pawg meeting #9 - sr 436 transit corridor study...jul 11, 2018 · c2
TRANSCRIPT
PAWG
Meeting #9
July 11, 2018
LYNX Central Station, 2nd Floor Open Area1
2
Which alternatives best meet our goals and objectives?
2017 2018Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov 2018 Mar May Jul Sep Nov
What are the issues, opportunities, and objectives?
What are our alternatives?
Which alternatives do we want to move forward?
How can we best fund and implement the preferred alternative?
Schedule
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
3
Ongoing Work
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Ongoing
Tasks
TASKS ONGOING
/11
4
1 - Project Management
11 - Health Impact Assessment
Ongoing Tasks
8 – Alternatives Review
2 - Public Outreach
7 – Ridership Modeling
6 - Traffic Impact/Access Study
10 – Funding Program Eval.
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Ongoing
Tasks
TASKS ONGOING
/11
5
1 - Project Management
11 - Health Impact Assessment
Ongoing Tasks
8 – Alternatives Review
2 - Public Outreach
7 – Ridership Modeling
6 - Traffic Impact/Access Study
10 – Funding Program Eval.
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Community
Events
EVENTS
6
Fern Park SuperStop Pop-Up
OIA SuperStop Pop-UpRecent Events
Curry Ford Pop-Up
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Full Sail University Pop-Up
Bravo Supermarket Pop-Up
Orlando D2 Community
Meeting
Altamonte Springs
Rhythms at the Roost
MetroQuest Survey
7
150+SURVEY RESPONSES
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
8
Traffic Impact Analysis
OIA
Curry Ford
Red Bug Lake
SR 50
SR
43
4
I-4
Hoffner
Aloma
SR 408
26 Study
Intersections
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Potential Mitigations
9
Add turn lanesOptimize signal timing
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Comparison of Alternatives
10
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Comparison of Alternatives
11
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
+5 MIN
(+7-25%)
12
+4 MIN
(+6-20%)
ALT. C1
Travel time impacts
20-60MIN*
EXISTING SIGNAL DELAY: 21 MIN**
OIA to University
* Based on Google PM Peak Period
Travel Time
** Based on Synchro Analysis
ALT. A
ALT. C2
<1 MIN
(less than 5%)
Change in Signal Delay(Relative change in travel time
compared to existing)
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
13
<1 MIN
(less than 3%)
ALT. B
Travel time impacts
35-100MIN*
EXISTING SIGNAL DELAY: 33 MIN**
OIA to SunRail
* Based on Google PM Peak
Period Travel Time
** Based on Synchro Analysis
Change in Signal Delay(Relative change in travel time
compared to existing)
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Interim TIAS Report
▪ Estimates the impacts of each
alternative on:
▪ Motorists
▪ Pedestrians
▪ Bicyclists
▪ Currently under review
▪ Will be expanded when an
alternative is selected
14
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Health Impact Assessment
15
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
▪ Final HIA Working Group
Meeting - May 31, 2018
▪ Study Update
▪Quality of Life Survey
▪ Station demonstration areas
▪Draft HIA Recommendations
Quality of Life Survey – Economic Health
▪Jobs typically filled by the transit
dependent groups (e.g. low
paying jobs) have higher
turnover due to unreliable
transportation
(Faulk and Hicks, 2016)
▪Among transit riders, 40% of
riders miss or are late to
work/school at least once a
week
Increased reliability could reduce turnover and improve economic
health for employers along corridorINTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Quality of Life Survey – Safety
▪ “…I was walking my bike home because
my route ended early on Sunday and I got hit
by a car. If they had the same hours on
Sunday that they do on weekdays, I would
have been on the bus at that time.”
– Survey Respondent
▪ “High speeds pose an obvious problem to
safety in terms of pedestrian routes to transit
and stop location by creating hostile
conditions for transit users” (Frumkin, 2002).
