A Presentation to: Project Advisory Group Meeting #5

Transcription

1 A Presentation to: Project Advisory Group Meeting #5 February 25, 2015

2 Agenda Introductions Action items from last PAG meeting (January 28, 2015) Public involvement update Summary of Public kick-off events including City of Deltona, February 2, 2015 Summary of Community Liaison Group meeting February 11, 2015 Status of April public meetings dates, locations, notices Final Purpose and Need statement Preliminary mode screening results Status of initial corridor screening Next steps Discussion ProjectSolve access 2

3 3 Action Items

4 Action Items from Last Meeting I-4 improvements Verify median width south of St. Johns River bridge on-going Verify if I-4 Beyond the Ultimate improvements are included in the regional transportation model: PB/AECOM Public outreach Post summary of public kick-off events on web site: PB Initial mode screening Provide industry-standard cost per mile comparisons: PB Review screening measures: PAG members Initial corridor and viable alternatives 4

5 5 Public Involvement Update

6 Public Involvement Update Public kickoff events Community Liaison Group April public meetings 6

7 Overall Summary Public Kickoff Events Displays: Study Area Map, Goals and Objectives, Alternative Transit Modes Interacted with 45 to 50 people p Received 7 written comment Distributed 92 copies of Newsletter #1 Orange City, December 5, 2014 DeBary, December 6, 2014 Daytona Beach, December 7, 2014 Volusia County, December 10, 2014 City of Deltona, February 2,

8 Comments: Public Kickoff Events Orange City Traffic/congestion along Saxon and U.S. 17/92 to access SunRail station How will people get from Orange City to SunRail? SunRail is needed in DeLand earlier than planned High-speed alternatives may be viable; others may not due to lack of development Bike trails should be considered as part of this study 8

9 Comments: Public Kickoff Events Orange City Provide a monorail from downtown Orlando along I-4 to Daytona Beach Not a lot of traffic between DeLand and Daytona Beach U.S. 92 should be good for next 10 years Does current ridership support SunRail? Ensure that tax dollars provide options for urban areas and relief for low density areas 9

10 Public Kickoff Events DeBary What is the study about? Where can I get more information? When will there be weekend service along SunRail? When will Phase 2 North to DeLand begin operation? What is the frequency of Votran service in Deltona? 10

11 Public Kickoff Events Daytona Beach Not interested in transit Prefer to drive cars Volusia County needs mass transit from Daytona Beach to Orlando to Tampa to Miami People e that travel to Orlando for work need transit Great idea the more transit the better Provide SunRail to Daytona 11

12 Public Kickoff Events Volusia County Study should consider all four modes Improve coordination between Votran and LYNX to provide better connectivity Howland Avenue and Graves Avenue need transit connections to I-4 Rail lines will not work without feeder buses 12

13 Public Kickoff Events Volusia County 13 Prefer to drive than wait on transit Transit service takes too long Support SunRail Phase 2 North; Private shuttle service(s) to supplement Votran Volusia needs rail service Even if better transit were available, I still would drive because transit does not take me where I want to go. This is a great idea. I completely support transit.

14 Public Kickoff Events Deltona Want either rail or bus transit in Volusia Definitely a needed transportation asset Light rail would benefit local students Need detour signage if there is an accident on I-4 by the St. Johns River Weekend SunRail service Recommend the use of buses on I-4 Deltona needs more connection to SunRail SunRail should connect to Daytona International Airport and the I-95 to SR 415 road connection 14

15 Public Kickoff Events Deltona Votran has limited service in West Volusia; increase headways Need a multi-modal facility in Deltona for SunRail Spend road tax money in Deltona! Central Florida needs more public transportation, connecting Volusia, Seminole, e, and Orange Counties Study is greatly needed West side of the county is under-served 15

16 Community Liaison Group Broad cross-section of the community Including community members, business groups, environmental groups, and other special interest groups Meet quarterly or as needed d at key milestones in the study Provide community-based input to the Project Advisory Group Assist with overall public outreach helping to Spread the Word about the study, distribute study newsletters, and help announce upcoming public events and meetings 16

17 Kickoff meeting held February 11, members attended Community Liaison Group Study introduction and overview Described our approach to public outreach Reviewed study schedule, activities to date and upcoming open houses 17

