LANE ELIMINATION PROJECTS

Transcription

1

2 PRESENTATION OUTLINE Lane Elimination Considerations Districts 4 & 7 Draft Lane Elimination Processes FDOT Lane Elimination Guidelines Example Projects D4 Case Study: SR A1A (Ft. Lauderdale) D7 Case Study: Nebraska Avenue (Tampa)

3 LANE ELIMINATION PROJECTS Support local government & community visions Provide opportunities for aesthetic features Provide opportunities for on-street parking Have potential to increase economic vitality Introduce or improve bicycle/pedestrian features

4 FDOT CONSIDERATIONS Lane Elimination projects on the State Highway System must be approved by FDOT Lane Elimination projects offer benefits, but can be challenging to implement A formal process defines how approval is obtained A formal process assures consistency and thorough analysis & coordination Open communication & coordination with local municipalities with sensitivity to the context of the project

5 LANE ELIMINATION CONSIDERATIONS Safety / Crash History Long Range Needs Traffic Operations Pedestrians / Bicyclists Transit Services / Ridership Parking Supply / Activity Environmental Impacts Design Variations / Exceptions Functional Classification Access Management Emergency Evacuation Jurisdictional Transfers Freight Routes / Access Community Support Consistency with Local Plans Costs & Funding

6 LANE ELIMINATION PROCESS HISTORY Before 2009 No formal process in place for staff or applicants Requests handled by different offices in different project phases Inconsistent review approaches Defined Process Multi-disciplinary team mapped informal processes Formal process developed Process coordinated by Planning & Environmental Management Office Process focusses on multi-disciplined review & coordination

7 FDOT LANE ELIMINATION GUIDELINES D4 Refined Process Refinements based on experience with the 2009 process Identified milestones & deliverables Defined clearer expectations for staff and applicant Central Office circulated D4 & D7 processes for input FDOT Statewide Lane Elimination Guidelines

8 DISTRICTS 4 & 7 DRAFT PROCESSES Step 1: Initial Meeting Applicant provides preliminary project information District provides information about review process District identifies fatal flaws & key issues to be considered in detailed analysis Multiple FDOT offices involved Provides Lane Reduction Request Form (D7) Establish evaluation methodology based on initial meeting Central Office is notified of the request Information provided by the applicant includes: Project purpose Project location Project limits Proposed change in lane configuration Typical section (if available) Consistency with plans/programs

9 DISTRICTS 4 & 7 DRAFT PROCESSES Step 2: Interim Meeting & Concept Report Applicant provides detailed concept report & evaluation Focus on traffic analyses & long term needs Multiple FDOT offices involved District provides formal review comments Central Office is notified Applicant provides completed Lane Reduction Request Form (D7) Information provided by applicant includes: Near- and long-term level of service analyses Mitigation to address impacts of lane elimination Crash analyses Conceptual design plans Pedestrian/bicycle/transit/truck assessments Conceptual implementation and funding strategies Case-specific analyses

10 DISTRICTS 4 & 7 DRAFT PROCESSES Step 3: Final Review Applicant obtains approval resolution from city or county Applicant discusses public involvement activities Applicant provides funding, and implementation plans (as applicable) Applicant submits formal application for lane elimination (D4) District conducts multi-disciplined review and makes a recommendation for approval (or denial) to Central Office

11 FDOT LANE ELIMINATION GUIDANCE 2014 Resource Document (Phase 1): Examples of Florida lane elimination projects Literature review focused on impacts of lane elimination projects Profiles considerations associated with lane elimination requests Documentation of existing formal processes Phase 2 effort to develop example processes and possibly a statewide process Process for converting through lanes to transit lanes also under development

12 Las Olas Boulevard (Ft. Lauderdale) SR 5/Olive Avenue (West Palm Beach) Hillsboro Boulevard (Deerfield Beach) Atlantic Avenue (Delray Beach)