Complete streets can promote safe environments
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Quality of Life Survey – Civic Engagement
▪ “There should be regular
meetings with neighborhoods
and associations within the
community to keep the residents
involved in the happenings
amongst public transit”
(Wellman, 2015)
▪ 35% of respondents never have
positive interactions with their
community
Stakeholder engagement is a key mechanism for enhancing a positive
effect on sense of place for riders
35%
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Station Demonstration Areas
19
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
▪ Station area planning and
demonstration areas
▪ Existing, short term and long
term conditions at 3 station
areas
▪ Curry Ford
▪ Full Sail
▪ US 17/92
SR
436
Full Sail
University Blvd
Banchory RdLong Term
SR
436
Full Sail
University Blvd
Banchory RdShort Term
SR
436
Full Sail
University Blvd
Banchory RdExisting
Full Sail Station Area Plan
Station Demonstration Areas
20
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
▪ Station area planning and
demonstration areas
▪ Effects of redeveloping
surface parking on land
value
12%
35%
5%
15%
9%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Existing to Short Term Existing to Long Term
Demonstration Areas – Percent Change in Just Value per Acre
Curry Ford Full Sail US 17/92
HIA Recommendations
21
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Study Goal Area
Access to Health & Employment
Cyclist and Pedestrian Safety
Economic Health
Quality of Life
Mental Health and Chronic Disease
35PRELIMINARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
14RECOMMENDATIONS
Transportation Planning for Healthy
Communities
22
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
POLICY
INFRASTRUCTUREMARKETING
PROGRAMMING
Recommendations Goal AreasResponsible
Agency
1 Create SR 436 Implementation Group LYNX
2 Preserve Affordable HousingCities
Counties
3Institute TOD Policies & Land Development Regulations
CitiesCounties
4 Subsidize Student Passes for Corridor Colleges LYNX
5Create Functional, Attractive Stations that Incorporate Art and Landscaping
LYNX
6Engage Community through Social Media and Interactive Station Programming
LYNX
7 Market Health Benefits of Transit LYNX
23
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Health Impact Assessment
Recommendations Goal AreasResponsible
Agency
8 Create Common Wayfinding System FDOT
9Implement Roadway Design that Discourages High Speeds
FDOTCities
Counties
10 Assess Station Area Bike and Pedestrian Connectivity
LYNXCities
CountiesMetroPlan Orlando
11Teach Bike/Pedestrian Safety Education in Schools and at Community Events
SchoolsNeighborhood Organizations
12 Implement High Visibility Crosswalk Enforcement Law Enforcement
13 Fund Reliable Service LYNX Funding Partners
14 Locate Key Destination in BRT Station Areas MetroPlan Orlando 24
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Health Impact Assessment
Public Feedback
25
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Public Feedback
26
▪ Qualitative: Face-to-Face Interviews
▪ Quantitative: Transit Alternatives Survey (paper & online)
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Rider Experience
27
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Rider Experience
28
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Rider Experience
29
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
“I think LYNX does a good job.”
“I depend on the bus every day.”
“436S offers a straight path to
the airport”
“Traffic flows pretty well”
Rider Experience
30
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
“The typical wait time is long and
unpredictable.”
“You find yourself fitting into the
bus’s schedule instead of the bus
fitting into your schedule.”
1-2 hour commute times
A lot of time spent transferring
“Not enough bike rack space.”
“Walking and waiting at a station
without a shelter is too hot.”
Who Responded?
31
Race/Ethnicity
3%
5%
12%
24%
56%
Asian
Other
Black/African American
Hispanic
White/Caucasian Non-Hispanic
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Who Responded?
32
Age
25%
37%
30%
7%
1%
25 and under
26 to 40
41 to 60
61 to 80
80 and over
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Who Responded?
33
How often do people use transit on SR 436?
10%
29%
17%
10%
33%
Daily
At least once a week
At least once a month
At least once a year
Never
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Who responded?
34
SR 436
+ZIP CODES
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Alternative A
35
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
AVG RANKING
3.045 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star
18%
22%
23%
19%
18%
OIA to University Blvd
Alternative A
36
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
“Seems like very limited
service area. Won't benefit as
many people. “
“I see where this would be a
good idea for folks who live in
that area”
“We needs true BRT with its
own dedicated lane.”
Alternative B
37
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
AVG RANKING
3.70
OIA to SunRail
5 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star
36%
23%
23%
10%
7%
Alternative B
38
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
“This would expand service to
many more people and SunRail”
“University seems a more notable
boundary... or indeed, just hold up
at 17/92 and the Fern Park
Superstop if you aren't going to go
into Altamonte. ”
AVG RANKING
3.29
Alternative C1
39
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
OIA to University Blvd
5 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star
29%
25%
12%
14%
20%
Alternative C1
40
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
“436 is bad enough without
adding to the confusion for
drivers”
“Not feasible - expensive and
traffic.”
“Obviously ideal in my opinion,
but if the funding takes 20 years,
I'd go with ‘B’ to get it done now.”
AVG RANKING
3.37
Alternative C2
41
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
OIA to University Blvd
5 stars
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 stars
30%
27%
14%
10%
19%
Alternative C2
42
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
“I see what you're goal is, but
436 is bad enough without
adding to the confusion for
drivers..”
