $40,390,000 $27,672,000 $12,718,000 $8,855,000 $8,855,000 $ $23,000,000 $23,000,000 $ $38,925,200 $15,198,000 $23,727,200 Total Project Cost $472,155,200 $229,364,000 $262,723,200 Total Est. Local Revenues $263,700,000 Surplus/Deficit $976,800 13

21 Executive Summary OPERATIONS / ITS / MULTIMODAL CORRIDORS Babcock Street Table 4: Cost Feasible Operations/ITS/Multimodal Projects FROM/ TO US 192 to Malabar Rd PROJECT Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) PROJECT COST (2010 $ S) TOTAL COST $2,180,000 $2,986,600 Barnes Blvd. Fiske Blvd to US 1 Operations / ITS $500,000 $685,000 Columbia Blvd (SR 405) I-95 to US 1 Operations / ITS $630,000 $863,100 Dixon Blvd. Clearlake to US 1 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $380,000 $520,600 Eau Gallie Blvd. I-95 to Bridge Operations / ITS $1,510,000 $2,068,700 Eau Gallie Blvd. Bridge to SR A1A Operations / ITS $1,020,000 $1,397,400 Fiske Blvd. Fiske Blvd. SR 520 to Barnes Blvd Barnes Blvd to Stadium Parkway Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $1,790,000 $2,452,300 $2,300,000 $3,151,000 Garden St (SR 406) I-95 to US 1 Operations / ITS $630,000 $863,100 Hickory Road NASA Blvd to Hibiscus Blvd Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $250,000 $342,500 Malabar Road Minton Rd to Babcock St Operations / ITS $1,400,000 $1,918,000 Minton Road US 192 to Palm Bay Rd N. Babcock Street US 1 to US 192 N. Courtenay Parkway SR 528 to SR 520 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $1,450,000 $1,986,500 $700,000 $959,000 $2,330,000 $3,192,100 Palm Bay Road Minton Rd to RJ Conlan Operations / ITS $,750,000 $2,397,500 Post Road Wickham Rd to US 1 Operations / ITS $ 650,000 $890,500 Sheridan Road SR 520 SR 520 SR 520 SR 528 SR A1A SR A1A Wickham Rd to John Rodes Blvd I-95 to Hubert Humphrey Bridge Hubert Humphrey Bridge to SR A1A US 1 to Hubert Humphrey Bridge N. Courtenay Pkwy to Port Canaveral Port Interchange to One way split One way split to Pineda Causeway Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $850,000 $1,164,500 Operations / ITS $,500,000 $2,055,000 Operations / ITS $2,840,000 $3,890,800 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $500,000 $685,000 Operations / ITS $860,000 $1,178,200 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $2,890,000 $3,959,300 $2,200,000 $3,014,000 14

22 Executive Summary SR A1A US 1 OPERATIONS / ITS / MULTIMODAL CORRIDORS FROM/ TO Pineda Causeway to US 192 Garden St to Columbia Blvd (SR 407) PROJECT Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) PROJECT COST (2010 $ S) TOTAL COST $3,110,000 $4,258,000 Operations / ITS $2,620,000 $3,589,400 US 1 SR 528 to Eyster Blvd Operations / ITS $1,700,000 $2,329,000 US 1 Post Rd to RJ Conlan Operations / ITS $3,040,000 $4,164,800 US 1 US 1 Garden St. to Harrison RJ Conlan to Malabar Rd Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $1,100,000 $1,507,000 $800,000 $1,096,000 US 192 Bridge to SR A1A Operations / ITS $840,000 $1,150,800 US 192 Walden Blvd / Wyoming Drive Wickham Road St. Johns Heritage Parkway to Bridge Emerson Dr to Babcock St Parkway Dr. to Sarno Road Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $2,750,000 $$3,767,500 $920,000 $1,260,400 $400,000 $548,000 Wickham Rd / Minton Road Sarno Rd to Malabar Rd Operations / ITS $2,100,000 $2,877,000 Total Project Cost $50,490,000 $69,171,300 Total Est. Revenue (Remaining OA / TMA ) $30,000,000 Total Est. Local Revenue $40,000,000 Surplus/Deficit $828,700 15

23 Executive Summary Table 5: Cost Feasible Transit Projects TRANSIT ENHANCEMENTS FROM/ TO PROJECT PROJECT COST (2010 $ S) YEARS TOTAL COST Route - 6 Cocoa / Rockledge Increase Frequency $1,200, $35,266,800 Route - 21 Melbourne Increase Frequency $1,000, $29,389,000 Route - 23 West Palm Bay Increase Frequency $1,000, $29,389,000 Route - 28 North Melbourne Increase Frequency $1,000, $29,389,000 New Route - Grissom Corridor Titusville / Cocoa New Route $2,700, $79,350,300 Total Project Cost $6,900,000 $202,784,100 Total Est. Revenue (Transit) $209,000,000 Surplus/Deficit $6,215,900 16

24 Mobility Assessment MOBILITY ASSESSMENT ABOUT THE SPACE COAST TPO The 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) will guide the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) in implementing its transportation project priorities over the next 20 years. The Cost Feasible Element of the plan represents major updates to the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan adopted on November 10 th, TPO Mission Statement The mission statement for the Space Coast TPO, which guides the development of all plans, projects, and investment decisions, reads as follows: ABOUT THE LRTP To provide Space Coast local governments, agencies and citizens a forum for cooperative intermodal transportation decision making to assure excellence in mobility and safety. In accordance with federal regulations, the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) updates its long-range transportation plan every five years. The LRTP provides a long range analysis of transportation system performance issues, anticipated resources, and a range of realistic, cost feasible strategies to address identified needs. The LRTP includes a list of key transportation investments that the TPO intends to support within the constraints of anticipated funds, which is called the Cost Feasible (or financially constrained ) Plan. The LRTP also includes a list of projects that may be needed but that cannot be supported within the constraints of anticipated resources, known as the Needs Plan. If additional resources become available, the TPO will evaluate the possibility of adding a Needs Plan project to the adopted Cost Feasible Plan. 17

25 Mobility Assessment LRTP PLANNING FACTORS The LRTP is required by Federal regulations (SAFETEA-LU) to reflect consideration of the following eight planning areas: Support the economic vitality of the region by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency; Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; Promote efficient system management and operations; and Emphasize preservation of the existing transportation system. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS (GOMTS) The overarching mission for the Space Coast TPO is as follows: Develop and maintain a balanced multimodal transportation system in Brevard County that promotes economic development through mobility and accessibility for all users, enhances the safety and security of the system with a greater emphasis on the management and operations of transportation system. The LRTP goals, objectives, performance measures and targets (GOMTs) provide the framework that guides the TPO in the process of achieving its mission through plans, programs, and project prioritization. Goals describe future desired outcomes. Objectives define the actions necessary to move the TPO closer to achieving its goals. The objectives include clearly articulated measures and quantifiable targets (also called thresholds or benchmarks) that define the standards by which progress toward the goals will be evaluated. The GOMTs are reviewed and refined during each update of the LRTP. They evolve over time to reflect changes in socio-economic conditions, policies, directives, growth patterns, and technology at local, regional, state and federal levels. They reflect the TPO s ongoing coordination with local, regional and statewide planning priorities as identified in local plans and State priorities such as the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), and Highway Safety Plan. For example, recent and current planning initiatives, including the 2035 LRTP, reflect 18

26 Mobility Assessment the changing focus of the Space Coast TPO to place a greater emphasis on the efficiency and accessibility of the entire transportation system (not just roads) and on congestion solutions that rely less heavily on costly capacity expansions. For the 2035 LRTP, the TPO has developed performance-based measures and targets to evaluate progress not only during each five-year LRTP update cycle, but every year as part of the ongoing congestion management process. The GOMTs developed for the long-range plan are closely linked to one of the Space Coast TPO s primary planning efforts, the Annual State of the System (SOS) Report. The SOS provides the critical data necessary to track trends and measure progress toward many of the LRTP goals and objectives. By establishing a relationship between the LRTP goals, objectives and performance measures and the annual State of the System report, the TPO has a means by which to check on progress toward LRTP goals every year. On a related note, this linkage also helps the TPO meet federal requirements for an ongoing Congestions Management Process (CMP) LRTP Goals and Objectives The following list presents the overall goals and objectives for the 2035 LRTP. The measures and targets associated with the goals and objectives are summarized in the individual elements of the plan as described in the 2035 Transportation Plan section. Goal 1 - Improve economic vitality through better access and intermodal connectivity for people and goods 1.1 Enhance accessibility to regional economic generators and SIS / Emerging SIS hubs (seaport, airport and spaceport) 1.2 Improve extent and continuity of modal networks 1.3 Increase number of transportation choices 1.4 Maintain the connectivity of intermodal hubs (seaport, airport, spaceport, transit and rail stations) Goal 2 - Improve the safety and security of the transportation system; 2.1 Reduce crashes and fatalities by 10 percent for each priority crash type by 2035; 2.2 Improve crash response and clearance times by 10 percent for each priority crash type; 2.3 Increase the number of roadway miles under surveillance by 50 percent; 2.4 Increase the number of pedestrian and bicycle events held annually; 2.5 Increase the percentage of surveyed parents who believe their child is safe walking or biking to school; 19

27 Mobility Assessment 2.6 Improve the safety and security of the transit system; 2.7 Improve the ability to evacuate during an emergency event by reducing clearance times and increased capacity during evacuations; Goal 3 - Improve mobility through effective management and operations of the transportation system; 3.1 Reduce system wide delay for cars, truck and transit; 3.2 Reduce corridor delay for cars, trucks and transit with real time traffic management; 3.3 Improve reliability and predictability of travel; 3.4 Improve real time transit management; 3.5 Improve real time traffic and transit information; Goal 4 - Improve sustainability and livability; 4.1 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 4.2 Improve street livability by providing more than one modal option; and 4.3 Minimize adverse environment and community impacts. The Table 7 illustrates how each goal statement addresses the SAFETEA-LU Planning factors and other considerations: Table 6: LRTP Goals and Federally Required Planning Factors 20

28 Mobility Assessment COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT A team of TPO staff and consultants developed the 2035 plan in coordination with a technical advisory committee of staff from local, regional and state agencies; citizen advisors; the general public; and local decision-makers. Working together, the study team and the community developed and assessed anticipated transportation needs, weighed alternative transportation improvement strategies, and identified transportation investment priorities. The public s ideas and input provided direction to the team in developing plan goals, objectives, and investment priorities. The team organized the community engagement process around the goal of bringing the plan out to the public, instead of requiring people to make special trips and take time out of their schedules in order to share their ideas and concerns. For example, TPO staff and the consultant team displayed maps and administered surveys at public libraries, senior centers, farmers markets and the Mall (during Christmas). In addition, two rounds of community workshops were conducted at key phases of the Long Range Planning process: Needs Development and Project Priorities. The Needs Plan workshops were held early in the planning process at the following locations: Workshop 1 Dec 2, 2009, Cocoa Library Workshop 2 Dec 5, 2009, Merritt Square Mall Workshop 3 Jan 6, 2010, Titusville Library Workshop 4 Jan 12, 2010, Palm Bay Library The objective of the Needs Plan workshops was to elicit general ideas and opinions about what the future transportation network in Brevard County should look like and how it should function. For these workshops, the study team developed maps and information about congested roadways in 2035 and summaries of key projects in the previous Long Range Plan. At the open-house style meetings, members of the public wrote and drew their ideas on the maps and comment sheets. Public outreach at Merritt Square Mall (December 5 th, Most of the public comments were focused on desired improvements for specific corridors and facilities that they felt should be considered in the LRTP process. In addition to providing the study team with specific ideas and information, the workshops also revealed some general shifts in public opinion. In 21

29 Mobility Assessment previous planning processes, the citizens of Brevard County tended to focus heavily on the need to reduce congestion by widening various roads. During the 2009 meetings, however, the team observed a growing number of comments and suggestions about lower-impact operational strategies and multi-modal networks improvements such as intersection improvements, expansion of transit opportunities to Orlando and completing regional greenways and trails. The second series of workshops was held in the late spring of 2010 at the following locations: Workshop 1 June 3, 2010 Palm Bay Senior Center Workshop 2 June 3, 2010 Brevard Farmers Market Workshop 3 June 7, 2010 Titusville Library These Project Priorities workshops elicited public preferences and priorities for allocating transportation funds. Through interactive exercises and conversations, the study team asked workshop participants about the types and locations of transportation improvements they would like to see funded with the limited amount of available money. When asked how the TPO should allocate funds to general types of projects (Roadway Widening, Operations / Signal Timing, Transit, and Bicycle / Pedestrian), workshop Public workshop at Wickham Park Farmers Market on June 3rd, attendees expressed a collective opinion that about a third of the funds should go toward roadway expansion. They felt that transit investments should be allocated about a quarter of all transportation funds, followed by operational improvements and bicycle /pedestrian projects. Again, the study team took note of the general increase, compared to previous planning processes, in public preferences for multi-modal and operational investments. 22

