Issuu on Google+

2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FINAL REPORT

PATHFORWARD2040.COM


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE T HE P ATH F ORWARD 2040 L ONG R ANGE T RANSPORTATION P LAN PROPOSES NEW STRATEGIES AND PROJECTS TO ACT BOLDLY TO DEFINE THE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS THAT WILL SHAPE OUR

COMMUNITY ’ S FUTURE FOR DECADES TO COME . North Florida, like many great regions, began as a hub for commerce and transportation. Our six county region consisting of Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, Putnam and St. Johns Counties consists of an area of over 3,900 square miles and 1.4 million citizens. It includes some of our nation’s first ports, cities and roads. Our history as a transportation center shaped our region’s past and will drive our future.

foundation for that process through the year 2040 that will meet the challenges of today’s congestion and tomorrow’s growth. Every five years, the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) updates the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to guide decision making and investment in our transportation system. Transportation projects must be included in the plan to receive state and federal funding, and all projects in the plan must have the projected cost and funding source identified. The plan is required to have at least a 20-year horizon and address major road, transit, freight, bike and pedestrian needs. Since the 2035 update was completed in 2009, we’ve experienced changes in our economy that affect how we live, travel and pay for transportation improvements. The LRTP proposes new strategies and projects to act boldly to define the transportation investments that will shape our community’s future for decades to come. However, our needs greatly exceed the anticipated revenues. In today’s dollars we have more than $27 billion of needs versus $7 billion in funding. Considering inflation over the 22-year plan horizon, those needs increase to $46 billion with only $14.8 billion in revenues available.

Roads, bridges, airports, railroads and seaports deliver the goods we consume each day. About 160 million tons of freight are transported throughout the region by truck, rail, air and water each year. These activities are a major engine driving our economy. But, our future as America’s Logistics Center is in danger because of traffic congestion. Traffic congestion slows the movement of people and goods that makes this region vital and prosperous. Every day we travel to work, to school, for shopping and recreation. By the year 2040, we’ll have nearly 1.9 million residents. Our region will grow by approximately 600,000 people, 265,000 households and 300,000 jobs. This growth in population will significantly increase the demand for safe, reliable and accessible transportation. Not only will we have more demand for transportation, but the mobility needs of our residents are changing too. For many, access to transit and the ability to walk to work or shop may be more important than driving. Transit use is on the rise and our residents have told us they want more access to reliable and efficient public transportation. Our older generation needs more choices for personal mobility that do not rely on automobiles and younger generations are choosing more active lifestyles that include bicycles and walking. Concerns about the environment are also changing the way we travel with more travelers choosing alternative fuels and ridesharing options to reduce their carbon footprint.

To maximize our return on investment, our plan proposes strategies such as express lanes and transportation systems management and operations projects. Other strategic investments such as transit, context sensitive solutions and dedicated revenues for bicycle and pedestrian improvements will provide mode choices to enhance mobility and livability within the region. Investments in our multimodal systems to move freight will be the catalyst for continued economic prosperity to enhance our region’s competitiveness. After an extensive planning and community outreach process, the North Florida TPO adopted the LRTP November 13, 2014.

Building roads, transit and other transportation infrastructure doesn’t happen overnight. It takes years of planning and coordination and this plan forms the

This report summarizes the planning process and the adopted plan.

i


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT This report is organized as follows.

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

Travel Demand Forecasting

This section sets the stage for the plan by describing our region and providing a review of trends and conditions. A summary of the organization of this report is also provided to assist the reader in identifying the key elements of the plan and major components.

A summary of the anticipated growth and future demand for transportation services is provided that is based on the developing a regional travel demand forecasting model used in the planning process.

Freight and Intermodal Systems

PART TWO: PLANNING PROCESS

As part of the development of the LRTP, existing commodity flows and future demand for freight transportation systems were developed. This section provides a summary of that analysis.

Part Two outlines the planning process and is organized as follows:

Goals and Objectives This section summarizes the goals, objectives, performance measures and implementing polices that were adopted as part of the planning process.

Financial Resources A forecast of the financial resources anticipated to be available for use in the plan is summarized in this section. The plan considered federal, state and local resources that are anticipated to be available through the planning horizon of 2040.

Consistency with Federal and State Requirements This section outlines the federal and state metropolitan planning requirements and demonstrates the consistency of the plan with these requirements.

Environmental Considerations This section summarizes the process used to consider the potential environmental consequences of the plan through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process established by the FDOT. A summary of the systemwide approach to mitigation of projects is also identified.

Safety and Security This plan builds on the North Florida TPO’s Strategic Safety Plan which was adopted in 2012 and provided a foundation for identifying the needs and priorities for safety investments.

Public Involvement

Congestion Management Process

The public involvement process used as part of the plan and the involvement results are summarized as part of this report. The section also summarizes the actions that were used to engage the underserved and address the federal requirements for Environmental Justice and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The North Florida TPO maintains a Congestion Management Process which identifies trends and conditions for congestion within the area, congested facilities and strategies and tactics for addressing that congestion. This section summarizes the use of the Congestion Management Plan in the planning process.

Plan Alternatives

Completed and Committed Construction

A summary of the plan alternatives considered as part of the planning process is summarized.

As a foundation of the planning process, this plan documents the major projects that were completed since adopting the 2035 LRTP and the projects with commitments to construction within the next five years as part of the Transportation Improvement Program, the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT’s) Adopted Work Program and local agency capital improvement plans. ii


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Referenced Documents

PART THREE: ROAD CAPACITY

To supplement this report more detailed information is provided in the following technical memoranda and appendices provided on a DVD included with this report.

Within Part Three, a summary of the needs and projects adopted as part of the Cost Feasible Plan are summarized. The following plan elements were identified:  

Needs Plan Cost Feasible Plan - Strategic Intermodal System Funded Projects - Other Federal and State Funded Projects - Toll Funded Projects - Locally and Privately Funded Projects

     

PART FOUR: MULTIMODAL PROJECTS This section describes the multimodal projects identified in the plan that support providing mobility choices within the region. They include   

  

Transit Capacity Programs Active Transportation 1 Freight and Intermodal Planning Projects

A. Strategic Safety Plan B. Congestion Management Process and Annual Mobility Report C. Federal and State Revenue Forecast D. Efficient Transportation Decision MakingProject Summary E. FDOT Mitigation Plan and St. Johns River Water Management District Permitting Process F. Jacksonville to Atlanta High Speed Rail Corridor G. Jacksonville to Tampa Corridor of the Future H. Project Prioritization Scores I. Regional ITS and TSM&O Master Plan J. AASHTO Report on National Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure Footprint Analysis K. Needs Plan Project Costs and Purpose and Need Statements L. Cost Feasible Plan Master Project List

PART FIVE: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE The management and operations of the transportation system is essential for ensuring we get the most from our investments and can adequately maintain the system consistent with our preservation goals. The following elements are discussed    

Technical Memorandum #1 – Public Involvement Plan Technical Memorandum #2 – Goals and Objectives Technical Memorandum #3 – 2030 and 2040 Socioeconomic Data and Land Use Forecasts Technical Memorandum #4 – Model Validation Report Technical Memorandum #5 – Freight Modeling Technical Memorandum #6 – Financial Resources Technical Memorandum #7 – Existing Plus Committed Projects Technical Memorandum #8 – Needs Plan Technical Memorandum #9 – Context Sensitive Solutions Guidelines Technical Memorandum #10 – Cost Feasible Plan

Safety and Security Transportation Systems Management and Operations Autonomous and Connected Vehicles Operations and Maintenance

Part Six: Plan Summary Part Six provides a summary of the plan addressing measures of effectiveness and demonstrates the balance achieved in the plan from a modal and geographic equity distribution by county.

1

Active Transportation Projects include bicycle and pedestrian projects and mobility enhancements to support transit. iii


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

CONTENTS Executive Summary: Investing in Our Future --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i Organization of this Report ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii Contents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ iv List of Figures------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- v List of Tables ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- viii List of Acronyms --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x Study Participants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ xi Part One: Introduction Planning Process Overview ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1 Regional Overview --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-3 Part Two: Planning Process Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Implementing Policies --------------------------------------------------- 2-1 Consistency with Federal and State Plans ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-9 Safety and Security------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-21 Congestion Management Process ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-25 Completed and Committed Construction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-31 Travel Demand Forecasting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-39 Freight and Intermodal Systems -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-47 Financial Resources ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-65 Environmental Considerations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-69 Public Involvement------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-75 Plan Alternatives-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-107 Part Three: Road Projects Needs Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1 Cost Feasible Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-15 Strategic Intermodal Systems Funded Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-33 Other Federally and State Funded Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-37 Toll Funded Projects ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-45 Locally and Privately Funded Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-47 Part Four: Multimodal Projects Transit Capacity Programs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-1 Active Transportation and Context Sensitive Solutions --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-27 Freight and Intermodal Systems ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-53 Part Five: Systems Management, Operations and Maintenance Transportation Systems Management and Operations ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1 Autonomous and Connected Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5-11 Safety and Security------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-13 Operations and Maintence -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-17 Part Six: Plan Summary Measures of Effectiveness ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-1 Balancing the Plan---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-5

iv


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Attachements and Appendices (on DVD) Technical Memorandum #1 – Public Involvement Plan Technical Memorandum #2 – Goals and Objectives Technical Memorandum #3 – 2030 and 2040 Socioeconomic Data and Land Use Forecasts Technical Memorandum #4 – Model Validation Report Technical Memorandum #5 – Freight Modeling Technical Memorandum #6 – Financial Resources Technical Memorandum #7 – Existing Plus Committed Projects Technical Memorandum #8 – Needs Plan Technical Memorandum #9 – Context Sensitive Solutions Guidelines Technical Memorandum #10 – Cost Feasible Plan A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L.

Strategic Safety Plan Congestion Management Process and Annual Mobility Report Federal and State Revenue Forecast Efficient Transportation Decision Making Project Summary FDOT Mitigation Plan and St. Johns River Water Management District Permitting Process Jacksonville to Atlanta High Speed Rail Corridor Jacksonville to Tampa Corridor of the Future Project Prioritization Scores Regional ITS and TSM&O Master Plan AASHTO Report on National Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure Footprint Analysis Needs Plan Project Costs and Purpose and Need Statements Cost Feasible Plan Master Project List

v


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Summary of Major Plan Components and Milestones --------------------------------------------------------------- 1-2 Figure 1-2. North Florida TPO Region Map -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-4 Figure 1-3. Strategic Intermodal System Regional ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-5 Figure 1-4. Strategic Intermodal Sysem Inset Map ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-6 Figure 2-1. Priroty Safety and Congestion Management Corridors ------------------------------------------------------------ 2-23 Figure 2-2. Completed and Committed Projects ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-32 Figure 2-3. Changes in Screenline Volumes from 2010 to 2040 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2-45 Figure 2-4. Summary of GDP Forecasts ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-52 Figure 2-5. 2040 Moderate TEU Port Forecast -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-54 Figure 2-6. 2040 Aggressive TEU Port Forecast – Loaded and Empties ------------------------------------------------------- 2-55 Figure 2-7. 2040 Moderate TEU Port Forecast – Loaded and Empties -------------------------------------------------------- 2-56 Figure 2-8. 2040 Moderate Forecast of Rail Intermodal -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-58 Figure 2-9. 2040 Aggressive Forecast of Rail Intermoal--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-59 Figure 2-10. 2010 Truck Volumes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-63 Figure 2-11. 2040 Truck Volumes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-64 Figure 2-12. Efficient Transportation Decision Making Planning Process ---------------------------------------------------- 2-71 Figure 2-13. St. Johns River Water Management District Wetland Mitigation Banks ------------------------------------- 2-73 Figure 2-14. Interactive Priority Map -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-80 Figure 2-15. Visits and Use of Allocation Game ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-81 Figure 2-16. Reported Priorities in Asset Allocation Game ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-82 Figure 2-17. Summary of Budget Allocation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-83 Figure 2-18. Summary Brochure -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-86 Figure 2-19. Example of Future City Physical Model------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-87 Figure 2-20. Crash Severity Hot Spots ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-92 Figure 2-21. Congestion Hot Spots ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-93 Figure 2-22. Comparison of Priorities from Multiple Sources ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-97 Figure 2-23. Summary of Funding Allocation Compared to Public Priority ------------------------------------------------ 2-101 Figure 2-24. Percent of Need Met by Mode --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-102 Figure 2-25. 2010 Base Year Deficiencies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-111 Figure 2-26. 2040 No Build Deficiencies -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-112 Figure 2-27. 2040 Needs Plan Trend Scenario Deficiencies -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-113 Figure 2-28. 2040 Needs Plan Alternate Land Use Scenario Deficiencies -------------------------------------------------- 2-114 Figure 3-1. Regional Road Capacity Needs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-2 Figure 3-2. Baker County Road Capacity Needs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-3 Figure 3-3. Clay County Road Capacity Needs----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-4 Figure 3-4. Duval County Road Capacity Needs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-5 Figure 3-5. Nassau County Road Capacity Needs------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-6 Figure 3-6. Putnam County Road Capacity Needs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-7 Figure 3-7. St. Johns County Road Capacity Needs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-8 Figure 3-8. Roadway Funded Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-28 Figure 3-9. Clay County Funded Roadway Projects -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-29 Figure 3-10. Duval County Funded Roadway Projects----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-31 Figure 3-12. St. Johns County Funded Roadway Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-32 Figure 4-1. Transit Needs BRT, Commuter Rail, Skyway and Streetcar --------------------------------------------------------- 4-2 Figure 4-2. Transit Needs Local and Express Bus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-3 Figure 4-3. Baker County Transit Needs Commuter Rail --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-4 Figure 4-4. Baker County Transit Needs Local Bus Service ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-5 vi


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Figure 4-5. Clay County Transit Project Needs BRT and Commuter Rail ------------------------------------------------------- 4-6 Figure 4-6. Clay County Transit Projects Needs Local and Express Bus --------------------------------------------------------- 4-7 Figure 4-7. Duval County Transit Project Needs BRT, Commuter Rail, Skyway and Streetcar ----------------------------- 4-8 Figure 4-8. Duval County Transit Project Needs Local and Express Bus Service ---------------------------------------------- 4-9 Figure 4-9. Nassau County Transit Project Needs BRT, Commuter Rail, Skyway and Streetcar ------------------------- 4-10 Figure 4-10. Nassau County Transit Project Needs Local and Express Bus --------------------------------------------------- 4-11 Figure 4-11. Putnam County Transit Project Needs Commuter Rail ----------------------------------------------------------- 4-12 Figure 4-12. Putnam County Transit Project Needs Local Bus Service -------------------------------------------------------- 4-13 Figure 4-13. St. Johns County Transit Project Needs BRT and Commuter Rail ---------------------------------------------- 4-14 Figure 4-14. St. Johns County Transit Project Needs Local Bus Service ------------------------------------------------------- 4-15 Figure 4-15. Cost Feasible Plan Transit BRT, Commuter Rail, Skyway and Streetcar -------------------------------------- 4-19 Figure 4-16. Cost Feasible Plan Clay County Transit Projects BRT and Commuter Rail ----------------------------------- 4-20 Figure 4-17. Cost Feasible Plan Duval County Transit Projects BRT, Commuter Rail, Skyway and Streetcar -------- 4-21 Figure 4-18. Cost Feasible Plan Nassau County Transit Projects BRT, Commuter Rail, Skyway and Streetcar ------ 4-22 Figure 4-19. Cost Feasible Plan St. Johns County Transit Projects BRT and Commuter Rail ----------------------------- 4-23 Figure 4-20. Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-28 Figure 4-21. Baker County Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridors -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-29 Figure 4-22. Clay County Florida Greenways and Trails and Priorities -------------------------------------------------------- 4-30 Figure 4-23. Duval County Greenways and Trails and Priorities ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4-31 Figure 4-24. Nassau County Greenways and Trails and Priorities -------------------------------------------------------------- 4-32 Figure 4-25. Putnam Greenways and Trails and Priorities ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-33 Figure 4-26. St. Johns Greenways and Trails and Priorities ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-34 Figure 4-27. Candidate Context Sensitive Solutions Corridors ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-40 Figure 4-28. Freght Needs Projects ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-55 Figure 4-29. Baker County Freight Needs Projects --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-56 Figure 4-30. Clay County Freight Needs Projects ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-57 Figure 4-31. Duval County Freight Needs Projects --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-58 Figure 4-32. Nassau County Freight Needs Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-59 Figure 4-33. Putnam County Freight Needs Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-60 Figure 4-34. St. Johns Freight Needs Projects --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-61 Figure 4-35. Cost Feasible Plan Freight Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-66 Figure 4-36. Clay County CFP Freight Projects -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-67 Figure 4-37. Duval County CFP Freight Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-68 Figure 4-38. Nassau County CFP Freight Projects ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-69 Figure 4-39. St. Johns County CFP Freight Projects -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-70 Figure 5-1. Safety and TSM&O Projects------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-2 Figure 5-2. Clay County Safety and TSM&O Projects -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-3 Figure 5-3. Duval County Safety and TSM&O Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5-4 Figure 5-4. Nassau Safety and TSM&O Projects -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-5 Figure 5-5. St. Johns Safety and TSM&O Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5-6 Figure 6-1. 2040 Cost Feasible Plan Deficiencies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-4

vii


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Population Growth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-11 Table 1-2. Employment Growth -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-11 Table 1-3. Summary of Recent Mobility Trends (average daily values) ------------------------------------------------------- 1-13 Table 1-4. Anticipated Changes to TripTravel Times (2010 to 2040) ---------------------------------------------------------- 1-13 Table 1-5. Total Tons of Commodities (millions of tons per year)-------------------------------------------------------------- 1-14 Table 2-1. Enhance Economic Development Objectives and Performance Measures -------------------------------------- 2-2 Table 2-2. Livability and Sustainability Objectives and Performance Measures ---------------------------------------------- 2-3 Table 2-3. Safety Objectives and Performance Measures -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-3 Table 2-4. Mobility and Accessibility Objectives and Performance Measures ------------------------------------------------ 2-4 Table 2-5. System Preservation Objectives and Performance Measures ------------------------------------------------------- 2-6 Table 2-6. Traceability Matrix ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-11 Table 2-7. Federal Planning Requirements ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-12 Table 2-8. State Planning Requirements---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-18 Table 2-9. Congested Facilities ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-27 Table 2-10. Major Projects Under Construction or Completed Since the 2035 Plan was Adopted -------------------- 2-33 Table 2-11. Major Road Projects with Construction Funding Committed ---------------------------------------------------- 2-36 Table 2-12. Major Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Projects with Construction Funding Committed ------------------ 2-37 Table 2-13. NERPM-AB Year 2010 and 2040 Population and Employment Control Totals ------------------------------- 2-42 Table 2-14. Employment in Trend and Alternate Land Use Scenarios -------------------------------------------------------- 2-43 Table 2-15. Year 2040 School Enrollment Projects versus Age Group Projections ----------------------------------------- 2-43 Table 2-16. Total Tonns of Commodities (millions per year) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-48 Table 2-17. Top Origins and Destinations of Truck Freight Passinng Through North Florida ---------------------------- 2-48 Table 2-18. Top Origins and Destinations of Rail Freight Passing Through North Florida -------------------------------- 2-49 Table 2-19. Summary of TEUs for North Florida Port Facilities (JAXPORT and Port of Fernandina) ------------------- 2-59 Table 2-20. Summary of Rail Intermodal Forecasts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-57 Table 2-21. Growth Factors for Trucks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-60 Table 2-22. Summary of Truck Model Inputs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-62 Table 2-23. Federal and State Revenues --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-66 Table 2-24. Local Revenue --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-67 Table 2-25. Summary of Funding Programs by Primary Decision-Making Authority -------------------------------------- 2-68 Table 2-26. On-line Asset Allocation Game ............................................................................................................. 2-78 Table 2-27. Interactive Priority Map Legend .......................................................................................................... 2-79 Table 2-28. Summary of Priority Strategies On-line Allocation Game ..................................................................... 2-82 Table 2-29. Budget Allocation from On-line Allocation Game................................................................................. 2-83 Table 2-30. Summary of Strategies from On-line Allocation Game ......................................................................... 2-84 Table 2-31. Summary of Demographic Information from On-line Allocation Game ............................................... 2-85 Table 2-32. Meeting Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2-88 Table 2-33. Summary of Public Meeting Advertisements ....................................................................................... 2-94 Table 2-34. Needs Plan Workshops Attendance...................................................................................................... 2-95 Table 2-35. Summary of Needs Plan Public Workshop Allocation Game ................................................................ 2-95 Table 2-36. Summary of Needs Plan Public Workshop Comments ......................................................................... 2-96 Table 2-37. Summary of Input by Percent Respondents ......................................................................................... 2-97 Table 2-38. Summary of Attendance at the Cost Feasible Plan Workshops ............................................................ 2-98 Table 2-39. Summary of Comments During Cost Feasible Plan Workshops ............................................................ 2-99 Table 2-40. Modal Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 2-100 Table 2-41. Organizations Serving Minority and Underserved Populations .......................................................... 2-103 Table 2-42. Major Improvements in Minority and Underserved Communities .................................................... 2-105 Table 2-43. Summary of Deficiency Analysis ......................................................................................................... 2-110 Table 2-44. Summary of Needs Versus Revenue in Present Day Dollars ............................................................... 2-115 viii


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3-1. Road Capacity Needs by County -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-9 Table 3-2. Road Capacity Needs in Ranked Order ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-17 Table 3-3. Strategic Intermodal System Projects ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-34 Table 3-4. Other State and Federally Projects--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-38 Table 3-5. Transportation Management Area Fund Projects -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-42 Table 3-6. Transportation Regional Incentive Program -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-43 Table 3-7. Projects Funded with Turnpike/Toll Revenue ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-46 Table 3-8. Clay County Locally Funded Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-48 Table 3-9. Duval County Locally Funded Projects (Non LOGT) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-48 Table 3-10. Duval County Locally Funded Projects from LOGT------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-49 Table 3-11. Nassau County Locally Funded Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-50 Table 3-12. St. Johns County Locally Funded Projects----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-50 Table 4-1. Transit Needs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-16 Table 4-2. Federal and State Transit Capacity Projects Cost Feasible Plan --------------------------------------------------- 4-24 Table 4-3. Summary of Funding Source for Transit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-25 Table 4-4. Dedicated Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Needs by County------------------------------------------------------- 4-35 Table 4-5. Candidate Context Sensitive Corridors ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-41 Table 4-6. Transit Accessibility and Mobility Enhancement Projects ---------------------------------------------------------- 4-42 Table 4-7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Prioritization ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-45 Table 4-8. Summary of Anticipated Expenditures for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects ----------------------------------- 4-49 Table 4-9. Candidate Context Sensitive Solution Funded Projects ------------------------------------------------------------ 4-50 Table 4-10. Duval County LOGT Transit Accessibility and Mobility and Transit Hub Projects --------------------------- 4-51 Table 4-11. Freight and Intermodal Needs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-62 Table 4-12. Freight and Intermodal Funded Projects------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-71 Table 5-1. TSM&O Needs------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-7 Table 5-2. Priority Safety Corridors ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-14 Table 5-3. Summary of Operations and Maintenance Costs--------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-18 Table 6-1. Summary of Measures of Effectiveness----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-2 Table 6-2. Total Expenditures by Fund for Capacity Programs -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-6 Table 6-3. Total Revenue and Expenditures for Balancing ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6-7 Table 6-4. Summary of Funds in Proportion to Needs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6-8 Table 6-5. Geographic Distribition ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-8 Table 6-6. Modal Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-9

ix


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

LIST OF ACRONYMS CBO CST DSB EST ETAT ENV FDOT FEC FHWA FTA GDP ITS JAXPORT LRTP MAP-21 MPO NERPM-AB OECD PD&E PE QOS ROW TDB TEU TPO TSM&O

Congressional Budget Office Construction Design Build Environmental Screening Tool Environmental Technical Advisory Team Environmental Florida Department of Transportation Florida East Coast Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Gross Domestic Product Intelligent Transportation Systems Jacksonville Port Authority Long Range Transportation Plan Moving Ahead Progress in the 21st Century Metropolitan Planning Organizations Northeast [Florida] Regional Planning Model - Activity Based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Project Development and Environment Preliminary Engineering Quality of Service Right of Way Toronto Dominion Bank Twenty-foot Equivalency Units Transportation Planning Organization Transportation Systems Management and Operations

x


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

STUDY PARTICIPANTS NORTH FLORIDA TPO BOARD CHAIRMAN Nancy Sikes-Kline, City of St. Augustine Commission VICE CHAIRMAN Doyle Carter, Jacksonville City Council TREASURER Diane Hutchings, Clay County Commission Brian Reaves, Nassau County Ocean, Highway and Port Authority Charlie Latham, Mayor, City of Jacksonville Beach Alvin Brown, Mayor, City of Jacksonville Reginald Brown, Jacksonville City Council Danny Leeper, Nassau County Commission Rachael Bennett, St. Johns County Commission Ed Fleming, JAXPORT Donna Harper, Jacksonville Transportation Authority Teresa Davlantes, Jacksonville Aviation Authority William Bishop, Jacksonville City Council Doug Conkey, Clay County Commission Carl Youman, St. Augustine/St. Johns Airport Authority EX OFFICIO MEMBERS James Croft, Baker County Chip Laibl, Putnam County Capt. Roy Undersander, U.S. Navy NON-VOTING ADVISER: Gregory Evans, P.E., FDOT District 2 Secretary

xi


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

NORTH FLORIDA TPO TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Jeff Beck, Clay County Engineering Department VICE CHAIRMAN Calvin Burney, Jacksonville Planning Neil Shinkre, St. Johns County Public Works Scott Herring, Nassau County Engineering Starling Kramer, Clay County Public Works Alaina Ray, Town of Orange Park Tom Morris, Clay County Utility Authority Phong Nguyen, St. Johns County Planning Steve Lindorff, Jacksonville Beach Planning Rick Carper, Atlantic Beach Public Works David Kaufman, JAXPORT Jim Robinson, City of Jacksonville Public Works Asst. Chief Dale Allen, Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office Mike Null, Green Cove Springs Planning Department David Buchanan, Town of Hilliard Martha Graham, St. Augustine Public Works Department Gary Larson, City of St. Augustine Beach Mayor Stan Totman, Town of Baldwin Bryan Spell, JEA Systems Planning Joseph Napoli, City of Jacksonville Environmental Quality Division Kevin Harvey, St. Augustine Airport Authority Karen Taulbee, Florida Department of Transportation Vincent Clark, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Todd Lindner, Jacksonville Aviation Authority Ed Lehman, Northeast Florida Regional Council Donald Jacobovitz, Putnam County Barbara Goodman, National Park Service Neil Nance, Jacksonville Transportation Authority Engineering Division Suraya Teeple, Jacksonville Transportation Authority Transit Division Shelby Jack, Town of Hastings Lisa Parlapiano, WorkSource Ron Braddock, Nassau County Ocean Highway and Port Authority Matt Schellhorn, U.S. Navy Peter King, Nassau County Planning Terry Suggs, City of Keystone Heights

xii


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

NORTH FLORIDA TPO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Bernie O’Connor, Duval County (at large) VICE CHAIRMAN Frank Riner, Town of Orange Park Richard Darby, Clay County (at large) James M. Lucas, Duval County (Beaches) Richard Berry, Duval County (North Citizens Planning Advisory Committee) Celia Miller, Duval County (Urban Core Citizens Planning Advisory Committee) Lin White, Duval County (at large) Larry Solomon, Duval County (Northwest Citizens Planning Advisory Committee) Lesley Davidson, Duval County (at large) Warren Butler, St. Johns County (at large) Barney Roberts, Duval County (at large) Terry Tillman, City of Baldwin Anita Warming, Duval County (at large) Heather Neville, City of St. Augustine Gene Brisach, Nassau County (at large) Vickie Breedlove, Duval County (at large) Jim Hill, Duval County (Southeast Citizens Planning Advisory Committee) Roger Sharp, Duval County (Arlington/Beaches Citizens Planning Advisory Committee) Martha Moore, Duval County (at large) Ken Amaro, Duval County (at large) Brian Alley, St. Johns County (at large) Bradley Gordon, St. Johns County Melinda Luedtke, Amelia Island Branch Davis, Duval County (at large) Ron Hick, Nassau County (at large) Mike Kloehn, Clay County (at large)

xiii


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

LRTP STEERING COMMITTEE Dale Allen, Jacksonville Sherriff’s Office Jeff Beck, Clay County Public Works Bill Ball, City of Jacksonville Public Works Bill Bishop, Council Member, City of Jacksonville Dan Buckman, Nassau County Public Schools Calvin Burney, City of Jacksonville Planning Vincent Clark, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Enis Davis, MetroJacksonville Dawn Emerick, Health Planning Council of North East Florida Janis Fleet, City of Green Cove Springs Barbara Goodman, National Park Service James Green, Florida Department of Transportation Kimberly Hair, Jacksonville Aviation Authority Scott Herring, Nassau County Planning Don Jacobovitz, Putnam County Public Works Dorren Joyner Howard, Florida Department of Transportation David Kauffman, JAXPORT Peter King, Nassau County Mark Knight, City of St. Augustine Planning Starling Kramer, Clay County Planning Gary Larson , City of Atlantic Beach Ed Lehman, Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council Michelle Leak, Mayo Clinic Todd Linder, Jacksonville Aviation Authority Steve Lindorff, City of Jacksonville Beach Planning Dan Locklear, St. Johns County Public Works Carolyn Morgan, Clay County Planning Joe Napoli, City of Jacksonville Environmental Quality Phong Nguyen, St. Johns County Planning Mike Null, City of Green Cove Springs Bernie O’Conner, Citizen Lisa Parlapiano, Career Source Northeast Florida Ed Preston, Baker County Public Works Alaina Ray, Town of Orange Park Matt Schellhorm, U.S. Navy Brian Spell, JEA Joe Stephenson, Regional Planning Commission David Stubbs, JAXPORT Karen Taulbee, Florida Department of Transportation Suraya Teeple, Jacksonville Transportation Authority Brad Thoburn, Jacksonville Transportation Authority Steve Tocknell, Citizen Kim Weisnburger, U.S. Marine Corps

xiv


PART

ONE

INTRODUCTION


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

INTRODUCTION THE PATH FORWARD 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IS COMPREHENSIVE IN ITS NATURE AND WAS DEVELOPED THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PROCESS TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS ON A VISION FOR OUR REGION’S FUTURE.

PLANNING PROCESS OVERVIEW

Federal and state metropolitan planning regulations require the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (North Florida TPO) to develop a regional transportation plan every five years. This section outlines the process that was followed and is organized to address the following. 

The Path Forward 2040 Long Rage Transportation Plan (LRTP) defines the transportation vision for the future of the region, establishes goals and policies that will lead to achieving the visions, and allocates projected revenue to transportation programs and projects that implement those goals and policies. Fundamentally, the LRTP is about making choices for the future of the metropolitan area—choices about local and regional land use, choices about where to allocate limited transportation resources, and

1-1

choices about the type of future we wish to see for our region and the State of Florida. The LRTP’s 22year scope (2019 to 2040) allows the TPO to consider the transportation network’s future from a regional perspective. Existing and proposed transportation facilities (including major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors) that function as an integrated transportation system are addressed in the plan. The plan emphasizes those facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions over the life of the transportation plan. The planning process was designed to meet federal planning rules that require the North Florida TPO to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan comprehensive transportation planning process. Our planning process provides opportunities for public engagement and participation.

The major components of the plan include three milestones to adopt:   

Goals and Objectives of the Plan Needs Plan Cost Feasible Plan

A summary of the planning process and major milestones associated with the plan are shown in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1. Summary of Major Plan Components and Milestones

1-2


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Virtually every freight shipment in the state, as well as nearly every visitor and business traveler, will use the Strategic Intermodal System at some point in its journey.”

REGIONAL OVERVIEW

North Florida, like many great regions, began as a hub for commerce and transportation. Our six county region consisting of Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, Putnam and St. Johns Counties consists of an area of over 3,900 square miles and 1.4 million citizens. It includes some of our nation’s first ports, cities and roads. Our history as a transportation center shaped our region’s past and will drive our future.

The major Strategic Intermodal System highway facilities within our region are shown on Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3 and are summarized below.      

PLANNING BOUNDARIES The metropolitan planning boundaries established by the Federal Highway Administration for the North Florida TPO metropolitan statistical area include Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns Counties. To provide a regional approach, the LRTP addresses these counties and two additional counties: Baker and Putnam. Figure 1-2 on the next page shows the study area.

I-10 I-95 I-295 and SR 9B US 301/SR 200 US 1 from I-295 to the Georgia State Line SR 23 First Coast Expressway (future)

Strategic Intermodal System Connectors include 

As part of the Cost Feasible Plan, only the federal planning boundaries associated with Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns Counties were considered.

The following summarizes the major components of the freight network within North Florida including the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT’s) Strategic Intermodal System. Figure 1-3 and 1-4 show the location of the major elements of the multimodal freight network in North Florida.

 

ROADS Strategic Intermodal System FDOT’s Strategic Intermodal System is:

“a statewide system of high-priority transportation facilities. It includes the state’s largest and most significant commercial service airports, spaceport, deep-water seaports, freight rail terminals, passenger rail and intercity bus terminals, rail corridors, waterways and highways. These facilities are the workhorses of Florida’s transportation system. They carry more than 99 percent of all enplaned commercial air passengers in the state, virtually 100 percent of all waterborne freight tonnage, almost 100 percent of all freight moving on the rail system, and more than 68 percent of all truck traffic and 54 percent of total traffic on the State Highway System. With the exception of some localized commuting, recreational and shopping trips, few trips in Florida are not impacted by the Strategic Intermodal System.

 

1-3

Cecil Spaceport (Planned); SR 23 First Coast th Expressway to New World Avenue to 6 Street to entrance. Jacksonville Amtrak Station (Currently this facility is planned to be dropped from the Strategic Intermodal System.); I-95 to New Kings Road and Martin Luther Jr. King Parkway to Clifford Lane. Jacksonville CSX Intermodal Terminal; I-295 to Pritchard Road to Sportsman Club Road to entrance. Jacksonville Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad Intermodal Terminal (Bowden Yard); I-95 to SR 202 J.T. Butler Boulevard to US 1 Philips Highway to entrance. Jacksonville Greyhound (Currently this facility is planned to be dropped from the Strategic Intermodal System.); I-95 to Forsyth Street to Pearl Street to Bay Street entrance, exit to Forsyth Street to Broad Street to Adams Street to I-95. Jacksonville International Airport; I-295 to Duval Road to South International Airport Boulevard to Air Cargo Access Road to cargo entrance. Jacksonville International Airport; I-95 to SR 202 Airport Road to passenger terminal. Jacksonville Multimodal Terminal Center (Currently, this center is planned to be added to the Strategic Intermodal System); I-95 to Forsyth Street to Lee Street to entrance; exit to Lee Street to Adams Street to I-95.


" ) 108

" ) 115

" )

§ ¨ ¦ 95

1

£ ¤ 2

17

£ ¤

" ) " )

" ) 127

A1A

A1A

¬ «

108

¬ «

105

¬ « ¬ «

107

2

A1A

¬ «

301

£ ¤

" ) 122

295

119

" ) 250

¬ «

§ ¨ ¦

§ ¨ ¦

" )

A1A

295

105

¬ « ¬ « 116

" ) 125

221

¬ «

" ) 124

10

90

£ ¤

" )

¬ « 90

§ ¨ ¦

228

" ) 250A

" ) 130

£ ¤ ¬ «

10

228

¬ «

301

£ ¤

134

202

¬ « ¬ « 23

§ ¨ ¦ 295

1

£ ¤ 220

" )

¬ «

¬ «

" )

218

A1A

13

§ ¨ ¦ 95

21

¬ « 16

¬ «

16

¬ «

" ) 315

1

208

" )

13

17

£ ¤

315

16

¬ « " ) " " ) ) " )

209

" )

13A

207

" )

§ ¨ ¦ 95

305

17

£ ¤

26

¬ «

5

¬ «

A1A

¬ «

206

¬ «

100

¬ «

" ) 315

BAKER

¬ «

¬ «

" ) County

A1A

214

214

Legend

£ ¤

" ) 204

20

¬ «

CLAY DUVAL

" ) 21

" ) 310

NASSAU 320 PUTNAM

" )

" )

200A

§ ¨ ¦ 75

" ) STJOHNS" " ) £ ) ¤ « ) " ) Water Bodies" £ ¤¬ £ ¤Roadway" System ¬ «" ) ) " ) ¬ « " ¬ « ) 335

318

329

316

335

27

500

225

Date: 9/22/2014

225A

¬ «

" ) 309

" ) 308

301

441

25A

19

502

200

25

200

200A

Figure 1-2 North Florida TPO Region Map 1-4

¯

0

0

10,560 Feet

4.5

9 Miles


!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! ! !! !

!

! !

108

Port of Fernandina

105

¬ « ¬ «

!

95

) ¯ í

!

§ ¦ ¨

A1A

A1A

¬ « !

1

!

£ ¤

!

" ) 107

!

115

!

!

!

" )

" )

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

2

A1A

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

! !

! ! !

!

!

¬ «

!

!

!

A1A

!

220

!

" )

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

§ ¦ ¨

!

!

!

! !

95

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

16

! !

!

!

!

1

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

214

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Emerging SIS Waterway

!

!

!

!

SIS Waterway Connector 320

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

" ) 310

!

!

!

" ) 21

SIS Waterway

!

!

19

¬ «

" )

!

! !

!

! !

!

309

!

!

!

200A

!

!

25

! !

¯

!

!

!

326

Figure 1-3 Strategic Intermodal System !

! !

!

1-5

!

!

!

326 326

!

200

!

25A

!

200

!

441

! !

316

! !

301

« £ ¤¬ Conservation Lands £ ¤Six Counties ¬ «" " Boundaries ) " ) ) ¬ « " ¬ ) « " ) ¬ «" ) ¬ «

" )

308

!

318

" )

" )

!

" )

200A

" ) £ ¤

Roadway 3System 29

225A

!

!

!

!

75

225

!

!

§ ¦ ¨

Railroad System

!

Waterways !

! !

! ! !

!

SIS Railway Connector

!

¬ « ! !

" )

!

!

A1A

!

!

20

¬ «

Emerging SIS Railway Corridors

206

¬ « 204

!

SIS Railway Corridors

!

!

315

! ! !

95

!

!

!

!

" ) 305

§ ¦ ¨

5

¬ «

!

" )

!

!

!

!

207

¬ «

!

100

¬ «

!

!

!

£ ¤

26

¬ «

!

! !

214

17

! !

!

!

" )

SIS Highway Corridor

¬ «

! !

13

13A

A1A ! !

! ! !! !

315

208

!

