Abstract. Context. Route Optimization Initiative

Transcription

1 JTA s Mobility Corridors: Improving Transit System Performance through Enhanced Safety and Urban Design Authors: Fred Jones AICP Jacksonville Transportation Authority 121 W Forsyth Street, Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL fjones@jtafla.com M O F Jaimison Sloboden PE (corresponding author) Michael Baker International Gran Bay Road, Suite 2110 Jacksonville, FL Jaimison.sloboden@mbakerintl.com M O F Abstract The Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) is an agency responsible for both transit operations and roadway development in Jacksonville (Duval County) Florida. With this responsibility, JTA is uniquely positioned to develop and 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, the JTA completed a Route Optimization Initiative (ROI) designed to increase frequency and reliability within a newly defined system of 14 high frequency, Mobility Corridors. In order to greatly improve safety and the first and last mile transit user experience, the JTA created two supporting initiatives as part of the Mobility Corridors program Transit Enhancements and Complete Streets. These initiatives are intended to deal directly with deficiencies in roadway and transit infrastructure such as ADA compliant stops and shelters, gaps in sidewalks (Transit Enhancements) but more significantly to improve the safety and accessibility for all users of the transit system (Complete Streets). 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. Context Route Optimization Initiative In December 2014, the Jacksonville 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 stop, in return they would get a bus more often, the route would be faster and transfers much easier. As a result, the number of routes with

2 minute frequency increased from two to 20 and ten routes with 15 minute frequency were introduced a service that had never been previously offered. JTA accomplished this at no additional recurring operating costs. Far exceeding expectations, ROI has been a success with a 6 percent ridership increase in the first year (Fiscal Year ). Typically, major service changes (let alone complete overhauls) result in reduced ridership initially; and many of JTA s peer, mid sized, transit agencies were experiencing declines in ridership due to low gas prices. First Coast Flyer Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Launch Subsequent to the ROI initiative, JTA implemented the first leg (Green Line) of its bus rapid transit (BRT) system known as First Coast Flyer in December Once completed by 2019, the First Coast Flyer system will connect customers to 57 miles of destination travel downtown and in the north, southeast, east and southwest areas of Jacksonville (see Figure 1). This limited stop, premium service includes frequent headways (approximately every 10 minutes during peak times and 15 minutes during off peak times), new, low floor, compressed natural gas (CNG) buses, branded stations with shelters, benches, bike racks and display kiosks with real time travel information, as well as supporting intersection improvements featuring dedicated bus and bike lanes and transit signal priority (TSP). 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 neighborhoods in Jacksonville with the highest transit demand. 62

3 63 Figure 1 First Coast Flyer BRT System First and Last Mile Challenges One of the most critical pieces of JTA s effort to upgrade its system is accessibility. More than 90 percent 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 (see Figure 2). These designated Mobility Corridors represent JTA s newly deployed, high frequency transit routes 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 streets play a major role in improving access to the transit system while also improving safety, public health, economic development and livability. 76

4 77 Figure 2 Mobility Corridors Acknowledging transit access as central to the program, the initiative incorporates a range of transformative design enhancements and safety countermeasures that seek to vastly improve 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 it s the installation of protected bike lanes, the restriping of traffic lanes to reduce speed, or the addition of refuge islands or mid block crossings for pedestrians, the programs and recommendations 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 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 making sure that the city s core transportation network and road building systems are balanced for all users. In particular this involves a paradigm shift in which pedestrian, bicycle and transit accommodations are no longer merely viewed as amenities to be added when feasible, but central to the design process. Safety is also chief objective of JTA s initiative. According to the 2014 Dangerous by Design report published by Smart Growth America, Florida has the top four metropolitan areas on the list of most dangerous large metro areas for walking in the United States: 1) Orlando Kissimmee, 2) Tampa St. Petersburg Clearwater, 3) Jacksonville, and 4) Miami Fort Lauderdale Pompano Beach. These rankings are based upon a Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI) that gives an indication of the likelihood of a person on