30 Mobility Assessment Figure 5: Public Opinions on Transportation Funding Priorities When asked about priorities for specific improvements, workshop participants focused on the following key projects. Roadway Priorities: St. Johns Heritage Parkway Garden Street North Courtenay Operation / ITS Priorities SR 405 Courtenay Transit Priorities Grissom Road SR 50 Express Bike / Pedestrian Priorities Showcase Trails Bicycle and Sidewalk Gaps 23

31 Mobility Assessment SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS The Florida Department of Transportation developed 2005 and 2035 socio-economic data for use in the travel demand model. The development of this data can be found in the Technical Appendix - FDOT Model Validation Report and FLUAM LRTP SE data documentation. The FLUAM (Future Land Use Allocation Model) uses the future land use elements from adopted Comprehensive Plans from the County and each municipality to allocate the population projections developed by the state. Population and employment projections by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) were reviewed by the advisory committees and adjusted in Titusville and Palm Bay to reflect current planning efforts. In addition, the Space Coast TPO has been tracking socio-economic trends in Brevard County against transportation conditions for the past decade as part of the State of the System report. The information from these reports, summarized below, provides a deeper level of insight into the relationship between socio-economic and travel demand issues. Key issues from this analysis include the following points: Congestion is an important issue, but it is generally limited to peak hour periods along a few major corridors as opposed to occurring throughout the entire region at all times. An assessment of current conditions indicates that a little more than six percent of the total network is heavily congested at some point every day. About twelve percent of the total vehicle hours traveled on the network is spent on corridors with delayed conditions, most of which are concentrated on a few of the SIS and regional facilities. There is very little diversity of travel modes within the region. Almost everyone drives for most or all of their trips in the Space Coast region. Less than one percent of all trips made are by transit, walking or bicycling. Despite the current economic slowdown, the region is expected to continue growing during the coming decades, especially in southern Brevard County. With a growth rate of about 7,000 people per year, some 220,000 additional people are expected to be living in the region by the year This 40% increase will bring the total population to more than 770,000. Similarly, the region is expected to add 100,000 jobs by the year 2035, at a rate of more than 4,000 jobs per year. This 26% increase will bring the total number of jobs to almost 386,

32 Mobility Assessment Population Trends Brevard County and its municipalities experienced a strong growth rate between 2000 and 2007 with an increase of over 75,000 people during that time frame. However, with the downturn in the economy, as seen in Figure 6 growth slowed in 2008 and the County lost population between 2008 and However, even with the current slowdown in the economy, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida projects that Brevard County will grow more than 40% during the next 25 years to reach a total population of some 770,000 people (Table 7), but the Space Coast TPO has proposed a slower growth rate in the interim years than the State projected through the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Highlights of past and future population trends are as follows: Between 2000 and 2007 the County added 75,000 people at a rate of about 10,000-11,000 people per year; Between 2007 and 2009 growth slowed dramatically, to an increase of less than 1,000 people per year; From 2010 to 2035 the County is expected to increase by 216,000 people at a rate of about 7,000 people per year; and More than 50% of the population growth is expected to occur in the southern part of the County. Figure 6: Historic Population Estimates Source: 2009 Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Statistical Abstract 25

33 Mobility Assessment Table 7: Projected Population Space Coast TPO Projections State of Florida Projections (BEBR 2008) , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,991 Source: FDOT / FLUAM with 2008 Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Statistical Abstract mid range population projections with adjustments to reflect local comprehensive plans. Employment Trends Employment trends in Brevard County have mirrored population trends. The number of jobs in the County increased by 24,000 during the time frame, but has since lost nearly the same amount of jobs (Figure 7). The global economic downturn affected the construction and tourism industries in Brevard County. In addition, the pending retirement of the Space Shuttle program has forced NASA and supporting industries into a series of layoffs. However, County employment forecasts prepared by FDOTs land use modeling consultant, Data Transfer Solutions (land use report found in appendix), indicate a turnaround of recent losses, with more than 90,000 additional jobs expected between 2010 and Though the Space Center has made layoffs because of the Space Shuttle retirement, future plans and economic development activities include more research facilities and commercial space activities. In addition, the City of Palm Bay is planning for more intense employment nodes within the city and adjacent to a new interchange located on I-95 in the South County. Though the linear geography of the County creates longer trip lengths on average than the region, almost 95 percent of the population lives within 20 minutes of an employment hub in the County. Highlights of employment trends include the following points: Between 2000 and 2006 the County s employment increased by 24,000, a rate of about 4,000 jobs per year; From 2007 to 2009 the County lost nearly 20,000 jobs, a rate of some 6,000 jobs per year; From 2010 to 2035 the County is expected to add more than 90,000 jobs, returning to the rate of about 4,000 additional jobs per year; and More than 50% of the job growth is expected to occur in the southern part of the County. 26

34 Mobility Assessment Figure 7: Historic Employment Trends Source: 2009 Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Statistical Abstract Table 8: Projected Employment Space Coast TPO Projections 277, , , , , , ,922 State of Florida Projections 277, , , , , , ,922 Source: FDOT / FLUAM Model with adjustments from local governments employment increase relative to population. 27

35 Mobility Assessment EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE The Space Coast TPO has monitored system trends and conditions annually through its State of the System (SOS) report for over a decade. The report provides the TPO a strong foundation for assessing mobility in the County under current and future transportation conditions to help establish transportation priorities in the near term. Current Roadway Network Conditions and Trends The performance evaluation of the roadway network is focused upon the following variables: Total daily vehicle trips and the number of trips per person; Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and the miles of travel per trip; Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) and the hours of travel per trip; Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) and the delay per trip; and, The percentage of congested lane miles. Map 6 presents the functionally classified roadway network as it existed in 2005, the base year for this Plan Update. The roadway network is organized into three major categories: State Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) The SIS is a statewide network of highpriority transportation facilities defined by the FDOT. A large portion of federal and state funding sources are set-aside by FDOT to improve SIS facilities. Regionally Significant Roadway Network The major arterial roadway network, defined by the TPO, provides inter-county access and connectivity between subareas. The TPO prioritizes the non-sis federal and state funds for improvements to this network. Non-Regional Roads The remaining functionally classified arterials and collectors providing access to and within a subarea. Improvements to these roads are primarily funded by local sources. 28

36 Mobility Assessment Map 6: Existing Network 29

37 Mobility Assessment Highlights of 2005 roadway conditions are as follows: There were more than 2 million trips made in the County on an average weekday, or nearly 4 trips per person. The average weekday VMT was nearly 6.4 million (12 miles per person), and the average length per trip was 3.2 miles. The average weekday VHT was over 735,000 (45 minutes per person), and the average trip time was 11 minutes. Nearly 92,000 of the 735,000 hours traveled (12.5 percent) were spent in delayed conditions due to congestion. People spent an average of five minutes per day sitting in traffic. Even though 12.5 percent of the total hours traveled were congested, only 6.1 percent of the network was congested, with nearly all the congestion occurring on the SIS and Regional Network. Current Transit Conditions and Trends Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) maintains and operates public transit service in Brevard County. As documented in annual State of the System reports, SCAT ridership has increased significantly over the past 10 years. SCAT has also successfully shifted much of its ridership from costly demand response ridership to fixed route service over the past 10 years. However, even with increased ridership, SCAT is facing serious revenue shortfalls and is working hard to continue operating the current transit system at current levels. Highlights of current transit conditions are as follows: Annual transit ridership has more than doubled over the past 10 years; Fixed route ridership has increased by more than 300 percent since the year 2000, with a majority of that ridership shifting from demand response service; and Despite the impressive increase in ridership, weekday daily transit passenger miles amount to 400,000, less than one percent of the total weekday Countywide vehicle miles traveled. 30

38 Mobility Assessment Figure 8: Annual Transit Passenger Miles Source: Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) and the 2009 Space Coast TPO State of the System Report. Freight and Goods The free flow of freight and goods is essential to the County s economic vitality, particularly during the current economic downturn and the uncertainty over NASA s future in the County. The County s primary freight hubs are Port Canaveral, the Florida East Coast (FEC) rail yard in Cocoa and the Melbourne International Airport. Each is located adjacent to a SIS facility. Freight movement occurs primarily on the SIS and the Regionally Significant Roadway Network. Shippers also use the Class II FEC rail line for products such as rock and stone aggregate, piggybacked intermodal services (United Parcel Service and commercial trailers), and automobiles. Congestion levels on the Freight and Goods Movement Corridors are relatively minor with the network only six percent congested. Truck traffic has decreased over the past 5 years on the SIS network with the widening of I-95 to six lanes over the past 3 years. 31

39 Mobility Assessment Figure 9: Truck Traffic on SIS and Regional Roads Source: 2009 Space Coast TPO State of the System Report. Assessing Future Year System Performance TPO Commitments As documented in the Transportation Improvement Program, the TPO has committed funds through the year 2015 to certain projects. These projects, shown in Map 7, were incorporated into the base case transportation network for the purposes of modeling anticipated Year 2035 congestion levels and alternative congestion reduction strategies. 32

40 Mobility Assessment Map 7: Committed Projects through Year

41 Mobility Assessment Anticipated Future Congestion Levels The following maps and statistics describe the levels of traffic congestion projected to occur by the year The results of the analysis assume the completion of short-range transportation improvement projects to which funding has been committed through the year 2015, as identified in the TPO s Transportation Improvement Program. As shown in the maps, increased traffic congestion is anticipated along several major facilities, particularly in once-rural southern areas of the County that are attracting increasingly high levels of suburban development. The analysis reveals several important anticipated changes in regional mobility conditions between now and the year 2035, including the following: An increase in overall Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) from 12 miles per person to 14 miles per person; An increase in total Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) from 45 minutes per person to almost 90 minutes; and An increase in County-wide Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) from 5 minutes per person to more than 50 minutes per person. Map 10 illustrates existing and future accessibility to the County s employment hubs. Currently, nearly 96% of County residents have moderate to high access to those hubs, but that percentage drops to 81% in 2035 assuming only committed projects are completed by then. The percentage of residents with high access to employment hubs drops from 65% to 18%. 34

42 Mobility Assessment Map 8: Year 2035 Congestion 35

43 Mobility Assessment Map 9: Destinations / Employment Hubs 36

44 Mobility Assessment Map 10: Year 2035 Destination Accessibility 37

45 Mobility Assessment TESTING ALTERNATIVE 1 CONGESTION REDUCTION STRATEGIES The study team tested different concepts for reducing anticipated future congestion and achieving other key goals and objectives of the 2035 LRTP. Alternative1, the TPO Priority Reliever scenario, included several high priority regional connections from the previous (2025) LRTP, including the St. Johns Heritage Parkway & Washingtonian Extension. It also included increased transit service frequencies on popular routes. As shown in the Table 9 below, the Alternative 1 scenario performs much better than the base case scenario in which no improvements are made other than the 2015 committed projects. Per capita VMT would remain about the same, but the anticipated 45 minute increase in VHT would be reduced to an 11 minute increase, and the projected per capita Vehicle Hours of Delay would increase by 10 minutes to 15 minutes as opposed to 50 minutes. Table 9: Alternative 1 Performance Measures EXISTING NETWORK (2005) COMMITTED NETWORK ( ) 2025 LONG RANGE PLAN ( ) Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per person 12.0 miles 14.4 miles 13.9 miles Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) per person 45 minutes 90 minutes 56 minutes Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) per person 5 minutes 50 minutes 15 minutes 38