“Needs to be true BRT with its own
dedicated lane…Better yet, reduce
the number of lanes.”
Ranking based on Public Input
43
Alternative B
Alternative C2
Alternative C1
Alternative A 3.04
3.70
3.37
3.29
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
On our Investments
44
Investment
Quicker Buses Less Travel Time
More Frequent Buses
Late Night Early Morning Service
More Routes to Key Destinations
Bike and Pedestrian Connections
Nicer Bus Features
Nicer Station Features
2.34
2.09
1.59
1.30
1.03
.74
.61
Average Budget Allocated
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Number of Times Ranked in Top 3
45
Connected Neighborhoods
Fund Reliable Services
Subsidize Student Passes
Affordable Housing
Attractive Stations
Health Promotion
Safety Education
Community Interaction
54
40
34
33
27
23
22
21
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Rider Experience
46
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
What would a more efficient bus
service mean to you?
47
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
“I could get to class earlier, I wouldn’t
need to wake up as early.”
“I don’t ride the bus that often to get
places for fun because of the delay. I
would go to more places if there was
15-minute service.”
“More time spent with my family.”
Funding Options
48
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
How much does each alternative cost?
▪ High-level planning costs
▪ Considered baseline transit project separate from Complete Streets improvements
▪ Referenced recent case study projects
▪ Assumed 40% contingency
▪ Does not include ROW cost for stormwater
49
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Transit Project Cost Estimates
CAPITAL COST(millions of dollars)
ROW COST*(millions of dollars)
50
Corridor-based (Bronze) Fixed Guideway BRT (Silver)
BAT using Aux LanesMedian
Exclusive by
Widening
Curbside
Exclusive by
Lane Repurpose
12.9 18.9 12.9 12.9
Alt A Alt B Alt C1 Alt C2
$57M $71M $160M $78M
$8M $8M $100M $0
Length (miles)
*ROW costs does not include potential ROW for stormwater
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
$60M-
$80M
51
Transit Project High-Level Cost Estimates
$250M+
Alternatives A, B, C2 Alternative C1
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Complete Streets Cost Estimates
52
Complete
Streets Capital
Costs $14M $35M $14M $14M
Corridor-based (Bronze) Fixed Guideway BRT (Silver)
BAT using Aux Lanes Median Exclusive
by Widening
Curbside Exclusive
by Lane Repurpose
12.9 18.9 12.9 12.9
Alt A Alt B Alt C1 Alt C2
* Costs do not include potential ROW needs
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
How does local match work?An example
53
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
$80M $20MTRANSIT COMPLETE STREETS
$100M“PROJECT”
How does local match work?Example with 50% federal contribution
54
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
$50M $50M
Feds Local
How does local match work?Example with 50% federal contribution
55
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
$50M
$25M
$25M
Feds FDOT Central Office Remaining Local
Potential local projects on SR 436(From MetroPlan Orlando PPL-Ranked)
56
Jurisdiction From To Miles Description
Altamonte Springs
I-4 US 17/92 3.0 Context Sensitive Improvements
Newburyport AveCR 427/Ronald
Reagan Blvd0.12 Intersection Improvements
Casselberry
US 17/92 Wilshire Dr 1.0 Context Sensitive Improvements
Orange/Seminole Co.
LineWilshire Dr 3.5 Context Sensitive Improvements
Seminole Co.Maitland Ave Palm Springs Dr 1.0 Add 4th lane
Montgomery Road - - Extend dual LT lanes
Orange Co./
OrlandoOIA
Orange/Seminole Co.
Line11.0
Context Sensitive Improvements
(incl. BRT)
= Construction cost has been determined
Source: MetroPlan Orlando Prioritized Project List, pg. 9 (2017)
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Potential local projects on SR 436(From MetroPlan Orlando PPL-Unranked and Others)
57
Jurisdiction From To Miles Description
Casselberry- Casselton Rd - Operational improvements
Carmel Cir - Operational improvements
Orange Co. Forsyth Rd SR 436 1.07 Shared-use path and overpass
Orlando TG Lee Blvd Frontage Rd Fiber optic
= Construction cost has been determined
Source: MetroPlan Orlando Prioritized Project List (2018)
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
What is a context
sensitive
improvement?