17

£ ¤

16

¬ « " ) " " ) ) " )

!

!

£ ¤

!

" ) 209

" )

Y SIS Higway b Connectors Æ

!

!

¬ «

" )

Emerging SIS Highway Corridor

!

202

13

315

Highway

!

!

!

1

Camp Blanding

Emerging SIS Passenger Terminal

Water Bodies

!

!

£ ¤

¬ «

SIS Passenger Terminal

Date: 6/25/2014

!

!

295

16

(¢ ( ( ( Intermodal Logistics Center ¢ ¥ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¢ ( ( ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ Passenger Terminals

!

! ! !

§ ¦ ¨

¬ «

® X à SIS Freight Rail Terminal (¢ (Xâ (¢ (Emerging SIS Freight Rail Terminal ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¥

326

!

Jacksonville Naval Complex

¯ ®

21

Freight Rail Terminals

500

! !

!

23

¬ «

Emerging SIS Seaport

27

90

£ ¤ ¬ «

Jacksonville FEC Intermodal Terminal

" )

SIS Seaport

335

10

¬ «

( ( ( ¢ ¥ ¥ ¥ X ® â (¢ ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ( ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ (¢ (¢ ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥

!

!

134

¬ « ¬ «

218

SIS Spaceport

335

116

!

! ! !Naval Station Mayport Station

!

¬ «

301

Seaports

" ) " )

295

!

! !

228

£ ¤

Emerging SIS Airport

" )

!

! !

!

10

SIS Airport

Rail

§ ¦ ¨

!

§ ¦ ¨

Airports and Spaceports

b Æ b Æ

bÆ Æ b

¬ «

!

90

£ ¤

Legend

) ¯ í ¯ ) í

!

130

!

Port of Jacksonville Talleyrand ! !

" )

" )

!

!

Port of Jacksonville Talleyrand

228

® Y Y ¯ ®

!

124

!

¬ «

¬ « ¬ «

!

221

" ) " )

!

Jacksonville NS Intermodal Terminal

" )

) ¯ í

1!05 Port of Jacksonville Blount Island ! ! ! !

Jacksonville CSX Intermodal Terminal

125

250A

Port of Jacksonville Dames Point ! ! !

119

A1A

! !

295

" )

!

( ( ¢ ¥ ¥ (¢ (§ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¦ ¨ ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ X ® Ã( (¢ (¢ ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¥ (®XÃÆb¢ ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢

! !

122

! ! ! !

" ) 250

!

Y ®

301

£ ¤

" )

¬ «

!!

!

127

! ! !

" )

! !

2

! !

108

¬ «

!

17

£ ¤

" ) " )

0

0

10,560 Feet

3

6 Miles


!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

Legend

! !

Port of Fernandina

Airports and Spaceports

!

¯ ) í

Port of Fernandina

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

A1A

« ¬

! !

!

!

Jacksonville International Airport

« ¬

Intermodal Logistics Center

!

!!

!

! ! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! ! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

Emerging SIS Waterway

!

!

SIS Waterway Connector

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

3.5

7 Miles

!

!

0

!

!

10,560 Feet

!

0

!

! ! !

Six Counties Boundaries

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

¯

Conservation Lands

!

!

95

Water Bodies

!

!

295

Roadway System

!

!

152

« ¬

Railroad System

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

SIS Waterway

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

202

« ¬

¦ ¨ §

13

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

« ¬

!

!

! !

A1A

!

!

!

SIS Railway Connector

Waterways

!

!

Emerging SIS Railway Corridors

!

Private Marine Terminals !

! !

!

SIS Railway Corridors

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

St. Johns River Channel

!

!

! !

!

Rail

!

!

!

!

SIS Higway Connectors

!

!

!

( ( ( ( ¢ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥ X ®¢ à ( ( ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥ ( ( ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥ ( ( ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥ ( ( ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥ (¢ (¥ (¢ ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥

Emerging SIS Highway Corridor !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

1-6

!

!

!

Date: 9/25/2014

!

!

10

« ¬

!

£Figure 1-4 Strategic Intermodal System Inset Map « ¬ ¦ ¨ § 21

« ¬

!

!

!

224

!

!

116

« ¬

FEC Intermodal Terminal

Jacksonville Naval Complex

« ¬

!

« ¬

90

134

23

!

!

¤ £

« ¬ « ¬

!

A1A

!

!

!

Naval Station Mayport Station ! !

¯ ®

!

!

17

¤ £

Cecil Spaceport

!

128

¤ £

!

17

¤ £ « ¬

301

!

!

!

Jacksonville Multimodal Terminal Center

! !

228

!

Port of Jacksonville Talleyrand

b Æb Æ

« ¬

!

!

¦ ¨ §

!

!

Jacksonville Greyhound

10

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! 295

SIS Highway Corridor

International Shipping Channel

!

!

!

!

!

NS Intermodal Terminal

90

! !

¯ ) í

Blount Island Command ! ! Port of Jacksonville Blount ! ! ! !Island

!

¦ ¨ §

!

!

!

Jacksonville Amtrak

¤§ £ ¦ ¨

« ¬

!

!

Port of Jacksonville Dames Point !

95

!

CSX Intermodal Terminal

Port of Jacksonville

Emerging SIS Passenger Terminal

Highway

A1A

!

!

( ( ¢ ¥ ¥ ¢ ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ X ® à ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¤ £ (¢ ( ¥ ( ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥ X ®¢ à b Æ¢ ( ( ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ (¢ (¢ ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥ 1

! !

17

¤ £

104

SIS Passenger Terminal

b Æ b Æ

!

115

Emerging SIS Seaport

( ( ( ( ¢ ¥ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥ (Passenger (¥ (¢ ( Terminals ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢

A1A

!

« ¬ « ¬

SIS Seaport

SIS Spaceport

X ® SIS Freight Rail Terminal à Emerging SIS Freight Rail Terminal (¢ (XÃ¥ (¢ ( ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥

! ! !

301

) ¯ í ¯ ) í

Emerging SIS Airport

Freight Rail Terminals

!

23

¤ £

¤ £

SIS Airport

Seaports

!

Y ®

® Y Y ¯ ®


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan   

 

Naval Air Station Jacksonville; I-295 to US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard to entrance. Naval Station Mayport; I-295 to US 90 Atlantic Boulevard to SR A1A to entrance. Port of Jacksonville Blount Island; I-295 to SR 105 Heckscher Drive to Dave Rawls Boulevard to entrance. Part of Jacksonville Dames Point; I-295 to SR 105 Heckscher Drive to New Berlin Road. Port of Jacksonville Dames Point Cruise Ship Terminal; I-295 to SR 105 Heckscher Drive to August Drive to entrance. Port of Jacksonville Dames Point Cruise Ship Terminal; I-95 to SR 105 Heckscher Drive to August Drive to entrance. Port of Jacksonville; Talleyrand; I-95 to US 1 Martin st Luther King Jr. Parkway to Phoenix Avenue to 21 Street to North Talleyrand Avenue to 11th Street entrance. Port of Fernandina; I-95 to SR A1A to 8th Street to Dade Street to Front Street to entrance.

the Strategic Intermodal System. This terminal serves distribution facilities and shippers in Florida accessing the facility using I-95 and I-10. Preliminary estimates show this facility generates approximately 300,000 lifts (a lift is the move of one container on or off a rail car) per year which would equate to about 600,000 truck trips per year. The Norfolk Southern intermodal terminal (Simpson Yard), located east of the I-295 interchange with Pritchard Road, is included as a hub in the Strategic Intermodal System. This terminal serves distribution facilities and shippers in Florida accessing the facility using I-95 and I-10. Preliminary estimates show this facility generates approximately 225,000 lifts per year which would equate to about 450,000 truck trips. Norfolk Southern also operates an auto distribution facility with access from Old Kings Road north of Pritchard Road in the project study area. This facility serves the Jacksonville Port Authority (JAXPORT) auto terminal and other commercial shippers of automobile traffic destined for in the southeastern US. This facility is currently not part of the Strategic Intermodal System.

Other State Highways and Local Roads

The CSX intermodal terminal (Jacksonville Yard), located just west of I-295 at the Pritchard Road interchange, is a major intermodal facility within CSX’s operations and is included as a hub in the Strategic Intermodal System. This terminal serves distribution facilities and shippers in Florida accessing the facility using I-95 and I-10. Preliminary estimates show this facility generates approximately 300,000 lifts per year which would equate to about 600,000 truck trips. CSX also operates an auto distribution facility in the study area with access from Commonwealth Boulevard to the south. This facility is similar in size and services to the Norfolk Southern facility. This facility is currently not part of the Strategic Intermodal System.

In addition to the Strategic Intermodal System, other state highway system routes and locally-maintained roads of regional significance were addressed in the plan.

RAIL North Florida is located at a key junction for three railroads, CSX, Norfolk Southern and FEC. CSX, headquartered in Jacksonville, maintains the largest rail network in Florida and will soon provide enhanced connectivity to the Dames Point and Blount Island marine terminals with the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility at Dames Point. Norfolk Southern maintains its Florida terminus in northwest Jacksonville and provides direct service to the Talleyrand Marine terminals, other key sites along the St. Johns River, and inland facilities. FEC has its corporate operations center and its northern terminus in Jacksonville including a river bridge crossing in Downtown that facilitates connections to the CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads. Genesee & Wyoming Inc., which operates major short line railroads across the U.S. and in Australia, maintains its operations headquarters in Jacksonville. The following summarizes the Strategic Intermodal System and other major rail intermodal facilities in the study area.

AN INTERMODAL FREIGHT SHIPMENT IS ONE THAT IS MOVED VIA STANDARDIZED REUSABLE SHIPPING BOXES CALLED CONTAINERS.

TYPICAL MARINE CONTAINERS ARE 40-FT LONG AND TYPICAL TRUCK CONTAINERS ARE 53FT LONG. EACH CONTAINER CAN CARRY BETWEEN 20 AND 25 TONS OF FREIGHT.

The Florida East Coast Industries intermodal terminal (Bowden Yard), located west of US 1 Philips Highway near SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard, is included as a hub in

THE UNITS OF MEASURE ARE EXPRESSED IN TWENTYFOOT EQUIVALENCY UNITS OR TEUS. 1-7


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan AMTRAK, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, operates a passenger intermodal facility on the northwest side of Jacksonville off US 23 SR 15 New Kings Road. This facility serves approximately 30,000 passengers per year. This facility is part of the Strategic Intermodal System.

two 50-LT capacity rubber tired gantry cranes, both of which straddle four rail spurs totaling 4,800 linear feet Talleyrand's on-dock rail facilities are run by Talleyrand Terminal Railroad, Inc., which provides direct switching service for Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines. The terminal is only 25 minutes from FEC railroad's intermodal ramp, and is conveniently located within minutes of interstates I-95 and I-10. Talleyrand is equipped with four container cranes, on-dock rail and 160,000 square feet of transit shed space capable of handling cargo in refrigerated, freezer or ambient conditions. Additionally, a 553,000-square foot warehouse stores a variety of cargoes, including rolls of fine and specialty papers.

The FDOT Strategic Intermodal System rail connectors include the following:    

CSX Eastport Railroad connector to Blount Island and Dames Point Terminals CSX Connector to CSX Intermodal Facility Talleyrand Terminal Railroad CSX Downtown Jacksonville to Port of Fernandina along US 17 Main Street and SR 200 Buccaneer Trail

The U.S. Marine Corps Terminal is located on Blount Island and supports deployments by the US Transportation Command. Shipments include roll-on/rolloff cargo, intermodal and break-bulk cargo.

PORTS JAXPORT 2 and its maritime partners handle containerized cargo, automobiles, recreational boats and construction equipment, dry and liquid bulks, break-bulk commodities, and oversized and specialty cargoes.

A network of privately-owned maritime facilities also operates in Jacksonville’s harbor, and in Northeast Florida.

Blount Island is a 754-acre terminal and is JAXPORT's largest marine facility. It is one of the largest vehicle import/export centers in the United States. The terminal also handles bulk cargo via roll-on/roll-off, heavy lift, and liquid bulk cargo operations. Blount Island has one 112ton whirly crane and eight container cranes (five 50-ton cranes, one 45-ton crane and two 40-ton cranes). The terminal also offers 240,000-square feet of transit shed space and a 90,000-square-foot Container Freight Station for cross-dock efficiency.

The Nassau County Ocean Highway and Port Authority operates the Port of Fernandina, a deep-water access with 47-ft channel depth and two berths. The port consistently handles over 225 vessels per year. The 3 port’s principal cargoes include break-bulk cargo consisting of forest products including Kraft liner board, wood pulp, steel and treated lumber. The principal imports are lumber, wood pulp, hardboard and steel. The containerized commodities moving through the Port include wood pulp, automobile parts, steel products, beer, frozen foods, machinery, consumer goods just to mention a few.

The Dames Point Marine Terminal (TraPac) is located ten nautical miles from the Atlantic Ocean, the Dames Point Marine Terminal is home to the 158-acre TraPac Container Terminal, where vessels from Tokyo-based MOL and other carriers offer direct containership service between Jacksonville and ports throughout Asia. The TraPac terminal features new port infrastructure, including roadways, terminal buildings, two 1,200-foot berths and six new Panamax container cranes. This 173acre terminal has 4,780 linear feet of berthing space on 40 feet of deep-water. A second terminal is planned at Dames Point but a tenant is currently not identified.

AVIATION

Jacksonville’s Airport System 4 Jacksonville's Airport System encompasses four airports, each of which serves a distinct aviation need. Jacksonville International is the major regional passenger air service provider, featuring non-stop flights to dozens of major U.S. cities. Jacksonville Executive at Craig Airport (CRG), centrally located near Jacksonville's suburban business centers, is a general aviation field perfect for busy corporate travelers and operators of small aircraft. Herlong Recreational Airport, on the city's

The Talleyrand Terminal, located north of Downtown on the west bank of the St. Johns River, is a 173-acre terminal that has 4,780 linear feet of berthing space on 40 feet of deep-water. The Talleyrand terminal offers 2

3

http://www.portoffernandinamaritimeexchange.org/res ources_port.html 4 http://www.flyjacksonville.com/default.aspx?sMP=JAA

Adapted from http://www.jaxport.com/ 1-8


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan west side, is ideally suited as a general aviation field and prime recreational site for small private planes, hot air balloons, gliders and similar craft. Cecil Field Airport is located approximately 15 miles west of downtown Jacksonville. The newest addition to the Jacksonville airport system, Cecil Airport is an ideal site for aviation maintenance, manufacturing and repair and overhaul 5 operations.

provide minimal or non-stop service and serve popular areas like the Beaches, Arlington, Blanding, Orange Park, Mandarin, various shopping malls, employment centers and Downtown. Jacksonville Transportation Authority's Interliner service combines two routes into one, providing one-seat transportation between two quadrants of town. Residents traveling between two areas no longer change buses (i.e. from Commonwealth Boulevard to SR 152 Baymeadows Road), eliminating the need to transfer or pay two fares. Nine Interliner routes currently serve Jacksonville residents.

Although a smaller market relative to tonnage handled by other modes of transportation, aviation services are also part of the region’s freight movement. Several passenger airlines and dedicated all-cargo airlines provide air cargo service at the Jacksonville International Airport. The airport’s air cargo area has more than 200,000 square feet of warehouse space dedicated to air cargo operations and hundreds of acres of on-airport property suitable for air cargo development. FedEx, UPS, and Airborne all utilize Jacksonville International Airport. It is anticipated that Cecil Airport will help support economic development within the region, serving both aviation and aerospace dependent industries. The airport is adjacent to the Cecil Commerce Center and recently was designated a spaceport and “space territory” by the state of Florida (HB59). As a result, the newly named “Cecil Field Spaceport” is included in Space Florida’s Spaceport Master Plan and the Strategic Intermodal System.

All Jacksonville Transportation Authority buses are equipped with front-mounted bike racks. There is no extra charge to transport the bicycle. JTA Connection is a shared-ride service that provides door-to-door transportation for the disabled, elderly and transportation disadvantaged in Duval County. It is complementary to the fixed route bus service. A private vendor is contracted to provide drivers and operate specially equipped transit vehicles. Jacksonville Transportation Authority Paratransit staff manage the day-to-day system operations, take reservations and schedule trips. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority is the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) for Duval County.

Northeast Florida Regional Airport 6

The Automated Skyway Express is a fully automated state-of-the-art transit system operating on an elevated dual guideway, with peripheral parking at several stations. Ten two-car trains whisk patrons to eight stations on both sides of the St. Johns River in the central business district.

The Northeast Florida Regional Airport is located just a few miles from historic downtown St. Augustine and serves as a focal point for the Northeast Florida region. The airport is centered in a gateway market of 4.4 million passengers within a 2-hour drive to the facility.

TRANSIT Jacksonville Transportation Authority

Approximately 3,500 spaces are available to commuters for monthly parking. Nearly 1,000 spaces are located in and around the Skyway Convention Center Station. Another major parking facility is the King's Avenue Transit garage with 1,684, low cost, covered parking spaces, with walkways leading to the Kings Avenue Skyway Station. Another 200 surface spots are available, some for short-term. Limited daily and hourly (meter) parking is available at the Convention Center and King's Avenue Skyway Stations.

7

Another vital component to an integrated transportation network is the bus system. Jacksonville Transportation Authority has 56 routes with vehicles traveling 8.5 million revenue miles each year with approximately 320 bus operators and 110 maintenance employees supporting an active fleet of 180 vehicles. Flyer and express bus routes offer additional opportunities for Jacksonville Transportation Authority to meet the community's needs. Flyers and express buses

The Skyway hours are Monday through Friday from 6 AM to 9 PM. The Skyway is closed Saturday and Sunday, except for special events. The Skyway is free.

5

http://www.flyjacksonville.com/content.aspx?id=83 http://www.flynf.com/ 7 http://www.jtafla.com/AboutJTA

Jacksonville Transportation Authority offers the very popular Stadium Shuttle Service that connects thousands

6

1-9


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan of football fans to EverBank Field for Jaguars home games, the Florida-Georgia game and the Gator Bowl. Fans may park free in several suburban and downtown locations, then shuttle to the stadium starting two hours before kick-off and ending one hour following the game. Customers may purchase a discounted season pass or a game-day ticket. Prices are reasonable, but vary depending on pick-up points. The Riverside Trolley offers weekday, lunchtime trips between the Five Points historic district in Riverside and The Landing in Downtown. The Beaches Trolley runs seven days a week along A1A through the heart of Jacksonville Beach, Neptune Beach and Atlantic Beach. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority served more 8 than 12 million passenger trips in 2012.

Baker County Council on Aging The Baker County Council on Aging is the Community Transportation Coordinator providing transportation to residents of Clay County.

Clay Transit Clay Transit is the Community Transportation Coordinator providing transportation to residents of Clay County. The paratransit services connect to Jacksonville Transportation Authority Service at the Orange Park Mall enabling riders to commute from Middleburg, Fleming Island, Green Cove Springs and Orange Park all the way into Jacksonville or vice versa.

Council on Aging of Nassau County The Council on Aging of Nassau County is the Community Transportation Coordinator providing paratransit services to residents of Nassau County.

Ride Solution Ride Solution is the Community Transportation Coordinator providing paratransit services to residents of Nassau County.

The Sunshine Bus Company St. Johns County Council on Aging, Inc. operates the Sunshine Bus Company in St. Johns County which provides paratransit services to St. Johns County along six routes. More than 237,000 passenger trips were served by The Sunshine Bus Service in 2012. 9

8 9

Florida Transit Handbook, 2013. Florida Transit Handbook, 2013. 1-10


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

A summary of the anticipated growth in population and employment by county is summarized in the tables below.

North Florida is anticipated to grow by approximately 600,000 persons, 265,000 households and nearly 300,000 jobs by the year 2040 representing an increase in population of 41 percent and an increase of workers of 43 percent.

Table 1-1. Population Growth County 2010 2040

Percent Change Nassau 73,314 116,700 43,386 59.2 Duval 864,278 1,071,600 207,322 24.0 St. Johns 189,396 377,000 187,604 99.1 Clay 190,865 315,700 124,835 65.4 Baker 27,115 39,000 11,885 43.8 Putnam 74,364 79,400 5,036 6.8 Totals 1,419,332 1,999,400 580,068 40.9 Source: Bureau of Economic Business and Research, University of Florida Table 1-2. Employment Growth County 2010 2040

Growth

Growth

Percent Change

Nassau 24,126 40,661 16,535 68.5 Duval 519,142 627,144 108,002 20.8 St. Johns 61,714 186,691 124,977 202.5 Clay 54,454 87,737 33,283 61.1 Baker 7,396 16,775 9,379 126.8 Putnam 25,148 29,218 4,070 16.2 Total 691,980 988,226 296,246 42.8 Note: Growth rate for Putnam County is adjusted to 0.05%. Source: Bureau of Economic Business and Research, University of Florida

1-11

Compounding Annual Growth Rate (percent)

2.0 0.8 3.3 2.2 1.5 0.2 1.4

Compounding Annual Growth Rate 1.74 0.63 3.69 1.59 2.73 -0.06 0.95


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan To address this growth and maintain the quality of life for the residents of North Florida, investments in transportation infrastructure and services are needed.

Reduced automobile use and increased transit use combined with the opening of 62 additional lane miles of highways between 2008 and 2012 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.

LAND USE Land use is what drives our need to travel and is an important input into the transportation planning process. Land use development decisions are made at the local level but the effects of these decisions can be seen in regional travel patterns. Coordination between local communities is important so that the growth pattern is beneficial for the area as a whole. Extensive coordination with the local agencies within the region occurred to cooperatively develop a land use forecast for the year 2040.

However, vehicle use and 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. Investments to meet these demands are needed to remain competitive.

New developments of regional impact are anticipated to be built-out and by the year 2040. Land use within the region is anticipated to intensify as are result. Vacant parcels within the urban service boundary are anticipated to fill and densities intensify within existing parcels through redevelopment to meet the demand for new households, schools, recreation and employment.

A summary of the recent trends in mobility within the region is provided in Table 1-3 on the next page. By the year 2040, the traffic volumes are anticipated to increase by one-third within the region as a result of the growth in population and economic activity. Although driving (alone or with other passengers) is still anticipated to account for about 85 percent of all trips within the region, because of the aging population and changes in preferences from the millennial generation who wish to drive less, the percent of trips made by persons walking is anticipated to increase from 8.4 percent to 9.4 percent, a 14 percent change. According to the American Planning Association’s 2014 National Poll, 81 percent of millennials 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.” These changes in travel preferences will require a multimodal approach to addressing our transportation needs in 2040.

PERSONAL MOBILITY From 2008 to 2012, automobile use has declined within the region by 5.7 percent. This decline in vehicle use is 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 the recent increase in the truck miles traveled within the region. Over the last five years, truck traffic declined by 16.4 percent. From 2011 to 2012 truck traffic increased 1.6 reflecting the beginning of the economic recovery. Although transit use in North Florida continues to be less than one percent of all person travel miles, ridership continues 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.

Without investments in transportation, travel conditions are anticipated to worsen. By the year 2040, trip times are anticipated to increase by nearly 20 percent as summarized in Table 1-4.

1-12


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 1-3. Summary of Recent Mobility Trends (average daily values) Item 2008 Quantity of Travel Vehicle-miles traveled (daily) in thousands 26,997 Vehicle-miles traveled (peak hour) in thousands 2,161 Person-miles traveled (daily) in thousands 44,081 Person-miles traveled (peak Hour) in thousands 3,520 Truck-miles traveled (daily) in thousands 2,249 Transit ridership (thousands) 55,640 Quality of Travel Average travel speed (peak hour) 51.38 Delay (daily) 18,316 Travel time reliability (daily) 68.95 Percent miles meeting level of service criteria (daily) 99.42 on rural facilities System Utilization Percent miles severely congested (peak hour) 5.26 Percent travel severely congested (daily) 2.83 Percent travel severely congested (peak hour) 0.23 Hours severely congested (daily) 0.81 Hours severely congested (yearly) 153.94 Vehicle per lane miles (peak hour) in hundreds 642.1 Passengers per transit revenue mile 5.47 Table 1-4. Anticipated Changes in Trip Travel Times (2010 to 2040) Trip Purpose Work Shopping Social/recreation School trips Personal business

FREIGHT MOBILITY

2009

2010

2011

26,629 2,132 43,507 3,472 2,139 55,884

26,310 2,105 43,000 3,432 1,866 63,755

26,081 2,087 42,646 3,403 1,851 72,785

25,474 2,036 41,640 3,323 1,880 72,785

50.92 14,782 69.77 99.72

52.13 11,740 69.41 99.72

52.03 13,211 69.59 99.45

52.38 12,244 69.26 99.68

6.49 4.08 0.34 1.10 226.70 633.9 5.91

4.41 2.52 0.21 0.81 105.04 622.8 6.48

5.52 3.75 0.31 0.80 184.41 620.2 7.42

3.64 2.43 0.20 0.80 120.45 604.3 7.67

Increase in Trip Time

2012

16.4% 21.7% 25.1% 16.5% 21.7%

which operates major short line railroads across the US and in Australia, maintains its operations headquarters in Jacksonville.

The level of connectivity to the North Florida region is a significant economic advantage for our region. I-95 serves as the major highway gateway to Florida’s 19.5 million persons. I-10 connects our region along an eastwest route to the southwest, western states and Pacific Ocean. A third interstate, I-295 serves as a beltway around Jacksonville that connects both of these interstates and provides direct access to major JAXPORT marine terminals at Blount Island and Dames Point and rail intermodal facilities for CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads. I-75, the nation’s central spine connecting Florida, southeastern and mid-western states is located 60 miles to the west of our region. North Florida provides the rail gateway into Florida. Norfolk Southern and FEC railroads have their Florida termini in North Florida. In addition CSX’s and FEC both maintain their corporate headquarters in North Florida. Genesee & Wyoming Inc.,

These significant assets result in 160 million tons of freight moving through North Florida each year. As our regional, the state and global economy grow, the movement of goods will increase. Growth is anticipated to occur for deliveries to our region, goods exported from our region and shipments that travel through our region each year. Trends that will affect our region include the continued shift of freight to containerized or intermodal movements, growth in the port imports and exports and shipments through North Florida as the gateway to Florida.

1-13


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 1-5 summarizes the freight flows in the year 2012 in North Florida. By the year 2040, shipments traveling through North Florida are anticipated to increase 280 percent as a result of economic growth. Investments in our multimodal freight network are needed to meet this demand and maintain our region’s competitiveness in the global economy.

Table 1-5. Total Tons of Commodities (millions of tons per year) Origin and Destination Internal to area Originates in area And is destined to locations within Florida And is destined to locations outside Florida Is destined for the area And originated from within Florida And originated from outside Florida Port related Through traffic Total Mix Percent

1-14

Truck

34.9

Rail

0.0

Total

34.9

Percentage

18%

18.5 8.0

0.2 0.6

18.7 8.6

10% 5%

7.5 8.9 11.7 70.0 159.5 84%

0.4 11.6 0.6 18.0 31.4 16%

7.9 20.5 12.3 88.0 190.9 100%

4% 11% 6% 46% 100%


PART

TWO

PLANNING PROCESS


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES F ACED WITH ESCALATING DEMANDS FOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT AND LIMITED RESOURCES , ESTABLISHING THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WITHIN THE P ATH F ORWARD 2040 LRTP IS AN ESSENTIAL FIRST STEP IN DEFINING THE SUCCESS OF OUR PLAN AND GUIDING DECISION MAKING .

LRTP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goals, objective and performance measures proposed are based on the transportation user’s point of view. The order of the goals and objectives do not indicate the priority.

Through the LRTP, it is North Florida TPO’s vision to promote the regional optimization of mobility consistent with the values of local communities. Specifically, the goals and objectives are to enhance the following:      

Economic Competitiveness Livability Safety Mobility and Accessibility Equity in Decision Making System Preservation

2-1


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

GOAL 1: INVEST IN PROJECTS THAT ENHANCE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

Table 2-2 on the next page summarizes the objectives, performance measures and benchmarks associated with this goal. The targets are to achieve the benchmarks by the year 2040.

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 maximize the return on investment. Table 2-1 summarizes the objectives, performance measures and benchmarks associated with this goal.

GOAL 2: INVEST IN LIVABLE AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES There 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 transportation system follows: 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 transportation modes, and supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced regional development. Limits air, water, 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 non-renewable 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 2-1. Enhance Economic Competitiveness Objectives and Performance Measures Objective Performance Measure Benchmark Improve travel reliability on major Travel time reliability Maintain or improve the freight routes reliability Enhance access to jobs Jobs within ½ mile of a congestion Maintain or improve access to management system facility jobs Maximize the return on investment Benefit: cost ratio Rank benefit-to-cost ratio Return on investment Rank return on investment

2-2


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-2. Livability and Sustainability Objectives and Performance Measures Objective Performance Measure Enhance transit Âź mile walk accessibility to transit stops accessibility Households within 5 miles of major transit centers or park and ride lots Enhance transit Annual boardings per vehicle revenue mile ridership Annual boardings per vehicle revenue hour Enhance bicycle and Lane mile with bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the quality pedestrian quality of of service standard service Reduce the cost of Transportation costs per capita congestion per capita Costs of congestion Reduce the impacts of Environmental screening and mitigation investments on the natural environment Reduce emissions from Hydrocarbon, nitrous oxides and volatile organic compound automobiles emissions Consistency with land Includes active transportation design principles in context use planning sensitive solutions Supports regional Reduce clearance times for evacuations evacuation needs Table notes

Benchmark 95% of all stops (1) (2) (2) 85% of lane miles (3) Apply Efficient Decision Making Process to all projects in LRTP. Maintain our attainment status. (4) Include walkability standards in context sensitive solutions Improve clearance times by 15 minutes. (5)

(1) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year unless major route changes or new transit operations are deployed. (2) Coordination with Jacksonville Transportation Authority is needed to develop the baseline and benchmark data needed. (3) Many exogenous factors influence this performance measure including the price of fuels that are beyond the scope of a LRTP. However, this performance measure will be considered within the LRTP based on policy decisions made during the scenario development. (4) Emissions will be determined using Florida emission factors from the FHWA Moves model. (5) Based on modeling provide by the Northeast Florida Regional Council.

GOAL 3: ENHANCE SAFETY Investing in projects that enhance the safety will lead to reduced crashes and lower crash severity. Table 2-3 summarizes the objectives, performance measures and benchmarks associated with this goal.

Table 2-3. Safety Objectives and Performance Measures Objective Performance Measure Reduce Crashes Number of crashes Crash rate per million vehicle miles Reduce Fatal crashes Number of fatalities Crash rate per million vehicle miles

2-3

Benchmark Reduce by 0.25% each year Reduce or maintain Reduce by 0.25% each year Reduce or maintain


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

GOAL 4: ENHANCE MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY

context of each corridor being considered is an essential element to identifying the right mobility solution for any project.

Enhancing mobility includes addressing the four dimensions of mobility – quantity of travel, quality of travel, system accessibility and system utilization. Several of these measures also support other goals and objectives (such as livability and sustainability).

Table 2-4 summarizes the objectives, performance measures and benchmarks associated with this goal. The measures associated with the quantity of travel are oriented to how many people use the network. These measures are important, as some operational improvements may increase the throughput of travel at a location, but the quality of travel flow (speeds, delays, etc.) may not change during the peak hour.

Mobility is about more than increasing the volume of persons served and managing congestion. Users want a less stressful commute, but they also want improved reliability of their travel, more choices including transit, walking and bicycling and to ensure we optimize system operations before we invest in new infrastructure. Understanding the trade-offs of these goals in the

Table 2-4. Mobility and Accessibility Objectives and Performance Measures Goal Mobility Performance Measures Benchmark Person-miles traveled Truck-miles traveled Vehicle-miles traveled Person trips Transit ridership Average speed Delay Average trip time

(2) (2) Optimize the (2) quantity of travel (2) Increase transit ridership Maintain or improve the average travel speed Maintain or reduce the average vehicle delay Maintain or reduce the average trip time Optimize the Maintain or improve the reliability quality if Reliability Achieve 95% reliability (on time arrival) on Strategic travel (1) Intermodal System facilities. Maintain the level of service standard (FDOT standard for Level of service on rural facilities Strategic Intermodal System facilities and local government standards for other facilities) Proximity to major transportation hubs (3) Improve the % miles bicycle accommodations (3) accessibility to mode % miles pedestrian accommodations (3) choices Transit coverage Increase the % of population served with Âź 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 Duration of congestion Maintain or reduce the duration of congestion the system Optimize the transit load factor for a desired quality of Transit load factor service (1) These measures may not apply on corridors not selected for context-based solutions that may intentionally lower the running speed or capacity. (2) Generally, increases in the quantity traveled (throughout) are preferred. However, consistent with livability and sustainability goals, one objective is to reduce the amount of travel needed. Therefore, no benchmarks are proposed, but monitoring is recommended. (3) These performance measures will not change significantly from year to year but will be evaluated in each major update to the LRTP to establish benchmark and monitor performance. 2-4


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

1. To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations.

Optimizing the quantity of travel is proposed so that context sensitive solutions and alternatives that result in fewer trips and less use of the transportation network can be considered equitably with projects that add capacity. The quality of travel includes not only speeds and delays but also travel reliability.

2. To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process.

Accessibility refers to the ease of reaching goods, services and other activities. Accessibility analysis is one component of mobility in that it considers the connections to adjacent land uses and the modalities of transportation between desired origins and destinations. By improving accessibility, we can meet the same needs of users by being smarter and enhancing the efficiencies of our investments.

3. To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority 11 and low-income populations. To address these goals, these three principles are adopted as objectives for this LRTP. The performance measures associated with each objective are less quantifiable than the objectives associated with other goals and are more process oriented. These three factors will be considered as part of the Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan and will be implemented using Geographic Information Systems techniques to identify the minority and low-income populations and by designing outreach programs to involve minority and low-income populations.

As transportation providers, understanding the utilization of the system is important in optimizing the transportation network. Measures such as the duration of congestion are used to ensure the services and facilities are allocated appropriately. Together these four dimensions will allow us to evaluate the tradeoffs of alternative transportation investments.

GOAL 5: ENHANCE EQUITY IN DECISION MAKING

GOAL 6: PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN OUR EXISTING SYSTEM

The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines Environmental Justice as follows.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FDOT established formal goals and objectives for systems preservation that are proposed for adoption as part of this LRTP. They include:

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation [sic]. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy 10 environment in which to live, learn, and work.

1. 2. 3. 4.

The United States Department of Transportation defines three fundamental Environmental Justice principles for the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration as follows:

1.

5.

Have 95 percent of the Strategic Intermodal System in good or better condition. Have 85 percent of other arterials in good or better condition. Strengthen bridges that are either (1) structurally deficient or (2) posted for weight restriction within six years on FDOT facilities. Replace bridges that require structural repair and are more cost effective to replace within nine years on FDOT facilities. Satisfy FDOT’s off system bridge replacement goals.

2.

"Environmental Justice". US EPA. Retrieved 2012-03-29.

2-5

"Overview of Transportation and Environmental Justice". U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved 2010-01-22.


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan In addition, the objective of the systems preservation and maintenance goal is to provide a transit fleet that meets Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) requirements for system preservation, vehicle age and maintenance.

Federal and state requirements and policies associated with the LRTP’s goals for “Equity in Decision Making” and “System Preservation” were in place before this plan began and are recommended for direct adoption in the plan. The following are new policies to consider.

Table 2-5 summarizes the performance measures established for preservation, operations and maintenance.

ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS This policy requires each new project included in the 2040 Cost Feasible Plan provide a benefit-to-cost ratio. This policy will ensure that all projects are evaluated using consistent criteria in relationship to the economic goals of the plan and are focused on the greatest economic return and efficient allocation of resources.

LRTP IMPLEMENTING POLICIES INTENT

Not all projects that are included in the Cost Feasible Plan may demonstrate benefit-to-cost ratio of greater than 1.0. The intent of the policy is for this to be one of the factors used to support decision-making.

Adopting more formal policies as part of the LRTP is a first step toward a stronger regional approach to transportation decision making. Establishing these policies is within the context of the role of the North Florida TPO as a policy board in regional planning. The intent is not for the Board to be involved with or direct design decisions. Engineers are the licensed professionals charged with safe and efficient operation of the transportation system. It is inappropriate, for the Board or elected officials to direct elements of roadway design. However, it is appropriate at the policy level to establish the general framework and policy guidelines for the objectives of the project to be constructed.

LIVABILITY TRANSIT INVESTMENT Incorporating a regional livability policy in the LRTP will guide investment decisions to promote transit and mode choices. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority has defined a vision for future transit investments with the 2040 horizon that may include bus rapid transit, trolleys, commuter rail and other modes. The policy intent is to support these investments. In addition to considering transit alternatives, successful transit investments are dependent on walkable access, pedestrian-oriented design and transit-oriented design.

As changes to the LRTP or Transportation Improvement Program are considered for adoption by the North Florida TPO, a policy review of the projects should be performed to ensure the proposed investments reflect the values and intent of the goals and objectives within the LRTP. Policies for economic competitiveness, livability, safety, mobility and accessibility were adopted.

CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS A policy in the LRTP that identifies corridors where investments would be made consistent with complete

Table 2-5. System Preservation Objectives and Performance Measures Objective Performance Measure Benchmark Maintain roadways FDOT condition rating system  95% of SIS roadways in good or better condition  85% of non-SIS roadways in good or better condition Maintain bridges FDOT condition rating system  Strengthen bridges that are either (1) structurally deficient or (2) posted for weight restriction within six years on FDOT facilities.  Replace bridges that require structural repair that more cost effective to replace within nine years on FDOT facilities.  Satisfy FDOT’s off system bridge replacement goals. Maintain transit system FTA system preservation Age of vehicles

2-6


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan street and context sensitive solutions principles is recommended. With the complete streets and context sensitive solutions concept, we are working to change the paradigm from “moving cars quickly” to “providing safe mobility for all modes”.

SAFETY

Implementing these concepts should reflect the context and character of the surrounding built and natural environments. These transportation investments need to be linked to land use and zoning requirements to ensure a consistent urban character and link transportation investment to achieve the goals of livability include. 

As part of the Strategic Safety Plan completed in 2012, several strategic safety corridors and intersections on the state-maintained highway system and local roadways were identified. Many safety projects are smaller in scope and costs and can be implemented in a shorter time than major capacity improvements. Safety projects often result in high benefit-to-cost ratios. This policy leverages the plan to identify safety strategies for implanting and advancing projects.

