2040 LRTP Appendix B: North Florida TPO Congestion Management Plan and Annual Mobility Report

Appendix B Congestion Management Plan

January 26, 2015

This page is intentionally blank.

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

North Florida Transportation Planning Organization 1022 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207 July 2013

This page is intentionally blank.

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Executive Summary The North Florida TPO is required to prepare a congestion management process to address recurring congestion within the region. The social and economic costs of recurring congestion within the North Florida region have staggering economic and social costs. More than $316 million are lost each year by travelers due to the lost time and excess fuel consumption associated with delays. When congestion resulting from crashes are considered, the total costs of congestion is $526 million. This amounts to 11 hours or $400 for each of our region’s 1.3 million residents.

Since the economic peak in 2007, congestion has declined overall due to the recession, but is on the rise again.

Fewer people are moving today than were in 2007 however the total travel delays still increased by 7.57%.

Compared to 2011, the regional costs of congestion increased by $18.91 million. This congestion during this analysis period is more concentrated on key facilities such as I-10, I-95, I-295, Banding Boulevard, Southside Boulevard, Atlantic Boulevard, San Jose Boulevard, J.T. Butler Boulevard and SR A1A. Transit ridership has grown over the last five years due to increases in fuel prices, the economic downturn and greater accessibility. Since 2007, transit ridership increased by 20% from 11.3 million riders to 13.8 million in 2011. As accessibility to transit improves, ridership is expected to increase. In 2012, 46% of all residential households present within the North Florida region have a transit stop within the quarter-mile radius. 87% of all residential households within North Florida region are located within a five mile radius of a park and ride lot.

As part of this plan, a series of congestion management corridors were established and then potential strategies to reduce congestion and improve mobility were identified. The goals and objectives of these strategies included: 

Leverage technology such as express lanes and digital traffic control to enhance the operations of corridors so we can get the most out of our existing system.



Limit the number of lanes to six on non-freeway facilities to provide pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly environments consistent with the corridor.



A continuing process to enhance the mobility within the area is recommended.



The process should be updated once every five years concurrent with the update to the long-range transportation plan looks ahead to needs within the region for the next 20 years.



Engage new data sources as they come available to enhance the process for understanding congestion and defining solutions to best fit the needs for improving the corridors.



The success of the plan will be determined based on the annual evaluation of performance measures that will quantify the mobility provided in the region.

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... ii List of Appendices........................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ v 1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.

1.2.

2.

Prior CMP ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.

2.2.

3.

FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures Program Database ..................................................... 13 Florida Sourcebook ............................................................................................................................. 14 National Transit Database by Federal Transit Administration .................................................. 15 Florida Department of Transportation Level-of-Service (LOS) Tables....................................15 BlueToad Data ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Development of CMP Goals and Objectives .................................................................. 20 5.1.

5.2.

5.3.

5.4.

6.

Summary of CMPs Reviewed .............................................................................................................. 6

Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 13 4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

5.

North Florida TPO’s CMP..................................................................................................................... 4 Year 2006 Update ................................................................................................................................ 4

Review of Best Practices .................................................................................................... 6 3.1.

4.

Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Requirements .......................................................................................................................................... 1

MAP-21 .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Florida Transportation Plan ............................................................................................................. 20 2035 Envision Long Range Transportation Plan .......................................................................... 21 CMP Goals and Objectives................................................................................................................ 22

Summary and Analysis of Performance Measures.......................................................26 6.1.

Hot-Spot Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 41

7.

Identification of Congested Corridors ............................................................................43

8.

Congestion Mitigation Strategies ................................................................................... 48 8.1.

8.1.1.

8.1.2.

8.1.3.

8.1.4.

8.1.5.

8.1.6.

Transportation Systems Management and Operational (TSM&O) Strategies ..................... 48 Surveillance and Incident Management Systems (1&5) ............................................................... 49 Access Management (1&5) ................................................................................................................. 50 Congestion Pricing (1&5) ...................................................................................................................... 51 Integrated Corridor Management (1&5) .......................................................................................... 52 Arterial Management Systems (1&5) ............................................................................................... 53 Hard Shoulder Running (1&5)............................................................................................................. 54 i

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.1.7.

8.1.8.

8.1.9.

8.1.10.

8.1.11.

8.1.12.

8.1.13.

8.1.14.

8.2.

8.2.1.

8.2.2.

8.2.3.

8.2.4.

8.3.

8.3.1.

8.3.2.

8.3.3.

8.3.4.

8.3.5.

8.4.

9.

Reversible Lanes (1&5) ........................................................................................................................ 55 One-way Streets (1&5) ........................................................................................................................ 56 Ramp Metering (1&5) ............................................................................................................................ 57 Transit Signal Priority (1&5)............................................................................................................... 58 Variable Speed Limits (1&5) ............................................................................................................... 59 Dynamic Detours (1&5)........................................................................................................................ 60 Queue Warning Systems (1&5) ............................................................................................................ 61 Traveler Information Systems (1&5) .................................................................................................. 61 Travel Demand Management (TDM) Strategies .......................................................................... 62 High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Incentives (1&5) .......................................................................... 62 Park-and-Ride Lots (1&5).................................................................................................................... 63 Multimodal Transportation Corridors and Centers (1&5) ............................................................ 64 Commuter Assistance Service Programs (1&5) ............................................................................ 65 Transit Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 66 Local Bus Service Improvements (1&5) ........................................................................................... 66 Express Bus Service Improvements (1&5) ....................................................................................... 67 Bus Rapid Transit Improvements (1&5) ........................................................................................... 68 Light Rail Transit Improvements (1&5)............................................................................................ 68 Commuter Rail Transit Improvements (1&5) .................................................................................. 69 Capacity Improvements .................................................................................................................... 70

Identification and Evaluation of Strategies ................................................................... 72 9.1.

9.2.

Congested Corridor Strategy Evaluation ...................................................................................... 72 Regional Strategy – Commuter Service Campaign ..................................................................... 76

10. Strategy Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 78 11.

Implementation and Management ................................................................................... 79

11.1.

11.2.

11.3.

North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) .................................................. 79 Other North Florida TPO Committees ........................................................................................... 80 The North Florida TPO Governing Board ...................................................................................... 80

12. Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................................81 12.1.

Procedure for Periodic Assessment and Updates ...................................................................... 82 12.2.

Integration with other North Florida TPO Plans ......................................................................... 82 12.2.1.

Integration with the LRTP .............................................................................................................. 82 12.2.2. Integration with the TIP .................................................................................................................. 82 12.2.3. Integration with the Public Involvement Plans .......................................................................... 83 12.2.4. Integration with the NEPA Process.............................................................................................. 83

13. References ......................................................................................................................... 84

List of Appendices Appendix A: Year 2012 CMP Update – Data Collection and Literature Review Report (On CD) Appendix B: Hot-Spot Analysis Temperature Charts (On CD) ii

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

List of Figures Figure 1 - North Florida CMP System Boundary ................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 - FHWA CMP Elements ............................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 - North Florida TPO’s CMP Prior Congestion Management Corridors .......................................... 5 Figure 4 - BlueToad Device Locations Planned for Implementation within North Florida TPO Boundary ................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 5 - BlueToad Device Locations Currently Active within North Florida TPO Boundary ............... 17 Figure 6 - I-95 Northbound Speed Variation Chart & Reliability ................................................................ 29 Figure 7 - I-95 Southbound Speed Variation Chart & Reliability ................................................................ 30 Figure 8 - Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO ............................................................................ 46 Figure 9 - Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO – Inset ............................................................... 47 Figure 10 - Freeway Surveillance ........................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 11 - Reduction in Conflict Points and Blanding Boulevard Access Management ......................... 50 Figure 12 - Congestion Pricing – Miami, Florida................................................................................................. 51 Figure 13 - Integrated Corridor Management .................................................................................................. 52 Figure 14 - Components of Arterial Management Systems .......................................................................... 54 Figure 15 - Hard Shoulder Running in Europe .................................................................................................. 55 Figure 16 - Bay Street, Jacksonville, FL – Reversible Lanes ........................................................................ 55 Figure 17 - One-way Streets in Downtown Jacksonville ................................................................................. 57 Figure 18 - Ramp Metering along I-95, Miami, FL ........................................................................................... 58 Figure 19 - Transit Signal Priority, Philips Highway, Jacksonville, FL ....................................................... 58 Figure 20 - Variable Speed Limits, I-5 in Seattle, WA ................................................................................... 59 Figure 21 - Dynamic Detour System, Concept of Operations, North Florida TPO ................................... 60 Figure 22 - Queue Warning System on European Motorway ......................................................................... 61 Figure 23 - Traveler Information System on I-95, Jacksonville, FL ........................................................... 62 Figure 24 - HOV Lanes, Atlanta, GA .................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 25 - JTA Suburban Park-and-Ride Lots, Jacksonville, FL ............................................................... 64 Figure 26 - Proposed Jacksonville Transportation Center, Jacksonville, FL .......................................... 65 Figure 27 - North Florida TPO Cool-to-Pool Program, Jacksonville, FL .................................................... 66 Figure 28 - JTA’s and Sunshine Bus Routes, North Florida, FL ................................................................... 67 Figure 29 -Example of a BRT System - Eugene, Oregon............................................................................... 68 Figure 30 - Light Rail Transit System, Minneapolis, MN ............................................................................... 69 Figure 31 - Commuter Rail Station, Tri-Rail, Miami, FL.................................................................................. 70 Figure 32 - Prioritization of Strategy Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................... 72 Figure 33 - Total Trips Utilizing Blanding Boulevard for Commute............................................................. 77 Figure 34 - CMP Strategy Evaluation Cycle .................................................................................................... 78

iii

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

List of Tables Table 1: CMPs in the State of Florida – Evaluation Matrix ....................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: CMPs in Other States – Evaluation Matrix ................................................................................................................ 10 Table 3: Mobility Performance Measures for Highways ........................................................................................................ 13 Table 4: Mobility Performance Measures for Transit Systems............................................................................................ 14 Table 5: Enhance Economic Competitiveness: Objectives and Performance Measures ............................................... 23 Table 6: Livability and Sustainability: Objectives and Performance Measures ............................................................... 24 Table 7: Safety: Objectives and Performance Measures ...................................................................................................... 24 Table 8: Mobility: Objectives and Performance Measures ................................................................................................... 25 Table 9: I-95 from I-295 to Racetrack Road – Reliability Analysis.................................................................................... 27 Table 10: I-95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road – Reliability Analysis ........................................................................... 27 Table 11: I-95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive – Reliability Analysis ........................................................................ 28 Table 12: I-95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road – Reliability Analysis ............................................................ 28 Table 13: I-95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200 – Reliability Analysis ............................................................................ 28 Table 14: Goal 1- Existing Year Performance Measures Values ........................................................................................... 31 Table 15: Goal 2- Existing Year Performance Measures Values ......................................................................................... 34 Table 16: Goal 3- Existing Year Performance Measures Values ......................................................................................... 35 Table 17: Goal 4- Existing Year Performance Measures Values ......................................................................................... 40 Table 18: Performance Measures Summary for the North Florida TPO Governing Boundary ..................................... 42 Table 19: Congested Facilities List with Preliminary Ranking ............................................................................................ 44 Table 20: Strategy Evaluation Matrix ..................................................................................................................................... 73

iv

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AADT AM BCR BPAC BRT CAC CAP C-D CMAQ CMP CMS COG COJ ConOps DDHV DMS DOT EMS EPA F.S. FDOT FFS FHWA FIHS FL ft.

FTA FTP GIS HAR HNTB HOT HOV I-10 I-295 I-95 ICM ITS JTA L LOS LRT LRTP M&O MAP-21 MOEs MP MPH MPM MPO MSV MTP MVM NAS NEPA NERPM NHS North Florida TPO

Annual Average Daily Traffic ante meridiem or before noon Benefit-Cost Ratio Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Bus Rapid Transit Citizens Advisory Committee Commuter Assistance Program Collector-Distributor Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Congestion Management Plan Congestion Management System Council of Governments City of Jacksonville Concept of Operations Directional Design Hour Volume Dynamic Message Signs Department of Transportation Emergency Management Services Environmental Protection Agency Florida Statute Florida Department of Transportation Free Flow Speed Federal Highway Administration Florida Intrastate Highway System Florida Feet Federal Transit Administration Florida Transportation Plan Geographic Information Systems Highway Advisory Radio HNTB Corporation High-Occupancy Toll lanes High-Occupancy Vehicles lanes Interstate 10 Interstate 295 Interstate 95 Integrated Corridor Management Intelligent Transportation Systems Jacksonville Transportation Authority Length (usually in feet) Level-of-Service Light Rail Transit Long Range Transportation Plan Management and Operations Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Measure of Effectiveness Mile Post Miles per Hour Mobility Performance Measures Metropolitan Planning Organization Maximum Service Volume Metropolitan Transportation Plan Million vehicle miles Naval Air Station National Environmental Policy Act Northeast Florida Regional Planning Model National Highway System North Florida Transportation Planning Organization v

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

NTD NTD PC PD&E PIP PM PMT ROI SAFETEA-LU SIS SR TAC TCC TDM TIM TIP TMA TMT TSM&O TSP TTI UPWP US V/C VMT

National Transit Database National Transit Database Planning Councils Project Development and Environment Public Involvement Plan post meridiem or after noon Person Miles Traveled Return on Investment Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users Strategic Intermodal Highway System State Road Technical Advisory Committee Technical Coordination Committee Travel Demand Management Traffic Incident Management Transportation Improvement Program Transportation Management Area Truck Miles Traveled Transportation Systems Management and Operations Transit Signal Priority Texas Transportation Institute Unified Planning Work Program United States Volume over Capacity ratio Vehicle Miles Traveled

vi

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Quality Control Tracking Information Item Name Date Originator Kolluru 04/30/2013 Checker Shaw 05/01/2013 Drafted Kolluru 05/03/2013 Checker Shaw 05/06/2013 Drafted Kolluru 05/08/2013 Checker Shaw 05/09/2013 Drafted Kolluru 05/09/2013 Verified Shaw 05/10/2013 Comments TPO 05/30/2013 Drafted Kolluru 07/16/2013 Checker Shaw 07/17/2013 Drafted Kolluru 07/18/2013 Verified Shaw 07/18/2013

vii

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose This project’s purpose is to update the Congestion Management Process (CMP) to align strategies, objectives and investments to ensure resources are dedicated to reducing congestion within the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) planning boundaries. The North Florida TPO completed a Congestion Management System (CMS) in the year 1997. An update was conducted in the year 2006. This update to the CMS identifies and prioritizes congested State Highway System facilities within the North Florida TPO area.

The metropolitan planning boundaries and system identified for this CMP is shown on Figure 1.

The rule-making process for the CMP is not complete. In addition to the changes in governing boundary, the federal requirements that govern the development of a CMP have changed.

1.2. Requirements Maintenance of a CMP is a requirement for all Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) under Florida law and for MPOs in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) under Federal law. Consistent with the guidance from the Final Rule on the CMP for TMAs (Section 450.320), the intent of the CMP is to “address congestion management through a process that provides for safe and effective integrated management and operation of the multimodal transportation system.”

MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), was signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. MAP-21 requires: “within a metropolitan planning area serving a transportation management area, the transportation planning process under this section shall address congestion management through a process that provides for effective management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed and implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under this title and chapter 53 of title 49 through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies.”

According to FHWA CMP Guidebook, “Congestion management is the application of strategies to improve transportation system performance and reliability by reducing the adverse impacts of congestion on the movement of people and goods.” Figure 2 outlines the FHWA CMP process and elements.

Although, the CMP elements are shown in a linear and cyclical order, the elements presented in each step can be revisited and revised with the inclusion of new performance measures as a part of the update. Refer to FHWA guidebook for detailed information on CMP process here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/congestion_management_process/cmp_guidebook/

1

±

J I 121A

1

¤ £

0

1

2

4 Miles

J I 115 A

15

T S

23

115

J I I J J I J I J I J I J I

NASSAU

J I 107

J I

St. Johns

301

¤ £

105A

10

I J J I

A 1A

S ST T T S

J I

30

A 1A

¤ £

1

15A

Other Counties

5

T S

107A

108

105B

0019

107

T S

J I

Nassau

A 1A

T S A 1A

200

121

Duval

108

200A

T S

J I

115

Clay

0016

200A

J I

County Boundaries

105A

0012

J I

North Florida TPO Boundary

5

108

¤ £

J I

LEGEND

T S

J I

105

J I 105

17

T S

¤ £

2

5 11

T S

J T I S 110

10 2

J I

3

T S

110

T S A 1A

24

J I

200

T S

110

T S 104

I J J I

163

J I

A1

8

217

200

103

129

10 1

A 1A

T S

113

T S

109

A

228

126

211

T S 10

90A

T S

T S 128

10A

T S 22

J I 101A

8

J I 212

J I 211

J I 213

T S 202

T S 134

301

¤ £

228

8

T S

T I S J

295

T S

J I

T S

J I

22

§ ¦ ¨

T S

99

90 A

22

1 21

213

115 C

J I

¤ £

J I

J I T S

J I

109A

11 5 A

10

228

JS I T

T S

§ ¦ ¨

13

8

17

T S

10

90

¤ £

21B

DUVAL

T S

103

T S 116

113

J I I J

119

115

T S

J I

T S

139

¤ £

21D

T S

7 11

T S

J I

S T T S 15

T S T ¤ S £

105

A

117

T S

T S

115 A

119

T S

J I

J I 5 10

T S

301

¤ £

106

T S

9A

J I

J S I T

116

228

228

T S

152

117 9

116 2 224

217

203

210A

I J J I TI S J J I

J I

J I

J I

117 7

118 7

J I 118 1

J I 220B

J I 118 9

J I

J I 15A

218

I J J I 225

200B

739B

J I 315

J I

T S 16

T S

1

13

J I 13A

9

15A

T S

J I J I 13

J I

1206

¤ £

16

T S

CLAY

230A

16A

315

16

I J J I J I

J I

209

J I

T S

J I

210

J I

215

16A

J I 5

233

209B

J I

225

225

J I

209

739

21A

T S

I J J I

J I I J

J I

J I

15

J I

T S

220

125

13B

17

220

J I

J I

¤ £

J I

A 1A

2 20A

T S

J I

226

I J T S TI S J J I T S J I JI I J JI I J J I I JS T J I J I J I J I 1333

J I 208

100A

16

100

T S

209

J I

21

1365

J I 214

J I 315

A1 A

1339

1 351

1353

312

5A

312

A1A

20

7

T S

T S

1338

5A

J I

18

§ ¦ ¨ 95

13A

1337

T S

1359

J I

1332 A A1

1335

I ST. JOHNS J

J I 352

J I 315C

J I 214

J I

305

209

309D

T S

I J J S I T

A 1A

21

T S

200A

J I

J I

J I

21B

J I

1363

13A

214

219

26

J I 209

J I 207A

J I 219A

J I

A1

T S

204

A

2016

20

T S

19

T S

310

0

Figure 1

North Florida J CMP System Boundary I 309B

20

21

Page 2

A 1A

10

20A

T S

T S

I J J I

T S

200A

309C

21

20A

I J J I J I 1447

J I T S

200

T S

I J J I

234

13

216

3 09C

J I

J I

J I

J I

J I

315

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Figure 2 - FHWA CMP Elements

*Source: FHWA CMP Guidebook

3

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

2. Prior CMP (6) 2.1. North Florida TPO’s CMP The North Florida TPO completed its first CMP in 1997. Concurrency counts were used to identify congested links in this CMP. The congested links identified were grouped and ranked based on four (4) criteria: 1) capacity deficiency, 2) status of planned or programmed improvements, 3) vehicle miles traveled and 4) availability of transit.

A total of 25 roadways were identified and ranked. The roadway lengths ranged from 0.2 miles to 8.04 miles.

An interagency steering committee was formed and was responsible for input to finalize the list of congested roadways, compile performance reports, and prioritizing preliminary projects.

2.2. Year 2006 Update The 1997 CMP was updated in 2006. Similar to its prior version, this updated CMP identified and prioritized congested State Highway System facilities within the North Florida TPO area. A summary of the 2006 CMP update is presented below. 

The North Florida TPO’s expanded boundaries were considered: all of Duval County, St. Johns County, Nassau County, and portions of Clay County (including Orange Park and Green Cove Springs).



The existing and future year ratios of volume over capacity (v/c) were used to identify congested roadway facilities. A threshold value of 0.85 v/c was established to determine which facilities were experiencing congestion. The 2005 existing and 2015 future volumes were derived from the Northeast Regional Planning Model (NERPM).



The percent vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on congested facilities and the extent of congestion on the facility compared to the actual facility length were used to rank congested facilities.



The priority congested facilities were aggregated to recommend congestion management strategies.

Figure 3 shows the CMS corridors recommended in the 2006 version of the CMP.



A generic Congestion Management Strategy Tool Box was prepared for the region and corridor specific congestion management strategies that would alleviate congestion on the priority corridors were not identified as a part of this CMP.



This CMP recommended that detailed studies be conducted on the congested corridors to identify the causes of congestion and to apply the appropriate congestion management strategy.

Figure 3 shows the North Florida TPO’s congestion management corridors identified in the 2006 CMP.

4

North Florida TPO's CMP Prior Congestion Management Corridors

Figure 3 Page 5

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

3. Review of Best Practices The CMP of other Florida MPOs and other states in North America was performed to identify different approaches to the congestion management process. A total of 23 MPOs CMPs within the State of Florida were reviewed along with 12 CMPs from MPOs outside of Florida.

The CMP performance measures, congestion mitigation strategies, and data reporting techniques for the 23 MPO’s CMPs are provided in Table 1. Table 2 provides a summary of the CMP performance measures, congestion mitigation strategies, and data reporting techniques for CMPs of six (6) of the agencies outside of Florida. The other agency CMPs were also reviewed, but are not reported in detail as these contained similar congestion management strategies.

3.1. Summary of CMPs Reviewed A brief summary of key findings from the CMPs that were studied in the literature review are presented below: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Each of the MPOs, Council of Governments (COGs), and Planning Councils (PCs) studied tailored their CMPs to meet the unique needs of their region.

Most of the CMPs reviewed were integrated either in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) or in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).

None of the CMP studied evaluated trip-based performance measures through the use of origindestination studies.

Many of the MPOs studied developed congestion mitigation strategies that were not related to the performance measures that were evaluated by the CMPs. Most of the CMPs did not initiate public involvement during the CMP’s process development, performance measure or strategy selection or for prioritizing projects.

Most MPOs studied communicated the CMP process, data collected, results and outcomes to the public through online and print media and through the advisory committee meetings.

Most MPOs studied used static GIS mapping as the most prevalent method of online reporting tool.

Few agencies evaluated the effectiveness of congestion management strategies through the use of before-and-after studies, which is very important in selecting or improving the strategies that alleviate congestion.

Several agencies have set up a separate Management and Operations (M&O) group to develop and implement congestion management strategies.

Few agencies performed travel time runs using probe vehicles. One agency has identified the use of Bluetooth devices to collect travel time information as an on-going process but did not implement it.

Several agencies used data collected by in-house staff, while other have utilized the data available from participating agencies or employed private data collection firms to obtain the necessary performance measure data.

A Data Collection and Literature Review Report is provided in Appendix A that provides additional information.

6

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Pasco County MPO

Pinellas County MPO

Hillsborough County MPO

Hernando County MPO

Miami – Dade MPO

Volusia TPO (LRTP)

Space Coast TPO

METROPLAN Orlando

Lake - Sumter MPO (LRTP)

Palm Beach MPO



  

St. Lucie TPO

Martin County MPO

       

Indian River County MPO

Florida - Alabama TPO

       

Okaloosa - Walton TPO

Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency

Bay County TPO

Gainesville MTPO

Sarasota – Manatee MPO

Polk TPO

Lee County MPO

Collier County MPO

CMP Evaluated

Charlotte County – Punta Gorda MPO

Table 1: CMPs in the State of Florida – Evaluation Matrix

        

        

 



CMP Network Multimodal Performance Measures

  

  

  

  

  

  

Continuing Monitoring Analyze Congestion Problems Congestion Strategies Program Implementation Evaluate Strategy Effectiveness Part of LRTP or MTP Public Involvement Recurring Congestion Non-recurring Congestion Time of Day Considerations

        

  

   

  

   

   

       

     



  

  

  

     

  





  

 



 

 



 



   Under Development

Regional Objectives

 

  

 

       

Under Development

Process



       

 

          

          

Performance Measures LOS Volume/Capacity Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita

   



 









 





 



 



 

 



  

 



 

 

Truck Miles Traveled



Person Trips Average Daily Traffic Speeds Travel Times Delays

  





Under Development

Weighted Volume/Weighted Service Volume Ratio

Under Development

Vehicle Hours of Travel

Throughput



 





 

Trip Times Intensity of Congestion Duration of Congestion





 7

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Pasco County MPO

Pinellas County MPO

Hillsborough County MPO

Hernando County MPO

Miami – Dade MPO

Volusia TPO (LRTP)

Space Coast TPO

METROPLAN Orlando

Lake - Sumter MPO (LRTP)

St. Lucie TPO

Palm Beach MPO

Martin County MPO

Indian River County MPO

Okaloosa - Walton TPO

Florida - Alabama TPO

Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency

Bay County TPO

Gainesville MTPO

Sarasota – Manatee MPO

Polk TPO

Lee County MPO

Collier County MPO

CMP Evaluated

Charlotte County – Punta Gorda MPO

Table 1: CMPs in the State of Florida – Evaluation Matrix

  

 



Extent of Congestion Connectivity to Intermodal Facilities



Accessibility to Transit % System Congested











% of Travel Congested



Intersections

 

Multiuse Paths Transit Service Network Transit Service Frequency Transit Span of Service

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Transit Job Access Transit Ridership or Load Factor







Transit Ridership per Congested Lane Mile



Transit Reliability

 







% Population within 1/4 mile of Transit Service % Transit Service by Headway

     



   







 

Transit Farebox Recovery



Passenger Trips/Revenue Hour Crashes Crashes Involving Trucks

  

 

 









Sidewalk Miles Costs of Congestion Gallons of Fuel from Congestion Signal Retiming Cost/Benefit Ratio



  

 

  



 

Bicycle Crashes Customer Satisfaction





Transit Travel Times

Carpools and Vanpools

  

Under Development

Pedestrian and Sidewalks Facilities or QOS

 

Under Development

Bicycle Facilities or Bicycle QOS





Reliability

    8

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Pinellas County MPO

    

Pasco County MPO

Hernando County MPO

    

Hillsborough County MPO

Miami – Dade MPO

Volusia TPO (LRTP)

Space Coast TPO

METROPLAN Orlando

Lake - Sumter MPO (LRTP)

St. Lucie TPO

Palm Beach MPO

Martin County MPO

Indian River County MPO

Okaloosa - Walton TPO

Florida - Alabama TPO

Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency

Bay County TPO

Gainesville MTPO

Sarasota – Manatee MPO

Polk TPO

Lee County MPO

Collier County MPO

CMP Evaluated

Charlotte County – Punta Gorda MPO

Table 1: CMPs in the State of Florida – Evaluation Matrix

  

Air Quality Incident Severity Incident Duration

Shift Trips to Other Modes Shift Trips to High Occupancy Improve Roadway Operations Increase Roadway Capacity

    

  

   

    

Improve Connectivity

     

   

    

   

    

 

 

    

 

 

 

 



Improve Safety Support Economic Growth or Goods Movement Support Environment Implement Demand Management Strategies Implement Operational Management Strategies Incident Management Access Management

   

  

 

 

   

Growth Management

   

Congestion Pricing Public Transit Improvements Pedestrian/Bicycle Feature Improvements Policy Approaches Smart Transportation (ITS)

   

  

   

  

   





         

   

  

      







 



   

 





  



 

 

Under Development

Eliminate Trips or Vehicle Miles Traveled

   

   

          

Under Development

Strategies

   

    



 







  

 







  



         

    















  



Reporting Maps/Visualization Trends Forecasts

  





 





 



 



  



9

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 2: CMPs in Other States – Evaluation Matrix

CMP Evaluated

Wilmington Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO)

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)

Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC)

Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC)

Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)

 

 

    

     

      

Process Regional Objectives CMP Network

 

 

   

      

Multimodal Performance Measures Continuing Monitoring Analyze Congestion Problems Congestion Strategies Program Implementation Evaluate Strategy Effectiveness Part of LRTP or MTP



Public Involvement Recurring Congestion Non-recurring Congestion

 

       

 

 

Time of Day Considerations



 

Performance Measures LOS Volume/Capacity

 



Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita Vehicle Hours of Travel Weighted Volume/Weighted Service Volume Ratio Truck Miles Traveled Throughput Person Trips Average Daily Traffic Speeds

 

Travel Times



Delays

  

 

Trip Times Intensity of Congestion

 

Duration of Congestion Extent of Congestion



Connectivity to Intermodal Facilities Accessibility to Transit % System Congested % of Travel Congested Intersections

 10

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 2: CMPs in Other States – Evaluation Matrix

CMP Evaluated

Wilmington Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO)

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)

Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC)

Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC)



Reliability

Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)



Bicycle Facilities or Bicycle QOS Pedestrian and Sidewalks Facilities or QOS Multiuse Paths



Transit Service Network Transit Service Frequency



Transit Span of Service Transit Job Access



Transit Ridership or Load Factor



Transit Ridership per Congested Lane Mile Transit Reliability % Population within 1/4 mile of Transit Service % Transit Service by Headway Transit Travel Times Transit Farebox Recovery Passenger Trips/Revenue Hour

   

Transit General Roadway Congestion Transit Re-entry Congestion Transit Mobility Device Loading Congestion Transit Queuing Congestion Carpools and Vanpools Crashes





Crashes Involving Trucks Bicycle Crashes Sidewalk Miles Customer Satisfaction Costs of Congestion Gallons of Fuel from Congestion Signal Retiming Cost/Benefit Ratio Air Quality Incident Severity Incident Duration



Planning Time Index Strategies Eliminate Trips or Vehicle Miles Traveled Shift Trips to Other Modes Shift Trips to High Occupancy

  



 





  11

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 2: CMPs in Other States – Evaluation Matrix

CMP Evaluated

Improve Roadway Operations Increase Roadway Capacity

Wilmington Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO)

 

Improve Connectivity Improve Safety Support Economic Growth or Goods Movement Support Environment

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)

Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC)

     

         

Implement Demand Management Strategies Implement Operational Management Strategies Incident Management Access Management Growth Management Congestion Pricing Public Transit Improvements Pedestrian/Bicycle Feature Improvements Policy Approaches Smart Transportation (ITS)

        





Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC)

Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)

 

 



   

   

         





  

  

Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC)



   

     



Reporting Maps/Visualization Trends Forecasts

 

  



12

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

4. Data Collection It is essential to obtain good quality data for the roadways covering the North Florida TPO’s governing boundaries. Data available in the correct format and from a reliable source is essential in the development of a functional data set for the analysis of congestion hot-spots and bottlenecks and to address congestion within the North Florida region. Availability of historical data along roadways within the North Florida region is essential for the identification of congestion hot-spots that have historical congestion problems. As part of this CMP, existing data that was available from the North Florida TPO’s partnering agencies was used to leverage existing data sources to the maximum extent possible. The section below provides a summary of the various data collection sources and the data that was collection from them.

4.1. FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures Program Database FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures Program was developed in 2000. FDOT developed a Microsoft Access database application that utilizes existing data collected on roadways to estimate the Mobility Performance Measures annually on them. The FDOT’s mobility performance measures identified includes the four dimensions of mobility – quantity of travel, quality of travel, accessibility of the system, and system utilization. The measures identified address statewide systems and metropolitan systems and are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Mobility Performance Measures for Highways

*Source: FDOT MPM brochure

The performance measures from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures Program for the metropolitan transit system are shown in Table 4.

13

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 4: Mobility Performance Measures for Transit Systems Mobility Performance Measure Quantity of Travel Quality of Travel

Accessibility

Utilization

Definition

Ridership

Total passenger trips

Auto/Transit Travel Time Ratio

Door-to-door trip time

Reliability

On-time performance

Coverage

% person minutes served

Frequency

Buses per hour

Span

Hours of service per day

Load Factor

% seats occupied

*Source: FDOT MPM brochure

As part of this CMP Update, the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database was made available between the years 2003 and 2010 for the North Florida region by FDOT Central Office. A Data Collection and Literature Review Report was compiled for this CMP update and this report includes a number of tables, figures and charts that were compiled to summarize the mobility performance measures data. This Data Collection and Literature Review report is provided in Appendix A. The tables, charts and figures in this report are categorized under the following roadway functional classification: 1.

Rural Interstate Facility – Functional Classification Code = 1

2. Rural Principal Arterial Facilities - Functional Classification Code = 2 3. Rural Minor Arterial Facilities - Functional Classification Code = 6 4. Urban Interstate Facilities – Functional Classification Code = 11 5. Urban Freeway and Expressway Facilities - Functional Classification Code = 12 6. Urban Principal Arterial Facilities - Functional Classification Code = 14 7. Urban Minor Arterial Facilities - Functional Classification Code = 16

4.2. Florida Sourcebook Based on the availability of data, key performance measures from the FDOT Mobility Performance Measures program are reported in the Florida Sourcebook and are updated on an annual basis. The performance measures that are included in the Florida’s Sourcebook are: 1.

Vehicle miles

2. Person miles 3. Truck miles 4. Average speeds 5. Person delay 6. Reliability 7. Vehicle per lane mile 8. Percent miles congested 9. Percent travel congested 10. Duration of congestion

14

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

4.3. National Transit Database by Federal Transit Administration The National Transit Database (NTD) is the mechanism through which the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) collects uniform transit performance measure data. Annually, all recipients of Urbanized Area funding and any organization operating urban transit services that directly receives benefits from Urbanized Area funding are required to submit or coordinate the regions transit performance measure information.

As part of the CMP, NTD transit performance measures database between the year 2003 to 2010 was downloaded from the NTD website for evaluation of these performance measures for the North Florida region.

