Jacksonville, Florida, Transportation Authority s Mobility Corridors

Transcription

1 Jacksonville, Florida, Transportation Authority s Mobility Corridors Improving Transit System Performance Through Enhanced Safety and Urban Design Frederick Jones and Jaimison Sloboden The Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) is an agency responsible for transit operations and roadway development in Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida. With this responsibility, JTA is uniquely positioned to develop and to implement roadway improvements that directly facilitate transit system access and operations. Since 2012, the commitment to improving transit and safety in the city of Jacksonville has been significant. In December 2014, JTA completed a route optimization initiative that was designed to increase frequency and reliability within a newly defined system of 14 high-frequency mobility corridors. To improve greatly the safety and the experience of the first- and last-mile transit user, JTA created two supporting initiatives as part of the mobility corridors program: transit enhancements and complete streets. These initiatives were intended to deal directly with deficiencies in roadway and transit infrastructure, such as gaps in sidewalks and Americans with Disabilities Act compliant stops and shelters (transit enhancements initiative). More significantly, they were designed to improve the safety and accessibility for all users of the transit system (complete streets initiative). The focus of this paper is the complete streets initiative that directly targets substantial first- and last-mile challenges via a range of multimodal design strategies and safety countermeasures while establishing a prioritization process for implementation. In December 2014, the Jacksonville (Florida) Transportation Authority (JTA) implemented a complete transit system redesign, known as the route optimization initiative (ROI), overhauling its 43-year-old system to be more frequent, direct, and reliable. For years, the system spread resources thinly across the county. Routes meandered through neighborhoods, and schedules were poorly coordinated. ROI focused on higher-frequency and more direct service on key corridors. The idea was that, if JTA could ask customers to walk an extra block or two to get to their desired stops, in return, they would get a more frequent and faster bus service and easier transfers. As a result, the number of routes with 20-min frequency increased from two to 20, and 10 routes with 15-min frequency were introduced a service that had never been offered. JTA accomplished these improvements at no additional recurring operating costs. F. Jones, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, 121 West Forsyth Street, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL J. Sloboden, Michael Baker International, Gran Bay Road, Suite 2110, Jacksonville, FL Corresponding author: J. Sloboden, Jaimison.sloboden@mbakerintl.com. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2651, 2017, pp Far exceeding expectations, ROI has been a success, with a 6% ridership increase in the first fiscal year ( ). Typically, major service changes, let alone complete overhauls, initially result in reduced ridership, and many of JTA s peer midsized transit agencies were experiencing declines in ridership because of low gas prices. Launch of First Coast Flyer Bus Rapid Transit Subsequent to the ROI initiative, JTA implemented the first leg (Green Line) of its bus rapid transit system known as First Coast Flyer in December When completed by 2019, the First Coast Flyer system will connect customers to 57 mi of destination travel downtown and in the north, southeast, east, and southwest areas of Jacksonville (Figure 1). This limited-stop, premium service includes frequent headways (approximately every 10 min during peak times and 15 min during off-peak times); new low-floor, compressednatural gas buses; branded stations with shelters; benches; bike racks; and display kiosks with real-time travel information; and supporting intersection improvements featuring dedicated bus and bike lanes and transit-signal priority. Most importantly, the First Coast Flyer service provides customers with enhanced schedule reliability and more direct routing to connect riders with greater employment and entertainment opportunities while eliminating the need for downtown transfers. The Green Line service runs along a major north south corridor, directly serving Jacksonville neighborhoods having the highest transit demand. First- and Last-Mile Challenges One of the most critical pieces of JTA s effort to upgrade its system is accessibility. More than 90% of JTA customers walk or bike to a bus stop, so the path to the stop is critical. Transit agencies must consider the trip before the trip, or what is known as the first and last mile. Not doing so would be analogous to a port ignoring how its cargo gets to the docks. To complement the ROI and address the first- and last-mile issue, JTA launched a complete streets based infrastructure enhancement program known as mobility corridors (Figure 2). These designated mobility corridors represent JTA s newly deployed, high-frequency transit routes that were established under the ROI. This program is intended to strike a balance between all the functions of a street, putting people and quality of place first, with the recognition that 118

