PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Transcription

1 Appoint COJ Staff Appointed by Mayor PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Transportation Planning Division MOBILITY PLAN WORKING GROUP MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, January 17, :00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. A meeting was held at the Ed Ball Building, 8 th Floor, Conference Room 825 Wednesday, January 17, 2018, from 3:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. The following representatives were in attendance: Name Representative Title In Attendance T.R. Hainline Chairman Yes Robert Rhodes Vice Chairman Yes Lori Boyer City Council Member Yes Rick Morales Lay Member No Staci Rewis Lay Member Yes Raj Chindalur Lay Member Yes Andrew Dickson Lay Member Yes William Killingsworth Director of Planning and Yes Development Laurie Santana Chief of Transportation Planning Yes Division Lurise Bannister Planning Services Manager No Transportation Planning Div. Solimon Salem City Planning Supervisor No Transportation Planning Div. Paul Davis City Planning Supervisor No Stephanie Zarkis City Planner II No Amy Ingles Bicycle/Ped Coordinator Yes Susan Grandin Office of General Counsel Yes Saraya Teeple JTA Yes Jeanette Berk Yes Nancy Buenger No Jon Slason Yes Steven Gayle No Debbie Delgalo Hester Group Yes

2 2 The Transportation Planning Division Mobility Plan Working Group meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Chairman T.R. Hainline. He thanked everyone for attending. Individual introductions immediately followed. Mr. Hainline asked if there were any edits to the January 5th minutes. Mr. Chindalur then made a motion to accept the meeting minutes. Immediately following, the motion was seconded. With no further discussion, the minutes were approved. Zone 9 Mr. Slason opened the meeting by asking that committee members refer to the most current Mobility Zone spreadsheets that had been provided. Highlights of the discussion of Zone 9, included the following: Ms. Teeple identified that Zone 9 has a JTA project for BRT Southwest. It was decided that this project will be deleted from Zone 9 and split between Zone 10 and Zone 7. It was noted corridor project #23- (Old Kings Road Edgewood Ave to Plummer Rd) should be reclassified with part of the project shown in Zone 9 and part in Zone 5. Doing so will bring down the cost of this roadway project from $14,234, 193 to $4,410,931, or a decrease of approximately $10 million. Mr. Slason made the above adjustments to these projects on the Zone 9 spreadsheet. Ms. Santana noted that currently the bicycle projects are at $4.3 million in Zone 9 and since there are many of bicycle projects, it would be good to start with reviewing the bicycle projects. Ms. Ingles stated that the list of bicycle and pedestrian projects were prioritized by data items such as households without cars, etc. and that it makes sense, based on these socioeconomic data points, that Zone 9 would have an abundance of bicycle projects. A discussion ensued on how to achieve the two goals of encouraging redevelopment in Zone 9 and satisfying the current need for bicycle projects, while lowering the mobility fee. Mr. Slason stated that it was up to this committee to decide which projects should be selected for Zone 9. He disclosed that he had eliminated the bottom ranked bicycle and pedestrian projects based on scoring, previous to the print out the committee currently has in hand. It was noted that the handout currently had an estimated fee per VMT of $ Ms. Rewis asked Ms. Ingles if some of these improvements make more sense than others when viewed in terms of connectivity, such that perhaps eliminating the bottom priority might not be what is needed. Ms. Ingles stated that connectivity was part of the priority ranking used on the projects. Mr. Hainline questioned that since this zone primarily needed bicycle and pedestrian projects and the roadway projects bear the higher cost in percentage of the total projects, perhaps we could better use some of the roadway dollars for bicycle and pedestrian modes.

3 3 Ms. Santana explained that the Zone 9 roadway projects are not adding lanes. They are intersection improvements that would affect every other mode of transportation. Ms. Ingles noted that roadway project #20- New Kings Road (US1, SR 15) has a priority score of only 2.1, and questioned if this project was needed. Mr. Slason stated that data backs up that both roadway project #20 with score of 2.1, and project #23 Old Kings Rd (Soutel Rd to Edgewood Avenue) with priority score of 4.9 are low priority scores. He reported that severity of congestions is not great, but there are some pedestrian safety issues associated with these projects. Mr. Killingsworth questioned the methodology used to determine if a project was or was not selected as shown on the spreadsheet. Mr. Slason stated that in advance of this committee s meeting, he used empirical zone priority and scoring done by the city, as well as targeting a $30 value, to eliminate bottom projects for bicycles and pedestrians. Mr. Slason reiterated that it was this committee s decision to decide which projects are selected today. Mr. Slason further reminded the committee that on page 3 of Zone 9, where you see Yes by projects, it is because these projects are Yes in their primary zone. Mr. Hainline questioned what the mobility fee was currently for Zone 9 since we had dropped out $10 million from the roadway projects. Mr. Slason replied that currently Zone 9 is at $20. This is with none of the project selection statuses changed and the $10 million dropped from the roadway projects. Ms. Ingles asked if it mattered that roadway project #20- New Kings Rd has FDOT as the owner agency. She questioned if project #20 is part of the FDOT project, whether FDOT is counting on mobility funding. Mr. Slason replied that questions of this type are next in this committee s conversations. If we prioritize this project, then we advocate for the TPO and the State to prioritize this project. Mr. Hainline inquired about how the zone fees were shaping up in the other zones and what was the zone with the lowest mobility fee. Mr. Slason displayed a spreadsheet on the screen showing the current total mobility fee for each zone. He pointed out that there was variation between the zones and that the lowest was Zone 7 at $ It was noted that Zone 3 was the highest at $38.72 and second was Zone 5 at $ He summarized by saying that if we average all zone fees together for a city-wide fee today, it would be $ Mr. Slason further stated that due to the road corridor projects coming down and the fact that he had just put yes by all bicycle and pedestrian projects, Zone 9 is currently $33.21.