46 Mobility Assessment Figure 10: Alternative 1 VMT per person Figure 11: Alternative 1 VHT & VHD per person 39

47 Mobility Assessment Map 11: Alternative 1 Year 2035 Congestion 40

48 Mobility Assessment 2035 TRANSPORTATION NEEDS PLAN The study team made some adjustments to the Alternative 1 scenario in order to further improve system performance, drawn from TPO and local priorities as well as input from the public. The resulting package of transportation investments, summarized in figures and maps below, became the basis for the 2035 Needs Plan. Roadway investments in the Needs Plan are focused upon projects such as the following: strategic widening projects, such as the 6-lane expansion of I-95; new regional and local network connections, including the St. Johns Heritage Parkway; optimization of the existing network through traffic operations and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies; and Complete Streets improvements to make corridors safely accessible for all travel modes, including pedestrian, bicycle and motorized vehicles. Transit investments in the 2035 Needs Plan include the following: increased frequencies on existing high-performing routes; new routes in traditionally underserved areas and high growth areas; new regional express-route connections to key areas such as Orlando International Airport, Downtown Orlando, Vero Beach, and along I-95; the State High Speed Rail Corridor (I-95); and the Regional Passenger Rail Corridor (FEC). As shown in Table 10, transportation system performance under the 2035 Needs Plan scenario is similar to the Alternative 1 performance in regard to VMT and VHT, but provides for a higher reduction in Vehicle Hours of Delay. Table 10: Needs Plan Performance Measures EXISTING NETWORK (2005) COMMITTED NETWORK ( ) 2025 LONG RANGE PLAN ( ) 2035 NEEDS PLAN ( ) Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per person 12.0 miles 14.4 miles 13.9 miles 13.9 miles Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) per person 45 minutes 90 minutes 56 minutes 45 minutes Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) per person 5 minutes 50 minutes 15 minutes 8 minutes 41

49 Mobility Assessment Figure 12: Needs plan VMT per person Figure 13: Needs plan VHT & VHD per person 42

50 Mobility Assessment Map 12: Year 2035 Roadway Needs Plan 43

51 Mobility Assessment Map 13: Year 2035 Transit Needs Plan 44

52 Mobility Assessment Table 11: Needs Plan Projects STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM (SIS) CAPACITY NEEDS FROM / TO PROJECT I-95 Volusia County to SR 406 I-95 Malabar Rd to SR 406 I-95 Malabar Rd to Indian River County State Road 528 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT CAPACITY NEEDS Orange County to A1A FROM / TO Widen Freeway (4 to 6 lanes) Widen Freeway (6 to 8 lanes) Widen Freeway (4 to 6 lanes) Widen Freeway (4 to 6 lanes) PROJECT Babcock Street US 192 to Malabar Rd Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) Babcock Street Malabar Rd to Foundation Park Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Babcock Street Foundation Park to New Parkway Interchange Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Babcock Street New Parkway Interchange to Indian River County Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Ellis Road John Rodes Blvd to Wickham Rd Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Malabar Road Babcock St to US 1 Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Malabar Road Minton Rd to St. Johns Heritage Parkway Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) South Street (SR 405) Existing 4 lane section to State Road 50 Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) SR 524 I-95 Interchange (South) to Industry Rd Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) St. Johns Heritage Parkway John Rodes Blvd to US 192 New 4 Lane Road St. Johns Heritage Parkway US 192 to Malabar Rd New 4 Lane Road St. Johns Heritage Parkway Babcock St to I-95 Interchange (South) New 4 Lane Road St. Johns Heritage Parkway I-95 Interchange (South) to Micco Rd New 4 Lane Road St. Johns Heritage Parkway Interchange (North) St. Johns Heritage Parkway Interchange (South) at- I-95 / Ellis Rd at I- 95 (north of Micco Rd) New Interchange (urban) New Interchange (Mainline) US 1 Eyster Blvd to Pineda Causeway Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) US 192 St Johns Heritage Parkway to Wickham Rd Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) US 192 Wickham Rd to Dairy Road Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) US 192 Dairy Road to Babcock St. Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) 45

53 Mobility Assessment OTHER CORRIDOR CAPACITY NEEDS FROM / TO PROJECT Bombardier Blvd. St Johns Heritage Parkway to Degroodt Rd Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Clearlake Road Michigan to Industry Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Culver Drive Emerson Dr to Palm Bay Rd Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Eyster Road Murell Rd to Fiske Blvd Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Fellsmere Connector San Filippo Dr. to SR 512 (Indian River County) New 4 Lane Road Garvey Road Garbelmann Rd to Bombardier Rd Widen from 2 to 3 Lanes / New 3 Lane Hollywood Blvd. US 192 to Palm Bay Rd Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Micco Rd St. Johns Heritage Parkway to US 1 Pirate Lane Babcock St to Lipscomb St Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Powerline Road St Johns Heritage Parkway to Minton Rd New 2 Lane Road Powerline Road Minton Rd to Hollywood Dr. New 2 Lane Road St. Johns Heritage Parkway Malabar Rd to Bombardier Rd New 4 Lane Road St. Johns Heritage Parkway Bombardier Rd to Babcock St New 4 Lane Road St. Andrews Judge Fran Jamison to Stadium Pkwy New 4 Lane Road Stadium Parkway Fiske Blvd to Viera Blvd Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Turtlemound Rd Extension Aurora Rd to Eau Gallie Blvd New 2 Lane Road Viera Blvd. Herons Landing to Schenck Rd Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Viera Blvd. Interchange at- I-95 / Viera Blvd New Interchange (urban) Washingtonian Extension Wickham Rd to St. Johns Heritage Parkway New 2 Lane Road (ROW for 4 Lanes) 46

54 Mobility Assessment OPERATIONS / ITS / MULTIMODAL NEEDS FROM / TO PROJECT Babcock Street US 192 to Malabar Rd Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Barnes Blvd. Fiske Blvd to US 1 Operations / ITS Columbia Blvd (SR 405) I-95 to US 1 Operations / ITS Dixon Blvd. Clearlake to US 1 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Eau Gallie Blvd. I-95 to Bridge Operations / ITS Eau Gallie Blvd. Bridge to SR A1A Operations / ITS Fiske Blvd. SR 520 to Barnes Blvd Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Fiske Blvd. Barnes Blvd to Stadium Parkway Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Garden St (SR 406) I-95 to US 1 Operations / ITS Hickory Road NASA Blvd to Hibiscus Blvd Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Malabar Road Minton Rd to Babcock St Operations / ITS Minton Road US 192 to Palm Bay Rd Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) N. Babcock Street US 1 to US 192 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) N. Courtenay Parkway SR 528 to SR 520 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Palm Bay Road Minton Rd to RJ Conlan Operations / ITS Post Road Wickham Rd to US 1 Operations / ITS Sheridan Road Wickham Rd to John Rodes Blvd Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) SR 520 I-95 to Hubert Humphrey Bridge Operations / ITS SR 520 Hubert Humphrey Bridge to SR A1A Operations / ITS SR 520 US 1 to Hubert Humphrey Bridge Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) SR 528 N. Courtenay Pkwy to Port Canaveral Operations / ITS SR A1A Port Interchange to One way split Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) SR A1A One way split to Pineda Causeway Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) SR A1A Pineda Causeway to US 192 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) US 1 Garden St to Columbia Blvd (SR 407) Operations / ITS US 1 SR 528 to Eyster Blvd Operations / ITS US 1 Post Rd to RJ Conlan Operations / ITS 47

55 Mobility Assessment OPERATIONS / ITS / MULTIMODAL NEEDS FROM / TO PROJECT US 1 Garden St. to Harrison Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) US 1 RJ Conlan to Malabar Rd Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) US 192 Bridge to SR A1A Operations / ITS US 192 St. Johns Heritage Parkway to Bridge Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Walden Blvd / Wyoming Drive Emerson Dr to Babcock St Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Wickham Road Parkway Dr. to Sarno Road Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Wickham Rd / Minton Road Sarno Rd to Malabar Rd Operations / ITS TRANSIT NEEDS FROM / TO PROJECT Route 1 Route - 4 Increase Frequency Increase Frequency Route - 6 Cocoa / Rockledge Increase Frequency Route - 21 Melbourne Increase Frequency Route - 23 West Palm Bay Increase Frequency Route - 28 North Melbourne Increase Frequency New Route - Grissom Corridor Titusville / Cocoa New Route New Route State Road 50 Express Titusville / Waterford Lakes (Orange County) New Express Route New Route Orlando Express Melbourne / Orlando New Express Route New Route Indian River Express Melbourne / Indian River County New Express Route New Route St. Johns Heritage Express Palm Bay / Melbourne New Express Route New Route Wasingtonia Express Melbourne / Viera New Express Route New Route I 95 Express Indian River County / Titusville New Express Route New Regional High Speed Rail Orlando / Miami (I-95 Corridor) High Speed Rail New Regional Passenger Rail Jacksonville / Miami (FEC Rail Corridor) New Rail Service 48

56 Mobility Assessment Map 14: System Performance with 2035 Needs Plan 49

57 Mobility Assessment 2035 NEEDS PLAN COST ESTIMATES The total estimated cost for projects in the 2035 Needs Plan is $1.84 billion. The estimates were developed with techniques that reflect anticipated inflation rates over time. This was a two-step process. The study team first developed cost estimates in current (Year 2010) dollars. As shown in the Figure 14 below, the team then multiplied the estimated costs by anticipated inflation factors developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Figure 14: Inflation Rates The resulting estimates indicate the TPO should anticipate project costs to increase by as much as 70% due to inflation. Projects that are scheduled to take many years, particularly if they are begun in the outer years of the plan, will cost more than projects that can be completed sooner. As shown in the Figure 15 below, the cost of a $6.5 million project could grow to a total of $11 million over the years it will take to plan, design, and construct. Figure 15: Example Project Cost Inflation Over Time 50

58 Mobility Assessment ANTICIPATED FINANCIAL RESOURCES In order to determine the limits of financial feasibility for evaluating the potential inclusion of Needs Plan projects in the Cost Feasible Plan, the project team developed projections of financial resources and revenues that are anticipated to be available by the Year of Expenditure (YOE). The revenue projections, which account for the effects of inflation over time, reflect committed and uncommitted transportation revenues expected to be generated at local and state levels, including funding sources dedicated to specific categories such as the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and maintenance/ operations activities. Total Available Revenues Total revenues for transportation improvements in the Space Coast TPO region are projected to be $4.3 billion for the years 2016 through As shown in the Figure 16 below, the remaining amount is expected to be allocated to specific projects or investment categories, such as the following: Over $2.3 billion, or roughly half of the total, is dedicated for Port Canaveral and Melbourne International Airport, both of which are expected to experience increased travel demand over the coming years. Because of the importance of the SIS to the State, FDOT is expected to program the bulk of its SIS and Federal Highway System (FIHS) funds in Brevard County to I-95 improvements. Several other categories of Federal and State funds are reserved for specific purposes such as the Transportation Enhancement grant program, which provides funding primarily for bicycle and pedestrian projects, and the Transit program. For local revenue sources in Brevard County, significant portions of future Local Option Gas Taxes (LOGT) are bonded through 2020 and 2037, and if not committed for debt, these revenues are policy committed by local governments for maintenance and operations purposes. These commitments effectively remove LOGT revenues from consideration for capacity improvement projects in the 2035 Cost Feasible plan. On a related note, the projections reflect the fact that local impact fees and other contributions toward transportation improvements are currently down due to economic conditions, but are likely to rebound over the long term. 51

59 Mobility Assessment Table 12: Revenue Estimates TOTAL (20 YEARS) State Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) State / Federal (Other Arterial & TMA) Local Funds (Transportation Impact Fees) Transit Funds Enhancement Funds Total $89 $- $133 $- $223 $121 $133 $141 $150 $545 $74 $75 $76 $78 $304 $44 $49 $55 $60 $209 $7 $8 $8 $8 $31 $335 $265 $414 $297 $1,312 Transportation Needs Versus Available Funds After accounting for revenues allocated to specific projects or programs, $1.28 billion is expected to be available for new projects in the 2035 LRTP. However, as stated earlier, the estimated total cost of projects in the 2035 Needs Plan is $1.84 billion, a $561 million deficit. Table 13: Transportation Needs vs Available Funds TRANSPORTATION NEEDS TRANSPORTATION FUNDS SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) State Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Regional Roads Other Corridors Multimodal / ITS / Operations Transit Total $382 $223 $(159) $656 $520 $(136) $292 $264 $(28) $62 $70 $8 $448 $209 $(239) $1,839 $1,286 $(554) 52