18 Community Liaison Group CLG comments/discussion items Develop a message for the CLG can use Articulate the benefits of enhanced transit How can this project affect you? Are there opportunities for private funding associated with land development/re-development? Consider setting up project displays in CLG member offices Use graphics to illustrate various transit modes being considered Discussed the evaluation of potential environmental impacts Discussion i regarding I-4 envelope and competing projects Is there a no build or no action alternative 18

19 Community Liaison Group CLG comments/discussion items (continued) Not all transportation needs are being met by current transit system University students, socio-economic, transit-dependent, disadvantaged, tourists) Connectivity should be part of the message not just a faster, better way to get to Daytona Transit travel times can be long and service not always coordinated between Votran and SunRail 19

20 Community Liaison Group: Action items Schedule the next meeting prior to the April open houses Develop a message about the study/project Provide graphics and materials for CLG members to use in their offices Send PAG roster to CLG members 20

21 Upcoming April Public Meetings 3 open houses along the study corridor 6pm 8pm Wednesday, April 15th Sanborn Community Center DeLand, FL 6pm 8pm 6pm 8pm Tuesday, April 14th Daytona State College Daytona Beach, FL Thursday, April 16th Florida Hospital FISH Memorial Orange City, FL We need your help to SPREAD THE WORD 21 Place newsletters and event flyers on your agency/group FaceBook/Twitter If you have a website, please help promote meetings by placing the notice on your website/event calendar Send blasts of the events/meetings to people/groups you know

22 22 Purpose and Need Statement

23 To provide increased transportation choices and better serve the transitdependent population in Volusia County, an expanded premium transit investment in the Study Area is needed. This transit improvement should improve access to employment and other major trip attractions; help alleviate congestion; improve safety on I-4, U.S. 17/92, and U.S. 92 and major local roadways; and serve as a stimulus for transit-oriented development. The final identified improvement should be adopted into local, state and regional plans, and be cost-effective with minimal social and environmental impacts. 23

24 24 Updated 2040 Data

25 350, and 2040 Population from CFRPM (updating using the 2040 LRTP socioeconomic data) 300,000 Additional by ,000 Population 200,000 P150, ,000 50, Location

26 160, and 2040 Employment from CFRPM (updating using the 2040 LRTP socioeconomic data) 140,000 Additional by , Employment 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, Location

27 27

28 28 Preliminary Mode Screening Results

29 Preliminary Mode Screening SunRail Extension Light Rail Transit Streetcar Monorail/People Mover Bus Rapid Transit Express Bus Local Bus Enhancements Commuter Rail Streetcar Light Rail Transit People Mover Monorail Bus Rapid Transit 29 Express Bus Local Bus

30 Commuter Rail Best Serves: Serves medium to long distance trips Line Length: 20 to 70 miles Stop Spacing: 2 to 10 miles apart Passenger Capacity: Serves moderate to high passenger volume Typically 2,000 to 20,000 per hour one-way Commuter Rail: Non powered passenger cars pulled by Right-of-Way: Can use existing tracks jointly with other railroad equipment locomotives; or diesel multiple units (self propelled). Tri Rail; Miami, FL System Example: SunRail, Tri-Rail 30

31 Light Rail Transit Best Serves: Short, medium to long distance trips Line Length: 5 to 40 miles Stop Spacing: 0.5 to 2 mile apart Passenger Capacity: Moderate to high passenger volume Typically 8,000 to 25,000 per hour one-way Light Rail: uses overhead power collection. MTA of Harris County (Metro); Houston, TX Right-of-Way: May operate in traffic, with crosstraffic, or on exclusive right-of-way Cannot operate jointly with freight trains or other railroad equipment System Example: Charlotte, Dallas 31 Light Rail: uses overhead power collection. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, San Diego, CA

32 Streetcar Best Serves: Short to medium distance trips Line Length: <15 miles Stop Spacing: 1 to 2 blocks apart Passenger Capacity: Moderate passenger volume Typically 1,000 to 12,000 per hour one-way Streetcar: uses overhead power collection. Sound Transit; Tacoma, WA Right-of-Way: May operate in traffic, with cross-traffic, or on exclusive right-of-way Cannot operate jointly with freight trains or other railroad equipment System Example: Portland, Tampa 32 Streetcar: uses overhead power collection. TriMet; Portland, OR

