Study Update October 11, 2017 FDOT District 5 1
I-4 Study Area 23 Miles along SR 436 Regional and gateway corridor Connects 7 jurisdictions 11 LYNX routes along and 8 LYNX routes across the corridor 3 SuperStops SR 434 Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner OIA 2
One Street, Many Roles 3
One Street, Many Roles 4
Schedule What are the issues, opportunities, & objectives? What are our alternatives? Which alternatives best meet our goals & objectives? Which alternatives do we want to move forward? How can we best fund & implement the preferred alternative? 2017 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov 2018 Mar May 2018 5
Existing Conditions 6
Existing Conditions What are the issues, opportunities, and objectives? 7
Travel Patterns Dense employment pockets 86% of trips start or end outside of the corridor Travel patterns emphasize need for system-level thinking 10 Source: LEHD data
Infrastructure Lack of comfortable bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the corridor because of land use and transportation factors 11
Infrastructure Ample ROW could be used for multimodal infrastructure Several planning and implementation efforts targeted to address safety 12
Safety Half of all fatal crashes involved pedestrians Rear End Pedestrian Angle Other Left Turn Bicycle Fixed Object/Run-Off Road Right Turn Head On Sideswipe Incapacitating Injury Fatal 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% % of Incapacitating Injury and Fatal Crashes Source: FDOT CARS data (2011-2015) 13
Transit Ridership SR 434 I-4 Red Bug Lake Links 436N and 436S account for ~7% of LYNX ridership 15,400 daily boardings and alightings on SR 436 Average weekday ridership on main routes between 2,100 and 3,100 highest of all 30+ minute-headway routes Steady ridership through midday hours Aloma SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner Ridership is dispersed along the long corridor OIA Source: Lynx Automatic Passenger Counter Reports, August 2016 Schedule Period 14
Project Goals Enhanced transit experience to support current customers and to increase ridership from a wider range of potential users Safe, comfortable, and accessible walking and bicycling environments Transportation investments that encourage development and redevelopment consistent with community goals Reliable and safe vehicular mobility Transportation improvements that are implementable and financially sustainable Multimodal improvements that support community health 15
Alternative Analysis 16
Tiered Alternatives Analysis Level 1 Modes Level 2 Alignments Segments Level 3 Prep Operating scenarios Stations Multimodal access (Complete Streets) Identify Screen Select 17
Level 1 Alternatives (Modes) BRT - Silver Ex: Cleveland Healthline Fixed Guideway BRT BRT - Bronze Ex: Eugene Emerald Express Corridor-Based BRT Limited-Stop Bus Ex: FastLinks Local Bus 19
Limited Stop Bus Albuquerque Rapid Ride Red Line Fort Lauderdale, FL Orlando, FL Limited Stop Bus Up to 120 passengers per vehicle Runs in mixed-traffic Passengers per Up to 120 vehicle Fewer stops; farther apart Average Daily Longer routes, Varies connecting city centers to Ridership smaller suburban centers Typical Route Length 15 to 35 miles May have enhanced stations Stop Spacing Fewer stops, farther apart May have transit signal priority Densities: Residential 10 du/acre Densities: Employees Typically 5 have jobs/acre strong branding and image Capital Costs Regular $1 buses to $2 or million/mile larger buses Operating Cost Peak periods $85 - $130 or all-day per vehicle service hour Defining Capital Costs: - Runs $1-2 in mixed-traffic Million/mile characteristics - Longer routes, connecting city centers to suburban centers - May have enhanced stations - Typically have strong branding and image - Regular buses or larger buses 20
Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit Average Daily Ridership 4,500 to 1M+ Typical Route Length Stop Spacing Densities: Residential 4 to 25 miles Dependent on land use 5 to 20 du/acre Cleveland Health Line Densities: Employees Capital Costs Operating Cost 30 jobs/acre $4 to $40 million/mile $95 - $150 per vehicle hour Defining characteristics - Enhanced stations - Off-board fare payment - Branding - Transit signal priority - Can run in mixed traffic or on exclusive lanes - Rubber tire vehicles with modern design Orlando Downtown LYMMO 21
Elements of Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Based BRT Operates in mixed traffic Frequent bi-directional service on weekdays Defined stations Transit Signal Priority Short headway times Fixed Guideway BRT Operates in exclusive lane on >50% of alignment during peak periods Frequent bi-directional service on weekdays and weekends Defined Stations Transit Signal Priority Short headway times *FTA BRT Categories 22
Eugene, OR Emerald Express Branded stations 23
Los Angeles, CA Metroliner Real-time info 24
Grand Rapids, MI The Rapid Level boarding 25
Cleveland, OH Healthline Light rail experience Ticket machines 26
Level 2 Candidate Alternatives (Alignments/Segments) SR 434 Mall Aloma Ave OIA to SR 434 (red) OIA to Aloma Ave (blue) OIA to SR 50 (green) Aloma Ave to Altamonte Mall (orange) US 17/92 to SR 434 (purple) SR 50 OIA 27
Traffic Operations 28
Auto Volume over Time Thousands 90 80 70 Lines represent individual count stations Between US 17/92 & Red Bug Lake Rd AADT (veh/day) 60 50 40 30 20 +37% +26% 10 South North Source: FDOT FTI 2016 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 29
2015 AADTs Little or no growth in AADTs over the last 15 years I-4 SR 434 Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 Concentrated AADT peaks between major cross-streets SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner OIA 30 Source: FDOT Traffic Online (2015)
Average Travel Speeds Slowdowns are limited to certain segments I-4 SR 434 Red Bug Lake Aloma SR 50 No LOS F conditions SR 408 Curry Ford Speeding is common in off-peak Source: HERE/NPMRDS Data (2016). Obtained from FDOT Central Office LOS F= <15 mph LOS E= 15-18 mph LOS D= 18-23 mph LOS C= 23-31 mph LOS B = 31+ mph OIA Hoffner 31
Intersection Performance I-4 SR 434 Red Bug Lake Aloma 26 Study Intersections SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner OIA 32
Intersection Performance I-4 SR 434 Red Bug Lake Aloma Synchro HCM 2010 SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner OIA 33