Maximizing the number of lanes to six general use lanes. Any additional lanes would be bus rapid transit or other managed lanes. Investing in each corridor consistent with an urban character defined through the project or adopted from a prior study such as the Neighborhood Vision projects performed by the City of Jacksonville. For example, on some corridors an urban village could be used which would require wider sidewalks and on-street parking or grand boulevards, or “Grand Boulevard” concepts. Grand Boulevards would require bicycle, pedestrians and transit to be considered with equal consideration to automobile mobility. Requiring land use and zoning regulations to be in place by local governments to encourage redevelopment consistent with the urban design characteristics established for the corridor. Establishing prototype corridor concepts for use within designated corridors or areas.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS The policies associated with transit oriented development context sensitive solutions are key elements of the overall mobility and accessibility approach for this plan. In addition, to ensure we are optimizing the efficiency of the network, a Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSM&O) policy is proposed. TSM&O alternatives should be considered prior to investing in new capacity is recommended. These strategies are highly competitive with capacity projects funding in many settings. Examples of TSM&O approaches include:      

The following actions were performed as part of the developing the LRTP. 

candidates for more detailed evaluation during project development phases were identified. Context sensitive solutions improvements were included in the 2040 Needs Plan and 2040 Cost Feasible Plan.

The policy built on work being prepared by local agencies within the region that are developing context sensitive solutions, livable communities and low impact development guidelines. A network of context sensitive solutions corridors was identified where context sensitive solutions are considered a priority. A list of context sensitive solutions guidelines was prepared where specific types of investments are encouraged. The guidelines are provided in Technical Memorandum #9 – Context Sensitive Solutions Guidelines. A conceptual evaluation context sensitive solutions were screened and identified projects that are

Integrated corridor management Arterial traffic management systems Bus rapid transit Ramp metering Hard shoulder running Commercial vehicle information systems

The following actions were performed within the LRTP process. 

2-7

A TSM&O network that includes the constrained corridors identified in the plan and the congested corridors identified in the Congestion Management Plan are designated. A list of candidate TSM&O strategies and tactics screened and identified for more detailed evaluation during project development phases. TSM&O improvements were included in the 2040 Needs Plan and the Cost Feasible Plan.


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan This page is intentionally blank.

2-8


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL AND STATE PLANS T HE P ATH F ORWARD 2040 LRTP CONSIDERS THE REQUIREMENTS OF KEY LEGISLATIVE , STATEWIDE AND POLICIES , GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF F EDERAL AND S TATE LEGISLATION . MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 12

Congress passed the act entitled Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) in 2012 which establishes national performance goals for Federal highway programs and include: 

 

Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan areas, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users to achieve a significant reduction in

12

Adapted from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/tpr_and_nepa/tpran dnepa.cfm 2-9

traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight to achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National Highway System. Improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system. Improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development. Enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan As part of MAP-21, the following new policies related to metropolitan planning were identified: 



LRTPs and Transportation Improvement Programs (Transportation Improvement Programs) are required to be developed through a performancebased approach. As part of the performance-based planning approach: o Performance measures that support national goals are required. o Targets are required with monitoring toward attaining the performance measures. o The targets should be established in coordination with other state or public transportation agencies. o Targets are required to be integrated into the continuing planning process. o The performance measures should be included in the LRTP and show the progress that is anticipated to be achieved by planned investments and decision making. System Performance Reports are required that describe the progress made toward achieving the performance targets. o The U.S. Department of Transportation will establish the minimum condition levels for all highways on the Interstate System and bridges on the National Highway System. Within two years of enacting MAP-21, each MPO shall include representation by transportation providers, including public transit systems.

Table 2-6 demonstrates how these goals and objectives are consistent with the federal requirements in MAP-21. Table 2-7 outlines the Federal planning requirements as enumerated in CFR 450.322 and provides references to how each of the planning requirements is addressed. The public involvement requirements from Federal and state legislation and policies are discussed in greater detail in the Public Involvement section.

2-10


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-6. Traceability Matrix Support economic vitality

Increase safety and security

Increase accessibility and mobility

Improve efficiency

Improve the national freight network 

 

   

Goal

Objective

Invest in projects that enhance economic competitiveness

Improve travel time reliability on major freight routes.

Enhance access to jobs.

Enhance transit ridership.

   

Enhance bicycle and pedestrian quality of service.

Reduce the cost of congestion per capita.

Maximize the return on investment. Enhance transit accessibility.

Invest in livable communities and sustainable communities

Reduce the impacts of improvements on the natural environment Reduce emissions from automobiles.

Enhance safety

Reduce crashes. Reduce facilities. Optimize the quantity of travel.

Enhance mobility and accessibility

Optimize the quality of travel. Improve the accessibility to mode choices. Optimize the utilization of the system.

Enhance equity in decision making

       

      

   

     

 

Avoid disproportionately adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations.

Ensure fair participation by all affected populations.

Prevent the denial of benefits to minority and lowincome populations.

Satisfy FDOT’s off system bridge replacement goals.

  

  

  

  

  

Meet FTA transit system maintenance requirements.

Meet the FDOT pavement condition goals

Preserve and maintain our existing system

  

Protect and enhance the environment

Meet the FDOT bridge condition goals

2-11


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-7. Federal Planning Requirements Planning Requirement (a) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include the development of a transportation plan addressing no less than a 20-year planning horizon as of the effective date.

Action Taken The plan addresses a horizon of 2040.

In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the effective date of the transportation plan shall be the date of a conformity determination issued by the FHWA and the FTA. In attainment areas, the effective date of the transportation plan shall be its date of adoption by the MPO. (b) The transportation plan shall include both long-range and short-range strategies/actions that lead to the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in addressing current and future transportation demand. (c) The MPO shall review and update the transportation plan at least every four years in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas and at least every five years in attainment areas to confirm the transportation plan's validity and consistency with current and forecasted transportation and land use conditions and trends and to extend the forecast period to at least a 20-year planning horizon.

A maintenance plan is not required in this airshed based on Section 185A of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the adopted State Implementation Plan.

In addition, the MPO may revise the transportation plan at any time using the procedures in this section without a requirement to extend the horizon year. The transportation plan (and any revisions) shall be approved by the MPO and submitted for information purposes to the Governor. Copies of any updated or revised transportation plans must be provided to the FHWA and the FTA. (d) In metropolitan areas that are in nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide, the MPO shall coordinate the development of the metropolitan transportation plan with the process for developing transportation control measures in a State Implementation Plan. (e) The MPO, the State(s), and the public transportation operator(s) shall validate data utilized in preparing other existing modal plans for providing input to the transportation plan.

Not applicable.

In updating the transportation plan, the MPO shall base the update on the latest available estimates and assumptions for population, land use, travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity. The MPO shall approve transportation plan contents and supporting analyses produced by a transportation plan update.

Short- and long-range strategies were evaluated that included safety and TSM&O strategies.

This is an update to the 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan.

Not applicable.

Extensive coordination with all state and local transportation agencies including the Jacksonville Transportation Authority was performed in the development of the plan as outlined in the public involvement section. A travel demand model was prepared as part of the planning process that included information on the population, land use, travel, employment, congestion and economic activity. These data were reviewed and approved by the local agencies and the North Florida TPO.

2-12


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-7. Federal Planning Requirements Planning Requirement Action Taken (f) The metropolitan transportation plan shall, at a minimum, include: (1) The projected transportation demand of persons and A regional travel demand model was developed that goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of included a freight analysis and forecasts through the year the transportation plan. 2040. (2) Existing and proposed transportation facilities (including A comprehensive evaluation of all regional multimodal major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal needs was conducted as part of the planning process. As facilities, pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities, and documented in this report, an inventory of major roadways, intermodal connectors) that should function as an transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, pedestrian integrated metropolitan transportation system, giving walkways and bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors emphasis to those facilities that serve important national was completed and the needs were identified. and regional transportation functions over the period of the transportation plan. In addition, the locally preferred alternative selected from an Alternatives Analysis under the FTA's Capital Investment Grant program (49 U.S.C. 5309 and 49 CFR part 611) needs to be adopted as part of the metropolitan transportation plan as a condition for funding under 49 U.S.C. 5309. (3) Operational and management strategies to improve the performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods. (4) Consideration of the results of the congestion management process in Transportation Management Areas that meet the requirements of this subpart, including the identification of single-occupancy vehicle projects that result from a congestion management process in Transportation Management Areas that are nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. (5) Assessment of capital investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and projected future metropolitan transportation infrastructure and provide for multimodal capacity increases based on regional priorities and needs.

Transit projects are identified in the plan. Projects where project development has begun and projects with plans to conduct alternatives analysis phases are also identified.

The metropolitan transportation plan may consider projects and strategies that address areas or corridors where current or projected congestion threatens the efficient functioning of key elements of the metropolitan area's transportation system. (6) Design concept and design scope descriptions of all existing and proposed transportation facilities in sufficient detail, regardless of funding source, in nonattainment and maintenance areas for conformity determinations under the EPA's transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93). In all areas (regardless of air quality designation), all proposed improvements shall be described in sufficient detail to develop cost estimates.

An analysis of the regional congestion management plan and process was used to identify system bottlenecks and needs.

A regional ITS and TSM&O Master Plan was adopted as part of the Needs Plan and funding will be allocated on an annual basis to address needs within the plan. The congestion management process was used to identify needs and alternative strategies to address congestion.

Operations and maintenance of the region’s infrastructure was addressed and funding was allocated within this plan.

The purpose and need for each project is summarized for projects. Cost estimates were included based on prior studies for most of the projects included in the plan. Where project costs estimates were not available, generic cost estimates were used based on FDOT historical data. These are provided in Appendix K.

2-13


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-7. Federal Planning Requirements Planning Requirement (7) A discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the metropolitan transportation plan. The discussion may focus on policies, programs, or strategies, rather than at the project level. The discussion shall be developed in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies. The MPO may establish reasonable timeframes for performing this consultation. (8) Pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation facilities in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 217(g);

Action Taken A systemwide approach to environmental mitigation activities are identified in the plan. Estimates for mitigation costs were provided for projects as part of the plan. The Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process established by FDOT was used to identify an inventory of issues that may be associated with each corridor. The FDOT has established procedures for addressing all mitigation issues in consultation with agencies as part of the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) process.

(9) Transportation and transit enhancement activities, as appropriate; and (10) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented. (i) For purposes of transportation system operations and maintenance, the financial plan shall contain system-level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal-aid highways (as defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). (ii) For the purpose of developing the metropolitan transportation plan, the MPO, public transportation operator(s), and State shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support metropolitan transportation plan implementation, as required under ยง450.314(a). All necessary financial resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the transportation plan shall be identified. (iii) The financial plan shall include recommendations on any additional financing strategies to fund projects and programs included in the metropolitan transportation plan. In the case of new funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified.

Pedestrian and bicycle improvements are addressed in the plan as part of the Active Transportation discussion. Dedicated funding was set aside for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Projects that are candidates for context sensitive solutions and transit accessibility and mobility enhancements are also identified. Transit and transit mobility enhancement improvements are addressed in the plan. A financial plan was prepared and is documented in this plan. System-level estimates of operations and maintenance costs were identified for state roads, local roads and transit and are documented in this report.

Federal and state funding program estimates were provided in consultation with FDOT. These revenues are summarized in this report. Through consultation with the Jacksonville Transportation Authority, estimates of local match and operations and maintenance costs for each project were developed for transit.

A financial plan was prepared that included alternative revenue sources. While developing the plan, alternatives for additional financing beyond those that are currently in place were not advanced to the Cost Feasible Plan stage. Toll revenues anticipated to fund the future First Coast Expressway were also estimated. Locally-funded and privately-funded projects of regional significance were also identified.

2-14


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-7. Federal Planning Requirements Planning Requirement (iv) In developing the financial plan, the MPO shall take into account all projects and strategies proposed for funding under title 23 U.S.C., title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 or with other Federal funds; State assistance; local sources; and private participation. Starting December 11, 2007, revenue and cost estimates that support the metropolitan transportation plan must use an inflation rate(s) to reflect “year of expenditure dollars,� based on reasonable financial principles and information, developed cooperatively by the MPO, State(s), and public transportation operator(s). (v) For the outer years of the metropolitan transportation plan (i.e., beyond the first 10 years), the financial plan may reflect aggregate cost ranges/cost bands, as long as the future funding source(s) is reasonably expected to be available to support the projected cost ranges/cost bands. (vi) For nonattainment and maintenance areas, the financial plan shall address the specific financial strategies required to ensure the implementation of traffic control measures in the applicable State Implementation Plan. (vii) For illustrative purposes, the financial plan may (but is not required to) include additional projects that would be included in the adopted transportation plan if additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were to become available. (viii) In cases that the FHWA and the FTA find a metropolitan transportation plan to be fiscally constrained and a revenue source is subsequently removed or substantially reduced (i.e., by legislative or administrative actions), the FHWA and the FTA will not withdraw the original determination of fiscal constraint; however, in such cases, the FHWA and the FTA will not act on an updated or amended metropolitan transportation plan that does not reflect the changed revenue situation. (g) The MPO shall consult, as appropriate, with State and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation concerning the development of the transportation plan. The consultation shall involve (1) Comparison of transportation plans with State conservation plans or maps, if available; or (2) Comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or historic resources, if available.

Action Taken The Cost Feasible Plan was developed using year of expenditure dollars and inflation rates provided by FDOT. All values in this report are expressed in the year-ofexpenditure, unless otherwise noted.

Funding bands of 2019-2020, 2021-2025, 2026-2030 and 2031-2040 were used.

A maintenance plan is not required in this airshed based on Section 185A of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the adopted State Implementation Plan. A needs plan was developed that identifies the illustrative projects that would be included if additional resources were available. Illustrative projects that were not funded for construction but funded for preliminary engineering phases only are also summarized in the plan. Not applicable. This process is address in the plan maintenance phase.

Extensive coordination with agencies was performed as part of the planning process and is summarized in this report.

Conservation areas were identified as part of the planning process and are shown on the plan maps. A comparison was performed through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process.

2-15


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-7. Federal Planning Requirements Planning Requirement (h) The metropolitan transportation plan should include a safety element that incorporates or summarizes the priorities, goals, countermeasures, or projects for the MPA contained in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan required under 23 U.S.C. 148, as well as (as appropriate) emergency relief and disaster preparedness plans and strategies and policies that support homeland security (as appropriate) and safeguard the personal security of all motorized and nonmotorized users. (i) The MPO shall provide citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the transportation plan using the participation plan developed under §450.316(a). (j) The metropolitan transportation plan shall be published or otherwise made readily available by the MPO for public review, including (to the maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web. (k) A State or MPO shall not be required to select any project from the illustrative list of additional projects included in the financial plan under paragraph (f)(10) of this section. (l) In nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related pollutants, the MPO, as well as the FHWA and the FTA, must make a conformity determination on any updated or amended transportation plan in accordance with the Clean Air Act and the EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93). During a conformity lapse, MPOs can prepare an interim metropolitan transportation plan as a basis for advancing projects that are eligible to proceed under a conformity lapse. An interim metropolitan transportation plan consisting of eligible projects from, or consistent with, the most recent conforming transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program may proceed immediately without revisiting the requirements of this section, subject to interagency consultation defined in 40 CFR part 93. An interim metropolitan transportation plan containing eligible projects that are not from, or consistent with, the most recent conforming transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program must meet all the requirements of this section.

Action Taken The region recently adopted a Strategic Safety Plan and the needs identified in the plan are summarized in this plan. Funding will be allocated on an annual basis for selected projects in consultation with FDOT. Emergency relief and disaster preparedness plans were prepared by the Regional Planning Council and considered as part of the plan. Evaluation routes received a priority designation as part of the prioritization process. The North Florida TPO Board, Technical Advisory Board and Citizens Advisory Board were consulted through the plan development. These boards include representatives of all users. A project steering committee was also established which included additional members. The participation of these interest groups is documented in greater detail in Technical Memorandum #1 – Public Involvement and summarized in this report. A project web site was established for the project and all materials were made available to the public for review. The project web site is http://pathforward2040.com/. All projects were adopted by the North Florida TPO. Two projects were excluded from consideration in the Cost Feasible Plan based on the potential environmental impacts. These projects are documented in the Environmental Considerations section. A maintenance plan is not required in this airshed based on Section 185A of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the State Implementation Plan.

2-16


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION PLAN The 2060 Florida Transportation Plan 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.

Goal: Make transportation decisions to promote responsible environmental stewardship 

Goal: 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. Improve transportation connectivity for people and freight to establish 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 developing and implementing innovative transportation technologies and systems.

Goal: 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.

Goal: Improve mobility and connectivity for people and freight

Goal: Make transportation decisions to support and enhance livable communities 

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 reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Develop transportation plans and make investments to support the goals of the Florida Transportation Plan 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.

  

2-17

Expand transportation options for residents, visitors and businesses. Reinforce and transform Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System 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.


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS The state planning principles to be considered in the LRTP: preserving the existing transportation infrastructure; enhancing Florida’s economic competitiveness; and improving travel choices to ensure mobility. Table 2-8. State Planning Requirements Planning Requirement Each MPO must develop a long-range transportation plan that addresses at least a 20-year planning horizon. The plan must include both long-range and short-range strategies and must comply with all other state and federal requirements. The prevailing principles to be considered in the longrange transportation plan are: preserving the existing transportation infrastructure; enhancing Florida’s economic competitiveness; and improving travel choices to ensure mobility.

Table 2-8 summarizes the state planning requirements and how they addressed in this plan.

Action Taken The plan addresses a 22-year horizon. Long-range and short-range strategies such as TSM&O were considered. The prevailing principles were adopted as part of our goals and objectives.

The long-range transportation plan must be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, with future land use elements and the goals, objectives, and policies of the approved local government comprehensive plans of the units of local government located within the jurisdiction of the MPO

Future land use forecasts were made in consultation with local governments and adopted by the North Florida TPO. Two land use scenarios were developed during the planning process.

Each MPO is encouraged to consider strategies that integrate transportation and land use planning to provide for sustainable development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The North Florida TPO adopted a livability policy as part of the plan and Active Transportation strategies including Context Sensitive Solutions were identified.

The approved long-range transportation plan must be considered by local governments while developing the transportation elements in local government comprehensive plans and any amendments thereto. (a) Identify transportation facilities, including, but not limited to major roadways, airports, seaports, spaceports, commuter rail systems, transit systems, and intermodal or multimodal terminals that will function as an integrated metropolitan transportation system. The long-range transportation plan must give emphasis to those transportation facilities that serve national, statewide or regional functions. The plan must consider the goals and objectives identified in the Florida Transportation Plan as provided in s. 339.155. If a project is located within the boundaries of more than one MPO, the MPOs must coordinate plans regarding the project in the long-range transportation plan.

The approved long-range transportation plan was developed through coordination with local governments and is consistent with the local government land use plans and capital improvement programs. A comprehensive evaluation of all regional multimodal needs was conducted as part of the planning process. As documented in this report, an inventory of major roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, pedestrian walkways and bicycle facilities, and intermodal connectors. No projects identified in the plan are located in another metropolitan area.

2-18


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-8. State Planning Requirements Planning Requirement Action Taken (b) Include a financial plan that demonstrates how the A financial plan was prepared that included alternative plan can be implemented, indicating resources from revenue sources. While developing the plan, alternatives public and private sources which are reasonably expected for additional financing beyond those that are currently to be available to carry out the plan, and recommends in place were not advanced to the Cost Feasible Plan. Toll any additional financing strategies for needed projects revenues anticipated to be available to fund the future and programs. The financial plan may include, for First Coast Expressway were also estimated. illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the adopted long-range transportation plan if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available. For the purpose of developing the long-range transportation plan, the MPO and the department shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support the plan implementation. Innovative financing techniques may be used to fund needed projects and programs. Such techniques may include the assessment of tolls, the use of value capture financing, or the use of value pricing. (c) Assess capital investment and other measures necessary to: 1. Ensure the preservation of the existing metropolitan Goals and objectives associated with the preservation of transportation system including requirements for the the existing transportation system were included. The operation, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of anticipated costs for operations and maintenance of the major roadways and requirements for the operation, state and local transportation systems are documented maintenance, modernization and rehabilitation of public in the plan. transportation facilities; and 2. Make the most efficient use of existing TSM&O strategies and a dedicated funding source for transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion these projects were identified. and maximize the mobility of people and goods. (d) Indicate, as appropriate, proposed transportation Pedestrian and bicycle improvements are addressed in enhancement activities, including, but not limited to, the plan as part of the Active Transportation discussion. pedestrian and bicycle facilities, scenic easements, Dedicated funding was set aside for bicycle and landscaping, historic preservation, mitigation of water pedestrian projects. Projects that are candidates for pollution due to highway runoff, and control of outdoor context sensitive solutions and transit accessibility and advertising. mobility enhancements are also identified. (e) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a)Not applicable. (d), in metropolitan areas that are classified as nonattainment areas for ozone or carbon monoxide, the MPO must coordinate the development of the long-range transportation plan with the State Implementation Plan developed pursuant to the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. In the development of its long-range transportation plan, The North Florida TPO, Technical Coordinating each MPO must provide the public, affected public Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee were agencies, representatives of transportation agency consulted through the plan development. These boards employees, freight shippers, providers of freight include representations of all users. A project steering transportation services, private providers of committee was also established which included transportation, representatives of users of public transit, additional members. The participation of these interest and other interested parties with a reasonable groups is documented in greater in the section on public opportunity to comment on the long-range involvement. transportation plan. The long-range transportation plan must be approved by the MPO 2-19


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan This page is intentionally blank.

2-20


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

SAFETY AND SECURITY T HE SAFETY OF OUR TRAVELING PUBLIC IS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY OF THE PLANNING PROCESS . M ORE PEOPLE DIE OF TRAFFIC CRASHES EACH YEAR IN OUR REGION THAN FROM HOMICIDES . negative impact to lives and economic productivity contribute to the region’s economic competitiveness and quality of life.

TRAFFIC CRASHES

Traffic crashes unnecessarily claim the lives of residents of North Florida each year. More people die from traffic crashes each year than homicides. From 2005-2010, 1,288 fatal crashes occurred versus 715 homicides in the four-county metropolitan area. But it is homicides that make the news headlines. During that same period an additional 81,404 persons were injured in vehicle crashes.

A Strategic Safety Plan was adopted by the North Florida TPO in 2012 and is included in Appendix A. The Strategic Safety Plan identified priority locations (corridors and intersections) that were determined to be of the most significant concern for the safety of the drivers and vulnerable road users (bicyclists and pedestrians). These locations were identified based on the severity of the crashes using the economic cost of the crashes and the total frequency of crashes.

Based on data provided by the Texas Transportation Institute, crashes cause 53 percent of all delays or 7 hours per resident each year in our region in lost economic productivity. The economic costs of traffic crashes in our region exceeded $5 billion annually in medical costs, lost productivity, travel delays, workplace costs, insurance costs, and legal costs. These economic losses are approximately 8 percent of the $60.3 billion gross product of the metropolitan statistical area. The

The 20-highest ranked locations based on the severity of crashes included segments of, and intersections with, SR 21 Blanding Boulevard, SR 134 103rd Street/Timuquana Road, I-295, Ricker Road, Harlow Boulevard, Firestone Road, Old Middleburg Road, Morse Avenue, Rampart Road, SR 228 Normandy Boulevard, Collins Road, CR 220 Doctors Inlet and CR 209 Russell Road. 2-21


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan When the total frequency of crashes was considered (without weighting the severity of crashes), the following additional priority corridors and intersections were identified: SR 212 Beach Boulevard, SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard, SR 115 Southside Boulevard, SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard and SR 109 University Boulevard.

infrastructure interdependencies, as well as information sharing and public-private partnering. Together these factors aid in the focus and direction of the Regional Domestic Security Task Forces. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority maintains a Transit Safety and Security Plan as part of their operations.

Because of the close relationship of congestion and safety, congestion management priority corridors which will be discussed in the following section are also shown on Figure 2-1.

These plans were evaluated and coordinated as part of the planning process.

Construction projects are currently planned on many of the highest ranked priority corridors and intersections. Many of these projects include reconstruction, widening, resurfacing, signalization and access management improvements to address the safety needs.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

The Northeast Florida Regional Council coordinates the preparation of a Local Mitigation Strategy with each county to reduce and/or eliminate the risks associated with natural and man-made hazards. These plans are prepared in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. This Act is a mechanism for collaboration between state and local entities that encourages predisaster planning, recognizes need for mitigation, and designates funding for projects through Federal grant opportunities. The Florida Division of Emergency Management Mitigation Planning Unit assists counties in the update and review process of the local mitigation strategy. They serve as a resource for technical advice, knowledge of funding sources, and general information regarding hazard mitigation. Without an approved local mitigation strategy a county will not be able to apply for many Federal grants. The Local Mitigation Strategy must be updated every five years to remain compliant.

SECURITY

Security planning is addressed through seven Regional Domestic Security Task Forces within the State of Florida. Each Regional Domestic Security Task Forces consists of local representatives from disciplines involved in prevention and response. They are each composed of separate Sub-Committees (with Chairs & Co-Chairs) that include law enforcement, fire/rescue, emergency medical services, emergency management, hospitals, public health, schools and businesses. The Regional Domestic Security Task Forces work together with the Chief of Domestic Security, to prepare for, prevent and respond to terrorist events. The Northeast Florida Regional Council currently has a Florida Division of Law Enforcement and Florida Division of Emergency Management Planner assigned to the region to help push the State strategy.

As part of this plan evacuation routes were reviewed to assess needs. Designated evacuation routes received a priority consideration in developing the Cost Feasible Plan.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its lead agency for disaster readiness and response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has implemented new program initiatives that involve a holistic approach to both disaster readiness and response, and combating terrorism, and are therefore supportive of the national concept of “All Hazards Resilience� and the three closely related factors that necessitate development of a holistic, regional approach to all-hazards resilience that involves engaging the broad stakeholder community-

In the event of a disaster, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority has a management plan to providing emergency evacuation, paratransit transport, moving emergency service personnel and/or civilian relocation via mass transit.

2-22


Âą

0 1.5 3

6

Miles

LEGEND

! ?

Safety Plan - Intersections Congestion Management Plan - Facilities Safety Plan - Facilities Other Roads Conservation Areas North Florida TPO Governing Counties Additional Counties Considered for the LRTP Water Bodies

! ?

! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

! ? ! ? ! ?

! ? ! ? ?! ?! ?! ? ! ? !

! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

! ? ! ?

! ? ?? ! !! ? ! ? ?!

! !? ?

! ?

! ? ! ?

! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

! ?

! ?

! ?

! ?

! ?

Figure 2-1 Priority Safety and Congestion Management System Corridors 2-23


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan This page is intentionally left blank.

2-24


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS A DDRESSING CONGESTION ON OUR ROADWAY SYSTEM IS THE MOST VISIBLE ELEMENT OF THE LRTP. C ONGESTION IN N ORTH F LORIDA COSTS OUR REGION $526 MILLION IN LOST PRODUCTIVITY EACH YEAR . Recurring congestion has staggering social and economic 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 is considered, the total costs of congestion are $526 million. This amounts to 13 hours or $400 per year for each of our region’s 1.3 million residents.

Although transit use in North Florida continues to be less than one percent of all person travel miles, transit use continues 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 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.

From 2008 to 2012, automobile use declined within the region by 5.7 percent. This decline in vehicle use is the result of the economic downturn, changing travel patterns associated with an aging population and younger drivers’ reduced automobile dependence. The exception to this reduction is the recent increase in the truck miles traveled within the region. Over the last five years, truck traffic declined by 16.4 percent. From 2011 to 2012 truck traffic increased 1.6 reflecting the beginning of the economic recovery. 2-25


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan However, vehicle use and travel is anticipated to increase in the region for the next five years as a result of the economic recovery and regional growth. 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. By the year 2040, the traffic volumes will increase by one-third within the region as a result of the growth in population and economic activity. Although driving (alone or with other passengers) is still anticipated to account for about 85 percent of all trips within the region, because of the aging population and changes in preferences from the millennial generation who wish to drive less, the percent of trips made by persons walking is anticipated to increase from 8.4 percent within the region to 9.4 percent, a 14 percent change. According to the American Planning Association’s 2014 National Poll, 81 percent of millennials 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.� These changes in travel preferences will require a multimodal approach to addressing our transportation needs in 2040. Without investments in transportation, travel conditions are anticipated to worsen. By the year 2040, travel times are anticipated to increase by nearly 20 percent. In 2013, the North Florida TPO completed a Congestion Management Plan. The plan developed performance measures and analyzed mobility trends and conditions. The Congestion Management Plan identified congested corridors and recommended strategies and tactics to address these corridors. As part of developing the Congestion Management, corridors that are currently severely congested (operating at level of service E or F) and constrained were identified. These corridors are shown on Figure 2-1 (in the prior section). Because of the close relationship of congestion and safety, priority safety corridors are also shown on this map. The corridors are summarized in Table 2-9. An annual mobility report is prepared each year as part of the congestion management process established in the Congestion Management Plan. The Congestion Management Plan and the 2014 Annual Mobility Report is attached as Appendix B.

2-26


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-9. Congested Facilities County Name of Name Area Clay Clay County St. Johns St. Johns County Clay Clay County Clay Clay County St. Johns St. Johns County Duval Jacksonville St. Johns St. Johns County Duval Jacksonville Clay Orange Park Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville St. Johns St. Johns County Nassau Nassau County Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Beach Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Beach Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville St. Johns St Augustine Duval Jacksonville Clay Middleburg St. Johns St. Johns County Duval Jacksonville Clay Orange Park Duval Jacksonville Duval Neptune Beach Duval Jacksonville Beach Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville

Facility

From Location

To Location

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 Street 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 SR 5 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 SR A1A Third Street I-295 SR 152 Baymeadows Road

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. T. 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 Street I-295 SR 152 Baymeadows Road Clay County Line SR 207 SR 228 Emerson Expressway CR 218 SR 312 SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Wells Road I-295 Ramp to A1A St. Johns County Line St. Johns Bluff Road US 1 Philips Highway

Suzanne Avenue Solana Road SR 224 Kingsley Ave Duval County Line Duval County Line Girvin Road CR 210 Corona Road Beach Boulevard Wells Road US 90 Beach Boulevard Bowden Road Duval County Line CR 107 Blackrock Road I-95 19th Street I-295 Emerson Expressway I-295 Southside Boulevard 34th Street St. Johns Bluff Road SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard I-295 King Street Atlantic Boulevard Ramps North City Limit - Palmetto Street SR 207 SR 5 Exit Downtown Duval County Line Old Kings Road West A1A Junction 34th Avenue US 90 Beach Boulevard I-95

2-27


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-9. Congested Facilities County Name of Name Area St. Johns St Augustine St. Johns St Augustine Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Clay Orange Park Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville St. Johns St Augustine Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Clay Orange Park Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville St. Johns St. Johns County Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Neptune Beach

Facility

From Location

To Location

San Marco Avenue 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 Street 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 SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 202 J.T. Butler Boulevard US 90 Beach Boulevard SR A1A Third Street

Orange Street SR A1A Bridge of Lions Ocean Street Girvin Road SR 109 University Boulevard I-295 Elbow Road I-295 SR 115 Southside Boulevard I-95 SR 152 Baymeadows Road SR 129 McDuff Avenue Stockton Street 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 Belle Rive Boulevard US 90 Beach Boulevard I-95 Hodges Boulevard SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard

May Street SR A1A US 17 Main Street San Pablo Road Haines Street Expressway 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 Street 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 SR A1A SR 228 Emerson Expressway SR 312 SR 109 University Boulevard I-10 Fuller Warren Bridge SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard SR 152 Baymeadows Road SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 115 Southside Boulevard San Pablo Parkway Seagate Avenue

2-28


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-9. Congested Facilities County Name of Name Area Duval Jacksonville Beach Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville St. Johns St Augustine Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Clay Clay County Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Atlantic Beach Duval Jacksonville

Facility

From Location

To Location

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 I-10 Branan Field Road I-95 SR 134 103rd Street SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 109 University Boulevard

Seagate Avenue SR 208 Wilson Boulevard SR 115 Southside Boulevard St Augustine Road SR 15/US 17 Powers Avenue SR 155 Southside Boulevard SR 109 University Boulevard Herlong Road SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Merrill Road Monument Road US 1 Philips Highway I-295 Park Avenue King Street Craven Road SR 111 Edgewood Avenue SR 122 Golfair Avenue SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 139/US 23 Francis Street I-95 SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard Luna Ramps SR 134 103rd Street Cassat Avenue Lane Avenue Kindlewood Drive I-10 Ricker Road West A1A Junction SR 10A Arlington Expressway

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 SR 111 Edgewood Avenue Castillo Drive US 1Philips Highway McDuff Avenue SR 115 Lem Turner Road I-295 SR 114 8th Street Perry Street Old St Augustine Road Gate Parkway SR 129 McDuff Avenue SR 208 Wilson Boulevard Luna Ramps Cassat Avenue Duval County Line US 23 Kings Road I-295 SR A1A Third Street Arlington Road

2-29


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-9. Congested Facilities County Name of Name Area Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville Duval Jacksonville

Facility

From Location

To Location

SR 104 Dunn Avenue I-95 I-95 US 90 Union Street US 90 State Street US 90 State Street I-295

Biscayne Boulevard SR 114 8th Street Exit to SR 115 Southside Boulevard I-95 US 1 Main Street Liberty Street Commonwealth Avenue

I-95 SR 15 20th Street SR 152 Baymeadows Road US 17 Main Street US 23 Union Street US 1 Pritchard Road

2-30


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

COMPLETED AND COMMITTED CONSTRUCTION T O ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR DETERMINING FUTURE NEEDS , PROJECTS THAT WERE COMPLETED SINCE THE LAST LRTP AND PROJECTS WITH COMMITMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WERE IDENTIFIED . An analysis of the progress made in completing the Envision 2035 LRTP was performed to establish the baseline for this Cost Feasible Plan. Major projects completed since the adoption of the 2035 LRTP are shown on Figure 2-2 and summarized in Table 2-10.

The projects identified with commitments for construction or capital improvements are part of the Cost Feasible Plan to provide the flexibility to implement projects commensurate with future funding availability. Projects in Baker and Putnam Counties are shown in the list of committed projects based on the regional development of this plan and their inclusion in the travel demand forecasting model for North Florida.

The major projects with commitments for construction are summarized in Figure 2-2 in Table 2-11 and Table 212. The commitments were obtained from the following planning documents and through coordination with our partner agencies. 

  

All values in this plan for revenues and costs are reported in year of expenditure millions of dollars unless otherwise noted.

North Florida TPO’s Transportation Improvement Program for the Fiscal Years 2015-2019 as Amended 10/27/14 FDOT’s 2015-2019- Adopted with Amended dated October 30, 2014 Local government Capital Improvement Programs Jacksonville Transportation Authority’s Transit Development Plan

Technical Memorandum #7 – Existing Plus Committed Projects is included in the attachments to this report.