5 foot being hit by a vehicle and killed. This measure is based upon the share of local commuters who walk to work and the most recent five years of pedestrian fatalities. The pedestrian fatality rate is measured per 100,000 people, with the average PDI in the United States at Led by Metro Orlando, many of the top areas exceed a PDI of 125 or higher and 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 PDIs at 182. In cities that have largely developed around the automobile, transportation planning has tended to focus on adding auto capacity without fully considering the needs of pedestrians and 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 reinforces the importance of the improving the first and last mile 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 Complete Streets is more than a passing trend to help address this urgent safety and public health problem for the Jacksonville community, but is a significant national movement aiming to permanently reverse these conditions. The National Complete Streets Coalition and Vision Zero initiatives are championing a system to substantially reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries in our roadway systems. The recently enacted federal transportation reauthorization, Fixing America s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), is the first federal transportation bill to include language on Complete Streets. 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. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) adopted a formal Complete Streets policy in 2014 and has subsequently developed an Implementation Plan in 2015 to completely overhaul 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. It will take a unified effort among all partners to get these types of projects implemented and improve safety outcomes. Complete Streets Driven by Transit Despite the link between transit and the pedestrian environment, JTA appears to be one of a few transit agencies in North America with its own Complete Streets program. From August 2015 through February 2016, the JTA conducted 13 planning and design charrettes with the community and other stakeholders to identify immediate, mid term 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 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.

6 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 in 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 alike with the technical tools and insights to work collaboratively and vastly improve a community s safety reputation, maximize mobility choices and ultimately think differently about the role of design in developing truly great streets. The report is organized around four (4) 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 Context section provides an introduction to the respective corridor including an overview of the existing safety and infrastructure conditions, previous or contributing planning efforts, as well as notable opportunities for improvement. The Process section details the collaborative and highly participatory, hands on design charrette and workshop program conducted in each Corridor. This section includes details on the community feedback loop and general themes and ideas for improvements. Additionally, this process involves extensive coordination with FDOT staff, including a built in design meeting during the charrette, whereby each of the design teams and JTA staff met with FDOT to review key design concepts proposed since many of the Corridors are an integral part of FDOT s system. This value added component allowed the teams to vet the concepts with FDOT staff to determine both feasibility and opportunities to leverage other on going transportation project opportunities, such as resurfacing or signal upgrades. Synthesizing the result of the previous two sections, Concepts showcases the conceptual design alternatives 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 report Recommendations organizes the desired outcomes from the design charrettes and workshops into a set of prioritized projects, reflecting three categories: Keystone Projects: Projects 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/Safety Enhancements: Represent quick fix improvements that can provide immediate safety and operational improvements at a lower cost. Long Term Vision Projects: These are complete, larger scale projects for the corridor or corridor segment. These are bolder, more costly investments, which would be included in a long range plan. This approach allows key agencies and stakeholders to continually refer back 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 via FDOT resurfacing opportunities, for example, to bolder retrofits via Florida s Project Development & Environment (PD&E) studies and/or other long range transportation plans.

7 The following represent the identified, five priority Keystone Projects, including the estimated costs and duration: 1. University Blvd. (North)/Merrill Mobility Corridor: Roundabout at intersection of Merrill Road and University Boulevard, including appropriate sections of multiuse path, reduced lane widths, traffic study to determine future lane requirements on Merrill/University approach, with buffered bike lanes (anticipated funding partnership) Estimated cost: $2,500,000; Approximate duration: 24 mos. 2. Mandarin/Plummer Cove Mobility Corridor: New sidewalk installation from Bolton Abbey Dr. to Orange Picker Rd. Estimated cost: $ 700,000; Approximate duration: mos. 3. Cassat/Normandy/Lenox Mobility Corridor: Lenox Avenue Traffic study to determine future lane requirements between Normandy and Cassat Avenue reducing travel lanes from four to two including median installation and bike lanes Estimated cost: $900,000; Approximate duration: 6 9 mos th /Myrtle/Moncrief Mobility Corridor: Pedestrian safety and aesthetic enhancements along 8 th Street and James Hall Drive near UF Health including planted medians, mid block crossings, refuge islands, crosswalks, reduced curb radii Est. $ 800,000; Approx. 18 mos. 5. Main St. Mobility Corridor: Traffic study for Springfield area lane conversion to include buffered bike lanes and re opening of median with striped crosswalks at 3 rd, 5 th, 7 th, 9 th, Cottage Avenue and 11 th Street Est $2,000,000; Approx mos. Prior to 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 into the program, as well as demand analysis and mapping. This was intentionally designed to ensure a reasonable framework and methodology for effective communication and planning, as well as 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 most optimal locations for mobility enhancements and design retrofits. Recognizing variables 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 implement meaningful, Complete Street demonstration projects in a shorter duration and to effectively gain longer term support for the program. The 5D s 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 5D Mobility Demand Analysis. The 5D (collectively representing density, diversity, design, destinations and distances) analysis is a GIS based suitability analysis intended to identify areas within each corridor that contain the most optimal characteristics for investing in Complete Street based improvements. The 5D s, viewed as a collective whole, measures 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