33 Monorail/Automated People Mover Best Serves: Short to medium length trips Line Length: 2 to 15 miles Stop Spacing: 0.5 to 1 miles apart Passenger Capacity: Medium to high passenger volumes Typically 5,000 to 15,000 per hour oneway Automated train system with control/supervision from central control center. Miami Dade Transit; Miami, FL Right-of-Way: Must be grade separated Can operate on an elevated guideway 33 System Example: Disney, Las Vegas Monorail Walt Disney World Resort; Orlando, FL

34 Best Serves: Primarily serves medium and long distance trips Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stop Spacing: 5 to 20 miles apart Passenger Capacity: Serves medium passenger volumes Typically 6,000 to 10,000 per hour one-way BRT: Lane Transit District;Eugene,OR Right-of-Way: Operates in traffic or within an exclusive right-of-way System Example: LYMMO, Cleveland 34 BRT: Regional Transit Commission; Las Vegas, NV

35 Express Bus Best Serves: Medium to long distance trips Line Length: 10 to 50 miles Stop Spacing: 1t to 3 miles apart Passenger Capacity: Low to medium passenger volumes Typically 4,000 to 6,000 per hour one-way Right-of-Way: May operate in traffic or within an exclusive right-of-way Express Bus: Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority; Pinellas County, FL System Example: Miami (I-95 Express) 35

36 Local Bus Best Serves: Short to medium length trips Line Length: Varies Stop Spacing: 0.2 to 0.5 miles apart Passenger Capacity: Serves low to medium passenger volumes Typically 1,000 to 2,000 per hour one-way Right-of-Way: Uses existing roadway, mixed traffic Local Bus: BrowardCounty Transit; Broward County, FL System Example: Votran, LYNX 36

37 Initial Mode Screening Criteria Consistency with the study area s operating environment and existing rights-of-way Flexibility in providing regional connectivity Availability of the mode from multiple vendors Maturity of the mode Expandability of the mode Appropriate capacity to serve demand Impact of mode footprint t on surrounding environment Capital and operating cost of mode 37

38 Preliminary Mode Screening Rating System Thresholds IsitConsistentwith theoperating Environment? Compatible with Travel Characteristics Community Acceptance IsitFlexibleto to Provide Regional Connectivity? Existing and Future Expansion Can it be Competitively Is the Technology Proven? Procured? Availability of Modes from Multiple Vendors Maturity of Mode Reliability High Mode is highly applicable to address corridor travel demand Service characteristics are common and at an appropriate scale for corridor application Compatibility of mode results in little or no disruption to the operating system and community Adequate number of vendors for a nonproprietary design Proven technology based upon many years of operation Low implementation risk/many systems in operation throughout the U.S. Medium Mode is moderately applicable to address corridor travel demand Service characteristics are minimally responsive to the corridor Mode compatibility causes minimal disruption to the operating system and community Moderate number of vendors for a nonproprietary design Technology continues to evolve Moderate implementation risk/few systems in operation throughout the U.S. Low Mode is not appropriate application to address travel demand Service characteristics are uncommon and not an appropriate scale for corridor application Mode is not compatible and causes significant disruption to the operating system and community Limited number of vendors and proprietary design Relatively new technology High implementation risk/with no systems in operation throughout the U.S. 38

39 Preliminary Mode Screening Rating System Is the Capacity Appropriate to Serve Demand? Will it Integrate Well into the Community? What is the Cost? Thresholds Supportive Land use (Pop/Emp density) Expansion Environmental Sustainable Right of Way Requirements Capital O&M High Adequate mode capacity for corridor passenger volumes High operational flexibility to respond to capacity needs Low disruption to the existing environment Does not require additional rightof way and roadway reconfiguration Low conceptual capital cost investment Low operating expense Medium Minimal mode capacity for corridor passenger volumes Moderate operational flexibility to respond to capacity needs Minimal disruption to the existing environment Requires minimal right of way and moderate roadway reconfiguration Moderate conceptual capital cost investment Moderate operating cost Low Mode capacity is not adequate for corridor passenger volumes Low operational flexibility to respond to capacity needs Significant disruption to the existing environment Requires additional rightof way for transit improvement High conceptual capital cost investment High operating cost 39