2 Jones and Sloboden 119 North Corridor Green Line Downtown Connector East Corridor Southwest Corridor Southeast Corridor FIGURE 1 First Coast Flyer bus rapid transit system. streets play a major role in improving access to the transit system while improving safety, public health, economic development, and livability. By acknowledging transit access as central to the program, the initiative incorporates a range of transformative design enhancements and safety countermeasures that seek to provide vast improvement in the quality of the walking experience for JTA s customers. Equally important, the street can serve as a meaningful and inviting public space within the context of local conditions and street types. Whether the change is the installation of protected bike lanes, the restriping of traffic lanes to reduce speed, or the addition of refuge islands or midblock crossings for pedestrians, the programs and recommendations that have been developed involve a rethinking and reallocation of the roadway space. Such retrofits on these key high-frequency corridors ensure that JTA s customer base particularly seniors, children, and the transportation-disadvantaged have time to cross the street, can safely walk to school, or can easily ride the bus to work or the grocery store. There is no one-size-fits-all type of complete street, and JTA s approach does not lead to incomplete or disconnected infrastructure (i.e., sidewalks to nowhere) or bicycle lanes on every street but rather ensures that the city s core transportation network and road building systems are balanced for all users. In particular, this approach involves a paradigm shift in which pedestrian, bicycle, and transit accommodations are no longer merely viewed as amenities to be added when feasible but as central to the design process. Safety is also a chief objective of JTA s initiative. According to the 2014 Dangerous by Design report published by Smart Growth America, Florida has the top four most dangerous large metropolitan areas for walking in the United States: Orlando Kissimmee, Tampa Saint Petersburg Clearwater, Jacksonville, and Miami Fort Lauderdale Pompano Beach (1). These rankings are based on a pedestrian danger index that indicates the likelihood of a person on foot being hit by a vehicle and killed. This measure is based on the share of local commuters who walk to work and the most recent 5 years of pedestrian fatalities. The pedestrian fatality rate is measured per 100,000 people, with the average pedestrian danger index in the United States at Led by Metro Orlando, many of the top areas exceed a pedestrian danger index of 125 or higher and are representative of the sunbelt communities that evolved after World War II through scattered, low-density development connected by higher-speed and wide arterial roadways. The Jacksonville metro area has one of the highest pedestrian danger indexes, at 182. In cities that have developed largely around the automobile, transportation planning has tended to focus on adding automobile capacity without fully considering the needs of pedestrians and

3 120 Transportation Research Record 2651 FIGURE 2 Mobility corridors. bicyclists. In cities like Jacksonville, where the climate is favorable to cyclists and pedestrians, local infrastructure regrettably has not always been so appealing to those not driving. These dangerous conditions for cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in Jacksonville not only reinforce the importance of improving the first- and lastmile component of the ROI but also serve as the central backdrop to JTA s complete street initiative, resonating most with key decision makers and forming the basis for advancing the program and priority projects. Other Supporting Initiatives The complete streets initiative is more than a passing trend to help address this urgent safety and public health problem for the Jacksonville community. It is a significant national movement aiming to reverse these conditions permanently. The National Complete Streets Coalition and Vision Zero initiatives are championing a system to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries substantially on the country s roadway systems. The recently enacted federal transportation reauthorization, Fixing America s Surface Transportation Act, is the first federal transportation bill to include language on complete streets (2). The 2015 Florida Transportation Plan Policy Element highlights the need for a safer environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users, and makes it a key goal to offer more transportation choices for people (3, p. 10). The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) adopted a formal complete streets policy in 2014 and subsequently developed an implementation plan in 2015 to overhaul completely its design manual standards to facilitate complete street projects. Locally, the City of Jacksonville has established a context-sensitive streets committee, demonstrating its commitment to making roads safer. A unified effort among all partners will be required to get these types of projects implemented and to improve safety outcomes. Transit-Driven Complete Streets Despite the link between transit and the pedestrian environment, JTA appears to be one of few transit agencies in North America with its own complete streets program. From August 2015 through Feb ruary 2016, JTA conducted 13 planning and design charrettes with the community and other stakeholders to identify immediate, midterm, and long-term improvements designed to maximize transit and multimodal accessibility and safety. JTA recognizes that the demand for many of the recommended projects will far outpace the initial funding that has been reserved for the program. Still, small-scale enhancements on all corridors with a number of keystone projects can begin to demonstrate the transformative potential of such investments. JTA s long-term goal is to identify and to align funding partnership opportunities with the agency s project priorities as federal, state, and local funding become available. These investments, often relatively small, can have major transit benefits and improve the quality of life in the local community.