60 Mobility Assessment Figure 16: 2035 Transportation Needs vs. Transportation Funds 53

61 This page intentionally left blank.

62 2035 Cost Feasible Plan 2035 TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the transportation projects and programs selected for inclusion in the 2035 Cost Feasible Plan. Each section begins with a summary of relevant key objectives, issues, and conditions and concludes with recommendations for ongoing monitoring and assessment of goals and objectives; transportation infrastructure projects; and supportive policies and coordination activities COST FEASIBLE PLAN Balancing Capacity, Efficiency, and Modal Investments As described in Chapters 1 and 2, the 2035 LRTP was developed by a team of TPO staff and consultants in coordination with a technical advisory committee of staff from local regional and state agencies; citizen advisors; the general public; and local decisionmakers. Working together, the study team and the community developed and assessed anticipated transportation needs and weighed alternative transportation improvement strategies. The resulting 2035 Cost Feasible Plan includes a balanced array of projects that provide the best possible mobility and accessibility for the region s people and goods in the most cost-efficient manner. Key projects highlighted in the following maps include a select number of critical highway and transit capacity expansion projects, such as additional lanes and routes along major corridors, supported by a broad array of multi-modal strategies to improve traffic and transit operations, such as intersection signal coordination, roadway connectivity, transit service frequency, and pedestrian and bicycle route development. The plan includes strategic capacity expansions along a few selected corridors, but places the primary focus on making the existing system more efficient with a broad array of operational improvements and multi-modal investments. Two-thirds of the Needs Plan projects are funded, including projects along regional priority corridors such as I-95, the St. Johns Heritage Parkway, US 1 and US 192. Traffic volume forecasts indicate the need for additional lanes on I-95 between Malabar Road and SR 406 by However, current revenue forecasts show insufficient funds to widen the interstate from 6 to 8 lanes. The TPO, SCAT and local governments should begin to plan for future express bus service and other transit options to encourage mode shift on I-95 by Funding for such service can be a combination of federal, state, local and private resources. The travel demand on I-95 should be monitored closely in the future as changing economic, development and funding conditions may warrant implementation of transit options on I-95 at an earlier date. 55

63 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Map 15: Cost Feasible Roadway Projects 56

64 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Map 16: Cost Feasible Transit Projects 57

65 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Table 14: Cost Feasible State Strategic Intermodal System Projects STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM (SIS) FROM/ TO PROJECT PROJECT COST (2010 $'S) IMPLEMENTATION YEAR TOTAL COST I-95 I-95 Malabar Rd to Indian River County Volusia County to SR 406 Widen Freeway (4 to 6 lanes) Widen Freeway (4 to 6 lanes) $135,620, $135,620,000 $65,020, $79,272,000 Total Project Cost $200,640,000 $214,892,000 Total SIS Est. Revenue $222,610,000 Surplus/Deficit $7,718,000 58

66 2035 Cost Feasible Plan STATE / FEDERAL FUNDED CAPACITY PROJECTS St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Johns Heritage Parkway Interchange (North) Ellis Road St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Johns Heritage Parkway Interchange (South) South Street (SR 405) US 1 US 192 Babcock Street Babcock Street FROM/ TO US 192 to Malabar Rd John Rodes Blvd to US 192 at- I-95 / Ellis Rd John Rodes Blvd to Wickham Rd Babcock St to I-95 Interchange (South) I-95 Interchange (South) to Micco Rd at I- 95 (north of Micco Rd) Existing 4 lane section to State Road 50 Eyster Blvd to Pineda Causeway Wickham Rd to Dairy Road Malabar Rd to Foundation Park Foundation Park to New Parkway Interchange Malabar Road Babcock St to US 1 Malabar Road Babcock Street *St. Johns Heritage Parkway from US 192 to Malabar Road includes the section from Malabar to Pace Dr that will be constructed Minton Rd to St. Johns Heritage Parkway New Parkway Interchange to Indian River County Table 15: Cost Feasible Projects (State / Federal Funded) PROJECT New 4 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New Interchange (urban) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) New 4 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New Interchange (Mainline) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) PROJECT COST (2010 $'S) YEAR OF EXPENDITURE TOTAL COST $9,760, $11,899,000 $12,300, $14,996,000 $18,000, $21,946,000 $15,780, $19,239,000 $5,460, $6,657,000 $5,390, $ 6,571,000 $18,000, $21,946,000 $31,960, $ 43,318,000 $34,180, $35,361,000 $26,000, $38,933,000 $7,660, $11,609,000 $38,400, $58,199,000 $32,760, $49,651,000 $40,400, $69,276,000 $46,860, $82,755,000 Total Project Cost $342,910,000 $492,356,000 Total Est. Revenue (Other Arterials / TMS funds) $520,300,000 Surplus/Deficit $27,944,000 59

67 2035 Cost Feasible Plan LOCAL / DEVELOPER FUNDED CAPACITY PROJECTS Bombardier Blvd. Clearlake Road Culver Drive Fellsmere Connector Garvey Road Hollywood Blvd. Pirate Lane Powerline Road Table 16: Cost Feasible Projects (Local / Developer Funded) FROM/ TO St Johns Heritage Parkway to Degroodt Rd Michigan to Industry Emerson Dr to Palm Bay Rd San Filippo Dr. to SR 512 (Indian River County) Garbelmann Rd to Bombardier Rd US 192 to Palm Bay Rd Babcock St to Lipscomb St St Johns Heritage Parkway to Minton Rd PROJECT Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) PROJECT COST (2010 $'S) PROJECT COST (2010 $'S) EVELOPER TOTAL COST (LOCAL PORTION) $10,759,000 $4,203,000 $6,556,000 $6,644,000 $1,292,000 $5,352,000 $1,646,000 $ $1,646,000 New 4 Lane Road $115,569,000 $48,572,000 $66,997,000 Widen from 2 to 3 Lanes / New 3 Lane Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) $15,019,000 $2,922,000 $12,097,000 $40,237,000 $ $40,237,000 $11,371,000 $2,212,000 $9,159,000 New 2 Lane Road $34,626,000 $34,626,000 $ Powerline Road Minton Rd to Hollywood Dr. New 2 Lane Road $13,000,000 $2,530,000 $10,470,000 SR 524 St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Johns Heritage Parkway St. Andrews Stadium Parkway Turtlemound Rd Extension US 192 Viera Blvd. Viera Blvd. Interchange Washingtonian Extension I-95 Interchange (South) to Industry Rd Malabar Rd to Bombardier Rd Bombardier Rd to Babcock St Judge Fran Jamison to Stadium Pkwy Fiske Blvd to Viera Blvd Aurora Rd to Eau Gallie Blvd St Johns Heritage Parkway to Wickham Rd Herons Landing to Schenck Rd at- I-95 / Viera Blvd Wickham Rd to St. Johns Heritage Parkway Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) $13,000,000 $15,000,000 $17,932,000 New 4 Lane Road $25,699,000 $5,000,000 $20,699,000 New 4 Lane Road $40,133,000 $5,000,000 $35,133,000 New 4 Lane Road $16,618,000 $16,618,000 $ Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) $10,652,000 $10,652,000 $ New 2 Lane Road $6,012,000 $6,012,000 $ Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) New Interchange (urban) New 2 Lane Road (ROW for 4 Lanes) $40,390,000 $27,672,000 $12,718,000 $8,855,000 $8,855,000 $ $23,000,000 $23,000,000 $ $38,925,200 $15,198,000 $23,727,200 Total Project Cost $472,155,200 $229,364,000 $262,723,200 Total Est. Local Revenues $263,700,000 Surplus/Deficit $976,800 60

68 2035 Cost Feasible Plan OPERATIONS / ITS / MULTIMODAL CORRIDORS Babcock Street Table 17: Cost Feasible Operations/ITS/Multimodal Projects FROM/ TO US 192 to Malabar Rd PROJECT Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) PROJECT COST (2010 $ S) TOTAL COST $2,180,000 $2,986,600 Barnes Blvd. Fiske Blvd to US 1 Operations / ITS $500,000 $685,000 Columbia Blvd (SR 405) I-95 to US 1 Operations / ITS $630,000 $863,100 Dixon Blvd. Clearlake to US 1 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $380,000 $520,600 Eau Gallie Blvd. I-95 to Bridge Operations / ITS $1,510,000 $2,068,700 Eau Gallie Blvd. Bridge to SR A1A Operations / ITS $1,020,000 $1,397,400 Fiske Blvd. Fiske Blvd. SR 520 to Barnes Blvd Barnes Blvd to Stadium Parkway Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $1,790,000 $2,452,300 $2,300,000 $3,151,000 Garden St (SR 406) I-95 to US 1 Operations / ITS $630,000 $863,100 Hickory Road NASA Blvd to Hibiscus Blvd Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $250,000 $342,500 Malabar Road Minton Rd to Babcock St Operations / ITS $1,400,000 $1,918,000 Minton Road US 192 to Palm Bay Rd N. Babcock Street US 1 to US 192 N. Courtenay Parkway SR 528 to SR 520 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $1,450,000 $1,986,500 $700,000 $959,000 $2,330,000 $3,192,100 Palm Bay Road Minton Rd to RJ Conlan Operations / ITS $,750,000 $2,397,500 Post Road Wickham Rd to US 1 Operations / ITS $ 650,000 $890,500 Sheridan Road SR 520 SR 520 SR 520 SR 528 SR A1A SR A1A Wickham Rd to John Rodes Blvd I-95 to Hubert Humphrey Bridge Hubert Humphrey Bridge to SR A1A US 1 to Hubert Humphrey Bridge N. Courtenay Pkwy to Port Canaveral Port Interchange to One way split One way split to Pineda Causeway Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $850,000 $1,164,500 Operations / ITS $,500,000 $2,055,000 Operations / ITS $2,840,000 $3,890,800 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $500,000 $685,000 Operations / ITS $860,000 $1,178,200 Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $2,890,000 $3,959,300 $2,200,000 $3,014,000 61

69 2035 Cost Feasible Plan SR A1A US 1 OPERATIONS / ITS / MULTIMODAL CORRIDORS FROM/ TO Pineda Causeway to US 192 Garden St to Columbia Blvd (SR 407) PROJECT Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) PROJECT COST (2010 $ S) TOTAL COST $3,110,000 $4,258,000 Operations / ITS $2,620,000 $3,589,400 US 1 SR 528 to Eyster Blvd Operations / ITS $1,700,000 $2,329,000 US 1 Post Rd to RJ Conlan Operations / ITS $3,040,000 $4,164,800 US 1 US 1 Garden St. to Harrison RJ Conlan to Malabar Rd Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $1,100,000 $1,507,000 $800,000 $1,096,000 US 192 Bridge to SR A1A Operations / ITS $840,000 $1,150,800 US 192 Walden Blvd / Wyoming Drive Wickham Road St. Johns Heritage Parkway to Bridge Emerson Dr to Babcock St Parkway Dr. to Sarno Road Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) Multimodal Emphasis (w/ ITS) $2,750,000 $$3,767,500 $920,000 $1,260,400 $400,000 $548,000 Wickham Rd / Minton Road Sarno Rd to Malabar Rd Operations / ITS $2,100,000 $2,877,000 Total Project Cost $50,490,000 $69,171,300 Total Est. Revenue (Remaining OA / TMA ) $30,000,000 Total Est. Local Revenue $40,000,000 Surplus/Deficit $828,700 62

70 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Table 18: Cost Feasible Transit Projects TRANSIT ENHANCEMENTS FROM / TO PROJECT PROJECT COST (2010 $ S) YEARS TOTAL COST Route - 6 Cocoa / Rockledge Increase Frequency $1,200, $35,266,800 Route - 21 Melbourne Increase Frequency $1,000, $29,389,000 Route - 23 West Palm Bay Increase Frequency $1,000, $29,389,000 Route - 28 North Melbourne Increase Frequency $1,000, $29,389,000 New Route - Grissom Corridor Titusville / Cocoa New Route $2,700, $79,350,300 Total Project Cost $6,900,000 $202,784,100 Total Est. Revenue (Transit) $209,000,000 Surplus/Deficit $6,215,900 63

71 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Implementation Over Time As shown in the chart below, the plan is phased over a 20-year period. In the earlier years, the emphasis is on capacity expansions and operational improvements along key regional corridors, including the SIS. As these projects approach completion in later years, the emphasis shifts to regional roadway and transit investments. Table 19: Phasing of Cost Feasible Plan Allocations TOTAL (20 YEARS) State Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) State / Federal Funded Capacity Projects Local / Developer Funded Capacity Projects Multimodal / ITS / Operations Transit Total $215 $- $- $- $215 $109 $113 $134 $136 $492 $42 $65 $73 $80 $216 $38 $23 $- $- $62 $42 $47 $53 $60 $203 $446 $248 $261 $276 $1,232 64