4.4. Florida Department of Transportation Level-of-Service (LOS) Tables The FDOT develops the Level of Service (LOS) for roadways with the FDOT District 2 region covering Duval, St. Johns, Clay, and Nassau Counties. The FDOT LOS database contains the base year (Year 2011) AADT and DDHV counts for roadways, the Maximum Service Volume (MSV) values for the roadway type, the base year LOS and annual projections of AADTs and DDHVs for roadways within the FDOT District 2 region over the next 30 years and the associated LOS. This database can be used to identify the facilities that are currently over capacity.

4.5. BlueToad Data The North Florida TPO in partnership with the FDOT District 2 ITS office has deployed Bluetooth devices along major roadways within the North Florida region to obtain real-time data. Figure 4 shows the location of the BlueToad device deployments planned within the North Florida TPO governing boundary. Approximately about 60% of the anticipated deployment of devices was successfully installed by March 1, 2013, the last day available to use in this report. Figure 5 shows the BlueToad devices currently active within the North Florida TPO boundary.

15

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Figure 4 - BlueToad Device Locations Planned for Implementation within North Florida TPO Boundary

16

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Figure 5 - BlueToad Device Locations Currently Active within North Florida TPO Boundary

17

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Travel time and speed data was collected utilizing the Bluetooth devices along roadways within the North Florida region and historical data is stored on the BlueToad website. The travel time and speed data collection through the Bluetooth device deployment is an ongoing process and the system is being updated continuously to collect consistent data within the North Florida region.

The I-95 corridor was chosen to conduct a reliability analysis utilizing the travel time and speed data collected by the Bluetooth devices over a period of time on this roadway. Data was downloaded from the BlueToad website between Sunday, January 27th 2013 and Saturday, March 2nd 2013 (a total of 5 weeks data covering the entire month of February). A minimum of one month’s data is essential on corridors to perform statistically significant reliability analysis. The I-95 corridor within the limits of the study area is composed of eight (8) segments each along the northbound and southbound direction. The pair ID and the description of these segments are listed below: I-95 Northbound Direction:        

Pair ID 4267 – South of Race Track Road to I-295 Pair ID 4270 – I-295 to North of Baymeadows Road Pair ID 3604 – North of Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road Pair ID 4272 – Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge Pair ID 4248 – Acosta Bridge to Kings Road Pair ID 4274 – Kings Road to Heckscher Drive Pair ID 4276 – Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road Pair ID 7441 – Pecan Park Road to SR 200

I-95 Southbound Direction:        

Pair ID 7442 – SR 200 to Pecan Park Road Pair ID 4277 – Pecan Park Road to Heckscher Drive Pair ID 4275 – Heckscher Drive to Kings Road Pair ID 4249 – Kings Road to Acosta Bridge Pair ID 4273 – Acosta Bridge to Bowden Road Pair ID 3603 – Bowden Road to North of Baymeadows Road Pair ID 4271 – North of Baymeadows Road to I-295 Pair ID 4269 – I-295 to South of Race Track Road

The travel time and speed data that were available on these segments between the 5-week time-period was downloaded from the BlueToad website. The travel time and speed information for these roadway segments was available over a 15-minute time intervals for 24 hours a day. A total of 3360 (35 days x 96 15-minute intervals in a day) data records should have been available if the Bluetooth units collected the data continuously over the 5-week time-period. However, the limited deployment of the BlueToad devices and associated data base, device down times and sampling errors, consistent data records could not be obtained over the study period. The data records that were available for each segment during the 5-week time-period analyzed are as listed below: I-95 Northbound Direction:        

Pair ID 4267 – South of Race Track Road to I-295 – 3,354 Records - (0.18% Data Missing) Pair ID 4270 – I-295 to North of Baymeadows Road - 0 Records - (100% Data Missing) Pair ID 3604 – North of Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road - 0 Records – (100% Data Missing) Pair ID 4272 – Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge - 0 Records - (100% Data Missing) Pair ID 4248 – Acosta Bridge to Kings Road – 3,358 Records - (0.06% Data Missing) Pair ID 4274 – Kings Road to Heckscher Drive – 3,358 Records - (0.06% Data Missing) Pair ID 4276 – Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road - 559 Records - (83.00% Data Missing) Pair ID 7441 – Pecan Park Road to SR 200 - 532 Records - (84.00% Data Missing)

18

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

I-95 Southbound Direction:        

Pair ID 7442 – SR 200 to Pecan Park Road - 538 Records - (84.00% Data Missing) Pair ID 4277 – Pecan Park Road to Heckscher Drive - 571 Records - (83.00% Data Missing) Pair ID 4275 – Heckscher Drive to Kings Road - 0 Records - (100% Data Missing) Pair ID 4249 – Kings Road to Acosta Bridge – 3,358 Records - (0.06% Data Missing) Pair ID 4273 – Acosta Bridge to Bowden Road - 0 Records - (100% Data Missing) Pair ID 3603 – Bowden Road to North of Baymeadows Road - 0 Records - (100% Data Missing) Pair ID 4271 – North of Baymeadows Road to I-295 - 0 Records - (100% Data Missing) Pair ID 4269 – I-295 to South of Race Track Road – 1,082 Records - (68.00% Data Missing)

The analysis above shows that three (3) segments (Pair IDs 4267, 4248 and 4274) along the northbound I95 and one (1) segment (Pair ID 4249) along the southbound I-95 direction have more than 50% of the data available to perform the reliability assessment of the I-95 corridor.

It is anticipated that enhancements will be performed on the BlueToad data collection technology in the coming months and more data should be available for future updates.

19

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

5. Development of CMP Goals and Objectives Development of CMP goals and objectives is essential for a region to effectively monitor the progress of the CMP and to align strategies and investments to ensure resources are dedicated to reducing congestion within the North Florida TPO planning boundary. The first step in identifying the policies, goals and objectives as part of this CMP update, was to consider the linkage to key legislation including the (MAP-21), Florida Transportation Plan, and prior North Florida TPO efforts in the 2035 Envision Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The following sections provide an overview of each of the policies, goals and objectives associated with each of the listed plans.

5.1. MAP-21 MAP-21 establishes national performance goals for Federal highway programs related to congestion management: MAP – 21: Goals and Objectives  Safety — To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.  Congestion reduction — To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the NHS.  System reliability — To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system.  Freight movement and economic vitality — To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development.  Environmental sustainability — To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

5.2. Florida Transportation Plan The 2060 Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) was adopted in 2010 and creates a shared vision for the future of transportation in Florida and the goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve this vision over the next 50 years are identified below: Florida Transportation Plan: Goals and Objectives 1) Invest in transportation systems to support a prosperous, globally competitive economy  Maximize Florida’s position as a strategic hub for international and domestic trade, visitors, and investment by developing, enhancing, and funding Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS).  Improve transportation connectivity for people and freight to established and emerging regional employment centers in rural and urban areas.  Plan and develop transportation systems to provide adequate connectivity to economically productive rural lands.  Invest in transportation capacity improvements to meet future demand for moving people and freight.  Be a worldwide leader in development and implementation of innovative transportation technologies and system.

2) Make transportation decisions to support and enhance livable communities  Develop transportation plans and make investments to support the goals of the FTP and other statewide plans, as well as regional and community visions and plans.  Coordinate transportation investments with other public and private decisions to foster livable communities.  Coordinate transportation and land use decisions to support livable rural and urban communities.

3) Make transportation decisions to promote responsible environmental stewardship  Plan and develop transportation systems and facilities in a manner which protects and, where feasible, restores the function and character of the natural environment and avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts.  Plan and develop transportation systems to reduce energy consumption, improve air quality, and 20

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Florida Transportation Plan: Goals and Objectives reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

4) Provide a safe and secure transportation system for all users  Eliminate fatalities and minimize injuries on the transportation system.  Improve the security of Florida’s transportation system.  Improve Florida’s ability to use the transportation system to respond to emergencies and security risks.

5) Improve mobility and connectivity for people and freight  Expand transportation options for residents, visitors, and businesses.  Reinforce and transform Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System facilities to provide multimodal options for moving people and freight.  Develop and operate a statewide high speed and intercity passenger rail system connecting all regions of the state and linking to public transportation systems in rural and urban areas.  Expand and integrate regional public transit systems in Florida’s urban areas.  Increase the efficiency and reliability of travel for people and freight.  Integrate modal infrastructure, technologies, and payment systems to provide seamless connectivity for passenger and freight trips from origin to destination.

5.3. 2035 Envision Long Range Transportation Plan As part of the 2035 Envision Long Range Transportation Plan the following goals and objectives applicable to the CMP were identified herein. Where multiple objectives were associated with each goal, only those objectives that are associated with the CMP are provided below: 2035 Envision Long Rang Transportation Plan: Goals And Objectives 1) Keep people and goods moving and help our region’s economy grow  Improve access to port, airport and other intermodal facilities via designated connectors and linkages.  Ensure the efficient movement of freight within and through the urbanized area.  Improve the connectivity of the local and regional transportation network with intra-regional, interregional, interstate, and international transportation systems and facilities.  Improve access to major employment centers.  Minimize travel times within and through the area.

2) Increase the accessibility of our transportation system  Encourage the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and their connection to trip destinations.  Ensure that all modes are accessible to persons with disabilities.  Encourage delivery of more efficient and effective mass transit, such as implementing a bus rapid transit system or other transit systems.  Improve community access to transit by increasing the availability of transit stops and frequency of transit service.

3) Promote consistency with the plans of each City and County, other regional agencies, and the State and recognize the inter-relationship between land use, transportation and economic development  Ensure consistency with the Future Land Use and transportation related elements (Transportation, Traffic Circulation and Transit) of local comprehensive plans and Traffic Circulation Map(s).  Ensure consistency with the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) long- and short-range plans and programs.  Enhance the regional transportation system’s ability to provide adequate evacuation times in an emergency.

4) Maximize the existing transportation system to meet the needs of today and tomorrow  Consider improvements that do not require additional travel lanes (e.g., changes in signal timing, addition of turn lanes, transportation systems management, and intelligent transportation systems.)

21

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

2035 Envision Long Rang Transportation Plan: Goals And Objectives  Encourage transportation demand management strategies to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles (e.g., carpool, bike, walk, telecommuting and compressed work weeks).  Add capacity to an existing facility and/or construct a new road only after all other alternatives have been considered.  Give priority to facilities that are currently deficient.  Coordinate with the region’s congestion management system in relieving existing congestion and preventing congestion where it has not yet occurred.

5) To improve the connectivity of our transportation system by better connecting travel modes  Enhance existing connections between transit, rail and the local, regional, interstate and intrastate road system. Promote the connection of transit systems and major employment centers.  Encourage opportunities for connections between travel modes, such as the creation of park-andride lots in close proximity to bus transit service.  Promote the expanded use of ITS strategies and technologies to provide data that will keep people and freight moving by facilitating connectivity between modes.  Support transportation improvements that will accommodate future technology and implementation.

6) To protect our environment, conserve energy and enhance our quality of life  Consider energy usage; congestion; and air, noise, and water pollution when evaluating transportation system improvements and alternatives.  Give priority to transportation improvements that reduce energy consumption and air pollution.  Consider the impact of CO2 emissions when evaluating alternatives.  Identify opportunities for adjacent bicycle and pedestrian greenways as part of the limited access corridor planning process.  Identify opportunities to construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities in roadway improvement projects.

7) Make our transportation system safer  Encourage capital investments that will increase the security and safety of the entire transportation system.  Minimize the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians / bicyclists by encouraging the creation of bicycle lanes and separating sidewalks / mixed-use paths from roadways.  Ensure coordination with FDOT when selecting safety projects.  Encourage the use of technologies that can increase transportation safety, such as automatic road enforcement and emergency vehicle notification systems.  Consider clearance times on roads that function as evacuation routes when establishing roadway improvement priorities.  Ensure that the regional transportation system can accommodate an efficient evacuation in an emergency.

8) Economically, efficiently, and equitably expand and maintain our transportation system  Establish performance measures for the effectiveness of transportation operation improvements.  Prioritize deficient transportation corridors when considering improvement projects.

5.4. CMP Goals and Objectives The CMP is integrated into the North Florida TPO’s LRTP planning process, the goals and objectives for CMP are consistent with the North Florida TPO’s LRTP. The 2035 Envision LRTP contains policies for guiding the North Florida TPO’s actions and visions for the region’s future. The goals and objectives of the CMP are developed in accordance with those visions and policies. The MAP-21 and Florida Transportation Plan goals and objectives are used as a supplement to the LRTP goals and objectives.

Although the CMP is titled “congestion management process” the intent of this process is to identify locations where additional “mobility” strategies are needed using a performance-based approach that provides a context-sensitive solution. This is a shift in approach from prior CMP plans for the North Florida TPO. This policy recognizes that we can no longer build our way out of congestion and the best congestion management strategies may include transportation systems management and operational (TSM&O) 22

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

approaches.

A thorough review of the goals and objectives of the three (MAP-21, Florida Transportation Plan, and 2035 Envision LRTP) plans identified the following common themes for congestion management related goals and objectives:    

Economic Competitiveness Livability Safety Mobility

The CMP update identifies the following goals and objectives by primarily focusing on these four components.

Benchmarks were identified for each of the objectives for the North Florida region and the current year performance measure values are provided for tracking the effectiveness of the proposed objective over the subsequent updates on the CMP. Some of the performance measures listed do not have current year performance measure values as sufficient data was unavailable during the course of this project.

Goal 1: Invest in Projects That Enhance Economic Competitiveness Investing in projects that enhance economic competitiveness are primarily those that improve travel time reliability, which is the most important factor for freight operators, enhance access to job and project that maximize the return on investment. Table 5 lists the objectives and performance measures associated with Goal 1.

Table 5: Enhance Economic Competitiveness: Objectives and Performance Measures Objective

Performance Measure

Benchmark

Improve travel reliability

Travel time reliability Jobs within 1/2 mile of a CMP system facility

Maintain or improve the reliability

Benefit/Cost ratio

Rank of benefit/cost ratio

Enhance access to jobs Maximize the return on investment

(1)

Return on investment Rank of return on investment (1) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

Goal 2: Invest in Livable and Sustainable Communities There is no single definition of what constitutes a “livable” or “sustainable” transportation system.

According to the definition endorsed by the Transportation Research Board Sustainable Transportation Indicators Subcommittee, a sustainable transport system is defined as 1:

Allows the basic access and development needs of individuals, companies, and society to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and promotes equity within and between successive generations.

Is affordable, operates fairly and efficiently, offers a choice of transport mode, and supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced regional development.

Limits air, water, and noise emissions, waste, and resource use. Limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them, uses renewable resources at or below their rates of generation, and uses nonrenewable resources at or below the rates of development of renewable substitutes, while minimizing the impact on the use of land and the generation of noise. Table 6 lists the objectives and performance measures associated with Goal 2.

1

Guide to Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures, US EPA, 2011.

23

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 6: Livability and Sustainability: Objectives and Performance Measures Objective Enhance transit accessibility

Enhance transit productivity

Enhance bicycle and pedestrian quality of service Reduce the cost of congestion per capita

Performance Measure

Benchmark

1/4 mile walk accessibility to transit stops Households within 5 miles of major transit centers or park and ride lots Average number of passengers per revenue mile Average number of passengers per revenue hour Annual average trip length (miles) per passenger

95% of all households.

Average active fleet age Lane mile with bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the quality of service standard Transportation costs per capita

(1) (2) (2) (2) (2) 85% of lane miles (3)

Costs of congestion (3) Reduce emissions from Hydrocarbon, nitrous oxides and volatile Maintain non-attainment automobiles organic compound emission status (1) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year unless major route changes or new transit operations are deployed; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP. (2) Coordination with Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) and St. Johns County Council of Aging (COA) needed; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP. (3) There are many exogenous factors that influence this performance measure including the price of fuels etc.; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

Goal 3: Enhance Safety Investing in projects that enhance safety will lead to reduced crashes and lower crash severity. Table 7 lists the objectives and performance measures associated with Goal 3.

Table 7: Safety: Objectives and Performance Measures Objective Crashes

Fatal crashes Invest in safety projects

Performance Measure

Benchmark

Number of crashes

Reduce by 0.25% each year

Crash rate per million vehicle miles

Reduce or maintain

Number of fatalities

Reduce by 0.25% each year

Crash rate per million vehicle miles

Reduce or maintain Fully obligate safety funding in each year’s TIP

Advance safety funding projects

Goal 4: Enhance Mobility Enhancing mobility includes addressing the four dimensions of mobility – quantity of travel, quality of travel, accessibility of the system, and system utilization. Several of these measures also support other goals and objectives (such as livability and sustainability). Table 8 lists the objectives and performance measures associated with Goal 4.

24

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 8: Mobility: Objectives and Performance Measures Objective

Mobility Performance Measures

Benchmark

Daily person-miles traveled (1) Daily truck-miles traveled (1) Optimize the Daily vehicle-miles traveled (1) quantity of travel Person trips (1) Transit ridership (Passengers) Increase Average speed Maintain or improve the average travel speed Daily delay Maintain or reduce the average vehicle delay Optimize the Average travel rate Maintain or increase the average trip time quality of travel Reliability Maintain or improve the reliability LOS on rural facilities Maintain at LOS standard (D or better) Proximity to major transportation hubs (2) Improve the % lane miles with bicycle & Pedestrian accommodations (2) accessibility to mode choices Transit coverage Increase the % of households served with 1/4 mile % system heavily congested Maintain or reduce the % of system heavily congested % travel heavily congested Maintain or reduce the % of travel heavily congested Optimize the Vehicles per lane mile Optimize the vehicles per lane mile for a desired LOS utilization of the system Duration of congestion Maintain or decrease the duration of congestion Number of passengers per revenue mile Maintain or increase the number of passengers per revenue mile (1) Generally, increases in the quantity traveled (throughout) are preferred. However, consistent with livability and sustainability goals, one of the objectives is to reduce the amount of travel needed. Therefore, no benchmarks are proposed, but monitoring is recommended.

(2) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

25

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

6. Summary and Analysis of Performance Measures The primary purpose of analyzing the roadway data collected is to identify congestion hot-spot facilities within the North Florida region.

According to Florida’s Sourcebook 2010, the total population of the North Florida TPO regional boundary, including Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns counties, is approximately 1.32 million. The Sourcebook identified Duval County among the seven largest counties in Florida. The FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database shows the centerline miles and lane-miles for the four counties within the North Florida TPO boundary. A summary of the total miles and lane-miles of roadways with performance measures from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database within North Florida is presented below. Appendix A contains the Data Collection and Literature Review Report compiled for this CMP update. This report includes a number of tables, figures and charts that were compiled to summarize the Mobility Performance Measures data as follows.

The following summarizes the changes that occurred in the highway network between 2003 and 2011. 

Total Miles: o

o o

o o

o o 

The total miles of urban Interstate evaluated remained constant from 2003 to 2009 and increased from 88 miles to 113 miles from 2009 to 2011. The increase of 25 miles in the total miles for urban Interstates can be attributed to the re-classification of certain urban freeways and expressways as urban interstates, for example SR 9A was re-classified as I-295 East Beltway.

The total miles of rural Interstates evaluated remained constant at 55 miles between the years 2003 and 2011.

The total miles of urban freeways and expressways evaluated increased from 67 miles in the year 2003 to 73 miles in the year 2009 and decreased from 73 miles to 48 miles from 2009 to 2011. The decrease of 25 miles in the total miles for urban freeways and expressways can be attributed to the re-classification of certain roadways as urban interstates, for example SR 9A was re-classified as I-295 East Beltway.

The urban principal arterials evaluated increased from 190 miles in the year 2003 to 195 miles in the year 2011.

The rural principal arterials evaluated decreased from 148 miles in the year 2003 to 143 miles in the year 2011. The decrease of 5 miles in the total miles for rural principal arterials can be attributed to the re-classification of certain roadways as urban principal arterials.

The urban minor arterials evaluated increased from 237 miles in the year 2003 to 244 miles in the year 2011.

The rural minor arterials evaluated decreased from 89 miles in the year 2003 to 85 miles in the year 2011.

Lane-Miles: o o o

o o o o

The total lane-miles for urban Interstates showed 2% increase between 2003 and 2009 followed by 22% increase thereafter through 2011.

The total lane-miles for rural Interstates showed 15% increase between 2003 and 2004 and remained constant thereafter through 2011.

The total lane-miles for urban freeways and expressways showed 12% increase between 2003 and 2009 followed by 33% decrease thereafter through 2011. Further analysis showed that the sudden drop in the urban freeways and expressways lane-miles was due to the reclassification of certain roadways as urban interstates.

The total lane-miles for urban principal arterials showed 5% increase between 2003 and 2011.

The total lane-miles for rural principal arterials showed 2% decrease between 2003 and 2011.

The total lane-miles for urban minor arterials showed 5% increase between 2003 and 2011.

The total lane-miles for rural minor arterials showed 5% increase between 2003 and 2011.

A summary of the various performance measures identified in the goals and objectives of this CMP is provided in the following section.

26

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Goal 1: Enhance Economic Competitiveness Travel Time Reliability: One of the objectives identified in this study was to estimate system reliability. As a result of the limited deployment of the BlueToad devices, a full analysis of the system reliability could not be performed.

As a model for future system reliability studies to be performed in CMP updates, BlueToad data for the I-95 corridor was used to estimate reliability on five segments of I-95 listed below:     

I-95 from Race Track Road to I-295 I-95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road I-95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive I-95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road I-95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200

Travel time reliability is recognized as one of the most important quality of service measures to travelers.

Per FDOT’s reliability analysis methodology, the on-time or reliable trip is the amount of time it would take a vehicle to traverse the facility length no less than 10 MPH below the free flow speed within the relevant time period. Free flow speed is measured as the posted speed limit plus 5 MPH. A segment reliability of at-least 95% is anticipated for segments that are operating without any congestion. Any reliability percent below 95% shows that the segment will experience recurring congestion for commuters traveling on this segment.

The I-95 BlueToad data was used to determine the reliability of travel within the corridor during the period sampled. Tables 9 through 13 estimates the reliability within individual segments of the I-95 corridor during the sampled period as follows: Table 9: I-95 from I-295 to Racetrack Road – Reliability Analysis Measure of Effectiveness Southbound(1) Northbound Free Flow Speed (FFS) 60 MPH 60 MPH Maximum of Average Speed 71.1 MPH 58.6 MPH Total Count 1,082 3,354 Unreliable Speed (FFS – 10 MPH) 50 MPH 50 MPH Counts with Reliable Speed 1,019 3,128 Reliability 94.18%(2) 93.26% Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours) n/a(2) 2.25 hours (1) On southbound I-95 between I-295 and Race Track Road, insufficient number of data points were recorded during the period sampled that indicated typical operating conditions. The speeds within the corridor were representative of a major traffic accident or data collection failure. Data outliers where speeds were less than 5 MPH were removed.

(2) Based on the data base, insufficient data was available to estimate reliability and the typical duration of unreliable speed.

Table 10: I-95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road – Reliability Analysis Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Maximum of Average Speed Total Count Unreliable Speed (FFS – 10 MPH) Counts with Reliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Southbound 60 MPH 77.3 MPH 3,358 50 MPH 3,109 92.58% 2.00 hours

Northbound 60 MPH 78.5 MPH 3,358 50 MPH 3,300 98.27% 0.00 hours

27

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 11: I-95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive – Reliability Analysis Measure of Effectiveness Southbound(1) Northbound Free Flow Speed (FFS) 60 MPH Maximum of Average Speed 67.6 MPH Total Count 3,358 Unreliable Speed (FFS – 10 MPH) 50 MPH Counts with Reliable Speed 3,355 Reliability 99.91% Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours) - 0.00 hours (1) On southbound I-95 between Kings Road and Heckscher Drive, BlueToad data was unavailable during the sampled period.

Table 12: I-95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road – Reliability Analysis Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Maximum of Average Speed Total Count Unreliable Speed (FFS – 10 MPH) Counts with Reliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Southbound 75 MPH 69.9 MPH 571 65 MPH 441 77.23% 2.50 hours

Northbound 75 MPH 72.1 MPH 559 65 MPH 553 98.93% 0.25 hours

Table 13: I-95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200 – Reliability Analysis Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Maximum of Average Speed Total Count Unreliable Speed (FFS – 10 MPH) Counts with Reliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Southbound 75 MPH 82.8 MPH 538 65 MPH 535 99.44% 0.75 hours

Northbound 75 MPH 81.6 MPH 532 65 MPH 510 95.86% 0.50 hours

Figures 6 and 7 provide the individual speed variation charts for the above referenced I-95 segments.

It is anticipated that enhancements will be performed on the BlueToad data collection technology in the coming months and more data should be available for future updates.

This reliability analysis will be updated annually by the North Florida TPO as the BlueToad system deployment is completed and provides more data to assess the system reliability.

28

I‐95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200 80 60 40 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

20

I‐95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road

80 60 40 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

20

I‐95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive

80 60 40

0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

20

I‐95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road

80 60 40 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

20

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Max. of Ave. Speed Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 75 MPH 81.6 MPH 65 MPH 95.86% 0.50 hours

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Max. of Ave. Speed Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 75 MPH 72.1 MPH 65 MPH 98.93% 0.25 hours

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Max. of Ave. Speed Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 60 MPH 67.6 MPH 50 MPH 99.91% 0.00 hours

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Max. of Ave. Speed Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 60 MPH 78.5 MPH 50 MPH 98.27% 0.00 hours

No Data Available I‐95 from I‐295 to Baymeadows Road I‐95 from Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road I‐95 from Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge I‐95 from Race Track Road to I‐295

60 40 20 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

Average Speed (MPH)

80

Time of Day

Average of Speed (mph)

Min of Speed (mph)

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Max. of Ave. Speed Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 60 MPH 58.6 MPH 50 MPH 93.26% 2.25 hours

Max of Speed (mph)

Figure 6 I-95 Northbound Speed Variation Chart and Reliability

Page 29

I‐95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200 80 60 40 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

20

I‐95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road

80 60 40

0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

20

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Max. of Ave. Speed Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours) Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Max. of Ave. Speed Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 75 MPH 82.8 MPH 65 MPH 99.44% 0.75 hours

Values 75 MPH 69.9 MPH 65 MPH 77.23% 2.50 hours

No Data Available I‐95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive

I‐95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road

80 60 40 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

20

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Max. of Ave. Speed Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 60 MPH 77.3 MPH 50 MPH 92.58% 2.00 hours

No Data Available I‐95 from I‐295 to Baymeadows Road I‐95 from Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road I‐95 from Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge I‐95 from Race Track Road to I‐295 Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS) Max. of Ave. Speed Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

60 40 20 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

Average Speed (MPH)

80

Time of Day

Average of Adjusted Speed

Min of Adjusted Speed

60 MPH 71.1 MPH 50 MPH 94.18% (*) n/a (*)

(*) – Insufficient data was available to estimate reliability

Max of Adjusted Speed

Figure 7 I-95 Southbound Speed Variation Chart and Reliability

Values

Page 30

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Access to Jobs: Enhancing the access to employers present within half-mile of a major state highway facility will improve access to jobs and the region’s economic competitiveness. Efficient transportation access to employment is an important consideration to businesses and developers when considering expansion opportunities. A good transportation system is an important selling point to communities that desire to attract development and improve the economy and productivity.

The increase in the number of jobs within a half-mile radius of major state highway facilities is identified as the performance measures to evaluate job access. No benchmark to this performance measure is recommended in this CMP as this performance measure is not anticipated to change significantly from year to year. This performance measure will be evaluated in greater detail through the on-going update of the 2040 LRTP.

Return on Investment: Return on Investment (ROI) is represented as a ratio of the expected congestion relief or financial gain (benefits) of the successful implementation of a project to its total costs. ROI can be calculated using the below formula.

ROI = Net Benefits / Total Costs In the above equation, net benefits equals total benefits minus total costs. It is a measure of the incremental gain from the project (or loss).

Comparing the ROI of various programs or projects will help to ensure that the most cost effective program or project is selected that would yield positive results in congestion management.

A bench mark is not establish for this performance measure as this measure is project specific and should be evaluated on individual corridors where implementation of improvements is targeted as part of the LRTP.

Benefit-Cost Ratio: A Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) is the end product of a benefit-cost analysis that attempts to summarize the overall value for money of a program or project. A BCR is the ratio of both tangible and intangible benefits of a programs or project, expressed in monetary terms, relative to its costs. BCR can be calculated using the below formula.

BCR = Total Benefits / Total Costs Comparing the BCR of various programs or projects will help to ensure that the most cost effective program or project is selected that would yield positive results in congestion management.

A bench mark is not established for this performance measure. BCR for investments will be evaluated as part of the LRTP where the strategies for congestion management will be evaluated in greater detail.

Table 14 provides the current year values for the performance measures identified under Goal 1.

Table 14: Goal 1- Existing Year Performance Measures Values Objective Improve travel reliability Enhance access to jobs Maximize the return on investment

Performance Measure

Benchmark

Existing Year Value

Travel time reliability

Maintain or improve the reliability

On-going

(1)

(1)

Rank of benefit/cost ratio

(2)

Jobs within 1/2 mile of a CMP system facility Benefit/Cost ratio

Return on investment Rank of return on investment (2) (1) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP. (2) Performance measure value will vary depending on the program or project selected.

31

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Goal 2: Livability and Sustainability Enhance Transit Accessibility: Transit accessibility plays a very important role for commuters to choose public transit or automobile travel.

With better planning and enhanced access to transit stops and services, the potential for an increase in transit ridership can be achieved.

Two performance measures are identified to evaluate the transit accessibility.  

The number of households with a quarter-mile walk accessibility to a transit stop, and The number of households within five miles of a major transit center or park and ride lots.

A buffer analysis on the existing transit routes and the existing park and ride lots was conducted to identify the existing year percentage for these performance measures. Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) runs bus services within Duval and Clay counties and the Sunshine Bus Company runs bus services within St. Johns County. These bus routes were used for the buffer analysis to establish the existing year conditions to evaluate these performance measures.

About 46% of all residential households present within the North Florida region have a transit stop within the quarter-mile radius and 87% of all residential households within North Florida region are located within a five mile radius of a park and ride lot.

Enhance Transit Productivity: Investment is necessary to better serve the region’s citizens and provide attractive service to populations residing in residential areas and other activity centers. Investments made wisely can significantly increase existing transit ridership and enhance the existing transit system.

Four performance measures are identified to evaluate productivity of transit system.    

Average number of passengers per revenue mile, Average number of passengers per revenue hour, Annual average trip length per passenger (mile), and Average active fleet age.

The existing year values for these performance measures were reported from the NTD downloaded from the FTA website.

The existing year values for the four performance measures are reported below.    

Average number of passengers per revenue mile – JTA = 0.89 and Sunshine = 0.38 Average number of passengers per revenue hour – JTA = 14.55 and Sunshine = 7.30 Annual average trip length per passenger (miles) – JTA = 5.85 and Sunshine = 7.31 Average active fleet age – JTA = 4 years and Sunshine = 3 years

Enhance Bicycle and Pedestrian Quality of Service: Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian quality of service within the North Florida region can encourage the usage of these alternate modes of transportation and can provide additional safe options for travelers.

The total number of lane-miles with bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the current quality of service standards is used as the performance measure to evaluate this goal.

The North Florida TPO is currently completing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Comprehensive Master Plan and data on the lane-miles of existing year bicycle and pedestrian facilities was not available. However, roadway data downloaded from FDOT indicated the following existing year facts.    

32% of major roads in the Jacksonville region have bicycle lanes or sidewalks.

17% of county roads in St. Johns County have bicycle lanes or sidewalks.

2% of all roads in Nassau County have bicycle lanes or sidewalks.

No bicycle lane or sidewalk data was available for Clay County.

32

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Reduce the Cost of Congestion Per Capita: Increase in the cost of congestion impacts large and small businesses and hurts their competitiveness.

Increased congestion costs can lead to loss of productivity and economic loss to the North Florida region.

Two performance measures are identified to evaluate the Cost of Congestion.  

Transportation costs per capita, and Cost of congestion within the region.

Annually, The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) releases its Urban Mobility Report evaluating the nation’s urbanized areas for congestion and reporting the annual costs of congestion predicted for various performance measures. The year 2011 values for performance measures identified in the CMP are reported from this report.

In 2011, the cost of congestion per auto commute within the Jacksonville urbanized area was reported to be $635 and the total cost of congestion was $486 million.

Reduce Emissions from Automobiles: Automobiles are a large source of greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore a large contributor to global climate change. Roughly a third of our nation’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions come from emissions from cars and trucks. Congestion increases the emission of greenhouse gases.

The reduction in emissions from automobiles can be evaluated by a reduction in the North Florida region’s VMT. The Year 2010 NERPM model estimates a VMT of 46,148,232 for the North Florida region.

Table 15 provides the current year values for the performance measures identified under Goal 2.

33

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 15: Goal 2- Existing Year Performance Measures Values Objective Enhance transit accessibility

Enhance transit productivity

Enhance bicycle and pedestrian quality of service Reduce the cost of congestion per capita

Performance Measure 1/4 mile walk accessibility to transit stops Households within 5 miles of major transit centers or park and ride lots Average number of passengers per revenue mile Average number of Passengers per revenue hour Annual average trip length (miles) per passenger

Benchmark 95% of all households.

Existing Year Value

(1)

87% of all residential households

Average active fleet age Lane mile with bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the quality of service standard Transportation costs per capita

(2)

46% of all residential households

JTA = 0.89, Sunshine = 0.38

(2)

JTA = 14.55, Sunshine = 7.30

(2)

JTA = 5.85, Sunshine = 7.31

(2)

JTA = 4 years, Sunshine = 3 years

85% of lane miles (3)

32% of major roads in Jacksonville, 17% of county roads in St. Johns County, 2% of all roads in Nassau County, Clay County data was N/A Year 2011 cost of congestion per auto commuter = $635

Costs of congestion

(3) Year 2011 cost of congestion in Jacksonville = $486 million Maintain nonReduce emissions Hydrocarbon, nitrous oxides and Total vehicle miles traveled in year 2010 from NERPM = attainment from automobiles volatile organic compound emission 46,148,232 status (1) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year unless major route changes or new transit operations are deployed; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP. (2) Coordination with Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) and St. Johns County Council of Aging (COA) needed; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP. (3) There are many exogenous factors that influence this performance measure including the price of fuels etc.; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

34

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Goal 3: Safety Crashes: Two performance measures are identified to evaluate the crashes within the North Florida region.  