4 Jones and Sloboden 121 Methodology JTA s complete streets report, published in May 2016, lays out the context, methodology, principles, and vision for a new way to make Jacksonville s streets safe and inviting for all. The recommendations and desired outcomes expressed for each corridor reflect the robust public engagement process and provide a long-term menu of capital improvement options for implementation. JTA s complete streets initiative is designed to provide elected officials, transportation professionals, and concerned citizens with the technical tools and insights to work collaboratively to make vast improvements in a community s safety reputation, to maximize mobility choices, and ultimately to think differently about the role of design in developing truly great streets. This paper is organized around four major sections to maximize readability and effectively tell the story about improving multimodal conditions in JTA s high-frequency mobility corridors. The report provides an overview of the context, the public engagement process, and the recommended set of complete street improvements for each of the mobility corridors. The section on context provides an introduction to each respective corridor, including an overview of the existing safety and infrastructure conditions, previous or contributing planning efforts, and notable opportunities for improvement. The section on the process details the collaborative and highly participatory, hands-on design charrette and workshop program that has been implemented in each corridor. That section includes details on the community feedback loop and general themes and ideas for improvements. In addition, this process involves extensive coordination with Florida DOT staff, including a built-in design meeting during the charrette at which each of the design teams and JTA staff met with Florida DOT to review key design concepts that have been proposed, as many of the corridors are an integral part of Florida DOT s system. This value-added component allowed the teams to vet the concepts with Florida DOT staff to determine both feasibility and opportunities to leverage other ongoing transportation project opportunities, such as resurfacing or signal upgrades. Synthesizing the result of the sections on context and process, the section on concepts showcases the conceptual design alternatives that were prepared for major focus areas in each of the corridors. These designs reflect short- and long-term complete street visions of the stakeholder participants and are focused on maximizing safety and multimodal access. Finally, the section covering recommendations organizes the desired outcomes from the design charrettes and workshops into a set of prioritized projects and reflects three categories: Keystone projects are those that JTA would use to showcase complete streets for immediate effect. These should be reasonably substantial projects that could be implemented in the near term. Operational or safety enhancements: represent quick-fix improvements that can provide immediate safety and operational improvements at a lower cost. Long-term vision projects are complete, larger-scale projects for the corridor or corridor segment. These are bolder, more-costly investments that would be included in a long-range plan. This approach allows key agencies and stakeholders to refer continually to the complete streets report as a living document: a menu of potential complete street projects for implementation as opportunities and funding become available. These categories are designed to maximize the ability to leverage other projects and funding sources, from the low-cost, immediate, quick-fix improvements through Florida DOT resurfacing opportunities, for example, to bolder retrofits via Florida s Project Development and Environment studies or other long-range transportation plans. The following items represent the five high-priority keystone projects, including the estimated costs and duration: 1. University Boulevard North Merrill Road mobility corridor. Roundabout at intersection of University Boulevard and Merrill Road, including appropriate sections of multiuse path, reduced lane widths, traffic study to determine future lane requirements on the University Merrill approach, with buffered bike lanes (anticipated funding partnership); estimated cost: $2.5 million; approximate duration: 24 months. 2. Mandarin Plummer Cove mobility corridor. New sidewalk installation from Bolton Abbey Drive to Orange Picker Road; estimated cost: $700,000; approximate duration: 12 to 18 months. 3. Cassat Avenue Normandy Boulevard Lenox Avenue mobility corridor. Lenox Avenue traffic study to determine future lane requirements between Normandy Boulevard and Cassat Avenue, reducing travel lanes from four to two, including median installation and bike lanes; estimated cost: $900,000; approximate duration: 6 to 9 months. 4. 8th Street Myrtle Avenue North Moncrief Road mobility corridor: pedestrian safety and aesthetic enhancements along 8th Street and James Hall Drive near University of Florida Health, including planted medians, midblock crossings, refuge islands, crosswalks, and reduced curb radii; estimated cost $800,000; approximate duration: 18 months. 