40 Mode Preliminary Mode Screening Results Is it Consistent with the Operating Environment? Is it Flexible to Provide Regional Connectivity? Compatible Community Existing and Future LRT typically with Travel Acceptance Expansion Characteristics provides multiple stop Commuter Rail (SunRail Extension) service within an Light Rail Transit urbanized corridor. Streetcar Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) Monorail Bus Rapid Transit Express Bus Streetcar, AGT and Monorail modes serve more as local circulators. Local Bus High 3 Medium 2 Low 1

41 Mode Preliminary Mode Screening Results Can it be Competitively Procured? Availability of Modes from Multiple Vendors Is the Technology Proven? Maturity of Mode Reliability Commuter Rail (SunRail Extension) Light Rail Transit All modes exhibit minimal implementation risk based upon years of proven service. Streetcar AGT and Monorail have Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) limited number of Monorail suppliers due to relatively few systems Bus Rapid Transit in operation. Express Bus Local Bus High 3 Medium 2 Low 1

42 Preliminary Mode Screening Results Mode Is the Capacity Appropriate to Serve Demand? Supportive Land use (Pop/Emp density) Expansion Will it Integrate Well into the Community? Environmental Sustainable Right of Way Requirements Commuter Rail (SunRail Extension) Light Rail Transit Streetcar Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) Land use not supportive of LRT, Streetcar and AGT/Monorail modes. Additional ROW needed for LRT, AGT/Monorail. Monorail Population/ employment densities not supportive of LRT and AGT/Monorail modes. Bus Rapid Transit employment Express Bus Local Bus High 3 Medium 2 Low 1

43 Preliminary Mode Screening Results What is the Cost? Mode Capital O&M Commuter Rail (SunRail Extension) 1 1 Light Rail Transit 1 1 Streetcar 2 1 Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) 1 2 Monorail 1 1 High per mile capital costs for Commuter rail, LRT, AGT and Monorail High operating cost for Commuter Rail, LRT, AGT and Monorail Bus Rapid Transit 3 3 Express Bus 3 3 Local Bus High 3 Medium 2 Low 1

44 Preliminary Mode Screening Results Summary Mode Score Advance Mode for Corridor Segment Evaluation Commuter Rail (SunRail Extension) 24 Yes Light Rail Transit 19 No Streetcar 21 Yes Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) 16 No Monorail 15 No Bus Rapid Transit 36 Yes Express Bus 36 Yes Local Bus 36 Yes 44 High 3 Medium 2 Low 1

45 45 Initial Corridor Analysis Segments

46 46 South to Seminole

47 Mode Applicability to Corridor Segments South to Seminole MODE CORRIDOR CSX I-4 RATIONALE Local Bus No No No local bus on rail track or freeway Express Bus No Yes Envelope on I-4 could be used by bus Bus Rapid Transit No Yes Envelope on I-4 could be used by bus Commuter Rail Yes No Connection south of river difficult due to grade differential with existing SunRail corridor and envelope on I-4 in Seminole County Streetcar No No Cannot share CSX track; lack of development along both CSX and I-4 47

48 48 DeBary to DeLand

49 Mode Applicability to Corridor Segments DeBary to DeLand MODE CORRIDOR CSX I-4 US 17/92 RATIONALE Local Bus No No Yes No local bus on rail track or freeway Express Bus No Yes Yes Envelope on I-4 could be used by bus Bus Rapid Transit No Yes Yes Envelope on I-4 could be used by bus Commuter Rail Yes? No SunRail extension to DeLand planned; rail could be developed in I-4 envelope, but probable restricted cross section Streetcar No No No Cannot share CSX track; insufficient development density Note:? denotes possible applicability pending further analysis 49