The number of crashes, and The crash rate per million vehicle miles.

Benchmarks are established in the CMP for these performance measures. A Regional Strategic Safety Plan was prepared by the North Florida TPO. The existing year values of the performance measures were derived from the Regional Strategic Safety Plan Report.

A total of 16,839 vehicular crashes have occurred in the existing year within the North Florida region leading to a crash rate of 1.10 crashes per million VMT.

Fatal Crashes: Two performance measures are identified to evaluate the fatal crashes within the North Florida region.  

The number of crashes involving fatalities, and The fatal crash rate per million vehicle miles.

Benchmarks are established in the CMP for these performance measures. A Regional Strategic Safety Plan was prepared by the North Florida TPO. The existing year values of the performance measures were derived from the Regional Strategic Safety Plan Report.

A total of 155 fatal vehicular crashes have occurred in the existing year within the North Florida region leading to a fatal crash rate of 0.01 crashes per million VMT.

Invest in Safety Projects: A Regional Strategic Safety Plan was prepared by the North Florida TPO. This report has identified the crash prone hot-spot corridors and recommended investing in safety projects to address them.

Table 16 provides the current year values for the performance measures identified under Goal 3.

Table 16: Goal 3- Existing Year Performance Measures Values Objective

Performance Measure Number of crashes

Crashes

Crash rate per million vehicle miles Number of fatalities

Fatal crashes

Crash rate per million vehicle miles Advance safety funding projects

Invest in safety projects

Benchmark Reduce by 0.25% each year

Existing Year Value 16,839 crashes

Reduce or maintain

1.10

Reduce by 0.25% each year

155 crashes

Reduce or maintain

0.01

Fully obligate safety funding in each year’s TIP

N/A

Goal 4: Enhance Mobility Optimize the Quantity of Travel: Five performance measures are identified to evaluate the quantity of travel within the North Florida region.     

Daily person-miles traveled (PMT).

Daily truck-miles traveled (TMT).

Daily vehicle-miles traveled (VMT).

Person trips.

Transit ridership (Passengers).

Benchmarks are established in the CMP for these performance measures. The existing year values for the daily PMT, TMT, VMT, and person trips performance measures were derived from FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database and the transit ridership information was obtained from the NTD downloaded from the FTA website.

35

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

The daily and peak hour VMT and TMT are identified as the performance measures with regional significance.

A summary of the trends observed in the daily and peak hour VMT and TMT within the North Florida region over the past nine years (2003 to 2011) from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures data is presented below. 

Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): o

o o

o o o o 

Peak Vehicle Miles Traveled: o

o o

o o o o 

The urban Interstates showed an overall increase in the daily VMT in nine years. The daily VMT showed 13% increase between 2003 and 2007 followed by 8% decline between 2007 and 2009 and 17% increase thereafter through 2011. Further analysis showed that the increase in the urban Interstates daily VMT between 2009 and 2011 was due to the reclassification of certain urban freeways and expressways as urban interstates.

The rural Interstates showed a general increase in the daily VMT by 24% between 2003 and 2011.

The urban freeways and expressways showed 32% increase in the daily VMT between 2003 and 2007 followed by 43% decline between 2007 and 2011. Further analysis showed that the sudden drop in the urban freeways and expressways daily VMT was due to the reclassification of certain roadways as urban interstates.

The urban principal arterials showed 6% decline in the daily VMT between 2003 and 2011.

The rural principal arterials showed 9% decline in the daily VMT between 2003 and 2011.

The urban minor arterials showed 2% decline in the daily VMT between 2003 and 2011.

The rural minor arterials showed 10% decline in the daily VMT between 2003 and 2011.

The urban Interstates showed an overall increase in the peak hour VMT in nine years. The VMT showed 13% increase between 2003 and 2007 followed by 8% decline between 2007 and 2009 and 17% increase thereafter through 2011. Further analysis showed that the increase in the urban Interstates peak hour VMT between 2009 and 2011 was due to the reclassification of certain urban freeways and expressways as urban interstates.

The rural Interstates showed a general increase in the peak hour VMT by 24% between 2003 and 2011.

The urban freeways and expressways showed 35% increase in the peak hour VMT between 2003 and 2007 followed by 44% decline between 2007 and 2011. The sudden drop in the urban freeways and expressways peak hour VMT was due to the re-classification of certain roadways as urban Interstates.

The urban principal arterials showed 6% decline in the peak hour VMT between 2003 and 2011.

The rural principal arterials showed 9% decline in the peak hour VMT between 2003 and 2011.

The urban minor arterials showed 2% decline in the peak hour VMT between 2003 and 2011.

The rural minor arterials showed 10% decline in the peak hour VMT between 2003 and 2011.

Daily Truck Miles Traveled (TMT): o

o o

o o o o

The urban Interstates showed an overall increase in the daily TMT in nine years. The daily VMT showed 30% increase between 2003 and 2006 followed by 20% decline between 2006 and 2011.

The rural Interstates showed a general decrease in the daily TMT by 15% between 2003 and 2011.

The urban freeways and expressways showed 61% increase in the daily TMT between 2003 and 2006 followed by 70% decline between 2006 and 2011. This sharp decline is also attributed to the re-classification of urban freeways and expressways as urban interstates.

The urban principal arterials showed 16% increase in the daily TMT between 2003 and 2005 followed by 54% decline in the daily TMT between 2005 and 2011.

The rural principal arterials showed 6% increase in the daily TMT between 2003 and 2006 followed by 35% decline in the daily TMT between 2006 and 2011.

The urban minor arterials showed 16% increase in the daily TMT between 2003 and 2006 followed by 53% decline in the daily TMT between 2006 and 2011.

The rural minor arterials showed 34% increase in the daily TMT between 2003 and 2005 followed by 52% decline in the daily TMT between 2005 and 2011.

36

Congestion Management Process CMP Report



Peak Hour Truck Miles Traveled (TMT): o

o o

o o o o

The urban Interstates showed an overall increase in the peak hour TMT in nine years. The peak hour VMT showed 23% increase between 2003 and 2006 followed by 19% decline between 2006 and 2011.

The rural Interstates showed a general decrease in the peak hour TMT by 13% between 2003 and 2011.

The urban freeways and expressways showed 60% increase in the peak hour TMT between 2003 and 2006 followed by 67% decline between 2006 and 2011. This sharp decline is also attributed to the re-classification of urban freeways and expressways as urban interstates.

The urban principal arterials showed 14% increase in the peak hour TMT between 2003 and 2006 followed by 53% decline in the peak hour TMT between 2006 and 2011.

The rural principal arterials showed 6% increase in the daily TMT between 2003 and 2006 followed by 33% decline in the peak hour TMT between 2006 and 2011.

The urban minor arterials showed 15% increase in the peak hour TMT between 2003 and 2006 followed by 52% decline in the peak hour TMT between 2006 and 2011.

The rural minor arterials showed 50% increase in the peak hour TMT between 2003 and 2005 followed by 50% decline in the peak hour TMT between 2005 and 2011.

Optimize the Quality of Travel: Five performance measures are identified to evaluate the quality of travel within the North Florida region.     

Average speed.

Daily delay.

Average travel rate.

Reliability.

LOS on rural facilities.

Benchmarks are established in the CMP for these performance measures.

The existing year values of the average speed, daily delay, and average travel rate performance measures were derived from FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database.

The analysis of reliability for the roadways was presented under Goal 1.

The LOS on rural facilities should be maintained at LOS D or better. There are existing rural facilities that have failing LOS (LOS E or F). These facilities can be evaluated further through the 2040 LRTP. The daily and peak hour delay was identified as the performance measures with regional significance. A summary of the trends observed in the daily and peak hour delay within the North Florida region over the past nine years (2003 to 2011) from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures data is presented below. 

Daily Delay: o o o o



The urban interstates showed 111% increase in daily delay between 2003 and 2007 followed by 62% decline between 2007 and 2011.

The urban freeways and expressways showed 34% decline in daily delay between 2003 and 2011.

The urban principal arterials showed 67% increase in daily delay between 2003 and 2005 followed by 72% decline between 2005 and 2011.

The urban minor arterials showed 65% increase in daily delay between 2003 and 2005 followed by 61% decline between 2005 and 2011.

Peak Hour Delay: o o o o

The urban interstates showed 82% increase in the peak hour delay between 2003 and 2007 followed by 46% decline between 2007 and 2011.

The urban freeways and expressways showed 46% decline in daily delay between 2003 and 2011.

The urban principal arterials showed 46% increase in the peak hour delay between 2003 and 2005 followed by 71% decline between 2005 and 2011.

The urban minor arterials showed 60% increase in the peak hour delay between 2003 and 2006 followed by 50% decline between 2006 and 2011.

37

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Improve the Accessibility to Mode Choices: Three performance measures are identified to evaluate the accessibility to various modes of transportation within the North Florida region.   

Proximity to major transportation hubs.

Lane-miles with bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Transit Coverage.

Benchmarks are established in the CMP for these performance measures.

The proximity of major transportation hubs to congested roadways is not anticipated to change significantly from year to year; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not appropriate. This performance measure will be evaluated in greater details in the 2040 LRTP. The analysis of the lane-miles with bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit coverage was presented under Goal 2.

Optimize the Utilization of the System: Five performance measures are identified to evaluate the existing system utilization.     

Percent system heavily congested.

Percent travel heavily congested.

Duration of congestion (number of hours with LOS E or F).

Vehicles per lane-mile.

Average number of passengers per revenue mile.

Benchmarks are established in the CMP for these performance measures.

The existing year values of the percent system heavily congested, percent travel heavily congested, duration of congestion, and vehicles per lane-mile performance measures were derived from FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database.

The average number of passengers per revenue mile was presented under Goal 2.

The percent system heavily congested, percent travel heavily congested and duration of congestion were identified as the performance measures with regional significance. A summary of the trends observed for these performance measures within the North Florida region over the past nine years (2003 to 2011) from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures data is presented below. 

Percent System Heavily Congested: o o o o



The urban interstates showed 48% increase in system congestion between 2003 and 2006 followed by 36% decline between 2006 and 2011.

The urban freeways and expressways showed 30% decline in system congestion between 2003 and 2011.

The urban principal arterials showed 55% decline in system congestion between 2003 and 2011.

The urban minor arterials showed 70% increase in system congestion between 2003 and 2006 followed by 31% decline between 2006 and 2011.

Percent Travel Heavily Congested: o o o o

The urban interstates showed 63% increase in travel congestion between 2003 and 2007 followed by 51% decline between 2007 and 2011.

The urban freeways and expressways showed 29% decline in travel congestion between 2003 and 2008 followed by 21% increase between 2008 and 2011.

The urban principal arterials showed 45% increase in travel congestion between 2003 and 2005 followed by 62% decline between 2005 and 2011.

The urban minor arterials showed 48% increase in travel congestion between 2003 and 2005 followed by 53% decline between 2005 and 2011.

38

Congestion Management Process CMP Report



Duration of Congestion (Hours Per Day at LOS E or F): o

o o o

The urban interstates showed 45% increase in hours per day at LOS E or F between 2003 and 2007 followed by 40% decline between 2007 and 2008 and 29% increase between 2008 and 2011.

The urban freeways and expressways showed 37% decline in hours per day at LOS E or F between 2003 and 2011.

The urban principal arterials showed 23% increase in hours per day at LOS E or F between 2003 and 2005 followed by 34% decline between 2005 and 2011.

The urban minor arterials showed 18% increase in hours per day at LOS E or F between 2003 and 2005 followed by 47% decline between 2005 and 2011.

Table 17 provides the current year values for the performance measures identified under Goal 4.

39

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 17: Goal 4- Existing Year Performance Measures Values Objective

Optimize the quantity of travel

Mobility Performance Measures (1)

42,439,000

Daily truck-miles traveled

(1)

1,934,000

Daily vehicle-miles traveled

(1)

27,383,000

Person trips

(1)

47,832

Average speed Daily delay Average travel rate Reliability

Improve the accessibility to mode choices

Existing Year Value

Daily person-miles traveled

Transit ridership (Passengers)

Optimize the quality of travel

Benchmark

Increase Maintain or improve the average travel speed Maintain or reduce the average vehicle delay Maintain or increase the average trip time Maintain or improve the reliability

LOS on rural facilities

Maintain at LOS standard (D or better)

Proximity to major transportation hubs

(2)

% lane miles with bicycle & Pedestrian accommodations

(2)

JTA = 11,283,132, Sunshine = 195,419 37.46 mph 24,159 vehicle.hours 5,238 vehicles per hour On-going, See I-95 Reliability Analysis Section All roadway classified as Rural or Transition have LOS D or better in the existing year (per FDOT 2011 LOS Report) Evaluated in detail in the LRTP 32% of major roads in Jacksonville, 17% of county roads in St. Johns County, 2% of all roads in Nassau County, Clay County data was N/A 46% of all residential households within 1/4 mile of a transit stop

Increase the % of households served within 1/4 mile Maintain or reduce the % of % system heavily congested 10.20% Optimize the system heavily congested utilization of the Maintain or reduce the % of system % travel heavily congested 4.70% travel heavily congested Optimize the vehicles per lane 8,015 vehicles Vehicles per lane mile mile for a desired LOS Optimize the Maintain or decrease the Duration of congestion 2,301 hours duration of congestion utilization of the system Maintain or increase the Number of passengers per revenue mile number of passengers per JTA = 0.89, Sunshine = 0.38 revenue mile (1) Generally, increases in the quantity traveled (throughout) are preferred. However, consistent with livability and sustainability goals, one of the objectives is to reduce the amount of travel needed. Therefore, no benchmarks are proposed, but monitoring is recommended.

(2) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP. Transit coverage

40

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 18 provides a summary of the performance measures reported in the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database for the North Florida region. Additional Hot-Spot Analysis is conducted on key performance measures that are of significant indicators of congestion.

6.1. Hot-Spot Analysis The ArcGIS Hot-Spot Analysis tool was used to develop the congestion hot-spot locations for each of the key performance measures identified below:   

Duration of Congestion (Hours per Day at LOS E or F) Daily Delay Peak Hour Delay

When the ArcGIS Hot-Spot Analysis tool is run on the key performance measures, it returns a Z-Score value.

For statistically significant positive Z-Scores, the larger the Z-Score is, the more intense the clustering of high values (hot-spots) and for statistically significant negative Z-Score, the smaller the Z-Score is, the more intense the clustering of low values (cold-spots).

Appendix B of this report shows the hot-spot temperature charts for the key performance measures identified above. The temperature charts produced from the GIS analysis provide a visual representation on the extent of congestion within the North Florida region. Regions that are prone to congestion can be identified through these charts and these can be an excellent visual source in identifying regions where congestion mitigation programs can be deployed. By reviewing the data from these hot-spot temperature maps, the following regions are identified as regions that experience congestion on a daily basis:        

Argyle/Orange Park Southpoint Gateway Mandarin Intracoastal West San Jose/Sans Souci Arlington Fernandina

These regions were identified to be prominent in the hot-spot analysis of all the key performance measures.

Other regions that are of regional significance can be used to augment this above listed locations based on agency review. These regions can be used as a starting point for the deployment of congestion mitigation programs within the North Florida TPO boundary.

41

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 18: Performance Measures Summary for the North Florida TPO Governing Boundary Year of Analysis

Performance M easure

20 0 3

20 0 4

20 0 5

20 0 6

20 0 7

20 0 8

20 0 9

20 10

20 11

Daily PMT (in 1,000)

41,160

43,021

43,585

44,978

45,423

43,943

43,333

42,825

42,439

Daily VMT (in 1,000)

26,558

27,771

28,133

29,012

29,298

28,352

27,958

27,626

27,383

Daily TMT (in 1,000)

2,425

2,415

2,795

2,933

2,534

2,349

2,234

1,948

1,934

35.98

34.75

34.49

35.45

34.83

36.47

35.85

37.53

37.46

Daily Weighted Speed (mph*VMT)

Average Daily Speed (mph)

955,556.84

965,103.97

970,307.17

1,028,475.40

1,020,351.68

1,034,123.45

1,002,356.43

1,036,926.57

1,025,828.04

Congested VMT - Daily (in 1,000)

1,750

2,087

2,398

2,271

2,309

1,728

1,700

1,277

1,286

Peak Hour PMT (in 1,000)

3,295

3,446

3,497

3,612

3,648

3,527

3,477

3,436

3,404

Peak Hour VMT (in 1,000)

2,126

2,223

2,256

2,328

2,353

2,274

2,242

2,215

2,195

Peak Hour TMT (in 1,000)

196

197

228

239

208

193

184

162

160

Average Peak Hour Speed (mph)

32.32

31.66

31.29

32.01

31.72

33.46

32.81

33.85

33.80

Travel Rate

5,813

5,706

5,775

5,680

5,576

5,490

5,389

5,158

5,238

Peak Hour Weighted Speed (mph*VMT)

68,705.24

70,370.30

70,590.24

74,524.46

74,647.62

76,090.57

73,565.01

74,967.91

74,195.88

Congested VMT - Peak Hour (in 1,000)

460

529

569

608

568

458

418

344

365

121.37

129.13

133.86

146.01

128.17

112.04

90.80

86.79

90.54

21,995,901

22,796,298

23,278,617

24,138,223

23,983,192

22,678,964

21,961,913

21,387,525

21,290,593

8,238

8,538

8,719

9,041

8,982

8,494

8,225

8,010

7,974

1,780,128

1,848,871

1,889,672

1,963,173

1,951,420

1,842,130

1,785,276

1,737,162

1,729,974

667

692

708

735

731

690

669

651

648

Miles Congested (miles) Total Daily Vehicles Per Lane Average Daily Vehicles Per Lane Total Peak Hour Vehicles Per Lane Average Peak Hour Vehicles Per Lane Daily Delay (Veh-Hrs)

39,076.33

48,821.14

53,418.88

45,287.41

45,298.42

34,158.92

30,206.24

23,610.69

24,159.00

Daily Persons Delay (Person-Hrs)

61,014.13

75,679.78

82,681.50

70,310.48

70,497.49

52,816.91

47,006.57

36,785.95

37,678.19

Peak Hour Delay (Veh-Hrs)

11,987.23

14,201.39

15,434.77

14,297.93

13,163.72

10,429.76

8,833.84

7,711.49

7,425.36

18,672.92

21,995.15

23,842.46

22,127.09

20,391.06

16,078.13

13,676.73

11,972.61

11,509.00

1,162.47

1,661.76

1,837.52

1,057.42

2,138.35

981.57

1,202.06

815.11

829.30

2,946

2,996

3,193

3,030

2,869

2,544

2,551

2,186

2,301

Volume - Daily Persons (in 1,000)

149,100

154,644

158,377

165,776

163,832

154,932

149,228

145,055

144,569

Volume - Daily Vehicles (in 1,000)

95,416

99,001

101,404

106,062

104,795

99,162

95,526

92,834

92,523

Peak Hour Persons Delay (Person-Hrs) Peak Hour Delay - LOS EF (Veh-Hrs) Hour per Day - LOS EF (Total Hrs)

Volume - Daily Trucks (in 1,000)

7,627

7,881

9,407

10,028

8,314

7,887

7,258

6,221

6,234

Volume - Peak Hour Persons (in 1,000)

12,140

12,612

12,929

13,556

13,400

12,650

12,191

11,841

11,806

Volume - Peak Hour Vehicles (in 1,000)

7,769

8,069

8,275

8,670

8,568

8,094

7,800

7,576

7,553

625

647

774

825

686

654

602

515

517

Volume - Peak Hour Trucks (in 1,000) Total Miles

883.58

875.48

874.14

856.48

876.15

881.95

887.97

887.11

887.26

3,263.04

3,283.21

3,304.88

3,246.15

3,335.24

3,374.94

3,401.73

3,408.78

3,416.74

Percent System Heavily Congested (%)

13.74%

14.75%

15.31%

17.05%

14.63%

12.70%

10.23%

9.78%

10.20%

Percent Travel Heavily Congested (%)

6.59%

7.52%

8.52%

7.83%

7.88%

6.09%

6.08%

4.62%

4.70%

Total Lane-Miles

Vehilces per lane-mile Person Trips

8,140

8,459

8,513

8,938

8,785

8,401

8,219

8,105

8,015

46,584

49,140

49,861

52,516

51,844

49,825

48,801

48,275

47,832

42

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

7. Identification of Congested Corridors The recent regional trends have suggested an increase in the congestion levels within the North Florida region.

The following summarizes the analysis performed to identify the congested facilities within the North Florida TPO governing boundary: 

The corridors experiencing at least one hour of LOS E/F during an average weekday from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database were identified as congested.



The congested corridors were classified based on the congestion levels as follows: o Severely Congested – Corridors experiencing more than 8 hours of LOS E/F. o Significantly Congested – Corridors experiencing between 3 to 8 hours of LOS E/F, and o Congested – Corridors experiencing between 1 to 3 hours of LOS E/F.



Congested facilities within the North Florida region were identified utilizing the FDOT LOS base map roadway extents. Figures 8 and 9 show these congested facilities.



The key measures of effectiveness (MOEs) for these facilities were estimated from the FDOT Mobility Performance Measures database.



A table was compiled which contains the Roadway ID, Roadway Name and MOEs along with the existing and future year LOS for these roadways.



Preliminary ranking was assigned to these facilities based on the existing LOS, peak hour delay, and length of the facility. The facilities were sorted from the most severely congested to moderately congested facilities based on the ranking criteria.

Table 19 provides a list of these congested facilities within the North Florida region along with their preliminary ranking.

43

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 19: Congested Facilities List with Preliminary Ranking – Page 1 of 2

C ounty ID Rank Name 8 1 Clay 151 2 St. Johns 9 3 Clay 10 4 Clay 152 5 St. Johns 25 6 Duval 150 7 St. Johns 75 8 Duval 155 9 Clay 85 10 Duval 111 11 Duval 144 12 St. Johns 140 13 Nassau 49 14 Duval 135 15 Duval 24 16 Duval 113 17 Duval 182 18 Duval 34 19 Duval 136 20 Duval 174 21 Duval 66 22 Duval 39 23 Duval 162 24 St. Johns 114 25 Duval 5 26 Clay 148 27 St. Johns 115 28 Duval 156 29 Clay 166 30 Duval 195 31 Duval 137 32 Duval 189 33 Duval 30 34 Duval 161 35 St. Johns 157 36 St. Johns 179 37 Duval 26 38 Duval 58 39 Duval 36 40 Duval 154 41 Clay 40 42 Duval 35 43 Duval 31 44 Duval 133 45 Duval 95 46 Duval 97 47 Duval 96 48 Duval 99 49 Duval 158 50 St. Johns 104 51 Duval 18 52 Duval 171 53 Clay 173 54 Duval 64 55 Duval 71 56 Duval 17 57 Duval 60 58 Duval 177 59 Duval 147 60 St. Johns 112 61 Duval 116 62 Duval 110 63 Duval 73 64 Duval 76 65 Duval 50 66 Duval 38 67 Duval

Name of Area Clay County St Johns County Clay County Clay County St Johns County Jacksonville St Johns County Jacksonville Orange Park Jacksonville Jacksonville St Johns County Nassau County Jacksonville Jacksonville Beach Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Beach Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville St Augustine Jacksonville Middleburg St Johns County Jacksonville Orange Park Jacksonville Neptune Beach Jacksonville Beach Jacksonville Jacksonville St Augustine St Augustine Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Orange Park Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville St Augustine Jacksonville Jacksonville Orange Park Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville St Johns County Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville

F acility Blanding Blvd.

SR A1A Blanding Blvd.

Blanding Blvd.

SR A1A Atlantic Blvd.

SR A1A Southside Blvd.

US 17 University Blvd.

I-95 SR 13 SR AIA J.T. Butler Third St. Atlantic Blvd.

I-95 San Jose Blvd.

Beach Blvd.

Third St. Atlantic Blvd.

US 1/ Phillips Hwy. Blanding Blvd.

US 1 I-95 Blanding Blvd.

US 1 SR 10 US 17 Rail Connector/Pritchard Rd Atlantic Blvd.

Third St. SR 9A Baymeadows Rd. San Marco Bridge of Lions Ocean St. Atlantic Blvd.

Mathews Bridge Expy.

Beach Blvd.

US 17 Blanding Blvd.

Beach Blvd.

Baymeadows Rd. SR 9A I-10 I-10 I-10 I-295 King St. I-295 Arlington Expy.

Kingsley Ave. Arlington Expy.

US 1/ Phillips Hwy. San Jose Blvd.

Arlington Expy.

Mayport Rd. Emerson St. US 1 I-95 I-95 I-95 Southside Blvd.

Southside Blvd.

J.T. Butler Beach Blvd.

Begin End MP MP Roadw ay 71070000 10.003 11.912 78001000 4.584 5.370 71070000 11.912 12.624 71070000 12.624 14.498 78001000 5.370 7.151 72100000 7.954 11.018 78001000 3.089 4.584 72040000 4.933 7.539 71020000 12.650 13.997 72014000 2.160 4.005 72280000 11.660 13.140 78070000 16.303 17.294 74060000 0.000 4.384 72292000 0.000 0.510 72100000 18.065 19.270 72100000 6.559 7.703 72280000 13.480 15.360 72160000 1.865 3.332 72190000 3.343 4.800 72100000 19.270 19.840 72100000 7.703 7.954 72070000 10.244 12.089 72170000 0.000 0.467 78010000 16.064 16.763 72280000 15.360 16.793 71070000 1.855 2.881 78010000 15.054 16.064 72020000 0.000 0.677 71020000 13.997 14.365 72000026 1.730 2.517 72100000 13.847 14.264 72004000 0.000 0.692 72002000 13.396 15.441 72028000 1.912 2.799 78010027 1.315 2.191 78040000 16.703 17.041 72050000 8.773 8.845 72100000 11.018 12.383 72040000 12.808 14.735 72190000 7.065 9.005 71020000 12.218 12.650 72170000 0.467 4.121 72190000 4.800 7.065 72028000 2.799 3.504 72002000 20.370 24.840 72270000 20.118 20.546 72270000 21.060 21.667 72270000 20.546 21.060 72001000 3.087 4.896 78010027 0.000 0.654 72001000 20.647 22.199 72040000 11.685 12.354 71130000 2.234 2.781 72040000 10.197 11.685 72070000 5.667 6.724 72160000 0.000 1.865 72040000 12.354 12.808 72230000 1.213 2.300 72015000 1.381 2.373 78010000 13.981 15.054 72280000 13.140 13.480 72020000 0.677 2.664 72280000 9.345 11.660 72040000 2.165 2.759 72040000 7.539 9.572 72292000 0.510 1.070 72190000 10.778 12.047

Roadw ay Roadw ay Length Length ( M i) ( F t.)

1.909 10,080 0.786 4,150 0.712 3,759 1.874 9,895 1.781 9,404 3.064 16,178 1.495 7,894 2.606 13,760 1.347 7,112 1.845 9,742 1.480 7,814 0.991 5,232 4.384 23,148 0.510 2,693 1.205 6,362 1.144 6,040 1.880 9,926 1.467 7,746 1.457 7,693 0.570 3,010 0.251 1,325 1.845 9,742 0.467 2,466 0.699 3,691 1.433 7,566 1.026 5,417 1.010 5,333 0.677 3,575 0.368 1,943 0.787 4,155 0.417 2,202 0.692 3,654 2.045 10,798 0.887 4,683 0.876 4,625 0.338 1,785 0.072 380 1.365 7,207 1.927 10,175 1.940 10,243 0.432 2,281 3.654 19,293 2.265 11,959 0.705 3,722 4.470 23,602 0.428 2,260 0.607 3,205 0.514 2,714 1.809 9,552 0.654 3,453 1.552 8,195 0.669 3,532 0.547 2,888 1.488 7,857 1.057 5,581 1.865 9,847 0.454 2,397 1.087 5,739 0.992 5,238 1.073 5,665 0.340 1,795 1.987 10,491 2.315 12,223 0.594 3,136 2.033 10,734 0.560 2,957 1.269 6,700

F rom Location College Dr CR 210 (Corona Rd) Suzanne Ave SR 224/Kingsley Ave (SR-224) Solana Rd St Johns Bluff Rd CR 210 (Palm Valley Rd) J.T.B. SR 224 (Kingsley Ave) I-95 SR 202 (J.Turner Butler Blvd) Racetrack Rd. US 17/SR 5 Phillips Hwy Beach Blvd Monument Rd University Blvd Loretto Rd SR 228 19th St SR 9A Baymeadows Rd Clay Co. Line SR 207 Emerson Expy CR 218 SR 312 Atlantic Blvd Wells Rd I-295 Ramp to A1A St Johns Co. Line St Johns Bluff Rd US 1 (Phillips Hwy) Orange Street Bridge of Lions Ocean St Girvin Rd University Blvd SR 9A Elbow Rd I-295 Southside Blvd I-95 SR 152 (Baymeadows Rd) McDuff Ave Stockton Ramps SR 228/US 17 Old St Augustine Road US 1 I-10 Arlington Road N Doctors Lake Drive Southside Blvd SR 9A St Johns County Cesery Blvd (SR 109) Church Road I-95 Lewis Point Rd Bowden Rd Downtown Exit (SR 5) SR 152 (Baymeadows Rd) Belle Rive Blvd Beach Blvd I-95 Hodges Blvd

To Location Suzanne Ave Solana Rd SR 224/Kingsley Ave Duval Co. Line Duval Co. Line Girvin Rd CR 210 (Corona Rd) Beach Blvd Wells Rd Beach Blvd (SR 212) Bowden Rd Duval Co. Line CR 107/Brackrock Road I-95 19th St SR 9A Emerson Expy I-295 Southside Blvd 34th St St. Johns Bluff Rd J.T.B. (SR 202) I-295 King Street Atlantic Blvd Ramps N. City Limit (Palmetto St) SR 207 Downtown Exit (SR 5) Duval Co. Line Old Kings W A1A Junction 34th Ave Beach Boulevard (SR 212) I-95 May Street State Hwy A1A Main St San Pablo Rd Haines St Expy Kernan Blvd SR 224 (Kingsley Ave) 103rd St (SR 134) SR 9A Old Baymeadows Road US 1 SR 228/US 17 I-95 Stockton Ramps SR 13 (San Jose Blvd) Cordova Street Commonwealth Ave. Cesery Blvd (SR 109) US 17 Arlington Rd Southside Blvd Loretto Rd University Blvd A1A Emerson St Expy SR 312 University Blvd I-10 "Fuller Warren Brdg" SR 202 (J.Turner Butler Blvd) Baymeadows Rd Atlantic Blvd Belfort Rd San Pablo Pkwy

Area Type Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized

F acility Type Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Freeway Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Freeway Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Freeway Arterial Arterial Freeway Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Freeway Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Highway Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Freeway Freeway Freeway Freeway Freeway Arterial Freeway Highway Arterial Highway Arterial Arterial Highway Arterial Arterial Arterial Freeway Freeway Freeway Arterial Arterial Highway Arterial

C lass class Il class Il class Il class Il class I class I class Il class I class Il class Il

M SV 53,100 33,200 53,100 53,100 36,700 55,300 33,200 36,700 50,300 35,100 110,300 class I 36,700 class I 36,700 class Il 33,200 class Il 35,100 class Ill 48,200 110,300 class Il 53,100 class Il 53,100 class Il 35,100 class I 55,300 class Il 35,100 class Il 53,100 class I 35,500 110,300 class I 36,700 class Il 35,100 110,300 class Il 58,680 class I 16,500 class I 35,500 class Il 35,100 73,600 class Il 35,100 class Il 12,160 class I 16,500 class Ill 28,920 class Il 53,100 64,300 class Il 53,100 class Il 50,300 class Il 35,100 class Il 53,100 class Il 35,100 73,600 110,300 146,500 Aux 166,500 110,300 class Il 15,960 73,600 64,300 class Il 35,100 64,300 class Il 35,100 class Il 53,100 64,300 class Il 35,100 class Il 35,100 class Ill 48,200 110,300 146,500 110,300 class Il 53,100 class I 36,700 96,400 class Il 53,100

Peak LOS Hour Base M SV Year 5,150 F 3,220 F 5,150 F 5,150 F 3,560 F 5,360 F 3,220 F 3,560 F 4,880 F 3,400 F 10,150 F F 3,560 3,560 F 3,220 F 3,400 F 4,680 F 10,150 F 5,150 F 5,150 F 3,400 F 5,360 F 3,400 F 5,150 F 3,560 F 10,150 F 3,560 F 3,400 F 10,150 F 5,693 F 1,600 F 3,440 F 3,400 F 6,770 F 3,400 F 1,256 F 1,600 F 2,808 F 5,150 E 6,040 E 5,150 E 4,880 E 3,400 E 5,150 E 3,400 E 6,770 E 10,150 E 13,480 E 15,280 E 10,150 E 1,648 E 6,770 E 6,040 D 3,400 D 6,040 D 3,400 D 5,150 D 6,040 D 3,400 D 3,400 D 4,680 D 10,150 D 13,480 D 10,150 D 5,150 D 3,560 D 9,060 D 5,150 D

Daily PM T 144,872 87,425 83,392 57,594 58,289 89,064 75,103 42,735 52,844 62,832 80,632 35,275 51,324 73,046 38,660 39,880 64,365 72,768 27,792 26,720 29,559 27,521 14,426 13,628 31,540 18,218 16,296 15,967 10,348 71,409 7,866 9,918 22,960 61,099 8,653 1,379 9,727 159,917 31,480 38,951 36,992 48,645 42,944 78,938 76,813 23,366 14,760 20,474 64,353 5,321 21,366 76,180 88,477 41,741 50,305 49,785 25,533 34,487 74,530 42,096 77,658 48,163 94,258 45,069 29,817 58,158 35,338