2-31


¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾

¾¿ ¾¿ ¾¿ ¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

2

¿ ¾ ¾

¾¿

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

301

¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¾

300 1

67 3011

í ì ë é Wè " Ò )

§ ¦ ¨ 10

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

50

51

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾

¿ ¾

¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

13A

¬ «

214

51

" )

3003

305

£ ¤ 17

§ ¦ ¨ 95

¬ «

206

¬ «

504

" ) 204

20

54

422

21

A1A

100

¬ « ¬ «

" )

5

¬ «

" ) 310

19

¬ «

" ) 309

" ) 308

502

200

25

200A

200

326 326

13

A1A

207

301

441

3002 4

34

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

3006

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¿ ¾

5

¾¿

17

¿ ¾

53

Date: 3/13/2015

126

¿ ¾

" )

200A

" ) £ " ) ¤ Conservation Lands « " £ ¤¬ Six ) Counties Boundaries £ ¤ ¬ «" " ) " ) ) ¬ « ¬ ) « " ) " ¬ «" ) ¬ « 326

" ) 209

¬ «

" )

55

320 FEC Project X Ã" ) 75

16

208

214

New 3 Lane Road

£ ¤

¬ « " ) " " ) ) " )

17

315

Roadway System

61

1

£ ¤

" )

Express Lanes

" Ò ) Ê

21

95

315

New 6 Lane Road

¬ «

§ ¦ ¨

" )

422

A1A

16

New 2 Lane Road

225A

" Ò ) Ê

" )

New 4 Lane Road

46 30

¬ «

Context Sensitive Solutions¬ 26 «

25A

220

315

Reconstruct 6 Lanes

316

" )

16

Widen to 5 Lanes

318

¬ «

¬ «

Widen to 4 Lanes

329

13

¬ «

Widen to 3 Lanes

500

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

1027

Reconstruct 2 Lanes

§ ¦ ¨ Water Bodies

3

21

Bus Rapid Transit

225

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

36

" )

33

Types of Projects

27

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¾

3047

218

è Intersection Projects í ì ë é " Ò ) Ê Interchange Projects

5

32

¿ ¾

301

£ ¤

Legend

¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾

36

973

711

¿ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

130

45

¾¿

5 50

" )

¬ «

18

" )

105

« ¬ «

¿ ¾

228

A

A1A 21

¿ ¾

£ ¤

95

¿ ¾

90

¯§ ¨ ¦

¿ ¾ ¾

124

¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¿¾ ¿¾ ¿ ¾ ¿ ¿¾ ¾ ¿ ¾

" )

23

3004

3009

¯ " Ò ) Ê

¬ « ¬ « ¬

116 " Ò ) Ê 11 27 3012 30 3052 3045 33043 10 051 3012 4 « 3005 44 1 " Ò í ) ì ë é è " Ò ) Ê ¬ Ê 16 " Ò ) Ê 3010 W " Ò 3008 105 ) í ì ë é è " Ò ) Ê 62 90 " Ò ) £ Ê65 ¤ " Ò 3007 3016 966 ) 3015 Ê W3021 71 " Ò ) 1 34 ¬ " Ò í ì ë é " Ò « è " Ò ) ) " Ò Ê Ê ) Ê Ê ) 3017 228 X Ã ¬ « 23 ¬ « í 3014 ì ë é è 970 295 í ì ë é è § ¦ ¨ 961 3020 66 " Ò ) Ê 1 53 £ ¤ " Ò ) Ê 0 05

" ) 221

¬ «

59

7

¿ ¾

" Ò ) Ê " Ò ) Ê

125

¬ «

§ ¦ ¨

§ ¦)"ÒÊ ¨ 295

1020

¿ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

250

60

295

¿ ¿ ¾ ¿ ¾ ¾

" ) 119

" )

A1A

961

50 30

33

34

" Ò ) Ê " Ò ) Ê

¿ ¾ ¿ ¿¾ ¾

" )

3020

" )

0 304 64 13

£ ¤ 122

A1A

A1A

218

43

2

¬ « ¬ «

6

127

¿ ¾ ¾

" )

¿ ¾ ¾

42

¿ ¾ ¾

" ) 13 39

¿ ¾

17

£ ¤

" ) " )

¿ ¾

95

108

" Ò Ê ¬ «)

¿ ¾ ¾

38 37

§ ¦ ¨

1

£ ¤

105

¬ « ¬ «

107

40

2

¿ ¾ ¾

108

" )

64

" Ò ) Ê

" )

115

" Ò ) Ê 1

£ ¤ ¿ ¾ ¾

3040

" Ò ) Ê

5

¿ ¾

¾¿

¿ ¾

¿ ¾ ¾

6

¿ ¾ ¾

295

¿ ¾

3018

23 3014 í ì ë é è 66

" )

" ) " )

£ ¤§ ¨ ¦ 301

¿ ¾

¯

3019

228

¬ «

¬ « ¬ «

í ì ë é è

¾¿

326

Figure 2-2 Committed Plus Completed Projects 2-32

¯

0

10,560 Feet

0

4

8 Miles


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-10. Major Projects Under Construction or Completed Since the 2035 Plan Was Adopted Facility ID From To Improvement Alt. US 1 Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway Chaffee Road Clark Road Extension Collins Road Concourse Loop Road CR 210

7 3047 1020 3048 711 21

at 21st Street/ Talleyrand Avenue SR 134 103rd Street Clark Road Old Middleburg Road Gene Lassere Boulevard US 1

New Interchange

Complete

Chaffee Road Broward Road Shinder Drive Nassau Center Court FEC Railroad

New 2 Lane New 2 Lane New 2 Lane New 2 Lane

New 2 Lane New Interchange and New 2 Lane Road Add 2 Lane Add Auxiliary Lanes

Complete Complete Complete Under Construction Under construction Complete Under construction Complete Under construction Under construction Under construction Under construction Complete

CR 210 Extension Davis Parkway

3046 961

Valley Ridge Boulevard at 9B Extension

Nocatee Parkway

I-10 I-10

3051 3052

Halsema Road I-295

I-10

3043 3042 3052

at Hammond Boulevard (Marietta) I-295

Lane Avenue SR 111 Cassat Avenue

I-10 I-295

62

I-295

3010

I-295

11

I-295

3009

I-295

60

at Commonwealth Avenue at Pritchard Road

I-295

67

at SR 104 Dunn Avenue

13

at SR 208 Wilson Boulevard at SR 228 Normandy Boulevard I-10

Phase

SR 111 Cassat Avenue

Overpass

New Interchange and Remove Existing Add Auxiliary Lanes Interchange Modification Interchange Modification

Commonwealth Avenue

Add Auxiliary Lanes Interchange Modification Interchange Modification Interchange Modification

Under construction Under construction Under construction Complete

2035 Cost Feasible Plan Status 13 Committed Project Committed Project Committed Project Locally Funded Locally Funded 2035 Cost Feasible Plan #19 Private Privately Funded Committed Project Operations Improvement Committed Project Operations Improvement Operations Improvement Operations Improvement 2035 Cost Feasible Plan #6 Operations Improvement 2035 Cost Feasible Plan #7 Operations Improvement

Projects identified in the list of committed projects in the Envision 2035 Cost Feasible Plan are show as “Committed Project�. Projects identified as Operations Improvement were not part of the 2035 Cost Feasible Plan. 2-33


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-10. Major Projects Under Construction or Completed Since the 2035 Plan Was Adopted Facility ID From To Improvement I-295

1022

I-295

505

I-295

59

I-95

65

I-95

71

I-95

3041

I-95

13

SR 13 (Buckman Bridge)

I-95

Add 4 Express Lanes

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard at SR 105 Heckscher Drive at Bowden Road

Collins Road

Interchange Modification Interchange Modification Interchange Modification

at SR 202 J.T. Butler Boulevard Emerson Street (Overland Bridge) at I-295 North

Interchange Modification Fuller Warren Bridge Phase 1

Bridge Replacement Interchange Modifications

Max Leggett Parkway Max Leggett Parkway

35 3040

I-95 Owens Road

Owens Road SR 5 US 1

Widen to 4 Lanes New 4 Lane

SR 104 Dunn Avenue

3011

Garden Boulevard

Walgreens

Intersection Improvement

I-95

CR 107

Widen to 6 Lanes

SR 200 SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard SR 21 Blanding Boulevard

37 3007

Hodges Boulevard

33

SR 23 Branan Field Road Old Jennings Road Old Jennings Road

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard SR 23 First Coast Expressway

3050 3006

SR 23 First Coast Expressway

36

SR 9B

4

SR 9B

126

US 17 Park Avenue

3020

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard I-95 US 1 SR 5 Philips Highway Wells Road

Phase Under construction Complete Under construction Complete Under construction Under construction Complete Complete Under Construction Complete

2035 Cost Feasible Plan Status 13 2035 Cost Feasible Plan #5 Committed Project Committed Project Operations Improvement 2035 Cost Feasible Plan #22 Operations Improvement 2035 Cost Feasible Plan #21 Privately Funded Privately Funded

Intersection Improvement

Under Construction Complete

Old Jennings Road

Widen to 4 Lanes

Complete

Operations Improvement 2035 Cost Feasible Plan #9 Operations Improvement Locally Funded

Knight Boxx Road Oakleaf Plantation Parkway I-10

Widen to 6 Lanes Build Frontage Roads

Complete Complete

Locally Funded Committed Project

New Limited Access Toll Road New Limited Access Roadway New Limited Access Roadway Add Lanes and Reconstruct

Under construction Under construction Complete

Committed Project

Complete

Operations Improvement

US 1 SR 5 Philips Highway I-295 I-295 2-34

2035 Cost Feasible Plan #11 Committed Project


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-10. Major Projects Under Construction or Completed Since the 2035 Plan Was Adopted Facility ID From To Improvement US 301 SR 200

23

US 301 SR 200

301

Baldwin Bypass South of Baldwin North of Baldwin

Baldwin Bypass North of Baldwin Callahan

New 4 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes

Note: All Cost Feasible Plan project number references are as shown in the plan summary brochure.

2-35

Phase Under construction Under construction

2035 Cost Feasible Plan Status 13 2035 Cost Feasible Plan #12 2035 Cost Feasible Plan #13


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-11. Major Projects with Construction Funds Committed Facility Chester Road CR 216 CR 220 Doctors Inlet Road CR 739 Henley Road/ Russell Road Crawford Road Crawford Road Florida East Coast Railway Fort Gates Ferry Road Girvin Road Girvin Road Holloway Road I-10 at I-95 I-10 I-295 I-295 I-95 I-95 I-95 Kolas Ferry Road Lake Susan Road Old St Augustine Road Parramore Road Extension Pecan Park Road Radio Avenue SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 10 US 90 Beaver Street SR 10 US 90 Beaver Street SR 109 University Boulevard SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 134 103rd Street SR 152 Baymeadows Road SR 20 SR 200 SR A1A SR 200 SR A1A SR 202 J. T . Butler Boulevard SR 21 Blanding Boulevard SR 21 Blanding Boulevard SR 21 Blanding Boulevard SR 212 Beach Boulevard SR 23 First Coast Expressway SR 23 First Coast Expressway SR 243 JIA North Access Road SR 9B SR 9B

ID 973 504 50 51 42 43 3021 502 44 45 3003 27 3045 5 3016 13 64 66 3018 55 53 970 3019 40 105 3004 3005 3012 3014 3015 3017 422 38 39 966 32 33 34 3008 18 17 6 126 3002

From

To

Improvement

County

Fund Source

Phase

SR 200 SR A1A SR 100 CR 209 Russell Road CR 218 CR 121 Old Alabama Trail RAILEX SR 19 SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Ashley Melisse SR 100 US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard SR 23 First Coast Expressway SR 9B SR 134 103rd Street at I-295/SR 9A North at SR 102 Airport Road at Old St. Augustine Road Murrhee Road Alachua County Line Greenland Road / Loretto Road Youngerman Circle SR 243 JIA North Access Road US 17 SR 115 Arlington Expressway CR 121 Brandy Branch Road CR 119 Otis Road Bartram Drive Deercreek Club Road at Firestone Road Freedom Commerce Parkway Alachua County Line Still Quarters Road Rubin Lane SR 115 Southside Boulevard CR 218 Branan Field Road CR 220 Long Bay Road F.O.P. Way Argyle Forest Boulevard Clay County Line SR 102 Airport Road US 1 Philips Highway CR 2209

Green Pine Road US 17 Knight Boxx Road CR 220 Doctors Inlet Road Old Alabama Trail US 301 SR 200

Add Lanes and Reconstruct Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Road Reconstruction Road Reconstruction Rail Capacity Project Road Reconstruction Widen to 5 Lanes Widen to 3 Lanes New Road Construction Interchange Improvement Interchange Improvement Add 4 Express Lanes Interchange Improvement Interchange Ramp (New) Interchange Improvement Interchange Improvement Road Reconstruction Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes New 2 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes New Road Construction Intersection Improvement Add Right Turn Lane(s) Add Right Turn Lane(s) Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Add Lanes and Reconstruct Add Lanes and Reconstruct Add Lanes and Reconstruct Interchange Improvement Add Lanes and Reconstruct Add Lanes and Reconstruct Add Lanes and Reconstruct Intersection Improvement New 4-Lane Road Construction Widen to 6 Lane Limited Access Toll Road New Road Construction New Road Construction New Road Construction

Nassau Putnam Clay Clay Nassau Nassau Duval Putnam Duval Duval Putnam Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Nassau Putnam Duval Duval Duval Nassau Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Duval Putnam Nassau Nassau Duval Clay Clay Clay Duval Clay/Duval Clay/Duval Duval Duval St. Johns

FDOT FDOT FDOT Clay FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT Duval LOGT Duval LOGT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT Duval LOGT Duval LOGT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT

CST CST CST CST CST CST CAP CST CST CST CST DSB CST CST CST DSB CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST DSB DSB CST DSB CST

Mount Royal Ave Ashley Melisse Wonderwood Drive Tinsley Road San Marco Avenue US 90 SR 202 J.T. Butler Boulevard Firestone Road Phase 2

Kings Ferry Road CR 21 I-295 Collins Road I-95 Minor Road Monument Road

Cesery Boulevard

Country Day School Drive SW 56th Avenue Rubin Lane CR 107 Scott Road Black Creek Old Jennings Road Allie Murray Road Ryar Road I-10 Argyle Forest Boulevar Pecan Park Road I-95 Duval County Line 2-36

Fiscal Year 2018 2016 2015 2018 2015 2015 2015 2015 2018 2018 2015 2016 2018 2015 2017 2017 2018 2018 2017 2017 2018 2018 2016 2016 2017 2018 2018 2019 2017 2017 2018 2019 2016 2018 2018 2019 2017 2019 2018 2015 2015 2018 2015 2015

Amount $10.30 $0.78 $0.81 $0.00 $0.29 $3.38 $1.14 $2.25 $5.74 $7.36 $1.26 $118.77 $48.10 $103.35 $6.90 $165.02 $6.60 $0.90 $3.64 $1.91 $0.60 $5.00 $11.83 $0.24 $6.84 $0.40 $0.19 $3.77 $0.52 $2.20 $6.72 $54.35 $0.65 $32.54 $1.83 $9.23 $15.28 $19.77 $5.41 $12.61 $7.21 $17.20 $95.43 $111.37


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-11. Major Projects with Construction Funds Committed Facility

ID

SR 9B US 17 SR 15 US 301 SR 200

126 54 23

From

To

Improvement

County

Fund Source

Phase

South of SR 9A Horse Landing Road South of Baldwin

I-95 Boundary Road in San Mateo North of Baldwin

New Road Construction Widen to 4 Lanes New 4 Lane Roadway - Baldwin Bypass

Duval Putnam Duval

FDOT FDOT FDOT

DSB CST CST

Table 2-12. Major Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Projects with Construction Funding Committed

County

Facility

From

To

Improvement

Phase Fund Source

Clay

CR 218 Pine Avenue FEC Railway North First Coast Flyer 15 Sherry Drive Southeast First Coast Flyer 16 SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 115 Arlington Expressway Timuquan Trail Bailey and Simmons Road Main Street St. Johns Avenue River Sea Loop Trail SR 13 SR 207

Mimosa Avenue Old Fleming Grove Road RAILEX Downtown Jacksonville (Duval County) Atlantic Beach Elementary Downtown Jacksonville (Duval County) Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Service Roads Kingsley Connector Sports Complex Junction Road Sports Complex

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard Raggedy Point Road

Holley Berry Lane Armstrong Trail Heads Hastings Trail Heads

Roberts Road

Bike Path Trail Sidewalk Rail Capacity Bus Rapid Transit Sidewalk Bus Rapid Transit Sidewalk Sidewalk Bike Path Trail Sidewalk Bike Path Trail Bike Path Trail Bike Path Trail Sidewalk Bike Path Trail Bike Path Trail

CST CST CAP 14 CAP CST CAP CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST

Duval

Nassau Putnam St. Johns

I-295 Avenues Mall

Fletcher Avenue End of Existing Trail SR 19

Total Note: All Cost Feasible Plan project number references are as shown in the plan summary brochure.

14

CAP represents capital improvements. 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Project #B 16 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Project #D 15

2-37

Fiscal Year

FDOT FDOT FDOT Jacksonville Transportation Authority FDOT Jacksonville Transportation Authority FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT FDOT

2015 2015 2017

First Year 2015 2017 2015 2016 2019 2016 2017 2017 2016 2018 2016 2019 2019 2014 2015 2015

Amount $0.05 $17.65 $37.18

Amount $0.74 $1.30 $1.14 $33.50 $0.45 $23.80 $1.20 $0.30 $2.00 $1.30 $0.77 $0.75 $0.95 $0.15 $0.32 $0.37 $69.04


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan This page is intentionally blank.

2-38


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING P LANNING TO ADDRESS NOT ONLY OUR CURRENT NEEDS BUT THE NEEDS OF THE FUTURE IS INTEGRAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PLANNING PROCESS . modeled at higher levels of demographic, spatial and temporal resolution than has been possible with tripbased modeling systems. DaySim links activities and trips through tours (trip chains), and links tours through day patterns. This equips the North Florida TPO with the ability to respond to complex questions involving impacts of plans on specific demographic sub-groups and geographic units, consideration of different values of time for tolling analysis, and shifts in demand by time of day, all the while accounting for the linkages within a tour and across a day. NERPM-AB also uses parcel-level land use data as an input to create accessibility-related variables, providing the potential to make better predictions of the impacts of large-scale land use changes, such as developments of regional impact.

MODEL FRAMEWORK

The Northeast Regional Planning Model: Activity-Based v1.0 (NERPM-AB) is the region travel demand forecasting model was used in developing this plan. The model was used for forecasting future transportation demand and transportation systems analysis. The modeling process and socio-economic data forecasting process are discussed in greater detail in the following   

Technical Memorandum #3 – Socio Economic Data Forecasts Technical Memorandum #4 – Model Validation and Calibration Technical Memorandum #5 – Freight Modeling

DaySim is a person-day activity and travel simulator, which is the only activity-based component of the NERPM-AB model. DaySim accounts for all travel by residents of the region. The simulation occurs at the person level, so the primary outputs of DaySim relate to

NERPM-AB represents a paradigm shift towards a more disaggregate modeling approach in which the activitytravel patterns of individual households and persons are 2-39


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan personal travel for work, school, social/recreational, and other non-work purposes. The truck and freight model includes all trips made for transportation of goods and services and includes a Jacksonville area Port Model. The external trips model includes both internal-external (trips made by region residents to points outside the region), external-internal (trips made by residents from outside the region to points within the region), and through trips. All of the mode components use the traffic analysis zone system and are adapted from previous NERPM trip-based models. Trips from all the sub-models are aggregated and factored to create trip tables, which are then assigned to the highway and transit networks.

The model components listed above were integrated into a single package within the Citilabs® Cube travel demand modeling system, using the Cube Catalog graphic user interface.

MARKET SEGMENTATION

The NERPM-AB modeling system covers regional landbased travel, segmented by four primary markets:   

MODEL COMPONENTS

NERPM-AB is composed of many different model components. The following activities were performed:     

 

 

Develop a synthetic population of residents living in households and group quarters. Develop employment by industry group. Develop a parcel-based land use database. Specify parameters for activity-based residential demand models, covering travel within the region. Develop calibration target values for activity-based model components, using National Household Transportation Survey data, US Census American Community Survey, and the Census Transportation Planning Package. Incorporate updated trip tables representing nonresident travel and resident travel with external trip ends (external-external, external-internal, internalexternal). Incorporate updated truck-trip generation and distribution models from the Florida statewide model and from port facilities. Incorporate special generators for Jacksonville International Airport and for the tourism district of St. Augustine. Incorporate and development of updated highway network files, requiring recoding of some link attributes and intersection turning penalties. Incorporate updated transit route files. Develop new highway assignment procedures and skimming methods for four time periods (AM peak, midday, PM peak, and evening off-peak), as well as summaries for full-day analysis. Incorporate updated traffic count data. and Develop new speed-feedback procedures and closure criteria.

Resident travel internal to the modeling region. Non-resident/visitor travel internal to the modeling region. Resident and non-resident/visitor travel involving trips passing through the region, but with at least one end outside the region. Commercial vehicle travel internal to the modeling region.

The DaySim model covers all household resident travel within the region for the following market segments.   

Permanent residents living in households. Permanent residents living in group quarters. Seasonal residents living part of the year in the region, who are permanent residents of a different region.

DaySim does not model visitors to the region, such as tourists, business travelers and non-residents visiting family and friends. Nor does DaySim model travel by persons who live external to the modeling area, but who may commute in and out of the region for work or school, or who come to the region for shopping, recreation or other personal business. However, adjustments were made to the model to account for these travel patterns. Common special generators, such as hospitals, shopping malls and military installations are covered by the resident travel models listed above. Two special generators were retained in NERPM-AB: (1) Jacksonville International Airport (15,000 daily trip ends, derived from airline enplanements); and (2) St. Augustine’s historic center (2,288 daily trip ends, derived from hotel and motel rooms). Both of these special generators represent concentrations of intense visitor traffic, which are not covered by DaySim. DaySim assumes that a portion of the jobs within the region will be filled by workers who live outside the region. To accommodate this market, external-internal 2-40


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan work trips are fixed for workplace destinations, thereby reducing the availability of those jobs for workers living within the region. The usual workplace location choice is affected by DaySim’s shadow-pricing mechanism, which compares the total employment within each zone to the number of workplace locations predicted for each zone and adjusts the attractiveness of that zone through a series of iterations to balance job supply with worker demand. Trial-and-error revealed that a ten-iteration approach to shadow-pricing for employment yielded the best results.

The DaySim model calibration components consisted of           

MODEL YEARS

The following model scenarios were developed as part of the planning process.     

The calibration process met or exceeds all of the calibration standards established under the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling guidelines and showed a significant improvement over the prior tripbased models.

2010 Base Year 2030 Interim Year Cost Feasible Plan 2040 Existing Plus Committed 2040 Needs Plan 2040 Cost Feasible Plan

The model calibration process results are documented in greater detail in Technical Memorandum #4 – Model Validation and Calibration.

TIME OF DAY

Consistency with the model design of DaySim necessitated the development of separate highway network assignment and skimming processes for four time-periods of the day:    

Usual location choice models Usual school location sub-model Auto ownership Day pattern models Main-pattern model Exact number of tours model Number and purpose of work-based sub-tours model Number and purpose of intermediate stops Non-mandatory tour destination choice Tour mode choice Time-of-day choice model

AM peak (6:00-8:59) Midday off peak (9:00-3:59) PM peak (4:00-6:59) Evening off peak (7:00 -5:59)

These four time-period-based assignments are run individually, producing a loaded network for each period. At the end of the process, a new script is then run to combine all four time periods into a single daily assignment output, representing a 24-hour travel period.

MODEL CALIBRATION

Model calibration is the process of applying the estimated models, comparing the results to observed values, and adjusting either the model specification or the alternative specific constants. The process is complicated by the fact that the various model components in DaySim are not isolated.

2-41


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

FUTURE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES

As part of preparing the NERPM-AB, the development of land use scenarios and forecasting of land use within the region at a parcel level was required.

Population forecast were based on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research medium scenario and were used as control totals at the county-level.

During the development of the base year model households, population in group quarters, school enrollment and employment by market sector were assigned to individual parcels for the six county region. As part of this process vacant and underdeveloped parcels were identified. According to the 2010 Census, 13 percent or 82,272 of the housing units within the six county region are vacant.

Table 2-13 summarizes the population forecasts that were provided by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research and used as the control totals within the modeling process. An alternate land use scenario was also prepared in cooperation with the local governments that changed employment but not household, school or group quarter land uses. Table 2-14 summarizes the change in employment by market sector. Table 2-15 summarizes school enrollment.

Table 2-13. NERPM-AB Year 2010 and 2040 Population and Employment Control Totals County Year 2010 Year 2040 Population Year 2010 Year 2040 Workers Population living Population living Growth Rate NERPM-AB Estimated Growth Rate in Households in Households 2010 -2040 Total Workers Workers* 2010 -2040 Nassau 72,771 116,159 60% 24,126 39,586 64% Duval 844,293 1,050,684 24% 519,142 636,596 23% St. Johns 186,598 374,207 101% 61,714 155,227 152% Clay 189,614 314,010 66% 54,454 88,958 64% Baker 24,771 36,657 48% 7,396 13,860 87% Putnam 72,957 77,991 7% 25,148 28,051 21% Total 1,391,004 1,969,708 42% 691,980 962,278 39% * Average between BEA 10 year growth rate (2000-2010) and NERPM-AB growth rate of population year 2040.

2-42


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-14. Employment in Trend and Alternate Land Use Scenarios Employment Sectors

Year 2010

Year 2040 Trend

Alternate

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

551

633

541

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction

276

315

271

Construction

39,403

45,140

38,677

Manufacturing

39,670

45,455

38,939

Transportation and Warehousing

24,412

27,982

23,962

104,312

119,525

102,390

376

433

369

Wholesale Trade

20,322

23,285

19,947

Retail Trade

61,371

70,362

60,240

Accommodation and Food Services

38,919

44,615

38,202

Industrial - Subtotal Utilities

Commercial - Subtotal

120,988

138,695

118,758

Information

13,882

17,836

17,848

Finance and Insurance

41,546

53,425

53,416

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

11,509

14,766

14,797

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

28,713

37,481

36,916

5,425

6,914

6,975

Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services

35,270

45,319

45,347

Educational Services

27,718

35,652

35,637

Health Care and Social Assistance

57,340

73,825

73,722

5,009

6,418

6,440

Other Services (except Public Administration)

21,486

27,617

27,625

Public Administration

45,944

59,123

59,070

Service -Subtotal

293,842

378,376

377,792

Total

519,142

636,596

584,940

Management of Companies and Enterprises

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation

Table 2-15. Year 2040 School Enrollment Projections versus Age Group Projections County Total Kindergarten thru 8th 9th Grade thru 12th University and Grade Grade College Nassau 13,389 5,584 1,805 20,779 Duval 141,606 52,601 114,890 309,092 St. Johns 49,317 24,151 10,875 84,343 Clay 40,947 21,095 8,057 70,100 Baker 5,576 2,037 0 7,614 Putnam 9,757 3,339 9,014 22,108 Total 260,592 108,807 144,641 514,036

2-43

NERPM-AB Age Groups 5 thru 14 15 thru 17 Years Years 14,998 4,579 142,620 47,325 55,763 19,913 45,562 15,982 5,876 1,692 9,931 2,885 274,750 92,376


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

REASONABLENESS CHECKS FOR FUTURE YEAR MODEL ASSIGNMENTS

The future land use maps and approved developments received from the local governments were used to allocate households and employment to the parcel level. The growth was allocated to the vacant and underutilized parcels before new development was considered consistent with the data provided by the local agencies.

As part of the development of the model, reasonableness tests were performed for the model calibration criteria previously discussed. Changes to screenline, cutline and cordon volumes are shown Figure 2-3. Across the region, these volumes exhibit remarkably proportional growth. That is, locations that carried larger volumes in 2010 seem to grow proportionally in 2040.

Reasonableness checks on the projections on parcel data included evaluation of the number of housing units associated with the residential developments and reviews of aerial photography to ensure that the projections can actually geographically fit within the parcels and traffic analysis zones. Several of the local government requested a reduction in the vacancy rate, assuming it was higher than usual due to the economic downturn. The characteristics of land uses needed for applying DaySim was performed at the parcel level by the Population Generator (PopGen) program. This program synthesizes the population to the characteristics identified in the Census and PUMS data sources and allocates it to a household/parcel and individual level.

Traffic volumes on the Strategic Intermodal System, and particularly the I-95 corridor, are forecast to grow faster than in many other corridors without investments in new services or capacity. St. Johns County is expected to grow faster than the other counties in the 2040 scenario and significant growth in traffic volumes along the I-95 corridor south of Jacksonville is anticipated. Growth resulting from the East Nassau Community Planning Area also resulted in proportionally higher growth along the I-95 corridor than other major screenline and corridor locations.

Extensive coordination occurred with the local governments as part of this process and concurrence of the land use projections and allocations was achieved.

DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS

A deficiency analysis using the NERPM-AB is discussed in the section titled Plan Alternatives

2-44


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 2-3 - Changes in Screenline Volumes from 2010 to 2040 Source: RSG 2-45


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan This page is intentionally blank.

2-46


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

FREIGHT AND INTERMODAL SYSTEMS F REIGHT AND I NTERMODAL S YSTEMS ARE MAJOR DRIVERS OF OUR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND INVESTMENTS ARE NEEDED FOR US TO BE COMPETITIVE IN THE FUTURE . marine terminals at Blount Island and Dames Point and rail intermodal facilities for CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads. I-75, the nation’s central spine connecting Florida, southeastern and mid-western states is located 60 miles to the west of our region. North Florida also provides the rail gateway into Florida. Norfolk Southern and FEC railroads have their Florida termini in North Florida. CSX’s and FEC both maintain their corporate headquarters in North Florida. Genesee & Wyoming Inc., which operates major short –line railroads across the US and in Australia, maintains its operations headquarters in Jacksonville.

OVERVIEW

This section summarizes the analysis of the demand for freight and intermodal systems within the region. The intermodal system was previously discussed in Part One of this report. The needs that resulted from this forecast of future demand are discussed in Part Three. Additional detail is provided in Technical Memorandum #5 – Freight Modeling.

CURRENT SITUATION

The level of connectivity to the North Florida region is a significant economic advantage for our region. I-95 serves as the major highway gateway to Florida’s 19.5 million persons. I-10 connects our region along an eastwest route to the southwest, western states, and Pacific Ocean. A third interstate, I-295 serves as a beltway around Jacksonville that connects both of these interstates and provides direct access to major JAXPORT 2-47


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

CURRENT FREIGHT MOVEMENTS North Florida is the origin or destination of freight moving over roadways and railways in Florida and the Southeast U.S. The total shipments that originate in, are destined for, or travel through North Florida are summarized in Table 216. This data is based on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Freight Analysis Framework data. The top origins and destinations for truck or rail shipments are summarized in Table 2-17 and Table 2-18. Table 2-16. Total Tons of Commodities (millions of tons per year) Origin and Destination Truck

Rail

Total

Percentage

34.9

0.0

34.9

18%

and is destined for locations within Florida and is destined for locations outside Florida Is destined for the area And originated from within Florida And originated from outside Florida Port related

18.5 8.0

0.2 0.6

18.7 8.6

10% 5%

7.5 8.9 11.7

0.4 11.6 0.6

7.9 20.5 12.3

4% 11% 6%

Through traffic

70.0

18.0

88.0

46%

159.5

31.4

190.9

100%

84%

16%

100%

Internal to area Originates in area

Total Mix Percentage Source: Freight Analysis 2012 data.

Table 2-17. Top and Origins and Destinations of Truck Freight Passing through North Florida Through Origins Through Destinations Locations Tonnage Mix Locations Florida Locations Polk County 10% Miami-Dade County

Out of State

Other Origins Total

Tonnage Mix 14%

Miami-Dade County

8%

Polk County

5%

Hillsborough County Palm Beach County

7% 4%

Hillsborough County Orange County

4% 3%

Broward County Orange County

4% 2%

Savannah, GA New York, NY Baltimore, MD Charleston, WV

13% 5% 4% 2% 39% 100%

2-48

New York, NY Baltimore, MD Boston, MA Philadelphia, PA Savannah, GA Total

12% 5% 4% 4% 3% 47% 100%


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-18. Top Origins and Destinations of Rail Freight Passing through North Florida Through Origins Through Destinations Locations Tonnage Mix Locations Florida Locations Polk County 7% Polk County Hillsborough County 5% Orange County Manatee County 3% Hillsborough County Miami-Dade County 3% Miami-Dade County Martin County

Out of State

Charleston, WV Lexington, KY Chicago, IL Atlanta, GA Birmingham, AL Macon, GA

8% 8% 7% 6% 5% 3%

Other Origins Total

Tonnage Mix 13% 11% 11% 10% 5%

Alachua County Sumter County Brevard County

3% 3% 3%

Broward County

3%

New York, NY

3%

45%

35%

100%

100%

2-49


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan About 4.7 million tons of cargo exported from the US passes-through the region each year. Of these, 59 percent of the freight originated in one of the top ten markets summarized in Table 2-14 or Table 2-15.

TRUCKING About 84 percent of all freight moved within the region is moved on trucks. North Florida has a large internal truck market (both the origins and the destinations are within North Florida). North Florida roadways handle 159.5 million tons of freight each year.

The container market is 47 percent of the shipments. The balance is split between bulk and break-bulk cargo. About 9.3 million tons of international cargo imported to the US pass through North Florida. Domestic waterborne cargo is handled at public and private terminals in North Florida and 62 percent of the tonnage is petroleum and petroleum products.

Freight originating in North Florida that is moved by truck is split between break-bulk, bulk and containerized commodities. About 43 percent of the freight destined for North Florida is bulk cargo with the balance split between break-bulk and bulk cargo.

RAIL

A significant amount of cargo shipped by truck in our region is not from or destined for North Florida travels but is shipped to destinations in central Florida and southeast Florida. About 61 percent of the through freight traveling through North Florida is break-bulk cargo 29 percent is bulk and 10 percent is in a container.

Most of the rail cargo shipped in North Florida originated outside of Florida and is consumed within North Florida.

AIR CARGO In 2012, air cargo operators moved more than 0.75 million tons of air cargo through Jacksonville International Airport. The typical commodities shipped by air are high value and time sensitive. An emerging market for air cargo is Asia. The largest growth in air cargo is anticipated to be exports of Florida citrus, Vidalia onions, peaches and fish from the Caribbean. Flowers from Columbia are the largest import good. Air cargo delivered on underutilized aircraft flying to Asia represents the greatest recent growth in air cargo.

PORTS About 12.3 million tons of freight are handled each year by the ports in North Florida. The cargo includes freight that is originating in or destined for the six-county region and cargo that uses the port but originates or is destined for another location in the US. International shipments account for 71 percent of cargo handled by North Florida ports. Over 74 percent of the imports are from the Caribbean or South America. Of these international shipments, 55 percent is destined for distribution and consumption in North Florida. Cargo exported through North Florida ports totals 4.9 million tons. About 75 percent of the market is to the Caribbean. North Florida is the largest origin for international shipments that travel through our ports with an 11 percent market share. Of the exports that move through North Florida ports, 80 percent are containerized. More than 70 percent of the freight originating in North Florida is exported using ports in North Florida. This means 30 percent of the freight is exported through a port outside of North Florida. For example, some of the goods produced in North Florida are driven to the Port of Savannah and exported for consumption in other markets.

2-50


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

FUTURE FREIGHT DEMAND INTRODUCTION Freight forecasts were used in the development of the truck model in the NERPM-AB and to identify potential needs for freight and intermodal infrastructure to support economic development. The modeling update and future needs are discussed later in this report.

FORECASTING METHODOLOGY Historically, the demand for freight shipments and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross State Product (GSP) the equivalent considering only the economic productivity in Florida) are highly correlated. Therefore, the first step in developing a forecast for the regional freight movements was to forecast the anticipated growth in GDP and GSP for Florida. The based forecasts are appropriate for estimating the total movement of commodities that include trips that are shipped by rail and port intermodal. Figure 2-4 shows the basis of the forecast used in continuous annual growth rates. In the figure, the acronyms used are for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Toronto Dominion Bank (TDB). The historical growth is shown as HIS growth. The average of the forecasted growth rates shown on the dashed line show the basis of the forecasts provided in this report.

2-51


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

GDP forecasts were used as basis for freight forecasts.

Figure 2-4. Summary of GDP Forecasts

2-52


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

PORT INTERMODAL

The forecast of intermodal rail originating and destined for JAXPORT and Port of Fernandina Facilities is based on published historical 20-ft Equivalency Units (TEU) and rail intermodal market analysis.

Two levels of forecasts were prepared: a moderate and a more aggressive forecast. The moderate split uses a growth factor of 1.25 times the GDP growth in freight movements. The aggressive forecast uses a factor of 1.75 times GDP. The more aggressive forecast anticipates a greater shift of freight movements moving by intermodal rail than by truck movements today.

Conservative estimate: Assumes that today 10 percent of the total TEU imports and exports are shipped via rail. This rate is increased by 0.4 percent annually High estimate: Assumes that today 20 percent of total TEU imports and exports are shipped via rail. This rate is also increased by 0.4 percent annually. The percent of TEUs shipped via rail ranges from 8 percent to 18 percent for the conservative estimate, or 16 percent to 26 percent for the high estimate. Two TEU forecasts for “loaded containers” were developed for the Jacksonville and Fernandina ports.

In addition to the loaded TEUs that are imported and exported – empty TEUs are also moved - primarily to the Jacksonville Ports. Many of the TEU’s are from the Jacksonville area, but many also travel from locations beyond North Florida to our ports.

Table 2-19 shows a summary of historical data as reported by the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and the moderate and aggressive forecasts for loaded commodities in TEUs.

These historical data were used to estimate the number of imported, exported and empty containers traveling through the ports in North Florida. Figures 2-5 thru 2-9 on the following pages summarize the forecasts.

For the areas outside the Jacksonville area, two forecast splits were developed for both the moderate forecast and the aggressive forecast.

Table 2-19. Summary of TEUs for North Florida Port Facilities (JAXPORT and Port of Fernandina) TEUs 2009 2010 2011 Import TEUs 139,653 162,645 174,174 Export TEUs 376,044 436,172 444,526 Total loaded TEU's 515,697 598,817 618,700 Empty TEUs* 262,532 291,176 303,151 Empties as percent of Total Loaded 51% 49% 49% Average % past 4 years * Empties are not defined as imported or exported

2-53

2012 192,830 425,393 618,223 319,455 52% 50%


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan 3,000,000

2,847,947 Actual (AAPA Loaded TEUs) Vickerman Moderate Forecast (Loaded TEUs Moderate Forecast (Loaded TEUs only) only) Vickerman Aggressive Forecast (Loaded TEUs Aggressive Forecast (Loaded TEUs only) only)

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,903,555

TEUs per year

2030, 1,628,602 1,500,000

2020, 927,670

2030, 1,272,981

1,000,000

2020, 848,872 500,000

2013, 618,500

-

2003

2006

2009

2012

2015

2018

2021

2024

Figure 2-5. Moderate TEU Port Forecast

2-54

2027

2030

2033

2036

2039


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

4,500,000

Aggressive Forecast

2040, 4,271,920

4,000,000 Imports 3,500,000 Exports

3,000,000

Empties

2,500,000

2030, 2,442,902

Total TEUs (Loaded + Empties)

2,000,000 1,500,000

2020, 1,391,506

1,000,000 500,000 2003

2006

2009

2012

2015

2018

2021

2024

2027

Figure 2-6. Aggressive TEU Port Forecast – Loaded and Empties

2-55

2030

2033

2036

2039


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

4,500,000

Moderate Forecast Imports

4,000,000

Exports

3,500,000

3,000,000

2040, 2,855,333

Empties

2,500,000 Total TEUs (Loaded + Empties)

2030, 1,909,471

2,000,000 2020, 1,273,308

1,500,000 2013, 927,750 1,000,000

500,000

2003

2006

2009

2012

2015

2018

2021

2024

2027

2030

Figure 2-7. Summary of 2040 Moderate TEU Port Forecast – Loaded and Empties 2-56

2033

2036

2039


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

RAIL 

RAIL INTERMODAL The mix of the forecasted TEUs that travel via rail, both to and from North Florida, as well as to and from areas outside North Florida, is based on U.S. Department of Transportation’s Freight Analysis Framework published data. The assumptions with the moderate and aggressive forecasts vary. 

Aggressive forecast: Assumes that today 20 percent of total TEU imports and exports are shipped via rail. This rate is also increased by 0.4 percent annually.

The percent of TEUs shipped via rail ranges from 8 percent to 18 percent for the conservative estimate, or 16 percent to 26 percent for the high estimate. Table 2-20 summarizes the rail intermodal forecasts. Figures 2-10 and 2-11 show this information graphically.

Moderate forecast: Assumes that today 10 percent of the total TEU imports and exports are shipped via rail. This rate is increased by 0.4 percent annually

Table 2-20. Summary of Rail Intermodal Forecasts 2013

Rail Intermodal TEUs Incremental TEUs shipped via rail TEUs shipped outside the metro area TEUs shipped within the metro area Total TEUs

68,245 70,975 7,653

2-57

2040 Moderate or Conservative 212,484 450,497 65,716 728,697

Aggressive 317,902 673,952 98,318 1,090,172


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

800,000

700,000

2040, 212,484 2040, 450,467

Incremental TEU's shipped via Rail (Conservative Rate vs. High Rate)

2040, 65,716 600,000

TEUs shipped outside the Metro area Conservative Range

500,000

400,000

TEUs shipped within the Jacksonville Metro area

2025, 171,226

300,000 2013, 68,245

200,000

2025, 112,649

2025, 21,344

2013, 70,975 2013, 7,653

100,000

-

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039

Figure 2-8. 2040 Moderate Forecast of Rail Intermodal 2-58


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

1,200,000

2040, 317,902

Incremental TEU's shipped via Rail (Conservative Rate vs. High Rate)

2040, 673,952

1,000,000 2040, 98,318

TEUs shipped outside the Metro area Conservative Range 800,000 TEUs shipped within the Jacksonville Metro area 600,000 2025, 133,020 400,000

2013, 68,245

2025, 202,191 2025, 25,204

2013, 70,975 200,000

-

2013, 7,653

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039

Figure 2-9. 2040 Aggressive Forecast of Rail Intermodal

2-59


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

RAIL CARLOAD

Similar to the rail intermodal growth forecast, rail carload movements are also anticipated to grow. This growth will be less than the increase of rail intermodal because of the anticipated shift between carload and intermodal and the consumption orientation of the carload shipments within these areas. This growth is anticipated to be 2.0 percent to 2.2 percent per year or a growth factor of 2.7.