4 4 Ms. Grandin addressed the connectivity issue by asking if consultants have each one of these projects as a layer so you could go down the list and cut it off at some number and see the connectivity on the map and see where there are gaps. Mr. Slason said this was a good point. Mr. Slason remarked that after today s meeting, we would include all the selected projects the committee had come up with in order to show what the overall mobility plan is shaping up to be. He stated that because these projects were empirically ranked and scored, simply subtracting from the bottom and focusing only, for example, on bicycle projects; allows us to lower the VMT fee. He recommended making adjustment in this manner due to the rank and evaluation that had been completed. Mr. Hainline stated he would be more comfortable having Ms. Ingles review the bicycle and pedestrian projects and come back to the committee with recommendations that put projects at $ VMT, based on connectivity and her input. Ms. Boyer agreed that she could go to $25 VMT fee, as long as it is not in the core. Mr. Hainline reminded the committee about Ms. Rewis request that someone circle back with FDOT on highway project #20- New Kings Road (US 1, SR15) and see if it was a pedestrian related improvement. Mr. Slason stated it would have minimum pedestrian improvements. Ms. Ingles said she wanted to circle back to FDOT, remarking that they have been doing a lot of construction and some was brand new sidewalks. She was reasonably sure that the work currently being done is encompassing some of project #20, if not all of it. She pointed out that if we are putting in new turn lanes, we do not want to be digging out sidewalks they just put in. Mr. Hainline asked for a consensus to proceed in the evaluation of Zone 9 using the following approach: Staff look at roadway project #20- New Kings Rd improvements and see if it will help pedestrians and bicycles. If not, remove this project. Attempt to get fee between $20 and $25 VMT for Zone 9. Have Ms. Ingles make determination on which are the most important of the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity projects, and include those to get the fee between $20-25 VMT. Consensus was agreed upon. ZONE 8 Mr. Slason began orientation of Zone 8 by reviewing the Corridor Projects on the spreadsheet. He noted that we previously had a number of overlaps with the Citizen Planand all University Blvd corridor projects are crossed off. He noted the remaining corridor projects were all FDOT projects, with the exception of Project #16 (Merrill Rd).

5 5 Mr. Slason stated there were a number of bicycle and pedestrian projects in Zone 8. He also noted there were three JTA projects, but one was identified as a design engineering project (U2C) and it has now been deselected. Ms. Boyer remarked that there was a complete street project in a different zone that should be in Zone 8 and that she did not see it on the print out. Discussion ensued and the project was identified at the intersection of Atlantic and Beach Boulevard. Mr. Slason added this $3 million JTA project to Zone 8. Mr. Rhodes asked about bicycle project #92- FEC Rail Corridor, a $7.4 million shared use bicycle path project from the Acosta bridge to Avenue Walk Boulevard, where there is a rail line. He suggested as a strategy that someone discuss with the FEC about possibly donating some right of way. Ms. Boyer voiced a question concerning JTA. She stated that she had past conversations about a future commuter rail which is on the same corridor. She said it had a nice wide right of way, but she does not know if it is wide enough to have commuter rail with stations and a separate multi-use path section. She cautioned the committee about proposing two projects that conflict. Ms. Teeple replied that the status of commuter rail projects in that corridor were within limits of Federal Transportation Agency funding for ridership and for cost. JTA s big concern is for the land use, so they are going to work with the Planning Department on that rail corridor. They will have discussions with Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) about utilizing some of the roadway, primarily in terms of their right of ways for sidings, particularly around Butler and at Avenues Walk. Mr. Dickson questioned that with All Aboard Florida thinking about extending to Jacksonville, if this would require right of way or if they would use the existing tracks. Ms. Teeple responded that there would be a need for right of way for sidings, but that she did not know the status of shared right of way. Mr. Rhodes asked if we had approached FEC about a donation. Ms. Teeple stated they are a private business and during initial discussion, it was anticipated that we would purchase the right of way. Ms. Teeple commented that they would allow us to utilize their right of way if we would construct some of the sidings so they could pull off the tracks.. Ms. Boyer questioned roadway project #27 - Philips Hwy. This is a DOT road where we are only doing the bike, sidewalks, and green strips. She asked if this project was a DOT match and if the mobility estimate on the spreadsheet is reflective of the 50% DOT match. Mr. Slason answered to the affirmative. She made the comment that she knew that these road projects were in before and that FDOT are building these sidewalks right now at their expense using safety dollars.