Intersection ID Crossing Street Crossing Street Direction LOS D or better LOS E LOS F Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 436 Crossing Street SR 436 Crossing Street Intersection NB/WB SB/EB EB/NB WB/SB NB/WB SB/EB EB/NB WB/SB 1 TG Lee E/W 66.1(E) 68.2(E) 61.4(E) 72.1(E) 69.8(E) 90.1(F) 66.6(E) 113.8(F) 110.2(F) 76.6(E) 2 Lee Vista E/W 52.6(D) 36.8(D) 45.7(D) 72.3(E) 80.3(F) 63.3(E) 53(D) 56.9(E) 76.4(E) 82.7(F) 3 Hoffner E/W 59.4(E) 55.3(E) 55.6(E) 75.3(E) 71.6(E) 63.2(E) 57.2(E) 55.3(E) 84.7(F) 77(E) 4 Pershing E/W 68.9(E) 39.4(D) 41.9(D) 73.3(E) 172.3(F) 80.8(F) 100.6(F) 60.1(E) 74.2(E) 90.2(F) 5 Curry Ford E/W 62.3(E) 52.6(D) 50.5(D) 64.3(E) 88.5(F) 73.5(E) 53.6(D) 50.5(D) 95.4(F) 116.6(F) 6 Lake Underhill E/W 76(E) 42.5(D) 42.5(D) 161.6(F) 97.9(F) 70.6(E) 45.5(D) 45.9(D) 121.7(F) 118.6(F) 7 SR 50 E/W 82.5(F) 71.9(E) 83.6(F) 82.1(F) 138.2(F) 77.5(E) 73.5(E) 73.5(E) 90.2(F) 100.8(F) 8 Old Cheney Hwy E/W 45.2(D) 34.6(C) 49.2(D) 70.4(E) 68.4(E) 65.6(E) 76.4(E) 52.4(D) 81.9(F) 70.1(E) 9 Baldwin Park St E/W 51.4(D) 30.7(C) 56.1(E) 93.9(F) 99.7(F) 60.6(E) 61.2(E) 49.9(D) 75.3(E) 105.8(F) 10 University Blvd E/W 71(E) 60.9(E) 59.9(E) 156.6(F) 72.5(E) 73.6(E) 62.5(E) 52(D) 127.3(F) 115.8(F) 11 Aloma Ave (SR 426) E/W 72.2(E) 69.7(E) 103.3(F) 27.5(C) 64.7(E) 80.9(F) 92.8(F) 83(F) 56.9(E) 87.8(F) 12 Howell Branch E/W 74.1(E) 76.8(E) 72.1(E) 70.1(E) 76.1(E) 85.5(F) 71.5(E) 72.6(E) 112.2(F) 92.6(F) 13 Red Bug Lake Rd E/W 51.3(D) 33.9(C) 22.8(C) - 130.9(F) 38.7(D) 28.0(C) 21.2(C) - 126.6(F) 14 Wilshire Dr N/S 38.6(D) 20.9(C) 20.7(C) 367.3(F) 232.1(F) 28.3(C) 16.9(B) 33.3(C) 74.5(E) 68.7(E) 15 Fern Park Blvd N/S 50.3(D) 55.4(E) 38.5(D) 96.4(F) - 46.4(D) 30.6(C) 44.7(D) 158(F) - 16 Oxford N/S 37.3(D) 32.2(C) 26(C) 92.6(F) 119.4(F) 41.8(D) 31.4(C) 39.3(D) 90(F) 93.1(F) 17 Shopping Plaza N/S 7.3(A) 1(A) 12.6(B) 86.4(F) 96.6(F) 17.5(B) 2.9(A) 23(C) 87.8(F) 89.4(F) 18 US 17-92 N/S 80.9(F) 14.7(B) 65.8(E) 538.4(F) 103.2(F) 105.8(F) 26.9(C) 66.7(E) 398.3(F) 126.4(F) 19 CR 427/Ronald Reagan N/S 39(D) 31.9(C) 24.7(C) 89(F) 82.2(F) 32.8(C) 30.8(C) 7(A) 111.6(F) 90.7(F) 20 Maitland Ave N/S 36.9(D) 33.8(C) 37.2(D) 46.5(D) 41.7(D) 54.8(D) 54.1(D) 50.2(D) 65.8(E) 72.3(E) 21 Palm Springs N/S 61(E) 34.1(C) 31.5(C) 67.9(E) 170.3(F) 83.3(F) 27.8(C) 75.8(E) 99.3(F) 278.2(F) 22 Festival Dr / Hattaway N/S 22.5(C) 16.9(B) 18.3(B) 67.6(E) 74.8(E) 49.9(D) 63.4(E) 30.8(C) 92.1(F) 82(F) 23 I-4 Interchange (EB Ramps) N/S 37.5(D) 48.6(D) 20.9(C) 70.7(E) - 41.2(D) 46(D) 26.3(C) 90.6(F) - 24 I-4 Interchange (WB Ramps) N/S 33.6(C) 16.9(B) 44.2(D) - 96.1(F) 45(D) 16.9(B) 63.2(E) - 97.7(F) 25 Montgomery N/S 45.3(D) 27.1(C) 46.8(D) 88.3(F) 67.6(E) 48.6(D) 42.1(D) 47(D) 88.9(F) 65.5(E) 26 SR 434 N/S 66.7(E) 65.3(E) 61.9(E) 70.2(E) 74.4(E) 84.9(F) 62.3(E) 102.9(F) 89.4(F) 81(F) 34
35
Traffic Impact/Access Study 36
Balancing Act Automobil e Regional goals are aligned with high-quality transit High-quality transit requires exclusive/semiexclusive ROW Walking and bicycling comfort and safety increases with slower travel speeds, more crossings, and may require ROW Existing function Existing throughput Existing dev t patterns LYNX Transit Emphasis Corridor High-performing transit route Regional goals 37
Potential Project Elements Runningways- curbside vs median Stops or stations Transit signal priority Queue Jumps Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Other amenities 38
bike/ped/transit How do project elements impact auto performance? How do project elements impact performance? 39
Analysis Tools Macroscopic Mesoscopic Microscopic Complexity and Cost Sources: https://projectmason.com/state-route-741/traffic-count-and-accident-data/ https://www.aimsun.com/the-city-of-montreal/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/traffic_simulation 40