5. Main Street mobility corridor: traffic study for Springfieldarea lane conversion, including buffered bike lanes and reopening of median with striped crosswalks at 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Streets and at Cottage Avenue; estimated cost: $2 million; approximate duration: 14 to 18 months. Before conducting the design charrettes and workshops, JTA staff initiated a number of preliminary planning activities, including field reconnaissance and corridor screening to determine existing conditions and transit-stop deficiencies, extensive coordination with key stakeholders to introduce and gain participation in the program, and demand analysis and mapping. These activities were intentionally designed to ensure a reasonable framework and methodology for effective communication and planning and to provide for a realistic schedule and timeline for future implementation. The demand analysis, explained in more detail in the following section, provides a tool for communities to identify focus areas or hot spots that represent the optimal locations for mobility enhancements and design retrofits. Recognizing variables such as funding limitations, the substantial length of many corridors, and the need to demonstrate to decision makers measurable outcomes related to safety and accessibility improvements, this approach enabled the JTA to consider implementation of meaningful demonstration projects for the complete streets initiative in a shorter duration and to gain longer-term support for the program effectively. Five Ds for Mobility Knowing that available funding would not enable the implementation of 14 full complete street projects, especially given the extensive lengths of many of the mobility corridors, JTA staff conducted a

5 122 Transportation Research Record 2651 TABLE 1 Five Ds Mobility Demand Indicators Indicator Description Data Set Density Persons (residents and employees per square mile) Census block group/block info Dwelling units per acre of developable land City of Jacksonville (COJ) parcel coverage Diversity Land use mix as measured by the proportion of dissimilar land uses among grid of cells COJ parcel coverage (property use codes) Design (pedestrian Intersection/street network density (intersections per square mile) Street centerline file/intersection nodes environment design) Building frontages (% of right-of-way with frontage) COJ building footprints Sidewalk bike lane completeness (% of corridor/street frontages with bike lanes and sidewalks) Sidewalk bike lane coverage Destinations Distance/route directness Average distance to regional activity centers, including employment, schools, local-serving retail Average distance to transit stop (% of dwelling units within ¼ mi of stop or average distance from dwelling units to closest transit stop in feet, maximum ideal scenario 600 ft) Ratio of shortest walking distance from point of origin to point of destination (i.e., school) versus straight line distance COJ parcel coverage COJ parcel coverage JTA transit stop/route coverage Transit ridership Average daily ridership per square mile JTA ridership data five-d mobility demand analysis. The five-d analysis, collectively representing density, diversity, design, destinations, and distances, is a geographic information system based suitability analysis intended to identify areas within each corridor that contain the optimal characteristics for investing in complete street based improvements. The five Ds, viewed as collectively, measure the degree to which areas within each of the corridors contain land use and transportation factors that better support multimodal accessibility. These D-variables tend to affect travel behavior, including the reduction in per capita automobile trips and transit utilization, in predictable ways in relation to having the highest population and employment density per acre, a complementary mix of land uses, a compact network of connected streets or sidewalks, proximity to key activity centers, and relatively short distances to transit service most of the ingredients necessary for walkability. The analysis was conducted by using a geographic information system by delineating ¼-mi buffered segments on the basis of the propensity for a 5-min walk to access the high-frequency mobility corridor. Table 1 provides the indicators, description, and data set or source for measuring the cumulative impacts of the D-variables spatially. This valuable exercise enabled JTA to prioritize the hot-spot locations within each corridor for the focus of improvement and investment. Combined with transit ridership and crash data analysis, which included annual average bicycle and pedestrian crashes between 2006 and the present, this approach maximized the use of limited resources by avoiding the focus on areas that have lower transit dependency or safety concerns. Most of these hot-spot areas represent the keystone and short-term safety and operational improvement recommendations described in the report. Prioritization A sustainable JTA complete streets program will require ongoing support and strategic collaboration from all agencies involved to provide guidance and to identify funding opportunities necessary to implement these projects. A key component also will involve monitoring and performance measurement during and after such projects are constructed. Current federal and state funding opportunities strongly emphasize measurable outcomes, particularly safety and mobility goals articulated in the Florida DOT 2015 transportation plan. To the extent that these projects demonstrate meaningful results from safety, mobility, economic development, environmental, and livability standpoints, they also could increase the opportunity for leveraging additional funding. To provide an objective framework for complete street project prioritization, JTA developed a prioritization matrix for mobility corridor projects. This tool enables decision makers to advance corridor projects that best align with an established set of goals, objectives, and measures ranging from safety and transit