Daily VM T 101,309 57,517 58,316 40,140 38,291 56,370 49,410 27,048 36,954 39,767 51,033 23,207 35,642 46,232 24,469 25,241 40,737 46,056 17,590 16,911 18,708 17,418 9,471 8,966 19,962 12,740 10,721 10,106 7,236 45,196 4,979 6,345 14,532 38,670 5,692 907 6,156 101,213 19,924 24,652 25,869 30,788 27,179 49,961 48,616 14,789 9,342 12,958 40,730 3,501 13,523 48,215 61,872 26,418 31,839 31,772 16,160 21,827 47,171 27,694 49,150 30,483 59,657 28,525 18,872 36,809 22,366

Daily TM T 2,680 994 1,530 1,051 900 1,851 1,029 980 2,487 2,182 4,513 626 2,569 3,766 731 973 3,338 3,862 444 453 611 974 205 240 1,825 328 289 884 479 6,261 161 191 514 3,810 256 31 331 4,020 686 712 1,758 677 760 4,463 2,369 983 516 595 5,125 132 1,932 1,641 4,081 888 2,710 856 476 882 3,593 777 4,339 2,525 5,605 1,592 681 3,002 797

Average Daily Speed ( mph) 23.49 23.32 22.43 20.63 23.54 24.53 24.58 31.95 24.59 40.43 46.21 22.83 25.27 27.97 24.46 33.20 63.58 39.08 21.80 23.95 29.92 24.67 20.17 22.49 55.75 24.81 23.62 42.03 24.33 49.20 23.23 27.57 61.04 43.69 25.87 25.16 28.65 24.99 15.55 22.56 23.33 21.95 29.98 43.36 53.92 63.31 49.88 64.22 62.30 24.32 65.35 19.52 24.68 18.27 23.99 23.64 16.59 23.20 48.11 24.34 62.25 43.95 52.04 25.48 22.09 33.84 23.67

Peak Hour PM T 11,470 6,922 6,603 4,560 4,615 7,052 5,946 3,430 4,184 5,130 6,793 2,793 4,064 6,074 3,061 3,160 5,424 5,960 2,200 2,116 2,342 2,179 1,142 1,079 2,659 1,442 1,290 1,341 819 5,994 623 787 1,910 5,117 685 109 770 12,661 2,492 3,084 2,929 3,851 3,413 6,588 6,464 1,970 1,244 1,726 5,418 421 1,801 6,032 7,005 3,305 3,983 3,942 2,022 2,731 6,247 3,333 6,546 4,056 7,935 3,568 2,361 4,867 2,798

Peak Peak Hour Hour VM T TM T 8,021 212 4,554 79 4,617 121 3,178 83 3,032 71 4,463 147 3,912 81 2,171 79 2,926 197 3,247 181 4,299 380 1,837 50 2,822 203 3,844 315 1,937 58 2,000 77 3,433 281 3,772 323 1,393 35 1,339 36 1,482 48 1,379 77 750 16 710 19 1,683 154 1,009 26 849 23 849 74 573 38 3,794 527 394 13 504 15 1,209 43 3,239 321 451 20 72 2 487 26 8,014 318 1,577 54 1,952 56 2,048 139 2,438 54 2,160 61 4,169 375 4,091 199 1,247 83 788 44 1,092 50 3,429 432 277 10 1,140 163 3,817 130 4,899 323 2,092 70 2,521 215 2,516 68 1,279 38 1,728 70 3,954 302 2,193 62 4,143 366 2,567 213 5,022 472 2,258 126 1,494 54 3,081 252 1,771 63

Average Peak Peak Duration of Daily Hour Speed C ongestion Delay Delay ( mph) ( Hrs) ( Veh.Hrs) ( Veh.Hrs) 13.42 4.50 486.10 201.65 12.86 4.23 340.85 137.67 12.27 5.81 388.56 133.53 10.87 8.31 433.45 122.69 13.64 4.26 322.97 103.99 14.60 2.88 219.54 101.27 14.63 2.64 170.85 84.68 20.16 7.73 331.59 76.62 14.78 3.68 140.88 64.94 28.18 4.00 158.81 61.76 28.01 7.24 189.58 60.18 12.37 4.44 148.87 55.73 15.76 1.91 104.73 54.23 18.89 7.27 182.82 53.21 14.41 2.67 91.75 45.04 25.75 2.33 83.84 43.09 43.21 3.80 49.20 39.27 30.48 2.43 70.11 37.50 12.89 5.90 130.91 35.06 13.71 3.36 72.01 32.61 21.48 2.61 65.60 31.55 14.77 2.50 58.87 29.53 11.40 9.35 115.84 25.66 12.33 5.43 71.26 23.52 29.10 5.85 44.91 22.79 14.95 2.38 40.06 20.82 13.58 3.97 43.65 19.81 16.35 9.35 90.72 18.75 14.63 4.63 36.53 14.68 46.74 4.75 37.29 11.30 13.58 4.40 40.30 11.29 15.96 3.80 25.29 11.19 54.15 3.00 10.71 7.72 36.10 2.52 11.77 5.96 17.81 2.25 2.21 1.59 16.89 5.55 2.30 1.02 25.35 8.59 0.00 0.00 15.20 2.67 351.02 174.06 10.02 12.09 588.69 71.13 12.61 5.21 128.11 51.16 13.58 4.52 99.52 45.11 13.79 5.69 101.05 44.96 20.14 4.42 85.02 41.51 36.13 4.65 84.89 23.04 49.33 4.63 43.76 17.00 43.84 3.94 21.42 12.12 30.54 8.22 56.60 11.62 43.86 3.40 16.10 11.58 54.52 2.45 11.39 8.90 15.68 5.90 24.61 8.27 54.26 3.35 10.00 6.78 10.05 9.69 724.79 172.21 14.70 2.67 222.66 105.76 10.00 11.10 443.89 94.74 14.02 3.33 140.72 59.86 13.44 3.71 130.29 58.95 10.03 11.53 352.52 57.54 13.24 4.86 158.31 53.48 30.71 4.40 70.01 52.52 14.21 3.17 110.40 52.27 41.42 4.34 138.85 52.17 20.69 8.63 249.31 51.70 37.49 6.00 147.87 48.76 15.77 2.00 80.57 47.14 12.74 5.99 141.67 42.56 23.62 9.28 194.41 41.56 13.33 3.26 88.54 41.17

44

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 19: Congested Facilities List with Preliminary Ranking – Page 2 of 2

C ounty ID Rank Name 142 68 Duval 134 69 Duval 102 70 Duval 23 71 Duval 83 72 Duval 120 73 Duval 84 74 Duval 19 75 Duval 22 76 Duval 61 77 Duval 131 78 Duval 129 79 Duval 130 80 Duval 72 81 Duval 62 82 Duval 70 83 Duval 163 84 St. Johns 175 85 Duval 181 86 Duval 121 87 Duval 32 88 Duval 118 89 Duval 14 90 Duval 98 91 Duval 132 92 Duval 94 93 Duval 101 94 Duval 93 95 Duval 92 96 Duval 11 97 Clay 117 98 Duval 172 99 Duval 3 100 Duval 87 101 Duval 44 102 Duval 119 103 Duval 109 104 Duval 81 105 Duval 79 106 Duval 80 107 Duval 105 108 Duval

Name of Area Neptune Beach Jacksonville Beach Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville St Augustine Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Clay County Jacksonville Jacksonville Atlantic Beach Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville

F acility Third St. Third St. I-295 Atlantic Blvd.

University Blvd.

I-95 University Blvd.

Arlington Expy.

Atlantic Blvd.

Normandy Blvd.

SR 9A SR 9A SR 9A Southside Blvd.

Normandy Blvd.

US 17/ Roosevelt Blvd.

US 1 Baymeadows Rd. US 17/ Roosevelt Blvd.

I-95 Baymeadows Rd. I-95 8th St. I-295 SR 9A I-10 I-295 I-10 I-10 Branan Field Road I-95 103rd St. Atlantic Blvd.

University Blvd.

Dunn Ave. I-95 I-95 Union St. State St. State St. I-295

Roadw ay 72100000 72100000 72001000 72100000 72014000 72020000 72014000 72040345 72100000 72120000 72002000 72002000 72002000 72040000 72120000 72030000 78010000 72028000 72030000 72020000 72028000 72020000 72005000 72001000 72002000 72270000 72001000 72270000 72270000 71393000 72020000 72220000 72100000 72110000 72018000 72020000 72280000 72080101 72080000 72040000 72001000

Begin End MP MP 15.531 16.710 16.710 18.065 17.443 19.384 5.722 6.559 1.123 1.454 5.237 5.836 1.454 1.736 0.000 0.765 3.234 5.722 16.058 18.474 12.854 13.396 10.316 11.410 11.410 12.854 0.000 2.165 18.474 19.767 7.939 8.935 16.763 17.425 0.501 1.912 8.935 9.434 5.836 7.129 3.978 6.417 3.801 4.608 0.000 0.584 0.000 3.087 17.833 19.009 19.237 20.118 15.913 17.443 18.555 19.237 17.300 18.555 0.000 2.275 2.664 3.801 7.116 7.730 14.264 15.531 0.000 0.548 5.982 6.876 4.608 5.237 7.500 9.345 0.000 1.024 0.000 0.818 15.651 15.968 22.199 24.676

Roadw ay Roadw ay Length Length ( M i) ( F t.)

1.179 6,225 1.355 7,154 1.941 10,248 0.837 4,419 0.331 1,748 0.599 3,163 0.282 1,489 0.765 4,039 2.488 13,137 2.416 12,756 0.542 2,862 1.094 5,776 1.444 7,624 2.165 11,431 1.293 6,827 0.996 5,259 0.662 3,495 1.411 7,450 0.499 2,635 1.293 6,827 2.439 12,878 0.807 4,261 0.584 3,084 3.087 16,299 1.176 6,209 0.881 4,652 1.530 8,078 0.682 3,601 1.255 6,626 2.275 12,012 1.137 6,003 0.614 3,242 1.267 6,690 0.548 2,893 0.894 4,720 0.629 3,321 1.845 9,742 1.024 5,407 0.818 4,319 0.317 1,674 2.477 13,079

F rom Location Atlantic Blvd (SR 10) Seagate Ave SR 208 (Wilson Blvd.)

SR 115 (Southside Blvd) St Augustine Road SR 15/US 17 Powers Ave Southside Blvd SR 109 (University Blvd) Herlong Rd SR 10 (Atlantic Blvd) Merrill Rd Monument Rd Phillips Hwy I-295 Park St King Street Craven Road Edgewood Ave SR 122 (Golfair Ave.) SR 115 (Southside Blvd) SR 139/US 23 Francis St I-95 SR 202 (J.Turner Butler) Luna Ramps SR 134 (103rd St.) Cassat Ave Lane Ave Kindlewood Dr I-10 Ricker Rd W A1A Junction SR 10A (Arlington Expy) Biscayne Blvd SR 114 (8th St.) Exit to Southside Blvd (SR 115) I-95 SR 5 (Main St) Liberty St Commonwealth Ave.

To Location Seagate Ave Beach Blvd SR 228 (Normandy Blvd) Monument Rd Powers Ave SR 122 (Golfair Ave.) Phillips Ave Regency Mall Entrance SR 115 (Southside Blvd) I-295 St Johns Bluff Rd Monument Rd SR 10 (Atlantic Blvd) Belle Rive Blvd Lane Ave Edgewood Ave Castillo Dr US 1(Phillips Hwy) McDuff Avenue SR 115 (Lem Turner Rd.) SR 9A SR 114 (8th St.) Perry St Old St Augustine Road Gate Parkway McDuff Ave SR 208 (Wilson Blvd.)

Luna Ramps Cassat Ave Duval Co. Line SR 139/US 23 (Kings Rd) I-295 Third St (E A1A Junction) Arlington Rd I-95 SR 15 (20th St) SR 152 (Baymeadows Rd) Main St (SR 5) Union St US Hwy 1 Pritchard Rd

Area Type Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized Urbanized

F acility Type Arterial Arterial Freeway Arterial Arterial Freeway Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Freeway Freeway Freeway Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Freeway Arterial Freeway Arterial Freeway Freeway Freeway Freeway Freeway Freeway Arterial Freeway Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Freeway Freeway Arterial Arterial Arterial Freeway

C lass class Il class Il class Il class Il Aux class Il class Il class Il class Il

class Il class Il class Il class Il class Il class Il class Il class Ill

class I class Il class Il class Il class Ill Aux class Ill class Ill class Il

M SV 25,000 35,100 110,300 35,100 35,100 130,300 53,100 35,100 35,100 35,100 73,600 73,600 73,600 35,100 35,100 53,100 25,000 35,100 53,100 110,300 35,100 146,500 31,900 110,300 110,300 110,300 110,300 110,300 110,300 16,500 146,500 53,100 33,200 35,100 48,200 130,300 110,300 38,820 38,820 42,540 73,600

Peak LOS Hour Base M SV Year 3,220 D 3,400 D 10,150 D 3,400 D 3,400 D 11,950 D 5,150 D 3,400 D 3,400 D 3,400 D 6,770 D 6,770 D 6,770 D 3,400 D 3,400 D 5,150 D 3,220 D 3,400 D 5,150 D 10,150 D 3,400 D 13,480 D 3,100 D 10,150 D 10,150 D 10,150 D 10,150 D 10,150 D 10,150 D 1,600 D 13,480 D 5,150 D 3,220 D 3,400 D 4,680 D 11,950 D 10,150 D 3,768 D 3,768 D 4,128 D 6,770 D

Daily PM T 46,347 32,953 171,070 20,614 12,085 33,218 10,982 12,213 18,592 28,671 26,834 26,169 29,220 15,756 22,084 8,871 11,516 15,723 8,219 23,053 31,816 14,237 12,187 98,650 27,013 36,023 67,813 32,714 49,298 10,330 11,602 14,724 6,805 3,846 6,619 11,902 82,433 6,784 6,289 8,634 57,396

Daily VM T 29,333 20,856 108,272 13,047 7,649 21,024 6,951 7,730 11,767 18,146 16,983 16,563 18,494 9,972 13,977 5,615 7,576 9,951 5,202 14,591 20,136 9,011 7,713 62,437 17,097 22,799 42,920 20,705 31,201 7,224 7,343 9,319 4,307 2,434 4,189 7,533 52,173 4,293 3,980 5,465 36,326

Daily TM T 1,166 815 13,852 594 218 1,876 220 305 403 1,317 690 678 726 567 1,015 137 215 248 116 1,316 1,050 864 765 7,945 828 1,334 5,217 1,090 2,194 579 647 731 151 79 223 756 5,328 322 295 277 5,166

Average Daily Speed ( mph) 25.69 25.28 63.99 21.31 20.07 57.97 19.69 17.95 24.31 25.64 45.60 37.81 39.63 21.55 25.64 20.92 23.91 25.09 22.03 59.83 50.95 45.50 39.85 65.50 59.55 64.81 60.87 65.49 66.22 24.79 52.51 35.31 25.25 20.47 25.64 59.35 64.52 32.24 28.80 28.26 64.83

Peak Hour PM T 3,669 2,609 14,415 1,632 957 2,800 870 967 1,472 2,270 2,169 2,139 2,376 1,248 1,748 702 912 1,245 651 1,943 2,654 1,196 1,024 8,316 2,274 3,037 5,712 2,758 4,156 818 975 1,218 539 304 524 1,003 6,945 542 503 684 4,837

Peak Peak Hour Hour VM T TM T 2,322 92 1,651 65 9,123 1,167 1,033 47 606 17 1,772 158 550 17 612 24 932 32 1,437 104 1,373 56 1,354 55 1,504 59 790 45 1,107 80 445 11 600 17 788 20 412 9 1,230 111 1,680 88 757 73 648 64 5,263 670 1,439 70 1,922 112 3,615 440 1,745 92 2,630 185 572 46 617 54 771 61 341 12 193 6 332 18 635 64 4,396 449 343 26 318 24 433 22 3,061 435

Average Peak Peak Duration of Daily Hour Speed C ongestion Delay Delay ( mph) ( Hrs) ( Veh.Hrs) ( Veh.Hrs) 16.67 1.50 56.90 34.20 15.90 2.00 54.28 29.84 58.61 1.89 28.67 28.08 12.70 6.58 82.44 26.02 10.40 9.11 103.11 25.92 33.80 4.67 59.10 24.77 10.24 9.81 98.46 23.94 10.89 10.51 122.69 21.36 14.33 3.11 44.95 21.19 16.51 2.00 35.05 21.09 41.85 1.89 43.12 20.92 31.92 4.00 58.16 20.53 33.99 2.41 43.08 19.95 12.07 6.79 52.62 19.90 16.51 2.00 27.00 16.25 11.72 7.60 69.22 16.07 14.08 3.79 41.21 15.80 15.48 2.13 27.30 14.75 12.35 6.17 55.07 14.57 39.75 4.06 31.00 14.20 42.33 4.13 31.97 13.84 25.45 7.98 42.17 13.49 17.93 6.50 39.04 13.38 57.71 2.54 15.26 13.25 45.04 3.77 27.08 12.24 54.11 2.85 17.04 11.22 56.12 2.20 13.18 10.74 55.69 2.48 11.73 9.53 59.18 2.27 9.46 9.46 15.44 3.31 17.19 9.18 38.45 5.81 25.09 7.11 28.94 4.14 20.85 6.90 15.60 1.88 12.09 6.76 11.84 7.92 29.19 6.04 16.51 2.00 8.09 4.87 42.17 4.03 10.68 3.83 57.14 2.93 5.68 3.78 25.07 9.59 11.98 3.19 22.56 10.74 11.27 2.97 24.52 7.37 2.67 0.90 66.21 1.68 2.69 0.81

45

23

¤ £

±

FERNANDINA BEACH

J I 115 A

HILLIARD

J I 121A

15

T S

J I 115

5

108

4 Miles

Congested Facilities

105A

107

I J J I J JI I J I 105A

J I 200A

County Boundaries

108

J I 200A

0019

CALLAHAN

Duval

10 5

J I 115

Cities

10 5

J I

T S S T

NASSAU

St. Johns

105B

Clay

105A

A A1

I J J I

Nassau

A 1A

T S

107

T S

Other Counties

107A

108

2

North Florida TPO Boundary

J I

J I

1

LEGEND

T S

J I

0

J I 15A

A 1A

T S

J I J I

10

5

T S

17

¤ £

2

1

20

0

¤ £

T S

121

5 11

T S

J T I S 110

10 2

JACKSONVILLE 24

J I 110

3

A1A

T S

T JS I 110

T S 104

J I 106

J I

J I 163

10

J I

T S

115 A

119

J I

5

A

A1

J I 115 C

22

217

200

T S

§ ¦ ¨ 295

8

T S

J I

J I

JS I T 109A

10A

T S

T S 22

A1A

T S

J I 101A

8

J I 212

126

T I S J 128

10

90A

1 21

T S

T S

90 A

¤ £

¤ £

213

A

J I

228

10

111

§ ¦ ¨

99

228

T S

8

139

103

10

T S

T S S T

DOWNTOWN T S INSET 1 11 5 A

90

21B

T S

¤ £

103

J I

113

J I I J

119

T S

J I

115

139

T S 116

T S

T S

T S

1

109

¤ £

T S

J I 21D

JACKSONVILLE BEACH

7 11

DUVAL

T S

BALDWIN

T S

117

211

J I 211

J I 213

T S 202

T S

301

¤ £

134

T S

115

116

23

228

228

J I

T S

J S I T

T S

152

J I 210A

J I 203

J II J J T S JI I J I 117 9

116 2

J I

117 5

224 118 1

217

117 7

JI I J JI I J J I 220B 220A

220

209

J I 220

J I 218

125

739

15

118 9

J I 15A

GREEN COVE SPRINGS

J I 210

5

PENNEY FARM

J I

13B

T S

J I

J I

T S

220A

A 1A

J I

T S

ORANGE PARK

J I

9

T S

225

ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH

J I 16A

J I 225

J I 215

J I 16A

J I 315

T S 16

ST. AUGUSTINE

T S 13

T S 16

J I 13A

J I 17

¤ £

15A

J I 13

J I 226

J I 208

21

T S

CLAY

95

13A

209

JAUGUSTINE I ST. JS I J INSET I T 2

§ ¦ ¨

J I

J I

1359

1365

KEYSTONE HEIGHTS

J I 214

1353

312

J JI I J I

20

7

T S

5A

1342

1363

0

A 1A

13A

10

A1A

T S

J I T S

J I

J I 315C

J I

J I

209

309D

21

T S

I J J I

J I 305

HASTINGS

1

214

¤ £

J I 214

PALATKA

219

ST. JOHNS

J I 209

26

T S

J I 207A

J I

J I

216

315

J I 13

1447

309C

21

T S

20

21

J I 20A

2016

310

T S 20

204

Figure 8 Page 46

A 1A

J I

311

19

J I T S

I J JI I J T S J I T S Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO J I

T S

T S 122

15

21B

95

10

8 22

T S

228

J I

T S

109

T S

10

11 5A

211

T S

T S 10

10

T S JACKSONVILLE

T S 212

228 A

T S

111

T S

213

22 8

13

J I

T S

129

T S

228

T S

13

T S

15

T S

139

1A

103

¦ ¨ § T S

228

J I 109 A

T S S T

£ ¤

T S

¦ ¨ §

17

9

J I

11 5

23

T S

£ ¤

DUVAL

5

103

15

J I

T S

139

T S

T S

T S

1

£ ¤

£ ¤

T S

15

T S

£ ¤ 21

126

T S

T JS I 211

21 1

90

T S 228

1

128

£ ¤

£ ¤

T S

T S

1A

5

T S

J I 211

Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO - Inset 1 Downtown Region

J I 133 3

J I 133 5

J I I J 5

±

A1A

T S

133 2

North Florida TPO Boundary Congested Facilities Cities

A A1

T S

J I

0.8 Miles

LEGEND

A 1A

T S

ST. AUGUSTINE

0 0.2 0.4

J I 133 9

J I 133 7

135 9

I J J I 135 4

Duval

St. Johns Clay

5A

T S

£ ¤ 1B

133 8

County Boundaries

Nassau

Other Counties

J II J J I

J I 214

134 7

135 1

134 9

J I 135 3

J I 136 5

312

T S

J I 312

J I 134 0

20 7

J I 134 2

J I A1A

5

T S

5A

T S

J I

ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH

J I 134 4

ST. JOHNS

1

£ ¤ J I 136 3

A 1A

T S

9

T S

Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO - Inset 2 St. Augustine Region

Figure 9 Page 47

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8. Congestion Mitigation Strategies This section of the report is intended to illustrate, and describe congestion mitigation strategies that can enhance and relieve congestion. This is not intended to be a complete list of all of the strategies that may be employed for congestion mitigation. Other congestion mitigation strategies may also be selected and implemented in addition to the strategies described in this section. Four major categories were developed for the congestion mitigation strategies to deal with congestion within the North Florida region.

•

Transportation Systems Management and Operational (TSM&O) Strategies.

•

Travel Demand Management (TDM) Strategies.

•

Transit Improvements.

•

Capacity Improvements.

A brief description of these four major congestion management strategies and the sub-categories under each of these is provided below:

8.1. Transportation Systems Management and Operational (TSM&O) Strategies Transportation Systems Management and Operational (TSM&O) is an integrated program developed to optimize the performance of existing multimodal infrastructure through implementation of systems, services, and projects to preserve capacity and improve the security, safety, and reliability of our transportation system. TSM&O is a new program to FDOT District 2 and is based on measuring performance and actively managing the multimodal transportation network. This program has been initiated by the FDOT to deliver positive safety and mobility outcomes to the traveling public in the State of Florida. A total of 14 sub-categories of strategies were identified that are of regional significance. These are listed as below: o

Surveillance and Incident Management Systems.

o

Access Management.

o

Congestion Pricing.

o

Integrated Corridor Management.

o

Arterial Management Systems.

o

Hard Shoulder Running.

o

Reversible Lanes.

o

One-way Streets.

o

Ramp metering.

o

Transit Signal Priority.

o

Variable Speed Limits.

o

Dynamic Detours.

o

Queue Warning Systems.

o

Traveler Information Systems.

A brief description of these 14 sub-categories under TSM&O strategies is provided.

48

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.1.1. Surveillance and Incident Management Systems (1&5) Description: A freeway incident detection and management system consists of one or some combination of: roving tow or service vehicles, motorist aid call boxes, citizen band radios and cellular phones, incident teams, detectors in mainline lanes to monitor volume, ramp metering devices, motorist information systems, traffic diversion, and alternative route identification. The surveillance system itself normally consists of highway and ramp traffic detectors, changeable message signs, closed circuit television surveillance on particular trouble spots, a communications system, and some type of central computer control. A system of detectors connected to the central computer allows monitoring of conditions throughout the freeway system. Pertinent driver information is provided through the changeable message sign system and radio traffic reports (and in some cases, highway advisory radio) to alert drivers to congested conditions and allows diversion to alternate routes if necessary. The North Florida TPO has successfully implemented various Incident Management Systems in partnership with the FDOT through various Traffic Incident Management (TIM) programs and studies within the North Florida region.

Benefit/Costs: Through the use of a freeway incident detection and management system, incident duration can be reduced by an average of 10 minutes. By reducing travel delays, fuel consumption, emissions, and secondary incidents, Traffic Incident Management (TIM) boosts the national and regional economy.

According to Texas Transportation Institute (TTI’s) Urban Mobility Report 2011, travel time value for each person-hour of travel was $16.79 in 2011; for trucks the value was $86.81 for the Jacksonville area. The costs of travel delay drive up freight costs, which are passed on to consumers through product and commodity price increases.

Implementation: The documented impacts of freeway management improvements reflect the combined effect during peak periods of freeway entry control and incident management. Results have been impressive. During congested periods, decreases in travel time on the freeways of 10 to 45% are probable. For all sections of a freeway currently operating as congested, approximately 60% of these sections could be upgraded to relatively free-flow through the use of freeway surveillance and management. As freeways become more congested, incident detection and management systems will become even more important. The process from conceptual planning to completed system in an urban area can take five to ten years. Public and private agencies must willingly share information and invest resources, especially across jurisdictional boundaries. This requires considerable planning, organization, and a favorable policy environment that encourages interaction and constant communication between all possible stakeholders. When incidents do occur, sharing information rapidly to all users and aggressively clearing traffic lanes will maximize this strategy’s effectiveness.

Typical Vehicle Positioning during Incidents

Strategy Evaluation Figure 10 - Freeway Surveillance

Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short Corridor/Region City/State/EMS Policy

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

49

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.1.2. Access Management (1&5) Description: By employing a program of access management a number of state and local highway agencies are finding it possible to improve average travel speeds, safety performance, and capacity of arterials.

Access management elements often include one or more of the following: 

The physical restriction of left turns,



Restricting curb cuts and direct access driveways,



Separating obvious conflict areas,



Eliminating parking,



Locating intersections at no less than minimum intervals, and



Constructing of frontage roads to collect local business traffic and funnel it to nearby intersections.

Adequate access management improves safety on roads by limiting the number of locations where cars can slow down or speed up to exit or enter the road. Access management serves as an effective congestion reduction technique because it controls where vehicles enter and leave the road. The North Florida TPO has funded various Access Management studies like the Blanding Boulevard Access Management study.

Benefit/Costs: Without an access management program along arterial highways, capital improvements for roadway improvements and/or relocation is required at periodical intervals. This cycle is a result of continually trying to satisfy traffic demands which are often a result of increased business activity. The number of conflict points among vehicles rises as a result of an increasing number of driveways, causing the capacity at a specific level of service to diminish. Vehicle delay increases, and safety and comfort are reduced. The cost of allowing unplanned development to occur along arterials can be great because the inevitable solution calls for more capital expenditure as the traffic conditions reach intolerable proportions. However, if proper planning is utilized, cost can be minimized.

Implementation: Controlling or managing access along highways is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks facing local officials and transportation engineers. Good access management begins at the early stages of development when access management techniques can more easily be integrated into the design.

Retrofitting is difficult and costly, but possible. Subdivision regulations and development standards/ordinances should be carefully crafted to facilitate access management implementation. One approach for providing effective access management is to undertake a corridor-level planning study.

Corridor analyses which assess future demands and capacity of freeway and parallel facilities and evaluate major development proposals provide essential information to decision makers.

Figure 11 - Reduction in Conflict Points and Blanding Boulevard Access Management

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short/Moderate Corridor City/State Retrofit/Business Perceptions

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

50

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.1.3. Congestion Pricing (1&5) Description: Congestion pricing, sometimes called as value pricing, is a way to harness the existing roadway capacity to reduce traffic congestion. Congestion pricing works by shifting rush hour highway travel to other transportation modes or to off-peak periods, taking advantage of the fact that the majority of rush hour drivers on a typical urban highway are not commuters. By removing a fraction (even as small as 5%) of the vehicles from a congested roadway, pricing enables the system to flow much more efficiently, allowing more cars to move through the same physical space. Congestion pricing programs (variable and/or dynamic pricing) raise the price during rush hours and lower the price during off-peak periods to better use the road space. The tolls can be adjusted according to a set toll schedule or dynamically, based on traffic demand. Adjusting the toll can persuade drivers to choose: 

An alternate, less congested route,



A different departure time,



A different mode like transit, carpool, or vanpool, and



To telecommute or eliminate low-priority trips.

Benefit/Costs: Congestion pricing works best in congested corridors with strong transit alternatives and congested general-purpose lanes. This strategy will benefit congested corridors by reducing congestion on tolled facilities by moving some traffic demand to alternate times, routes, or modes, or eliminate trips. This strategy has low implementation costs and could produce additional revenue that can be used to further improve this facility, although revenue generation is not the primary goal.

Implementation: Congestion pricing’s most difficult hurdle lies in public resistance to variable tolling and a lack of public knowledge of the benefits and costs of the program. Many may resist the concept, thinking they must pay for something that has always been free. Growing congestion and unreliable roadway networks threatens truck transportation productivity and ultimately the ability of sellers to deliver products to markets. Pricing of the nation’s major thoroughfares to guarantee free flow of traffic will ensure that reliability is restored to the transportation system, keeping business and transportation costs low.

Figure 12 - Congestion Pricing – Miami, Florida

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Moderate Corridor Public Agency Public Acceptance

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

51

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.1.4. Integrated Corridor Management (1&5) Description: Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) systems combine individual transportation assets along a corridor into one operating system. By partnering local, state, and private agencies responsible for freeway, arterial and transit operation within the corridor, ICM offers an opportunity to optimize transportation throughout the entire network by combining technologies and sharing information between network partners. This allows for the leveraging of underutilized infrastructure and improved dissemination of information to the traveling public. ICM targets agencies operating in corridors with multiple infrastructure assets, such as freeways, arterials, transit and rail.

Benefit/Costs: Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) maximizes efficiency by collecting data on all available travel modes within a corridor to coordinate regional data sharing, and using that data to provide traveler information, predict conditions, and measure performance. Actions can be taken to better utilize the system based on synthesis of the data, ranging from operational changes on the system to alternate mode use resulting from information on travel choices. ICM maximizes capacity of the existing infrastructure by leveraging underused infrastructure such as transit and parallel routes.

Implementation: The implementation of ICM starts with the development of an ICM Concept of Operations (ConOps) which describes the concept for operating and managing the corridor system. The shared ICM operating philosophy requires coordination among agencies that are operating different assets within the system to enact actions that improve corridor flow while maintaining the performance of other assets. In most cases, the technology to implement ICM is available. The barrier to further efforts for the successful implementation of ICM is largely institutional. This hurdle of interagency communication can be overcome only by working side by side with partnering agencies, as a part of the whole solution, can ultimately lead to improved results. Applied marketing techniques early in the planning and project development process can also establish backing of the public and elected officials for these traffic management strategies.

Figure 13 - Integrated Corridor Management

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Moderate Corridor/Region City/State Institutional

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

52

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.1.5. Arterial Management Systems (1&5) Description: Arterial management systems regulate or direct traffic along arterial roads, employing traffic detectors, traffic signals, and various means of communicating information to travelers. These systems make use of information collected by traffic surveillance devices to smooth the flow of traffic along travel corridors. They also disseminate important information about travel conditions to travelers via technology such as dynamic message signs (DMS) or highway advisory radio (HAR). Although there are some limitations on what can be achieved because typical arterials include so many at-grade intersections, the following kinds of action can be taken: 



Incident detection and follow-up action to remove incidents: o

Service patrols

o

Roving tow vehicles at key sites

o

Motorist information systems

o

Incident teams

Intersection surveillance and monitoring, using: o

Loop detectors

o

Interconnected signal systems

o

Video monitoring of key intersections



Parking control and management on key arterials, with greater enforcement of parking regulations on designated through arterials.



Integration of freeway and arterial management programs (as described earlier)



Traffic surveillance and metering

Benefit/Costs: A major cost of planning and implementing an effective arterial surveillance and management system is associated with intersection control devices. Another cost item will include police and traffic control personnel that will need to be deployed for enforcement and system maintenance. The benefits to be derived from such a system are significant. Some the benefits that can be achieved with the successful implementation of these arterial management systems are: 

Reduce vehicular travel time along travel corridors



Increase street/intersection capacity



Eliminate vehicular blockage at intersections



Eliminate double parking



Eliminate pedestrian/vehicular conflicts at intersections and thus reduce the potential number of accidents

Implementation: The planning and implementation of an arterial management system is a major undertaking. The development of such a system must be coordinated with a number of area wide programs and departments. They must also be developed in cooperation with all local jurisdictions that may be involved, property abutters who will be affected, business interests, local elected officials, and citizen groups. The North Florida TPO has made significant investments in upgrading the traffic signal controllers within the region. The North Florida TPO has successfully deployed various Arterial Management Systems along the regions arterials. Providing and maintaining communications infrastructure such as fiber optic networks is an essential element of this strategy.