50 50 SunRail to I-4

51 Mode Applicability to Corridor Segments SunRail to I-4 CORRIDOR MODE Dirksen Utility Highbanks Saxon SR 472 RATIONALE Local Bus Yes No Yes Yes Yes Can operate on any of the roadways Express Bus Yes? Yes Yes Yes Can operate on any of the roadways Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Rail Yes? Yes No Yes No? No No? Can operate on any of the roadways, though bus lanes not possible; possible busway in utility corridor Commuter rail in utility corridor a possibility; perhaps SR 472 as well Streetcar No No No No No East-west movement doesn t serve major development density to support streetcar Note:? denotes possible applicability pending further analysis 51

52 52 DeLand

53 DeLand Mode Applicability to Corridor Segments CORRIDOR MODE SR 44 SR 44/ Woodland/ US 92 SR 44/ Spring Garden/ US 92 RATIONALE Local Bus Yes Yes Yes Can operate on any of the roadways Express Bus Yes Yes Yes Can operate on any of the roadways Bus Rapid Transit Yes Yes Yes Commuter Rail No No No Can operate on any of the roadways, though h bus lanes not possible No exclusive corridor available for commuter rail Streetcart No No No Streetcar t would reduce traffic capacity Note:? denotes possible applicability pending further analysis 53

54 East West Connection 54

55 Mode Applicability to Corridor Segments East West Connection MODE CORRIDOR US 92 I-4 RATIONALE Local Bus No No Insufficient development density for local bus stops Express Bus Yes Yes Envelope in I-4 could be used by bus Bus Rapid Transit No Yes Envelope in I-4 could be used by bus, but only intermediate stops along I-4 Commuter Rail No? Envelope in I-4 could be used, but probable restricted cross section Streetcar No No Insufficient development density Note:? denotes possible applicability pending further analysis 55

56 56 West Daytona

57 Mode Applicability to Corridor Segments West Daytona CORRIDOR MODE US 92 US 92/ Williamson/ Midway I-4/ Williamson/ Midway I-4/ Beville/ RATIONALE Local Bus Yes No No No Express Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Bus Rapid Transit Yes Yes Yes Yes Commuter Rail No??? Streetcar No No No No Note:? denotes possible applicability pending further analysis Assume local bus focused on US 92 Assumed terminus at new Intermodal Station BRT could extend further east to downtown Use of I-4 grade separation off US 92 Insufficient development density 57

58 58 East Daytona

59 Mode Applicability to Corridor Segments East Daytona MODE US 92 CORRIDOR McLeod Egram/ Beville/ Bethune US 1 US 1 RATIONALE Local Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Existing Votran service Express Bus No No No No Local or BRT service more applicable given development density and need for multiple stops Bus Rapid Transit Yes Yes Yes Yes Bus lanes on six-lane section of US 92 could be applicable Commuter Rail No No No No No existing rail corridor to use Streetcar??? No Note:? denotes possible applicability pending further analysis ISB Study did not recommend streetcar treatment, but sufficient development density for mode 59

60 60 Status of Initial Corridor Screening

61 Initial Corridor Screening Rating System Goal 1: Improve Transportation Mobility, Accessibility and Safety in Study Area Initial Corridor Screening Measure Thresholds Population within 1/2 mile Employees within 1/2 mile Transit dependent population within 1/2 mile Number of connections to local and regional transit service, and to regional airports V/C ratio on roadways where transit would operate Number of signalized intersections traversed Proximity to Daytona Speedway Number of other sport/community event venues within 1/4 mile Percent of corridor with parallel sidewalk and bicycle connections High Serves areas with high population density Serves areas with high employment density Serves areas with high presence of transit dependent population High number of connections to local and regional transit service, and to regional airports High travel time reliability for longer trips Low number of signalized intersections traversed Close proximity to Daytona Speedway High number of sport/community event venues served Good parallel sidewalk and bicycle connections Medium Serves areas with moderate population density Serves areas with moderate employment density Serves areas with moderate presence of transitdependent population Moderate number of commections to local and regional transit service, and to regional airports Moderate travel time reliability for longer trips Moderate number of signalized intersections traversed Moderate proximity to Daytona Speedway Moderate number of sport/community event venues served Moderate parallel sidewalk and bicycle connections Low Serves areas with low population density Serves areas with low employment density Serves areas with low presence of transit dependent population Low number of commections to local and regional transit service, and to regional airports Low travel time reliability for longer trips High number of signalized intersections traversed Does not directly serve Daytona Speedway Low number of sport/community event venues served Deficient parallel sidewalk and bicycle connections Note: Specific value ranges for high, medium, and low designation will be identified once measures are applied 61