6 6 Ms. Santana recommended that we say no to roadway project #27 and bicycle project # 92. The committee informally agreed to remove these projects from Zone 8. Ms. Boyer reviewed the bicycle and pedestrian projects and stated that she knew in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) they were talking about a project to connect Nira to the Kings Avenue Garage. She was also familiar with a JTA project on the Kings Avenue side, but was unable to locate this project in Zone 8. A discussion ensued and the maps were studied. Ultimately, it was pointed out that the project in question (Project #104) was split between Zone 8 and Zone 10. Mr. Dickson asked if we could take bicycle project #104 out of Zone 10 and put it in Zone 8, which would in essence split the Nira St project from the Palm Avenue project. An examination of the map ensued and it was decided to make this change. It was noted that the only part of project #104 in Zone 10 would be Palm Avenue from Prudential to I-95. Ms. Boyer voiced concern about a portion of a project that she did not see listed on the mobility plan. She referred to a study that TPO did that considered having a bike route going to Riverplace Blvd/connect to Hendricks/connect to Atlantic in San Marco Square and from there, would take you to Atlantic Blvd. Her concern was a section of Atlantic Boulevard from the Hart expressway to San Marco Square, which is a FDOT road, and the fact that she did not see that portion listed on the mobility plan. Ms. Ingles said the recommendation was in the Master Plan, but not here since it is a state road. It was clarified that none of the bicycle projects in the mobility plan are on state roads. Mr. Hainline summarized Zone 8 recommendations: Remove road project #27- Phillips Highway Remove bicycle project #92- FEC rail corridor Make changes discussed above to bicycle project #104 Mr. Slason stated that Zone 8 was currently at $25.27, subject to the Project #104 change. Mr. Hainline asked Mr. Slason to lead the committee on a discussion of zonal versus city wide fee. Mr. Slason displayed a spreadsheet which showed the mobility fee for each zone and the combined total. The spreadsheet showed an average fee of $28.46, which he said was not much higher than an inflation adjusted fee today. He reminded the committee that the zonal fee equation is: VMT x fee x trip length.

7 7 The spreadsheet showed the total amount of funding limit identified as $393 million. Using the weighted average as the base fee, below were the city averages: Single family dwelling- $2,800 Shopping center (100,00 sq. ft.) - $1.1 million Warehouse-(100,000 sq. ft.) - $53,000 Office (50,000 sq. ft.) - $145,000 Ms. Boyer asked about the Trip Length used on the spreadsheet. A conversation ensued on how the current zonal trip lengths on the spreadsheet originated. Mr. Slason explained that in our current spreadsheet we are using forecasted trip length for 2030,. He further explained that these are forecasted trip lengths based on the Mobility Zones and as such have not been published before and are somewhat different from the forecasted trip lengths in the mobility plan. It was noted that the 2030 forecasted trip length in the spreadsheet are zonal trip lengths, as opposed to development area trip lengths which were used previously. Mr. Slason recommended the committee use the newer data that is currently reflected on the spreadsheet and not use what was in the old mobility plan. He does not recommend using the development area as a secondary multiplier. Because of the dual rational nexus, he strongly recommended we do our computations zone-by-zone. He reiterated that the only variable in the equation we are discussing is the trip length. Mr. Chindalur asked if Mr. Slason could run one number with the new method he has explained and one number with the old method, so the committee could see the difference. Mr. Slason noted that the trip lengths using the development area versus zone-by-zone were not very different. An exercise followed on screen and Mr. Slason changed the computations in the table to illustrate how the trip length changed when figured by zone versus by development area criteria. Ms. Boyer voiced a concern that in the previous system, we accomplished the policy objective of the mobility fee being higher in more suburban areas, where you had to drive more, and less in more urban areas where facilities were closer to you. She was not sure that the new trip length computation accomplished this objective. Mr. Slason gave examples of how using the zone-by-zone method resulted in lower trip lengths than would result if the development area method was used. He reminded the committee that

8 8 in addition to trip length, we have the option to assess the mobility fee by zone or apply a consistent city-wide fee. Ms. Rewis commented that the city spent a lot of money leading up to 2010 to develop these development areas in the Comp Plan. She questioned if what we are proposing/changing would affect what is in the Comp Plan now. She explained that although it is not obvious on paper in the Comp Plan, there is a level where the development area factor is indirectly linked to help build up the mobility fee. Mr. Hainline asked Mr. Slason to send the committee members via both a table using the zonal trip lengths for all zones, and an example or two of the table using the development area trip length. He asked that the committee members review this comparison as homework for the next meeting. Mr. Rhodes asked a question about zonal versus development area trip lengths as factors in figuring the mobility fee. He asked Mr. Slason if he felt we could use either. Mr. Slason answered in the affirmative and stated it would come down to deciding which method achieves the goal. A public guest asked that the spreadsheets discussed in this committee be ed to them. Ms. Santana confirmed that they would be posted on the public website. The next meeting of the Mobility Plan Working Group was scheduled for Wednesday, January 31st at 3:30 p.m. Mr. Hainline adjourned the meeting at 4:50 PM.