Meeting #9 July 11, 2018 LYNX Central Station, 2 nd Floor Open Area - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
meeting 9
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Meeting #9 July 11, 2018 LYNX Central Station, 2 nd Floor Open Area - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 10, 2024 18 likes •880 views

PAWG Meeting #9 July 11, 2018 LYNX Central Station, 2 nd Floor Open Area 1 Schedule What are the issues, opportunities, and objectives? What are our alternatives? Which alternatives best meet our goals and objectives? Which alternatives do

slide-1
SLIDE 1

PAWG Meeting #9

July 11, 2018 LYNX Central Station, 2nd Floor Open Area 1
slide-2
SLIDE 2 2 Which alternatives best meet our goals and objectives? 2017 2018 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov 2018 Mar May Jul Sep Nov What are the issues,
  • pportunities, 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
slide-3
SLIDE 3 3

Ongoing Work

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-4
SLIDE 4

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
slide-5
SLIDE 5

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
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Community Events

EVENTS

6 Fern Park SuperStop Pop-Up OIA SuperStop Pop-Up Recent 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
slide-7
SLIDE 7

MetroQuest Survey

7

150+

SURVEY RESPONSES

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-8
SLIDE 8 8

Traffic Impact Analysis

OIA Curry Ford Red Bug Lake SR 50 SR 434 I-4 Hoffner Aloma SR 408

26

Study Intersections

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Potential Mitigations

9

Add turn lanes Optimize signal timing

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Comparison of Alternatives

10 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-11
SLIDE 11

Comparison of Alternatives

11 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-12
SLIDE 12

+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
slide-13
SLIDE 13 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
slide-14
SLIDE 14

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
slide-15
SLIDE 15

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

slide-16
SLIDE 16

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 corridor

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-17
SLIDE 17

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
slide-18
SLIDE 18

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
slide-19
SLIDE 19

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 Rd Long Term SR 436 Full Sail University Blvd Banchory Rd Short Term SR 436 Full Sail University Blvd Banchory Rd Existing Full Sail Station Area Plan
slide-20
SLIDE 20

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
slide-21
SLIDE 21

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

35

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS

14

RECOMMENDATIONS
slide-22
SLIDE 22

Transportation Planning for Healthy Communities

22 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS POLICY INFRASTRUCTURE MARKETING PROGRAMMING
slide-23
SLIDE 23 Recommendations Goal Areas Responsible Agency 1 Create SR 436 Implementation Group LYNX 2 Preserve Affordable Housing Cities Counties 3 Institute TOD Policies & Land Development Regulations Cities Counties 4 Subsidize Student Passes for Corridor Colleges LYNX 5 Create Functional, Attractive Stations that Incorporate Art and Landscaping LYNX 6 Engage 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

slide-24
SLIDE 24 Recommendations Goal Areas Responsible Agency 8 Create Common Wayfinding System FDOT 9 Implement Roadway Design that Discourages High Speeds FDOT Cities Counties 10 Assess Station Area Bike and Pedestrian Connectivity LYNX Cities Counties MetroPlan Orlando 11 Teach Bike/Pedestrian Safety Education in Schools and at Community Events Schools Neighborhood 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

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Public Feedback

25 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-26
SLIDE 26

Public Feedback

26

▪ Qualitative: Face-to-Face Interviews ▪ Quantitative: Transit Alternatives Survey (paper & online)

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-27
SLIDE 27

Rider Experience

27 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Rider Experience

28 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-29
SLIDE 29

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”

slide-30
SLIDE 30

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.”

slide-31
SLIDE 31

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
slide-32
SLIDE 32

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
slide-33
SLIDE 33

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
slide-34
SLIDE 34

Who responded?

34 SR 436

+

ZIP CODES

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-35
SLIDE 35

Alternative A

35 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS

AVG RANKING

3.04

5 stars 4 stars 3 stars 2 stars 1 star

18% 22% 23% 19% 18%

OIA to University Blvd
slide-36
SLIDE 36

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

  • wn dedicated lane.”
slide-37
SLIDE 37

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%

slide-38
SLIDE 38

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. ”

slide-39
SLIDE 39

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%

slide-40
SLIDE 40

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.”

slide-41
SLIDE 41

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%

slide-42
SLIDE 42

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.”

slide-43
SLIDE 43

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
slide-44
SLIDE 44

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
slide-45
SLIDE 45

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
slide-46
SLIDE 46

Rider Experience

46 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-47
SLIDE 47

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.”