53

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Figure 14 - Components of Arterial Management Systems

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Moderate Corridor/Region City/State Institutional

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.1.6. Hard Shoulder Running (1&5) Description: Drivable shoulder use, also known as hard shoulder running, is a strategy designed to permit a roadway shoulder to serve as additional roadway capacity on a temporary basis. By allowing vehicles (either all vehicles or only eligible vehicles, such as transit, HOVs, etc.) on the shoulder with reduced speed limits, it is possible to serve a higher number of vehicles and minimize congestion, during peak periods. The drivable shoulders could also be used temporarily for incident or construction management. The decision to implement shoulder use on a segment is typically made by an operator in the traffic management center based on traffic conditions, after a check for obstacles and in accordance with operations policies.

Benefit/Costs: Hard shoulder running is beneficial in delaying the onset of congestion by increasing capacity and improving trip reliability for all drivers. This strategy increases throughput by temporarily increasing capacity for all motorists. It also provides an alternative lane for use during incidents and work zones.

The cost of implementing hard shoulder running can vary greatly based on the existing infrastructure available on the roadway.

Implementation: While successful in Europe for many years, temporary shoulder use in the U.S. has been limited and varies considerably. In the Boston area, all vehicles are permitted on shoulders in the peak periods only, which is also the case in Virginia around the Washington, D.C. area. In the Seattle area, the right shoulder on the US 2 trestle near Everett is open to all traffic in the eastbound direction during the afternoon peak period. A unique combination of strategies is operation on I-35W in Minneapolis where the left shoulder of a segment is open during the peak periods. Known as priced dynamic shoulder lanes, transit and carpools use the shoulder for free, and MnPass customers can use the shoulder for a fee. The FDOT recently completed a study that evaluated the feasibility of implementing hard shoulder running along SR 202 J.T. Butler Boulevard in Jacksonville.

54

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Figure 15 - Hard Shoulder Running in Europe

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short Corridor State/FHWA Right-of-way, Public Support, Design, Operation

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.1.7. Reversible Lanes (1&5) Description: Reversible or changeable traffic lanes add capacity to a road and decrease congestion by utilizing capacity from the other (off-peak) direction. Reversing lanes reduces congestion during morning and evening commutes, when there is an incident blocking a lane of traffic, or when construction or maintenance is being done on the road. Both freeway and arterial roads can be adjusted to become a one-way street or have the middle lane(s) operate in the peak direction of travel. These adjustments, indicated by changeable message signs and/or arrows, occur at specified times of the day or when volume exceeds certain limits.

Benefit/Costs: Reversible lanes work well in corridors where traffic flow is heavily imbalanced for a short period of time, and there are few other solution options. Reversible lanes reduce congestion by temporarily “utilizing” capacity from the other direction. The reversible lanes are helpful in postponing the need to add capacity through conventional lane additions.

Implementation: Proper communication and public participation are crucial to ensuring this strategy’s success. Local agencies should identify the best locations for implementation and to ensure that the public and agencies understand the concept and operation of reversible lanes. The terminus treatment and access control requires particular care and attention. Bay Street in Jacksonville, Florida utilizes ITS technology to convert this two-way street into one-way reversible lane operation during special events.

Figure 16 - Bay Street, Jacksonville, FL – Reversible Lanes Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short/Moderate Corridor/Spot City/State/FHWA Public Awareness, Operation

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

55

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.1.8. One-way Streets (1&5) Description: Although most streets and highways are designed for use as two-way traffic, high volumes of traffic and vehicle conflicts often lead to consideration of one-way traffic regulations. In major activity centers, such as the central business districts of cities with large traffic volumes and closely spaced intersections, one-way traffic regulations are frequently used because of traffic signal timing considerations and to improve street capacity. In the development of new activity centers such as shopping centers, sports arenas, industrial parks, and so on, one-way regulations are frequently incorporated into original streets and traffic plans. One-way streets are generally operated in one of the following three ways: 

A street on which traffic moves in one direction at all times.



A street that is normally one-way but at certain times may be operated in the reverse direction to provide additional capacity in the predominant direction of flow.



A street that normally carries two-way traffic but which during peak traffic hours may be operated as a one-way street, usually in the heavier direction of flow. Such a street may be operated in one direction the morning peak hour and in the opposite direction during the evening peak hour, with two-way traffic during all other hours.

Benefit/Costs: One-way streets provide increased capacity, as they: 

Reduce intersection delays caused by vehicle turning movement conflicts and pedestrianvehicle conflicts.



Reduce travel time.



Permit improvements in public transit operations, such as routing without turnback loops.



Redistribution of traffic to relieve congestion on adjacent streets.



Simplify traffic signal timings.

One-way streets also result in increased safety, as they may reduce vehicle-pedestrian and vehiclevehicle conflicts at intersections.

Implementation: The amount of data to be collected and analyzed in planning for one-way traffic regulations will depend largely on the size and complexity of the one-way system under consideration. As a general rule, twoway streets should be made one-way only when: 

One-way operation is more desirable and cost-effective than alternative solutions.



Parallel streets of suitable capacity, preferably not more than a block apart, are available or can be constructed.



Such streets provide adequate traffic service to the area traversed and carry traffic through and beyond the congested area.



Safe-transition to two-way operation can be provided at the end points of the one-way sections.



Proper transit service can be maintained.



Such streets are consistent with the master street and/or highway plans, and compatible with abutting land uses.

56

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Figure 17 - One-way Streets in Downtown Jacksonville

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short/Moderate Corridor/Spot City/State/FHWA Public Awareness, Operation

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.1.9. Ramp Metering (1&5) Description: Ramp metering (also known as ramp flow control) uses specialized traffic signals that release vehicles onto a freeway in a smooth and even manner. The goal is to keep entering vehicles from crowding out freeway traffic and creating stop-and-go traffic that ripples upstream and slows the entire freeway. By releasing one or two vehicles at a time, ramp meter signals keep the freeway moving efficiently for a longer period of time. Less stop-and-go traffic means fewer crashes that cause additional congestion.

In return, vehicles will wait on the ramp. This strategy may not completely eliminate traffic congestion, but can delay its onset and shorten the duration. Queue by-pass lanes can be added to ramps to give priority to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV), including carpools and buses.

Benefit/Costs: A survey by the FHWA of seven ramp metering systems in the United States and Canada revealed that average highway speeds increased by 29% after installing ramp metering. When delays on ramps are included, average speeds still increased by 20% and travel times decreased by 16.5%. An additional benefit from ramp metering is a decrease in the accident rate. Reductions from 20% to 58% have been achieved through improved merging operations. Traffic-responsive metering often produces results that are generally 5% to 10% greater than those of pre-timed metering. Ramp metering is best implemented in locations and at times where a high number of platooned vehicles enter a freeway at one time, including freeway entrance ramps. Ramp meters can be installed easily with relatively low costs and require very little maintenance.

Implementation: A substantial amount of time is needed to plan and implement a ramp metering system. The implementation process must include local officials as well as the state DOT. Public acceptance of ramp metering remains the pivotal issue in the successful implementation of a ramp metering system. The public must be convinced of the benefits that can be achieved from ramp metering. The operators must also stay vigilant in adjusting operational strategies to take maximum advantage of the system.

Individual ramps selected for this technique must be in locations where arterials feeding the ramps will not become severely congested as a consequence of ramp metering implementation. The FDOT recently completed a study that evaluated the feasibility of implementing Ramp Metering along I-95, I-10 and I-295 within the North Florida region.

57

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Figure 18 - Ramp Metering along I-95, Miami, FL Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short Corridor State Acceptance

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.1.10. Transit Signal Priority (1&5) Description: Transit signal priority and transit signal preemption are standard traffic controller features that transfer normal signal operation to a special control mode to facilitate the passage of buses and emergency vehicles (fire engines and ambulances) by prohibiting conflicting traffic flow. The primary objective is to improve intersection safety. For emergency vehicle services, an equally important objective is faster response times. Transit signal priority can be best implemented on traffic signals near railway crossings or on corridors with heavy transit use or designated express bus or bus rapid transit routes.

Benefit/Costs: Several studies have identified a decrease in intersection crashes involving emergency vehicles with successful implementation of transit signal priority. Reduced response times to reach a scene of emergency has aided in saving lives. The ability for transit vehicles to preempt signals allows them to better stay on schedule and enhance transit operations. In Fairfax County, Virginia, successful implementation of transit signal priority has reduced emergency vehicle wait times along U.S-1 by 30 to 40 seconds per intersection. The MAX bus rapid transit system in the Kansas City region uses transit signal priority to keep buses running on schedule.

Implementation: Cooperation of multiple agencies is required to plan, fund, and implement transit signal priority along a roadway corridor. Policies are also needed to determine the use of this system by police, fire, Emergency Management Services (EMS) and the transit operators. Preemption increases delay for normal traffic, and can comprise safety of pedestrians and vehicles if not configured properly. The JTA in partnership with the North Florida TPO will be implementing transit signal priority along the Philips Highway, and Atlantic Boulevard corridors.

Figure 19 - Transit Signal Priority, Philips Highway, Jacksonville, FL Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short Local/Corridor City/State/Fire/ EMS/Police/Rail and Transit Multiple Agency Involvement

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook 58

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.1.11. Variable Speed Limits (1&5) Description: Variable speed limits, also referred to as speed harmonization, use speed limit signs that can be changed to alert drivers when traffic congestion is imminent. Sensors along the roadway detect when congestion weather conditions exceed specified thresholds and automatically reduce the speed limit in five miles per hour increments to slow traffic uniformly and delay the onset of congestion. Depending upon the objectives set for the system, speed limits can be regulatory of advisory. Dynamic message signs (DMS) can also be deployed in conjunction with this system to give drivers travel-time information or explanations.

Benefit/Costs: This strategy improves safety by reducing crashes during congestion by slowing motorists entering an area of stop-and-go traffic and during adverse weather conditions. Successful application of variable speed limits will aid in the delay of the onset of congestion allowing traffic to slow smoothly and efficiently and improve trip reliability. Additional environmental benefits include decreased emissions, noise, and fuel consumption.

Implementation: This strategy is most applicable for implementation on freeways and roads experiencing frequent congestion and in areas that are susceptible to adverse weather conditions. This technology has been successful in Europe, but is new to the United States. Public acceptance and understanding of the system is crucial to its success. Drivers must be able to understand why the speed limit is being reduced and that their travel times and trip reliability will improve. Whether the new speed limit is advisory or mandatory must also be clearly understood by all drivers. Enforcement can be difficult.

Furthermore, the automated implementation of the dynamic speed display without operator intervention ensures that changes are implemented prior to breakdown. Also, the speed limits signs have to be positioned such that they are visible to all the vehicles.

Figure 20 - Variable Speed Limits, I-5 in Seattle, WA

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Moderate Corridor State/FHWA Public Support, Legal Authority, Operations

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

59

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.1.12. Dynamic Detours (1&5) Description: This term was coined by the North Florida Regional ITS Coalition for the concept of detouring traffic in real time based on real time traffic information. A major part of the dynamic detour system is the ITS component that collects real-time traffic information from the road network and disseminated information to travelers to help them make informed decisions on selecting an alternate route or choose to continue on the original route. Detour routes are a common feature of the highway system.

Many detours are planned in conjunction with work zones or special events, but the roadway used for the detour may not be able to accommodate the additional traffic without prior improvements.

Improvements to detour routes are intended to improve the capacity of corridors.

Benefit/Costs: The successful implementation of dynamic detouring will improve capacity by providing a route that can better accommodate the volume of diverted traffic and provide an incentive for drivers to use the detour route. Detours increase safety in work zones by removing vehicles from the route under construction.

Implementation: The implementation of dynamic detours requires additional planning, and supplemental public information campaigns, so that the public is aware of the system. Additional infrastructure will be necessary along the detour routes for accommodating the additional traffic during the onset of detours. These improvements should be in place prior to the onset of increased traffic on the detour route. Depending on the type of improvements needed, there may also be considerable costs associated with the implementation of these treatments on the detour routes. A Concept of Operations (ConOps) report was completed by the North Florida TPO for the implementation of Dynamic Detours along I-95 by utilizing Philips Highway corridor as an alternate route.

Figure 21 - Dynamic Detour System, Concept of Operations, North Florida TPO

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Moderate Corridor City/State Schedule, Cost, Coordination

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

60

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.1.13. Queue Warning Systems (1&5) Description: Queue warning system’s basic principle is to inform travelers of the presence of downstream stop-andgo traffic (based on real-time traffic detection) using warning signs and flashing lights. Drivers can anticipate an upcoming situation of emergency braking and slow down, avoid erratic behavior, and reduce queuing-related collisions. Dynamic message signs show a symbol or word when stop-and-go traffic is near. Speed harmonization and lane control signals that provide incident management capabilities can be combined with queue warning. The system can be automated or controlled by a traffic management center operator. Work zones also benefit from queue warning with portable dynamic message sign units placed upstream of expected queue points.

Benefit/Costs: The successful implementation of queue warning systems will aid in the reduction in preliminary and secondary crashes by alerting drivers regarding congested conditions. When in place, these systems can delay the onset of congestion, allowing smooth and efficient traffic flow and improve trip reliability.

This strategy also provides environmental benefits through decreased emissions, noise, and fuel consumption.

Implementation: Queue warning systems are best implemented along freeways and roadways experiencing frequent congestion. This system is reliable when implemented on facilities with frequent queues in predictable locations. When queue warning is included in a larger traffic management project that has land control signals and variable speed limits, it is possible to reduce the speed incrementally between gantries and evacuate traffic from one lane to provide access and shelter for emergency vehicles. Work zones also take advantage of queue warnings. Many agencies use mobile message signs to warn approaching traffic of queues. Queue warning can be more effective when deployed in conjunction with speed harmonization. When implemented with speed harmonization, the queue warning pictograms and/or flashing lights need to be visible to all vehicles. An expert system that deploys the strategy based on prevailing roadway conditions without requiring operator intervention is optimal.

Figure 22 - Queue Warning System on European Motorway Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Moderate Corridor State Public Support, Operations

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.1.14. Traveler Information Systems (1&5) Description: Traveler information systems inform drivers on current roadways conditions – including delays, incidents, weather-related messages, travel times, emergency alerts, and alternate routes. Providing this information to drivers before and during trips allows them to make more effective travel decisions about changing routes, modes, departure times, or even destinations. More informed drivers result in more efficiently utilized roadway capacity. This means less gridlock and better traffic flow.

Travel information is generated by sensors reporting to a traffic management center or through private entities using data from in-vehicle location devices, or from smart phones communicating location and speed. This information is then disseminated via traditional broadband media, internet, mobile devices, or roadside messaging. Personalized travel messages and alerts enable individuals to get trip-specific 61

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

information on demand, or have it pushed to them via email or text message subscription services.

Once familiar with these services, nearly 80% of drivers use traveler information to make daily decisions about route or departure time. In the future many of these traveler information systems will be integrated with in-vehicle devices.

Benefit/Costs: When in place, the traveler information systems will help maximize efficiency and capacity by providing transportation system information to drivers. These systems reduce the impacts of congestion by providing information on travel conditions to make informed decisions on trip routing. Traveler information systems increase safety of the drivers by alerting drivers of upcoming hazards.

Implementation: Queue warning systems are best implemented along freeways and tollways and along major arterial streets. Though relatively inexpensive, these critical systems face budgeting and funding challenges.

However, the same infrastructure that provides traveler information also enables more effective incident management and performance measurement – which can mean a greater return on the investment. Maintaining and upgrading these systems to reflect the most up-to-date technology requires implementation and maintenance funding.

Figure 23 - Traveler Information System on I-95, Jacksonville, FL Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short Corridor/Region Local/State Supporting Communications Infrastructure

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.2. Travel Demand Management (TDM) Strategies Travel Demand Management (TDM), in its broadest sense, is any action or set of actions aimed at reducing the impact of traffic by influencing people’s travel behavior. Demand management can focus on short-term actions designed to mitigate existing congestion problems, or on more strategic approaches to avoid future congestion. Available evidence suggests that well-conceived and aggressively promoted demand reduction programs can decrease peak period traffic over the short-term by as much as 10% to 15%. But there are, however limitations to this technique. Demand reduction efforts, unless undertaken on a truly massive scale, can have only a local impact. They can relieve spot congestion, but cannot appreciably reduce traffic on freeways and major arterials. A total of four (4) sub-categories of strategies were identified that are of regional significance. These are listed as below: o

High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Incentives.

o

Park-and-Ride Lots.

o

Multimodal Transportation Centers.

o

Commuter Assistance Service Programs.

A brief description of these four (4) sub-categories under TDM strategies is provided.

8.2.1. High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Incentives (1&5) Description: A high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, also known as carpool or diamond lane is a restricted traffic lane reserved at peak travel times or longer for exclusive use of vehicles with a driver and one or more passengers, including carpools, vanpools, and transit buses. The normal occupancy level is 2 or 3 occupants. HOV lanes are normally created to increase higher average vehicle occupancy and person throughput with the goal of reducing traffic congestion and air pollution.

62

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Benefit/Costs: HOV lanes increase the efficiency of a freeway by moving more people in fewer vehicles than the general purpose lanes. HOV lanes help transit vehicles stick to their schedules. Carpools, vanpools, motorcycles, and emergency vehicles also receive a quicker trip. A HOV lane will add fewer car trips to the transportation system than new general purpose lanes. With fewer car trips, HOV lanes help decrease greenhouse gas emissions and place lesser burden on the environment. HOV lanes also play a crucial role in helping to support more sustainable transportation choices by providing an incentive to carpool, vanpool, or take the bus.

Implementation: Implementing an HOV facility involves a wide range of activities and coordination of a variety of agencies and organizations. Taking a comprehensive and systematic approach to the implementation process will help ensure that the facility is constructed, designed, and operated in a safe and efficient manner. For example, the development of a concept of operations and application of a systems engineering process will assist states in addressing system lifecycle costs from concept through design, installation, testing, operations, and maintenance. In the course of managing HOV facilities, some minor or significant physical or operational modifications may be needed to meet changing conditions. Enforcement is critical to the successful operation of an HOV facility. The role of an HOV enforcement program is to protect the integrity of the facility by deterring possible violators and promote the safe and efficient use of the HOV lanes. FDOT established a policy that all future capacity on the Interstate will be express lanes (tolled, separated lanes with no incentives for HOV vehicles). No existing lanes will be converted to express lanes as part of this policy.

Figure 24 - HOV Lanes, Atlanta, GA

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Moderate Corridor State/FHWA Institutional, Public Support, Legislative

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.2.2. Park-and-Ride Lots (1&5) Description: Park-and-ride lots are typically located on the suburban fringe of urbanized areas. Usually, park-andride lots are strategically placed outside of the “ring of congestion” on major commuter corridors.

Services offered at park-and-rides may include local fixed routes, express bus, bus rapid transit, and rail, and are designed for commuters transferring from low-occupancy mode of travel (usually private automobiles) to high-occupancy modes (rail, bus, van- and/or car-pools). Services from park-and-rides are designed to concentrate transit demand, offering transit services that could not otherwise be costeffectively provided. Typical park-and-ride amenities include covered or enclosed waiting areas, benches, and sometimes vending machines and restrooms. Lots may vary in size from 200 to over 1,000 spaces, can be used exclusively for transit or offer shared uses, such as vanpool staging. Transit fares from park-and-rides are typically higher than basic local fares, and parking may be free or for a small fee.

Benefit/Costs: Effective usage of the park-and-ride lots will aid in the reduction in the number of single occupancy vehicles on major freeways and highways. These lots target commuters from suburban areas, including 63

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

state employees, students, and employees working in the central city – typically commuters who would otherwise utilize freeways to travel to and from work during the week. Park-and-ride lots help the passengers in time management. Passengers can work in the transit vehicles, typically equipped with WiFi services, rather than driving their cars to work.

Implementation: Park-and-ride lots must be strategically located in order to draw customers. Ease of access plays a big role in whether customers will take advantage of the services offered at the lot. Customers may access park-and-rides in different ways, so planners must be mindful of creating safe and meaningful access for pedestrians, bicycles, the automobile, and those passengers transferring in from neighborhood feeder services.

Figure 25 - JTA Suburban Park-and-Ride Lots, Jacksonville, FL

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Moderate Site Transit Provider Ease of Access

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.2.3. Multimodal Transportation Corridors and Centers (1&5) Description: Multimodal transportation corridors provide the best solution for all person or freight movement in a congested corridor. This requires designers to incorporate strategies such as managed lanes, toll facilities, rail transit, and commute options into a corridor, allowing capacity for moving people and freight to be more easily expanded in the future.

Similarly, multimodal transportation centers take the corridor concept and condense it into a single facility that combines multiple modes including bus, rail, bicycle, rental cars, taxis, and other transportation services. These facilities provide high connectivity and convenience for all users.

Planning and designing multimodal corridors and centers relies on knowing the specific needs and resources of the surrounding community.

Benefit/Costs: Multimodal transportation corridors or centers help reduce the frequency of constructing new facilities by planning for more capacity to meet demand. This strategy improves congestion, travel time, and reliability for all users by offering multiple commute options. An effective multimodal transportation corridor or center will increase the economic development along the corridor or around the multimodal centers.

64

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Implementation: Implementing multimodal corridors and facilities requires collaboration among numerous local and state agencies, private organizations, and other groups throughout the entire planning and design process. Locating the multimodal transportation center near major activity centers will yield higher congestion relief. In implementing both multimodal corridors and centers, acquiring adequate right-ofway or land can be difficult and expensive.

Figure 26 - Proposed Jacksonville Transportation Center, Jacksonville, FL

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Moderate Urban Corridor City/Region Right-of-Way

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.2.4. Commuter Assistance Service Programs (1&5) Description: A commuter assistance service program (CAP) is a program or series of programs with the goal of reducing single-occupant vehicle commuter congestion and travel on our nation’s roads. These CAPs advocate alternative transportation strategies such as carpooling, vanpooling, car sharing, telework, flex time, congestion pricing, walking, biking, and many other methods. Employers can implement four major types of initiatives to reduce congestion. 

Encourage ridesharing, carpools and vanpools.



Take advantage of legislation that allows tax write-offs for employee transit subsidies.



Institute flex-time programs that allow employees to spread their arrival and departure time throughout the peak periods of the day.



Participate in Transportation Management Associations.

Benefit/Costs: Workers and employers benefit alike from the commuter assistance service programs. Workers, enjoy a less expensive commute. Employers, profit from an expanded employee base. A successful commuter assistance program will improve congestion, travel time and reliability for all users by offering multiple commute options. If one out of five drivers of single occupant vehicles decided to rideshare, peak period traffic would decrease by 18%.

Implementation: CAPs can be created, but may be less appropriate for some employers. Organizations must evaluate whether they can manage CAP policies and have enough staff to successfully implement these programs. Private and public sectors must partner to educate and encourage organizations to take advantage of this strategy. The North Florida TPO has implemented CAPs such as the TPO’s Commuter Assistance Program through the Cool-to-Pool website.

65

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Figure 27 - North Florida TPO Cool-to-Pool Program, Jacksonville, FL Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short Region City/Private Coordination, Public Support

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.3. Transit Improvements Public transportation is an important element of the transportation system in many cities. Transit service is an important strategy for improving transportation choice and providing basic mobility. Public transit can be used by anyone who pays the fare, although any particular transit service benefits some people more than others. For example, commuter rail improvements tend to benefit suburban residents, local bus service improvements tend to benefit urban residents, and special mobility services tend to benefit people with special transportation needs. Transit improvements (especially local bus service) tend to provide affordable mobility to low-income and transportation disadvantaged populations. Transit improvements often require public subsides, but these are often comparable or smaller than subsidies for automobile travel when all costs are considered. A total of five sub-categories of strategies were identified that are of regional significance. These are listed as below: o

Local Bus Service Improvements

o

Express Bus Service Improvements

o

Bus Rapid Transit Improvements

o

Light Rail Transit Improvements

o

Commuter Rail Improvements

A brief description of these five sub-categories under Transit Improvements strategies is provided.

8.3.1. Local Bus Service Improvements (1&5) Description: Providing more routes, increased frequency, and longer hours is one of the most cost effective transportation solutions for urban areas, especially compared to major light rail projects or freeway capacity upgrades. The Jacksonville Transit Authority (JTA) provides bus service within the Duval County, and is planning to implement a county-wide network of transit routes with connections to surrounding counties. The Sunshine Bus Company provides bus service within the St. Johns County.

Benefit/Costs: Improving local bus service will reduce the total traffic on roadways by taking single-occupancy cars off the road. It also increases mode choice for individuals that are seeking non-automobile travel options.

Improvements to local bus services also improve air quality and decreases energy consumptions. Local bus services enhancements will improve travel time along roadway corridors and improve the quality of life for all motorists and more people can be served along the corridor in fewer vehicles.

Implementation: The target market is for those that rely upon transit to make trips as well as single occupant commuter motorists. While many of the Duval County’s residents have not considered public transportation in the past, the addition of more routes and increased frequencies can make transit an attractive alternative.

As with any transportation improvement, funding can be a problem with this strategy. In addition, some suburbs have preconceived notions about the effectiveness of transit and additional education might be needed.

66

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Figure 28 - JTA’s and Sunshine Bus Routes, North Florida, FL

Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short/Moderate Regional/Corridor Transit Agencies Funding, Public Support, and Supportive Lane Use Policies

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.3.2. Express Bus Service Improvements (1&5) Description: Express service is a variation of fixed route service where a portion of the route is operated without stops or with a very limited number of stops to pick up or discharge passengers. This service strategy is particularly attractive to commuters in outlying suburban areas who desire fast service to downtown areas. When used in conjunction with preferential treatment for buses using BRT, exclusive busways, or commuter rail by providing direct access from neighborhoods, express bus service becomes extremely competitive with the auto because it offers substantial travel time savings.

Benefit/Costs: Buses are the most flexible form of transit. They can be re-routed or rescheduled quickly to meet changing ridership demand. Maintaining or increasing service in existing corridors requires minimal effort. If buses are given priority treatment on existing roads and streets, buses can provide higher levels of service.

Implementation: Express bus service can operate in two distinct ways. If the express bus route circulates in a residential area with most riders accessing the bus by walking to the bus stop, the bus will suffer from added costs because of the added operator time involved and lower revenues because the service will not be as attractive to the potential rider. If the express route boards riders at only a few designated locations, with park-and-ride lots to promote concentrated pick-up points, the service may be more attractively operated from both the operators’ and riders’ perspective.

67

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

8.3.3. Bus Rapid Transit Improvements (1&5) Description: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) refers to a new generation of bus service that includes dedicated running ways/lanes, facilities, technology, and equipment. BRT offers more frequent and predictable service and traffic priority systems to help get passengers to their destinations faster than traditional local bus service. BRT provide for a faster, more affordable way to build transit use without the large capital investments on rail technologies. BRT can also operate on an existing roadway.

Benefit/Costs: The successful implementation of BRT will reduce total traffic utilizing a facility by shifting single occupant vehicles off the road onto the buses. BRT will improve the travel time and trip reliability for motorists. The presence of BRT within a region will increase the attractiveness of the region by offering mode choice to residents that seek denser, urban neighborhoods. Implementation of BRT also improves air quality and decreases energy consumption.

Implementation: Although BRT are substantially less expensive than other more traditional transit improvements, BRT systems still require infrastructure and operating equipment investment that can cost upwards of $2 million per mile. In addition, the public acceptance of transit improvements over traditional roadway improvements can be harder to achieve. The target audience for BRT bus service is generally different than traditional local bus services. One of the major goals of BRT is to draw riders along a route that have access to a vehicle and have other alternatives to riding the bus. However, through increased reliability, faster travel times, and easy to understand routing, riders are attracted to these BRT systems. The JTA has initiated BRT feasibility studies along key roadway corridors within the North Florida region and is working to incorporate BRT components like dedicated peak hour lanes and new shelter improvements along portions of downtown and the southbank area.

Figure 29 -Example of a BRT System - Eugene, Oregon Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Short/Moderate Regional Transit Agencies Funding, Public Support, and Supportive Lane Use Policies

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.3.4. Light Rail Transit Improvements (1&5) Description: Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a medium capacity rail transit technology utilized for public transportation using a steel-tracked fixed guideway that provides passenger capacities ranging from 2,000 to 20,000 travelers an hour. Light rail can operate on either grade-separated, reserved right-of-way and can operate in mixed traffic on city streets. The latter operation is commonly known as streetcar service.

Passenger loading platforms are usually low level and operation is manual. LRT cars can operate singly or in trains and can easily be coupled or uncoupled to adapt to changing traffic conditions. The JTA currently operates automated monorail trains on fixed guideway, called the Skyway. It includes 2.5 miles of track serving eight stations in downtown Jacksonville, and crosses the St. Johns River on the Acosta Bridge. The Skyway operates free of charge to customers. JTA is currently planning an 68

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

extension to this system.

Benefit/Costs: Light rail transit construction savings are significant over those of other forms of rail transit systems because of light rail transit’s ability to use all types of right-of-way. Unlike other rail transit systems, light rail transit may avoid costly tunneling or elevated construction. However, there is a distinct tradeoff in terms of passenger carrying capacity. The cost of light rail construction varies widely, largely depending on the amount of tunneling and elevated structures required. Other forms of rail transit like heavy rail transit systems are most appropriate for highly dense corridors, whereas light rail is considered to be a medium capacity service.

Implementation: Light rail transit is most suitable for service to non-residential concentrations of 35 to 50 million square feet. If rights-of-way can be obtained at grade, thereby lowering capital costs, this threshold can be lowered to the 20 million square foot range. Average residential densities of about 9 dwelling units per acre over the line’s catchment area are most suitable. For longer travel distances where higher speeds are needed, rapid transit is most suitable for non-residential concentrations beyond 50 million square feet and in corridors averaging 12 dwelling units per acre or more.

Figure 30 - Light Rail Transit System, Minneapolis, MN Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Long Region/Corridor City/State Coordination & Funding, Private Industry Support

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.3.5. Commuter Rail Transit Improvements (1&5) Description: Commuter rail transit is a service which generally operates between a major downtown and suburban areas of a metropolitan region. Commuter rail operates on mainline rail lines, using high speed locomotives or self-propelled cars in multi-car trains. This service is usually characterized by multi-trip tickets, specific station-to-station fares, railroad employment practices, and usually one or two stations in the central business district. Commuter rail primarily carries daily commuters (work trips) but is used in many areas as a viable alternative to the personal automobile on evenings and weekends as well.

Benefit/Costs: Commuter rail services can be the least costly high capacity rail services to implement because they operate on existing mainline rail lines. Typically, commuter rail services have very heavy peak hour service with little or even no off-peak service. Because underutilized railroad track exists in many places, it is often possible to run a few peak hour trains by adding only locomotives, cars and labor.

Therefore, commuter rail services can become a very attractive alternative for public agencies seeking to connect suburban areas with central cities. Commuter rail services would provide an alternative to automobile and bus travel by: 

Decreasing travel times.



Providing an alternative transportation option for travelers.



Improving travel reliability by using a fixed route separated from a roadway to avoid congested 69

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

operating conditions. 

Providing an efficient transportation option, particularly in inclement weather.



Providing amenities to improve passenger ride quality, efficiency and comfort.



Promoting environmental benefits, including reduced air pollutant emissions, improved lane use options, and fewer adverse impacts on surrounding habitat and water resources.

Implementation: Commuter rail service, with its high speed, relatively infrequent service (based on printed schedule rather than regular headways) and greater station spacing is suitable for low density residential areas – 1 or 2 dwelling units per acre. However, the volumes required are only likely in corridors leading to nonresidential concentrations of 100 million square feet or more, found only in the nation’s largest cities.

Many times development patterns and/or land use constrains limit the construction of new or expanded streets or highways. Fixed guideway transit facilities such as commuter rail services are good options to consider in such areas. Rail facilities can move tens of thousands of riders per hour within narrow rights-of-way. Commuter rail services can also be used to greatly enhance the people-carrying capacity of existing roadways. The feasibility of implementing commuter rail services is being studied along three (3) corridors by the JTA within the North Florida region.

Figure 31 - Commuter Rail Station, Tri-Rail, Miami, FL Strategy Evaluation Cost: TIME: IMPACT: WHO: HURDLES:

 Long Region/Corridor City/State Coordination & Funding, Private Industry Support

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

8.4. Capacity Improvements Capacity improvements or adding capacity is the best known, and probably most frequently used, improvement option. Pursing an “add capacity” strategy can mean more traffic lanes, new roadways, or other options such as managed lanes, auxiliary lanes, intersection improvements etc. These strategies can either address long-term needs via corridor-wide or alternate route expansion, or can contribute to moving more traffic through a short bottleneck location in less time. These improvements are costly and will require high construction dollars to accomplish the needed goals. A total of five (5) sub-categories of strategies were identified for this strategy. These are listed as below: o

Add New Lanes: Adding new lanes or adding general capacity can be added to any facility by building more lanes. Additional general purpose lanes can be directly adjacent, or at-grade, to the existing mainline. While this strategy is a traditional solution to the capacity needs, it can be costly to construct additional lanes due to right-of-way restrictions or structure costs. With today’s funding challenges, growing right-of-way constraints in developed areas, and increased environmental regulations, it becomes more and more challenging for cities and stated to “build” their way out of congestion.

o

Add New Managed Lanes: Managed lanes refer to any lane or corridor that controls usage by vehicle eligibility, price, or access control. Manages lanes provide travel alternatives, giving flexibility to users by allowing them to choose the best method of travel for the trip. This choice reduces congestion by maximizing existing capacity while encouraging transit and carpool/vanpool usage. Public acceptance is crucial to successfully integrating managed lanes 70

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

into a transportation network. o

Intersection Improvements: Geometric and signal timing improvements near existing intersection can improve the traffic flow through an intersection. These types of upgrades include additional turning lanes, protected turns, turn restrictions, lane widening, signal timing optimization, and other methods of improving the intersection’s capacity. Roundabouts are becoming more popular and allow for increased capacity and simplification of some intersections. Signal coordination amongst consecutive intersections allows platoons of vehicles to travel along a corridor, further improving a system’s efficiency. Intersection improvements are typically applied along arterial roadway corridors.

o

Interchange Improvements: Interchange improvements are typically performed on freeway corridors. When the traffic demand overwhelms available capacity along an interchange or a corridor, some form of improvements should be performed to eliminate these bottlenecks. These recurring localized bottlenecks are encountered in everyday commutes and are characterized as being relatively predictable in cause, location, time of day and approximate duration. Common locations of bottlenecks include places where the number of lanes decreases, at ramp junctions and interchanges, and where there are roadway alignment changes. Bottlenecks removal can be achieved through a myriad of solutions, ranging from relatively simple, low-cost strategies to more moderate enhancements.

o

Add Auxiliary Lanes: Auxiliary lanes are continuous lanes provided between closely spaced interchange entrance and exit ramps to balance the traffic load and maintain a more uniform level of service on the highway. Auxiliary lanes facilitate the positioning of drivers at exits and the merging of drivers at entrances. A collector-distributor (C-D) lane system is similar to auxiliary lanes, except that the entering and exiting traffic weaving maneuvers take place adjacent to the mainline, often separated by a striped or physical buffer. Collector-distributor (CD) lanes handle entering and exiting freeway traffic separately from the mainline traffic. C-D lanes may be cost prohibitive due to the need for retaining walls if existing right-of-way is tight.