72 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Map 17: Cost Feasible Plan by Implementation Period 65

73 2035 Cost Feasible Plan COST FEASIBLE PLAN SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS Reduced Future Per Capita Time in Traffic by More Than 60 Minutes a Day The combined effect of the Cost Feasible Plan improvements significantly reduces the impacts of future congestion on some key elements of regional transportation system performance. The increase in overall daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) would stay about the same, from 12 miles per person to 14 miles per person, but the anticipated heavy increases in the time spent traveling and sitting in traffic would be sharply reduced. With the improvements in the Cost Feasible Plan, the anticipated increase in Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) would be dramatically reduced by more than an hour. The estimated increase in daily VHT with no improvements other those in the current Transportation Improvement Plan is one hour and fifteen minutes (from 45 minutes to 1.5 hours per person). The results of the Cost Feasible plan bring this increase down to a total of ten minutes per person from 45 minutes per day in 2010 to 55 minutes per day in In other words, area residents will be able to use more than one hour of their day for time with family, at work or other activities instead of driving or riding a bus. The impacts of future congestion on the regional transportation system under the Cost Feasible Plan scenario are also dramatically better when it comes to anticipated increases in total Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD). Instead of sitting in traffic for an additional 45 minutes per day (from five minutes in 2010 to 50 minutes in 2035), area residents and truck drivers would experience an average of 7 additional minutes of daily delay (from 5 minutes in 2005 to 13 minutes per day in 2035). Table 20: Network Performance Measures EXISTING NETWORK (2005) COMMITTED NETWORK ( ) 2025 LONG RANGE PLAN ( ) 2035 NEEDS PLAN ( ) 2035 COST FEASIBLE PLAN ( ) Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per person 12.0 miles 14.4 miles 13.9 miles 13.9 miles 14.1 miles Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) per person 45 minutes 90 minutes 56 minutes 45 minutes 55 minutes Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) per person 5 minutes 50 minutes 15 minutes 8 minutes 13 minutes 66

74 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Figure 17: Cost Feasible plan VMT per person Figure 18: Needs plan VHT & VHD per person 67

75 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Map 18: Cost Feasible Plan System performance 68

76 2035 Cost Feasible Plan $53 Million Surplus Instead of $561 Million Shortfall The Cost Feasible Plan includes two-thirds of the Needs Plan projects, at a total cost of $1.21 billion. However, a strong emphasis has been placed on making cost-efficient operational improvements and leveraging funds. For example, more than half of the local corridor improvements are funded from an anticipated $200 million in developer commitments. In addition, several of the Needs Plan projects are being addressed with ITS, operational and multimodal strategies rather than more expensive capacity expansion projects. Key corridors to which this approach is applied include the following: Babcock Street SR A1A North Courtenay US 1 SR 528 The result is a plan that not only fits within the financial constraints of anticipated future revenues, but allows for a significant surplus. Compared to the Needs Plan, which, at a total cost of $1.84 billion would require an additional $561 million, or 44% more than the $1.28 billion in anticipated future revenues, the Cost Feasible Plan would require 5% less. Over time, this could free up $53 million that the TPO could consider allocating in future long-range plans to new transportation investments and programs. Table 21: Cost Feasible Plan $53 Million Surplus State Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Regional Roads Other Corridors Multimodal / ITS / Operations Transit Total TRANSPORTATION NEEDS TRANSPORTATION FUNDS COST FEASIBLE PLAN SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) $382 $223 $215 $8 $656 $520 $492 $28 $292 $264 $261 $3 $62 $70 $62 $8 $448 $209 $203 $6 $1,839 $1,286 $1,232 $53 69

77 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Figure 19: 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Results 70

78 Streets and Highways Element STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ELEMENT Roadway Network Key Objectives and Strategies Key objectives for improving the street and highway network over the coming 25 years are as follows: Enhance accessibility to regional economic generators and SIS / emerging SIS hubs (seaport, airport and spaceport); Improve the extent and continuity of the regional modal networks; Increase the number of transportation choices; Maintain the connectivity of intermodal hubs (seaport, airport, spaceport, transit and rail stations); Reduce system wide delay for cars, trucks and transit; Reduce corridor delay for cars, trucks and transit with traffic management; Improve reliability and predictability of travel; Improve real time traffic and transit information; Reduce greenhouse gas emissions; Improve street livability by providing more than one modal option; and Minimize adverse environmental and community impacts. Key strategies to address the objectives include the following: Optimize the current street and highway network with Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and Multimodal strategies; Strategic roadway widenings to improve access between economic generators and intermodal hubs; Disperse traffic across the network with new corridors and connections; and Increased multimodal emphasis with street design. 71

79 Streets and Highways Element Roadway Network Issues and Conditions As identified in the Mobility Assessment, the functionally classified roadway network is organized into three major categories: State Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) The SIS is a statewide network of highpriority transportation facilities defined by the Florida Department of Transportation. A large portion of federal and state funding sources are set-aside by FDOT to improve SIS facilities. Brevard s only SIS facilities are I-95 and SR 528. Regionally Significant Roadway Network The major arterial roadway network, defined by the TPO, provides inter-county access and connectivity between subareas. The TPO prioritizes the non-sis federal and state funds for improvements to this network. Non-Regional Roads The remaining functionally classified arterials and collectors providing access to and within a subarea. Improvements to these roads are primarily funded by local sources. Highlights of roadway conditions in 2005 are as follows: Because of the linear geography of Brevard County, total and per capita Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) tend to be higher than those of the larger region. The average weekday VMT was nearly 6.4 million, and the average VMT per person was 12. By comparison, per capita VMT in the larger region is about 9.5. Even though personal VMT tends to be high in Brevard, the availability of relatively high-speed roadways throughout the County allows nearly all of the population (95%) to live within 20 minutes of a major employment center or intermodal hub. The average weekday VHT was over 735,000, and the average trip time was 20 minutes. Nearly 92,000 of the 735,000 hours traveled (12.5 percent) were delayed because of congestion. The average amount of time spent in delayed conditions per person was less than 10 minutes. Even though some 13 percent of the total hours traveled were in congested conditions, only 6.1 percent of the network was congested on a daily basis. Nearly all of the congestion occurred on the SIS and the regional network. Congestion and travel delay are likely to worsen by the year For example, Interstate 95 is expected to reach a failing level of service, largely due to future development locating around the corridor and traffic is using I-95 as a main street. If no improvements beyond the 2015 committed projects were made, the amount of time spent in congested conditions by all drivers would likely rise significantly. The improvements in the 2035 Cost Feasible Plan reduce the levels of anticipated future congestion and travel considerably. 72

80 Streets and Highways Element Map 19: Year 2035 Congestion with commitments 73

81 Streets and Highways Element Street and Highway Recommendations Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Targets The TPO will rely on the following performance measures and targets to evaluate progress towards achieving its street and highway objectives. To ensure consistency of measurements over time, the TPO will set a current baseline data point for each measurement. Once that baseline is established, the TPO will update the measures and track progress annually as part of the State of the System Report targets. Objective: 1.1 Enhance accessibility to regional economic generators and SIS / emerging SIS hubs (seaport, airport and spaceport) Measure: Percent of total population living within 20 minutes commute of regional economic generators and SIS hubs Current Rate 2035 Target Rate Percent of Population 95% 95% Objective: 1.2 Improve the extent and continuity of the regional modal networks Measure: Number of Highway, Transit and Bicycle / Pedestrian Miles Highway lane miles (SIS / Regional Roads) Transit miles Bicycle miles Pedestrian miles Objective: 1.3 Committed Miles 2035 Target Miles ( 10%) Transit Element Bicycle / Pedestrian Element Bicycle / Pedestrian Element Increase the number of transportation choices Measure: Percent of total population with more than two convenient travel modal options (auto, transit, bicycle / pedestrian) Current Rate 2035 Target Average Percent of Population 33% 56% Objective: 1.4 Maintain the connectivity of intermodal hubs (seaport, airport, spaceport, transit and rail stations) Measure: Vehicle hours of Travel (VHT) on the system Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) per person Objective: 3.1 Current Rate 2035 Target 45 minutes 55 minutes Reduce system wide delay for cars, trucks and transit Measure: Vehicle hours of Delay (VHT) on the system Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) per person Objective: 3.2 Table 22: Street and Highway Objectives, Measures & Targets Without plan 2035 Target 50 minutes 15 minutes Reduce corridor delay for cars, trucks and transit with traffic management Measure: Percent of corridors actively monitored or managed Without plan 2035 Target Monitored / Managed lane miles 10 lane miles 240 lane miles 74

82 Streets and Highways Element Objective: 3.3 Improve reliability and predictability of travel Measure: Variability of travel time on priority corridors Current 2035 Target Percentage Data needs to be collected Objective: 3.5 Improve real time traffic and transit information Measure: Percent of travelers with access to real time traffic / transit information Current 2035 Target Percentage Data needs to be collected Objective: 4.1 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Measure: Per capita greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources Without plan 2035 Target Green house gas emissions per Data needs to be collected person Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) per person miles per person miles per person Objective: 4.2 Improve street livability by providing more than one modal option Measure: Multimodal / Complete Street designated corridors Current 2035 Target Miles of designated corridors 0 miles 30 miles Objective: 4.3 Minimize adverse environmental and community impacts Measure: Priority projects with adverse environmental / community impacts Current 2035 Target Miles of designated corridors Data needs to be collected 75

83 Streets and Highways Element Street and Highway Improvements To meet the transportation system goals and objectives listed above, the 2035 Cost Feasible Plan is focusing the Federal and State funds on the Regional Roadway Network with three approaches: Targeted Roadway Improvements; Operational Improvements, and Multimodal Improvements. Targeted Roadway Improvements The Targeted Roadway Improvements include selective roadway widening where there are no physical, policy or financial constraints on the corridor. Unconstrained corridors with a needed improvement were put forward into the cost feasible plan. Operational Improvements Constrained corridors with a future need were identified for operational and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements to optimize the mobility within the current configuration. The phasing strategy is to deploy ITS and operational improvements on major corridors by the year Multimodal Improvements Encourage multimodal system improvements in highly walkable key corridors to help shift mobility in Brevard STREET & HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS Targeted Roadway Improvements Complete I-95 widening Construct the St. Johns Heritage Parkway and interchange connections to I-95 with public / private partnerships. Widen US 1, US 192 & Malabar Road. Operational Improvements Optimize network efficiency on major corridors with intersection improvements and ITS. Multimodal Improvements SR A1A Babcock US1 Wickham Road N. Courtenay County to other modes. Figure 20 shows examples of the multimodal improvements that could be implemented on the SR A1A and Babcock Street corridors. The figures show how both corridors could be transformed to accommodate more bicycles and pedestrians within the existing right-of-way with wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes and landscaped medians. Ultimately with redevelopment the corridors could fully transform bringing buildings closer to the pedestrian environment completing the transformation to a complete street. 76

84 Streets and Highways Element Map 20: Cost Feasible Roadway Improvements 77

85 Streets and Highways Element Figure 20: Example Phasing of Multimodal Improvements in Walkable Areas Example 1: Current configurations of SR A1A, A four lane arterial with no bike lanes and insufficient sidewalks. Example 2: Reduced lane width, addition of bike lanes, landscaping, and wider sidewalks. Example 3: Future redevelopment of the corridor, bringing the build environment closer to the street to encourage more multimodal environment. 78

86 Streets and Highways Element Policy and Coordination Recommendations Land use and transportation policies that would optimize the performance gained by roadway network improvements include the following: Focus Federal and State money on the regional roadway network; Develop land use and transit strategies to shift travel demand from I-95 to other corridors and/or modes; and Continue to encourage public private partnerships to address transportation impacts from developments on the non-regional roadway network. Coordination strategies to advance planned roadway network improvements include the following: Address and identify transportation issues annually; Continue to coordinate with the Central Florida Metropolitan Planning Organizations and FDOT District 5 on regional transportation issues; and Coordination with local governments through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Growth Management Sub-committee. 79