Using the market and information developed through the cargo and logistics demand forecast, the ratio of truck movements between intermodal facilities was estimated. External truck volumes were identified at the major external nodes within the NERPM-AB.

TRUCK INTERMODAL FORECASTS

After establishing the base year truck flows, growth rates were forecast using growth rates based on the following assumptions.

TRUCK TRIPS AND VOLUMES

GROWTH RATES Where gross domestic product is highly correlated to the overall growth in commodity movements, population growth also serves as a reasonable basis for estimating the growth of the internal-internal truck trips. For external truck trips that remain in Florida the forested population growth in Florida was used. Both growth factors were based on the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research medium growth forecasts. These growth factors are summarized in Table 2-21.

Using the port and rail intermodal forecasts and existing truck counts at the entrances to the major intermodal facilities, a worksheet model was prepared to estimate the truck movements between each of the major intermodal facilities within the region. To build a truck trip table between each of the regional intermodal facilities, the following steps were performed. 

The existing truck volumes at the entrances to the intermodal facilities were estimated based on the FDOT Traffic Online database.

Table 2-21. Growth Factors for Trucks

2011 BEBR (millions 1.4 18.905

Internal GF based on population growth External GF based on population growth in Florida

2-60

2040 BEBR (millions) 1.9 25.847

Growth Factor (GF) 1.36 1.37


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan An anticipated shift in truck to rail intermodal traffic based on industry trends is anticipated to occur. With this shift, a growth factor of 3.08 was used to reflect the change in rail intermodal demand versus truck trip growth. This shift explaining the basis for the growth rate is discussed in greater detail in the rail intermodal forecasting section.

The statewide freight data is obtained from the statewide freight model, while the freight data associated with the ports within the NERPM-AB area was obtained by conducting a study of the commodity flows at the Jacksonville and Fernandina ports. In the NERPMAB, the data associated with the ports is located in the JAXPORT input file.

In addition, two major shifts in truck movements associated with intermodal shipments were assumed:

The JAXPORT file distributes trips to the ports and the intermodal facilities. Trips associated with the intermodal facilities are generated by the port but also by the statewide freight model. The model distributes the trips from these two sources based on percentages. These percentages are placed in the JAXPORT file. One input percentage is associated with each of the intermodal facilities, while the other percentage results in the model calculating how many of the port trips go to the intermodal facilities. This percentage represents the distribution of truck freight volumes (port and statewide) among the different intermodal facilities. The total number of freight trips associated with the different intermodal facilities in 2010 and 2040 were shown in Table 2-22 on the next page.

The opening of an intermodal container transfer facility near Blount Island requires trucks to leave the port gate by truck. These containers are then shifted to the rail network for short-haul movement to the CSX Intermodal Facility or long-haul movement by rail. The delivery of containers to the intermodal container transfer facility by truck is anticipated to be small with most of the regional port-related container shipments being delivered to the CSX Intermodal Facility. Neither the FEC nor Norfolk Southern railroads are anticipated to use the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility. The second Dames Point intermodal terminal is anticipated to be open by the year 2040 and operating near capacity similar to the existing intermodal terminal.

These data were converted to percentages to distribute the freight truck trips tables which are then added to all the other trip tables by the model and assigned to the highway network. The resulting truck volumes are shown on Figure 2-10 and 2-11.

Table 2-19 summarizes the anticipated intermodalrelated truck movements in the year 2040.

AIR CARGO Florida Trade and Logistic Study (2011) and 2013-2043 Florida and Metro Forecast published by the University of Central Florida anticipate that air cargo within the region will increase by 45 percent between now and the year 2040. This forecast will largely be driven by population growth within the region. Air cargo accounts for less than 1 percent by volume shipped in the region, but may be as high as 4 percent of the total value of goods.

TRUCK MODEL IN THE NERPM-AB

In addition to forecasting the overall goods movement and intermodal shipments which were of particular concern within the region, the truck component of the NERPM-AB was updated. These updates were based on data from the freight and intermodal demand forecasts, statewide freight model and the truck model in the NERPM-AB. In the NERPM-AB there are three types of freight data sources, (1) the statewide freight data on the interstate system, (2) the freight destined to the Jacksonville and Fernandina ports within our study area and (3) the truck trips that are related to distribution of goods and services within our study area. The third group is calculated by the model based on residential and employment input data.

2-61


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-22. Summary of Truck Model Inputs Port Terminal Blount Island Dames Point Dames Point 2 Total Trucks bound to an intermodal facility at CSX, Norfolk Southern or FEC.

2-62

2040 761 305 305 1,371


" ) 108

" ) 115

" )

§ ¦ ¨ 95

1

£ ¤ 2

" ) 127

A1A

A1A

¬ «

17

£ ¤

" ) " ) 108

¬ «

105

¬ « ¬ «

107

2

A1A

¬ «

® q

301

£ ¤

A1A

¬ «

" ) 122

§ ¦ ¨ 295

" ) 119

" ) 250

105

§ ¦ ¨ 295

" ) 125

221

¬ «

" ) 124

" )

10

90

£ ¤

" )

" ) 130

116

¬ « 90

§ ¦ ¨

£ ¤ ¬ «

10

228

250A

¬ « ¬ «

228

¬ «

301

£ ¤

202

134

¬ « ¬ « 23

§ ¦ ¨ 295

1

£ ¤ 220

218

§ ¦ ¨ 95

21

¬ « 16

¬ «

16

® nq ¤

¬ «

" ) 315

Legend

1

16

208

" )

13

17

£ ¤

315

13A

207

¬ «

" )

" ) 305

17

£ ¤

26

¬ «

206

¬ «

" ) 204

® q 20

¬ «

501 - 1,000

1,001 - 2,000

" ) 21

2,001 - 3,000 > 3,001 320

" ) § " ) ¦ ¨ Railroad System " )Roadway ) £ " )System " ¤ « " ) " )Water Bodies £ ¤¬ £ ¤ «" Conservation Lands¬ " ) " ) ) ¬ « " ¬ « Six Counties " ) )Boundaries ¬ «" ) ¬ « 335

75

318

329

316

335

27

500

225

326

Date: 7/11/2014

225A

" ) 310

200A

441

25A

19

¬ «

" ) 309

" ) 308

301

200

25

200A

200

326 326

326

Figure 2-10 2010 Truck Volumes 2-63

¯

A1A

¬ «

0

0

10,560 Feet

3

5

¬ «

100

315

< 500

§ ¦ ¨ 95

¬ «

" )

Total Average Daily Truck Volume

¤ n

214

214

Year 2010 Base Year

£ ¤

¬ « " ) ) " ) " " )

209

" )

® Airport q ¤ Amtrak Station n ¤ Passenger Rail Station n

¬ «

¬ «

" )

" )

A1A

13

6 Miles

A1A

¬ «


" ) 108

" ) 115

" )

§ ¦ ¨ 95

1

£ ¤ 2

" ) 127

A1A

A1A

¬ «

17

£ ¤

" ) " ) 108

¬ «

105

¬ « ¬ «

107

2

A1A

¬ «

® q

301

£ ¤

A1A

¬ «

" ) 122

§ ¦ ¨ 295

" ) 119

" ) 250

105

§ ¦ ¨ 295

" ) 125

221

¬ «

" ) 124

" )

10

90

£ ¤

" )

" ) 130

116

¬ « 90

§ ¦ ¨

£ ¤ ¬ «

10

228

250A

¬ « ¬ «

228

¬ «

301

£ ¤

202

134

¬ « ¬ « 23

§ ¦ ¨ 295

1

£ ¤ 220

218

§ ¦ ¨ 95

21

¬ « 16

¬ «

16

® nq ¤

¬ «

" ) 315

Legend

1

16

208

" )

13

17

£ ¤

315

13A

207

¬ «

" )

" ) 305

17

£ ¤

26

¬ «

206

¬ «

" ) 204

® q 20

¬ «

501 - 1,000

1,001 - 2,000

" ) 21

2,001 - 3,000 > 3,001 320

" ) § " ) ¦ ¨ Railroad System " )Roadway ) £ " )System " ¤ « " ) " )Water Bodies £ ¤¬ £ ¤ «" Conservation Lands¬ " ) " ) ) ¬ « " ¬ « Six Counties " ) )Boundaries ¬ «" ) ¬ « 335

75

318

329

316

335

27

500

225

326

Date: 7/11/2014

225A

" ) 310

200A

441

25A

19

¬ «

" ) 309

" ) 308

301

200

25

200A

200

326 326

326

Figure 2-11 2040 Truck Volumes 2-64

¯

A1A

¬ «

0

0

10,560 Feet

3

5

¬ «

100

315

< 500

§ ¦ ¨ 95

¬ «

" )

Total Average Daily Truck Volume

¤ n

214

214

Year 2040 No Build

£ ¤

¬ « " ) ) " ) " " )

209

" )

® Airport q ¤ Amtrak Station n ¤ Passenger Rail Station n

¬ «

¬ «

" )

" )

A1A

13

6 Miles

A1A

¬ «


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

FINANCIAL RESOURCES P UTTING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO WORK REQUIRES FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO BUILD , OPERATE AND MAINTAIN BOTH EXISTING AND FUTURE FACILITIES . Revenues were forecast through the year 2040. These revenues will come from federal, state and local revenue sources that are currently authorized. No new sources of revenue were considered. Within the Path Forward LRTP, only the revenues consistent with the federal planning boundaries for Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns Counties were considered. All revenues shown in this report are in year of expenditure values. Alternative sources of revenue were considered and include  

 

Table 2-23 and Table 2-24 summarize the estimated revenues. Operations and maintenance revenues are discussed in a later section of this report. Not all revenues estimated for the plan were used to fund projects within the Cost Feasible Plan. In Table 2-24 the total revenues estimated during the planning process for local governments are shown. However, during the Cost Feasible Plan development, local agencies used more conservative estimates of revenue in identifying their locally-funded projects. The forecasts prepared as part of the planning process are shown to provide consistency. Table 2-25 summarizes the funding programs identified in the plan based on the agency with the primary decision-making authority using the adjusted local revenues and summarizes the allocation by mode in the Cost Feasible Plan. Additional detail on the forecasting methodology is provided in Technical Memorandum #6 – Financial Resources and the federal and state revenue forecasts are provided in Appendix C.

Extension of existing taxes that are scheduled to retire within the horizon of the plan. Authorizing new taxes to maximize the potential for revenue within the legislative authority of each county. Alternative taxes such as vehicle miles traveled taxes. Additional toll revenues beyond facilities currently planned as toll roads. 2-65


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-23. Federal and State Revenue Fund Program Strategic Intermodal System 17 Other State Highways 18 Turnpike/Tolls 19 Transportation Management Area Transportation Regional Incentive Program 20 Transportation Alternatives (TALU) 21 Transportation Alternatives (TALT) 22 State and Federal Transit 23 Federal Transit Administration Passenger Ferry Grant 24 Strategic Intermodal System Multimodal 25 Federal Seaport Grant 26 Total

2019-2020 $39.82 $122.33 $0.00 $28.80 $0.70 $2.80 $3.78 $63.07 $338.65 $311.00 $1,376.45

17

2021-2025 $508.26 $273.13 $1,951.22 $77.44 $5.40 $7.10 $9.38 $174.11 $6.62 $220.42

2026-2030 $874.16 $284.40 $0.00 $83.98 $5.39 $7.10 $9.38 $171.98

2031-2040 $2,635.50 $709.21 $0.00 $126.18 $10.80 $14.20 $18.76 $350.84

$313.60

$2,923.24

$3,719.80

$2,026.49

$7,420.68

Total $4,057.74 $1,389.08 $1,951.22 $316.40 $22.29 $31.20 $41.30 $760.00 $6.62 $3,795.90 $311.00 $14,543.42

The revenue estimate provided by FDOT of $3,880.96 million does not include Preliminary Engineering (PE) phases. This total includes Preliminary Engineering (PE) phases as programmed in the Cost Feasible Plan. 18 The revenue estimate provided by FDOT of $1,162.50 million does not include Preliminary Engineering (PE) phases. This total includes PE phases as programmed in the Cost Feasible Plan. 19 The revenue estimate was provided by FDOT. 20 These funds are distributed by FDOT on a districtwide basis. The total shown is a districtwide total. 21 These funds may only be used in the North Florida Transportation Management Area. 22 These funds are distributed by FDOT on a districtwide basis. The total shown is a districtwide total. 23 The funds include $680.10 million of federal and state capacity funding for the North Florida TPO estimated by FDOT plus $79.90 of New Starts funding. The federal and state capacity funds are distributed on a statewide priority basis. The New Starts funding is allocated by the Federal Transit Administration on a competitive basis. A total of $760.30 million of New Start funds was estimated on a statewide basis by FDOT. These programs are not shown in the FDOT Adopted Work Program. 24 A Passenger Ferry Program Grant was authorized for capacity improvements but is not obligated. 25 These funds are distributed by FDOT on a statewide basis. The funds were estimated by extrapolating the current statewide funding through the horizon of the plan and developing a reasonable estimate of the statewide funding that would be allocated to North Florida. This estimate includes $186.50 million of state funds to match the federal authorization for St. Johns River Dredging. 26 Authorization was approved in the 2014 Water Resources and Reform Development Act but is not obligated. In additional to $311.00 million shown, $186.50 million is anticipated to come from local sources and $186.50 million from the Strategic Intermodal System Multimodal programs. 2-66


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-24. Local Revenue 27

Type

Source

Clay County

Constitutional Gas Tax County Fuel Tax Ninth-Cent Gas Tax 1st Local Option Gas Tax Local Infrastructure Surtax 28

Clay County Total Duval Constitutional Gas Tax County Fuel Tax 1st Local Option Gas Tax Extension 29 Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax (Diesel Only) Local Infrastructure Surtax 30 Subtotal for Non-Transit 31 Charter Transit Surtax Total Duval County Nassau Constitutional Gas Tax County Fuel Tax 1st Local Option Gas Tax Ninth-Cent Gas Tax Total Nassau County St. Johns Constitutional Gas Tax County Fuel Tax 1st Local Option Gas Tax 32 Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax (Diesel Only) Total St. Johns County Total Local Funds 33

Years 2019-2020

$4.94 $2.18 $2.20 $13.16

Years 2021-2025

$10.47 $4.61 $4.67 $28.04

Years 2026-2030

$11.06 $4.87 $4.96 $29.73

Years 2031-2040

$24.02 $10.59 $10.83 $64.98

22-Year Total

$50.49 $22.25 $22.66 $135.91

$44.58 $67.04 $22.09 $9.74 $255.23

$47.79 $46.88 $20.66 $362.31

$50.62 $49.51 $21.82

$110.42 $107.54 $47.40 $0.00

$44.58 $275.87 $226.02 $99.62 $617.55

$2.80

$6.20

$6.82

$15.72

$31.54

$235.10

$551.73

$647.40

$524.96 $235.10 $760.05 $2.96 $1.31 $6.38 $1.07 $11.71 $6.16 $2.72 $19.41

$987.78 $551.73 $1,539.51 $6.28 $2.77 $13.67 $2.28 $25.00 $13.06 $5.76 $41.51

$725.55 $647.40 $1,372.95 $6.63 $2.92 $14.56 $2.43 $26.54 $13.79 $6.08 $44.17

$170.66 $1,651.08 $1,834.18 $14.41 $6.35 $32.05 $5.35 $58.16 $29.96 $13.20 $61.73

$2,408.95 $3,085.31 $5,506.70 $30.28 $13.35 $66.66 $11.13 $121.41 $62.97 $27.76 $166.82

$0.59

$1.30

$1.43

$3.29

$6.61

$28.86 $867.66

$61.62 $1,673.92

$65.47 $1,515.58

$108.18 $2,110.94

$264.13 $6,155.67

27

$1,434.23

Not all revenues estimated for the plan were used to fund projects within the Cost Feasible Plan. The local agencies used more conservative estimates of revenue when providing their list of locally-funded projects. These forecasts are shown to provide consistency with the forecasts prepared as part of this planning process. 28 The Local Infrastructure Surtax is set to expire in 2019 in Clay County. 29 The existing 1st Local Option Gas Tax expires in Duval County in 2036 and no funds are anticipated to be available for new capacity projects. The extension of the 1st Local Option Gas Tax was adopted by Local Ordinance 2013-820 and bonds will be issued making these revenues available in early years for capacity projects. 30 The Local Infrastructure Surtax is set to expire in Duval County in 2030. 31 Significant portions of these funds are anticipated to be allocated to debt service and maintenance and operations activities. 32 The 1st Local Option Gas expires in St. Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s County in 2036. 33 All local revenue available for capacity projects were estimated at 25 percent of the revenue forecasts with 75 percent being dedicated to operations and maintenance with the exception of Duval County where a greater portion of these revenues are dedicated to debt service and operations and maintenance. 2-67


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-25. Summary of Funding Programs by Primary Decision-Making Authority Primary DecisionProgram Roads Making Authority FDOT Strategic Intermodal System $4,057.74 FDOT Turnpike/Tolls $1,951.22 FDOT SIS Multimodal FDOT Subtotal $7,306.37 North Florida TPO Other State Highways $1,297.42 North Florida TPO Transportation Management Area $268.75 North Florida TPO Transportation Alternatives (TALU) North Florida TPO Transportation Alternatives (TALT) North Florida TPO Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) $21.23 North Florida TPO State and Federal Transit North Florida TPO Subtotal $1,587.40 Local Clay County $236.88 Local Duval County Road Capacity $860.64 Local JAXPORT Local Transit Local Match Local Duval County Subtotal $860.64 Local Nassau County $39.64 Local St. Johns County $159.41 Subtotal Local $1,296.58 Federal Grants FTA Passenger Ferry Grant Federal Grants Federal Seaport Grant Federal Grants $0.00 Grand Total $8,892.93

34

Transit

$1,377.21 $1,377.21

$760.00 $760.00 $0.00 $253.33 $253.33

$253.33 $6.62 $6.62 $2,397.16

Bicycle and Pedestrian 34

$91.66 $91.66 $13.44 $31.20 $41.30 $1.06

TSM&O

$0.00

Freight

$2,006.10 $2,006.10

$34.21

$178.66 $11.84 $43.03

$34.21

$0.00

$59.44

$0.00 $186.50

$102.47 $1.98 $7.97 $124.27

$0.00

$186.50

$0.00

$186.50

$0.00 $34.21

$311.00 $311.00 $2,503.60

$302.93

These expenditures are based on 5% of road capacity projects and dedicated revenues for bicycle and pedestrian projects. 2-68

Total $4,057.74 $1,951.22 $3,383.31 $10,781.34 $1,389.08 $316.40 $31.20 $41.30 $22.29 $760.00 $2.560.27 $248.73 $963.11 $186.50 $253.33 $1,402.95 $41.63 $167.38 $1,860.68 $6.62 $311.00 $317.62 $14,130.82


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS L EVERAGING RESOURCES TO ENGAGE ENVIRONMENTAL STAKEHOLDERS EARLY IN THE PLANNING PROCESS RESULTED IN THE EFFECTIVE SCREENING OF PROJECTS AND AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF MAJOR PROJECTS .

INTRODUCTION

was developed by using a methodology of rapid software prototyping, frequent user feedback and flexible architecture designed to adapt to the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process. This resulted in an internet-accessible interactive database and mapping application which integrates: a geo-relational database of Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process, over 550 environmental resource geographic information systems data layers, an automated and standardized geographic information systems-based environmental screening analysis application, and numerous tools for data entry, review, and reporting.

FDOT Adopted the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process to assist agencies in streamlining the environmental review of projects. The following is FDOT’s summary of the process. Florida’s Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process was developed in response to the Congress' "Environmental Streamlining" initiative, accomplishes major transportation project planning with early and continuous agency participation, efficient online electronically managed environmental review and meaningful dispute resolution mechanisms. Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process is carried out through the use of the Environmental Screening Tool (EST). EST 2-69


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan It is used throughout the Efficient Transportation Decision Makin Process to:

protecting and enhancing the natural environment," as established for federal transportation programs in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).

Integrate data from multiple sources into an easy to use, standard format.  Analyze the effects of proposed projects on the human and natural environment.  Communicate information effectively among Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT) representatives and to the public.  Store and report results of the ETAT review effectively and efficiently.  Maintain project records, including commitments and responses, throughout the project life cycle. Stakeholders involved in the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process generally include Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)/Transportation Planning Organizations (TPOs), county and municipal governments, federal and state agencies, Native American tribes, and the public. To facilitate intergovernmental interaction, each FDOT District has an Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT). The ETAT includes representatives from MPOs/TPOs, state and federal agencies, and participating Native American Tribes. ETAT members and the public have the opportunity to provide input to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) regarding a project's potential effects on the natural, physical, cultural, and community environment throughout the Planning phase of project delivery. These comments help to determine the feasibility of a proposed project; focus the issues to be addressed during the PD&E phase; allow for early identification of potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation opportunities; and create products that may be used in the PD&E phase to promote efficiency and consistency during project development. 

The Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process is composed of two project screening events: Planning and Programming. During the Planning Screen, comments received from the ETAT members and the public help FDOT and MPOs/TPOs to prioritize proposed transportation projects for their inclusion in their Cost Feasible Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs). During the Programming Screen, qualifying projects are reviewed when being considered for funding in the FDOT Five-Year Work Program or MPO Transportation Improvement Program, or if already funded, before advancing to the PD&E Phase. Coordination with the ETAT members is facilitated through the Environmental Screening Tool (EST), an Internet-accessible interactive database and mapping application. The EST brings together resource and project data from multiple sources into one consistent format. It provides quick, standardized Geographic Information System analyses, identifying potential natural, physical, cultural, and community resources present in the project area. The EST also allows the ETAT members to comment on the potential effects of the proposed project. Project information is made available to the public through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Public Access Site (https://etdmpub.flaetat.org/est/).

SUMMARY OF EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING PLANNING SCREEN RESULTS

The Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process links land use, transportation, and environmental resource planning initiatives through early interactive agency involvement. It also connects the Planning and PD&E phases by carrying forward planning products, previous analyses and decisions supporting future transportation decisions in subsequent phases of project development. Furthermore, the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process provides a planning framework to support the national goal of Environmental Sustainability, which seeks "to enhance the performance of the transportation system while

As part of the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process, each of the projects identified in the Needs Plan were submitted through the planning screen. This process is shown in Figure 2-12. A report of the data provided through the Planning Screen is provided in Appendix D.

2-70


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 2-12. Efficient Transportation Decision Making Planning Process

2-71


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan the use of mitigation banks established pursuant to this part…

Based on the potential environmental impacts of projects, two projects identified as priority projects were not included in the Cost Feasible Plan as a result of the identification of potential fatal flaws during the environmental screening process and potential controversy.  

As part of the program, on an annual basis, projects that are anticipated to be constructed in the first three years of the Tentative Work Program are submitted with a description of the habitats and wetland impacts and a mitigation plan describing which mitigation bank shall be used. A funding plan for the mitigation and the commitments for the funding of mitigation in partnership with the water management district are required. The water management district is then responsible for ensuring that the mitigation requirements are met in accordance with the plan.

SR 313 from US 1 to International Golf Parkway, Wells Road Extension from SR 21 Blanding Boulevard to Argyle Forest Boulevard.

Public comments are summarized in Technical Memorandum #1 – Public Involvement.

The applicable mitigation banks for this region are shown on Figure 2-13. Credits for impacts based on the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method may be purchased from local agencies as well.

SYSTEM APPROACH TO MITIGATION

The mitigation of environmental impacts are addressed in the FDOT Project Development and Environment Manual which implements the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and related legislation for projects that may use federal funds or require a federal action. These procedures also apply to major projects where state revenues are used.

The mitigation of other environmental impacts, such as archeological and historic resources and noise are addressed in the FDOT Project Development and Environment Manual. Specific project level mitigation requirements are determined through the Environmental Resource Permit process administered by the St. Johns River Water Management District.

FDOT maintains a wetland mitigation plan with the St. Johns River Water Management District that is conducted on an annual basis for projects in the FDOT’s Adopted Work Program. The requirements to be address in the Mitigation Plan are outlined in F.S. 373.41337 Mitigation Requirements for Specified Transportation Projects.

The FDOT Mitigation Plan and St. Johns River Water Management District permitting process are provided in Appendix E.

The Legislature recognized in the establishment of this program that “environmental mitigation for the impact of transportation projects proposed by the Department of Transportation or a transportation authority can be more effectively achieved by regional, long-range mitigation planning rather than on a project-by-project basis. It is the intent of the Legislature that mitigation to offset the adverse effects of these transportation projects be funded by the Department of Transportation and be carried out by the water management districts, including

AIR QUALITY

The Jacksonville urban area airshed is designated as a maintenance area in accordance with Section 185A of the Clean Air Act Amendments. As such the LRTP may proceed revisiting the conformity determination requirements in accordance with the State Implementation Plan.

2-72


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 2-13. St. Johns River Water Management District Wetland Mitigation Banks

2-73


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan This page is intentionally blank.

2-74


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT T HE INFORMATION GATHERED EARLY IN THE PLANNING PROCESS THROUGH PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE LRTP. W HEN COMBINED WITH PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DATA , IT SETS THE DIRECTION FOR THE PLAN ' S DEVELOPMENT . I T WILL TELL THE N ORTH F LORIDA TPO WHAT THE RESIDENTS OF N ORTH F LORIDA CONSIDER IMPORTANT AND PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN ESTABLISHING THE TRANSPORTATION GOALS . The public involvement activities carried out as part of this plan were conducted to inform and solicit ideas from the public about transportation needs, alternatives and priorities. The program elements are described further in the following sections.

The Path Forward 2040 Public Involvement Plan contained a structured process to inform the public and interested parties and solicited input in identifying transportation needs and prioritizing projects. Multiple methods were used to engage and solicit input from the public as part of the planning process.

2-75


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS SURVEY

A survey was conducted online, by landline telephone and by mobile phone among residents of Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, Putnam, and St. Johns counties to identify opinions on transportation issues and needs. A total of 759 respondents participated in the survey. The key findings are listed below: 

Of the respondents who work outside the home, 92 percent traveled to their jobs by private car, while three percent rode the bus, two percent participated in a car pool, and the remainder went by bicycle (one percent), airplane (one percent), walking (0.5 percent), or were always on the road, such professional truckers (one percent). About seven percent of the commuters said that the traffic on their primary road to work was “always backed up far below the speed limit,” and 21 percent said their road was “usually below the speed limit unless there’s bad weather or an accident.” Interstate 10 was most often cited as “always backed up,” by 25 percent of the people who used it. The mean commuting time to work was 24 minutes, and the median commute was 20 minutes. These findings were unchanged from the 2008 transportation survey. About 86 percent of the commuters reported that their current commuting time was acceptable to them, while 14 percent found it “unacceptable.” 97 percent said they would be willing to accept a commute up to 30 minutes to work. About 17 percent of the respondents reported that they had used public transit in North Florida during the past year. Public transit use was highest among respondents age 18 to 24, at 36 percent, and also among those with household incomes under $25,000, at 28 percent. Among those who used public transportation, 61 percent used the bus, 27 percent used a trolley, 26 percent used the Skyway, and 23 percent used a van or shuttle service. Most residents of North Florida have used public transit in another city: 67 percent said they had used public transit while traveling in another city. In this case, the rate of usage increased with household income, rising from a low of 43 percent among those with household incomes below $25,000 to 81 percent among those with household incomes of $150,000 and over. Those who had used public transit in another city had most often used a bus (68 percent), subway (62

percent), commuter rail (35 percent) or light rail (28 percent). The “need for better mass transit” was identified by 22 percent of the respondents as the most important transportation issue in North Florida. Fifteen percent specifically mentioned the need for an expanded bus system, while 13 percent called for an expanded road system and 12 percent mentioned the need to alleviate traffic congestion in general. Only one of eight ideas for transportation was deemed a “high priority” by a majority of the respondents. “Providing smooth-flowing traffic on local highways” is a high priority for 72 percent of the respondents, 47 percent placed a high priority of “Providing convenient public transit alternatives,” and 37 percent placed a high priority on “Promoting the use of alternative fuels and vehicles.” Of the respondents, 28 percent felt that public transit services in North Florida are adequate, while 52 percent said they are not adequate and 20 percent were “not sure.” Those who said public transit is not adequate were invited to suggest what the region should do to improve it. 36 percent called for “more buses” or “more bus routes.” 18 percent suggested using light rail, and 13 percent proposed expanding all of the public transit options for greater accessibility. Public opinion was divided on the best long-term solution to reducing traffic in their area. “Improving public transit,” was supported by 37 percent. About 26 percent favored “developing communities where people don’t have to drive so much” and 24 percent advocated “building new roads.”

ELECTRONIC MEDIA

The public information campaign used multiple forms of electronic media to inform and solicit public input.    

2-76

Interactive project web site Asset allocation game Social media Community forum engagement


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

PROJECT WEB SITE The pathforward2040.com website included:     

The following summarizes the geographic clusters of comments:

Home page with news, events and social media feed, overview video and link to asset allocation game Plan development overview with news and frequently asked questions Project lists, maps and documents Public involvement opportunities including the asset allocation game, online survey and social media Project team contact information

From September 2013 to December 2014 the site had 4,527 users, 5,586 sessions and 9,652 page-views. The most popular page was “Get Involved” which detailed public involvement opportunities including a survey, asset allocation game, meetings and events. The second most popular page was “Resources” which included project lists, maps and study documents.

In the urban core, transit was identified as the highest priority in the comments (29 comments). This is the consistent with comments received through other sources (public perception survey, public meetings, etc.) The next highest comment was related to freight and port-related investments (8 comments).

Table 2-28 summarizes the priority strategies and rankings of the participants. Figure 2-16 summarize the reported priorities. Similar to other sources of input, transit and bicycle and pedestrian improvements were the highest ranked priorities followed by maintaining our roadways and improving traffic flow.

ASSET ALLOCATION GAME

In Table 2-29 and Figure 2-17, when the budget was allocated, enhancing safety and widening roadways were budgeted higher than transit or bicycles and pedestrians.

The Path Forward 2040 website included a link to an “asset allocation game” where visitors could provide input. There were five screens that are summarized in Table 2-26 which summarizes the game. The project resulted in 1,400 visitors and 257 persons provided data. 35

A total of 1,714 data points were input on the strategies recommended within each priority area. More males than females responded. The household income was distributed to higher income brackets than exist within the region with a weighted average of $82,500 versus a median wage for the region of $42,400. Ten responders were in the low income bracket with a household income of less than $10,000 per year.

Figure 2-14 is a map of the locations where users identified priority locations. Table 2-27 is a legend for the map indicating the priority of the map input by color. The input received from users was peaked around placements in MetroJacksonville.com an online community forum on transportation. Figure 2-15 summarizes the number of visitors who use of the allocation game by period.

Table 2-30 summarizes the strategies recommended in the on-line allocation game. Table 2-31 is a summary of the demographics of the participants.

35

Map Data on Google Drive https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1m6 MDLQVmM8JACZ1J9n4hYH32Irs_v2Ie-TSFvo2O Map on Google Maps https://www.google.com/fusiontables/embedviz?q=select+col2 +from+1m6MDLQVmM8JACZ1J9n4hYH32Irs_v2IeTSFvo2O&viz=MAP&h=false&lat=30.256694798509937&lng=81.79939270020623&t=1&z=9&l=col2&y=2&tmplt=2&hml=TW O_COL_LAT_LNG

2-77


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-26. On-line Asset Allocation Game Screen Screen 1 – Welcome

Screen Image

The first screen provides a brief introduction to the project.

Screen 2 – Priority Ranking The second screen asked visitors to prioritize a list of priorities by moving their top three priorities. Ten preset priorities were provided with an option to suggest another priority.          

Invest in ports Enhance safety Expand transit Serve elderly or disabled Serve trucking Alternative fuel infrastructure Maintain roads and bridges Enhance traffic flow Serve bicycles and pedestrians Widen roads

The opportunity to comment about the priorities was also provided and a link to an interactive map provided for users to identify specific locations where projects are needed. Figure 2-17 and Table 2-24 shows the locations where project priorities were located and the level of priority. Screen 3 – Budget Allocation The third screen asked visitors to allocate budget amounts in ten categories. Each category contained existing budget amounts that reflect federal and state limitations of the flexibility of funding programs within the plan. For example, the Strategic Intermodal Systems road capacity funding category investments are selected by the state and provided to the North Florida TPO for concurrency. The visitors’ task was to allocate the portion of the budget that was not already allocated.

2-78


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-26. On-line Asset Allocation Game Screen 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Additional Questions The fourth screen asked visitors to provide more detailed input on the type of alternative strategies the respondent would recommend in each of the ten priority areas. This was accomplished by having visitors rank a set of alternatives for each category. Users could also add comments within each priority area describing each alternative.

Screen 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Stay Involved The last screen was used to gather demographic data about visitors and provide additional project information for those who wished to provide information.

Table 2-27. Interactive Priority Map Legend Priority Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Enhance Safety Expand Transit Invest in Ports Maintain Roads/Bridges Serve Bikes and Pedestrians Serve Elderly/Disabled Widen Roads

Icon Color Green Purple White Turquoise Grey Blue Red Yellow

2-79


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 2-14. Interactive Priority Map

2-80


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Figure 2-15. Visits and Use of Asset Allocation Game

2-81


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-28. Summary of Priority Strategies On-line Allocation Game Ranking Priority Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Enhance Safety Expand Transit Invest in Ports Maintain Roads/Bridges Serve Bikes and Pedestrians Serve Elderly/Disabled Serve Trucking Traffic Flow Widen Roads

Times Ranked

Average Rank 27 47 108 38 64 99 19 5 55 20

Figure 2-16. Reported Priorities in Asset Allocation Game

2-82

2.15 2.04 1.74 2.13 2.17 1.99 2.37 2.20 1.96 1.60


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 2-29. Budget Allocation from On-line Allocation Game Budget Item Enhance Safety Widen Roads Expand Transit Serve Bikes & Pedestrians Serve Elderly/Disabled Maintain Roads & Bridges Invest in Ports Serve Trucking Traffic Flow Alternative Fuel Infrastructure

Dollars Allocated

Figure 2-17. Summary of Budget Allocation

2-83

Average Dollars 399 166 1024 847 217 548 287 44 412 187

2.79 1.15 7.11 5.88 1.52 3.81 1.99 0.31 2.86 1.30


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-30. Summary of Strategies from On-line Allocation Game Strategy Alternative Fuels I would not invest in alternative fuels Incentives for alternative fuel purchases Incentives for compressed natural gas stations Incentives for electronic vehicle stations Enhance Safety Access management (reducing driveways and closing medians) Improving traffic signals (removing "permitted left turn phases, etc.) Intersection improvements (adding turn lanes, etc.) Expand Transit Commuter rail Enhancing bus service Expanding bus services Trolley services Invest in Ports I would not invest in ports Improve rail access to ports Improve water access to ports (dredging) Serve Bicyclists and Pedestrians Construct bicycle lanes Construct paths separate from the roadway Construct sidewalks Traffic Flow Road rangers Roadway message signs Traffic signal coordination Widen Roads Build new roads Construct or improve intersections and interchanges Widen existing roadways Widen roadways with express lanes Total

2-84

Inputs 224 26 72 53 73 233 68 64 101 306 97 68 70 71 214 23 81 44 66 263 78 103 82 209 51 55 103 263 49 96 58 1,712

Relative Rank 1.81 2.19 1.71 1.92 1.68 1.69 1.93 2.13 1.26 2.09 1.62 2.10 2.54 2.28 1.76 2.26 1.63 2.30 1.39 1.77 1.90 1.55 1.91 2.18 1.93 1.84 2.03 2.82 1.52 2.13 2.07 1.84


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 2-31. Summary of Demographic Information from On-line Allocation Game Survey item Gender Female Male Household Income Less than $25,000 $25,000 but less than $50,000 $50,000 but less than $100,000 $100,000 but less than $150,000 $150,000 and over Residents in Household 1 2 3 4 5 More than 5 Number of Drivers in Household 1 2 3 4 5 Number of Vehicles in Household 1 2 3 4 5 Work Trip Travel Modes Bike Bus Drive Mix of modes Commute Durations Less than 10 minutes Between 10 and 30 minutes Between 30 and 60 minutes More than 1 hour

2-85

Number of Responses 117 43 74 105 10 16 44 25 10 106 21 47 15 18 4 1 109 22 70 11 5 1 107 25 60 14 7 1 106 3 2 86 15 101 24 54 20 3


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

NEWSLETTERS

SOCIAL MEDIA The North Florida TPO’s Facebook page and Twitter account were used to post study updates, meetings, events and information. The public involvement team posted 72 tweets and 100 Facebook statuses updates generating 7,110 impressions. Facebook advertising was used to generate traffic to the asset allocation game December 2013 to February 2014 resulting in 136,967 impressions and 651 clicks to the site.

Newsletters announcing meetings and study updates were distributed to the contact list at the beginning of the study, prior to each round of public meetings.

OVERVIEW BROCHURE

An overview brochure was created to introduce the LRTP update process and participation opportunities. The complete brochure was distributed at meetings and events throughout the course of the project.

Two Pinterest boards were developed to encourage input – “What’s Your Vision?” and “Transportation Flashback.” Sixty pins were placed generating over 8,000 impressions per month. The most popular pin, “More bike paths, please!” showed the Cherry Creek bike path in Denver and was re-pinned over 50 times.

COMMUNITY FORUM

The Metrojacksonville.com online news publication and community forum was used to share articles about the update, promote discussion and obtain comments. Each round of public meetings was promoted on the site through editorial articles and banner advertising that linked to the pathforward2040.com site.

OVERVIEW VIDEO

An overview video was created to explain the LRTP process. The video was posted on the website and used for presentations, meetings and workshops. The video can be viewed at www.pathforward2040.com.

CALENDAR

A public involvement calendar was developed to schedule and document presentations, group meetings, public workshops and outreach events throughout the study.

CONTACT LIST

A contact list of stakeholders was developed to include elected officials, agency partners, transportation-related organizations, business and civic groups, neighborhood associations, environmental groups, organizations serving the elderly, disabled, minority and low-income populations, meeting attendees and interested parties who sign up via the website.

Figure 2-18. Summary Brochure

2-86


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

TRANSPORTATION TOMORROW YOUTH OUTREACH

VISUALIZATION TECHNIQUES

Visualization techniques are required to communicate the planning process to the public. The visualization techniques employed included:

As part of the 2014 National Engineer’s Week Future City Competition, 120 students in elementary, middle and high school throughout North Florida imagined their “city of the future”. The competition engages teams of students, educators and mentors to prepare vision statements, write research essays, use the SimCity™ software, build scale models with recycled materials, and present their ideas for cities of the future in the year 2050.