There are many other improvements that can enhance traffic operations, decrease congestion and improve mobility within the North Florida region. These strategies can be implemented based on a details corridor analysis of the congested corridors. These projects can be funded separately through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program.

71

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

9. Identification and Evaluation of Strategies This section outlines the process within the CMP for identifying, screening and evaluating the various congestion management strategies listed in the previous section for addressing congestion along the congested corridors identified. The strategies identified and the evaluation process will be used as a guiding tool in selecting strategies, actions, and policies required to manage congestion within the North Florida region.

9.1. Congested Corridor Strategy Evaluation The previous section identifies a wide variety of congestion management strategies. Table 20 provides the strategy evaluation matrix. A total of 108 congested facilities were identified within the North Florida region.

These 108 congested facilities were condensed into 42 corridors. A congested corridor is composed of multiple congested facilities along the same roadway. Condensing the congested facilities into corridors can aid in the deployment of congestion mitigation strategies. Many congestion mitigation strategies identified in the previous section yield greater benefit if they are applied consistently through the entire roadway corridor, than implementing them on shorter congested facilities. A consumer report format was used to identify the effectiveness of each of the congestion management strategies on the roadway corridors identified in the CMP. Figure 32 below identifies the general categories for the congestion management strategies. The strategy evaluation matrix is arranged so that the measures on top of the Figure 32 take precedence over those on the bottom.

Figure 32 - Prioritization of Strategy Evaluation Matrix

Maximize Effectiveness and Efficiency of Existing System - (TSM&O Strategies) Shift Trips from Single-Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) to Other Modes - (TDM Strategies) Shift Trips from Auto to Other Modes of Transportation - (Transit Improvements)

Capacity Improvements

72

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 20: Strategy Evaluation Matrix – Page 1 of 3

1

C ounty Name F acility Duval

2

Duval

3

Duval

4

Duval

5

Duval

6

Duval

7

Duval

8

Duval

9

Duval

10

Duval

11

Duval

12

Duval

13

Duval

14

Duval

15

Duval

16

Duval

17

Duval

18

Duval

19

Duval

20

Duval

21

Duval

22

Duval

23

Duval

24

Duval

25

Duval

26

Duval

27

Duval

28

Duval

29

Duval

30

Duval

31

Duval

32

Clay

33

Clay

34

Clay

35

Clay

36

St. Johns

37

St. Johns

38

St. Johns

39

St. Johns

40

St. Johns

41

St. Johns

42

Nassau

F rom

To

Su rv ei Ac ll an ce ce ss a Co M nd In ng an ci es age de tio nt m In te e n M gr Pr nt an at i ag Ar ed cin em g te r ia Co en r tS rid Ha l M ys o a rd rM n te Sh ag m a e n Re o s m en ag e ve ul d er m tS rs e Ru nt ys On i bl e te n em wa Lan n in s g es y Ra St m re p et Tr M e te s an r in si Va t Si g r ia g n al b Dy le S Pri or p na m ee d i ty i c Qu L eu De t i mi ts ou e W rs Tr av ar n i el er ng Sy In s fo rm tem at s io n Sy st em s

No.

Transportation Systms M anagement and Operational M anagement Strategies

  I-95 Downtown Exit SR 115 Lem Turner Rd.  I-295 I-95 SR 116 Merrill Rd.  I-295 SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

I-95  I-295 SR 134 103rd St. I-10  I-295 I-10 Pritchard Rd.  I-10 SR 103 Lane Ave. I-95 ◐ SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.

SR 109 University Blvd.

I-295  SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.

I-295 SR A1A 3rd St.  US 90 Beach Blvd.

SR 228 Commodore Point Expy. San Pablo Rd.  SR 115 Southside Blvd.

US 1 Philips Hwy. SR 152 Baymeadows Rd.  SR 115 Southside Blvd.

SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd.

SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. ◐ SR 152 Baymeadows Rd. SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

I-295 ◐ Emerson St. I-95 Emerson St. Expy.  SR 109 University Blvd.

St. Augustine Rd. US 90 Beach Blvd.  SR 21 Blanding Blvd.

Duval/Clay County Line SR 134 103rd St. ◐ SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

Duval/St.Johns County Line I-295  SR 134 103rd St. Ricker Rd. I-295 ◐ SR 228 Normandy Blvd.

Herlong Rd. SR 103 Lane Ave. ◐ SR 202 J.T. B. Blvd.

US 1 Philips Hwy. Belfort Rd. ◐ SR 104 Dunn Ave. Biscayne Blvd.

I-95  University Blvd.

SR 115 Arlington Expy.

Arlington Rd. ◐ US 1 Philips Hwy. I-295 SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd.  US 17 Roosevelt Blvd.

Park St. SR 129 McDuff Ave.  Rail Connector/Pritchard Rd. I-295 US 1 Old Kings Rd. ◐ 8th St. Francis St. Perry St.  SR 115 Arlington Expy.

Haines St. Expy.

Regency Mall Entrance ◐ US 17 King/State St. US 23 Union St. Liberty St. ◐ US 23 Union St. US 17 Kings St. Liberty St.  SR A1A Mayport Rd. SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.

SR A1A  SR A1A 3rd St. Duval/St.Johns County Line SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.  SR 21 Blanding Blvd.

CR 218 Duval/Clay County Line ◐ US 17 Elbow Rd. Duval/Clay County Line ◐ Kingsley Ave. Doctors Lake Dr. US 17 Roosevelt Blvd.  SR 23 Branan Field Rd. Kindlewood Dr. Duval/Clay County Line SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

Racetrack Rd. Duval/St.Johns County Line ◐ SR A1A CR 210 Palm Valley Rd. Duval/St. Johns County Line  ◐ US 1 Dixie Hwy. Lewis Point Rd. Castillo Dr.  San Marco Ave. Orange St. SR A1A May St.  King St. US 1 Ponce De Leon Blvd.

Cordova St. ◐ Bridge of Lions Avenida Menendez SR A1A Anastasia Blvd. ◐ SR A1A Buccaneer Trail US 17 Brackrock Rd. I-95

SR 115 Southside Blvd.

Downtown Exit

− − − − − − −    ◐   ◐   ◐ ◐  −       − ◐ ◐ ◐      ◐    ◐  

     ◐ ◐ − − − − − − − − − − − − ◐ − − − − − −  − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

◐ ◐ ◐   ◐     ◐ ◐      ◐    ◐  ◐ ◐     ◐     ◐       

− − − − − − −             −  ◐  ◐ ◐  −   ◐     ◐       

 ◐   ◐ ◐  − − − − − − − − − − − − ◐ − − − − − −  − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

◐  ◐  ◐ ◐ ◐ − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

  ◐  ◐ ◐ ◐ − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − ◐ − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

− − − − − − −    ◐       ◐  ◐ ◐     ◐ ◐      ◐ ◐  ◐  ◐ ◐  − 

◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ − − − − − − − − − − − −  − − − − − −  − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

◐     ◐  − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − ◐ − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐  ◐ ◐ ◐  ◐  ◐    ◐  ◐     ◐ ◐  ◐  ◐ ◐  ◐ ◐    − 

  ◐   ◐  − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

STRATEGY RATING



High (Good), Score: 5-4

◐ 

Medium (Fair), Score: 2-3

−

Neutral/No Change, Score: 0

Low Benefits (Poor) Score: 1

73

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 20: Strategy Evaluation Matrix – Page 2 of 3

1

Duval

2

Duval

3

Duval

4

Duval

5

Duval

6

Duval

7

Duval

8

Duval

9

Duval

10

Duval

11

Duval

12

Duval

13

Duval

14

Duval

15

Duval

16

Duval

17

Duval

18

Duval

19

Duval

20

Duval

21

Duval

22

Duval

23

Duval

24

Duval

25

Duval

26

Duval

27

Duval

28

Duval

29

Duval

30

Duval

31

Duval

32

Clay

33

Clay

34

Clay

35

Clay

36

St. Johns

37

St. Johns

38

St. Johns

39

St. Johns

40

St. Johns

41

St. Johns

42

Nassau

To

◐ ◐ ◐ I-295 I-95 SR 116 Merrill Rd. ◐ I-295 SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

I-95 ◐ I-295 SR 134 103rd St. I-10  I-295 I-10 Pritchard Rd. ◐ I-10 SR 103 Lane Ave. I-95 − SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.

SR 109 University Blvd.

I-295 − SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.

I-295 SR A1A 3rd St. − US 90 Beach Blvd.

SR 228 Commodore Point Expy. San Pablo Rd. − SR 115 Southside Blvd.

US 1 Philips Hwy. SR 152 Baymeadows Rd. − SR 115 Southside Blvd.

SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd.

SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. − SR 152 Baymeadows Rd. SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

I-295 − Emerson St. I-95 Emerson St. Expy. − SR 109 University Blvd.

St. Augustine Rd. US 90 Beach Blvd. − SR 21 Blanding Blvd.

Duval/Clay County Line SR 134 103rd St. − SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

Duval/St.Johns County Line I-295 − SR 134 103rd St. Ricker Rd. I-295 − SR 228 Normandy Blvd.

Herlong Rd. SR 103 Lane Ave.  SR 202 J.T. B. Blvd.

US 1 Philips Hwy. Belfort Rd. − SR 104 Dunn Ave. Biscayne Blvd.

I-95 − University Blvd.

SR 115 Arlington Expy.

Arlington Rd. − US 1 Philips Hwy. I-295 SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd. − US 17 Roosevelt Blvd.

Park St. SR 129 McDuff Ave. − Rail Connector/Pritchard Rd. I-295 US 1 Old Kings Rd. − 8th St. Francis St. Perry St.  SR 115 Arlington Expy.

Haines St. Expy.

Regency Mall Entrance − US 17 King/State St. US 23 Union St. Liberty St. − US 23 Union St. US 17 Kings St. Liberty St. − SR A1A Mayport Rd. SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.

SR A1A − SR A1A 3rd St. Duval/St.Johns County Line SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. − SR 21 Blanding Blvd.

CR 218 Duval/Clay County Line − US 17 Elbow Rd. Duval/Clay County Line − Kingsley Ave. Doctors Lake Dr. US 17 Roosevelt Blvd. − SR 23 Branan Field Rd. Kindlewood Dr. Duval/Clay County Line SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

Racetrack Rd. Duval/St.Johns County Line − SR A1A CR 210 Palm Valley Rd. Duval/St. Johns County Line − − US 1 Dixie Hwy. Lewis Point Rd. Castillo Dr. − San Marco Ave. Orange St. SR A1A May St. − King St. US 1 Ponce De Leon Blvd.

Cordova St. − Bridge of Lions Avenida Menendez SR A1A Anastasia Blvd. − SR A1A Buccaneer Trail US 17 Brackrock Rd. SR 115 Southside Blvd.

Downtown Exit

I-95

Downtown Exit

SR 115 Lem Turner Rd.

  ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐         ◐   ◐ ◐  ◐              ◐       

  ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐         ◐   ◐ ◐  ◐              ◐    ◐  ◐ 

◐  ◐  ◐ ◐ ◐  ◐     ◐ ◐   ◐     ◐ ◐    ◐ ◐  ◐    ◐ ◐ ◐ − − − − 

Transit Improvements

Lo ca lB us Ex pr Se es r Bu s B vi c e s Im Ra u s p i Ser p ro Li g h d T vi ve tR m ra ce e ns Im ai p r nt s Co it lT Im ov ra m m pr em ns ut o it er Im vem en t Ra pr en s ov il t Im em s pr en ov ts em en ts

F rom

I-95

V In P a ce nt rk iv -n -R es M id ul t im e L ot Co od s al m Tr m an ut er s As por ta si t st an ion Ce ce nt Se er rv s ic e Pr og ra m s

C ounty Name F acility

HO

No.

Travel Demand M anagement

       ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐    ◐       ◐ ◐ ◐  ◐     ◐ ◐ ◐        

◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐    ◐ ◐  ◐  ◐       ◐    ◐     ◐          

◐ ◐           ◐    ◐   ◐ ◐ ◐         ◐   ◐   ◐     ◐

◐ ◐              ◐ ◐   ◐    ◐   ◐    ◐ ◐ ◐  ◐ ◐   ◐ ◐  ◐

                                  ◐       

STRATEGY RATING



High (Good), Score: 5-4

◐ 

Medium (Fair), Score: 2-3

−

Neutral/No Change, Score: 0

Low Benefits (Poor) Score: 1

74

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

Table 20: Strategy Evaluation Matrix – Page 3 of 3

1

Duval

2

Duval

3

Duval

4

Duval

5

Duval

6

Duval

7

Duval

8

Duval

9

Duval

10

Duval

11

Duval

12

Duval

13

Duval

14

Duval

15

Duval

16

Duval

17

Duval

18

Duval

19

Duval

20

Duval

21

Duval

22

Duval

23

Duval

24

Duval

25

Duval

26

Duval

27

Duval

28

Duval

29

Duval

30

Duval

31

Duval

32

Clay

33

Clay

34

Clay

35

Clay

36

St. Johns

37

St. Johns

38

St. Johns

39

St. Johns

40

St. Johns

41

St. Johns

42

Nassau

F rom

To

  I-95 Downtown Exit SR 115 Lem Turner Rd.  I-295 I-95 SR 116 Merrill Rd. ◐ I-295 SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

I-95 ◐ I-295 SR 134 103rd St. I-10  I-295 I-10 Pritchard Rd. ◐ I-10 SR 103 Lane Ave. I-95  SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.

SR 109 University Blvd.

I-295  SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.

I-295 SR A1A 3rd St.  US 90 Beach Blvd.

SR 228 Commodore Point Expy. San Pablo Rd. ◐ SR 115 Southside Blvd.

US 1 Philips Hwy. SR 152 Baymeadows Rd.  SR 115 Southside Blvd.

SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd.

SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.  SR 152 Baymeadows Rd. SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

I-295 ◐ Emerson St. I-95 Emerson St. Expy.  SR 109 University Blvd.

St. Augustine Rd. US 90 Beach Blvd.  SR 21 Blanding Blvd.

Duval/Clay County Line SR 134 103rd St. ◐ SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

Duval/St.Johns County Line I-295  SR 134 103rd St. Ricker Rd. I-295 ◐ SR 228 Normandy Blvd.

Herlong Rd. SR 103 Lane Ave. ◐ SR 202 J.T. B. Blvd.

US 1 Philips Hwy. Belfort Rd.  SR 104 Dunn Ave. Biscayne Blvd.

I-95 ◐ University Blvd.

SR 115 Arlington Expy.

Arlington Rd. ◐ US 1 Philips Hwy. I-295 SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd. ◐ US 17 Roosevelt Blvd.

Park St. SR 129 McDuff Ave. ◐ Rail Connector/Pritchard Rd. I-295 US 1 Old Kings Rd.  8th St. Francis St. Perry St.  SR 115 Arlington Expy.

Haines St. Expy.

Regency Mall Entrance  US 17 King/State St. US 23 Union St. Liberty St.  US 23 Union St. US 17 Kings St. Liberty St. ◐ SR A1A Mayport Rd. SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.

SR A1A  SR A1A 3rd St. Duval/St.Johns County Line SR 10 Atlantic Blvd.  SR 21 Blanding Blvd.

CR 218 Duval/Clay County Line  US 17 Elbow Rd. Duval/Clay County Line  Kingsley Ave. Doctors Lake Dr. US 17 Roosevelt Blvd. ◐ SR 23 Branan Field Rd. Kindlewood Dr. Duval/Clay County Line SR 13 San Jose Blvd.

Racetrack Rd. Duval/St.Johns County Line ◐ SR A1A CR 210 Palm Valley Rd. Duval/St. Johns County Line   US 1 Dixie Hwy. Lewis Point Rd. Castillo Dr. − San Marco Ave. Orange St. SR A1A May St. − King St. US 1 Ponce De Leon Blvd.

Cordova St. − Bridge of Lions Avenida Menendez SR A1A Anastasia Blvd.  SR A1A Buccaneer Trail US 17 Brackrock Rd. I-95

SR 115 Southside Blvd.

Downtown Exit

N Ad ew d L Ne an w es In M te a rs ec nag In tio ed te n L rc ha Imp ane Ad s ro ng ve d e Au Im m e xi pr li a o v nts ry e La me nt ne s s

C ounty Name F acility

Ad d

No.

C apacity Improvements

     ◐ ◐ − − − − − − − − − − − − ◐ − − − − − −  − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

− − − − − − −           ◐  −     ◐  −   ◐     ◐      − 

  ◐  ◐ ◐ ◐ − − − − − − − − − − − −  − − − − − − ◐ − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

◐ ◐  ◐ ◐ ◐  − − − − − − − − − − − −  − − − − − − ◐ − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −

STRATEGY RATING



High (Good), Score: 5-4

◐ 

Medium (Fair), Score: 2-3

−

Neutral/No Change, Score: 0

Low Benefits (Poor) Score: 1

75

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

9.2. Regional Strategy – Commuter Service Campaign The North Florida TPO is developing a Rideshare Campaign to reduce single-occupant vehicle commuter congestion and travel in highly congested areas.

An assessment of potential markets for enhancing the Cool-to-Pool program was performed as part of this CMP. As part of this assessment the following analysis was performed: o Reviewed congestion “hot-spots�, to identify areas experiencing congestion well beyond the peak hours in the AM and PM. o Assessed the commute patterns for employers within the North Florida region with more than 300 employees by conducting a travel demand analysis using the NERPM model. o Evaluated the ability to geographically concentrate media and communications efforts in a costeffective manner. o Identified push/pull communications strategies targeting commuters and employers.

It was observed from this analysis that Clay County commuters from the Argyle Forest region are experiencing extreme congestion. Blanding Boulevard was identified as the corridor carrying most of the trips originating from Clay County commuters. A select link analysis was performed on Blanding Boulevard using the NERPM model to identify the travel patterns for the trips originating from Clay County and using Blanding Boulevard for the daily commute. Figure 33 shows a map with the total trips using Blanding Boulevard to various destinations.

As part of a regional strategy to alleviate congestion, a public information campaign will be conducted targeting Clay County commuters and major employers within the Southpoint/Baymeadows/Town Center business area, as well as NAS Jacksonville by the North Florida TPO. The next steps are to: o Develop a communications strategy targeting Clay County commuters to potentially encompass dynamic message signs, targeted cable TV and radio, and social media. o Develop an employer outreach program focusing on major employers cited by previous commuting surveys. o Create special offers/incentives for commuters to sign-up in the Cool to Pool database and log their commute.

76

±

J I 115 A

15

T S

J I 121A

1

2

4 Miles

LEGEND

5

108

23

1

115

T S

J I

¤ ¤£ £

J I

0

105A

0012

J I

0016

105A

J I 200A

500 - 1500

10 5

200A

115

Total Daily Trips

108

1 05A

J I

J I

North Florida TPO Boundary

10 5

107

T S S T

NASSAU

Employers > 30 0

J I I J J I J I J J I I J JI I J I

1500 - 300 0

105B

0019

3000 - 5000

105A

A A1

I J J I

5000 - 15000

A 1A

T S

107

T S

15000 - 30 000

107A

J I

J I

108

30000 - 550 00

A 1A

T S

15A

J I 20

0

T S

121

J I

A

1A

T S

17

¤ £

2

5 11

T S

J T I S 110

10 2

24

J I 110

3

A1A

T S

T JS I 110

T S 104

J I 106

163

J I

T S

115 A

119

J I

5

A1

A

T S

117

301

¤ £

103

8

T S

111

T S 128

113

T S

109

1 21

T S

10 1

T S A 1A

109A

A

T S

10A

10

T S

T S 22

J I 101A

8

J I 212

126

T I S J

295

JS I T 228

T S 22

§ ¦ ¨

228

99

90 A

213

J I 217

J I 228

J I

115 C

T S

J I

¤ £

§ ¦ ¨ 10

J I

139

11 5 A

90

200

8

T S

21B

T S

T S S T 10

¤ £

T S

103

T S

J I I J

119

T S

J I

115

139

T S 116

T S

T S

90A

21D

1

¤ £

J I

¤ £

7 11

T S

DUVAL

T S

J I

J I 10

211

J I 211

J I 213

T S 202

T S 200

T S

134

T S 228

228

116

ORANGE PARK AREA

J I 217

115

J I

23

J S I T

T S

T S

152

J I 210A

I J J I TI S J J I

J I 203

117 9

116 2 224

117 7

118 7

J I 118 1

JI I J J I J I 220B 220A

J I 15A

218

J I 21A

J I I J 209

J I 739

209B

J I 739B

225

J I

J I

5

315

J I 209

215

J I 16A

9

T S

J I 225

210

T S

J I

J I

15

J I

T S

220

125

13B

17

118 9

J I J I

J I

¤ £

220

A 1A

220A

T S

J I

315

T S 13

1

16

16A

¤ £

J I

T S

J I

J I 13A

T S

J I

16

15A

J I 13

J I 226

I J J J I I J I J I J I JI I J J I I JS T 1 333

J I 208

209

1365

J I 214

J I 315

7

20

I J J I 312

A1A

A 1A

10

1342

T S

T S

312

1363

13A

352

1353

5A

J I

J I

1339

1351

J JI I J I

T S

T S

1338

5A

J I

J I 21

§ ¦ ¨ 95

13A

1337

T S

1359

CLAY

1332

1335

J I 315C

0

J I 214

J I 305

J I 209

J I 309D

21

T S

I J J I 214

ST. JOHNS

219

J I 209

26

T S

J I 207A

J I 315

J I

J I 13

216

J I 309C

1447

309C

21

T S

20

21

J I 20A

2016

310

T S 10

0

204

Figure 33 Page 77

A 1A

J I

311

19

J I T S

I J JI I J T S J I T S Total Trips Utilizing Blanding Boulevard for Commute J I

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

10. Strategy Effectiveness The final component of the CMP cycle calls for the monitoring of the strategies effectiveness in alleviating congestion on roadways that were identified to be congested. After appropriate strategies have been implemented on the congested corridors, performance measures will be studied to identify the effectiveness of implemented strategies on alleviating congestion on the roadway. A more detail evaluation of the actual cause of congestion and alternative strategies will be studied in a detailed corridor study for each of the congested corridors identified within the CMP when funds are available.

The effectiveness of the congestion management strategies shall be monitored and tracked along with the updates to the CMP every year. As more data is collected over time, it will become easier to identify trends, and compare congestion data across different geographic regions within the region. Monitoring the various performance measures identified within the CMP over time will allow a “before-and-after” analysis to determine the effectiveness of an adopted strategy. The time frame for conducting a “before-and-after” analysis will vary based on several factors. For instance, impacts of some strategies such as transportation demand management (TDM) strategies will be visible only over a long period of time. However, other strategies such as addition of an auxiliary lane may show immediate congestion relief. A “before-and-after” analysis of the performance measure can indicate whether a congestion mitigation strategy applied on a congested corridor is reliving congestion. If analysis shows that a strategy is not relieving congestion, then modifications should be performed to the strategy to address the cause of congestion. Figure 34 below shows the strategy evaluation cycle typically employed in a CMP. Figure 34 - CMP Strategy Evaluation Cycle

Identify Congested Corridors

Calibrate Strategies and Implementation Process

Identfy Congestion Management Strategies

Monitor Strategy Effectiveness

Currently one before-and-after study is underway by the North Florida TPO – an ITS benefit evaluation on the US-1/SR 5 Philips Highway from the Avenues Mall to I-95.

78

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

11. Implementation and Management The CMP is an integral part of the North Florida TPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) process and therefore, shall be incorporated into the LRTP on a five-year cycle during the development of the LRTP. The congested corridors and hot-spots should be studied in greater details through the initiation of corridor studies on the priority corridors for congestion management identified in this report. An update to this CMP will focus on the results from the implementation of strategies from this CMP and will identify strategies to address new arising congestion related issues within the North Florida region. Coordination with operating agencies such as FDOT, JTA, The City of Jacksonville (COJ), St. Johns County, Nassau County, Clay County, and the North Florida TPO is expected to be an on-going process through established communications channels such as the North Florida TPO Board, Technical Coordination Committee (TCC), Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and ITS Coalition meetings. The coordination process will focus on identifying needs and appropriately implementing the congestion management strategies along the corridors identified in this report.

Coordinating and updating the CMP is anticipated annually with the availability of enhanced data each year to better define the performance measures identified in this report. As new data becomes available (for example the BlueToad data), the CMP will be updated to reflect the implementation of the additional performance measure data to monitor the roadway network for congestion related problems. The following implementation responsibilities are anticipated from the various North Florida TPO steering committees.

11.1. North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) The North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) will serve as the CMP steering committee.

This committee is composed of entities with specific interest in the congested corridors within their respective regional boundaries. Members of the following agencies are represented on the North Florida TPO’s TCC: o

City of Jacksonville Planning Department

o

City of Jacksonville Public Works

o

Jacksonville Transportation Authority

o

Florida Department of Transportation

o

Atlantic Beach Planning Department

o

Jacksonville Beach Planning Department

o

Jacksonville Aviation Authority

o

Jacksonville Port Authority

o

North Florida Regional Council

o

Town of Orange Park

o

City of Keystone Heights

o

National Park Service

o

Department of Environmental Protection

o

Clay County Engineering Department

o

Clay County Planning Department

o

Clay County Public Works

o

Green Cove Springs Public Works

o

Nassau County Engineering

o

Nassau County Planning Department

o

City of St. Augustine Planning & Building

o

St. Johns County

o

City of St. Augustine Beach 79

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

o

US Navy

o

Ocean Highway & Port Authority, Nassau County

The TCC meets once a month and the meetings are open to the public. The results of the CMP will be evaluated by the TCC on an annual basis.

11.2. Other North Florida TPO Committees The following committees governed by the North Florida TPO also guide the region’s transportation developments and improvements. These committees will review the CMP improvements on as-needed basis: o

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

o

Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Group

11.3. The North Florida TPO Governing Board The North Florida TPO Governing Board is responsible for guiding the transportation planning process and approving the transportation improvement projects for the region governed by the North Florida TPO. The North Florida TPO Governing Board will review CMP related projects, and recommendation for their endorsement. The North Florida TPO Governing Board will also be responsible for the endorsement of funding for the projects identified through the LRTP and the TIP processes that mitigate congestion within the North Florida region.

80

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

12. Conclusion and Recommendations A CMP Update is conducted for the North Florida TPO planning area and identified corridors with recurring congestion problems. Priority rankings were assigned to this list of congested corridors for funding and management strategies were developed for alleviating congestion. The CMP policies, goals, and objectives for the North Florida TPO planning area were compiled and are summarized in this report. A brief review of the updated CMP policies is present below: 

A corridor analysis shall be performed before any capacity expansion project is proposed and shall be presented for approval to the North Florida TPO. If congestion mitigation strategies are not included as part of such a project, then justification for their exclusion must be provided to the North Florida TPO. The Corridor Analysis should be completed, whether or not the facility has been identified as a priority project of this CMP. A basic Corridor Analysis must include an evaluation of potential improvements that would provide for more efficient traffic operations or the future deployment of ITS projects along that corridor.



The corridor analysis conducted on the CMP corridors shall include an evaluation of the potential for adding value lanes, such as managed lanes or express toll lanes on limited access highway facilities.



A maximum width of six general purpose lanes is recommended, exclusive of special lanes and turning lanes at major intersections. It is not the intent of this policy to discourage or preclude the reservation or acquisition of rights-of-way now for use in adding additional capacity beyond the specified six lanes.



Funding sources for project implementation of the CMP identified priority project shall be identified.

These funding sources should represent various levels of government, including city, county, regional, and state. The North Florida TPO shall work with FDOT and other governing agencies to locate a source of funds that can be used to implement congestion mitigation strategies and/or projects on the congested corridors identified in the CMP.



Local governments shall be encouraged to develop policies that support access management controls, and driveway sharing.

Table 19 provided the list of the congested facilities within the North Florida region with a preliminary ranking of the facilities based on the severity of congestion. Table 20 shows the congestion mitigation strategy evaluation matrix for these congested roadway corridors.

It is recommended that the North Florida TPO study one or two of these CMP corridors in greater detail each year. It is expected that detailed corridor studies be conducted on all of the congested corridors identified in this CMP before the next update of the North Florida TPO’s CMP, which is currently scheduled to occur every five years. Detailed corridors studies will evaluate the feasibility and benefits of the congestion mitigation strategies identified in the report for congested corridors. Specific design recommendations in the form of operational or capacity projects will result from such corridor studies. A corridor study initiated should be scheduled for completion within a year of its inception. The scope of services for the detailed corridor study should consist of the following tasks: 

Analyze the existing operating conditions on the corridors being studied.



Identify the causes of congestion on these roadways.



Evaluate the congestion mitigation strategies and identify the feasibility and benefits of each strategy studied.



Develop implementation strategy that can relieve congestion on the roadway.



Identify operation or capacity improvements that would enhance operations and decrease congestion on the roadway.

81

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

The performance of a CMP can be evaluated by the successful implementation of the operational and capital projects formulated from the corridor studies conducted on the priority congested corridors identified within the CMP. The corridor studies can be scheduled and funded based on the preliminary ranking assigned to the congested corridors identified in this report. It is expected that the North Florida TPO Board will select one or two CMP projects to be added to the TIP on an annual basis. The actual number of projects may vary, depending upon the results of the detailed corridor studies, CMP policies, goals and objectives, and the availability of funds for these projects.

12.1. Procedure for Periodic Assessment and Updates It is essential to devise a mechanism for collecting data needed to quantify the performance measures listed in the CMP and to track congestion over time. A data collection monitoring plan that identifies specific elements such as type, frequency of data collection, data collection sites, responsibilities, analysis techniques, and performance reporting is essential for a CMP. The key to effective transportation decision is accurate and reliable transportation data. Data collection for the listed performance measures is being conducted by the FDOT annually through the Mobility Performance Measures Program. FDOT also conducts yearly traffic count to determine the volumes and types of vehicles using the roadway network. This data set can be made accessible by the FDOT during the update for every 5-year period.

The BlueToad data collection technology is anticipated to be enhanced over time and more data is anticipated to be available for further analysis. The North Florida TPO will update the BlueToad data analysis outlined in this report annually to obtain the reliability information on the roadway network with Bluetooth devices with the availability of realistic and accurate BlueToad data.

12.2. Integration with other North Florida TPO Plans The CMP will be an integral part of the North Florida TPO’s planning process, including the LRTP, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the Unified Work Program (UPWP), and other related plans and programs funded by the North Florida TPO. A brief description of how the CMP is related to these other plans is provided below:

12.2.1. Integration with the LRTP The CMP, in accordance with Federal guidance, guides the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) planning process in the following ways: o

Identifies Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSM&O) projects that can be included in the North Florida TPO’s TIP and LRTP.

o

Identifies a set of congestion mitigation/alleviation strategies that can be applied to congested and/or strategically important corridors.

The North Florida TPO’s LRTP Steering Committee which comprises of state, county, and local agencies should provide inputs into the CMP process. The LRTP Steering Committee identifies projects for potential Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSM&O) improvements that can be funded in the coming fiscal year.

The current CMP will be included into the on-going update of the 2040 LRTP as an application designed to facilitate stakeholder participation and for information dissemination.

12.2.2. Integration with the TIP The identified congested corridors and/or hot spots will be considered for the TIP. All capital improvement projects, including roadway capacity enhancement projects, will be considered candidate for congestion management. The TIP Development Committee will identify projects from the CMP to be included into the TIP based on the following criteria: o

Identify high priority projects based on the ranking provided for the congested corridors within the CMP.

o

Obtain stakeholder input on the projects identified and refine the order based on their input.

The projects listed into the TIP should have a funding source identified to implement the proposed improvements on the selected congested corridors.

82

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

12.2.3. Integration with the Public Involvement Plans The North Florida TPO engages citizens regarding transportation issues in their community, such as safety. The next update to the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) can target the public’s participation into the CMP process to provide their input on the congested corridor section. Such programs can aid in the identification of multi-modal strategies that are of interest to the commuting public and when implemented can bring greater benefits to the community.

12.2.4. Integration with the NEPA Process All highway, transit, and non-motorized projects that utilize federal funds are required to undergo applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study process reflects the NEPA requirements. A typical PD&E study for roadway improvements considers several congestion management strategies as part of the study. Strategies included in this studies proposed alternatives are always evaluated for their effectiveness in addressing the congestion needs for the project as identified in the CMP.

83

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

13. References 1.

A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Publication# IR054A, 1989, 3rd Printing, pp. 1-154.

2. Congestion Management Process: A Guidebook, Federal highway Administration, Publication# FHWAHEP-11-011, April 2011, pp. 1-68 (PDF 3.2 MB).

3. Florida’s Mobility Performance Measures Program, December 2000, pp. 1-8 (PDF 152 KB).

4. 2010 Sourcebook of Florida Highway Data, August 2011, pp. 1-95 (PDF 1.7 MB).