87 This page intentionally left blank.

88 Transit System Element TRANSIT SYSTEM ELEMENT Transit System Key Objectives and Strategies The key transit objectives and strategies for the 2035 LRTP are drawn primarily from the Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) ten-year transit development plan (TDP). These include the following objectives: Gradually increase service to accommodate estimated future population growth; Shift ridership, whenever possible, from costly demand-response services to more cost-effective fixed-route systems; Improve the extent and continuity of the regional multi-modal network; Increase the number of transportation choices; Maintain connectivity to and among intermodal hubs (seaport, airport, spaceport, transit and rail stations); Reduce system wide delay for cars, trucks and transit; Reduce corridor delay for cars, trucks and transit with traffic management; Improve real time transit management; Improve real time traffic and transit information; and Improve community livability by expanding modal options, especially alternatives to the automobile, along key corridors The key strategies to address the objectives include the following: Increase frequencies on high performing routes; Provide new transit routes to underserved areas; Invest in technology to allow greater access to real time transit management and information; and Prioritize investments in transit routes and bicycle/pedestrian enhancements along key multimodal corridors. Transit Issues and Conditions Space Coast Area Transit maintains and operates public transit service in Brevard County. As documented in annual State of the System reports, SCAT ridership has increased significantly over the past 10 years. SCAT has also successfully shifted much of its ridership from costly demand response programs to more cost-efficient fixed route services over the past 10 years. 81

89 Transit System Element Annual transit ridership has more than doubled over the past ten years. Since the year 2000, fixed route ridership has increased by more than 300 percent; this is due in large part to the agency s strategy of shifting riders from demand response programs to fixed route services. Figure 21: Annual Transit Passenger Miles Source: Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) and the 2009 Space Coast TPO State of the System Report. Although SCAT has achieved impressive gains in total ridership and service efficiency, the agency is facing serious revenue shortfalls. The agency does not have sufficient funds even to keep operating the system at current levels. This level of financial uncertainty makes it very difficult to plan for expanded routes or increased service frequency. Transit System Recommendations Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Targets The TPO will rely on the following performance measures and targets to evaluate progress towards achieving its transit objectives. To ensure consistency of measurements over time, the TPO will set a current baseline data point for each measurement. Once that baseline is established, the TPO will update the measures and track progress annually as part of the State of the System Report targets. 82

90 Transit System Element Objective: 1.2 Improve the extent and continuity of the regional modal networks Measure: Number of Highway, Transit and Bicycle / Pedestrian Miles Committed Miles 2035 Target Miles Highway lane miles (SIS / Regional Street & Highway Element Roads) Transit miles 210 miles 221 miles (5%) Bicycle miles Bicycle / Pedestrian Element Pedestrian miles Bicycle / Pedestrian Element Objective: 1.3 Increase the number of transportation choices Measure: Percent of total population with more than two convenient travel modal options (auto, transit, bicycle / pedestrian) Current Rate 2035 Target Average Percent of Population 33% 56% Objective: 1.4 Maintain the connectivity of intermodal hubs (seaport, airport, spaceport, transit and rail stations) Measure: Vehicle hours of Travel (VHT) on the system Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) per person Objective: 3.1 Current Rate 2035 Target 45 minutes 55 minutes Reduce system wide delay for cars, trucks and transit Measure: Vehicle hours of Delay (VHT) on the system Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) per person Objective: 3.2 Current Rate 2035 Target 9 minutes 15 minutes Reduce corridor delay for cars, trucks and transit with traffic management Measure: Percent of corridors actively monitored or managed Current 2035 Target Monitored / Managed lane miles 10 lane miles 240 lane miles Objective: 3.4 Improve real time transit management Measure: Percent of transit routes with real time monitoring or management Percentage Objective: 3.5 Current Data needs to be collected Improve real time traffic and transit information 2035 Target Measure: Percent of travelers with access to real time traffic / transit information Percentage Objective: 4.2 Table 23: Transit Objectives, Measures & Targets Current Data needs to be collected 2035 Target Improve street livability by providing more than one modal option Measure: Multimodal / Complete Street designated corridors Current 2035 Target Miles of designated corridors 0 miles 30 miles 83

91 Transit System Element Transit System Improvements To meet the transit system goals and objectives listed above, the 2035 Cost Feasible Plan focuses the limited projected resources for transit on enhancing higher-performance routes and adding services to underserved areas (Map 21). Increased Frequency Increased service frequency is planned for Routes 6, 21, 23, and 28. New Routes / Expansion As identified in the ten-year transit development plan, supplemented by public input for the 2035 LRTP, there is a need for new transit routes to four underserved areas of Palm Bay, Titusville and areas outside the County. However, the limited projected funds for public transit will support only one of the four recommended routes, which connect Titusville to Cocoa via Grissom Road. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Increased Frequency Route 6 (Cocoa / Rockledge) Route 21 (Downtown Melbourne) Route 23 (West Palm Bay) Route 28 (North Melbourne). New Routes / Expansion Grissom Road Corridor (Titusville / Cocoa) 84

92 Transit System Element Map 21: Cost Feasible Transit Improvements 85

93 Transit System Element Policy and Coordination Recommendations Land use and transportation policies that would optimize the performance gained by transit network improvements include the following: Facilitate coordinated planning among the TPO, SCAT and local governments to add more fixed route and express bus services in order to increase the Countywide percentage of trips taken by transit; Focus Federal and State funds on the regional roadway network which will provide the greatest benefit to transit operations and performance; Provide transit enhancements through complete street projects; Encourage land use and design that complement transit usage on designated multimodal corridors; and Encourage and participate in Statewide initiatives on Regional High Speed Rail and Passenger Rail, including station area and Transit Oriented Design (TOD) planning in Brevard County. Coordination strategies to advance planned roadway network improvements include the following: Source: Florida High Speed Rail Florida Department of Transportation / Florida Rail Enterprise. Identify and address transit issues as part of the annual SOS report; Coordinate plans and programs with Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT); and Coordinate plans and programs with local governments through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Growth Management Sub-committee. 86

94 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN AND TRAILS ELEMENT Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Key Objectives and Strategies For many years, the TPO has been involved with providing technical assistance to local governments to plan and program bicycle, pedestrian and trail projects. Key objectives for incorporating more bicycle, pedestrian and trail facilities into the transportation network through the year 2035 include the following: Inventory the existing bicycle and pedestrian network; Improve the extent and continuity of the regional modal networks; Increase the number of transit choices; and Improve community livability by expanding modal options, especially alternatives to the automobile, along key corridors. Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues and Conditions For the 2035 LRTP, the study team updated an extensive inventory of the existing sidewalk network and bicycle facilities (paved shoulders or marked lanes), originally developed in Maps 22 and 23 display the existing sidewalk and bicycle network in Brevard County. Detailed maps identifying the sides of the streets on which facilities are located can be found in the Technical Appendix. 87

95 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element Map 22: Existing Sidewalk and Trail Network 88

96 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element Map 23: Existing Bicycle and Trail Network 89

97 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Recommendations Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Targets The TPO will rely on the following performance measures and targets to evaluate progress towards achieving its bicycle, pedestrian and trails objectives. To ensure consistency of measurements over time, the TPO will set a current baseline data point for each measurement. Once that baseline is established, the TPO will update the measures and track progress annually as part of the State of the System Report targets. Table 24: Bicycle/Pedestrian Objectives, Measures and Targets Objective: 1.2 Improve the extent and continuity of the regional modal networks Measure: Number of Highway, Transit and Bicycle / Pedestrian Miles Committed Miles 2035 Target Miles Highway lane miles (SIS / Regional Street & Highway Element Roads) Transit miles Transit Element Bicycle miles 246 miles 300 miles (20% increase) Pedestrian miles 306 miles 375 miles (20% increase) Trails Miles 17 Miles 50 miles (350% increase) Objective: 1.3 Increase the number of transportation choices Measure: Percent of total population with more than two convenient travel modal options (auto, transit, bicycle / pedestrian) Current Rate 2035 Target Average Percent of Population 33% 56% Objective: 3.4 Improve real time transit management Measure: Percent of transit routes with real time monitoring or management Current 2035 Target Percentage Data needs to be collected Objective: 3.5 Improve real time traffic and transit information Measure: Percent of travelers with access to real time traffic / transit information Current 2035 Target Percentage Data needs to be collected Objective: 4.2 Improve street livability by providing more than one modal option Measure: Multimodal / Complete Street designated corridors Current 2035 Target Miles of designated corridors 0 miles 30 miles 90

98 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element Bicycle, Pedestrian & Trails System Improvements To meet the bicycle and pedestrian objectives listed above, the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element of the 2035 Cost Feasible Plan is focused on enhancing both on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as trails throughout Brevard County. Key projects are displayed on Maps 24 and 25. The limited transportation enhancement funds available to the TPO are allocated to the regional showcase trail network, which encompasses nearly 200 miles of planned greenways throughout the County. Many of the other projects and strategies identified in this element will be funded by local or outside sources. However, the Space Coast TPO maintains a strong focus on bicycle and pedestrian planning in Brevard County. For example, the TPO staffs a regional bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee; supports the Safe Route to School program; and organizes several local bicycle education rallies each year. In addition, the TPO is committed to advancing the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities through projects such as multimodal improvements to regional roadways and bridges. BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN / TRAILS FOCUS AREAS Regional Trails The TPO will continue to prioritize the Regional Showcase Trails with Federal enhancement funds and other available sources. Alternative Commuter Bike Routes The TPO will work with local governments to designate key corridors as alternative commuter bike routes. Proposed roadway improvements that enhance bicycle access along these corridors will be given additional weight in the selection criteria for projects to be included in the annually updated Project Priorities. Regional Connectors The TPO will assign additional weight to projects that address gaps in the regional bicycle and pedestrian network when evaluating projects for inclusion in the annually updated Project Priorities. Regional Trails East Central Florida Regional Rail Trail Brevard Zoo Trail South Brevard- Al Tuttle Trail North Merritt Island Trail St. Johns River Eco-Heritage Trail East Central Florida Regional Rail Trail Sea loop Trail Sidewalk Strategy Areas Multimodal Corridors Community Redevelopment Areas (CRA) High Demand Areas Palm Bay Green Link Alternative Commuter Bike Routes Regional Connectors (regional gaps in the bike / ped network) Safety High Crash Locations Safe Routes to Schools 91

99 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element Safety Improvements In addition to prioritizing improvements in locations with high rates of bicycle and pedestrian crashes, the TPO will continue to utilize the Safe Routes to Schools program as a resource for filling critical gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network. Sidewalk Strategy Areas The TPO will advance improvements to high demand / sidewalk strategy areas with multimodal and complete street projects, as shown on the following conceptual example for SR A1A. Multimodal / Complete Streets Example Project SR A1A Multimodal and Complete Streets improvements can often be incorporated within the existing right-of-way as part of a corridor improvement project. As an example, the study team sketched conceptual improvements that could be made to the SR A1A corridor north of State Road 520 in order to advance multimodal access and complete street elements. Existing Corridor The first image shows SR A1A in its current configuration: a four-lane undivided arterial with buildings set far back from the street and the sidewalk. Sidewalks, Landscaping & Median Adding wider sidewalks, a bicycle lane, and a landscaped median within the existing right-of-way provides a safer, more pleasant experience for all roadway users, including drivers. Land Use and Design With design concepts complementing the multimodal nature of the corridor, buildings can eventually be brought closer to the street to create a more vital, inviting public realm. 92

100 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element Map 24: Regional Trails Plan 93

101 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element Map 25: Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan 94

102 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Element Policy and Coordination Recommendations Land use and transportation policies that would optimize the performance gained by bicycle and pedestrian network improvements include the following: Strengthen partnerships with local governments to implement multimodal improvements along designated corridors, which supports the TPO s objective to shift automobile traffic to other modes as well as community livability; Consider allocating a higher percentage of the TPO s federal funding allocations to bicycle, pedestrian and trail improvements; Advocate a change in the functional classification of State Road 528 and the Pineda Causeway (between US 1 and A1A) from limited access to arterial, which would allow for bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and Advocate for the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in bridge replacements. Coordination strategies to advance planned roadway network improvements include the following: Identify and address bicycle and pedestrian issues in the annual SOS report; Continue to staff the TPO Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Advisory Committee (BPTAC); and Continue to coordinate bicycle and pedestrian planning and programming with the TPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). 95