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Funding Options

48 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-49
SLIDE 49

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
slide-50
SLIDE 50

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 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

$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
slide-51
SLIDE 51

$60M- $80M

51

Transit Project High-Level Cost Estimates

$250M+

Alternatives A, B, C2 Alternative C1

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-52
SLIDE 52

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
slide-53
SLIDE 53

How does local match work?

An example

53 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS

$80M $20M

TRANSIT COMPLETE STREETS

$100M

“PROJECT”
slide-54
SLIDE 54

How does local match work?

Example with 50% federal contribution

54 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS

$50M $50M Feds Local

slide-55
SLIDE 55

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

slide-56
SLIDE 56

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 Ave CR 427/Ronald Reagan Blvd 0.12 Intersection Improvements Casselberry US 17/92 Wilshire Dr 1.0 Context Sensitive Improvements Orange/Seminole Co. Line Wilshire 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./ Orlando OIA Orange/Seminole Co. Line 11.0 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
slide-57
SLIDE 57

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
slide-58
SLIDE 58

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
slide-59
SLIDE 59

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
slide-60
SLIDE 60

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
slide-61
SLIDE 61

USDOT grants

61

BUILD Core Capacity Small Starts New Starts

Project ≥ $300M or grants ≥ $100M Project < $300M and grants < $100M Grants ≤ $25M

CIG

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-62
SLIDE 62

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
slide-63
SLIDE 63

Other federal sources

▪

Flexible Highway Funds (Congestion Mitigation/Surface Transportation Program) –
  • btained 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
slide-64
SLIDE 64

Ca Capital In pital Invest estment ment Gr Grants ants (CIG) (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 summer

64 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-65
SLIDE 65

Bus Rapid Transit

Element lement Fix Fixed ed Guid uidew eway ay Co Corrido ridor-Ba Based ed 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
slide-66
SLIDE 66 Project Development 2–4 years Grant Agreement (Begin Construction) 2–3 years Begin Service

2021 – 2025

Alternatives Analysis Capital Projects 1 – 2 years Fall 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
slide-67
SLIDE 67

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 project

6 7 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-68
SLIDE 68

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
slide-69
SLIDE 69 11 69 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-70
SLIDE 70

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
slide-71
SLIDE 71

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
slide-72
SLIDE 72

Land Use

(cont’d)

▪Proportion of “legally binding

affordability restricted” housing within

  • ne-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
slide-73
SLIDE 73

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
slide-74
SLIDE 74

BUILD

74

Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD)

$25M

CAP/PROJECT (2018)

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-75
SLIDE 75

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
slide-76
SLIDE 76

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
slide-77
SLIDE 77

MetroPlan Orlando DDR policy

(District Dedicated Revenue) 77 Source: 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
slide-78
SLIDE 78

Other requirements

78

AA STUDY 2045 CF LRTP

2045

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-79
SLIDE 79

How much do we need to operate the alternative?

79 OPERATING COST (millions of dollars per year) 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

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

Length (miles) INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-80
SLIDE 80

How much will be available?

80

$69M

Total MetroPlan Orlando DDR funds in FY 2020/21

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

$41M

Remaining after subtracting I-4 Managed Lanes dollars

$12M

30% of remaining DDR funds in FY 2020/21

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-81
SLIDE 81

How much is eligible for funding?

81 INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS

80%

  • f 1st year operational cost

60%

  • f 2nd year operational cost

40%

  • f 3rd year operational cost

20%

  • f 4th year operational cost
slide-82
SLIDE 82

Interactive Exercise

▪

Split into groups

▪ Cities ▪ Counties ▪ Regional Planning Agencies

▪

Power on your laptops! 82
slide-83
SLIDE 83

Interactive Exercise

▪

Identify and screen regularly occurring meetings

▪ Elected Officials meetings (city council, board/committee meetings) ▪ Staff Leadership meetings ▪ Community meetings ▪ Non-profit meetings (CNU ReThinking City, WTS, etc)

▪

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

▪

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

▪ Economic development story? ▪ Health story? ▪ Transit ridership story? ▪ Other?

83
slide-84
SLIDE 84

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
slide-85
SLIDE 85 85

Check out our website

lynxsr436.com

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS
slide-86
SLIDE 86 86

Thank You!

INTRO ONGOING WORK PUBLIC FEEDBACK FUNDING NEXT STEPS