13 State Road A1A (Ft. Lauderdale)

14

15 HURRICANE SANDY AFTERMATH

16 HURRICANE SANDY AFTERMATH

17 TYPICAL SECTION PRIOR TO HURRICANE SANDY

18

19 TYPICAL SECTION (EMERGENCY PROJECT)

20 SR A1A: EMERGENCY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Restored traffic flow with elimination of two through lanes Drive sheet pile & construct safety pile cap Repave roadway

21 SR A1A: EMERGENCY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Restripe for traffic, bicyclists, and parking

22 SR A1A: PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTIONS

23 PROPOSED PROJECT Raised roadway & new drainage system Bicycle lanes in both directions Beachfront promenade Paver sidewalk Decorative wall with accent lighting Pedestrian lighting Landscaping Two signalized pedestrian crosswalks Median islands and left turn lanes in the residential area

24 LANE ELIMINATION REQUEST KEY (AND UNIQUE) CONSIDERATIONS Implement Local Vision Promenade, decorative features & pedestrian lighting Coordination & Permitting with Resource Agencies Beach (species habitat) encroachment Sea-turtle lighting Traffic Analysis Non-traditional peak hours (weekends & special events) Hurricane evacuation route Diversion to other routes (US-1 & Intracoastal Bridges) Intersection turn-lane analyses

25

26 NEBRASKA AVENUE (SR 45) Urban Minor Arterial Roadway Located in a highly urbanized area of Tampa with both residential and commercial development High bus route ridership Nebraska Avenue was among the highest bicycle and pedestrian crash frequency corridors in FDOT District 7

27 BEFORE CONDITIONS 4-Lane Undivided Roadway Narrow Lane Widths 2006 AADT = 21,500 Design Speed = 45 mph Posted Speed = 35 mph Truck Traffic = 5% No Bike Lanes

28 AFTER CONDITIONS 3-Lane Roadway Dual Left Turn Lane 2010 AADT = 15,800 Design Speed = 45 mph Posted Speed = 35 mph Truck Traffic = 3% Wider Travel Lanes Bike Lanes

29 Bike Lanes

30 Bus Bays

31 Traffic Signal & Pedestrian Signal Upgrades Midblock Crosswalk Updated ADA & Pedestrian Features

32 Drainage Improvements Median Improvements

33 SAFETY RESULTS SUMMARY The overall crash frequency, crash rates, and crash severity has decreased. The reduction in crashes has exceeded the expected results based on FHWA countermeasure data (FHWA Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors) This corridor previously exhibited a crash rate 50% higher than the average crash rate for urban 4-lane undivided roadways. The current crash rate is less than the statewide crash rate for an urban 2-lane divided roadway.

34 SAFETY RESULTS SUMMARY Crash Rate: Decreased from 7.6 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (MVMT) to 2.83 crashes per MVMT (less than the 4.18 crashes per MVMT statewide average for this roadway configuration) Reduction in the types of crashes most susceptible to severe injury (head-on, pedestrian, bicycle, and angle/left turn crashes). 61% reduction in fatal/incapacitating crashes per year. Pedestrian crashes: reduced from 7 crashes per year to 2.5 crashes per year. Bicycle crashes: reduced from 5.0 per year to 1.7 per year.

35 Lane Elimination Process Dana Knox, FDOT Central Office Kelly Blume, Kittelson & Associates Chon Wong, D4 Lane Elimination Coordinator SR A1A Project Scott Peterson, D4 FDOT Project Manager D4 In-House Design Section 3 D4 Drainage Office D4 Maintenance Office D4 Planning & Environmental Management City of Fort Lauderdale Nebraska Avenue Project FDOT District 7 Ronald Chin, District Design Engineer John Escobio, FDOT Project Manager Rochelle Garrett, FDOT Design G. Britton Hardy, Engineer of Record Megan Arasteh, Drainage Engineer Bijan Behzadi, Traffic Design City of Tampa Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) Chamber of Commerce Local Community Groups Acknowledgements

36