5. Strategy Notebook – I-35 Corridor Optimization Study, Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), Project# 35-106-KA-2597-01, May 2012, pp. 1-96 (PDF 28.9 MB).

6. Congestion Management System, Revised to include the First Coast MPO’s New Congestion Management Process, First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization, Spring 2006, pp. 1-42 (PDF 4,507 KB).

7. The 2009 Congestion Management Process Update, Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization, October 2009, pp. 1-91 (PDF 12,112 KB).

8. Congestion Management System – The Mobility Management Process, Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization, slides. 1-43 (PPT 1,383 KB).

9. Congestion Management Process & Crash Mitigation Framework, Draft Report, Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization, December 2011, pp. 1-90 (PDF 5,612 KB).

10. Performance Measures and Threshold Values for NOACA’s Congestion Management Process, Technical Memorandum, Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, August 2007, pp. 1-30 (PDF 2,195 KB).

11. Congestion Management Process – Inventory of Existing Traffic Congestion in the NOACA Region, Technical Memorandum, Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, August 2008, pp. 1-95 (PDF 1,812 KB).

12. The Relationship between Congestion Management and the Planning Process, July 2006, pp. 1-11 (PDF 872 KB).

13. WILMAPCO’s 2012 Congestion Management Systems Summary Report, September 2012, pp. 1-56 (PDF 5.1 MB).

14. Congestion Management Process for the Baltimore Region, Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, pp.

1-12 (PDF 1,591 KB).

15. Quarterly Congestion Analysis Report for the Baltimore Region, Top 10 Bottleneck Locations, 1st Quarter 2012, Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, pp. 1-17 (PDF 4,453 KB).

16. Congestion Management Process – State of the Practice: What Other Regions are Doing, Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, pp. 1-6 (PDF 628 KB).

17. Congestion Management System – The State of Transportation in Hampton Roads, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, December 2004, pp. 1-50 (PDF 5,050 KB).

18. Congestion Management Process, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, March 2008, pp. 1-68 (PDF 3,523 KB).

19. Congestion Management System Plan for Southeast Michigan, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, December 2004, pp. 1-55 (PDF 4,656 KB).

84

Appendix A Year 2012 CMP Update Data Collection and Literature Review Report (On CD)

Appendix B Hot-Spot Analysis Temperature Charts (On CD)

2014 Annual Mobility Report

1022 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207 (904) 306-7500 www.northfloridatpo.com

June 30, 2014

This page is intentionally blank.

2014 Annual

Mobility Report In 2013, the North Florida TPO completed a Congestion Management Process (CMP) that includes the development of performance measures and 2007-2011 trend analysis. The CMP identified congested corridors and recommended strategies and tactics to address them. The 2014 Annual Mobility Report includes the most recent 2012 data and examines mobility trends in the North Florida TPO planning boundary encompassing Clay, Duval,

Miles Traveled

PERSON

Nassau and St. Johns counties.

2011-2012 2008-2012

In 2012, the trend of declining vehicle usage continued with a 2.4 percent reduction in person miles traveled by automobile.

Since 2008, automobile use has declined within the region by 5.7 percent. The decline in vehicle use is believed to be the result of the economic downturn, changing travel patterns associated with an aging population and generally reduced

2.4% 5.7%

automobile dependence by younger drivers. According to the American Planning Association’s 2014 National Poll, 81 percent of millenials and 77 percent of active boomers say “affordable and convenient alternatives to the car are at least somewhat important in deciding where to live and work.”

The exception to this reduction is an increase in

Traffic

percent overall, but saw a 1.6 percent increase in 2012 compared to 2011, reflecting the beginning of the economic recovery.

2011-2012 2008-2012 Although transit use in North Florida 30.8%

1.8%

TRANSIT Use

continues to be less than 1% of all person travel miles, transit use continued to rise with a 1.8 percent annual increase from 2011 to 2012. Since 2008, transit use in the area has increased by 30.8 percent.

The region’s infrastructure has expanded with the opening of 62

2011-2012 0.65%

additional lane miles of highways between 2008 and 2012. These improvements included the opening of SR 9B from I-295 to US 1 and resulted in enhanced quality of travel within the region.

Average speeds during the peak periods improved by 2.73 percent from 2008 to 2012 and 0.65 percent from 2011 to 2012.

These average speeds resulted in a positive economic impact to the local economy of $280 million per year.

16.4%

TRUCK

the last five years, truck traffic is down 16.4

2011-2012 2008-2012

1.6%

the truck miles traveled within the region. Over

Average Peak Period Speed

2008-2012 2.73%

Looking Ahead

Travel is anticipated to increase in the region for the next five years as a result of the economic recovery and new growth within the region.

The demand for travel is anticipated to return to pre-recession levels by the year 2018 and improvements to enhance our mobility are needed to meet these needs.

A significant number of major projects to address system bottlenecks and add capacity to our transportation system are scheduled to be completed and open for travel by 2018 - 2020.

These major projects listed below will continue to improve mobility for travelers in the region.

Facility

From

To

Improvement

NEW ROADS SR 23 First Coast Expressway

Blanding Boulevard

I-10

New Expressway

SR 9B

I-95

SR 5/US 1 Philips Highway

New Four Lane Road

Crawford Road

CR 121

US 301

New Two Lane Road

JIA Access Road

Airport Road

Pecan Park Road

US 301

Baldwin Bypass

New Four Lane Road New Four Lane Road

WIDENING PROJECTS I-295

I-95

SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard

Add two express lanes

I-295 (Buchman Bridge)

SR 5/US 17 Park Street

SR 13 San Jose Boulevard

Add two express lanes

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard

CR 218

Allie Murray Road

Widen to six lanes

SR A1A/SR 200

I-95

Scott Road

Widen to six lanes

US 301

Baldwin

Callahan

Widen to four lanes

INTERCHANGE PROJECTS I-10

I-295

Interchange Modifications

I-10

SR 5/US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard

Interchange Modifications

I-10

Hammond Boulevard

New Interchange

I-10

I-295

Interchange Modifications

I-95

SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard

Interchange Modifications

I-95

I-295 North

Interchange Modifications MAJOR TRANSIT SERVICE

BRT Southwest Corridor

Downtown Jacksonville

Orange Park

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

BRT East Corridor

Downtown Jacksonville

Jacksonville Beach

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

BRT Southeast Corridor

Downtown Jacksonville

Avenues Mall

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

BRT North Corridor

Downtown Jacksonville

I-295

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

To read the full report and learn more about the Congestion Management Process and strategies to reduce congestion, please visit www.northfloridatpo.com

306.7500 // 1022 Prudential Drive

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Contents List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... ii Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Data Collection and Analysis Methodology .......................................................................................... 10 Mobility Performance Measures Analysis ............................................................................................ 12 Optimize the Quantity of Travel ....................................................................................................... 12 Person‐Miles Traveled In Automobiles ........................................................................................ 12 Truck‐Miles Traveled .................................................................................................................... 16 Vehicle‐Miles Traveled ................................................................................................................. 18 Person Trips .................................................................................................................................. 18 Transit Ridership (Passengers) ..................................................................................................... 18 Optimize the Quality of Travel ......................................................................................................... 20 Average Speed .............................................................................................................................. 20 Daily Delay .................................................................................................................................... 20 Average Travel Rate ...................................................................................................................... 20 Reliability ...................................................................................................................................... 20 LOS on Rural Facilities .................................................................................................................. 25 Accessibility ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Utilization of the System .................................................................................................................. 25 System Lane Miles ........................................................................................................................ 25 Percent Miles Severely Congested ............................................................................................... 25 Vehicles per Lane per Hour .......................................................................................................... 28 Duration of Congestion ................................................................................................................ 28 Number of Passengers per Revenue Mile .................................................................................... 28 I‐95 Corridor Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 31 Summary............................................................................................................................................... 39

i

2014 Annual Mobility Report

List of Figures Figure 1. Congestion Management Process ................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. North Florida TPO Planning Boundaries ........................................................................................ 3 Figure 3. Congested Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4. Congested Facilities (Insets) ........................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5. Person‐Miles Traveled Daily (Thousands of Person‐Miles) ......................................................... 14 Figure 6. Person‐Miles Traveled during the Peak Hour (Thousands of Person‐Miles) ............................... 15 Figure 7. Truck‐Miles Traveled (Daily) ........................................................................................................ 17 Figure 8. Vehicle‐Miles Traveled (Daily) ..................................................................................................... 19 Figure 9. Average Travel Speeds during the Peak Hours (MPH) ................................................................. 21 Figure 10. Total Daily Delay (Vehicle Hours) ............................................................................................... 22 Figure 11. Total Daily Delay (Vehicle Hours) – Adjusted ............................................................................. 23 Figure 12. Travel Time Reliability (Peak Hour) ............................................................................................ 24 Figure 13. Percent of Rural Miles Meeting LOS Criteria ............................................................................. 26 Figure 14. Percent Miles Severely Congested During the Peak Hour ......................................................... 27 Figure 15. Vehicles per Lane Mile in the Peak Hour ................................................................................... 29 Figure 16. Duration of Congestion (Hours) ................................................................................................. 30 Figure 17. BlueToad Device Locations Planned within the North Florida TPO Boundary .......................... 32 Figure 18. BlueToad Device Locations Currently Active within the North Florida TPO Boundary ............. 33 Figure 19. I‐95 Reliability Analysis (1 of 2) .................................................................................................. 37 Figure 20. I‐95 Reliability Analysis (2 of 2) .................................................................................................. 38

List of Tables Table 1. Congested Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. Summary of Mobility Performance Measures .............................................................................. 11 Table 3. Daily Person Miles Traveled (thousands) ...................................................................................... 12 Table 4. Summary of Changes in Daily Person‐Miles Traveled (Thousands per Day) ................................. 13 Table 5. Summary of Percent Change in Person‐Miles Traveled Per Person per Day ................................ 16 Table 6. Truck‐Miles Traveled ..................................................................................................................... 16 Table 7. Summary of Vehicle‐Miles Traveled ............................................................................................. 18 Table 8. Transit Ridership............................................................................................................................ 18 Table 9. Summary of Average Vehicle Speed (Daily) .................................................................................. 20 Table 10. Summary of Vehicle Hours of Delay (Daily) ................................................................................ 20 Table 11. Travel Time Reliability (Daily) ...................................................................................................... 20 Table 12. Percent of Rural Miles Meeting LOS Criteria ............................................................................... 25 Table 13. System Lane Miles ....................................................................................................................... 25 Table 14. Vehicles per Lane per Hour (Peak Hour) ..................................................................................... 28 Table 15. Revenue Miles ............................................................................................................................. 28 Table 16. Passengers per Revenue Mile ..................................................................................................... 28 Table 17. Summary of I‐95 Corridor Reliability, I‐95 Southbound .............................................................. 35 Table 18. Summary of Performance Measures .......................................................................................... 40 Table 19. Major Improvements Proposed to Open by 2018 ...................................................................... 41

ii

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Background This report’s primary purpose is to describe the change in mobility that occurred since the prior year data was available.

In 2013, the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) completed a Congestion Management Process (CMP) that included the development of performance measures and analysis of trends and conditions. The CMP identified congested corridors and recommended strategies and tactics to address these corridors.

Maintenance of a CMP is a requirement for all Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) under Florida law and for MPOs in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) under Federal law. Consistent with the guidance from the Final Rule on the CMP for TMAs (Section 450.320), the intent of the CMP is to “address congestion management through a process that provides for safe and effective integrated management and operation of the multimodal transportation system.”

MAP-21, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), was signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. MAP-21 requires: “within a metropolitan planning area serving a transportation management area, the transportation planning process under this section shall address congestion management through a process that provides for effective management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed and implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under this title and chapter 53 of title 49 through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies.”

According to the Federal Highway Administration’s CMP Guidebook, “Congestion management is the application of strategies to improve transportation system performance and reliability by reducing the adverse impacts of congestion on the movement of people and goods.”

The planning process is required to address the eight planning factors described in 23 CFR 450.306(a).

Figure 1 summarizes the CMP and the planning factors.

The North Florida TPO’s planning boundaries for which this CMP was developed is shown on Figure 2. The congested facilities identified in the CMP are shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4 and are summarized in Table 1.

1

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Figure 1. Congestion Management Process

2

±

J I 121A

1

¤ £

0

1

2

4 Miles

J I 115 A

15

T S

23

115

J I I J J I J I J I J I J I

NASSAU

J I 107

200A

St. Johns

301

¤ £

105A 10

I J J I

A 1A

S ST T T S

J I

30

A 1A

¤ £

1

15A

Other Counties

5

T S

107A

108

105B

0019

107

T S

J I

Nassau

A 1A

T S A 1A

T S

200A

200

121

Duval

108

J I

115

Clay

0016

J I J I

County Boundaries

105A

0012

J I

North Florida TPO Boundary

5

108

¤ £

J I

LEGEND

T S

J I

105

J I 105

17

T S

¤ £

2

5 11

T S

J T I S 110

10 2

J I

3

T S

110

T S A 1A

24

J I

200

T S

110

T S 104

I J J I

163

J I

A1

8

217

200

103

129

10 1

A 1A

T S

113

T S

109

A

228

126

211

T S 10

90A

T S

T S 128

10A

T S 22

J I 101A

8

J I 212

J I 211

J I 213

T S 202

T S 134

301

¤ £

228

8

T S

T I S J

295

T S

J I

T S

J I

22

§ ¦ ¨

T S

99

90 A

22

1 21

213

115 C

J I

¤ £

J I

J I T S

J I

109A

11 5 A

10

228

JS I T

T S

§ ¦ ¨

13

8

17

T S

10

90

¤ £

21B

DUVAL

T S

103

T S 116

113

J I I J

119

115

T S

J I

T S

139

¤ £

21D

T S

7 11

T S

J I

S T T S 15

T S T ¤ S £

105

A

117

T S

T S

115 A

119

T S

J I

J I 5 10

T S

301

¤ £

106

T S

9A

J I

J S I T

116

228

228

T S

152

117 9

116 2 224

217

203

210A

I J J I TI S J J I

J I

J I

J I

117 7

118 7

J I 118 1

J I 220B

J I 118 9

J I

J I 15A

218

I J J I 225

200B

739B

J I 315

J I

T S 16

T S

1

13

J I 13A

9

15A

T S

J I J I 13

J I

1206

¤ £

16

T S

CLAY

230A

16A

315

16

I J J I J I

J I

209

J I

T S

J I

210

J I

215

16A

J I 5

233

209B

J I

225

225

J I

209

739

21A

T S

I J J I

J I I J

J I

J I

15

J I

T S

220

125

13B

17

220

J I

J I

¤ £

J I

A 1A

2 20A

T S

J I

226

J I

100A

I J T S TI S J J I T S J I JI I J JI I J J I I JS T J I J I J I J I 1333

208

16

100

T S

209

J I

21

1365

J I 214

J I 315

A1 A

1339

1 351

1353

312

5A

312

A1A

20

7

T S

T S

1338

5A

J I

18

§ ¦ ¨ 95

13A

1337

T S

1359

J I

1332 A A1

1335

I ST. JOHNS J

J I 352

J I 315C

J I 214

J I

305

209

309D

T S

I J J S I T

A 1A

21

T S

200A

J I

J I

J I

21B

J I

1363

13A

214

219

26

J I 209

J I 207A

J I 219A

J I 204

A1

T S

A

2016

20

T S

19

T S

310

10

0

20A

21

North Flori da I TPO CMP System Boundary J 309B

Figure 2 Page 3

A 1A

T S

I J J I

T S

200A

309C

21

20A

I J J I J I 1447

J I T S

200

T S

I J J I

234

13

216

3 09C

J I

J I

J I

J I

J I

315

23

¤ £

±

FERNANDINA BEACH

J I 115 A

HILLIARD

J I 121A

15

T S

J I 115

5

108

4 Miles

Congested Facilities

105A

107

J I

I J J I J JI I J I 105A

200A

County Boundaries

108

J I 200A

0019

CALLAHAN

Duval

10 5

J I 115

Cities

10 5

J I

T S S T

NASSAU

St. Johns

105B

Clay

105A

A A1

I J J I

Nassau

A 1A

T S

107

T S

Other Counties

107A

108

2

North Florida TPO Boundary

J I

J I

1

LEGEND

T S

J I

0

J I 15A

A 1A

T S

J I J I

10

5

T S

17

¤ £

2

1

20

0

¤ £

T S

121

5 11

T S

J T I S 110

10 2

JACKSONVILLE 24

J I 110

3

A1A

T S

T JS I 110

T S 104

J I 106

J I

J I 163

10

J I

T S

115 A

119

J I

5

A

A1

J I 115 C

22

217

200

T S

§ ¦ ¨ 295

8

T S

J I

J I

JS I T 109A

10A

T S

T S 22

A1A

T S

J I 101A

8

J I 212

126

T I S J 128

10

90A

1 21

T S

T S

90 A

¤ £

¤ £

213

A

J I

228

10

111

§ ¦ ¨

99

228

T S

8

139

103

10

T S

T S S T

DOWNTOWN T S INSET 1 11 5 A

90

21B

T S

¤ £

103

J I

113

J I I J

119

T S

J I

115

139

T S 116

T S

T S

T S

1

109

¤ £

T S

J I 21D

JACKSONVILLE BEACH

7 11

DUVAL

T S

BALDWIN

T S

117

211

J I 211

J I 213

T S 202

T S

301

¤ £

134

T S

115

116

23

228

228

J I

T S

J S I T

T S

152

J I 210A

J I 203

J II J J T S JI I J I 117 9

116 2

J I

117 5

224 118 1

217

117 7

JI I J J I J J I I 220B 220A

220

209

J I 220

J I 218

125

739

15

118 9

J I 15A

GREEN COVE SPRINGS

J I 210

5

PENNEY FARM

J I

13B

T S

J I

J I

T S

220A

A 1A

J I

T S

ORANGE PARK

J I

9

T S

225

ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH

J I 16A

J I 225

J I 215

J I 16A

J I 315

T S 16

ST. AUGUSTINE

T S 13

T S 16

J I 13A

J I 17

¤ £

15A

J I 13

J I 226

J I 208

21

T S

CLAY

95

13A

209

JAUGUSTINE I ST. JS I J INSET I T 2

§ ¦ ¨

J I

J I

1359

1365

KEYSTONE HEIGHTS

J I 214

1353

312

J JI I J I

20

7

T S

5A

1342

1363

0

A 1A

13A

10

A1A

T S

J I T S

J I

J I 315C

J I

J I

209

309D

21

T S

I J J I

J I 305

HASTINGS

1

214

¤ £

J I 214

PALATKA

219

ST. JOHNS

J I 209

26

T S

J I 207A

J I

J I

216

315

J I 13

1447

309C

21

T S

20

21

J I 20A

2016

310

T S 20

204

Figure 3 Page 4

A 1A

J I

311

19

J I T S

I J JI I J T S J I T S Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO J I

T S

T S 122

15

21B

95

10

8 22

T S

228

J I

T S

109

T S

10

11 5A

211

T S

T S 10

10

T S JACKSONVILLE

T S 212

228 A

T S

111

T S

213

22 8

13

J I

T S

129

T S

228

T S

13

T S

15

T S

139

1A

103

¦ ¨ § T S

228

J I 109 A

T S S T

£ ¤

T S

¦ ¨ §

17

9

J I

11 5

23

T S

£ ¤

DUVAL

5

103

15

J I

T S

139

T S

T S

T S

1

£ ¤

£ ¤

T S

15

T S

£ ¤ 21

126

T S

T JS I 211

21 1

90

T S 228

1

128

£ ¤

£ ¤

T S

T S

1A

5

T S

J I 211

Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO - Inset 1 Downtown Region

J I 133 3

J I 133 5

J I I J 5

±

A1A

T S

133 2

North Florida TPO Boundary Congested Facilities Cities

A A1

T S

J I

0.8 Miles

LEGEND

A 1A

T S

ST. AUGUSTINE

0 0.2 0.4

J I 133 9

J I 133 7

135 9

I J J I 135 4

Duval

St. Johns Clay

5A

T S

£ ¤ 1B

133 8

County Boundaries

Nassau

Other Counties

J II J J I

J I 214

134 7

135 1

134 9

J I 135 3

J I 136 5

312

T S

J I 312

J I 134 0

20 7

J I 134 2

J I A1A

5

T S

5A

T S

J I

ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH

J I 134 4

ST. JOHNS

1

£ ¤ J I 136 3

A 1A

T S

9

T S

Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO - Inset 2 St. Augustine Region

Figure 4 Page 5

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Table 1. Congested Facilities ID 8 151 9 10 152 25 150 75 155 85 111 144 140 49 135 24 113 182 34 136 174 66 39 162 114 5 148 115 156 166 195

County Name Clay St. Johns Clay Clay St. Johns Duval St. Johns Duval Clay Duval Duval St. Johns Nassau Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval St. Johns Duval Clay St. Johns Duval Clay Duval Duval

Name of Area Clay County St Johns County Clay County Clay County St Johns County Jacksonville St Johns County Jacksonville Orange Park Jacksonville Jacksonville St Johns County Nassau County Jacksonville Jacksonville Beach Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Beach Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville St Augustine Jacksonville Middleburg St Johns County Jacksonville Orange Park Jacksonville Neptune Beach

Facility SR 21 Blanding Boulevard SR A1A SR 21 Blanding Boulevard SR 21 Blanding Boulevard SR A1A SR 212 Atlantic Boulevard SR A1A SR 115 Southside Boulevard US 17 SR 109 University Boulevard I-95 SR 13 SR AIA SR 202 J.T. Butler Boulevard SR A1A Third St. SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard I-95 SR 13 San Jose Boulevard US 90 Beach Boulevard SR A1A Third Street SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard US 1/ Philips Highway SR 21 Blanding Boulevard US 1 I-95 SR21 Blanding Boulevard US 1 SR 10 US 17 Rail Connector/Pritchard Road SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard

From Location College Drive CR 210 (Corona Road) Suzanne Avenue SR 224 Kingsley Avenue Solana Road St Johns Bluff Road CR 210 Palm Valley Road SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard SR 224 Kingsley Avenue I-95 SR 202 J. Turner Butler Boulevard Racetrack Road US 17/SR 5 US 1 Philips Highway US 90 Beach Boulevard SR 116 Monument Road SR 109 University Boulevard Loretto Road SR 228 Hart Bridge Expressway 19th St I-295 SR 152 Baymeadows Road Clay Co. Line SR 207 SR 228 Emerson Expressway CR 218 SR 312 SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Wells Road I-295 Ramp to A1A

To Location Suzanne Avenue Solana Road SR 224 Kingsley Ave Duval Co. Line Duval Co. Line Girvin Road CR 210 Corona Road Beach Boulevard Wells Rd US 90 Beach Boulevard Bowden Road Duval Co. Line CR 107/Brackrock Road I-95 19th Street SR 9A Emerson Expressway I-295 Southside Boulevard 34th Street St. Johns Bluff Road SR 202 J. Turner Butler Boulevard I-295 King Street Atlantic Boulevard Ramps N. City Limit - Palmetto Street SR 207 SR 5 Exit Downtown Duval County Line Old Kings Road West A1A Junction

6

2014 Annual Mobility Report ID 137 189 30 161 157 179 26 58

County Name Duval Duval Duval St. Johns St. Johns Duval Duval Duval

Name of Area Jacksonville Beach Jacksonville Jacksonville St Augustine St Augustine Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville

36 154 40 35 31 133 95 97 96 99 158 104 18 171 173 64 71 17 60 177 147 112 116 110

Duval Clay Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval St. Johns Duval Duval Clay Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval St. Johns Duval Duval Duval

Jacksonville Orange Park Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville St Augustine Jacksonville Jacksonville Orange Park Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville St Johns County Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville

Facility SR A1A Third Street SR 9A SR 152 Baymeadows Road San Marco SR A1A Bridge of Lions Ocean Street SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 115 Mathews Bridge Expressway US 90 Beach Boulevard US 17 SR 21 Blanding Boulevard US 90 Beach Boulevard SR 152 Baymeadows Road I-295 I-10 I-10 I-10 I-295 King St. I-295 SR 115 Arlington Expressway SR 224 Kingsley Avenue SR 115 Arlington Expressway US 1 Philips Highway SR 13 San Jose Boulevard SR 155 Arlington Expressway Mayport Road SR 126 Emerson Street US 1 I-95 I-95 I-95

From Location

To Location

St Johns Co. Line St Johns Bluff Rd US 1 Philips Highway Orange Street SR A1A Bridge of Lions Ocean Street Girvin Road SR 109 University Boulevard

34th Avenue US 90 Beach Boulevard I-95 May Street SR A1A US 17 Main Street San Pablo Road Haines St Expressway

SR 9A Elbow Road I-295 SR 115 Southside Boulevard I-95 SR 152 Baymeadows Road SR 129 McDuff Avenue Stockton Ramps SR 228/US 17 Old St Augustine Road US 1 I-10 Arlington Road North Doctors Lake Drive SR 115 Southside Boulevard I-295 St Johns County SR 109 Cesery Boulevard Church Road I-95 Lewis Point Road Bowden Road SR 5 Downtown Exit SR 152 Baymeadows Road

Kernan Boulevard SR 224 Kingsley Avenue SR 134 103rd Street I-295 Old Baymeadows Road US 1 Philips Highway US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard I-95 Stockton Road Ramps SR 13 San Jose Boulevard Cordova Street Commonwealth Avenue SR 109 Cesery Boulevard US 17 Arlington Road SR 115 Southside Boulevard Loretto Road SR 109 University Boulevard A1A SR 228 Emerson Expressway SR 312 SR 109 University Boulevard I-10 Fuller Warren Bridge SR 202 J. Turner Butler Boulevard

7

2014 Annual Mobility Report ID 73 76 50 38 142 134 102 23 83 120 84 19 22 61 131 129 130 72 62 70 163 175 181 121 32 118 14 98 132 94 101 93

County Name Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval St. Johns Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval

Name of Area Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Neptune Beach Jacksonville Beach Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville St Augustine Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville

Facility SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 202 J.T. Butler Boulevard US 90 Beach Boulevard SR A1A Third Street SR A1A Third Street I-295 SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 109 University Boulevard I-95 SR 109 University Boulevard SR 115 Arlington Expressway SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 228 Normandy Boulevard I-295 I-295 I-295 SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 228 Normandy Boulevard US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard US 1 Ponce de Leon Boulevard SR 152 Baymeadows Road US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard I-95 SR 152 Baymeadows Road I-95 8th St. I-295 I-295 I-10 I-295 I-10

From Location Belle Rive Boulevard US 90 Beach Boulevard I-95 Hodges Boulevard SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Seagate Ave SR 208 Wilson Boulevard SR 115 Southside Boulevard St Augustine Road SR 15/US 17 Powers Ave SR 155 Southside Boulevard SR 109 University Boulevard Herlong Road SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Merrill Rd Monument Rd US 1 Philips Highway I-295 Park Street King Street Craven Road Edgewood Avenue SR 122 Golfair Avenue SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 139/US 23 Francis Street I-95 SR 202 J. Turner Butler Boulevard Luna Ramps SR 134 103rd Street Cassat Avenue

To Location SR 152 Baymeadows Road SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Belfort Road San Pablo Parkway Seagate Avenue US 90 Beach Boulevard SR 228 Normandy Boulevard Monument Road Powers Avenue SR 122 Golfair Avenue US 1 Philips Avenue Regency Mall Entrance SR 115 Southside Boulevard I-295 St Johns Bluff Road Monument Road SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Belle Rive Boulevard Lane Avenue Edgewood Avenue Castillo Drive US 1Philips Highway McDuff Avenue SR 115 Lem Turner Road SR 9A SR 114 8th Street Perry Street Old St Augustine Road Gate Parkway SR 129 McDuff Avenue SR 208 Wilson Boulevard Luna Ramps

8

2014 Annual Mobility Report ID 92 11 117 172 3 87 44 119 109 81 79 80 105

County Name Duval Clay Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval

Name of Area Jacksonville Clay County Jacksonville Jacksonville Atlantic Beach Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville Jacksonville

Facility I-10 Branan Field Road I-95 SR 134 103rd Street SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 109 University Boulevard SR 104 Dunn Avenue I-95 I-95 US 90 Union Street US 90 State Street US 90 State Street I-295

From Location Lane Avenue Kindlewood Drive I-10 Ricker Road West A1A Junction SR 10A Arlington Expressway Biscayne Boulevard SR 114 8th Street Exit to SR 115 Southside Boulevard I-95 US 1 Main Street Liberty Street Commonwealth Avenue

To Location Cassat Avenue Duval Co. Line US 23 Kings Road I-295 SR A1A Third Street Arlington Road I-95 SR 15 20th Street SR 152 Baymeadows Road US 17 Main Street US 23 Union Street US 1 Pritchard Road

9

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Data Collection and Analysis Methodology Existing data was used to identify and analyze trends and compare progress in achieving the mobility goals for the region. Table 2 on the following page summarizes the performance measures for mobility identified in the CMP. Data was collected using the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Mobility Performance Measures database for data in the year 2012. This data was then analyzed and compared to data from prior years to assess the progress in achieving the benchmarks discussed.

For each of the performance measures, a five-year summary from 2008 to 2012 was analyzed. This period also quantifies the trend that has occurred since the first year observable data of the recession was available. (The amount of travel within the region peaked in 2007.) A 2003 to 2012 trend is also provided in the form of charts to provide a visual representation of the trends over the period that mobility performance measure data is available. The visual representation of the trend is useful in understanding the overall trend prior to the recession.

The data used as a foundation for the performance measure program is based on data collected using the statewide telemetered traffic monitoring system (TTMS). In 2005 and 2007 there were sampling errors related to the speed data collected within North Florida and this resulted in an over reporting of speed data.

There is natural variation in the data collected and this variation is most prominent on the special (facility) level. The system wide trends from year to year are reasonable. Therefore, maps and facility level summaries of the data are not shown in this report. A minimum three years of data since the CMP base year (2011) are needed to report a moving average on a facility level to provide appropriate summaries.

In the CMP, the I-95 corridor was used to establish a benchmark for reliability within the region.

However, the reliability of the BlueToad data collected was not sufficient to establish a year over year trend of the reliability within the network.

The accessibility performance measures, as noted in the CMP, will not change significantly from year to year. These measures and benchmarks were included for assessment in the long-range transportation planning process.

10

2014 Annual Mobility Report Table 2. Summary of Mobility Performance Measures Objective Mobility Performance Measures Daily person-miles traveled Optimize the Daily truck-miles traveled quantity of Daily vehicle-miles traveled travel Person trips Transit ridership (passengers) Average speed Optimize the quality of travel

Improve the accessibility to mode choices

Optimize the utilization of the system

Daily delay Average travel rate Reliability Level of Service (LOS) on rural facilities Proximity to major transportation hubs Percent of lane-miles with bicycle and pedestrian accommodations Transit coverage Percent of the system severely congested (LOS E or worse) Percent of travel severely congested (LOS E or worse) Vehicles per lane-mile Duration of congestion Number of passengers per revenue-mile

Benchmark (1) (1) (1) (1) Increase Maintain or improve the average travel speed Maintain or reduce the average vehicle delay Maintain or increase the average trip time Maintain or improve the reliability Maintain at LOS standard (D or better) (2) (2) Increase the percent of households served within 1/4 mile Maintain or reduce the percent of system heavily congested Maintain or reduce the percent of travel heavily congested Optimize the vehicles per lane mile for a desired LOS Maintain or decrease the duration of congestion Maintain or increase the number of passengers per revenue mile

(1) Generally, increases in the quantity traveled (throughout) are preferred. However, consistent with livability and sustainability goals, one of the objectives is to reduce the amount of travel needed. Therefore, no benchmarks are proposed, but monitoring is recommended.

(2) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan.

11

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Mobility Performance Measures Analysis Optimize the Quantity of Travel Person-Miles Traveled In Automobiles The person-miles traveled on a daily basis within the region declined slightly within the region from 2011 to 2012. The decline was not uniform across all facility and area types, but was within the standard sampling error overall. Table 3 summarizes the change in person miles traveled since 2008 and Figure 5 (next page) shows the trend.

Table 3. Daily Person Miles Traveled (thousands) Item 2008 2009 Person-Miles Traveled 44,076 43,502

2010 42,996

2011 42,641

2012 41,634

In addition to the primary performance measure of daily performance identified in Table 2 and shown Figure 5, peak-hour, person-miles traveled is also summarized in Figure 6.

Since person-miles traveled represents the most significant performance measure in understanding trends in mobility since 2003, a special analysis was provided for this measure and is summarized Table 4. From 2003 to 2007 (the peak before the economic downturn), person-miles traveled for automobiles increased by 2.24percent percent per year (compound annual growth rate). The recession resulted in a decrease in vehicle use that has had lingering effects through 2012. Since 2008 person-miles traveled have declined by 0.19percent overall showing the negative trend is declining.

Based on analysis of prior economic recoveries, the post-recession growth rates are expected to return to pre-recession growth rates and this return is anticipated to occur in 2013-2014. Table 4 on the next page provides a summary of the changes since 2003. The 2014 data will be available in the 2015 Annual Mobility Report.