ridership to redevelopment potential and access to healthy food options, particularly in lower-income areas characterized as food deserts. Each of the variables was assigned a weighting factor to give primacy to potential focus areas with high crash incidences combined with high transit ridership and equity issues. This factoring had the intended purpose of mitigating political effects, whereby highly visible complete street projects may receive funding or implementation priority in the absence of supporting the key criteria. To be consistent and supportive of Florida DOT s complete streets initiatives, particularly the statewide effort to develop a new set of design standards to facilitate the planning, design, construction, and reconstruction of context-sensitive facilities, the goals and measures in JTA s prioritization matrix reflect the same complete street performance measures outlined in the Florida DOT complete streets Implementation Plan. These include goals and measures include safety for all transportation system users, access to destinations, economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability, public health, social equity, and quality of life. Goals and Objectives The matrix shown in Figure 3 was developed around four major goal categories, including measurable objectives weighted and scored relative to their importance in corridor project prioritization. The weighting scale was designed to give priority to the safety, accessibility [including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)], and funding leveragability objectives primarily associated with JTA s core transit access needs. The scoring methodology

6 Jones and Sloboden 123 Mobility Corridors-Complete Streets Project Priori za on Matrix Goal 1: Increasing Mobility and Safety for All Users Mobility Corridors 5Ds Density, Diversity, Design, Des na ons, Distances Ped./Bike Crashes Transit Ridership(s) Access to Key Transit Route(s) Presence of Adequate Ligh ng ADA Compliance Vehicle Capacity Ra os Fixed Weigh ng Corridor Projects Loca on Council District Wt. Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Park/Blanding SW District Main St. UC District University Blvd. (N)/Merrill Rd. GA District Moncrief/Myrtle/8th NW District 7, District Arlington Expy. GA District Dunn Ave. NW District 7, District Beach Blvd. SE District University Blvd. (S) SE District 4, District Lem Turner Rd. NW District 7, District Philips Hwy. SE District Edgewood Ave. NW District 8, District Normandy/Cassat/Lenox SW District 9, District 10, District Kings Rd. NW District 8, District Mandarin Rd. SE District Ra ng Scale Scores Rela ve Priority 1 = Project does not sa sfy goal. Low = 0 89 points 2 = Project minimally sa sfies goal. Medium = points 3 = Project sa sfies goal well. High = points Cri cal = 121 and above (a) Mobility Corridors Fixed Weigh ng Mobility Corridors-Complete Streets Project Priori za on Matrix Goal : Planning and Funding Leveragability Facility Designa on Support Local Planning Ini a ves/ Proximity to CRA Projects Funding Leveragability Goal : Public ealth and Livability Access to Social, Cultural, Recrea onal Resources Corridor Projects Loca on Council District Wt. Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Park/Blanding SW District Cri cal Main St. UC District Cri cal University Blvd. (N)/Merrill Rd. GA District Cri cal Moncrief/Myrtle/8th NW District 7, District Cri cal Arlington Expy. GA District Cri cal Dunn Ave. NW District 7, District Cri cal Beach Blvd. SE District High University Blvd. (S) SE District 4, District High Lem Turner Rd. NW District 7, District High Philips Hwy. SE District High Edgewood Ave. NW District 8, District High Normandy/Cassat/Lenox SW District 9, District 10, District High Kings Rd. NW District 8, District Medium Mandarin Rd. SE District Low Ra ng Scale Scores 1 = Project does not sa sfy goal. 2 = Project minimally sa sfies goal. 3 = Project sa sfies goal well. (b) Rela ve Priority FIGURE 3 Mobility corridor prioritization matrix [weighting: Each objective is weighted according to its importance in project implementation: 1 (supportive) = contributes to long-term benefits of mobility corridor implementation; 2 (valuable) = important in supporting mobility corridor implementation; 3 (essential) = more significant in supporting mobility corridor implementation and measurable safety outcomes; 4 (highly essential) = exceedingly more significant in supporting mobility corridor implementation and measurable safety outcomes. Ped. = pedestrian; ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act; CRA = community redevelopment agency; SW = southwest; UC = urban core; GA = Greater Arlington; NW = northwest; SE = southeast]. Social quity Access to ealthy Food Goal : conomic Development and Compe veness Adjacent to Substan ally Vacant/Redevelopable Commercial Property Total Score ranged from a simple 1-to-3 scale, with 1 corresponding to not satisfying the intent of the goal and 3 satisfying the goal well. To get a weighted score, each of those scores is multiplied by a designated fixed weight corresponding to the variables for each goal. With the exception of policy support, such as the extent to which a corridor project supports other ongoing planning initiatives in the area, the scoring was conducted on the basis of geospatial results, with a set of index values created by using the Jenks natural data breaks algorithm. The keystone projects that were identified represented those with the highest rankings in the matrix. The following discussion explains in detail each of the goals, objectives, values, and data sources used to create the prioritization tool.