103 This page intentionally left blank.

104 Freight and Goods Movement Element FREIGHT AND GOODS MOVEMENT ELEMENT Freight and Goods Movement Key Objectives and Strategies The key objectives for movement of freight and goods in the 2035 LRTP are as follows: Enhance accessibility to regional economic generators and SIS / emerging SIS hubs (seaport, airport & spaceport); Improve the extent and continuity of the regional modal networks; Maintain the connectivity of intermodal hubs (seaport, airport, spaceport, transit and rail stations); Reduce system wide delay for cars, trucks and transit; Reduce corridor delay for cars, trucks and transit with traffic management; Improve reliability and predictability of travel; and Improve real time traffic and transit information. The key strategies to address the objectives include the following: Optimizing the regional street and highway network with Intelligent Transportation System (ITS); Strategic roadway widenings to improve access between economic generators and intermodal hubs; and Dispersing traffic across the network with new corridors and connections. Freight and Goods Movement Issues and Conditions The free flow of freight and goods is essential to the County s economic vitality, particularly during the current economic downturn and the uncertainty over NASA s future status as a regional employment hub. The County s primary freight hubs are Port Canaveral, the FEC rail yard in Cocoa and the Melbourne International Airport. Each is located adjacent to a SIS facility. Freight movement occurs primarily on the SIS and the Regionally Significant Roadway Network. Shippers also use the Class II FEC rail line to move products such as newly manufactured automobiles, rock and stone aggregate, and piggybacked intermodal services (United Parcel Service and commercial trailers). Congestion levels on the Freight and Goods Movement Corridors are relatively minor with the network only six percent congested. As documented in the mobility section, truck traffic on the SIS network has decreased over the past five years. This is largely due to the economic downturn facing the entire nation, as well as the construction activity on I-95 over the past three years. 97

105 Freight and Goods Movement Element Figure 22: Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT on SIS and Regional Roads ( in millions) Figure 23: Truck Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT on SIS and Regional Roads Source: 2009 Space Coast TPO State of the System Report. 98

106 Freight and Goods Movement Element Projected increases in traffic congestion could have a dramatic impact on freight and goods movement in the County. The 2035 LRTP and previous plans have all identified the need for more capacity on I-95. However, there are no plans to increase the capacity of I-95 beyond the six lanes currently under construction. Similarly, future projections have identified a need for State Road 528 to be widened to six lanes in order to improve access to Port Canaveral. However, with two bodies of water to cross, the project is costprohibitive and construction funding would be well beyond the 2035 horizon of this plan. Given the difficulty of advancing costly roadway expansion projects, the TPO is placing a strong focus in the 2035 LRTP on strategies that can reduce congestion by making the existing system more efficient. Freight and Goods Movement Recommendations Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Targets The TPO will rely on the following performance measures and targets to evaluate progress towards achieving its freight and goods objectives. To ensure consistency of measurements over time, the TPO will set a current baseline data point for each measurement. Once that baseline is established, the TPO will update the measures and track progress annually as part of the State of the System Report targets. Table 25: Freight Goods Objectives, Measures and Targets Objective: 1.2 Improve the extent and continuity of the regional modal networks Measure: Number of Highway, Transit and Bicycle / Pedestrian Miles Committed Miles 2035 Target Miles Highway lane miles (SIS / Regional (10%) Roads) Transit miles Transit Element Bicycle miles Bicycle / Pedestrian Element Pedestrian miles Bicycle / Pedestrian Element Objective: 1.4 Maintain the connectivity of intermodal hubs (seaport, airport, spaceport, transit and rail stations) Measure: Vehicle hours of Travel (VHT) on the system Current Rate 2035 Target Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) per person 45 minutes 55 minutes Objective: 3.1 Reduce system wide delay for cars, trucks and transit Measure: Vehicle hours of Delay (VHT) on the system Current Rate 2035 Target Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) per person 9 minutes 15 minutes 99

107 Freight and Goods Movement Element Objective: 3.5 Improve real time traffic and transit information Measure: Percent of travelers with access to real time traffic / transit information Current 2035 Target Percentage Data needs to be collected Objective: 3.2 Reduce corridor delay for cars, trucks and transit with traffic management Measure: Percent of corridors actively monitored or managed Current 2035 Target Monitored / Managed lane miles 10 lane miles 240 lane miles Objective: 3.3 Improve reliability and predictability of travel Measure: Variability of travel time on priority corridors Current Percentage Data needs to be collected 2035 Target Freight and Goods Movement Network Improvements IMPROVEMENTS ON FREIGHT AND GOODS NETWORK To meet the transportation system goals and objectives listed above, the 2035 Cost Feasible Plan focuses on two key approaches for the use of federal and state roadway improvement funds: Targeted Roadway Improvements; and Operational Improvements. Targeted Roadway Improvements The evaluation criteria for project prioritization and selection in the annually updated Transportation Improvement Program emphasize the importance of connecting the County s intermodal and employment centers to the State Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and to one another. Operational Improvements Targeted Roadway Improvements Complete I-95 widening Widen Strategic Segments of US 1, US 192, SR 405 & SR 524. Operational Improvements Optimize network efficiency on major corridors with intersection improvements and ITS. The TPO will seek to reduce delay for all roadway users, particularly shippers, by optimizing the efficiency of key corridors with intersection improvements and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) strategies. 100

108 Freight and Goods Movement Element Map 26: Cost Feasible Improvements on the Freight and Goods Network 101

109 Freight and Goods Movement Element Policy and Coordination Recommendations Transportation policies that would optimize the performance gained by freight and goods improvements include the following: Focus federal and state funds on the County s regional roadway network in order to facilitate the movement of freight and goods as well as people. Coordination strategies to advance freight and goods improvements include the following: Identify and address freight and goods movement issues through the annual SOS report. Incorporate findings and recommendations from the Spaceport Area Study. Continue to coordinate with the key freight and goods stakeholders by encouraging participation on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) from representatives of Port Canaveral; Space Florida (spaceport); freight and passenger rail representatives and Melbourne International Airport. 102

110 Congestion Management Element CONGESTION MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Congestion Management Key Objectives and Strategies Key congestion management objectives the 2035 LRTP include the following: Enhance accessibility to regional economic generators and SIS / emerging SIS hubs (seaport, airport & spaceport); Improve the extent and continuity of the regional modal networks; Maintain the connectivity of intermodal hubs (seaport, airport, spaceport, transit and rail stations); Reduce system wide delay for cars, trucks and transit; Reduce corridor delay for cars trucks and transit with traffic management; and Improve reliability and predictability of travel. The key strategies to address the objectives include the following: Optimizing the regional street and highway network with Intelligent Transportation System (ITS); Strategic roadway widenings to improve access between economic generators and intermodal hubs; and Dispersing traffic across the network with new corridors and connections. Congestion Management Issues and Conditions Required by Federal regulations for all Transportation Management Areas, a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is an essential part of the transportation planning and programming process. The CMP primarily focuses upon current and short-term congestion issues to be addressed by the TPO through the annual Transportation Improvement Program. Toward this end, the Space Coast TPO has been monitoring congestion on the Federal Aid network through the annual State of the System Report for over a decade. Based upon SOS findings and recommendations, the TPO updates relevant technical rankings and project prioritization processes for the 5 year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Currently the region is not facing significant congestion issues, a situation due in part to the success of the TPO s CMP. Only 6% of the roadway network currently operates in congested conditions at peak hours. This is a dramatic reduction from 2006, when 16% of the network was congested. Only 3% of the congested roadway conditions last for more than one hour. Again, this is a significant drop from 2006, when 40% of peak hour congestion lasted an hour or more. Traffic volumes have decreased in the County since 2006 due to the global economic downturn, which accounts for part of the drop in the severity of network congestion. However, some of the success can be attributed to the TPO s deployment of operational 103

111 Congestion Management Element strategies, such as the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements on Wickham Road in This project, the County s first foray into the use of ITS strategies, has been extremely successful. The before and after results can be found in the 2008 State of the System report, and have encouraged the TPO to focus more of its resources away from expensive roadway widening projects and toward strategies that optimize the efficiency of the existing network. The ITS improvements were deployed on a 5.6 mile segment of Wickham Road, a congested north / south major arterial that parallels I-95 and US1. The project included microwave cameras at 13 signalized intersections. The results of the investment included the following: A 25% reduction in total travel time; A 50% reduction in travel time variability; A 60% reduction in the number of stops per trip; and Greater overall consistency of travel speed. The overall result of the improvements was a much smoother traffic flow along the corridor. This reduction in stop-start traffic, where vehicles vary speed greatly from one stop to the next, not only improves overall travel time, but also improves corridor safety and reduces carbon emissions from vehciles that are idling or making quick accellerations Congestion Management Recommendations Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Targets The TPO will rely on the following performance measures and targets to evaluate progress towards achieving its congestion management objectives. To ensure consistency of measurements over time, the TPO will set a current baseline data point for each measurement. Once that baseline is established, the TPO will update the measures and track progress annually as part of the State of the System Report targets. 104

112 Congestion Management Element Table 26: Congestion Management Objectives, Measures and Targets Objective: 1.1 Enhance accessibility to regional economic generators and SIS / emerging SIS hubs (seaport, airport and spaceport) Measure: Percent of total population living within 20 minutes commute of regional economic generators and SIS hubs Current Rate 2035 Target Rate Percent of Population 95% 95% Objective: 1.2 Improve the extent and continuity of the regional modal networks Measure: Number of Highway, Transit and Bicycle / Pedestrian Miles Committed Miles 2035 Target Miles Highway lane miles (SIS / Regional ( 10%) Roads) Transit miles Transit Element Bicycle miles Bicycle / Pedestrian Element Objective: 1.3 Increase the number of transportation choices Pedestrian miles Bicycle / Pedestrian Element Measure: Percent of total population with more than two convenient travel modal options (auto, transit, bicycle / pedestrian) Current Rate 2035 Target Average Percent of Population 33% 56% Objective: 1.4 Maintain the connectivity of intermodal hubs (seaport, airport, spaceport, transit and rail stations) Measure: Vehicle hours of Travel (VHT) on the system Current Rate 2035 Target Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) per person 45 minutes 55 minutes Objective: 3.1 Reduce system wide delay for cars, trucks and transit Measure: Vehicle hours of Delay (VHT) on the system Current Rate 2035 Target Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) per person 9 minutes 15 minutes Objective: 3.2 Reduce corridor delay for cars, trucks and transit with traffic management Measure: Percent of corridors actively monitored or managed Current 2035 Target Monitored / Managed lane miles 10 lane miles 240 lane miles Objective: 3.3 Improve reliability and predictability of travel Measure: Variability of travel time on priority corridors Current Percentage Data needs to be collected 2035 Target Objective: 3.5 Improve real time traffic and transit information Measure: Percent of travelers with access to real time traffic / transit information Current 2035 Target Percentage Data needs to be collected 105

113 Congestion Management Element Congestion Management Improvements To meet the congestion management objectives listed above, the 2035 Cost Feasible Plan is focusing its federal and state transportation funds on projects that optimize the performance of the Regional Roadway Network, such as operational improvements and Intelligent Transportation System strategies as well as multimodal improvements. IMPROVEMENTS TARGETED FOR THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS Operational Improvements Optimize network efficiency on major corridors with intersection improvements and ITS. Operational Improvements and ITS Improvements Optimizing corridor efficiency with intersection improvements and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) effectively reduces congestion for all roadway users. 106

114 Congestion Management Element Map 27: Cost Feasible Improvements for Congestion Management 107

115 Congestion Management Element Policy and Coordination Recommendations Transportation policies that would optimize the performance gained by implementing congestion management strategies include the following: Conduct studies to determine the potential effectiveness of ITS and operational solutions before programming costly roadway expansion projects. Add ITS and operational strategies to the evaluation criteria for project prioritization and programming in the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Coordination strategies to advance planned roadway network improvements include the following: Continue to identify and address congestion management strategies through the SOS report and the TPO Congestion Management Plan. Provide a forum for coordinating operational improvements among Brevard County ITS managers and municipal roadway maintenance agencies. 108