Participating schools included     

Clay County - Argyle Elementary. Duval County - Lee High School. Duval County - Westview K-8. Nassau County - Yulee Middle School. St. Johns County - Florida School for the Deaf and Blind.

Individuals from transportation agencies and consulting firms volunteered as mentors.

Allocation games – on-line and interactive meeting games were used to engage the public in the virtual or physical allocation of resources. Interactive map for needs – as part of the on-line allocation game, participants could locate specific project needs and add comments explaining their needs. Temperature charts – as part of the Needs Plan public workshops temperature charts were used to explain intensity and extent of congestion and safety challenges. Maps, charts and graphs – presentations were used as part of the public workshops to explain the purpose, intent and process used in the development of the plan. Video – a project video was prepared explaining the context and planning process used.

AGENCY MEETINGS

The result of the program was education on the role of transportation in regional development. The participants identified a wide range of future technologies for transit that included trains, hyperloops, gondola and bus rapid transit. Livability was also emphasized as part of several models. Figure 2-19 is an example of the one of the physical models developed by Yulee Middle School.

A total of 109 community small group, steering committee, North Florida TPO Board or committees, or community organization briefings were conducted during the planning process. Table 2-32 summarizes these meetings by organization and if the meeting was a technical meeting, citizens meeting, and if the meeting engaged or invited minorities, underserved populations or businesses.

STEERING COMMITTEE The Steering Committee was formed with representatives from the TPO Technical Coordinating Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee, Board, agencies, environmental, business and community groups. The members of the Steering Committee are shown in the forward to this report and included representatives from:        

Figure 2-19. Example Future City Physical Model

2-87

Career Source. Citizens. Community forum (Metro Jacksonville). Elected officials. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. FDOT. Health Planning Council of Northeast Florida. Jacksonville Aviation Authority.


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-32. Meeting Summary Date 22-Feb-13 26-Jun-13 9-Jul-13 10-Jul-13 11-Jul-13 13-Jul-13 15-Jul-13 16-Jul-13 16-Jul-13 18-Jul-13 22-Jul-13 22-Jul-13 23-Jul-13 30-Jul-13 31-Jul-13 31-Jul-13 2-Aug-13 5-Aug-13 6-Aug-13 9-Aug-13 9-Aug-13 9-Aug-13 12-Aug-13 12-Aug-13 13-Aug-13 16-Aug-13 16-Aug-13 16-Aug-13 25-Aug-13 28-Aug-13 5-Sep-13 5-Sep-13 9-Sep-13 24-Sep-13 1-Oct-13 6-Dec-13 17-Dec-13 10-Jan-14 14-Jan-14 14-Jan-14

Event

County

Agency Kickoff Meeting Steering Committee Meeting #1 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Baker County Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – Town of Orange Park Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Clay County Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Nassau County Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – City of St. Augustine Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Fernandina Beach Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - St. Johns County Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Putnam County Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – City of Hastings Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Marineland Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Green Cove Springs Jax2035 Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee of the Florida Bicycle Association Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Callahan City Hall Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – City of Jacksonville Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of MacClenny Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Penney Farms Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - St. Augustine Beach Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Atlantic Beach Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Jacksonville Beach Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Neptune Beach Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Pomona Park Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Welaka Jax2035 Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee of the Florida Bicycle Association Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Crescent City Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Interlachen Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – City of Palatka Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Penney Farms Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – City of Yulee Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Baldwin Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Keystone Heights Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Glen St. Mary Jax2035 Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee of the Florida Bicycle Association Jax2035 Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee of the Florida Bicycle Association Regional Transportation Commission Jax2035 Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee of the Florida Bicycle Association Data Forecasts and Needs Teleconference - Putnam County Data Forecasts and Needs Teleconference - Clay County Data Forecasts and Needs Teleconference - Nassau County

2-88

Region Region Baker Clay Clay Nassau St. Johns Nassau St. Johns Putnam St. Johns St. Johns Clay Regional Nassau Duval Baker Clay St. Johns Duval Duval Duval Putnam Putnam Regional Putnam Putnam Putnam Clay Nassau Duval Clay Baker Regional Regional Region Regional Putnam Clay Nassau

Technical                                        

Citizen

Minority or Underserved

Business

   


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-32. Meeting Summary Date 14-Jan-14 16-Jan-14 26-Feb-14 26-Feb-14 1-Mar-14 12-Mar-14 13-Mar-14 24-Mar-14 27-Mar-14 2-Apr-14 2-Apr-14 3-Apr-14 10-Apr-14 14-Apr-14 14-Apr-14 14-Apr-14 15-Apr-14 17-Apr-14 22-Apr-14 22-Apr-14 22-Apr-14 23-Apr-14 23-Apr-14 24-Apr-14 28-Apr-14 4-May-14 6-May-14 7-May-14 7-May-14 7-May-14 10-May-14 12-May-14 15-May-14 28-May-14 4-Jun-14 4-Jun-14 5-Jun-14 12-Jun-14 12-Jun-14

Event

County

Data Forecasts and Needs Teleconference - St. Johns County Regional Transportation Commission Amelia Island-Fernandina Beach-Yulee Chamber Government Affairs Committee Regional Transportation Commission Northwest Jacksonville Sherriff ShAdCo Safety Fair City of Jacksonville North Citizens Planning Advisory Committee North Florida TPO Board Briefing Emmanuel United Methodist Church -Palatka Steering Committee Meeting #2 North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing Regional Transportation Commission North Florida TPO Board Briefing City of Jacksonville TEU Committee Briefing St. Augustine City Commission West Augustine Community Redevelopment Association Needs Plan Public Workshop – St. Augustine City Commission Chambers Needs Plan Public Workshop – Clay County Thrasher-Horne Center Baker County Commission Briefing Clay County Commission Briefing Needs Plan Public Workshop – Baker County Commission Chambers Nassau County Commission Briefing Needs Plan Public Workshop – Nassau County Commission Chambers Needs Plan Public Workshop – Duval County Florida State College Deerwood Needs Plan Public Workshop – Putnam County Commission Chambers Trinity United Methodist Church - Fernandina Shrimp Festival St. Johns County Commission Briefing Steering Committee Meeting #3 North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing National Train Day Healthy Baker - Baker County Health Department Springfield Community Meeting with Congresswoman Brown Regional Transportation Commission North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing Rotary Club of Arlington Lincolnville Neighborhood Association City of Jacksonville Northwest Citizens Planning Advisory Committee

2-89

St. Johns Region Nassau Region Duval Duval Region Putnam Region Region Region Region Region Duval St. Johns St. Johns St. Johns Clay Baker Clay Baker Nassau Nassau Duval Putnam Nassau St. Johns Region Region Region Duval Baker Duval Region Region Region Duval St. Johns Duval

Technical

Citizen

 

    

     

 

        

Business

  

      

   

Minority or Underserved

 

 

  

 

  

   

   

 


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-32. Meeting Summary Date 18-Jun-14 18-Jun-14 26-Jun-14 6-Aug-14 6-Aug-14 6-Aug-14 14-Aug-14 27-Aug-14 11-Sep-14 16-Sep-14 16-Sep-14 17-Sep-14 18-Sep-14 22-Sep-14 23-Sep-14 24-Sep-14 1-Oct-14 1-Oct-14 1-Oct-14 4-Oct-14 9-Oct-14 14-Oct-14 22-Oct-14 28-Oct-14 5-Nov-14 5-Nov-14 13-Nov-14 13-Nov-14 17-Nov-14 3-Dec-14

Event

County

River Region Human Services Community Review Panel Southpoint Rotary Steering Committee Meeting #4 Steering Committee Meeting #5 North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing North Florida TPO Board Briefing Southside Businessmen's Club North Florida TPO Board Briefing Associated Builders and Contractors Women's Council Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop - Jacksonville Main Library Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop - Fleming Island High School Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop - American Beach Community Center Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop - Bartram Trail Library Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop - Jacksonville Beach City Hall Regional Transportation Commission Steering Committee Meeting #6 North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing Clay Soul Food Festival North Florida TPO Board Briefing Logistics Advisory Group Regional Transportation Commission Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop – North Florida TPO Board Room North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing Public Hearing – North Florida TPO Board Room North Florida TPO Board Briefing Lakeshore Area Preservation Society Regional Transportation Commission

2-90

Duval Duval Region Region Region Region Region Duval Region Duval Duval Clay Nassau St. Johns Duval Region Region Region Region Clay Region Region Region Duval Region Region Region Region Duval Region

Technical

Citizen

Minority or Underserved 

 

  

  

 

 

       

Business

  

   

 

 

  

 

 

  

  

  

   

 


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan           

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Jacksonville Sherriff’s Office Jacksonville Transportation Authority JAXPORT Local governments Mayo Clinic (healthcare) National Park Service Regional Planning Commission Regional Transportation Commission U.S. Marine Corps U.S. Navy WorkSource

In 2013, the Florida Legislature established a Regional Transportation Commission for the six county region of Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, Putnam and St. Johns Counties. The commission is charged with developing a regional multimodal corridors plan and identifying funding to support deployments of regional nature. As part of the planning process, briefings were provided throughout the planning process in December of 2013, January, February, March, April, May, September and October of 2014. At the December 3, 2014 meeting, the commission endorsed of the plan.

The steering committee met six times - in June of 2013, and March, May, June, August and October of 2014.

NEEDS PLAN PUBLIC WORKSHOPS

TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE The members of the Technical Coordinating Committee are summarized in the Forward of this report and include representatives from:             

MEETING FORMAT Six Needs Plan public workshops were conducted in April 2014. One workshop was conducted in each of the six counties participating in the Needs Plan. A presentation was provided during the workshops that provided:

FDOT Jacksonville Aviation Authority Jacksonville Sherriff Office JAXPORT Local governments National Park Service Ocean Highway and Port Authority Regional Planning Commission Regional Transportation Commission St. Augustine Airport Authority U.S. Navy Utilities (JEA and Clay County) WorkSource

       

Briefings and workshops were provided to the Technical Coordinating Committee in April, May, June, August, October and November of 2014. These meetings are publically noticed in accordance with the North Florida TPO policies.

Overview of the planning process Goals and objectives Summary of trends and conditions related to population growth Increases in congestion Growth in transit ridership Crashes Maps were used to provide visualizations of the hot spots for congestion and safety Opportunities for public input through the web page and allocation game, comment cards during the workshop and contact information for the North Florida TPO

Examples of the visualization techniques used are shown in Figure 2-20 for safety hot spots and Figure 2-21 for congestion hot spots.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Table 2-33 summarizes the public notifications for the Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan public workshops and the Cost Feasible Plan Public Hearing.

The members of the Citizens Advisory Committee are summarized in the Forward of this report. Briefings and workshops were provided to the Citizens Advisory Committee in April, May, June, August, October and November of 2014. These meetings are publically noticed in accordance with the North Florida TPO policies.

PARTICIPATION A summary of the attendees at each of the Needs Plan public workshops are summarized in Table 2-34.

2-91


±

J I 115A

15

T S

J I 121A

1

2

4 Miles

23

LEGEND

17

108

£ ¤

J I

£ ¤

J I

0

115

I J J I

J I

J I

105

J I I J J I J I J I

200A

-

108

J I

-

105B

A1A

0019

105

105A

200A

115

Cold Spot

0016

J I J I

Hot Spot Analysis Scale

T T S S T S

107

North Florida TPO Boundary

105A

0012

Neutral

105A

107

30

1

£ ¤

Hot Spot

105

015A

105

T S

J I 121

30

1

£ ¤

1

£ ¤

J I

20

-

A1A

J I T S

108

-

105

107A

J I

-

T SS T T S

200

I J J I

T S A

T S

1A

T S

T S

2

5

A

1A

T S

5 11

J T I S 110

102

J I 110

T IS J 24

3

T S A1A

110

T S 104

J I 106

J I 163

J I

J I

T S 10

115A

119

J I

5

117

T S

J I

22

8

101

A1A

99

113

109A

T S S T

J I

T S

T S 109

115

£ ¤

T S

90A

10A

T S

£ ¤

10

J I

90A

£ ¤

1A

A

T S

I J J I

T S

101A

228

J I 212

126

211

J I

211

213

200

T S

217

90

1 21

128

295

£ ¤

T S

T S

§ ¦ ¨

J I

J I

228

213

115C

228

15

228

T S

129

J I

J I

T S

T S

115 A

T S

103

§ ¦ ¨ 10

T S

200

8

T S

£ ¤

T S

10

21B

111

T S S T

90

J I

T T S S

J I

114

T S 116

113

J I

1

139

103

T S

£ ¤ S T

15

119

7 11

21D

T S

J I S T T S

T S

T S

202

301

£ ¤

134

T S T S

115

116

23

T S

152

J I

J I 210A

J I I J T I J JS I

J I 203

1179

J I

1162

224 1187

217

J I

1177

J I 1181

209

JI I J

220A

J I

J I

220A

13B

J I

220

A1A

220B

T S

J I

1189

J I

J I 15A

220

J I

J I

J I I J 209

J I

209B

739

21A

210

J I 739B

T S 16

315

T S

1

J I

J I

J I

13

218

£ ¤

16

16A

9

T S

16A

J I

209

T S

J I

J I

5

315

215

T S

J I

J I

13A

T S

J I

16

15A

J I I J

§ ¦ ¨

226

209

208

I J J I J S I JTJ JI I I J I J I J I I J S T J I I J J I I J J I 1333

95

J I

1332

1335

A1A

1351

1365

J I

31

1340

20

7

T S 17

£ ¤

J I

315C

J S I T 219

100

J I

13

309D

J I

J I 305

Figure 2-20 Crash Severity Hot Spots

315

2-92

1363

A1A

J I

214

312

T S

J I

352

J I

2

A1A

13A

J I

1353

5A

15

T S

T S

J I 214

315

1339

1354

13A

21

5A

1359

J I

T S

1337


30

¤ £

J I

1

115A

±

J I 121A

15

T S

T S

J I

23

¤ £

J I

5

108

115

J I I J J I J I J JI I J I 105A

17

£ ¤

0012

J I

J I

J I

105

Peak Hour Delay

Cold Spot

105B

-

105

T S

0019

-

105A

I J J I

T S

107

Neutral

A1A

T S

A

T S

A1

200

4 Miles

108

200A

115

2

North Florida TPO Boundary

0016

200A

1

LEGEND

T S

107

J I

0

-

107A

J I

30

105

20

-

T S

1

¤ £

J I S T

108

015A

Hot Spot

105

T S

1

¤ £

J JI I 121

2

T S

10

5

T S

5 11

J T I S 110

102

J I 110

T IS J 24

3

200

A1A

T S

T S

110

T S 104

J I

301

£ ¤

106

J I

J I 163

J I

T S 10

115A

119

J I

5

A1

A

T S

117

§ ¦ ¨

T S 22

200

T S

217

8

101

A1A

113

109

228

A

T S

T S

10

10A

1A

1 21

128

T S

T S

£ ¤

5

T S

T I S J

295

T S

J I

90A

129

T S

103

213

115C

J I

109A

116

99

T S

90A

J I

J I J I

T S

T S

10

228

T S

J I

£ ¤

§ ¦ ¨

111

8

228

115A

10

90

139

T S

T S

T S S T

£ ¤

200

J I

1

T S

21B

T S

T S

£ ¤

103

T S

115

139

£ ¤

J I I J

T S

113

J I 119

T S

15

T S S T

7 11

21D

T S

J I

S T T S

101A

228

J I 212

126

211

J I

J I

211

213

T S

T S

202

301

£ ¤

134

T S

115

J I

T S

J S I T

T S

152

116

23

228

228

J I 210A

J I I J T S J J I I

J I 203

17

£ ¤

1179

J I

1162 224

217

1177

1187

J I 1181

JI I J

220A

J I 13B

T S

J I

13

J I

220

1189

J I

J I 15A

220

J I I J 209

209B

739

21A

J I

J I 210

15

J I

J I

T S

J I 218

A1A

220B 220A

T S

J I

739B

16A

9

T S 1

£ ¤

T S

315

16

16A

J I

209

J I

T S

J I

5

J I

315

215

225

T S

J I

J I

J I

J I

16

13A

T S

J I

16

15A

J I

J I

I J T S J J I I T S J I JI I J JI I J J I I JS T

13

226

1333

J I 208

1365

214

315

1353

312

J I

J I

J JI I J I 5A

20

7

T S

21

5A

1351

209

T S

J I

A1A

1339

1338

95

13A

1337

T S

§ ¦ ¨

J I

J I

1332 A A1

1335

1359

1342

I J J I 312

A1A

1363

13A

J I 352

J I 315C

J I

J I

J I

214

305

209

J I 309D

I J J I 214

A1A

T S

T S

219

100

J I

T S

209

26

J I

J I

207A

315

J I 309C

J I

J I

13

216

J I 1447

21

T S

Figure 2-21 Congestion Hot-Spots J I 21

J I 20A

2-93


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-33. Summary of Public Meeting Advertisements Needs Plan Workshops

Dates

Targeted Minority or Underserved

Needs Plan Workshops: 22-Apr-14, 23-Apr-14, 23-Apr-14, 24-Apr-14, 28-Apr-14 Florida Times-Union

8-Apr-14

St. Augustine Record

8-Apr-14

Baker County Press

10-Apr-14

Clay Today

10-Apr-14

Florida Star

12-Apr-14

Eco Latino

14-Apr-14

Fernandina News Leader

16-Apr-14

Palatka Daily News

22-Apr-14

Radio  WJBT 93.3 The Beat (Urban Contemporary)  WQIK FM 99.9 (Country)  WSOL V1015 FM (Urban Adult Contemporary)  WJGH Jack FM (Classic Hits)  WNWW Kiss FM (Pop Contemporary)  WFXJ Sports Radio AM 930 (Sports) Metrojacksonville.com banner

7-Apr-14 through 23-Apr-14

13-Apr-14 through 28-Apr-14

Cost Feasible Plan Workshops 18-Sep-14, 2-Sep-14, 17-Sep-14, 23-Sep-14, 16-Sep-14 Florida Times-Union

9-Sep-14 and 16-Sep-14

St. Augustine Record

9-Sep-14

Creekline (Northwest St. Johns County) Southside Newsline (zip code 32256) Beaches Leader

Delivered 8-Sep-14 through 11-Sep-14 Delivered 1-Sep-14 through 4-Sep-14 11-Sep-14

Ponte Vedra Beach Leader

11-Sep-14

Fernandina News-Leader

12-Sep-14

Clay Today

11-Sep-14

Florida Star

13-Sep-14

Eco Latino web banner

1-Sep-14 through 30-Sep-14

Metrojacksonville.com banner

4-Sep-14 through 23-Sep-14

Radio - WJCT First Coast Connect

10-Sep-14

Television – First Cost Connect

8-Sep-14 through 22-Sep-14

Cost Feasible Plan Workshop 28-Oct-14 Florida Times-Union

23-Oct-14

Public Hearing 13-Nov-14 Florida Times-Union

24-Cot-14 and 25-Oct-14

2-94


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-34. Needs Plan Workshops Attendance Location Baker County – Commission Chambers Clay County - Thrasher-Horne Center Duval County - FSCJ Deerwood Nassau County – Commission Chambers Putnam County – Commission Chambers St. Johns County - St. Augustine City Commission Chambers Total Average Per Meeting

Attendance

During the workshops an allocation game was conducted using tokens for participants to determine how they would invest their resources similar to the interactive project web site. Stations focusing on five categories – bicycle and pedestrian, road capacity, safety and TSM&O, transit and freight were provided. Each station included a map and list of potential projects needed, reference brochures pertaining to previous studies and a tube for that category. As attendees arrived, they were given a handout explaining the workshop and a pouch of ten tokens to place in tubes at each of the five stations based on their preferences.

15 20 8 9 9 43 104 17.3

Table 2-35 provides a summary of the results of the allocation game that was conducted during the meetings. This table is colored so that the areas that received the greatest interest are coded green and the least are coded brown. During the public meetings and based on follow-up correspondence (such as emails and phone calls), 155 comments were provided. Table 2-36 summarizes the comments by topic.

Table 2-35. Summary of Needs Plan Public Workshop Allocation Game Transit Baker Clay Duval Nassau Putnam St. Johns Overall

21% 25% 27% 26% 16% 40% 30%

Bicycles and Pedestrians

Road Capacity

10% 24% 36% 23% 14% 31% 25%

41% 26% 17% 9% 38% 15% 23%

36

Freight 20% 11% 8% 15% 30% 6% 12%

Safety and TSM&O

Participants 36

7% 14% 13% 26% 3% 8% 10%

The exact number of participants is not known since not all participants fully allocated ten tokens. The values are estimated by rounding to the next highest factor of ten. For example, if 183 tokens were used, 19 participants were assumed. 2-95

15 19 8 6 8 43 99


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-36. Summary of Needs Plan Public Workshop Comments Topic Transit Bicycle and Pedestrian Road Freight Safety Miscellaneous TSM&O Context sensitive solutions Need for additional funding Land use and transportation coordination Grand Total Attendees from Baker, Clay and Putnam counties favored road capacity projects as their top priority.

Number

Percent 69 29 22 12 12 3 3 2 2 1 155

45% 19% 14% 8% 8% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 100%

Overall, there was a significant increase in support for transit and bicycle and pedestrian projects from previous LRTP updates with the meeting participants.

Clay County participants were closely divided among road, transit and bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Following the Needs Plan workshops, the North Florida TPO received correspondence objecting to the construction of the SR 313 in the vicinity of Twelve Mile Swamp. Because of the environmental fatal flaws and potential for public controversy associated with this project it was removed from the Needs Plan. CR 2209 from SR 16 to SR 9B was also removed from the Needs Plan based over environmental concerns.

Duval County attendees selected bicycle and pedestrian projects as their top priority, followed by transit. St. Johns and Nassau participants prioritized transit first, followed by bicycle and pedestrian projects. Nassau participants also felt equally strong about safety and TSM&O projects.

2-96


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

COMPARISON OF PRIORITIES When these results of the telephone survey, on-line allocation game and the public meeting allocation game were considered, the results are shown in Figure 2-22 and Table 2-37.

Similar to the public meeting participants, the telephone survey respondents had transit as the highest priority. Road capacity was the second priority with a much higher priority than the public meeting attendees. The telephone survey responders rated bicycle and pedestrian improvements as much lower priorities.

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Transit

Bicycles and Pedestrians

Road Capacity

Freight

Safety and TSM&O

Telephone Survey

290

7

195

0

67

On-line Allocation Game

108

99

139

43

47

Public Workshops

30

25

22

12

10

Figure 22. Comparison of Priorities from Multiple Sources

Table 2-37. Summary of Input by Percent of Respondents Transit

Bicycles and Pedestrians

Road Capacity

Freight

Public Workshop On-line Allocation Game

30% 25%

25% 23%

23% 32%

12% 10%

Safety and TSM&O 10% 11%

Telephone Survey All Respondents

67% 39%

2% 12%

45% 33%

0% 5%

15% 11%

Note: The telephone survey does not total 100 percent because respondents could comment on multiple categories.

2-97


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

The on-line allocation game had a much high allocation to road capacity than the workshop participants. Transit was the second highest priority.

The meeting locations within each county were shifted to reach new geographic and demographic areas. Television advertising was used instead of radio for the second round of meetings, but public relations effort included participation with agency partners on public radio public affairs programming.

As shown in the summary in input provided in Table 2-34, 39 percent of respondents prioritized transit improvements and 33 percent of respondents prioritized road improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements compared similarly with safety and TSM&O improvements at 12 percent and 11 percent respectively. Freight investments received the lowest priority.

PARTICIPATION A summary of the attendees at each of the Cost Feasible Plan workshops is summarized in Table 2-38 and the comments by priority area are summarized in Table 2-39. Duval County attendees commented that a majority of funding was committed to Strategic Intermodal System projects versus other desired projects focusing on transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

COST FEASIBLE PLAN WORKSHOPS MEETING FORMAT

Clay County attendees wanted more investment in roadway infrastructure as part of the Strategic Intermodal System. Additional outreach targeting Clay County minority communities showed a desire for more transit.

Five Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshops were held September 16-22 in Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns counties and October 28, 2014 in Duval County. The meetings were advertised via newsletters, website posting, social media and radio public affairs programming. Notifications also included general circulation, local and minority publications, web and television advertising. The notifications are summarized in Table 2-33. Attendees viewed maps and lists of proposed projects. The consultant gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining the funding and project selection process.

St. Johns County attendees had concerns about the SR 23 First Coast Expressway and Shands Bridge. Nassau County residents focused on the need for bicycle, pedestrian and safety improvements.

Table 2-38. Summary of Attendance at the Cost Feasible Plan Workshops Location St. Johns County - Bartram Trail Library Duval County - Jacksonville Main Library Duval County - Jacksonville Beach Clay County - Fleming Island H.S. Teach Center Nassau County American Beach Community Center Duval County - North Florida TPO Board Room Total Average Per Meeting

2-98

Attendance

16 28 6 11 32 1 94 15.6


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-39. Summary of Comments During Cost Feasible Plan Workshops Topic Bicycle and Pedestrian Transit Road Funding Environment Grand Total

Comments

Percent 39 23 18 12 1 90

USE OF PUBLIC INPUT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

During the planning process extensive agency and community outreach was conducted. During both the Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan meetings, significant interest in improving transit and enhanced services for bicycles and pedestrian improvements were provided. During the prioritization funds, significant consideration to advance funding for transit and bicycle and pedestrian improvements were made. Table 2-40 on the next page shows the allocation of the total funding in the plan to various components based on the primary decision-making authority. With the various funding categories, limitations exist as to how the funding can be used. The FDOT has the primary decision-making authority for other programs with concurrency of the North Florida TPO for 70 percent of the revenue estimated in the plan. The North Florida TPO has primary decision-making authority with the concurrency of FHWA for 11 percent of the revenue and local government funded projects represent 18 percent of the plan.

2-99

43% 26% 20% 13% 1% 100%


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 4-20. Modal Distribution Fund Program Strategic Intermodal System Other State Highways Turnpike/Tolls Strategic Intermodal System Multimodal Subtotal State Transportation Management Area Transportation Alternatives (TALU) Transportation Alternatives (TALT) Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) State and Federal Transit Subtotal North Florida TPO Clay Duval CIP Duval Mobility Plan Duval Southside Vision Plan Duval LOGT JAXPORT Transit Local Match Duval County Subtotal Nassau St. Johns Subtotal Local FTA Passenger Ferry Grant Federal Seaport Grant Subtotal Federal Grants Total

Total $4,057.74 $1,389.08 $1,951.22 $3,795.90 $11,193.94 $316.40 $31.20 $41.30 $22.29 $760.00 $1,171.19 $248.73 $36.27 $224.62 $44.67 $657.55 $186.50 $253.33 $1,402.95 $41.63 $167.38 $1,860.68 $6.62 $311.00 $317.62 $14,543.42

Roads

Transit

$4,057.74 $1,297.42 $1,951.22 $7,306.37 $268.75

TSM&O

Freight

$91.66 $1,377.21 $1,377.21

$21.23 $289.98 $236.88 $34.54 $213.93 $42.55 $569.62

Bicycle and Pedestrian

$760.00 $760.00

$91.66 $13.44 $31.20 $41.30 $1.06

$0.00 $34.21

$87.00 $11.84 $1.73 $10.70 $2.13 $87.92

$34.21

$2,418.69 $2,418.69

$0.00

$186.50 $860.64 $39.64 $159.41 $1,296.58

$0.00 $8,892.93

2-100

$253.33 $253.33

$253.33 $6.62 $6.62 $2,397.16

$102.47 $1.98 $7.97 $124.27

$302.93

$0.00

$186.50

$0.00

$186.50

$0.00 $34.21

$311.00 $311.00 $2,916.19

Total $4,057.74 $1,389.08 $1,951.22 $3,795.90 $11,193.94 $316.40 $31.20 $41.30 $22.29 $760.00 $1,171.19 $248.73 $36.27 $224.62 $44.67 $657.55 $186.50 $253.33 $1,402.95 $41.63 $167.38 $1,860.68 $6.62 $311.00 $317.62 $14,543.42


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Within the context of these funding program limitations, Figure 2-23 summarizes the proportion of funding allocated by mode in relation to the priorities provided through public input.

After coordination with local agencies and deliberations of the plan alternatives, the North Florida TPO believes the plan makes an appropriate allocation of resources considering the public input and the proportion of the needs identified through the planning process.

This chart shows that a greater proportion of the total funding is dedicated to road projects than other modes of investment. However, a much smaller percentage of the total needs for roadways (27 percent) are met than with any other mode as shown in Figure 2-24. 70%

Additional detail on the needs and prioritization of projects is identified in Part Three of this report.

63%

60% 50% 40%

39%

33%

30% 17%

20%

18%

12%

10%

11%

0% Road

Transit

TSM&O Allocation

5%

2%

0%

Bicycles and Pedestrians

Freight

Public Perception

Figure 2-23. Summary of Funding Allocation Compared to Public Priority

70%

65% 58%

60% 50%

38%

40% 30%

26%

20% 10%

5%

0% Road

Transit

TSM&O

Bicycle and Pedestrian

Percent Figure 2-24. Percent of Need Met by Mode 2-101

Freight


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Strategies and Efforts

PUBLIC HEARING

As part of the planning process, extensive efforts were made to engage minority and underserved populations through a demographic analysis, targeted outreach, using web sites with interactive opportunities to provide information on needs and priorities, social media, telephone surveys and outreach to organizations and elected officials. The process and performance measures deployed are summarized in the following sections.

The plan was adopted by the North Florida TPO Board as part of the November 13, 2014 regularly scheduled board meeting. A unanimous vote was recorded to approve the plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND TITLE VI

Identification of Minority and Underserved Populations

Executive Order 12898, signed by President Clinton in February 1994, directed all Federal agencies to make environmental justice a key part of its mission by identifying and addressing the impacts of programs, policies, and activities on both minority and low-income populations.

The locations of minority and underserved population communities were identified using 2010 Census data by census tract. Areas with minority or underserved populations of 50 percent or more were identified as communities for special consideration. The following communities were identified.

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a memorandum to all federally-funded transportation agencies, including state DOTs and MPO, and required such agencies to comply with Title VI and environmental justice. Noting that issues of Title VI and environmental justice were raised by concerned citizens primarily during project development phases of projects, the U.S. Department of Transportation urged that compliance be evaluated as early as possible, specifically, in the planning stages of the transportation process.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Throughout the LRTP study process, the provisions of environmental justice, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration, were followed to ensure consistency with environmental justice and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. North Florida TPO staff and consultants made every effort to include all affected parties from varying socioeconomic groups to ensure that their input was considered in the planning process. The planning process was also conducted in compliance with the following related legislation ď&#x201A;§

ď&#x201A;§

6.

7.

Low income households making less than $25,000 per year. Populations greater than 65 years old. Black: a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Hispanic or Latino: a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. Asian American: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia or the Indian subcontinent. American Indian and Alaskan Native: a person having origins in any of the original people of North America, South America (including Central America), and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa or other Pacific Islands.

Regional maps showing the results of this analysis are provided in Technical Memorandum #1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Public Involvement. No significant populations of American Indian or Native Hawaiian were identified through the mapping.

23 CFR 450.316, providing interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process. Chapter 286, Florida Statutes (Florida Sunshine Law) requiring public access to governmental meetings at the state and local level and requires meetings of boards and commissions to be open to the public, adequately noticed, and recorded via minutes.

Outreach Efforts and Analysis of Needs Multiple strategies were implemented as part of the public involvement process to engage the underserved and minority populations as summarized in the prior section. The organizations solicited for participation in the planning process related to minority and underserved populations are summarized in Table 2-38. 2-102


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 2-41. Organizations Serving Minority and Underserved Populations Organization Low Income 100 Black Men Ability Housing Adult Services Division Asian American Chamber of Commerce Baker County Health Department  Better Living Community Association  Career Source of Northeast Florida  City of Jacksonville Citizen’s Planning Advisory Committees  Clara White Mission  Clay County Council on Aging  Clay Soul Food Festival Destined for a Change  Duval County Council on Aging Edwards Waters College (Historically Black University) Emmanuel United Methodist Church  Habitat for Humanity  Health Planning Council of North Florida Jacksonville Housing Authority  Knots for Kids  Mayo Clinic Nassau Council on Aging National Council for Negro Women Northeast Florida Community Action Agency  Northeast Florida Healthy Start Coalition  Northeast Florida Veterans Council  Palatka Housing Authority  Springfield Community Meeting  St. Augustine Council on Aging Summer Haven United Way of Northeast Florida  West St. Augustine Community Redevelopment Authority  Work Source 

2-103

Elderly

Black 

Hispanic

Asian

   

 

 

      

  

  


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Analysis of Investments Related to Minority and Underserved Populations The public input received from minority and underserved populations related primarily to the need for more mass transit and active transportation improvements. Significant investments are identified in the Cost Feasible Plan to address these needs and a predominant amount of that investment is occurring in areas where minority and the underserved populations exist. Nearly $2.4 billion of transit investments and $303 million in active transportation investments were adopted. The investments in the Cost Feasible Plan are discussed in greater detail in Part Three.

Equity Considerations Analysis of the investments in transit and highway investments was performed relative to the predominant locations of minority and underserved populations. Table 2-39 on the next page summarizes these areas, the targeted group and the major projects within that area that are funded.

Language Translation According to the U. S. Census 2013 American Community Survey one-year estimate, only two percent of the households in Clay, Duval and St. Johns counties are deemed â&#x20AC;&#x153;Limited English Speaking Householdsâ&#x20AC;? with the largest concentration being Spanish speaking households at .8 percent. The public involvement materials were produced in English but translation capability into Spanish or Braille for the visually impaired was available as requested. There were no requests. The public involvement team will continue to monitor demographic trends and anecdotal experience within the TPO service area for language translation as needed.

2-104


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

Table 2-42. Major Improvements in Minority and Underserved Communities Low Organization Elderly Black Income

Urban Core (downtown and areas along US 90 Beaver Street east of I-295)

Westside Jacksonville and Argyle (area along the I-295 corridor between US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard and I-10)

Arlington and San Souci (north of SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard and east of I295)

East Arlington (east of I-295 and north of SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard)

Hispanic

West St. Augustine (west of US 1 Ponce de Leon Boulevard)

Middleburg and Penny Farms

2-105

Major Projects       

Enhanced bus service Bus rapid transit Commuter rail Streetcar Skyway enhancements Transit mobility and accessibility improvements US 90 Beaver Street widening

          

Enhanced bus service Bus rapid transit Transit mobility and accessibility improvements I-295 express lanes Ricker Road widening SR 21 Blanding Boulevard widening Enhanced bus service Bus rapid transit Transit mobility and accessibility improvements I-295 express lanes SR 115 Southside intersection improvements and context sensitive solutions Enhanced bus service Bus rapid transit Transit mobility and accessibility improvements I-295 express lanes Kernan Boulevard widening SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard intersection improvements Commuter rail SR 207 widening from I-95 to South Holmes Boulevard Bus rapid transit SR 21 Blanding Boulevard from SR 16 to CR 215

         


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan 

SUMMARY

The public involvement process used in developing the plan provided significant input into the needs to be addressed, concerns with specific projects that would result in community impacts and the strategies used in the LRTP. 

Multiple outreach and data gather activities were used to engage the public as part of the process:              

Public perceptions telephone survey. Interactive project web site. On-line asset allocation game. Social media. Community forum engagement. Overview video. Contact list. Newsletters. Overview brochure. Youth outreach. Visualization techniques. Agency meetings. Public workshops. Public hearing.

A significant effort was made to engage minority and underserved populations in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil Rights. Strategies and tactics used to engage minorities and underserved included identifying the population locations, target outreach to organizations serving these populations, scheduling public workshops in areas with clusters of these populations. Analysis of the investments related to these populations was performed to ensure the investments resulted in equity and the projects implemented would not result in disproportionate impacts.

 

The stakeholders involved represented a wide range of community organizations and populations. 

 

Future decision-makers (middle and high school students) were engaged through the Transportation Tomorrow program which resulted in 120 student participants. Users of public transportation were engaged through the telephone survey and public workshops. Representatives of public transportation employees were engaged as part of our steering committee and the North Florida TPO’s committees and boards.

Freight shippers and freight transportation providers were solicited for participation as part of the outreach process. A presentation was made to the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce’s Logistics and Advisory Group which involved approximately 40 representatives of beneficial cargo operators, overthe-road truckers, shipping companies and railroads, third party logistics providers, etc. In addition to attending the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce’s Logistics and Advisory Group meetings, Norfolk Southern and CSX participated in one steering committee. JAXPORT, the Nassau County Ocean Highway Port Authority, Jacksonville Aviation Authority and St. Augustine Airport also participated through the North Florida TPO Board and committees. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority participated in the agency meetings and the Sunshine Bus Company participated through their involvement in the Regional Transportation Commission. Military freight transportation providers were represented by the U.S Navy Air Station Jacksonville on the steering committee and the North Florida TPO Board. Representatives of pedestrian and bicyclist organizations participated such as the North Florida Bicycle Club and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator for the City of Jacksonville participated in steering committee and public workshops. Significant discussion and focus on investments in active transportation solutions were adopted as part of the plan. Representatives of the disabled participated through the North Florida TPO Board and committees. Several members of the disabled community attended the Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan meetings in the urban core. Neighborhood associations and community groups were solicited through our contact list mailings. Business and professional groups were engaged through presentations to local community organizations such as rotary clubs, the Jacksonville Chamber and public workshops. Elected officials and agency representatives were engaged through the North Florida TPO Board and committees, community planning groups and briefings to commissions on the planning process.

A total of 109 community meetings, public workshops and the public hearing were conducted as part of the project. 2-106


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan The size of the contact database increased by 53 percent from 653 to 1,000 contacts compared to the 2035 LRTP. The contact database included geographically and demographically diverse organizations. Meeting advertising increased from seven to eight print publications. Radio spots increased and television advertising was used for the first time. Facebook advertising was again used to drive traffic resulting in 651 clicks and 136,967 impressions. Facebook and Twitter posts were used in LRTP outreach for the first time with 72 tweets and 100 Facebook updates generating 7,110 impressions. Finally, 60 pins on Pinterest generated over 83,864 impressions in ten months. In comparison to the 2035 LRTP, meeting attendance improved with an average of 15 per meeting to 16 per meeting. The number of comments submitted increased over 500 percent from 83 for the 2035 LRTP to 500 for this update. The major themes of the public involvement process were that transit should be a major priority for future investments within the region. Depending on the type of participation (through the allocation game on-line, the allocation game in workshops or comments received during the meetings or in correspondence), road investment and investment in bicycles and pedestrians also remain a high priority. These priorities were reflected in developing of the Cost Feasible Plan by allocating funding through which the North Florida TPO has the primary decision-making authority. When the allocation funds to the types of improvements were analyzed, bicycles and pedestrians are funded with a significantly higher percent of the needs identified than for road capacity projects. The results of the planning process resulted in fair and equitable distribution by mode. An analysis of the investments for major projects in minority or underserved populations was also performed and the major investments in these areas consisted of transit improvements for enhanced bus service, bus rapid transit, commuter rail and streetcars. In addition, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority plans to implement transit mobility and enhancement projects that will serve many of these areas to provide greater mobility and access to transit. The result of the public involvement process reflected the needs of the community balanced with the regional needs identified in the planning process. 2-107


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan This page is intentionally blank.