12

2014 Annual Mobility Report Table 4. Summary of Changes in Daily Person-Miles Traveled (Thousands per Day) Percent Change Functional Class Area 20032003200320072007 2011 2012 2012 Interstate Rural 121.42% 123.73% 118.18% 97.34% Principal Arterial Rural 100.85% 93.13% 105.47% 104.58% Minor Arterial Rural 100.79% 91.45% 64.46% 63.95% Major Collector Rural 121.43% 100.00% 100.00% 82.35% Subtotal 112.18% 109.72% 106.82% 95.22% Interstate Urban 112.92% 121.97% 117.49% 104.05% Freeways and Expressways Urban 131.92% 74.65% 73.16% 55.46% Principal Arterial Urban 101.13% 93.48% 92.51% 91.47% Minor Arterial Urban 102.04% 97.91% 96.98% 95.05% Collector Urban 168.00% 64.00% 60.00% 35.71% Subtotal 108.68% 90.58% 89.50% 82.35% TOTAL 109.68% 96.02% 94.43% 86.09% Compound Annual Growth Rate from 2003

2.34%

-0.51%

-0.64%

-2.95%

20082012 98.97% 107.52% 65.04% 100.00% 97.15% 111.70%

20112012 95.52% 113.25% 70.49% 100.00% 97.35% 96.33%

56.48% 93.00% 95.53% 750.00% 83.61% 87.53%

98.01% 98.96% 99.05% 93.75% 98.81% 98.33%

-3.27%

-0.19%

13

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Person-Miles Traveled (Daily) 16000 14000 12000

Thousands

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Interstate (Rural)

4543

5077

4936

5348

5516

5425

5566

5466

5621

5369

Principal Arterial (Rural)

2577

2565

2597

2624

2599

2528

2484

2436

2400

2718

Minor Arterial (Rural)

1134

1088

1123

896

1143

1124

1115

1105

1037

731

Major Collector (Rural)

14

15

14

15

17

14

14

14

14

14

Interstate (Urban)

12071

12289

12732

13468

13630

12697

12540

14875

14723

14182

Freeways & Expressways (Urban)

4840

5051

5361

6178

6385

6269

6240

3589

3613

3541

Principal Arterial (Urban)

8824

9499

9377

9124

8924

8777

8350

8347

8249

8163

Minor Arterial (Urban)

7122

7519

7483

7361

7267

7230

7182

7151

6973

6907

25

50

43

42

42

17

16

17

16

15

Collector (Urban)

Figure 5. Person-Miles Traveled Daily (Thousands of Person-Miles) 14

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Person-Miles Traveled (Peak Hour) 1400 1200 1000 Thousands

800 600 400 200 0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Interstate (Rural)

313

350

340

368

380

374

383

376

387

370

Principal Arterial (Rural)

203

202

204

206

204

199

195

191

189

214

Minor Arterial (Rural)

90

86

89

71

90

88

88

87

82

58

Major Collector (Rural)

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Interstate (Urban)

1017

1036

1073

1135

1149

1070

1057

1254

1241

1195

Freeways & Expressways (Urban)

398

415

442

511

528

519

517

294

296

290

Principal Arterial (Urban)

698

752

742

721

706

694

660

660

652

645

Minor Arterial (Urban)

564

595

592

583

575

572

568

566

552

547

2

4

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

Collector (Urban)

Figure 6. Person-Miles Traveled during the Peak Hour (Thousands of Person-Miles) 15

2014 Annual Mobility Report Similar to the total person-miles traveled changes, there has also been a reduction in the average travel per person per day in automobiles across the region. These changes could be a product of changing land use patterns and household locations that result in less need for longer trips or less driving for non-essential longer trips. The number of trips passing through the region driven by tourism or other industries could also result in reduced average travel per person. Table 5 summarizes the average amount of travel per day per person.

Table 5. Summary of Percent Change in Person-Miles Traveled Per Person per Day Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 Person-Miles Traveled 44,081 43,507 43,000 42,646 (Thousands) Population 1,294,319 1,305,837 1,318,481 1,322,280 Average Person-Miles 34.06 33.32 32.61 32.25 Traveled per Day (Miles)

2012 41,640 1,331,616 31.27

Truck-Miles Traveled Similar to automobile person-miles, truck-miles traveled have declined as a result of the recession.

However, in 2012 a small increase in the truck-miles traveled was observed. This change is a leading economic indicator of the economic recovery. Table 6 summarizes the trends in truck-miles traveled since 2008 and Figure 7 shows the trend since 2003.

Table 6. Truck-Miles Traveled Item Truck Miles Traveled Percent Change from 2008 CAGR from 2008 CAGR from 2011 to 2012

2008 2,244

2009 2,134 95.12% -4.88%

2010 1,860 82.91% -8.95%

2011 1,846 82.28% -6.29%

2012 1,876 83.59% -4.38% 0.39%

16

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Truck-Miles Traveled (Daily) 1,200 1,000

Thousands

800 600 400 200 -

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Interstate (Rural)

434

374

409

452

431

402

412

364

370

365

Principal Arterial (Rural)

209

207

217

221

174

165

159

141

143

158

Minor Arterial (Rural)

50

57

67

51

32

39

35

34

32

24

Major Collector (Rural)

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

Interstate (Urban)

857

791

1,044

1,115

1,035

1,049

902

909

898

856

Freeways and Expressways (Urban)

170

209

239

273

191

201

255

84

83

92

Principal Arterial (Urban)

328

378

381

375

311

215

205

182

177

220

Minor Arterial (Urban)

272

294

314

317

213

175

169

150

146

163

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Collector (Urban)

Figure 7. Truck-Miles Traveled (Daily)

17

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Vehicle-Miles Traveled Vehicle-miles traveled trends have followed the same trends as the person-miles traveled and are summarized in the table below.

Table 7. Summary of Vehicle-Miles Traveled Item 2008 Vehicle-miles Traveled (Daily) in 26,997 thousands

2009

2010

26,629

2011

26,310

2012

26,081

25,474

Person Trips A viable way to estimate the number of person trips that are occurring each year does not exist at this time. Because this performance measure is a desirable to determine the effectiveness of land use and transportation decisions, it is remaining in the CMP summary of measures and will be reported in the future if data become available.

Transit Ridership (Passengers) Transit use in North Florida continues to be less than 1 percent of all person-miles traveled.

However, transit use continued to rise with a 1.8 percent annual increase from 2011 to 2012. Since 2008, transit use in the area has increased by 30.8 percent. 1 Table 8 summarizes the transit ridership for the Jacksonville Transportation Authority and the Sunshine Bus Company. Factors that have contributed to an increase in transit usage are believed to be the economic effects of the recession and the changing preferences for transit in the elderly drivers over 65 who are the largest growth sector of our population and less able to drive and 18 to 24 year olds who are less able to afford to drive and less willing.

Table 8. Transit Ridership Transit System Jacksonville Transportation Authority St. Johns County Council on Aging (The Sunshine Bus Company) Total Percent Change 2011 to 2012 Percent 2008 to 2012

1

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

54,524,160 54,873,285 62,393,143 69,837,248 70,826,923 1,116,219

1,011,012

1,362,376

1,675,407

1,958,710

55,640,379 55,884,297 63,755,519 71,512,655 72,785,633 1.78% 30.8%

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/transit/Pages/2013FloridaTransitHandbook.pdf

18

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Vehicle-Miles Traveled (Daily) 10000 9000 8000 7000 Thousands

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Interstate (Rural)

2522

2820

2744

2975

3060

3009

3089

3034

3116

2977

Principal Arterial (Rural)

1559

1528

1551

1562

1542

1493

1471

1437

1417

1589

Minor Arterial (Rural)

676

642

663

541

674

659

655

647

610

441

Major Collector (Rural)

11

12

11

12

14

11

11

11

11

11

Interstate (Urban)

7503

7639

7914

8371

8472

7892

7794

9246

9151

8815

Freeways & Expressways (Urban)

3009

3140

3333

3841

3970

3897

3879

2232

2246

2202

Principal Arterial (Urban)

5661

6123

6053

5874

5747

5657

5380

5372

5309

5251

Minor Arterial (Urban)

4307

4547

4526

4456

4388

4368

4340

4320

4211

4178

Collector (Urban)

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 8. Vehicle-Miles Traveled (Daily) 19

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Optimize the Quality of Travel Average Speed Average speeds across the network are generally improving. The exception to this is the Minor Rural Arterial classification but the 1 MPH difference modeled is within the standard error of the model.

Figure 9 summarizes the trends in average vehicle speed since 2003. Table 9 summarizes the trend since 2008.

Table 9. Summary of Average Vehicle Speed (Daily) Item 2008 2009 Average Speed (MPH) 51.38 50.92

2010 52.13

2011 52.03

2012 52.38

Daily Delay Similar to person-miles and other performance measures there is a general decline in daily delay when analyzing recent trends. When using the Mobility Performance Measure Database, there are two years where the model results are outlying data sets when compared to other trends. These outliers occurred for urban interstates in the years 2005 and 2007. These data are shown in Figure 10. Figure 11 shows the trends with the outlier data removed. Table 10 summarizes the vehicle hours of delay. The data for years 2005 and 2007 were estimated through linear interpolation.

Table 10. Summary of Vehicle Hours of Delay (Daily) Item 2008 2009 Total Delay (Vehicle-Hours) 50,164 40,487

2010 32,153

2011 36,183

2012 33,536

Average Travel Rate Average travel rate, which is the inverse of speed, is not reported. This performance measure is redundant with the average vehicle speed and is not recommended for future updates.

Reliability The reliability of the network did not change significantly from 2011 to 2012. Since 2003, urban minor arterials have improved their reliability while the reliability on urban freeway and expressways has declined. Table 11 summarizes the travel time reliability on a daily basis weighted by the vehiclemiles traveled. Figure 12 shows the trend since 2003.

Table 11. Travel Time Reliability (Daily) Item 2008 Travel Time Reliability 68.95

2009 69.77

2010 69.41

2011 69.59

2012 69.26

20

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Average Travel Speed (Peak Hour) 80 70 60

MPH

50 40 30 20 10 0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Interstate (Rural)

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

74

Principal Arterial (Rural)

54

53

52

52

53

53

53

53

53

54

Minor Arterial (Rural)

53

54

54

55

55

55

55

56

56

55

Major Collector (Rural)

59

59

59

59

59

59

60

60

60

60

Interstate (Urban)

63

63

61

61

61

64

61

64

63

64

Freeways & Expressways (Urban)

51

51

53

51

52

53

53

48

47

49

Principal Arterial (Urban)

33

33

33

33

34

34

35

35

36

36

Minor Arterial (Urban)

31

31

31

32

32

33

33

34

34

34

Figure 9. Average Travel Speeds during the Peak Hours (MPH)

21

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Total Delay in Vehicle Hours (Daily) 70,000 60,000

Vehicle Hous

50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Interstate (Rural)

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

-

-

-

5

5

1

1

4

4

1

Principal Arterial (Rural)

424

507

535

483

345

371

297

480

552

491

Minor Arterial (Rural)

11

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

-

Major Collector (Rural)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Interstate (Urban)

18,474

7,097

64,060

20,914

61,917

11,957

14,970

2,146

3,512

8,160

Freeways and Expressways (Urban)

15,565

20,673

20,874

17,705

16,009

9,830

2,643

5,629

7,180

2,786

Principal Arterial (Urban)

16,654

26,366

28,571

19,157

18,331

17,263

12,624

14,380

16,608

13,538

Minor Arterial (Urban)

16,139

19,921

22,961

15,452

13,118

10,694

9,924

9,440

8,266

8,519

77

85

100

93

43

48

28

73

61

40

Collector (Urban)

Figure 10. Total Daily Delay (Vehicle Hours) 22

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Total Delay in Vehicle Hours (Daily) - Adjusted 30,000

25,000

Vehicle Hours

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

-

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

-

-

-

5

5

1

1

4

4

1

Principal Arterial (Rural)

424

507

535

483

345

371

297

480

552

491

Minor Arterial (Rural)

11

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

-

Major Collector (Rural)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Interstate (Urban)

18,474

7,097

14,006

20,914

16,436

11,957

14,970

2,146

3,512

8,160

Freeways and Expressways (Urban)

15,565

20,673

20,874

17,705

16,009

9,830

2,643

5,629

7,180

2,786

Principal Arterial (Urban)

16,654

26,366

28,571

19,157

18,331

17,263

12,624

14,380

16,608

13,538

Minor Arterial (Urban)

16,139

19,921

22,961

15,452

13,118

10,694

9,924

9,440

8,266

8,519

77

85

100

93

43

48

28

73

61

40

Interstate (Rural)

Collector (Urban)

Figure 11. Total Daily Delay (Vehicle Hours) – Adjusted

23

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Travel Time Reliability (Peak Hour) 100 90 80 70

%

60 50 40 30 20 10

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Interstate (Rural)

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Principal Arterial (Rural)

86

89

89

88

88

88

88

86

86

87

Minor Arterial (Rural)

82

82

83

78

89

90

90

93

93

92

Major Collector (Rural)

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Interstate (Urban)

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Freeways & Expressways (Urban)

73

73

75

79

80

81

83

69

70

71

Principal Arterial (Urban)

34

35

37

37

34

35

35

35

34

34

Minor Arterial (Urban)

13

14

14

15

15

16

17

17

17

17

Figure 12. Travel Time Reliability (Peak Hour) 24

2014 Annual Mobility Report

LOS on Rural Facilities On rural facilities, the percent of miles meeting the LOS criteria during the peak period has not changed. All of the interstates, minor arterials and major collectors currently operate at a LOS D or better according to the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database. About 95 percent of the rural principal arterials operate at LOS D and this percent has not changed. Figure 13 summarizes the percent- miles traveled meeting LOS criteria on rural facilities. Table 12 summarizes the trend for the last five years.

Table 12. Percent of Rural Miles Meeting LOS Criteria Items Percent of Rural Miles Meeting LOS Criteria

2008 99.42

2009 99.72

2010 99.72

2011 99.45

2012 99.68

Accessibility The accessibility performance measures are not anticipated to change significantly from year to year; therefore a benchmark in this report is not appropriate. Based on analysis conducted as part of the Congestion Management Plan, about 46% of all residential households present within the North Florida region have a transit stop within the quarter-mile radius and 87% of all residential households within North Florida are located within a five-mile radius of a park and ride lot. This value is not anticipated to change significantly from year to year.

Utilization of the System System Lane Miles To understand changes that have occurred with system utilization is useful to first understand the changes in the network that have occurred over time. Since 2008, 63 lane miles of capacity have been added to the network in North Florida.

Table 13. System Lane Miles Item System Lane Miles

2008 3,371

2009 3,398

2010 3,405

2011 3,413

2012 3,434

Percent Miles Severely Congested The urban interstate system was the most congested system on a per mile basis for much of the analysis period from 2003 to 2012. Between 2011 and 2012 there was a drop in the miles of congestion such that the urban freeway and expressway roadways are less congested. This change is likely a result of traffic diverting with the opening of SR 9B and the improvements at the I-95/I-10 interchange being completed.

The data available shows that the percentage of the miles severely congested is declining for all facility types and area types. This is a result of new facilities opening within the region and the reduction in vehicle-miles traveled. Figure 14 shows the trend since 2003.

25

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Percent Miles Meeting LOS Criteria (Peak Period) - Rural Facilities 100

90

%

80

70

60

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Interstate (Rural)

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Principal Arterial (Rural)

95

94

94

94

96

96

95

97

94

95

Minor Arterial (Rural)

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Major Collector (Rural)

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Figure 13. Percent of Rural Miles Meeting LOS Criteria

26

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Percent Miles Severely Congested (Peak Hour) 25

20

%

15

10

5

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Interstate (Rural)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Principal Arterial (Rural)

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

Minor Arterial (Rural)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Major Collector (Rural)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Interstate (Urban)

14

12

14

17

22

12

24

12

18

8

Freeways & Expressways (Urban)

11

12

13

14

10

8

6

10

11

9

Principal Arterial (Urban)

9

11

13

9

9

9

6

5

5

5

Minor Arterial (Urban)

5

5

5

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

Figure 14. Percent Miles Severely Congested During the Peak Hour

27

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Vehicles per Lane per Hour The number of vehicles that operate on each facility per lane mile demonstrates the utilization of each functional classification within the highway network. Urban interstate facilities serve significantly more vehicles per lane-mile than the other functional classifications. The trends observed with this performance measure are consistent with the other system utilization and person-mile traveled trends.

Table 14 summarizes the vehicles per lane per hour from 2008 to 2012. Figure 15 shows the trend since 2003.

Table 14. Vehicles per Lane per Hour (Peak Hour) Item 2008 Vehicles per Lane per Hour 642.1

2009 633.9

2010 622.8

2011 620.2

2012 604.3

Duration of Congestion The duration of congestion, or the average number of hours LOS E or F exists on the network was analyzed and consistent with other measures, there has been a decline in the duration of congestion. In 2003-2009 the average duration of congestion on urban interstate facilities was 2 hours. Since 2009 the average is 1 hour or less. This data is rounded by the FDOT Mobility Performance Measures database.

Figure 16 shows the trend since 2003.

Number of Passengers per Revenue Mile The number of passengers per revenue mile within the region increased significantly year over year for the last five years. This trend shows that the increase in ridership previously discussed is a result of more people using services than growth based on significant changes in the services provided. As shown in Table 15, the number of revenue miles JTA operates has actually been reduced while ridership has increased. Table 16 summarizes the passengers per revenue mile.

Table 15. Revenue Miles Transit System Jacksonville Transportation Authority St. Johns County Council on Aging (The Sunshine Bus Company) Total Table 16. Passengers per Revenue Mile Transit System Jacksonville Transportation Authority St. Johns County Council on Aging (The Sunshine Bus Company) Average

2008 9,780,214

2009 9,098,872

2010 9,384,591

2011 9,162,689

2012 9,018,194

388,277 10,168,491

349,987 9,448,859

457,381 9,841,972

478,647 9,641,336

466,125 9,484,319

2008 5.57

2009 6.03

2010 6.65

2011 7.62

2012 7.85

2.87

2.89

2.98

3.50

4.20

5.47

5.91

6.48

7.42

7.67

28

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Vehicles per Lane per Hour (Peak Hour) 1,800 1,600 Vehicles per Lane per Hour

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 -

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Interstate Rural

621

618

631

661

670

658

668

662

677

643

Princiapal Arterial

312

296

303

317

298

296

288

285

281

267

Minor Arterial

298

286

279

299

277

269

269

253

234

233

Major Collector

121

129

121

125

145

121

113

121

113

113

Interstate Urban

1,437

1,422

1,492

1,557

1,585

1,390

1,480

1,363

1,379

1,330

Freeways

934

952

936

1,085

1,062

1,035

979

858

866

830

Princiapal Arterial

548

575

575

562

549

534

502

506

500

486

Minor Arterial

420

436

440

418

413

402

391

397

385

383

Collector

172

335

284

274

278

219

275

403

371

341

Figure 15. Vehicles per Lane Mile in the Peak Hour

29

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Hours Severely Congested (Daily) 2.5

2

Hours

1.5

1

0.5

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Interstate (Rural)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Principal Arterial (Rural)

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

Minor Arterial (Rural)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Major Collector (Rural)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Interstate (Urban)

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

Freeways & Expressways (Urban)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Principal Arterial (Urban)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Minor Arterial (Urban)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Collector (Urban)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

Figure 16. Duration of Congestion (Hours)

30

2014 Annual Mobility Report

I-95 Corridor Analysis The FDOT, in partnership with North Florida TPO, deployed Bluetooth devices along major roadways within the North Florida region to obtain real-time data. Figure 7 shows the location of the BlueToad device deployments planned within the North Florida TPO governing boundary. Approximately 60 percent of devices were deployed successfully. Figure 8 shows the BlueToad devices currently active within the North Florida TPO boundary.

Travel time and speed data was collected utilizing the Bluetooth devices along roadways within the North Florida region and historical data is stored on the BlueToad website. The travel time and speed data collection through the Bluetooth device deployment is an ongoing process and the system is being updated continuously to collect consistent data.

As part of the CMP, the I-95 corridor was chosen to conduct a reliability analysis utilizing the travel time and speed data collected by the Bluetooth devices. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the year-to-year changes on this roadway.

Data was downloaded from the BlueToad website during the same 5-week period used in 2013 Sunday, January 27th, 2014 and Saturday, March 2nd, 2014. A minimum of one month’s data is essential on corridors to perform statistically significant reliability analysis. The I-95 corridor within the limits of the study area is composed of eight segments each along the northbound and southbound direction.

The pair ID and the description of these segments are listed below: I-95 Northbound Direction:        

Pair ID 4267 – South of Race Track Road to I-295 Pair ID 4270 – I-295 to North of Baymeadows Road Pair ID 3604 – North of Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road Pair ID 4272 – Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge Pair ID 4248 – Acosta Bridge to Kings Road Pair ID 4274 – Kings Road to Heckscher Drive Pair ID 4276 – Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road Pair ID 7441 – Pecan Park Road to SR 200

I-95 Southbound Direction:        

Pair ID 7442 – SR 200 to Pecan Park Road Pair ID 4277 – Pecan Park Road to Heckscher Drive Pair ID 4275 – Heckscher Drive to Kings Road Pair ID 4249 – Kings Road to Acosta Bridge Pair ID 4273 – Acosta Bridge to Bowden Road Pair ID 3603 – Bowden Road to North of Baymeadows Road Pair ID 4271 – North of Baymeadows Road to I-295 Pair ID 4269 – I-295 to South of Race Track Road

31

BlueToad Device Locations Active within the North Florida TPO Boundary

Figure 17 Page 32

BlueToad Device Locations Planned within the North Florida TPO Boundary

Figure 18 Page 33

2014 Annual Mobility Report The travel time and speed information obtained for these roadway segments was available over 15minute intervals for 24 hours a day. A total of 3,360 (35 days times 96, 15-minute intervals) data records should have been available if the Bluetooth units collected the data continuously over the five-week time-period. Although the availability of data that was available improved from the prior analysis, consistent data records could not be obtained over the study period for several segments. The data records that were available for each segment during the 5-week period were analyzed. The segments are as listed below: I-95 Northbound Direction:   

Pair ID 4270 – I-295 to North of Baymeadows Road - 0 Records - (100percent Data Missing) Pair ID 3604 – North of Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road - 0 Records – (100percent Data Missing) Pair ID 4272 – Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge - 0 Records - (100percent Data Missing)

I-95 Southbound Direction:   

Pair ID 4273 – Acosta Bridge to Bowden Road - 0 Records - (100percent Data Missing) Pair ID 3603 – Bowden Road to North of Baymeadows Road - 0 Records - (100percent Data Missing) Pair ID 4271 – North of Baymeadows Road to I-295 - 0 Records - (100percent Data Missing)

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 17 and shown in Figures 19 and 20. Red highlights on the figures indicate where reliability is less than 95 percent. Green highlights on the table show where improvements were identified. Yellow is a small decline and red where a significant decline was identified.

The most significant change in the reliability occurred on the northbound segment between SR 105 Heckscher Drive and SR 200. The performance of these rural segments was negatively impacted by several crashes that occurred during this period.

It is anticipated that enhancements will be performed on the BlueToad data collection technology in the coming months and more data should be available for future updates. The improvements will enhance the consistency and quality of the data. Additional coverage into the beaches, Clay and St. Johns counties will also be provided.

In addition, the construction of the I-95 overland bridge project had a significant impact on the availability of data. Future year analysis will provide a more detailed look at the impacts of construction of the reliability and operations during construction operations.

34

2014 Annual Mobility Report Table 17. Summary of I-95 Corridor Reliability, I-95 Southbound

From

To

Pecan Park Road SR 200 Buccaneer Trail SR 105 Heckscher Drive US 1 Kings Road Acosta Bridge Bowden Road SR 152 Baymeadows Road

SR 200 Buccaneer Trail SR 105 Heckscher Drive US 1 Kings Road Acosta Bridge Bowden Road SR 152 Baymeadows Road I-295

I-295 SR 152 Baymeadows Road Bowden Road Acosta Bridge US 1 Kings Road SR 105 Heckscher Drive Pecan Park Road

SR 152 Baymeadows Road Bowden Road Acosta Bridge US 1 Kings Road SR 105 Heckscher Drive Pecan Park Road SR 200 Buccaneer Trail

Pecan Park Road SR 200 Buccaneer Trail SR 105 Heckscher Drive US 1 Kings Road Acosta Bridge Bowden Road SR 152 Baymeadows Road

SR 200 Buccaneer Trail SR 105 Heckscher Drive US 1/SR 23 Kings Road Acosta Bridge Bowden Road SR 152 Baymeadows Road I-295

Free Flow Speed (MPH) February 2013 I-95 Southbound 75.0 75.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 I-95 Northbound 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 75.0 75.0 February 2014 I-95 Southbound 75.0 75.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0

Maximum Average Speed (MPH)

Unreliable Speed (MPH)

Reliability (%)

Duration of Unreliability (hours)

81.6 72.1 67.6 78.5 58.6

65.0 65.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

98.93% 99.91% 98.27% 93.26% 99.91%

0.50 0.25 2.25

78.5 67.6 72.1 81.6

50.0 50.0 65.0 65.0

98.27% 99.91% 98.93% 95.86%

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50

79.7 74.6 67.1 78.5 -

65.0 65.0 50.0 50.0 -

97.56% 91.36% 99.82% 96.78% -

0.25 0.75 0.25 0.25

35

2014 Annual Mobility Report

From

I-295 SR 152 Baymeadows Road Bowden Road Acosta Bridge US 1 Kings Road SR 105 Heckscher Drive Pecan Park Road

Pecan Park Road SR 200 Buccaneer Trail SR 105 Heckscher Drive US 1 Kings Road Acosta Bridge Bowden Road SR 152 Baymeadows Road I-295 SR 152 Baymeadows Road Bowden Road Acosta Bridge US 1 Kings Road SR 105 Heckscher Drive Pecan Park Road

To

Free Flow Speed (MPH)

Maximum Average Speed (MPH)

I-95 Northbound 60.0 SR 152 Baymeadows Road 60.0 Bowden Road 60.0 Acosta Bridge 60.0 US 1 Kings Road 60.0 SR 105 Heckscher Drive 75.0 Pecan Park Road 75.0 SR 200 Buccaneer Trail Change from 2013 to 2014 I-95 Southbound 75.0 SR 200 Buccaneer Trail 75.0 SR 105 Heckscher Drive 60.0 US 1 Kings Road 60.0 Acosta Bridge 60.0 Bowden Road 60.0 SR 152 Baymeadows Road 60.0 I-295 I-95 Northbound 60.0 SR 152 Baymeadows Road 60.0 Bowden Road 60.0 Acosta Bridge 60.0 US 1 Kings Road 60.0 SR 105 Heckscher Drive 75.0 Pecan Park Road 75.0 SR 200 Buccaneer Trail

Unreliable Speed (MPH)

Reliability (%)

Duration of Unreliability (hours)

78.5 73.1 79.4

50.0 50.0 65.0 65.0

94.46% 75.40% 92.89%

1.00 5.50 2.50

(1.9) 2.5 (0.5) -

65.0 65.0 50.0 50.0 -

-1.37% -8.55% 1.55% 3.52% -

(0.25) 0.50 0.25 0.25 -

1.0 (2.2)

50.0 65.0 65.0

-3.81% 0.00% -23.53% -2.97%

0.75 5.25 2.00

36

I-95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200

Speed (MPH)

80

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS)

60

Max. of Ave. Speed

40 20 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

0

Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 75 MPH 79.7 MPH 65 MPH 97.56% 0.25 hours

Time of Day

I-95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road

Speed (MPH)

80

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS)

60

Max. of Ave. Speed

40

Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

20 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

0

Values 75 MPH 74.6 MPH 65 MPH 91.36% 0.25 hours

Time of Day

I-95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive

Speed (MPH)

80

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS)

60

Max. of Ave. Speed

40 20 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

0

Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 60 MPH 67.1 MPH 50 MPH 99.82% 0.25 hours

Time of Day

I-95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road

Speed (MPH)

80

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS)

60

Max. of Ave. Speed

40 20 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

0

Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 60 MPH 78.5 MPH 50 MPH 96.78% 0.75 hours

Time of Day

No Data Available I-95 from I-295 to Baymeadows Road I-95 from Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road I-95 from Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge Speed (MPH)

80

I-95 from Race Track Road to I-295

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS)

60 40

Max. of Ave. Speed

20

Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

0

Average of Speed (mph)

Time of Day Min of Speed (mph)

Values 60 MPH 61.0 MPH 50 MPH 95.20% 0.25 hours

Max of Speed (mph)

Figure 19 I-95 Northbound Speed Variation Chart and Reliability

Page 37

I-95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS)

Speed (MPH)

80 60

Max. of Ave. Speed

40

Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

20 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

0

Values 75 MPH 79.40 MPH 65 MPH 92.89% 2.5 hours

Time of Day

Speed (MPH)

80

I-95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road

60

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS)

40

Max. of Ave. Speed

20 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

0

Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 75 MPH 73.10 MPH 65 MPH 75.40% 5.5 hours

Time of Day

No Data Available I-95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive

I-95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road

Speed (MPH)

80

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS)

60

Max. of Ave. Speed

40 20 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

0

Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

Values 60 MPH 78.50 MPH 50 MPH 94.46% 1.00 hours

Time of Day

No Data Available I-95 from I-295 to Baymeadows Road I-95 from Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road I-95 from Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge

Speed (MPH)

80

I-95 from Race Track Road to I-295

Measure of Effectiveness Free Flow Speed (FFS)

60

Max. of Ave. Speed

40 20 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30

0

Average of Speed (mph)

Time of Day Min of Speed (mph)

Max of Speed (mph)

Values 60 MPH 67.7 MPH

Unreliable Speed Reliability Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours)

50 MPH n/a (*)

(*) – Insufficient data was available to estimate reliability

Figure 20 I-95 Southbound Speed Variation Chart and Reliability

n/a (*)

Page 38

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Summary In 2013, the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) completed a Congestion Management Process that included the development of performance measure trends and analysis. The Congestion Management Process identified congested corridors and recommended strategies and tactics to address these corridors. This report identifies mobility trends occurring in the North Florida TPO planning boundary.

In 2012, the trend of declining vehicle usage continued with the vehicle-miles traveled with a 2.4 percent reduction in the person miles traveled by automobile. Since 2008, automobile use has declined within the region by 5.7 percent. These declines in vehicle use are believed to be the result of the economic downturn, changing travel patterns associated with an aging population and younger driver’s reduced automobile dependence. The exception to this reduction is an increase in the truck miles traveled within the region. Over the last five years, truck traffic is down 16.4 percent overall, but saw a 1.6 percent increase in 2012 compared to 2011 reflecting the beginning of the economic recovery.

Although transit use in North Florida continues to be less than 1 percent of all person travel miles, transit use continued to rise with a 1.8 percent annual increase from 2011 to 2012. Since 2008, transit use in the area has increased by 30.8 percent.

The reduction in automobile use and increase in transit use combined with the opening of 62 additional lane miles of highways between 2008 and 2012. These improvements included facilities such as the opening of SR 9B from I-295 to US 1 and resulted in significant benefits in the quality of travel within the region. Average speeds during the peak periods improved by 2.73 percent from 2008 to 2012 and 0.65 percent from 2011 to 2012. These average speeds resulted in a positive economic impact to the local economy of $280 million per year.

Travel is anticipated in increase in the region for the next five years as a result of the economic recovery and new growth within the region. The demand for travel is anticipated to return to prerecession levels by the year 2018 and improvements to enhance our mobility are needed to meet these needs.

A significant number of major projects to address system bottlenecks and add new capacity to our transportation system are scheduled to be completed and open by 2018. These major projects will have positive benefits to the travelers and a summary is provided in Table 19.

A significant number of major projects to address system bottlenecks and add new capacity to our transportation system are scheduled to be completed and open for traffic by 2018. These major projects will have positive benefits to the travelers of the region and summary is provided in Table 19.

39

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Table 18. Summary of Performance Measures Item Vehicle‐miles Traveled (Daily) in thousands Vehicle‐miles Traveled (Peak Hour) in thousands Person Miles Traveled (Daily) in thousands Person Miles Traveled (Peak Hour) in thousands Truck Miles Traveled (Daily) in thousands Transit Ridership (thousands) Average Travel Speed (Peak Hour) Delay (Daily) Travel Time Reliability (Daily) percent Miles Meeting LOS Criteria (Daily) Rural Facilities Transit Coverage Percent Miles Severely Congested (Peak Hour) Percent Travel Severely Congested (Daily) Percent Travel Severely Congested (Peak Hour) Hours Severely Congested (Daily) Hours Severely Congested (Yearly) Vehicle per lane Miles (Peak Hour) in hundreds Passengers per Revenue Mile

2008 2009 2010 2011 Quantity of Travel 26,997 26,629 26,310 26,081 2,161 2,132 2,105 2,087 44,081 43,507 43,000 42,646 3,520 3,472 3,432 3,403 2,249 2,139 1,866 1,851 55,640 55,884 63,755 72,785 Quality of Travel 51.38 50.92 52.13 52.03 18,316 14,782 11,740 13,211 68.95 69.77 69.41 69.59 99.42 99.72 99.72 99.45

System Utilization 5.26 6.49 4.41 5.52 2.83 4.08 2.52 3.75 0.23 0.34 0.21 0.31 0.81 1.10 0.81 0.80 153.94 226.70 105.04 184.41 642.1 633.9 622.8 620.2 5.47 5.91 6.48 7.42

2012 25,474 2,036 41,640 3,323 1,880 72,785 52.38 12,244 69.26 99.68

3.64 2.43 0.20 0.80 120.45 604.3 7.67

40

2014 Annual Mobility Report

Table 19. Major Improvements Proposed to Open by 2018 Facility From

Improvement

SR 23 First Coast Expressway SR 9B Crawford Road JIA Access Road US 301

New expressway New four‐lane road New two‐lane road New four‐lane road New four‐lane road

I‐295 I‐295 (Buchman Bridge) SR 21 Blanding Boulevard SR A1A/SR 200 US 301 I‐10 I‐10 I‐10 I‐10 I‐95 I‐95 BRT Southwest Corridor BRT East Corridor BRT Southeast Corridor BRT North Corridor

To

New Roads Blanding Boulevard I‐10 I‐95 SR 5/US 1 Philips Highway CR 121 US 301 Airport Road Pecan Park Road Baldwin Bypass

Widening Projects I‐95 SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard SR 5/US 17 Park Street SR 13 San Jose Boulevard CR 218 Allie Murray Road I‐95 Scott Road Baldwin Callahan Interchange Projects I‐295

SR 5/US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard Hammond Boulevard

I‐295

SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard

I‐295 North

Major Transit Service

Add two express lanes Add two express lanes Widen to six lanes Widen to six lanes Widen to four‐lanes Interchange Modifications Interchange Modifications New Interchange Interchange Modifications Interchange Modifications Interchange Modifications Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit

41

This page is intentionally blank.