116 Transportation System Safety Element TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SAFETY ELEMENT The Federal 2005 Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) mandates that MPOs develop a Safety Element as part of their Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs). This legislation recognizes safety as a separate planning factor, and it is indeed a crucial ongoing issue. Statistics bear this out. Further, the Florida Department of Transportation established a State Safety Office to focus on how the state can reduce crashes. The Space Coast TPO has always made safety a top priority, and has taken a number of steps to monitor the safety of the transportation network in Brevard County and to fund needed safety improvements. The TPO and staff are actively involved in coordinating with other agencies responsible for monitoring and responding to crashes and in coordinating with the state on safety planning. This Transportation Safety Element of the LRTP begins with the safety goals and objectives adopted by the TPO to guide how the agency intends to address safety in future years. The second section reports on how Brevard County has fared in comparison with other areas of the state and country regarding safety. Results show the County is doing comparatively well, but improvements are still needed. The third section identifies the strategies the TPO will use to monitor the overall safety and safety improvements annually. System Safety Objectives and Strategies Improving safety and security of the transportation system in Brevard is one of the TPO s four major goals. The key objectives to meet this goal are as follows: Reduce crashes and injury rates for all modes; Improve crash response and clearance times; Improve the region s ability to monitor safety and security; Improve safety awareness among pedestrians and bicyclists; and Improve the safety and security of the transit system. These objectives are designed to help the TPO target its safety monitoring systems and its funding priorities. Performance measures and targets for each objective are identified in Table 31 to enable the TPO to mark success. These measures and targets will be incorporated into the annual State of the System report and will guide future updates of the LRTP. 109

117 Transportation System Safety Element System Safety Issues and Conditions The State Office of Safety continually reviews statewide crash statistics. This agency has identified four types of safety problems that account for most of the crashes and fatalities across Florida (Table 27). The Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan focuses its attention on those four areas (Figure 24). Consistent with the statewide approach, the TPO focuses its monitoring of crashes on the roadway network on these four target areas. In partnership with Brevard County, the Space Coast TPO compiles crash data as part of the annual State of the System report. Gathered from local crash reports, this information helps identify roadway segments with recurring safety issues. Table 27: Critical Transportation Safety Problems in Florida Figure 24: Florida's Traffic Safety Target Areas 110

118 Transportation System Safety Element The report identifies crash rates based on the total number of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled. Factors such as crash locations, times of day, and fatality rates are also maintained in the crash database and are further analyzed, as needed, to help identify crash mitigation measures. The most recent TPO safety assessment was in 2010 (2010 State of the System Report identifying 2009 conditions), as summarized in the map and table below. Key findings included the following points: The County-wide crash rate of 1.84 crashes per million vehicle miles of travel was 35 percent lower than the 2008 rate of 2.81 crashes per million vehicle miles of travel. The road segments with the highest crash rates in 2009 were Eau Gallie Boulevard from Causeway to US 1 and US 1 from US 192 (Strawbridge Ave.) to New Have Ave in Melbourne. These locations also reported relatively high crash rates in

119 Transportation System Safety Element Map 28: High Crash Locations 112

120 Transportation System Safety Element There is an important caveat to these findings, however. As shown in Table 28 and 29, a fair amount of variability from one year to the next regarding both the frequency and locations of crashes throughout the County. For example, about half of the top ranked high-crash segments in 2009 were not among the top 20 high-crash segments in In addition, there were 358 reported crashes on the top 20 segments in the 2009 report, but the 2008 report for these same segments reported 508 crashes a difference of 30%. This variability is due in part to problems with data quality and consistency, which the TPO will address in the coming year by updating its crash data sources and assessment software. There is also a complex array of factors that influence transportation safety, which makes it somewhat difficult for the TPO to clearly identify long-term trends and to pinpoint needed improvements. Table 28: 2009 Table of High Crash-Rate Roadway Segments 2009 Rank 2008 Previous Year Rank Segment From / To Crash 2008 Crashes Rate 2009 Crashes 2009 Crash Rate 1 5 EAU GALLIE (WB Only) Pineapple-Highland US 1 New Haven-Strawbridge DIXON Plaza Ent-US US 192 New Haven-Pine US 1 SR 520-Peachtree SR AIA Marion-SR EAU GALLIE (WB Only) Highland-US CLEARLAKE Otterbein-N. Wal-Mart Ent WICKHAM Fountainhead-Sarno SR AIA St Lucie-Marion SR 520 (US 1-Causeway (EB)) US 1-Forrest US 1 (NB Washington) South-Main EAU GALLIE (EB Only) US 1-Highland EAU GALLIE Stewart Av-US US 192 Wickham-Dayton SR 520 (Causeway-US 1 (WB)) Delannoy-Brevard HOLLYWOOD Henry-US NASA Babcock-Apollo SR 520 (US 1-Causeway (EB)) Brevard-Delannoy MINTON EMERSON-PALM BAY Crashes per million vehicles on roadways with volume greater than 10,000 vehicles per day 113

121 Transportation System Safety Element Table 29: 2008 Table of High Crash-Rate Roadway Segments 2008 Rank Segment From / To 2008 Crashes 2008 Crash Rate 2009 Crash Dif 2009 Crash Rate Dif 1 SR 406 (GARDEN) Hopkins-Washighton (17) (105.5) 2 SR 520 (US 1-Causeway (EB)) Brevard-Delannoy (39) (90.9) 3 SR 520 (Causeway-US 1 (WB)) Delannoy-Brevard (21) (44.2) 4 EAU GALLIE (WB Only) Highland-US (40) (33.5) 5 EAU GALLIE (WB Only) Pineapple-Highland (1.7) 6 SR 520 (US 1-Causeway (EB)) Forrest-Brevard (24) (23.9) 7 EAU GALLIE (EB Only) Highland-Pineapple (11) (23.6) 8 SR 520 (Causeway-US 1 (WB)) Brevard-Forrest (25) (21.5) 9 US 1 New Haven-Strawbridge (4) (4.7) 10 EAU GALLIE (EB Only) US 1-Highland (11) (8.3) 11 SR AIA Marion-SR (7) (4.5) 12 SR AIA St Lucie-Marion (13) (5.3) 13 PALM BAY Riviera-Babcock (28) (9.7) 14 EAU GALLIE Stewart Av-US (14) (4.3) 15 SR 520 (Causeway-US 1 (WB)) Forrest-US (7) (8.5) 16 NASA Babcock-Apollo (7) (5.3) 17 N. COURTENAY S Ramps-N Ramps SR (20) (12.3) 18 SR 520 (US 1-Causeway (EB)) Delannoy-Riveredge (15) (6.3) 19 US 1 (SB Hopkins) Main-South (15) (9.5) 20 US 1 (NB Washington) South-Main (4) (2.2) National and Statewide Assessments In addition to the data collected and summarized by the TPO, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) summarizes traffic fatality data nationally using a number of measures. Information from the most recent NHTSA reports is summarized in the maps and tables below. Generally, Brevard compares favorably to other counties across the country in regards to the four safety target areas identified by the Florida State Highway Safety Program. The rankings place the County in the middle third of all US counties for overall fatal crash rates, and the middle to lower third for the other three target measures. Table 30: Brevard County Crash Rates Compared to All U.S. Counties FSHSP TARGET AREA NHTSA MEASURE BREVARD COUNTY PLACEMENT WITHIN RANKINGS OF ALL US COUNTIES Overall safety Fatal crashes Middle third Aggressive driving Intersection crashes Vulnerable road users Lane departure crashes Fatalities in crashes involving speeding Fatalities in crashes involving intersections Motorcyclist fatalities Pedestrian fatalities Pedalcyclist fatalities Fatalities in crashes involving roadway departure Lower third Middle third Middle third Middle third Lower third Lower third 114

122 Transportation System Safety Element Figure 25: Florida Crash Rates 115

123 Transportation System Safety Element System Safety Recommendations Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Targets The TPO will rely on the following performance measures and targets to evaluate progress towards achieving its system safety objectives. To ensure consistency of measurements over time, the TPO will set a current baseline data point for each measurement. Once that baseline is established, the TPO will update the measures and track progress annually as part of the State of the System Report targets. 116

124 Transportation System Safety Element Objective: 2.1 Reduce crashes and fatalities by 10 percent for each priority crash type by 2035 Measure: Crashes by type per million vehicle miles traveled Priority Crash Types Current Rate 2035 Target Rate Aggressive driving Data needs to be collected Intersection crashes Data needs to be collected Vulnerable road users Data needs to be collected Lane departures Data needs to be collected Measure: Crash fatalities by type per million vehicle miles traveled Priority Crash Types Current Rate 2035 Target Rate Aggressive driving Data needs to be collected Intersection crashes Data needs to be collected Vulnerable road users Data needs to be collected Lane departures Data needs to be collected Objective: 2.2 Reduce average response times by 10 percent for each priority crash type Measure: Average crash response and clearance times by crash type Priority Crash Types Current Average 2035 Target Average Aggressive driving Data needs to be collected Intersection crashes Data needs to be collected Vulnerable road users Data needs to be collected Lane departures Data needs to be collected Objective: 2.3 Increase the number or roadway miles under surveillance by 50 percent Measure: Number of roadway miles under surveillance Current 2035 Target Surveyed Facilities Data needs to be collected Objective: 2.4 Table 31: Safety Objectives, Measures and Targets Maintain the current number of pedestrian and bicycle events held annually Measure: Number of TPO sponsored bike and pedestrian educational events Current 2035 Target Annual events Data needs to be collected Objective: 2.5 Increase the percentage of surveyed parents who believe child is safe walking or biking to school Measure: Number of surveyed parents who believe child is safe walking or biking to school Current 2035 Target Percentage Data needs to be collected Objective: 2.6 Improve safety and security of transit system Measure: Percentage of surveyed passengers who believe transit stops are safe Current 2035 Target Percentage Data needs to be collected Measure: Percentage of surveyed passengers who believe transit vehicle is safe Current 2035 Target Percentage Data needs to be collected Objective: 2.7 Improve ability to evacuate during an emergency event with reduced clearance times and increased capacity during evacuations Measure: Clearance times Current 2035 Target Clearance Time Data needs to be collected Measure: Evacuation Roadway Capacity Current 2035 Target Vehicle Miles of Capacity (VMC) Data needs to be collected outbound 117

125 Transportation System Safety Element System Safety Improvements With its ability to direct state and federal transportation funding, the TPO can directly influence how and where safety improvements are made in the County. The TPO sets aside a portion of its TIP funds each year for intersection, traffic operations and safety improvements. Localities and other agencies, including the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST), work with the TPO to identify specific safety improvement needs, projects and programs for inclusion in the project priorities. This process has worked well and the TPO will continue to use it in future years. The improved crash data will enhance the TPO s ability to assess and prioritize needed safety improvements. In addition, the 2035 LRTP reflects an increased emphasis on transforming existing roadways into multimodal corridors. The objective for these corridors is to create complete streets, where walking, biking and riding transit are as convenient and safe as driving. SAFETY OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES ( FOUR E S FOR SAFETY) Objective: Engineering. Identify and target areas for crash reduction Complete short term, low cost improvements to address safety. Objective: Enforcement Identify and target enforcement campaigns in geographic areas to address Speeding Red light running Alcohol Impairment Aggressive and careless driving Conduct public awareness campaigns on speeding and aggressive driving. Objective: Education Develop and implement public information programs. Bicycle safe riding techniques School safety in walking to schools New and existing traffic laws Designated driver programs Elderly driver education Crash safety issues Objective: Emergency Medical Services Develop and implement public information campaigns targeted to inform public about importance of yielding right of way to emergency vehicles. Yielding right of way to emergency vehicles. Safety strategies are part and parcel of many complete street improvements, ranging from dedicated bike lanes and sidewalk/street buffers to access management strategies and improved pedestrian crossings. As part of the development of complete street improvement projects, the TPO will collect baseline data regarding safety issues and other travel information. This will allow for before-and-after comparisons of the benefits of complete street improvements. 118

126 Transportation System Safety Element Policy and Coordination Recommendations The TPO actively participates in the Brevard Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST), which includes individuals representing law enforcement, emergency management, transportation planning and traffic engineering, medical services and others. The CTST reviews safety concerns and promotes traffic safety programs. The Brevard CTST is represented in the State CTST Coalition. Following the FDOT District 5 Safety Guidance the Space Coast TPO should coordinate their safety activities through a Safety Committee. Different agencies within the TPO area for the purposes of producing and reviewing the following products annually: Confirming data availability for safety analysis in support of the Safety Element and Annual Safety Report; Developing the annual safety process schedule for the Safety Element when it is done as part of the LRTP and annual safety report; Developing or updating goals, objectives and performance measures for the safety element and Annual Safety Report; Developing or updating safety project prioritization criteria; Developing safety product that consider and include the Four E s previously discussed; and Recommending safety funding sources, amounts and funding partnerships, both public and private. 119