2-108


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

PLAN ALTERNATIVES C ONSIDERING A RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES IS NEEDED TO MEET THE DIVERSE MOBILITY NEEDS OF STAKEHOLDERS WITHIN OUR REGION IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS .

INTRODUCTION

This section summarizes the process used to develop the Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan. The illustrative projects and inter-regional projects considered in the planning process are also discussed.

Because of the level of visioning and planning that occurred within these studies, the known needs greatly exceeded the resources anticipated to be available. Building on the community consensus that was achieved, the development of the Needs Plan began with a review and confirmation of these studies. The following sources were used to define the needs.

NEEDS PLAN

The Needs Plan included a six county area consisting of Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, Putnam and St. Johns counties. The Needs Plan is not a prioritized list of projects, nor is it constrained by financial resources.

     

The Needs Plan leveraged prior studies developed by local governments. Maintaining the public consensus continuity of these efforts was essential to the credibility of the planning process. 2-109

FDOT’s Strategic Intermodal Systems Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan (includes 1st Five Years and 2nd Five Years) FDOT’s Adopted Work Program North Florida TPO Transportation Improvement Program 2035 Envision Long Range Transportation Plan North Florida TPO Strategic Safety Plan North Florida TPO ITS Master Plan North Florida TPO Congestion Management Plan


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan       

North Florida TPO Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan First Coast Regional Greenways and Trails Plan North Florida TPO Freight, Logistics and Intermodal Planning Framework Plan City of Jacksonville Mobility Plan Local Government Comprehensive Plans Committed Development Projects Provided by Local Governments Coordination with local governments and stakeholders on additional needs

When alternate land use scenarios in the Needs Plan were evaluated, the amount of travel within the network increases. This growth in trips occurs primarily on portions of the network that are less congested (demand to capacity ratio of less than 0.8). There was a reduction in the vehicle-miles traveled in the severely congested segments of the network with the alternate land use scenario in the Needs Plan.

DEFICIENCY ANALYSIS

Future mobility deficiencies were identified through an evaluation of anticipated levels of congestion using the NERPM-AB as the primary analysis tool. The congestion assessment was performed using the existing plus committed model scenario in the year 2040 which represents a No Build Scenario. This approach considers only the projects that are committed for construction within the Transportation Improvement Program and FDOT Adopted Work Program.

Appendix I includes a matrix that summarizes the purpose and need for the project.

LAND USE ALTERNATIVES

As discussed in greater detail in the section on travel demand forecasting, two alternative land use scenarios were developed. Although the consensus of the participating agencies was to use the trend-based scenario, performance measures for both alternatives were developed.

Congestion was assessed through the ratio of roadway volume to roadway capacity, known as the demand-tocapacity ratio. Table 2-43 summarizes the systemwide deficiencies in the Base Year model scenario and the 2040 No Build model scenario (existing plus committed). The congested links (greater than 0.8) are shown for the Base Year on Figure 2-25, the No Build on Figure 2-26, the Needs Plan Trend Land Use Scenario on Figure 2-27 and the Needs Plan Alternate Land Use Scenario on Figure 2-28.

Because of the NERPM-AB’s model framework, the model is much more sensitive to changes in the network and the impacts on trip-making. As more capacity is added to the network, persons are more willing to make longer trips when the travel times do not significantly change. As shown in Table 2-43, the number of vehiclemiles traveled is greater when the Needs Plan is modeled than in the No Build or Build model scenarios as a result of the increased capacity of the network.

Table 2-43. Summary of Deficiency Analysis Millions of Vehicle Miles Traveled by Demand to Capacity Ratio Model Scenario Base Year (2010) Future Year No Build (2040) Trend Land Use Scenario Needs Plan Trend Land Use Scenario Needs Plan Alternate Land Use Scenario Cost Feasible Plan Trend Land Use Scenario

Less than 0.8 (uncongested)

Between 0.8 and 0.9 (Moderately congested)

Greater than 0.9 (Severely congested)

20.4

4.3

12.7

37.4

31.3

6.2

19.4

56.9

22.6

4.9

30.7

58.2

24.8

4.9

30.5

60.2

19.4

4.7

34.0

58.1

2-110

Total


" ) 108

" ) 115

" )

§ ¦ ¨ 95

£ ¤ 1

2

127

A1A

A1A

¬ «

17

" ) " )

" )

105

£ ¤

108

¬ «

¬ « ¬ «

107

2

A1A

¬ «

£ ¤ 301

" ) 122

295

119

" ) 250

¬ «

§ ¦ ¨

§ ¦ ¨

" )

A1A

295

105

¬ « ¬ « 116

" ) 125

221

¬ «

" ) 124

¬ « 10

£ ¤ 90

" )

§ ¦ ¨

90

228

" ) 130

£ ¤ ¬ «

10

228

¬ «

£ ¤ 301

202

134

¬ « ¬ « 23

§ ¦ ¨ 295

Legend

£ ¤ 1

V/C Ratio

< 0.80

0.81 - 0.89

¬ «

220

218

> 0.90

§ ¦ ¨ 95

21

¬ «

Roadway System Water Bodies

16

¬ «

Conservation Lands

¬ «

13

" )

" )

A1A

16

¬ «

Six Counties Boundaries

" ) 315

1

208

" )

13

£ ¤ 17

315

16

¬ « " ) ) " ) " " )

209

" )

13A

207

" )

£ ¤ 17

¬ «

206

" ) 204

20

" ) 329

Date: 1/28/2015

" ) 310

" )

200A

" ) 318

¬ «

¬ «

¬ «

75

A1A

100

315

§ ¦ ¨

5

¬ «

¬ «

" )

320

§ ¦ ¨ 95

305

26

" )

¬ «

¬ «

" )

21

A1A

214

214

" )

£ ¤

19

¬ «

" ) 309

" ) 308

Figure 2-25 2010 Base Year Deficiencies 2-111

¯

0

10,560 Feet

0

3.5

7 Miles


" ) 108

" ) 115

" )

§ ¦ ¨ 95

£ ¤ 1

2

127

A1A

A1A

¬ «

17

" ) " )

" )

105

£ ¤

108

¬ «

¬ « ¬ «

107

2

A1A

¬ «

£ ¤ 301

" ) 122

295

119

" ) 250

¬ «

§ ¦ ¨

§ ¦ ¨

" )

A1A

295

105

¬ « ¬ « 116

" ) 125

221

¬ «

" ) 124

¬ « 10

£ ¤ 90

" )

§ ¦ ¨

90

228

" ) 130

£ ¤ ¬ «

10

228

¬ «

£ ¤ 301

202

134

¬ « ¬ « 23

§ ¦ ¨ 295

Legend

£ ¤ 1

V/C Ratio

< 0.80

0.81 - 0.89

¬ «

220

218

> 0.90

§ ¦ ¨ 95

21

¬ «

Roadway System Water Bodies

16

¬ «

Conservation Lands

¬ «

13

" )

" )

A1A

16

¬ «

Six Counties Boundaries

" ) 315

1

208

" )

13

£ ¤ 17

315

16

¬ « " ) ) " ) " " )

209

" )

13A

207

" )

£ ¤ 17

¬ «

206

" ) 204

20

" ) 329

Date: 1/28/2015

" ) 310

" )

200A

" ) 318

¬ «

¬ «

¬ «

75

A1A

100

315

§ ¦ ¨

5

¬ «

¬ «

" )

320

§ ¦ ¨ 95

305

26

" )

¬ «

¬ «

" )

21

A1A

214

214

" )

£ ¤

19

¬ «

" ) 309

" ) 308

Figure 2-26 2040 No Build Deficiencies 2-112

¯

0

10,560 Feet

0

3.5

7 Miles


" ) 108

" ) 115

" )

§ ¦ ¨ 95

£ ¤ 1

2

127

A1A

A1A

¬ «

17

" ) " )

" )

105

£ ¤

108

¬ «

¬ « ¬ «

107

2

A1A

¬ «

£ ¤ 301

" ) 122

295

119

" ) 250

¬ «

§ ¦ ¨

§ ¦ ¨

" )

A1A

295

105

¬ « ¬ « 116

" ) 125

221

¬ «

" ) 124

¬ « 10

£ ¤ 90

" )

§ ¦ ¨

90

228

" ) 130

£ ¤ ¬ «

10

228

¬ «

£ ¤ 301

202

134

¬ « ¬ « 23

§ ¦ ¨ 295

Legend

£ ¤ 1

V/C RATIO

< 0.8

0.81 - 0.89

¬ «

220

218

>0.9

§ ¦ ¨ 95

21

¬ «

Roadway System 16

¬ «

Water Bodies Conservation Lands

¬ «

13

" )

" )

A1A

16

¬ «

Six Counties Boundaries

" ) 315

1

208

" )

13

£ ¤ 17

315

16

¬ « " ) ) " ) " " )

209

" )

13A

207

" )

£ ¤ 17

¬ «

206

" ) 204

20

" ) 329

Date: 2/9/2015

" ) 310

" )

200A

" ) 318

¬ «

¬ «

¬ «

75

A1A

100

315

§ ¦ ¨

5

¬ «

¬ «

" )

320

§ ¦ ¨ 95

305

26

" )

¬ «

¬ «

" )

21

A1A

214

214

" )

£ ¤

19

¬ «

" ) 309

" ) 308

Figure 2-27 2040 Needs Plan Trend Scenario Deficiencies 2-113

¯

0

0

10,560 Feet

3.5

7 Miles


" ) 108

" ) 115

" )

§ ¦ ¨ 95

£ ¤ 1

2

127

A1A

A1A

¬ «

17

" ) " )

" )

105

£ ¤

108

¬ «

¬ « ¬ «

107

2

A1A

¬ «

£ ¤ 301

" ) 122

295

119

" ) 250

¬ «

§ ¦ ¨

§ ¦ ¨

" )

A1A

295

105

¬ « ¬ « 116

" ) 125

221

¬ «

" ) 124

¬ « 10

£ ¤ 90

" )

§ ¦ ¨

90

228

" ) 130

£ ¤ ¬ «

10

228

¬ «

£ ¤ 301

202

134

¬ « ¬ « 23

§ ¦ ¨ 295

Legend

£ ¤ 1

V/C Ratio

< 0.80

0.81 - 0.89

¬ «

220

218

> 0.90

§ ¦ ¨ 95

21

¬ «

Roadway System Water Bodies

16

¬ «

Conservation Lands

¬ «

13

" )

" )

A1A

16

¬ «

Six Counties Boundaries

" ) 315

1

208

" )

13

£ ¤ 17

315

16

¬ « " ) ) " ) " " )

209

" )

13A

207

" )

£ ¤ 17

¬ «

206

" ) 204

20

" ) 329

Date: 2/6/2015

" ) 310

" )

200A

" ) 318

¬ «

¬ «

¬ «

75

A1A

100

315

§ ¦ ¨

5

¬ «

¬ «

" )

320

§ ¦ ¨ 95

305

26

" )

¬ «

¬ «

" )

21

A1A

214

214

" )

£ ¤

19

¬ «

" ) 309

" ) 308

Figure 2-28 2040 Needs Plan Alternate Land Use Scenario Deficiencies 2-114

¯

0

0

10,560 Feet

3.5

7 Miles


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Within the Needs Plan project cost estimates were prepared based on today’s buying power for projects. In the future inflation is anticipated to occur that will increase the nominal costs of the projects. Since as part of the Needs Plan, the year of expenditure for each project is not known and to compare projects on consistent basis, the following summary of the Needs Plan is reported in “present-day costs”.

community were conducted. These workshops are documented in the public involvement section. Several iterations of the Needs Plan were also presented to the steering committee, North Florida TPO Board and committees during March, April and May of 2014 for refinement of alternatives and consensus building. The Needs Plan includes road capacity projects, multimodal projects (transit, active transportation and freight) and operations strategies.

In today’s dollars we have more than $7 billion of needs versus $27 billion in funding. Forecasting that over the 22-year plan horizon, those needs increase to $46 billion with only $14.8 billion in revenues available. Table 2-44 summarizes the Needs Plan in present day dollars.

The Needs Plan was adopted by the North Florida TPO Board on June 12, 2014. Technical Memorandum #8 – Needs Plan is attached to this report. The projects in the Needs Plan are presented in Part Three of this report.

Four iterations of the Needs Plan were prepared with the stakeholder agencies during the planning process. Public comments were considered as part of the process and a series of public workshops throughout the

Table 2-44. Summary of Needs Versus Revenue in Present Day Costs Type Roadway Capacity Bicycle and Pedestrian TSM&O Context Sensitive Solutions Subtotal Highways Transit Freight Subtotal Multimodal TOTAL

2-115

Need (Millions) $19,503 $306 $417 $273 $20,499 $2,448 $3,824 $6,272 $26,771

Estimated Revenue (millions) $5,537 $135 $38 $59 $5,769 $624 $1,839 $2,463 $8,232


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

COST FEASIBLE PLAN

For the purposes of this plan reasonable estimates for all potential funding programs were developed. However, the revenue estimated for the Strategic Intermodal System Multimodal funding program and the state New Start transit capacity programs are allocated on a statewide basis and there is no “guarantee” these projects will be funded. The Strategic Intermodal System Multimodal program revenue estimates used were based on a proportion of the program-level revenue based on population share. The New Starts funding program is allocated on a competitive basis and projects that are eligible for New Start funding and feasible were included in the Cost Feasible Plan.

Following the identification of needs, the Cost Feasible Plan was prepared for the federal planning boundaries only – Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns Counties. The projects selected from the Needs Plan were identified using the prioritization system developed using the performance measures established with the goals and objectives. The prioritization systems and decision-making process used for the selection of projects is documented in Part Three of this report. Quantitative performance measures and prioritization systems were developed for road capacity and bicycle and pedestrian projects. More qualitative methods were used for other components of the plan.

In addition, the following projects received high rankings during the prioritization of the Needs Plan, but are so costly that if included they would have consumed all of the funding available in the programs they are eligible. These projects included.

Priority projects were identified and revenues allocated from various funding sources until the plan was balanced (project costs equaled revenues). The process of prioritization and selection of the projects for inclusion in the Cost Feasible Plan is discussed in greater detail in Part Three.

Extensive coordination with the steering committee and TPO Board and committees occurred. Multiple versions of the plan were presented in the August, September and October TPO Board and committee meetings for review and comment. 

Public workshops were conducted in September of 2014 and a public hearing occurred on October 28, 2014. The Cost Feasible Plan was adopted by the North Florida TPO Board in November 13, 2014 with a unanimous vote of approval. Technical Memorandum #10 – Cost Feasible Plan is attached to this report.

Project # 79, SR 115 Mathews Bridge over the St. Johns River. The construction cost was estimated to be $1.1 billion. Project #413, I-95 from I-10 to SR 104 Dunn Avenue Express Lanes. The project was not included in the Strategic Intermodal System program and if funded in the Other Road Capacity program, it would have consumed more than one-half of the available funding. The project was estimated cost $374 million in construction. Project #74, SR 115 Lem Turner Road from I-295 to US 1 Kings Road, Widen to 4 Lanes. The estimated construction cost is $88 million.

Two projects ranked favorably but insufficient information on the scope of the work was available to include construction, right of way or environmental phases. 

ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS

Illustrative projects are included as defined by FHWA

The financial plan may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects what would be included in the adopted/approved transportation plan/program if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available" [see 23 U.S.C. 135(e)(4), 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(2)(E), 23 U.S.C. 134(g)(2)(B), and 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(B)(iv), respectively].

Project #100, SR 115 Arlington Expressway from SR 109 University Boulevard to SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard. Project #967, SR 115 Southside Boulevard at SR 152 Baymeadows Road Underpass.

These projects were included in the Cost Feasible Plan for preliminary engineering phases only so that if additional funding were available, subsequent phases could be advanced.

2-116


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan determines that high-speed rail is feasible in the AtlantaMacon-Jacksonville Corridor. It is further recommended that a Tier 1 NEPA Document and Service Development Plan be pursued for high-speed rail service within the corridor. This analysis should continue to address a range of technology alternatives including the Hybrid High Performance implementation approach.

INTER-REGIONAL PROJECTS

As part of the development of the plan, the following key inter-regional projects that will connect North Florida to other metropolitan regions were identified.   

Jacksonville to Atlanta high speed rail Miami to Jacksonville intercity passenger rail Tampa Bay to Northeast Florida: Florida’s Future Corridors

A copy of the executive summary of the Georgia Department of Transportation study is provided in Appendix F.

No funding was allocated to these projects as part of the plan but they are long-term needs that will be addressed through intra-state or inter-state cooperation. The following provides a brief overview of these projects.

MIAMI TO JACKSONVILLE HIGH SPEED RAIL All Aboard Florida, an intercity passenger rail program being developed by the owner of the FEC railroad, Fortress Investment Group, will be a privately owned, operated and maintained passenger rail service to connect South Florida and Orlando that is anticipated to open service in 2016. As part of their long-term plan, Jacksonville to Miami service is proposed in the future. However, no timetable has been set.

JACKSONVILLE TO ATLANTA HIGH SPEED RAIL In 1998, the U.S. Department of Transportation 37 designated the Jacksonville to Atlanta as a component of the Southeast High Speed Rail network. According to the report Ground Transportation for America prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation the Southeast High Speed Rail network was given a "specialized analysis" and "afforded exceptional treatment" because of its extraordinary potential for commercial success.

TAMPA BAY TO NORTHEAST FLORIDA: FLORIDA’S FUTURE CORRIDOR New connections between Tampa Bay and Jacksonville, two large regions that are not well connected today are needed to enhance intrastate commerce and personal mobility. In 2013, FDOT completed high-level evaluations of Future Corridors. A possible new connection between the Suncoast Parkway in Tampa and I-75 in the Gainesville or Ocala area and enhanced connectivity between Gainesville and Ocala and the Jacksonville area were evaluated. However, no commitments for advancing study or implementation of these projects has been made. Additional information is provided in Appendix G.

In 2012, the Georgia Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Transportation completed a feasibility study for the potential of high speed rail consistent with the Southeast High Speed Rail Network program. The total costs of implementing service ranged from $5 billion to $15 billion if shared rail use or exclusive rail was constructed. The following summarizes the recommendations of the study. High-speed rail service in the Atlanta-Macon-Jacksonville Corridor presents an opportunity to provide needed transportation solutions and promote economic development. While high-speed rail is not the only transportation solution, this study gives evidence that passenger high-speed rail will provide added mobility and transportation choices to consumers. High-speed rail can provide more efficient and cost-effective means to consumers, providing added connectivity to major cities such as Atlanta and Birmingham through commercial centers and national / international destinations. This study illustrates that although the initial investment in high-speed rail is significant, the mobility and economic opportunities offered by this new more are significant. Based on the analysis findings, this study 37

http://www.sehsr.org/reports/time2act/actchapter4.htm

2-117


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan This page is intentionally blank

2-118


PART

THREE

ROAD PROJECTS


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

NEEDS PLAN R OADS ARE THE MOST VISIBLE AND PRODUCTIVE COMPONENT OF OUR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE . N EW ROADS AND ADDITIONAL CAPACITY ARE NEEDED TO MEET OUR REGION â&#x20AC;&#x2122; S NEEDS .

OVERVIEW

The need to provide safe, convenient and effective mobility for all persons was identified throughout our region. Major projects identified for funding within this program include new roads, the widening and reconstruction of corridors, intersection improvements and interchange modifications.

Our plan addresses context sensitive solutions by identifying corridors that are candidates for more walkable, ride-able and livable communities. Roads donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t just serve automobiles. All road projects on arterials will include new sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Roads provide buses with access to more persons and allow them to offer better quality of service through more reliable travel times and reduced congestion.

Revenues are also dedicated to constructing standalone bicycle and pedestrian projects and deployment of TSM&O projects within these road capacity funding categories.

Figures 3-1 through 3-7 summarize the project needs that were identified. Table 3-1 summarizes the road capacity needs identified in the six county region.

These projects are discussed in later sections.

3-1


" )

Ò " ) Ê

78

27

500

225

326

Date: 11/4/2014

721

225A

25A

25

200A

200

326 326

326

956 2

82 9

31

826 11 3

413 414

133

84 9

902

909

1023 1023

11 9

410

934 431 98

101

104

411 411

944

971 91 2

114

441

850

818

¬ «

Ò " ) Ê

¬ «

Ò " Ê " ) )

9 42

138

204

8 42

19

¬ «

" ) 309

430

" ) 308

502 425

200

« " ) £ ¤¬ £ ¤ ¬ «" " ) ) " ) ¬ « ¬ « ) " ) " ¬ «" ) ¬ « 316

335

95 4

1017

701

88 123

425

91

424

05 4301

404

206

A1A

425

453

318

453

310

403

" ) £ ¤

138

20

91

329

§ ¨ ¦

¬ «

" )

5

¬ «

95

965

® q

88

424

" )

¬ «

400

315

720

115

130

" )

1008

400

100

¬ «

200A

500

809

420

50 5

1007

420

£ ¤

n A¬ ¤ 1A í« ì ë é è í ì ë é è

2 45

335

75

110

214

" )

17

3 50

" ) " )

§ ¨ ¦

1

£ ¤

832

26

21

1 13

451

" )

83 6

305

¬ «

" )

13

" )

423

320

13A

839

Ò " ) Ê q ¤® n

207

Six Counties Boundaries

" )

907

823

16

214

422

128

17

£ ¤

2 13

Conservation Lands

1 15

Water Bodies

81 2

814

Roadway System

840

208

209

315

846

95

¬ « " ) " " ) ) " )

" )

" ) 45 0

16

¬ «

820

906

Future Corridor TBD

841

¬ «

845

844

816

315

Northern Outer Beltway Corridor

Ò " ) Ê 46

" )

First Coast Expressway

847

5 80

802

803

106

819

Ò" " ) Ò Ò " ) Ê Ê Ê) Ò " Ê Ò " ) Ê ) § ¨ ¦ Ò " ) Ê ) Ò " Ê

842

418

Operational Improvements

827

811

16

Ò " ) Ê Ò " ) Ê

32

A1A

93

25 41 26

1013

¬ «

220

904

¬ «

Express Lanes

" )

Ò " ) Ê

24

80 0

1

34

1012 905

202

£ ¤ 13

1

1036

New 6 Lane Road

119

716

10 2

90

73

New 4 Lane Road

Ò " ) Ê

810

21

¬ «

1022

848

1027

33

Ò " ) Ê

715

18

New 3 Lane Road

962

49

834

" ) 218

57

903

New 2 Lane Road

1011

§ ¨ ¦ 295

152

£ ¤ ¬ «

121

721

4 43

Context Sensitive Solutions

57

964 16

911

1026

960

960

14

Widen to 6 Lanes

960

103

913 23

16

957

715

10

714

Ò " ) Ê è í ì ë Ò " ) Ê é í ì ë é è Ò " ) Ê 416

í) ì ë é è Ò " Ê

116

968

153

95

23

957

0 97

Widen to 5 Lanes

¬ «

86

957

¬ « ¬ « è í ì ë é

Ò " ) Ê è ¬é í ì ë é íè ì ë é èè í ì ë í « ì ë é 3 43

301

£ ¤

415

è í ì ë é í ì ë é è

431

" )

228

134

¬ « ¬ «

105

100

79

432

Ò " ) Ê

87

Ò " ) Ê

9

" )

7

432

935

¬ «

§ ¨ ¦

419

96

10

228

Widen to 4 Lanes 130

" )

§ ¨ ¦

6

A1A

295

3 43

404

90

£ ¤

406

85

410

405

406

710

¬ «

959

407

951

221

Ò " ) Ê Ò " ) Ê

295

119

¬ «

705

A1A

§ ¨ ¦

" ) 401

A1A

704

1005 92

408

145 940

" )

250A

74

301

£ ¤

124

453 Widen to 3 Lanes 453

® q

83

Reconstruct 2 Lanes

939

2

500

¬ «

706

127

Ò " ) Ê

17

£ ¤

¬ « ¬ «

3 70

A1A

1006

" ) ® Airport q ¤ Amtrak Station n Rail Station ¤ Passenger" n 122 ) í Intersection Projects ì ë é è Projects Ò " 250 ) Ê Interchanges " ) 125 " ) Lanes

í ì ë é è

707

105

107

501

994

" ) " )

708

" )

981

981

í ì ë é è

108

2

427

984

95

88

«

36

í ì ë é Ò Ò " " § ¨ ¦èéëìí ) ÊÊè

1

£ ¤

Legend ¬

969

97

115

9 70

108

" )

23

Figure 3-1 Regional Road Capacity Needs 3-2

¯

0

10,560 Feet

0

4

8 Miles


Legend Intersection Projects

è í ì ë é Ò " ) Ê

Interchanges Projects

Lanes

Reconstruct 2 Lanes Widen to 3 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 5 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Context Sensitive Solutions New 2 Lane Road New 3 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New 6 Lane Road Express Lanes Operational Improvements

" ) 108

Northern Outer Beltway Corridor

¬ « 2

Future Corridor TBD Roadway2 System

" ) 127

" )

Water Bodies Conservation Lands

88

Six Counties Boundaries

" ) 121

" ) 122

£ ¤ 301

88

" ) 125

" ) 119

" ) 127

" ) 119

" ) " ) 23D

" ) 250

23C

" ) £ ¤ ¤ £ 121

" )

" ) 124

£ ¤

250A

121

139B

90

" )

¬ «

§ ¦ ¨

" ) 123

453

10

453

404

" ) 23A

" ) 125

" )

§ ¦ ¨ 10

720

¬ « 228

405

405

" ) 228

90

217

301

86

425

" ) " ¬ « ) ) " £ ¤ " ) " ) 228

" ) 229

228

228

217

301

" ) 231

217

218

424

23

Figure 3-2 Baker County Road Capacity Needs Date: 11/4/2014

3-3

406 406

" )

£ ¤

130

721

301

403 403

402

91

" ) 229

123

500

¯

1026 0

0

10,560 Feet

1.5

3 Miles


98

101

970

í ì ë é è

9

425

936

932

1015

86

957

16

431

Ò " ) ÊÊ Ò " )

431

910

301

217

23

" )

57

§ ¦ ¨ 295

57

49 1022

224

13

¬ «

14

91 2

¬ «

964

1179

913

£ ¤ " )

16

1022

" )

220A

Ò " ) Ê

1011

6

900

2 10

" ) " ) 1189 220

33

" ) 13B

34

23

" )

915

739

24

904

" ) 739B

25

" ) ¬ «

909

21

" ) 209

41

26

13

¬ « 32

15

¬ «

803

Ò " ) Ê

" ) 315

114

215

Ò " ) Ê

133

" )

15A

1013

16

¬ «

" ) 16A

106

Ò " ) Ê

16

¬ «

841

0 82

31

721

1027

" )

914

218

Ò " ) Ê

903

" )

1012

220

905

84 9

" )

901

911

902

424

209

908

17

£ ¤ 230

¬ «

" ) 226

46

" ) 315

906

" ) 209

907

" ) 315

Legend

" ) 21

Interchanges Projects

Lanes

45 0

¬ «

Intersection Projects

è í ì ë é Ò " ) Ê

352

Reconstruct 2 Lanes

" ) 214

" )

209 to 3 Lanes Widen Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 5 Lanes

" ) 214

Widen to 6 Lanes

" ) 315

Context Sensitive Solutions New 2 Lane Road

451

21

¬ « ¬ «

" ) 309D

26

" ) 209

New 3 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New 6 Lane Road Express Lanes

505

Operational Improvements First Coast Expressway 965

Future Corridor TBD Roadway System Water Bodies

Conservation Lands 422

Six Counties Boundaries

423

Figure 3-3 Clay County Road Capacity Needs Date: 11/4/2014

3-4

¯

0

0

10,560 Feet

1.5

3 Miles


Ò Ò " ) ) Ê" Ê

í ì ë é è

í ì ë é è

501

í ì ë é è

705

70 7

706

Ò " ) Ê

706

710

78

708

A1A

¬ «

952

939

1005

413

407

104

9 40

948

40 7

Ò " ) Ê £ ¤ 17

949

951

¬ «

82

95

§ ¦ ¨

£ ¤

1036

Operational Improvements

414

104

102

1022

119

119

£ ¤ 1

§ ¦ ¨

5 82

Northern Outer Beltway Corridor

80 0

Future Corridor TBD Roadway System Water Bodies

95

828

833

Ò " ) Ê

41 4

90 3

902

901

911

New 6 Lane Road

First Coast Expressway

827

Figure 3-4 Ò " Duval County Road Capacity Needs ) Ê 3-5

¬ «

826

91 3 91 2

Ò " ) Ê

New 4 Lane Road

202

819

Ò " ) Ê

Conservation Lands

844

Ò " ) Ê Ò " ) Ê 2 13

900

34

New 3 Lane Road

93

33

152

¬ «

962

90

¬ «

¬ «

1023

410

431

934

101 5 101

98

123 123 425

424

1022

17

New 2 Lane Road

A1A

Express Lanes

8 41

1011

966

967

Ò " ) Ê

49

£ ¤

Context Sensitive Solutions

128

295

Widen to 6 Lanes

1

18

23

Date: 11/4/2014

§ ¦ ¨

Widen to 5 Lanes

94

21

57

Widen to 4 Lanes

1024

14

¬ «

57

152

960

418

224

964

13

Ò " ) Ê

è í ì ë é í ì ë é è í ì ë é è Ò " ) Ê

4 43

Ò " ) Ê

910

16

10 2

90

960

95

16

¬ «

200

¬ «

416

129

716 714 715

10

¬ « è í ì ë é íè ì ë é íè ì ë é

í ì ë é è

£ ¤

99

í ì ë é è

957

820

102 6

Ò " ) Ê

4 43

970

13

960

9

721

930

932

936

431

23

¬ «

17

968

73

134

820

415

957

¬ «

í ì ë é è

Interchanges Projects

1023

411 411

944 971

957

228

86

Ò " ) Ê

¬ « ¤ í £ ì ë é è í ì ë é è

87

100

3 43

91

17

128

¬ «

301

£ ¤

947

946

103

5 103

Ò " ) Ê

3 43

4 103

79

43

96

820

405

£ ¤

Ò " ) Ê

935

432

¬ «

121

972

7

153

Intersection Projects

Widen to 3 Lanes

152

A1A

116

¬ «

945

121

406

419

47

10

1006

950

405

90

401

Ò " ) Ê

85

Airport

Reconstruct 2 Lanes

295

432

0 41

404

403

402

720

406

£ ¤§ ¦ ¨

6

Lanes

§ ¦ ¨

1019

454

® q í ì ë é è Ò " ) Ê

A1A 1

20 10

1

500

Legend

37

¬ «

963

940

40 8

88

83

¬ «

954

2

115

1 94

68

Ò " ) Ê

1038

301

¬ «

97

421

A1A

956

701

74

® q

88

£ ¤

92

953

1033

1017

£ ¤ 23

845

¯

Six Counties Boundaries

0

10,560 Feet

0

3

6 Miles


0

10 0

7 97

996

987

983

í ì ë é è

995

78

" )

994

115

í ì ë é è

" )

£ ¤ 301

SR 200 Projects Inset

707

Legend

108

9 70

975

969

Ò " ) Ê £ ¤ 17

" ) 115

981

£ ¤ 1

í ì ë é è

994

501

501

1001

981

997

See Inset

710

" )

705

" ) 107

78

708

í ì ë é è

108

703

706

Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 5 Lanes

115

£ ¤ 301

104

40 8

Ò " ) Ê

40 7

959

134

134

1016

410

228

¬ « £ ¤¬ « 17

208

414

15

410

957

2 11

« é è í ì ë " )¬ " ) ¬ « Figure í 3-5 ì ë é è 213

9

87

79

21

211

£ ¤ Ò " ) Ê ¬ « Ò " ¬ «) Ê ¬ «

100

153

1

415

13

416

109

Nassau County Road Capacity Needs 3-6

947

í ì ë é è

968

104

411 411

944

123 425

301

23

¬ « ¬ « ¬ «

Ò " ) Ê ¬ «

43

5

1 15

23A 121

200

¬ « £ ¤

10

109

¬ « Ò " ) Ê

116

¬ «

í ì ë é è

960

714 715 716

10

¬ «

í ì ë é íè ì ë é íè ì ë é è

115

Future Corridor TBD

¯

¬ « 10 2

Roadway System

1

Water Bodies Conservation Lands

A1A

« ¤¬ ¬ « £ 212

960

è í ì ë é í ì ë é è ¬ « í ì ë é è Ò " ) Ê

Northern Outer Beltway Corridor

152

A1A

121

) " )¬ « " 228

¬ «

972

§ ¦ ¨

945

121

405

406

432

432

419

1006

¬ «

721

406

7

Ò " ) Ê

96

Date: 11/4/2014

453

85

3 43

" ) 123

8

90

820

228

403

£ ¤

6

401

454

First Coast Expressway

47

91

402

Express Lanes

950

295

23C

720

¬ «

82

§ ¦ ¨

" ) " )

500

New 6 Lane Road

A1A

Operational Improvements

41 4

119

23D

125

New 4 Lane Road

951

) " )"

" )

949

1

9 40

121

New 3 Lane Road

956

948

37

¬ «

954

407

963

940

1 94

Ò " ) Ê

413

88

127

¬ «

83

" )

New 2 Lane Road

2

74

421

68

Context Sensitive Solutions

A1A

1005

® q

Widen to 6 Lanes

105

92

97

¬ «

952

939

953

¬ «

1033

15

Interchanges Projects

Widen to 3 Lanes

¬ « ¬ « ¬ «

1017

2

701

" )

Intersection Projects

Reconstruct 2 Lanes

A1A

A1A

2

Airport

Lanes

105

¬ « ¬ «

706

Ò " ) Ê

108

í ì ë é è

987

105

« ¬ « ¬

A1A

200A

1003

ÊÊ

982

95

23

" )

) è" í ì ë Ò " Òé " ) ) 427

707

§ ¦ ¨

£ ¤

88

998

107

979

984

" )

" )

36

® q í ì ë é è Ò " ) Ê

105A

704

501

982

981

986

971

6 97

Ò " Ò " ) Ê) Ê

97 6

9 99

1003

í ì ë é è

427

979

70 7

984

985

70 9

202

¬ «

0

90

10,560 Feet

" ) 203

Six Counties Boundaries

0

3.5

7 Miles


" ) 226

" ) 315

906

" ) 13

" ) 13A

" ) 209

907

" ) 315

21

45 0

¬ «

" )

13A

" ) 352

" )

315C

" ) 214

" ) 214

" )

309D

" ) 219

100

¬ «

26

¬ « 45 1

21

¬ «

505

" )

207A

" ) 216

965

" )

309C

" ) 315

422

100

¬ «

" ) 310

20

423

¬ «

" ) 20A

è í ì ë é Ò " ) Ê

£ ¤

" )

309B

19

¬ «

" ) 21

" ) 310

8 42

429

15

¬ «

2 45

Legend

20

¬ « 17

3 50

" )

5

46

Intersection Projects

Interchanges Projects

Lanes

" )

308B

Reconstruct 2 Lanes

430

" ) 309

Widen to 3 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 5 Lanes

" ) 308

Widen to 6 Lanes

Context Sensitive Solutions New 2 Lane Road

" ) 309

New 3 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New 6 Lane Road Express Lanes

Operational Improvements Roadway System Water Bodies

Conservation Lands

" ) 314

Six Counties Boundaries

Figure 3-6 Putnam County Road Capacity Needs Date: 11/4/2014

3-7

¯

0

0

10,560 Feet

1.5

3 Miles


) Ê

1029

103 1

49

1025

295

1022

« " ) ¬ 210A

119

1022

A1A

1024

§ ¦ ¨

962

1036

Ò " ) Ê

295

102

57

825

18

1008

80 0

94

í ì ë é è

721

St. Augustine

90

826

809

967

4 43

95

57

1023

0

964

§ ¦ ¨

1023

99

103

Ò " ) ÊÊ Ò

16

128

4 43

115

937

938

966

¬ «

202

¬ «

73

96

3 43

í ì ë é è

103

960

121

è í ì ë é í ì ë é è í ì ë é è Ò " ) Ê

Ò " ) Ê

11 9

¤ n

8 41

93

" ) 13B

828

827

842

851

5 80

834

848

833

Ò " ) Ê

843

Ò " ) Ê

Ò " Ê " ))

844

Ò " ) Ê

845

846

210

810

807

2 13

13

84 9

¬ «

Ò " ) Ê

7

847

Ò " ) Ê

840

418

802

841 803

Ò " ) Ê

811

10 3

Ò " ) Ê

9 81

1 13

0 82

16

¬ «

16

¬ «

823

812

908

82 9

106

Ò " ) Ê

" ) 13A

839

¤ n

815

5 81

816

" ) 13

16

¬ «

" )

¬ « A1A

1007

103

821

813

0

906

§ ¦ ¨

See Inset

115

83 0

13A

1025

" )

103 1

1029

809

95

" ) 214

è í ì ë é

1008

1008

312

¬ «

11 3

907

814

Lanes

n ¤ í ì ë é è

110

208

Legend ® Airport q ¤ Amtrak Station n ¤ Passenger Rail Station n í Intersection Projects ì ë é è Ò " ) Ê Interchanges Projects

1

£ ¤

83 6

832

46

835

® q

801

Reconstruct 2 Lanes Widen to 3 Lanes

" ) 13A

Widen to 5 Lanes

207

¬ «

09 Widen to 6 2Lanes

1

£ ¤

Context Sensitive Solutions 17

£ ¤ ¬ «Road New 3 Lane

" ) 305

New 2 Lane Road

850

15

New 4 Lane Road

" )

138

818

Express Lanes

¬ «

Ò " ) Ê

A1A

400

New 6209 Lane Road

206

¬ «

130

420

" )

420

Widen to 4 Lanes

207A Operational Improvements 505

First Coast Expressway 451

" ) " ) 13

Roadway System 19

¬ « ® q " ) ¬ «Bodies Water

965

Future Corridor TBD

" )

Ò " ) Ê

Figure 3-7 St. John's County Road Capacity Needs

¯

100 1447

" ) 2016

Conservation Lands

204

100

¬ «

" )