Analysis Years Historical Trends Parallel Facilities Existing Issues Existing Year Traffic 41
Intersection Analysis 42
Intersection Analysis I-4 SR 434 Red Bug Lake Aloma Synchro HCM 2010 SR 50 SR 408 Curry Ford Hoffner OIA 43
Examples Bus Bulb-outs Existing bus pull-outs Potential bus bulb-outs SR 436, Orlando, FL N 45 th Street, Seattle, WA Sources: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (2016) Sources: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide (2016) 44
Examples Bus Bulb-outs Bus Blockages (#/hr): The number of buses that stop and block traffic at a near-side bus stop... The Bus Blockage assumes an average blockage of 14.4 seconds. -Guidelines for Using Synchro Synchro 45
Examples - Transit Queue Jumps Allowing transit vehicles to use right-turn lanes to bypass the queues on the through lanes. Transit vehicles get a head-start over other queued vehicles and merge into the regular travel lanes immediately beyond the signal. 46
Examples BAT Lanes O Farrell Street, San Francisco, CA Sources: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide (2016) 47
Examples BAT Lanes Seattle, WA 48
Examples BAT Lanes Blanding Bv, Jacksonville, FL Sources: Google Earth 49
Examples BAT Lanes with RT Pocket Baseline BAT Lanes With BAT Lanes SR 436 & Lee Vista Blvd Synchro Sources: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide (2016) 50
Examples BAT Lanes w/o RT Pocket Baseline BAT Lanes With BAT Lanes SR 436 & Old Cheney Hwy Synchro Sources: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide (2016) 51
Examples Exclusive Median Runningways Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH Sources: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide (2016) 52
Examples Exclusive Median Runningways Baseline Excl. Median Runningways With Excl. Median Runningways SR 436 & Lee Vista Blvd Synchro Sources: NACTO Transit Street Design Guide (2016) 53
Roadway Segment Analysis 54
Roadway Performance Criteria * LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F * City of Casselberry exempts the SR 436 section between the west city limits and Oxford Road from its LOS standard, marking it as constrained. Sources: FDOT Policy No. 000-525-006-c, Orange County Code, Seminole County Comprehensive Plan s Transportation Element City of Orlando s Comprehensive Plan s Transportation Element City of Altamonte Springs City Plan 2030 s Multimodal Transportation Element City of Casselberry s Traffic Circulation Element part of their Comprehensive Plan 55
Roadway Performance Directional Peak Hour Generalized Service Volume Tables Lanes and volume adjustments per 2013 Q/LOS Handbook Sources: FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook 56
Roadway Performance FDOT data AADTs Standard K Factor D Factors Study data Lane utilization Signal delays Source: http://www.cwejournal.org 57
Recap Macroscopic Synchro Q/LOS Handbook HCM 2010 Spreadsheets Existing Year Traffic 58
Next Steps Revise current TIAS report (baseline) to address FDOT comments Next PAWG meeting (#5) on November 16, 2017 Present Level 2 screening results Develop candidate Level 3 alternatives HIA Working Group meeting (#2) on October 18, 2017 59
Share our website and survey! https://www.lynxsr436.com/ metroquest-survey/ 60 60
Thank You! 61