8 predictable ways in terms of 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! TABLE 1: Mobility Demand (5Ds) Indicators Indicator Description Data Set Density Persons (residents and employees per sq. mi.) Dwelling units per acre of developable land Census Block Group/Block Info City of Jacksonville (COJ) Parcel coverage Diversity Design (Pedestrian Environment Design) Destinations Distance/Route Directness Transit Ridership Land use mix as measured by the proportion of dissimilar land uses among grid of cells Intersection/Street Network Density (intersections per sq. mi.) Building frontages (% of ROW with frontage) Sidewalk/Bike Lane Completeness (% of corridor/street frontages with bike lanes and sidewalks) Average distance to regional activity centers; including employment, schools, localserving retail Average distance to transit stop (% of dwelling units within ¼ mile of stop and/or average distance from dwelling units to closest transit stop in feet maximum ideal scenario 600 feet) Ratio of shortest walking distance from point of origin to point of destination (i.e. school) vs. straight line distance Average daily ridership per sq. mi. COJ Parcel coverage (Property Use codes) Street centerline file/intersection nodes COJ Building footprints Sidewalk/Bike lane coverage COJ parcel coverage COJ parcel coverage JTA Transit stop/route coverage JTA ridership data The analysis was conducted using GIS by delineating ¼ mile buffered segments based on the propensity for a 5 minute walk to access the high frequency Mobility Corridor. In order to spatially measure the cumulative impacts of the D variables, the following table provides the indicators, description and data set or source:

9 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 includes annual average bicycle and pedestrian crashes between 2006 present), this approach maximizes the use of limited resources by avoiding the focus on areas that have lower transit dependency and/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 on going support and strategic collaboration from all agencies involved to provide guidance and identify funding opportunities necessary to implement these projects. A key component will also 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 FDOT 2015 Florida Transportation Plan. To the extent that these projects demonstrate meaningful results from a safety, mobility, economic development, environmental and livability standpoint, the greater the opportunity for leveraging additional funding. In order to provide an objective framework for Complete Street project prioritization, JTA developed a Mobility Corridors Project Prioritization Matrix. 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 weighting factor in order to give primacy to potential focus areas with high crash incidences combined with high transit ridership and equity issues. This 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 FDOT 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 FDOT Complete Streets Implementation Plan. These 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 its importance in Corridor project prioritization. The weighting scale is designed to give priority to the safety, accessibility (including ADA Compliance), and funding leveragability objectives primarily associated with JTA s core transit access needs. The scoring methodology ranges from a simple 1 to 3 scale, with 1 corresponding to not satisfying the intent of the goal to 3, satisfying the goal well. With the exception of policy support, such as the extent to which a Corridor project supports other on going planning initiatives in the area, the scoring was conducted based on geospatial results with a set of index values created using the Jenks Natural Data Breaks algorithm. The Keystone projects identified represented those with the highest rankings in the matrix. The following

10 explains in detail each of the goals, objectives, values and data sources used to create the prioritization tool: Figure 3 Mobility Corridor Prioritization Matrix 273

11 Goal 1: Increasing Mobility and Safety for All Users Supporting Objectives and scoring method from 1 (low) to 3 (high): 1. Density/Diversity/Design/Destinations/Distances (5Ds) Measures the degree to which the corridor/project focus area is within area representing land use/transportation factors supporting multimodal accessibility through development density, land use mix, walkable urban design, proximity to key activity centers, and short distances to transit a. The average 5D score for all segments within each project area were used to assign a project area average 5D score (less the ridership component). b. Index values: i. 1= low ii. 2= medium iii. 3= high Source: JTAMobilityWorks 5D Analysis, Bike/Pedestrian Crashes Measures the degree to which corridor/project focus area is within area with numerous annual average bicycle/pedestrian crashes between 2006 present based on Signal 4 Analytics data a. The Signal 4 Analytics crash data was queried to only include bike/ped crashes, then a sum of bike/ped crashes by project area was tabulated using a spatial join. b. Index values: i. 1= 0 5 incidents per year ii. 2= 6 9 incidents per year iii. 3= 10 or more incidents per year Source: Signal 4 Analytics (University of Florida) crash data, Transit Ridership Measures the degree to which corridor/project focus area represents area with high transit ridership a. The most recent transit ridership file was joined to the current active stops in order to determine total ridership by project area. b. Index values: i. 1= Less than 350 daily ii. 2= daily iii. 3= 1100 or more daily Source: JTA Ridership 1507 pick period, Access to Key Transit Routes Measures the degree to which corridor/project focus area represents area with direct access to key high frequency (30 minutes or less) transit routes, as measured by percent of persons living within ¼ mile from stops served by those routes a. The Census Block Population within ¼ mile of stops within project areas serving high frequency routes was determined using the following steps: i. First, active stops were queried for key routes (Routes 1 9 & 102). ii. Stops within project areas were assigned the project area name. iii. ¼ mile buffers were created around the stops, then dissolved by project name. iv. Census blocks were clipped by the ¼ mile buffers, then the portion of population within the buffer as compared to the total project area was calculated. b. Index values:

12 i. 1= Less than 25% ii. 2= 25% 75% iii. 3= 75% or more Source: JTA Routes 1512 pick period; Population by Census Block (US Census), Presence of Adequate Lighting Measures the degree to which corridor/project focus area is within area containing the presence of adequate lighting a. JEA provided a light pole locations shapefile. Unfortunately, there were no attributes identifying the light intensity or type. A decision was made to use light pole density by project area as the metric. b. The total count of light poles within each project area calculated 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. Since poor lighting indicates a project need, a higher Presence of Adequate Lighting index value indicates a lower density of light poles within the project area. e. Index values: i. 1= 850 or more per square mile ii. 2= per square mile iii. 3= Less than 530 per square mile Source: JEA Street Lights shapefile, ADA Compliance Measures the degree to which corridor/project focus area is within area with high percentage of non compliant ADA bus stops a. An Automated Transit Stop Inventory Model (ATSIM) export was joined to current active stops in order to characterize the ADA compliance b. ADA Accessibility by Stop (What is considered compliant vs. non compliant from the ATSIM user guide: i. Compliant 1. Accessible: People in wheelchairs can access the stop ii. Non Compliant 1. Functional: People in wheelchairs can access the stop, but it does not have all the required amenities 2. Not Accessible: People in wheelchairs cannot access the stop 3. Not evaluated: For this analysis, these were assumed to be noncompliant by default. Less than 4% of the stops included in this analysis had a blank ADA attribute. c. A higher ADA Compliance index value indicates a higher proportion of functional and non accessible stops (Stops needing improvement) within the project area. d. Index values: i. 1= Less than 50% non compliant stops ii. 2= 50 75% non compliant stops iii. 3= 75% or more non compliant stops Source: ATSIM bus stop database,

13 Vehicle Capacity Ratios (VCR) Measures the ratio of daily vehicular traffic to roadway capacity compared to total annual accidents a. The City of Jacksonville Road Links Status Report ( and development/docs/communityplanning division/transportation planning/road links status report aspx) was used to identify the percentage of capacity used for each project roadway. b. Some project areas may contain multiple road segments. Where this occurs, multiple segments were averaged to get the project area average VCR. c. Index values: i. 1= < 43.85% ii. 2= % iii. 3= >73.40% d. The VCR was compared with the Signal 4 Analytics Crash Data within each project area in order to identify underutilized roadways with a high incidence of accidents. The average number of accidents per year within each project area were assigned the following index values: i. 1 < 94 ii. 2= iii. 3> 209 e. A total index was created based on the sum of these two. Project areas with low utilization (low V/C ratio) and high crashes received a 3. i. 1< 3 ii. 2= 4 iii. 3> 4 Source: COJ Road Links Status Report; Signal 4 Analytics,

14 Goal 2: Planning and Funding Leveragability 1. Facility Designation Is the corridor/project focus area along an FDOT Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), FDOT Non SIS, or City owned facility? a. Project corridor roadways were evaluated by designation. A higher degree of design flexibility may be offered on roadways owned and maintained solely by the City of Jacksonville, so City owned roadways get an index value of 3. FDOT SIS Facilities have greater design limitations and would be scored the lowest, or a 1. FDOT Non SIS facilities, which can offer more flexibility than SIS would receive a 2. b. Index values: i. 1= SIS ii. 2= Non SIS iii. 3= City owned Source: NAVTEQ road coverage; FDOT Strategic Intermodal System Support of Local Planning Initiatives and Proximity to CRA s Measures the degree to which the corridor/project focus area is within a planned or designated Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) and consistent with local and regional land use and economic development plans such as identified Neighborhood Action Plan (NAP), Vision Plan, and/or Corridor Study area boundary 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 as whether or not they intersect a CRA e. Index values: i. 1= Not in CRA, doesn t support local planning initiatives ii. 2= Not in CRA, but supports local documented planning initiatives iii. 3= In CRA, Supports local planning initiatives Source: COJ CRA boundaries; local planning documents (CRA Plans, Vision Plans, NAPs, etc.) 3. Funding Leveragability Measures the degree to which corridor/project focus area offers the potential for additional funding sources a. Index Values: i. 1 = Not likely to leverage additional funding; ii. 2 = Likely potential to leverage additional funding; iii. 3 = In current FDOT Work Program, including existing partial funding and potential to leverage additional state/federal/private funding Source: JTA; FDOT; COJ,