62 Initial Corridor Screening Rating System Goal 2: Develop a Transportation System that is the Most Efficient, which Leverages Limited Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit Initial Corridor Screening Measure Percent of corridor on Thresholds Available right of way Application of Mode existing roadway rightof way for transit improvement Evaluation Criteria High Corridor does not require right of way acquisition Corridor with available right of way for transit improvement. Does not required roadway reconfiguration Highest mode applicable to corridor is commuter rail or BRT Medium Corridor requires some parcels of land to be acquired Corridor with some right of way for transit improvement. Requires some roadway reconfiguration Highest mode applicable to corridor is streetcar or express bus Low Requires many parcels of land to be acquired Corridor with no available right of way for transit imrpovement Highest mode applicable to corridor is local bus Note: Specific value ranges for high, medium, and low designation will be identified once measures are applied 62

63 Initial Corridor Screening Rating System Goal 3: Preserve and Enhance the Quality of the Environment and Cultural Resources Initial Corridor Screening Measure Thresholds Percent of corridor adjacent to residences and businesses Percent of corridor adjacent to historic districts Number of contaminated sites adjacent to corridor Percent of corridor adjacent to environmentally sensitive lands High Corridor exppected to have minimal impact to residences and businesses Corridor expected to have minimal impact to historic districts Low presence of contaminated sites along corridor Corridor expected to have minimal impact to environmentally sensitive lands Medium Corridor expected to have moderate impact to residences and businesses Corridor expected to have moderate impact to historic districts Moderate presence of contaminated sites along corridor Corridor expected to have moderate impact to environmrntally sensitive alnds Low Corridor expected to have a significant impact to residences and businesses Corridor expected to have significant impact to historic districts High presence of contaminated sites along corridor Corridor expected to have significant impact to environmentally sensitive lands Note: Specific value ranges for high, medium, and low designation will be identified once measures are applied 63

64 Initial Corridor Screening Rating System Goal4: Stimulate Transit Oriented and OverallEconomic Development Initial Corridor Screening Measure Thresholds Number of Planned new developments directly served in corridor Linear miles through designated economic development areas Conceptual capital cost estimate base on length Proximity to natural/cultural tourist attractions High Serves majority of planned new developments Serves designated economic development areas Low conceptual capital cost investment Close proximity to natural/cultural tourist attractions Medium Serves some planned new developments Serves some economic development areas Moderate conceptual capital cost investment Moderate proximity to natural/cultural tourist attractions Low Does not serve planned new developments Does not serve economic development areas High conceptual capital cost investment Does not serve natural/cultural tourist attractions Note: Specific value ranges for high, medium, and low designation will be identified once measures are applied 64

65 Initial Corridor Screening Rating System Goal 5: Relieve Traffic Congestion on Regional and Local Roadway System Thresholds Initial Corridor Screening Measure Number of miles transit operates on roadways with LOS E/F Reduction in roadway capacity High Corridor does not utilize congested roadways Transit improvement expected to have minimal impact in roadway capacity Medium Someofthe of corridorutilizes congested roadways Transit improvement expected to have moderate impact in roadway capacity Low Transit improvement The majority of the corridor expected to have significant utilizes congested roadways impact ti in roadway capacity Note: Specific value ranges for high, medium, and low designation will be identified once measures are applied 65

66 DeBary to DeLand Segment Sample Evaluation Initial Corridor Screening Objective Measure Goal 1: Improve Transportation Mobility, Accessibility and Safety in Study Area Improve service to areas with densities supportive of transit Improve service to areas with transit dependent population Improve connectivity between transportation systems and increase opportunities for future local and regional transit services Reduce transit travel time for longer distance trips Accommodate the added variable travel demands associated with special events Provide safe, multi modal access to the transit system DeBary to DeLand Segment CSX U.S. 17/92 I Population within 1/2 mile Employees within 1/2 mile Transit dependent population within 1/2mile Number of connections to local and regional transit service, and to regional airports V/C ratio on roadwayswhere where transit would operate Number of signalized intersections traversed Proximity to Daytona Speedway Number of other sport/community event venues within 1/4 mile Percent of corridor with parallel sidewalk and bicycle connections 1 Amtrak station and SunRail connection station 5 Votran bus routes (145 bidirectional stops), North connection to DeLand Intermodal Station Votran connections along routes 21, 22, 23, 32, and 33 (45 bi directional stops) within 3/4 miles of I 4 ramps N/A Northernmost point: miles Southernmost point: il Northernmost point: miles Southernmost point: il Northernmost point: miles Southernmost i 29 2 il miles miles point:29.25 miles % 67% 0% 66