310 Six Counties Boundaries

Date: 11/4/2014

3-8

138

0

0

10,560 Feet

1.5

3 Miles


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3-1. Road Capacity Needs by County County Map ID Facility Baker 453 I-10 Baker 404* I-10 Baker 405* I-10 Baker 720 I-10/US 90 Parallel Reliever Baker/Clay/Duval 721 Future Corridor Initiative Baker/Duval 91 Outer Loop Facility Clay 900 Baxley Road Clay 13 Cheswick Oak Avenue Extension Clay 902 College Drive Clay 14 College Drive Extension Clay 905 CR 209 Russell Road Clay 906 CR 209 South Clay 24 CR 218 Clay 909 CR 218 Clay 1026 CR 218 Clay 1027 CR 218 Clay 25 CR 218 Extension Clay 26 CR 218 Extension Clay 33 CR 220 Doctors Inlet Road Clay 34 CR 220 Doctors Inlet Road Clay 31 CR 315 Clay 32 CR 315 Clay 904 CR 739B Sandridge Road Clay 907 Decoy Road Clay 46 Governors Park Road Clay 901 Knight Boxx Road Clay 915 Lake Asbury East West 1 Clay 914 Lake Asbury North South Road 3 Clay 911 Long Bay Road Extension North Clay 913 Oakleaf Village Parkway Extension Clay 450 SR 100 Clay 106 SR 16 Clay 908 SR 16 Clay 114 SR 21 Blanding Boulevard Clay 903 Town Center Boulevard Clay 912 Tynes Road Clay 133 US 17 Clay 1037 US 17 Clay 424 US 301 SR 200 Clay 910 Wells Road Duval 2 Alta Drive / Yellow Bluff Road Duval 1 Alta Drive Realignment Duval 936 Argyle Forest Boulevard Duval 1006 Blount Island Boulevard Extension Duval 939 Braddock Parkway Duval 1016 Cahoon Road Duval 972 Cecil Field Connector Duval 971 Chaffee Road Duval 1020 Clark Road Extension Duval 932 Collins Road Duval 16 Collins Road

From Baker/Columbia County Line W of CR 125 W of SR 121 South MacClenny Tampa Bay SR 228 Normandy Boulevard CR 220 Doctors Inlet Road Oakleaf Plantation Parkway CR 220 Doctors Inlet Road SR 21 Blanding Boulevard CR 739 Henley Road Decoy Road SR 21 Blanding Boulevard SR 16 US 301 Cosmos Avenue CR 739 Henley Road SR 23 First Coast Expressway SR 21 Blanding Boulevard College Drive SR 16 CR 315B CR 739 Henley Road US 17 US 17 CR 220 Doctors Inlet Road NS3 CR 739B Sandridge Road Old Jennings Road Oakleaf Plantation Parkway Clay/Bradford County Line CR 218 US 17 SR 16 US 17 Pipit Place CR 315 Governor Street Clay/Bradford County Line Aquarius Concourse I-295 SR 105 Zoo Parkway SR 23 First Coast Expressway Spoil Island SR 115 Lem Turner Road Lenox Avenue Commerce Center SR 228 Normandy Boulevard Broward Road Old Middleburg Road S at US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard

To CR 125 W of SR 121 Baker/Nassau County Line East Baldwin Northeast Florida SR 228 Normandy Boulevard SR 21 Blanding Boulevard Savannah Glen Boulevard SR 21 Blanding Boulevard Challenger Drive (Branan Field Road ) US 17 US 17 CR 739 Henley Road CR 739 Henley Road Cosmos Avenue Pine Tree Lane SR 23 First Coast Expressway CR 315 Knight Boxx Road US 17 CR 315B US 17 CR 209 Russell Road CR 209 South SR 16 SR 21 Blanding Boulevard CR 209 Russell Road CR 209 Russell Road Long Bay Road Oakleaf Village Parkway Clay/Putnam County Line SR 15A Oakridge Avenue Shands Bridge CR 215 Blanding Boulevard CR 220 Doctors Inlet Road Oakleaf Plantation Parkway Town Center Boulevard Haven Avenue Duval/Clay County Line SR 21 Blanding Boulevard New Berlin Road (north ) North of New Berlin Road (south) Old Middleburg Road JAXPORT Pecan Park Road US 90 Beaver Street SR 23 First Coast Expressway Crystal Springs Road Clark Road Shindler Drive 3-9

Improvement Type Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Future Corridor Future Corridor Future Corridor Widen to 4 Lanes New 4 Lane Road Widen to 6 Lanes New 4 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes Reconstruct 2 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes New 4 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Reconstruct 2 Lanes New 4 Lane Road Widen to 6 Lanes New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes New 2 Lane Road Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Reconstruct and New 2 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes New 4 Lane Road Widen to 6 Lanes New 2 Lane Bridge New 2 Lane Road Reconstruct 2 Lanes New 2 Lane Road Widen to 5 Lanes New 3 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes New Interchange


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3-1. Road Capacity Needs by County County Map ID Facility Duval 16B Collins Road Realignment Duval 1036 Davis / 9B Parcel Duval 942 Duval Station Road Duval 37*** Eastport Road Duval 1021 Florida Boulevard Duval 43 Gator Bowl Boulevard Duval 943 Harlow Boulevard Duval 43B SR 228 Hart Expressway Ramps Duval 49 Hartley Road Duval 963 Harts Road Duval 401 I-10 Duval 406 I-10 Duval 432 I-10 Duval 454 I-10 Duval 403* I-10 Duval 119 I-295 Duval 407 I-295 Duval 408 I-295 Duval 409 I-295 Duval 410 I-295 Duval 411 I-295 Duval 431 I-295 Duval 964 I-295 Duval 1022 I-295 Duval 1023 I-295 Duval 121 I-295 Duval 68 I-95 Duval 413 I-95 Duval 414 I-95 Duval 419 I-95 Duval 433 I-95 Duval 434 I-95 Duval 962 I-95 Duval 418A I-95 Duval 944 Jones Road Duval 73 Kernan Boulevard Duval 945 Merrill Road Duval 946 Monument Road Duval 947 Monument Road Duval 1033 National Cemetery Road Duval 948 New Berlin Road Duval 949 New Berlin Road Duval 1034 New World Avenue Duval 1035 New World Avenue Duval 85 Norfolk Southern Railroad Overpass Duval 951 Old Kings Road Duval 1015 Old Middleburg Road Duval 90 Old St. Augustine Road Duval 1010 Old St. Augustine Road Duval 952 Pecan Park Road Duval 92 Pecan Park Road

From Pine Verde SR 9B US 17/SR 5 Main Street SR 105 Heckscher Drive Penman Road Liberty Street SR 134 103rd Street Liberty Street SR 13 San Jose Boulevard SR 104 Dunn Avenue SR 23 First Coast Expressway US 301 I-295 at I-295 Nassau/Duval County Line SR 9B I-95 North North of Trout River US 1 New Kings Road SR 134 103rd Street I-10 US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard US 17 at Roosevelt Boulevard I-95 South SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard SR 113 Southside Connector at SR 102 Airport Road SR 104 Dunn Avenue North of Fuller Warren Bridge at US 1/SR 15 Martin Luther King Jr. SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard I-295 SR 115 at Southside Boulevard Duval/St. Johns County Line US 90 Beaver Street SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard Hartsfield Road Tredinick Parkway I-295 Lannie Road Pulaski Road Yellow Bluff Road SR 23 First Coast Expressway SR 23 First Coast Expressway West 12th Street SR 111 Edgewood Avenue Argyle Forest Boulevard Bartram Park Boulevard at Greenland Road Braddock Boulevard I-95

To US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard SR 152 Baymeadows Road Starratt Road Pulaski Road SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Hart / SR 115 Mathews Bridge Lane Avenue Hart / SR 115 Mathews Bridge Old St. Augustine Road I-295 I-295 SR 23 First Coast Expressway I-95 US 301 I-295 SR 105 Dames Point Bridge/Heckscher Drive I-95 North of Trout River I-10 US 1 South of New Kings Road SR 134 103rd Street SR 13 San Jose Boulevard SR 9B SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard SR 102 Airport Road SR 104 Dunn Avenue SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard I-295 Pritchard Road Glen Kernan Parkway SR 113 Southside Connector I-295 Lee Road Arnold Road Yellow Bluff Road Cedar Point Road Chaffee Road Chaffee Road US 23 New Kings Road Plummer Road SR 134 103rd Street US 1/SR 5 Phillips Highway JIA North Access Road US 17 Main Street 3-10

Improvement Type New 4 Lane Road, Two Overpass and New Interchange Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 3 Lanes Widen to 3 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes and Remove Ramps Widen to 3 Lanes Remove Ramps Widen to 3 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Modify Interchange Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Modify Interchange Add 2 Express Lanes Add 2 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Modify Interchange Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Modify Interchange Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Modify Interchange Add 4 Express Lanes Intersection Improvements Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes New 2 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes New 2 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes New 3 Lane Road / Bridge Intersection Improvements Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes and Overpass Intersection Improvements / Add 1 Lane Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3-1. Road Capacity Needs by County County Map ID Facility Duval 953*** Pulaski Road Duval 97 Pulaski Road / Starratt Road Duval 935 Ramona Boulevard Duval 98 Rampart / Firestone Road Duval 1038 Ranch Road Duval 934 Ricker Road Duval 99 Salisbury Road Extension Duval 101 Shindler Drive Duval 714 SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Duval 715 SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Duval 716 SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Duval 152 SR 101 Mayport Road Duval 152B SR 101 Mayport Road Duval 421 SR 102 Airport Road Duval 940 SR 104 Dunn Avenue Duval 941 SR 104 Dunn Avenue Duval 100 SR 115 Arlington Expressway Duval 153 SR 115 Arlington Expressway * Duval 102 SR 115 Southside Boulevard Duval 103 SR 115 Southside Boulevard Duval 104 SR 115 Southside Boulevard Duval 960 SR 115 Southside Boulevard Duval 966 SR 115 Southside Boulevard Duval 967 SR 115 Southside Boulevard Duval 968 SR 115 Southside Boulevard Duval 937 SR 152 Baymeadows Road Duval 938 SR 152 Baymeadows Road Duval 9 SR 21 Blanding Boulevard Duval 957A SR 21 Blanding Boulevard Duval 957B SR 21 Blanding Boulevard Duval 957C SR 21 Blanding Boulevard Duval 47 SR 228 Hart Bridge Duval 86 SR 228 Normandy Boulevard Duval 87 SR 228 Normandy Boulevard Duval 701 SR 243 JIA North Access Road Duval 18 SR 9B Duval 1024 SR 9B Duval 151 SR A1A Duval 954 Starratt Road Duval 129 Touchton Road Duval 955 Trout River Boulevard Duval 6 US 90 Beaver Street Duval 82 US 1/SR 15 New Kings Road Duval 83 US 1/SR 15 New Kings Road Duval 950 US 1/SR 15 New Kings Road Duval 93 US 1 SR 5 Philips Highway Duval 94 US 1 SR 5 Philips Highway Duval 95 US 1 SR 5 Philips Highway Duval 96 US 1 SR 5 Philips Highway Duval 1017 US 17 Main Street Duval 959 US 17 Main Street

From Eastport Road I-295 Hammond Boulevard Collins Road Tradeport Road Morse Avenue SR 152 Baymeadows Boulevard Collins Road at Girvin Road at Hodges Boulevard at San Pablo Boulevard at SR 116 Wonderwood Drive SR 116 Wonderwood Drive Airport Entrance US 1/SR 15 New Kings Road Old Kings Road SR 109 University Boulevard at SR 109 University Boulevard US 1 SR 5 Philips Highway SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard US 90 Beach Boulevard Hogan Road at SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard at SR 152 Baymeadows Road at SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard I-95 US 1 /SR 5 Philips Highway I-295 at Collins Road at SR 134 103rd Street at Cedar Hills Boulevard SR 228 Hart Expressway - Downtown US 301 SR 23 First Coast Expressway SR 102 Airport Road US 1 SR 5 Philips Highway US 1 SR 5 Philips Highway SR 116 Wonderwood Drive Duval Station Road Belfort Road Old Kings Road SR 23 First Coast Expressway Soutel Drive I-295 SR 111 Edgewood Avenue Nocatee Parkway / Race Track Road SR 9B I-95 at the Avenues SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard New Berlin Road at Eastport Road

To I-295 Duval Station Road Cahoon Road South SR 134 103rd Street SR 102 North of Airport Road Old Middleburg Road Belfort Road SR 134 103rd Street

Mayport Main Gate I-95 I-295 US 23 New Kings Road SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard I-95 Ramps US 90 Beach Boulevard SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Gate Parkway

SR 115 Southside Boulevard I-95 Wilson Boulevard

SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Bell Road (Equestrian Park ) SR 111 Cassat Avenue Pecan Park Road I-295 I-295 Naval Station Mayport North Gate Yellow Bluff Road SR 115 Southside Boulevard US 23 New Kings Road Cahoon Road I-295 Old Kings Road Soutel Drive SR 9B I-295 SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard SR 126 Emerson Street Pecan Park Road 3-11

Improvement Type Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 5 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 3 Lanes New 3 Lane Road Widen to 3 Lanes Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Add 2 Northbound Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Intersection Improvements Widen to 6 Lanes* Modify Interchange Widen to 6 Lanes* Widen to 6 Lanes* Widen to 6 Lanes* Intersection Improvements Modify Interchange Underpass Intersection Improvements Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes* Widen to 6 Lanes Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements New 6 Lane Bridge Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Add 2 Auxiliary Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes* Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Intersection Improvements Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes* Widen to 6 Lanes* Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes New Interchange


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3-1. Road Capacity Needs by County County Map ID Facility Duval 123 US 301 SR 200 Duval 425 US 301 SR 201 Duval 7 US 90 Beaver Street Duval 79 US 90 SR 115 Mathews Bridge Duval 956 Yellow Bluff Road Duval/Clay 57 I-295 Duval/Nassau 88 Northern Outer Beltway Duval/Nassau 74 SR 115 Lem Turner Road Duval/Nassau 78 US 17 Main Street Nassau 988 Abaco Island Drive Extension Nassau 704 Amelia Island Parkway Nassau 980 Arrigo-Parliament Reconnection Nassau 1001 Barnwell-0' Neil Scott Connector Nassau 1002 Brady Point-Clements Connector Nassau 976 Cardinal Street North Extension Nassau 975 Cardinal Street South Extension Nassau 995 Christian Way Extension Nassau 996 Commodore Point Drive Extension Nassau 501 Concourse Loop Road Nassau 705 CR 105A Buccaneer Trail Nassau 993 Crosby Avenue Extension Nassau 991 Dove Road Extension {west} Nassau 974 east Dove Road Extension Nassau 36 East Nassau Connector Nassau 969 East Nassau Connector Nassau 986 Flora Parke-Wal-Mart Connector Nassau 985 Gene Lassere Boulevard Extension Nassau 977 Goodbread Road Reconstruction Nassau 1000 Hamilton Street Extension Nassau 989 Harper Chapel Extension Nassau 402* I-10 Nassau 710 Lofton Creek Crossing Nassau 982 Macaw Avenue Extension Nassau 990 Mentoria-William Burgess Connector Nassau 987 Pages Dairy Road East Extension Nassau 983 Pages Dairy Road South Extension Nassau 1003 SR 200 Overpass Nassau 998 SR 200 William Burgess Connector Nassau 992 SR 200 Yulee Backage Roads Nassau 427 SR 200 SR A1A Nassau 703 SR 200 SR A1A Nassau 979 SR 200A Pages Dairy Road Nassau 706 SR A1A Nassau 707 US 17 Nassau 709 US 17 Nassau 984 US 17 Pages Dairy Connector w/roundabout Nassau 994 US 17 Powerline Corridor Nassau 999 US 17 Yulee Backage Roads Nassau 708 US 301 SR 200 Nassau 981 Various SR 200 Intersections Modifications Nassau 997 Woodbridge Parkway Extension

From US 90 Duval/Clay County Line Cahoon Road US 1 Martin Luther King Jr. Jr. Parkway Starratt Road SR 13 San Jose Boulevard I-10 I-295 Pecan Park Road Abaco Island Drive South 14th Street Arrigo Boulevard Barnwell Road Brady Point Road Cardinal Avenue Spring Meadow Avenue Christian Way Commodore Point Drive License Road South Fletcher Avenue US 17 SR 5 Harper Chapel Road Extension Harper Chapel Road I-95 at I-95 Flora Parke Boulevard Gene Lassere Boulevard US 17 SR 5 Goodbread Circle Harper Chapel Road Baker/Nassau County Line Hendricks Road Cardinal Street William Burgess Boulevard Chester Road SR 200 SR A1A at US 17 SR 5 and Railroad Tracks William Burgess Boulevard Cardinal Street North Extension at US 17 Amelia Island Parkway at Felmor Road South Fletcher Avenue Nassau/Duval County Line SR 200 SR A1A US 17 SR 5 Vegas Boulevard US 17 SR 5 US 1 at S Kings Road

To Duval/Nassau County Line I-10 McDuff Avenue SR 109 University Boulevard New Berlin Road (north) W of US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard I-95 US 1 / Callahan S Kings Road SR 200 / SR A1A Zion Court CR 105A Buccaneer Trail Parliament Drive O'Neil Scott Road Clements Road SR 200 SR AIA Yulee Backage Roads William Burgess Boulevard Hampton Club Way Blackrock Road Amelia Concourse Canopy Drive Pinewood Drive Mentoria Road William Burgess Boulevard Chester Road

Woodbrigde Parkway

Clements Road

Wal-Mart Supercenter SR 200A Pages Dairy Road Hamilton Street Dove Road Extension Nassau/Duval County Line Avant Road US 17 SR 5 Harper Chapel Road Blackrock Road Sowell Road SR 200 SR A1A Old Yulee Road Sadler Road Amelia Island Parkway Harts Road Georgia State Line SR 200A Pages Dairy Road Radio Avenue North of Koen Lane

3-12

Improvement Type Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes New 6 Lane Bridge and Transit Widen to 4 Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes on Bridge Future Corridor Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes New 2 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes* New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road Turn Lane Improvements* New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New Interchange New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road and Roundabout New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road Add 4 Express Lanes New 2 Lane Bridge New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road Overpass New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road Intersection Improvements Widen to 6 Lanes Roundabout Projects Turn Lane Improvements* Intersection Improvements Widen to 4 Lanes New 2 Lane Road and Roundabout New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road Intersection Improvements Intersection Improvements New 2 Lane Road


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3-1. Road Capacity Needs by County County Map ID Facility Putnam 503 Buffalo Road Putnam 505 Comfort Road Putnam 451 SR 100 Putnam 965 SR 19 Connector Putnam 422 SR 20 Putnam 423 SR 20 Putnam 428 US 17 SR 15 Putnam 429 US 17 SR 15 Putnam 430 US 17 SR 15 Putnam 452 US 17 SR 15 St John's 801 Brinkhoff Road St John's 803 CR 16A St John's 802 CR 16A Extension St John's 805 CR 210 St John's 807 CR 210 St John's 849 CR 210 W St John's 809 CR 214 St John's 810 CR 2209 St John's 811 CR 2209 St John's 812 CR 2209 St John's 813 CR 2209 St John's 814 CR 2209 St John's 815 CR 2209 St John's 816 CR 2209 St John's 843 CR 2209 St John's 818 CR 305 St John's 850 CR 305 St John's 1025 Dixie Highway / Pellicer Lane St John's 819 Durbin Parkway St John's 844 Durbin Parkway St John's 821 Holmes Boulevard St John's 138 I-95 St John's 400 I-95 St John's 420 I-95 St John's 846 I-95 St John's 418B I-95 St John's 823 International Golf Parkway St John's 825 Mickler Road St John's 826 Palm Valley Road St John's 827 Race Track Road St John's 828 Race Track Road St John's 851 Race Track Road Connector St John's 110 SR 16 St John's 835 SR 16 St John's 836 SR 16 St John's 829 SR 16 Connector St John's 113 SR 207 St John's 830 SR 207 St John's 115 SR 312 St John's 832 SR 313 St John's 839 SR 313

From Buffalo Road west Port Road Clay/Putnam County Line SR 19 Putnam/Alachua County Line SW 56th Avenue West of Dunn Creek Bridge CR 309 Satsuma Putnam/Volusia County Line Pomona Park/Feagle Avenue SR 207 SR 16 Connector CR 16A I-95 Greenbriar Road Longleaf Pine Parkway Holmes Boulevard SR 23 First Coast Expressway SR 16 Connector International Golf Parkway CR 214 SR 207/CR 305 SR 16 CR 208 at CR 210 CR 204 SR 206 SR 207 9B Extension at US 1/SR 5 Dixie Highway CR 214 at US 1/SR 5 Ponce De Leon Boulevard and at SR 206 St. Johns /Flagler County Line SR 206 at CR 210 International Golf Parkway I-95 Palm Valley Road Intracoastal Waterway St. Johns Parkway Bartram Park Boulevard Durbin Parkway / 9B Extension I-95 South Francis Road CR 208 Outlet Mall SR 16/CR 16A I-95 Holmes Boulevard US 1/SR 5 Dixie Highway SR 16 at US 1/SR 5 Dixie Highway 3-13

To Buffalo east US 17 US 17 SR 5 Putnam County Boulevard SW 56th Avenue CR 315 Interlachen Horse Landing Road West of Dunn Creek Bridge Pomona Park/Feagle Avenue CR 309 Satsuma Wildwood Drive SR 13 Leo Maguire Parkway near US 1 Cimarrone Road Greenbriar Road US 1 CR 210 SR 23 First Coast Expressway SR 16 Connector CR 208 CR 214 International Golf Parkway SR 16 SR 206 SR 207 CR 214 West of King Street Nocatee Parkway Four Mile Road SR 206 International Golf Parkway St. Johns /Duval County Line Turn/Bend SR A1A Mickler Road Bartram Park Boulevard Bartram Springs Race Track Road SR 313 International Golf Parkway South Francis Road CR 2209 South Holmes Boulevard SR 312 SR A1A US 1 Dixie Highway

Improvement Type New 2 Lane Bridge Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes New 4 lane road / bridge Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes New 2 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes New 2 Lane Road Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 3 Lanes* New 6 Lane Road New 6 Lane Road New 6 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New 4 Lane Road New Interchange New 2 Lane Road Widen to 4 Lanes Reconstruct 2 Lanes and Widen to add Sidewalks and Bike Lanes New 4 Lane Road Modify Interchange Widen to 6 Lanes Modify Interchange Add 4 Express Lanes Add 4 Express Lanes Modify Interchange Add 4 Express Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes* Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes New 2 Lane Road Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes Widen to 4 Lanes New 4 Lane Road Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes New 4 Lane Road New Interchange


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3-1. Road Capacity Needs by County County Map ID Facility St John's 833 SR 9B Extension St John's 842 SR 9B Extension St John's 128 SR A1A St John's 1008 SR A1A St John's 800 SR A1A St John's 1031 SR A1A Anastasia Boulevard St John's 848 St. Johns Parkway St John's 845 US 1 SR 5 St John's 130 US 1/SR 5 Dixie Highway St John's 131 US 1/SR 5 Dixie Highway St John's 132 US 1/SR 5 Dixie Highway St John's 1029 US 1B King Street St John's 1030 US 1B San Marco Avenue St John's 834 Veterans Parkway Private Projects Baker 500 Northern Cross Town Corridor Putnam 502 Connector Road

From St. Johns Parkway at Durbin Parkway Solana Road at Red Cox/Coquina Road Mickler Road Casanova Road CR 2209 at CR 210 SR 206 SR 313 International Golf Parkway US 1 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Bridge of Lions Greenbriar Road

To Race Track Road

Lewis Point Road International Golf Parkway Race Track Road Avenida Menendez SR 16 Longleaf Pine Parkway

Improvement Type Widen to 6 Lanes New Interchange Widen to 6 Lanes* Intersection Improvements Widen to 4 Lanes context sensitive solutions Widen to 6 Lanes Modify Interchange Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Widen to 6 Lanes Context sensitive solutions Context sensitive solutions New 4 Lane Road

CR 125 US 17

SR 121 Distribution Center

New 2 Lane Road New 2 Lane Road

SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard Palm Valley Road Bridge of Lions 9B Extension

A, B Projects must be done together to provide logical termini. *Project identified as potential context sensitive solutions improvements. **Projects must be done together to provide logical termini.

3-14


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

COST FEASIBLE PLAN OVERVIEW P ROVIDING A PLAN THAT HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF THE FUNDING AVAILABLE THROUGH THE PLAN HORIZON WILL ALLOW AGENCIES TO PROGRAM AND ADVANCE PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE REGION ’ S NEEDS AND PRIORITIES .

OVERVIEW

Economic competitiveness

The Cost Feasible Plan was prepared for the federal planning boundaries only – Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns Counties and the projects are summarized in sections that follow by the funding programs previously identified in Part Two. A prioritization system using the performance measures established with the goals and objectives was used to rank projects priorities for inclusion in the Cost Feasible Plan. The projects in the plan are summarized by funding source.

    

Access to jobs within ¼ mile Benefit to cost ratio Safety crash cost reduction benefits Travel time saving benefits Emissions reduction benefits

Livable and sustainable communities    

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

The candidate projects for funding in the Cost Feasible Plan were identified using a prioritization system to rank projects according to the following criteria.

3-15

Population within ¼ mile that would benefit from a bus transit route or ½ mile for commuter rail Transit ridership per day Inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian amenities Number of environmental features identified that during the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process planning screen Project identified on an evacuation route established by the Northeast Florida Regional Council


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan The prioritization scores for each project are summarized in Table 3-2. A summary of the performance measures and ranked scores for each project is provided in Appendix H.

Safety 

Project identified as a priority safety corridor in the Strategic Safety Plan

After the initial ranking of the projects, strategic priority decisions were used to determine if the project should be funded. For example, two projects that received a high rank were identified as having potential environmental fatal flaws and were removed.

Mobility   

Person-miles traveled Person-delay Demand-to-capacity ratio

 

These criteria were drawn from the performance measures adopted in the goals and objectives. Not all measures were used in the prioritization system since methodologies to forecast the measure are not available within the context of the travel demand forecasting model (such as reliability). Other measures are more qualitative and were considered in a strategic way (such as compatibility with adjacent land uses).

SR 313 from US 1 to International Golf Parkway Wells Road Extension from SR 21 Blanding Boulevard to Argyle Forest Boulevard

Following the prioritization of the projects, the projects were reviewed strategically to evaluate:    

Because there are many different units involved in measuring these prioritization criteria, each of the performance measure data was normalized using the statistical measure of a Z-score. The Z-score calculates the difference a value is from the mean of a normal distribution relative to the standard deviation of the data. This provides a ranking of the project in scale that can be more easily compared to other measures. For example, a project may provide access to 10,000 jobs becomes a score of 1.1 (or 10 percent of one standard deviation greater than the mean). Converting all the measures to the Z-score allows each measure of effectiveness to be compared on a relative basis. Measures such as the benefit to cost ratio or demand to capacity ratio which are based on a ratio were not normalized.

System connectivity and linkages Logical termini Size and scale of the project Geographic equity

COST FEASIBLE PLAN

Following the maps, sections are provided that summarize the road capacity projects by funding source:    

Strategic Intermodal System Funded Projects Other State and Federally Funded Projects Toll Funded Projects Local and Privately Funded Project

In the following tables, the phases of each project are identified as      

Since there are a different number of measures within each goal category, once the measures were normalized, the total score within each of the goals was summarized and ranked. For example, the score for access to jobs and the benefit to cost ratio for economic competitiveness were added and then the score within that goal category was ranked. The ranks were then summed for each goal category and then ranked based on the low score being the best.

3-16

Preliminary Engineering (PE) Right of Way (ROW) Environmental (ENV) Capital Improvements (CAP) Construction (CST) Operations (OPS)


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3-2. Road Capacity Needs in Ranked Order Map State or County Id Local Road

Name

From

To

Improvement Type

Economic Score 18.90

Livability Score 0.18

Mobility Score 0.44

Safety Score 0.00

Total Score 19.52

Rank Total Score 1

6.68

1.01

2.27

0.00

9.96

2

3.79

0.17

5.03

0.00

8.99

3

6.96

0.48

1.31

0.00

8.76

4

6.24

0.35

1.89

0.00

8.48

5

6.31

0.40

1.16

0.00

7.87

6

3.37

0.41

3.95

0.00

7.73

7

2.36

0.43

4.77

0.00

7.57

8

5.55

0.38

0.31

1.00

7.24

9

2.15

0.44

4.09

0.00

6.68

10

4.22

1.25

1.14

0.00

6.61

11

4.52

0.85

0.98

0.00

6.35

12

5.07

0.46

0.71

0.00

6.24

13

910

LR

Clay

Wells Road

Aquarius Concourse

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard

Reconstruct and New 2 Lane Road

807

LR

St John's

CR 210

Cimarrone Road

Greenbriar Road

Widen to 4 Lanes

964

SR

Duval

I-295

at US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard

835

SR

St John's

SR 16

International Golf Parkway

967

SR

Duval

SR 115 Southside Boulevard

at SR 152 Baymeadows Road

Underpass

427

SR

Nassau

SR A1A SR 200

at US 17

Intersection Improvements

415

SR

Duval

I-95

at SR 126 Emerson Street

Modify Interchange

966

SR

Duval

SR 115 Southside Boulevard

at SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard

Modify Interchange

706

SR

Nassau

SR A1A

South Fletcher Avenue

419

SR

Duval

I-95

at US 1 SR 5 Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway

103

SR

Duval

SR 115 Southside Boulevard

SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard

US 90 Beach Boulevard

Widen to 6 Lanes

1029

SR

St John's

US 1 B King Street

Palmer Street

Granada Street

Context Sensitive Solutions

809

LR

St John's

CR 214

US 1

Holmes Boulevard

Widen to 3 Lanes

823

LR

St John's

International Golf Parkway

I-95

Turn/Bend

Widen to 4 Lanes

5.58

0.34

0.31

0.00

6.23

14

106

SR

Clay

SR 16

CR 218

SR 15A Oakridge Avenue

Widen to 4 Lanes

3.18

1.02

1.88

0.00

6.07

15

715

SR

Duval

SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard

at Hodges Boulevard

Intersection Improvements

3.85

0.33

1.68

0.00

5.86

16

705

LR

Nassau

CR 105A Buccaneer Trail

South Fletcher Avenue

Turn Lane Improvements

4.73

0.49

0.25

0.00

5.47

17

16

LR

Duval

Collins Road

at US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard

New Interchange

3.65

0.41

0.35

1.00

5.40

18

714

SR

Duval

SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard

at Girvin Road

Intersection Improvements

3.34

0.36

1.70

0.00

5.40

19

101

LR

Duval

Shindler Drive

Collins Road

SR 134 103rd Street

Widen to 3 Lanes

3.60

0.75

1.04

0.00

5.40

20

9

SR

Duval

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard

I-295

SR 208 Wilson Boulevard

Widen to 6 Lanes

2.09

1.13

1.93

0.00

5.15

21

454

SR

Duval

I-10

at I-295

0.40

0.49

2.97

1.00

4.87

22

95

SR

Duval

SR 5 US 1 Philips Highway

I-95 at the Avenues

SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard

Widen to 6 Lanes

2.94

0.99

0.90

0.00

4.83

23

418B

SR

Duval

I-95

International Golf Parkway

St. Johns /Duval County Line

Add 4 Express Lanes

1.10

0.02

3.70

0.00

4.83

24

416

SR

Duval

I-95

at SR 109 University Boulevard and Bowden Road

Modify Interchange

0.79

0.54

3.45

0.00

4.78

25

414

SR

Duval

I-95

North of I-95 Fuller Warren Bridge

Add 4 Express Lanes

1.86

-0.06

1.77

1.00

4.56

26

957A

SR

Duval

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard

at Collins Road

3.25

0.60

0.67

0.00

4.52

27

Modify Interchange South Francis Road

Amelia Island Parkway

Widen to 4 Lanes

Turn Lane Improvements Modify Interchange

Canopy Drive

Modify Interchange

SR 104 Dunn Avenue

Intersection Improvements

3-17


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3-2. Road Capacity Needs in Ranked Order Map State or County Id Local Road

Name

From

To

Improvement Type

Economic Score 3.18

Livability Score 0.64

Mobility Score 0.59

Safety Score 0.00

Total Score 4.41

Rank Total Score 28

3.65

0.41

0.35

0.00

4.41

29

1030

SR

St John's

US 1 B San Marco Avenue

West Castillo Drive

US 1 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

Context Sensitive Solutions

16B

LR

Duval

Collins Road Realignment

Pine Verde

US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard

New 4 Lane Road, Two Overpass and New Interchange

930

LR

Duval

Collins Road

Shindler Drive

Rampart Road

Widen to 4 Lanes

2.68

0.66

1.06

0.00

4.40

30

803

LR

St John's

CR 16A

SR 16 Connector

SR 13

Widen to 4 Lanes

2.15

1.27

0.97

0.00

4.39

31

908

SR

Clay

SR 16

US 17

Shands Bridge

Widen to 4 Lanes

2.34

0.50

1.45

0.00

4.29

32

68

SR

Duval

I-95

at SR 102 Airport Road

Modify Interchange

0.67

0.37

2.16

1.00

4.20

33

94

SR

Duval

SR 5 US 1 Philips Highway

SR 9B

I-295

Widen to 6 Lanes

2.65

0.65

0.72

0.00

4.03

34

433

SR

Duval

I-95

SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard

SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard

Add 4 Express Lanes

1.70

0.16

2.06

0.00

3.92

35

113

SR

St John's

SR 207

I-95

South Holmes Boulevard

Widen to 6 Lanes

1.99

0.51

1.41

0.00

3.91

36

1027

LR

Clay

CR 218

Cosmos Avenue

Pine Tree Lane

Widen to 4 Lanes

2.85

0.31

0.74

0.00

3.91

37

418A

SR

Duval

I-95

Duval/St. Johns County Line

I-295

Add 4 Express Lanes

1.11

0.02

2.77

0.00

3.90

38

90

LR

Duval

Old St. Augustine Road

Bartram Park Boulevard

US 1 SR 5 Philips Highway

Widen to 6 Lanes and Overpass

2.85

0.48

0.54

0.00

3.86

39

828

LR

St John's

Racetrack Road

Bartram Park Boulevard

Bartram Springs

Widen to 4 Lanes

2.49

0.31

1.05

0.00

3.85

40

936

LR

Duval

Argyle Forest Boulevard

Old Middleburg Road

SR 23 First Coast Expressway

Widen to 6 Lanes

2.30

0.40

1.11

0.00

3.81

41

941

SR

Duval

SR 104 Dunn Avenue

Old Kings Road

US 23 New Kings Road

Intersection Improvements

2.75

0.59

0.46

0.00

3.80

42

1008

SR

St John's

SR A1A

at Red Cox/Coquina Road

Intersection Improvements

2.67

0.61

0.43

0.00

3.71

43

957C

SR

Duval

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard

at Cedar Hills Boulevard

Intersection Improvements

2.63

0.56

0.51

0.00

3.70

44

1015

LR

Duval

Old Middleburg Road

SR 134 103rd Street

1.79

0.50

1.36

0.00

3.64

45

957B

SR

Duval

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard

at SR 134 103rd Street

2.56

0.57

0.50

0.00

3.63

46

1028

LR

Clay

CR 218

Pine Tree Lane

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard

Widen to 4 Lanes

2.93

0.25

0.43

0.00

3.61

47

951

LR

Duval

Old Kings Road

SR 11 Edgewood Avenue

Plummer Road

Intersection Improvements

0.94

2.54

0.07

0.00

3.54

48

34

LR

Clay

SR 220 SR 220 Doctors Inlet Road

College Drive

US 17

Widen to 6 Lanes

1.51

0.75

1.26

0.00

3.52

49

1026

LR

Clay

CR 218

US 301

Cosmos Avenue

Widen to 4 Lanes

1.31

0.50

1.66

0.00

3.47

50

432

SR

Duval

I-10

I-295

I-95

Add 4 Express Lanes

1.49

-0.06

1.85

0.00

3.29

51

115

SR

St John's

SR 312

US 1 SR 5 Dixie Highway

SR A1A

Widen to 6 Lanes

1.81

0.49

0.95

0.00

3.24

52

1007

SR

St John's

US 1 Ponce De Leon Boulevard

at San Carlos Avenue / US 1 B San Marco Avenue / May Street

2.24

0.64

0.32

0.00

3.20

53

805

LR

St John's

CR 210

I-95

1.66

0.78

0.74

0.00

3.19

54

Argyle Forest Boulevard

Widen to 4 Lanes Intersection Improvements

Intersection Improvements Turn/Bend

Widen to 6 Lanes

3-18


Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Table 3-2. Road Capacity Needs in Ranked Order Map State or County Id Local Road

Name

From

To

Improvement Type

Economic Score 0.89

Livability Score 0.14

Mobility Score 2.13

Safety Score 0.00

Total Score 3.16

Rank Total Score 55

2.04

0.30

0.81

0.00

3.15

56

2.62

0.21

0.32

0.00

3.15

57

2.12

0.73

0.29

0.00

3.14

58

0.92

0.51

1.65

0.00

3.08

59

1.04

0.37

1.60

0.00

3.00

60

1.16

0.86

0.99

0.00

3.00

61

1.43

0.69

0.87

0.00

2.99

62

0.72

0.35

0.91

1.00

2.97

63

1.64

0.64

0.60

0.00

2.87

64

1.02

0.54

1.29

0.00

2.85

65

0.75

0.62

0.41

1.00

2.78

66

1.32

0.42

1.03

0.00

2.77

67

434

SR

Duval

I-95

I-295

SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard

Add 4 Express Lanes

73

LR

Duval

Kernan Boulevard

SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard

Glen Kernan Parkway

Widen to 6 Lanes

943

LR

Duval

Harlow Boulevard

SR 134 103rd Street

Lane Avenue

Widen to 3 Lanes

151

SR

Duval

SR A1A

SR 116 Wonderwood Drive

Naval Station Mayport Gate

Widen to 4 Lanes

121

SR

Duval

I-295

SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard

SR 113 Southside Connector

Add 4 Express Lanes

968

SR

Duval

SR 115 Southside Boulevard

at SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard

114

SR

Clay

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard

SR 16

CR 215 Blanding Boulevard

Widen to 4 Lanes

33

LR

Clay

SR 220 Doctors Inlet Road

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard

Knight Boxx Road

Widen to 4 Lanes

830

SR

St John's

SR 207

Holmes Boulevard

SR 312

Widen to 6 Lanes

981

SR

Nassau

Various SR 200 Intersections Modifications