7 124 Transportation Research Record 2651 Goal 1. Increasing Mobility and Safety for All Users These are the supporting objectives and scoring method from 1 (low) to 3 (high) for Goal 1: 1. The five Ds measure the degree to which the corridor or project focus area is within an area representing land use or transportation factors supporting multimodal accessibility through development density, land use mix, walkable urban design, proximity to key activity centers, and short distances to transit (4). a. The average five-d score for all segments within each project area were used to assign a project area average five-d score (less the ridership component). b. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = low, 2 = medium, and 3 = high. 2. Bike and pedestrian crashes measure the degree to which the corridor or project focus area is within an area with numerous annual average bicycle or pedestrian crashes between 2006 and the present on the basis of data from the Florida DOT s Signal Four Analytics (5). a. The Signal Four Analytics crash data were queried only to include bike and pedestrian crashes; then a sum of bike and pedestrian crashes by project area was tabulated by using a spatial join. b. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = zero to five incidents per year, 2 = six to nine incidents per year, and 3 = 10 or more incidents per year. 3. Transit ridership measures the degree to which the corridor or project focus area represents an area with high transit ridership. a. The most recent transit ridership file was joined to the current active stops to determine total ridership by project area (6). b. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = fewer than 350 daily, 2 = 350 to 1,100 daily, and 3 = 1,100 or more daily. 4. Access to key transit routes measures the degree to which the corridor or project focus area represents an area with direct access to key high-frequency (30 min or fewer) transit routes, as measured by the percentage of persons living within ¼-mi of stops served by those routes. a. The census block population within ¼-mi of stops within project areas serving high-frequency routes was determined by using the following ordered steps: (1) Active stops were queried for key routes (Routes 1 through 9 and 102) (7). (2) Stops within project areas were assigned the project area name. (3) Quarter-mile buffers were created around the stops and then dissolved by project name. (4) Census blocks were clipped by the ¼-mi buffers and then the portion of population within the buffer compared with the total project area was calculated (8). b. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = less than 25%, 2 = 25% to 75%, and 3 = 75% or more. 5. The presence of adequate lighting measures the degree to which the corridor or project focus area is within an area containing the presence of adequate lighting. a. JEA provided a light pole locations shapefile (9). Unfortunately, no attributes identified the light intensity or type. A decision was made to use light pole density by project area as the metric. b. The count of light poles within each project area was calculated by using the Tabulate Intersection tool. c. The count was divided by the project area (square miles) to determine the density of light poles within each project area. d. As poor lighting indicates a project need, a higher index value for presence of adequate lighting indicates a lower density of light poles within the project area. e. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = 850 or more per square mile, 2 = 530 to 850 per square mile, and 3 = fewer than 530 per square mile. 6. ADA compliance measures the degree to which the corridor or project focus area is within an area with a high percentage of ADAnoncompliant bus stops. a. An Automated Transit Stop Inventory Model export was joined to current active stops to characterize ADA compliance (10). b. ADA accessibility by stop (what is considered to be compliant versus noncompliant from the Automated Transit Stop Inventory Model user guide) was determined as follows: (1) Compliant (i.e., accessible): people in wheelchairs can access the stop. (2) Noncompliant: i. Functional: people in wheelchairs can access the stop, but it does not have all the required amenities. ii. Not accessible: people in wheelchairs cannot access the stop. iii. Not evaluated: for this analysis, these stops were assumed to be noncompliant by default. Less than 4% of stops included in this analysis had a blank ADA attribute. c. A higher index value for ADA compliance indicates a higher proportion of functional and inaccessible stops (stops needing improvement) within the project area. d. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = less than 50% noncompliant stops, 2 = 50% to 75% noncompliant stops, 3 = 75% or more noncompliant stops. 7. Vehicle capacity (V/C) ratios measure the ratio of daily vehicular traffic to roadway capacity compared with total annual accidents. a. The City of Jacksonville road links status report was used to identify the percentage of capacity used for each project roadway (11). b. Some project areas may contain multiple road segments. In those cases, multiple segments were averaged to get a project area average V/C ratio. c. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = <43.85%, 2 = 43.85% to 73.41%, and 3 = >73.40%. d. The V/C ratio was compared with the Signal Four Analytics crash data within each project area to identify underutilized roadways with a high incidence of accidents (5). The average number of accidents per year within each project area was assigned the following index values: 1 = <94, 2 = 94 to 209, and 3 = >209. e. A total index was created on the basis of the sum of these two. Project areas with low utilization (low V/C ratio) and high crashes received a 3. The total index values ranged as follows: 1 = <3, 2 = 4, and 3 = >4. Goal 2. Planning and Funding Leveragability 1. Facility designation answers the question, is the corridor or project focus area along a Florida DOT strategic intermodal system (SIS), Florida DOT non-sis, or city-owned facility (12)?

8 Jones and Sloboden 125 a. Project corridor roadways were evaluated by designation. A higher degree of design flexibility may be offered on roadways that are owned and maintained solely by the City of Jacksonville, so city-owned roadways get an index value of 3. Florida DOT SIS facilities have greater design limitations and would be scored the lowest, or a 1. Florida DOT non-sis facilities, which can offer more flexibility than SIS, would receive a 2. b. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = SIS, 2 = non-sis, and 3 = city-owned. 2. Support of local planning initiatives and proximity to community redevelopment areas measures the degree to which the corridor or project focus area is within a planned or designated community redevelopment area (CRA) (13) and is consistent with local and regional land use and economic development plans, such as an identified neighborhood action plan, vision plan, or corridor study area boundary (14). a. The planning initiatives and proximity to CRA metrics were combined. b. Staff reviewed relevant planning studies to determine consistencies. c. CRA project locations were obtained from the City of Jacksonville. d. The mobility corridor project areas were identified to determine whether they intersected a CRA. e. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = not in CRA and does not support local planning initiatives; 2 = not in CRA but supports local documented planning initiatives; and 3 = in CRA and supports local planning initiatives. 3. Funding leveragability measures the degree to which the corridor or project focus area offers the potential for additional funding sources. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = not likely to leverage additional funding; 2 = likely potential to leverage additional funding; and 3 = in current Florida DOT work program, including existing partial funding and potential to leverage additional state, federal, or private funding. Goal 3. Public Health and Livability 1. Social equity measures the degree to which the corridor or project focus area is within or proximate to areas where the combined expenditures on housing and transportation exceed 30% of household income so as to account for supporting greater affordability and location efficiencies. a. The Center for Neighborhood Technology s Housing and Transportation Affordability Index data were used to determine location efficiency and affordability. Data are available from the center at the block-group level (15). The HT_AMI field was used, which indicates the housing and transportation costs as a percentage of income for the typical regional household ($52,258). b. The data from this affordability index were clipped to project areas and then the area-weighted average HT_AMI value was calculated for each project area. c. A lower HT_AMI value indicates lower housing and transportation expenses as a percentage of regional typical household income. The purpose of this metric is to identify areas where the component of transportation access can be improved by offering low-cost transportation options. d. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = 30% to 40%, 2 = 41% to 50%, and 3 = 50% or more. 2. Access to food measures the degree to which the population within the corridor or project focus area has poor access to healthy food and good access to fast food. a. Data from the Florida Environmental Public Health Tracking provides the percentage of the population that lives within ½ mi of a healthy food option and the percentage of the population that lives within ½ mi of a fast-food restaurant by zip code (16). b. Zip codes were clipped to project areas and assigned the project area name. An area-weighted percentage of the population was calculated for each factor by project area. c. The inverse of the percentage of population within ½ mi of healthy options and the original percentage of population within ½ mi of fast food were used to calculate the index value. With the inverse of population near healthy options, a higher score indicates fewer healthy options nearby. The indicator values for both healthy and fast-food options were added to create a composite score with a possible range of 0 to 200. d. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = <81 (low), 2 = 81 to 113 (medium), 3 = 113 or more (high). Goal 4. Economic Development and Competitiveness Adjacent to substantially vacant or redevelopable commercial property measures the degree to which the corridor or project focus area is within or adjacent to an area with a high level of vacant or redevelopable commercial or retail properties. 1. The purpose of this metric is to identify vacant commercial property available for redevelopment. The commercial real estate website Loopnet was used to search the number of available commercial properties for sale or lease within each project area (17). The Search by Polygon tool was used to draw each project area, and the number of commercial properties for sale and for lease were recorded. The search was performed on February 5, The number of commercial properties for sale or lease was normalized by the project area (square miles). 3. Index values ranged as follows: 1 = <3.1 per square mile, 2 = 3.1 to per square mile, and 3 = >13.28 per square mile. Outcomes Preliminary engineering and design are under way for the five major keystone projects noted earlier. The intent of the projects is to leverage the initial JTA-dedicated funding with potential Florida DOT funds, discretionary grants, and metropolitan planning organization federal surface transportation funds to advance into final design and construction no later than In August 2016, the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization board of directors adopted each of the identified mobility corridor projects into its transportation improvement program, which will be instrumental in assisting with funding and implementation. Once each of the initial keystone projects is completed, JTA will actively monitor safety and access in the form of reduced pedestrian and bicycle incidents and increased ridership within the high-frequency corridors and heavily used stop locations. Most significantly, JTA and agency stakeholders will observe the projects potential impacts on reducing all types of crashes, particularly bus incidents at or within proximity to major stop locations.

9 126 Transportation Research Record 2651 Because of the recognition that such complete street interventions can increase the rates of active transportation, such as an increase in walking and biking trips as a portion of total trips within a community, partnerships are underway with the Northeast Florida Health Planning Council to conduct formal health impact assessments before and after project construction to measure the extent to which such projects have a quantifiable influence on reducing negative health outcomes, such as preventable diseases and access to healthy food options. Given that JTA has larger transit-oriented development goals to maximize its transit-based assets, other positive outcomes associated with the implementation of the keystone projects will be investigated. These outcomes may include the extent to which such improvements yield an increase in adjacent redevelopment activity, such as the level of private investment, reductions in vacancy rates, a an increase in retail vibrancy (i.e., retail and restaurant sales, number of customers) in adjacent properties. References 1. Dangerous By Design Smart Growth America, Washington, D.C., design-2014/. Accessed Jan Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Public Law U.S. Department of Transportation, /fastact/. Accessed July 22, Florida Transportation Plan Policy Element. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee. /FTP-PolicyElement.pdf. Accessed Jan. 15, About JTA MobilityWorks (web page). Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, Fla., /about/. Accessed June Signal Four Analytics Crash Data, University of Florida, Gainesville, Accessed Oct pick period data file of JTA ridership. Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, Fla., pick period data file of JTA routes. Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, Fla., March Population by Census Block. American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, JEA Street Lights Shapefile (data file). Jacksonville Electric Authority, Jacksonville, Fla., Automated Transit Stop Inventory Model (data file). Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, COJ Road Links Status Report. City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Fla., /transportation-planning. Accessed Oct FDOT Strategic Intermodal System (data file). Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, COJ CRA Boundaries (data file). City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Fla., Local Planning Initiatives. City of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Fla., planning-division/plans-and-studies. Accessed Oct Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Center for Neighborhood Technology, Chicago, Ill., Accessed Jan Food Availability by Zip Code. Florida Environmental Public Health Tracking (data file). Florida Department of Health, Tallahassee, Available Commercial Properties for Sale or Lease. Loopnet Commercial Real Estate Search Engine, Loopnet, San Francisco, Calif., Accessed Jan The Task Force on Transit Safety and Security peer-reviewed this paper.