15 Goal 3: Public Health and Livability 1. Social Equity Measures the degree to which corridor/project focus area is within or proximate to areas where the combined expenditures on housing and transportation exceed 30% of household income to account for supporting greater affordability and location efficiencies. a. The Center for Neighborhood Technology s H+T (Housing and Transportation) Affordability Index data was used to determine location efficiency and affordability. Data is available from CNT at the Block Group level. The HT_AMI field was used, which indicates the Housing + Transportation Costs as a percentage of income for the regional typical household ($52,258). b. The H+T Affordability Index data was clipped to project areas, then the area weighted average HT_AMI value was calculated for each project area. c. A lower HTA_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 transportation access component can be improved, offering low cost transportation options. d. Index values: i. 1= 30 40% ii. 2= 41 50% iii. 3= 50% or more Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology Housing + Transportation Affordability Index, Access to Food Measures the degree to which population within corridor/project focus area has poor access to healthy food and good access to fast food a. Data from Florida Environmental Health Tracking provides the percentage of population that lives within ½ mile of a healthy food option and the percentage population that lives within ½ mile of a fast food restaurant, by zip code. b. Zip codes were clipped to project areas, and assigned the project area name. An areaweighted percentage of population was calculated for each factor by project area. c. The inverse of the percentage of population within ½ mile of healthy options and the original percentage of population within ½ mile of fast food were used to calculate the index value. By using the inverse of population near healthy, a higher score indicates fewer healthy options nearby. The indicator values for both healthy and fast food options were added to come up with a composite score with a possible range of d. Index values: i. 1= <81 ( Low ) ii. 2= ( Medium ) iii. 3=113 or more ( High ) Source: Florida Environmental Health Tracking Food availability by Zip Code, 2016

16 Goal 4. Economic Development and Competitiveness 1. Adjacent to Substantially Vacant/Redevelopable Commercial Property Measures degree to which corridor/project focus area is within/adjacent to area with high level of vacant/redevelopable commercial/retail properties a. 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. The Search by Polygon tool was used to draw each project area, and the total number of commercial properties for sale and for lease were recorded. The search was performed on 2/5/2016. b. The total number of commercial properties for sale or lease was normalized by the project area (Square miles). c. Index: i. 1< 3.1 per sq. mi. ii. 2= per sq. mi. iii. 3> per sq. mi. Source: Loopnet Commercial Real Estate Search Engine, 2016 Outcomes As of this writing, preliminary engineering and design is underway for the five major keystone projects noted in previous section. The intent is to leverage the initial JTA dedicated funding with potential FDOT funds, discretionary grants and MPO Federal Surface Transportation (SU) funds to advance into final design and construction no later than In August of 2016, the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) Board adopted each of the identified Mobility Corridor projects into its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which will be instrumental in assisting with funding and implementation. Once each of the initial keystone projects are 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 utilized stop locations. Most significantly, JTA and agency stakeholders will look to observe the potential impacts on reducing all types of crashes, particularly bus incidents at or proximate to major stop locations. Recognizing that such Complete Street interventions can increase the rates of active transportation (e.g. an increase in walking and biking trips as a portion of total trips within a community), partnerships are also underway with the Northeast Florida Health Planning Council (NFHPC) to conduct formal health impact assessments (HIAs) 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 (TOD) goals in order to maximize its transit based assets, other positive outcomes that will be investigated associated with the implementation of the keystone projects. This may include the extent to which such improvements have yielded an increase in adjacent redevelopment activity, such as the level of private investment, reductions in vacancy rates, and/or an increase in retail vibrancy (i.e. retail and restaurant sales, number of customers) in adjacent properties.