▪ Non-capacity projects
▪ Designed to improve traffic flow
▪ Without adding lanes
▪ For example:
58
Widen or enhance
sidewalks
Bicycle facilities
Landscaping and
street trees
Transit
enhancements
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Potential local projects on SR 436(From MetroPlan Orlando TIP)
59
Agency From To Constr. Yr. Total Cost Description
FDOT I-4 Ramps I-4 Ramps ? ? Safety
Boston Ave Anchor Rd 2017-18 $4.9M Resurfacing
Wilshire Blvd Lake Howell Rd <2017 $51M Red Bug Lake Rd Flyover
Orange/Seminole Co. Lake Howell Rd <2017 $650K Drainage
Old Cheney Hwy Orange/Seminole Co. 2017-18 $530K Drainage
SR 50 Old Cheney Hwy <2017 $1.9M Safety/Access Mgmt.
Seminole
Co.
Ronald Reagan Blvd Ronald Reagan Blvd 2017-19 $1.5M Intersection Improvements
Maitland Ave Palm Springs Dr 2018-19 $1M Intersection Improvements
I-4 US 17/92 2021-22 $5M Multimodal Improvements
Orange Co. SR 50 Orange/Seminole Co. <2017 $800K Lighting
Source: MetroPlan Orlando TIP (2018)
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
How does local match work?Example with 50% federal contribution
60
$50M
$25M
$12M
$13M
Feds FDOT Central Office TIP (ex: 2017-22) Remaining Local
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
USDOT grants
61
BUILD
Core Capacity
Small Starts
New Starts
Project ≥ $300M or
grants ≥ $100M
Project < $300M and
grants < $100M
Grants ≤
$25MCIG
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Other federal sources▪ Section 5307 - Formula Grants
▪ Albuquerque Rapid Transit
▪ IndyGo Purple Line
▪ Orange Line BRT (MN)
▪ Virginia Street Rapid Transit (NV)
▪ Section 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilities Formula
Grants
▪ Albuquerque Rapid Transit
▪ Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End BRT (PA)
▪ Advanced Transportation and Congestion
Management Technologies Deployment
(discretionary grant)
▪ Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End BRT (PA)62
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Other federal sources▪ Flexible Highway Funds
(Congestion Mitigation/Surface Transportation Program) –
obtained through State and/or MPO
▪ Albuquerque Rapid Transit
▪ Division Street BRT (OR)
▪ IndyGo Purple Line
▪ Madison Street (WA)
▪ Milwaukee East-West
▪ Orange Line BRT (MN)
▪ Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End BRT (PA)
▪ Virginia Street Rapid Transit (NV)
▪ Woodhaven Boulevard (NYC)
63
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Capital Investment Grants (CIG)
▪New Starts
▪Rail and Fixed Guideway Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with a capital cost of $300M or more
▪Small Starts
▪Rail, Fixed guideway BRT or corridor-based BRT
▪Cost less than $300M
▪Seek less than $100M in section 5309 funds
▪Final Interim Policy Guidance - August 2016
▪FTA will be issuing revised guidance this summer64
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Bus Rapid Transit
Element Fixed Guideway Corridor-Based
Majority of ROW Dedicated to Transit Use During Peak Hour
Substantial Investment in a Defined Route
Substantial Investment in a Defined Corridor
Stations and Signal Priority
Weekday Peak and Off-Peak Bidirectional Services
Weekend Bidirectional Services
65
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Project
Development
2–4 years
Grant Agreement(Begin Construction)
2–3 years
Begin
Service
2021 – 2025
Alternatives
Analysis
Capital Projects
1 – 2 yearsFall 2016
Project
Development
2 years
Engineering
2–4 years
Grant Agreement(Begin Construction)
2–4 years
Begin
Service
2024 – 2028+ + =
+ =
New Starts
Small Starts
Timeline
4
66
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Marathon, not a sprint▪Pre-Project Development - 1-2 years
▪ Initiate NEPA
▪ Select Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
▪ Establish budget and schedule to complete NEPA and PD, as well as identify which entity will lead NEPA/PD work
▪ All expense is a local responsibility and not eligible as match
▪Project Development - 2 years
▪ Complete environmental clearance
▪ Complete 30-35 percent engineering (at a minimum)
▪ Adopt LPA into the Long Range Transportation Plan
▪ Prepare information for FTA to evaluate and rate project6
7
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Marathon, not a sprint
▪Request to Enter into Engineering - 6 months FTA
review
▪ 20 year Financial Plan and supporting
documentation
▪Engineering - 2-4 years
▪Grant Agreement Negotiations - 6 months
▪Full Funding Grant Agreement
6
8
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
11
69
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Project Justification
▪ Six criteria that receive equal weight
▪ Five point scale - High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low and Low
▪ FTA has established rating “breakpoints” for the criteria