67 DeBary to DeLand Segment Sample Evaluation Objective Initial lcorridor Screening Measure DeBary to DeLand Segment Goal 2: Develop a Transportation System that is the Most Efficient, which Leverages Limited Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit CSX U.S. 17/92 I 4 Maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and infrastructure Percent of corridor on existing roadway right of way Percent of corridor with available right of way for transit improvement 100% 100% 100% 100% 25% 100% Develop transportation options that use proven transportation modes suitable to the Study Area Application of mode evaluation criteria Highest mode applicable Commuter Rail Highest mode applicable BRT Highest mode applicable BRT 67

68 DeBary to DeLand Segment Sample Evaluation Objective Initial Corridor Screening Measure DeBary to DeLand Segment Goal 3: Preserve and Enhance the Quality of the Environment and Cultural Resources CSX U.S. 17/92 I 4 Percent of corridor adjacent to residences and businesses 23% 63% 37% Minimize potential adverse impact on residences, businesses, and the build environment Percent of corridor adjacent to historic districts Number of contaminated sites adjacent to corridor 0% 6% 0% None 15 petroleum sites in various states of assessment and/or cleanup; 1 chlorinated pesticide site with documented contamination None Minimize potential adverse impacts on the natural environment Percent of corridor adjacent to environmentally sensitive land 93% 23% 66% 68

69 DeBary to DeLand Segment Sample Evaluation Objective Initial Corridor Screening Measure DeBary to DeLand Segment Goal 4: Stimulate Transit Oriented and Overall Economic Development CSX U.S. 17/92 I 4 Provide transit investments supportive of City and County development/ redevelopment and land use plans Number of planned new developments directly served in corridor Linear miles through designated economic development areas Maximize the economic benefits gained from transit capital investments Conceptual capital cost estimate based on length 235K 60K 53K Promote ecoturism and use of cultural resources Number of natural/cultural tourist attractions within 1/2 mile 0 1 natural attraction; 9 cultural attractions 0 69

70 DeBary to DeLand Segment Sample Evaluation Objective Initial Corridor Screening Measure DeBary to DeLand Segment Goal 5: Releive Traffic Congection on Regional and Local Roadway System CSX U.S. 17/92 I 4 Increase the transit mode share of trips made within the County and external to adjacent areas Number of miles transit operates on roadways with LOS E/F Develop transit infrastructure improvements that will facilitate transit usage without undue increase in roadway traffic congestion or reduction in safety Reduction in roadway capacity Minimal Significant Moderate 70

71 DeBary to DeLand Segment Sample Evaluation DeBary to DeLand ds Segment # of Measure Ratings CSX U.S. 17/92 I DeBary to DeLand Segment with Scoring Applied* CSX U.S. 17/92 I * 3 High (Green) 2 Medium (Yellow) 1 Low (Red) 71

72 Initial Observations CSX corridor is No-Build (Phase 2 SunRail north) Both U.S. 17/92 and I-4 score higher than CSX multiple build corridors to carry forward Do we want to weight importance of goals, or objectives to refine evaluation? High, Medium, Low ratings based on ranges values of measures only for segment 72

73 73 Next Steps

74 Next Steps Continue with Initial Mode and Corridor Screening Prepare for public meetings in April Next PAG Meeting: March 25, 2015, 1:30 PM 74

75 75 Discussion

76 ProjectSolve Secure internet-based sharing point Invitation login instructions PAG members folder: PAG Meetings CLG Meetings Public Meetings Technical Working Group Meetings Project Deliverables 76

77 77 ProjectSolve

78 78 ProjectSolve

79 79 ProjectSolve

80 General Discussion/Questions