▪ Must receive an overall rating of Medium across the six criteria but most New
Starts received a Medium-High rating for project justification
▪ For Small Starts Cost Effectiveness and Environmental Benefits measured
against only the federal share and not total project cost
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Land Use
FTA sets breakpoints for measures (*)
below
▪Existing corridor and station area
development (*)
▪Existing corridor and station area
development character
▪Pedestrian and disability access
▪Corridor and station area parking
supply (*)
71
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Land Use
(cont’d)
▪Proportion of “legally binding
affordability restricted” housing within
one-half mile of station areas to
proportion in the counties in which
the project is located (*)
▪ Lien, deed of trust or other legal
instrument attached to property or housing
structure that restricts units affordable to
households
72
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Economic Development
▪ Extent to which the proposed project is likely to induce change in land use
- qualitative measure
▪ Transit supportive policies
▪ Existing and planned densities, as well as market trends in terms of
development
▪ Performance of those plans and policies, i.e., have they been
developed and adopted local governments
▪ Zoning changes to that support investment in station areas
▪ Affordable housing plans are adopted and being implemented
73
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
BUILD
74
Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD)
$25MCAP/PROJECT (2018)
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
2018 BUILD Program Facts
▪ $1.5B available
▪ Applications due July 19, 2018
▪ Congress mandated the following
− $15M will be available for planning, preparation,
and design work
− Up to 20% ($300M) for credit assistance
− Urban area grants are to be between $5M and
$25M
− Cap of 10% ($150M) to any single state
− Not less than 30% to rural areas ($450M) and
grants must be $1M+
Build (Tiger)BUILD
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Las Vegas SX
Case Study
76
▪ Funded with TIGER grant
▪ 22-mile corridor
▪ 13 miles with dedicated
lanes
▪ ~1/3 mile station spacing
▪ Packaged with:
▪ Wide sidewalks
▪ Trees
▪ Benches
▪ No transit-supportive land use
policies packaged with project
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
MetroPlan
Orlando
DDR policy(District Dedicated Revenue)
77Source: https://metroplanorlando.org/wp-
content/uploads/TIP-1822-Adopted-P.pdf
30%OF DDR FOR PREMIUM
TRANSIT OPERATIONS
http://tiboaz.biz/2018/04/25/a-look-at-albuquerques-new-bus-rapid-transit-line/
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
Other requirements
78
AA STUDY 2045 CF LRTP
2045
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
How much do we need to operate
the alternative?
79
OPERATINGCOST
(millions of dollars per year)
Corridor-based (Bronze) Fixed Guideway BRT (Silver)
BAT using Aux LanesMedian
Exclusive by
Widening
Curbside
Exclusive by
Lane Repurpose
12.9 18.9 12.9 12.9
Alt A Alt B Alt C1 Alt C2
$2.3M $3.8M $2.1M $2.2M
Length (miles)
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
How much will be available?
80
$69MTotal MetroPlan Orlando DDR
funds in FY 2020/21
Source: https://metroplanorlando.org/wp-content/uploads/TIP-1822-Adopted-P.pdf (pg. III-5)
$41MRemaining after subtracting
I-4 Managed Lanes dollars
$12M30% of remaining DDR funds
in FY 2020/21
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
How much is eligible for funding?
81
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
80% of 1st year operational cost
60% of 2nd year operational cost
40% of 3rd year operational cost
20% of 4th year operational cost
Interactive Exercise
▪ Split into groups
▪ Cities
▪ Counties
▪ Regional Planning Agencies
▪ Power on your laptops!
82
Interactive Exercise
▪ Identify and screen regularly occurring meetings
▪ Elected Officials meetings (city council, board/committee meetings)
▪ Staff Leadership meetings
▪ Community meetings
▪ Non-profit meetings (CNU ReThinking City, WTS, etc)
▪ Set up meeting OR send meeting organizer contact to Study Team ([email protected])
▪ What are the hot buttons / key messages to get across? How shall we tailor materials?
▪ Economic development story?
▪ Health story?
▪ Transit ridership story?
▪ Other?83
Next Steps
▪ Final PAWG meeting around October 2018
▪ Confirm recommended alternative to advance to LYNX board meeting
▪ Continued outreach meetings with stakeholders
▪ Continued pop-up meetings
▪ Be on the look out for draft reports
84
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
85
Check out our website
lynxsr436.com
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
86
Thank You!
INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS