Document 2789279

I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
I-95 Sketc
ch Intersttate Plan (SIP) Sta
akeholderr Involvem
ment Rep
port
Table
e of Conte
ents
SECTION 1.0 ‐ Definitio
on of Project & Stakehold
der Involveme
ent………………
………………………
……………………
………2 Report Stakeh
holder Involvement Meetiings………………
…….2 SECTION 2.0 ‐Summarry of Existing Conditions R
Districct 2: District 2
2: Nassau, Duvval, and St. Jo
ohns Countiess……………………
………………..……….3 2.1 2.1.1 Questions aand Commen
nts from Stakeeholders………
………………………
……………………
………4
Districct 5: Volusia C
County and Flagler County……………………
………………………
……………………
………6 2.2 2.2.1 Questions and C
Comments fro
om Stakehold
ders………………
……………...............6 Brevard County…………………
……………………
………………………
………………………….7 District 5: B
2.3 2.3.1 Questions and C
Comments fro
om Stakehold
ders………………
………………………….7 Comment P
Period and Fu
uture Sessions………………………………………
………………………..10 2.4 Conditions Re
eport Stakeholder Involve
ement Meetings………………
……10 SECTION 3.0 ‐ Summarry of Future C
Districct 2: Nassau, D
Duval, and St. Johns Countties………………
………………………
……………………
…….10 3.1 3.1.1 Questions aand Commen
nts from Stakeeholders………
………………………
……………………
…….10 Districct 5: Volusia C
County and Flagler County……………………
………………………
……………………
…….11 3.2 3.2.1 Questions and C
Comments fro
om Stakehold
ders………………
………………………..11 District 5: B
Brevard County…………………
……………………
………………………
………………………..12 3.3 3.3.1 Questions and C
Comments fro
om Stakehold
ders………………
………………………..12 Comment P
Period and Fu
uture Sessions………………………………………
………………………..12 3.4 4.0 ‐Recomm
mendations frrom Stakeholder Involvem
ment Stakeho
older Sessionss……………………
…..13 SECTION 4
CES APPENDIC
Appendix A – Project C
Corridor Map……………………
………………………
……………………
………………………
……………………
……A‐1 Appendix B – Existing C
Conditions Reeport Power P
Point Presenttation……………
……………………
………………………
…..B‐1 Appendix C – Future Co
onditions Rep
port Power Po
oint Presentaation…………………………………
……………………….C‐1 Appendix D – Sign‐In Sheets……………
……………………
………………………
……………………
………………………
……………………
……D‐1 ……………………
………………………
……………………
………………………
….E‐1 Appendix E – Project TTeam Contact Information…
der Comment Matrics………
……………………
………………………
……………………
………………………
…..F‐1 Appendix F – Stakehold
1
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
1.0
D
Definition
n of Project and Sttakeholde
er Involve
ement
The Florida Departmeent of Transsportation
d a Sketch Interstate
(FDOT) has initiated
t Indian
Plan (SIP)) project for I-95 from the
River/Brevard Coun
nty line to the
Florida/Georgia State line (a totaal of 222
T
purpose of the study is to
miles). The
review annd analyze bo
oth existing and
a future
(2035)
traffic
daata
and
roadway
characteristics in order to develop an action
plan. Thee action plaan seeks to improve
mobility within
w
the I-95 project limits by
identifyingg mainline concepts within the
existing
to
sufficiently
right-of-waay
odate high sp
peed and highh volume
accommo
travel, as well as longg distance trrips while
focusing on
o constraintss.
der involvemeent has been an ongoing process
p
throuughout the life
fe of the I-95 SIP and for future
f
Stakehold
phases. All
A SIP Stakeho
older Involvement efforts build upon thhe momentum of the I-955 Coalition fo
ormed
in the early 1990’s. The
T I-95 Coalition is an alliance of trransportationn agencies, to
oll authoritiess, and
s
organizzations, from the State off Maine to thhe State of Florida,
related orrganizations, such public safety
with affiliaate members in Canada. The sole purrpose of the I-95 Coalitio
on is to provide an opporttunity
for policyy and key deecision makers to offer recommendat
r
tions and co
omments on common pro
ojectrelated innterests and concerns
c
reggarding transpportation maanagement annd operationss issues. Thee I-95
SIP Stakeeholder Involvement outrreach efforts have been geared to be
b both in-syync with thee I-95
Coalition strategies, ass well as FDO
OT guidelines and standard
ds.
In preparration for the Existing Conditions Report Stakkeholder Invvolvement meetings, a liist of
stakeholders was created consissting of FDOT Districtts 2 and 5 staff; Metrropolitan Plaanning
on Planning Organizations
O
s (TPO); Cityy, County, and Port Authhority
Organizattions (MPO; Transportatio
officials; and
a
Transit Agencies. The
T
individuaals and positions to be included
i
in this
t
process were
identified in July 2009 by FDOT Ceentral Office.. This initial liist of stakeho
olders was exxpanded withh local
input and stakeholders from the Systems
S
Operrational Analyysis Report (SOAR)
(
projeect. That lisst was
h 2010 for thee next phase of the I-95 SIP, the Futuree Conditions Report.
then updaated in March
2.0
Summary
S
y of Existing Condiitions Rep
port Stak
keholder Involvem
I
ment
M
Meetings
A series of three (3) Stakeholderr sessions waas held for each
e
report in order to present
p
a deetailed
o
of the
t project and obtain Stakeholder feedback on thhe phase of the project under
u
project overview
discussionn. Three (3) sessions forr each reportt resulted frrom dividing up the I-95 SIP corridorr into
regions proximal to th
he Stakeholdeer groups. The
T Existing Conditions
C
Reeport Stakeholder Involveement
2
and thee Future Co
onditions Report Stakeho
older Involveement
meetings were held in August 2009
dology
meetings were held in June 2010. The projeect overview covered deliverables, Crash Method
p
Trraffic Methodology Reportt, and Existingg Conditions Report. Othher meetings were
Report, preliminary
2
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
also held to gain feedb
back from thee Stakeholderr group regarrding potentiaal impacts onn the I-95 corrridor
t define pro
ojected 20355 I-95
that would affect finaalizing the I-995 SIP traffic methodologgy in order to
mainline lane calls.
Individual stakeholderss were contacted by phonne and email with informaation about thhe SIP projectt, and
access to each draft report
r
was provided
p
via an
a FTP site or
o sent via disk
d
to individ
duals experieencing
difficultiess accessing th
he site. Whhile scheduling the I-95 SIP Stakeholdeer Involvemeent meetings, each
Stakehold
der received a Microsoft Outlook
O
calenndar appointm
ment for propposed meetinng dates and times.
t
Emails weere also sent the group a week prior to
t each meetting reminding the Stakeholder group about
their resppective meeting dates and times, as weell as to ensurre that each Stakeholder was
w able to access
a
the draft documents.
d
m
the consultant
c
connducted a Po
owerPoint preesentation ovverview of thee I-95
At each sttakeholder meeting,
SIP phasee relevant to the meetingg. A large map
m featuringg the project corridor waas also on diisplay.
Packets were
w
distributted containingg the agenda for the day’ss meeting, a letter-sized map
m of the prroject
corridor, a project tim
meline, a printt-out of the PowerPoint
P
presentation, a project com
mment form, and a
SIP projeect-specific co
ontact sheett. An informative CD was included
d in the info
ormation packets,
containingg the handoutts from the meeting
m
packeet as well as a copy of the respective drraft report.
The information provided was direected at informing those inn attendance about the I-995 SIP projecct, the
uss the key deliverables co
ompleted to date and disccuss the upco
oming deliverrables.
SIP goals, and to discu
For the Crash Meth
hodology Reeport, Prelim
minary Trafficc Methodolo
ogy Report, and the Exxisting
formation Sysstems (GIS) teechnology waas used extennsively to maap and
Conditionns Report, Geeographic Info
analyze thhe existing co
onditions for the 222 milee corridor. The
T PowerPo
oint Presentattion describeed the
current co
onditions and
d findings.
o date, Geogrraphic Inform
mation
The preseentation expllained the ovverview of thee SIP, projectt progress to
Systems (GIS)
(
mappingg and data annalysis findinggs, and to disscuss the nexxt steps of thhe SIP. Pleasse see
Appendixx B (PowerPo
oint Presentattions) to learrn more abouut the specific informationn presented at
a the
stakeholder meetings.
2.1
D
District
5: Brevard
B
Co
ounty Existting Condittions Repo
ort Stakeho
older Meeting
The first stakeholderr session waas held at thhe
Space Coast TPO in Viera
V
on Mond
day, August 10,
2009. This location is within District 5 and wass a
ocation for the area stakehholders. Of thhe
central lo
eighteen (18)
(
individuaals that were invited, twelvve
(12) attennded.
follow
wing
the
PowerPoiint
Immediateely
presentation, the floo
or was open for commennts
and questtions on thee draft Existiing Conditions
Report
and
ad
dditional
project-relateed
topics/delliverables. Questions werre addressed by
the FDO
OT Project Manager, the
t
consultaant
Project Manager,
M
the consultant Deputy
D
Projeect
3
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
Manager, and the conssultant Traffic Lead.
2.1.1 Questions
Q
and
a Comm
ments from Stakehold
ders
opics that werre discussed are
a listed belo
ow:
A summary of the questions and to
•
D this reporrt identify highh-crash areas along I-95?
Did
Answer: Yes. The I-95 Exxisting Condiitions Reportt identified thhe high crash roadway seggment
A
deefined by FD
DOT throughh the Criticaal Accident Reporting
R
Sysstem (CARS)) crash databbases.
O
Other
crash sttatistics includ
ded high crassh rate segmeents, and overrall total crashes and injuries by
FD
DOT Roadwaay Characterristic Inventorry (RCI) segm
ment for the 222-mile
2
corrridor.
•
D
Does
this repo
ort analyze why
w certain seggments may have
h
higher crash rates?
Answer: Yess. Analysis off high crash frequency lo
A
ocations and fatalities for each of thhe six
co
ounties the project
p
traverrses was connducted by reeviewing exissting crash daata from the years
20003-2007 and
d referencingg aerials for assistance. Mileposts in which moree than 20 crrashes
occurred with
hin the five yeear period have been evaaluated. Therre were some instances where
w
9 crashes at a particular Milepost and since these weere on the cuusp, they havee also
thhere were 19
beeen evaluated
d. In addition to the high frequency
f
craash locations, Mileposts with
w more than one
crrash resultingg in a fatality has also beenn analyzed. Thhe majority of
o the crashess along the prroject
co
orridor weree rear end colllisions. This is
i indicative of
o abrupt brakking which is commonly reelated
to
o traffic conggestion or tiight horizonttal roadway curves. Review of the existing
e
crashh data
inndicates that crash
c
locationns in which thhere was exissting lighting had far fewerr fatalities thaan the
so
outhern sectiion of the project corrido
or which does not have anny lighting. The majority of
o the
co
orridor does not have ligghting with thhe exception of the Jackso
onville area, near interchaanges,
annd at rest areeas. A Lightingg Justificationn Report (LJR
R) is recommeended to deteermine compliance
w current Department
with
D
standards as part of a fuuture phase of
o the projecct. Numerouss high
frrequency crassh locations had
h no obvio
ous contributing factor ind
dicating any particular
p
neeed for
ro
oadway impro
ovements.
•
W there a correlation beetween the nuumber of lanees and rate off crashes?
Was
Answer: Yes.. The highesst crash rate (2.364 crashhes/MVMT), does
A
d
not occcur in the loccation
w the higheest crash freqquency; insteaad, it is locateed on a 0.1-m
with
mile segment of Flagler County
thhat has an ADT of 62,580 vehicles peer day. Thiss segment haad 27 crashess during the study
peeriod, and is the only segm
ment with a crash
c
rate greeater than 2.00. The higheest crash frequency
seegment, locaated in downtown Jacksonville, has the second highest craash rate of 1.842
crrashes/MVMT
T over two miles.
m
Trafficc volume on this segment averages 144,080 vehiclees per
daay. From 2003-2007,
2
D
Duval
Countyy, which conntains more total
t
I-95 lannes than Breevard,
V
Volusia,
Flagleer, St. Johns,, and Nassauu Counties. Therefore, the FDOT 2003-2007 CARS
C
daatabases do suggest
s
that there
t
is a correlation betw
ween total number of lanes and the raate of
crrashes.
4
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
•
W
What
sources are being useed to assess traffic
t
levels?
Answer: Thee consultantss will develop the I-95 SIP
A
S 2035 trafffic methodo
ology from seeveral
so
ources. First, the existinng Travel demand models (NERPM, CFRPM,
C
and FDOT Stateewide
m
model,
and im
mpacts from Developmennts of Regionnal Impact (D
DRIs) Other sources will also
innclude the District 2 I-95 Master Plan traffic
t
methodology, FDO
OT freight mo
odel databasess, and
otther FDOT District
D
2 and
d District 5 trraffic lead perrsonnel inputt. The final trraffic method
dology
w be develop
will
ped by the ennd of Octobeer 2009 afterr the consultaants will meett with both FDOT
F
D
District
officess. Existing traffic
t
levels are
a assesses from the 20007 Florida Traffic
T
Inform
mation
D
DVD
and FDO
OT TranStat GIS
G databasess
2.2
District 5: Volusia
D
V
Cou
unty and Flagler
F
Cou
unty Existin
ng Conditio
ons Reportt
S
Stakeholder
r Meeting
A
13, 20009 in
The seconnd stakeholdeer session waas held at thee Volusia Couunty MPO onn Thursday, August
Daytona Beach.
B
This lo
ocation is witthin District 5 and was a ceentral locatio
on for the areea stakeholders. Of
the twentty-two individ
duals that werre invited, ninneteen attend
ded.
oor was openn for comments and quesstions on the draft
Immediateely following the presentaation, the flo
Existing Conditions
C
Report
R
and additional
a
pro
oject related
d topics/deliverables. The questions were
addressed
d by the FD
DOT Project Manager, thhe consultantt Project Maanager, the consultant
c
D
Deputy
Project Manager,
M
and the
t consultant Traffic Lead
d.
2.2.1 Questions
Q
an
nd Commen
nts from Sta
akeholders
opics that werre discussed are
a listed belo
ow:
A summary of the questions and to
•
How will this project meeet the requeest of the Flo
H
orida state leegislature’s recent
r
mandaate to
annalyze I-95?
Answer: Hou
A
use Bill 1021 requires a sttudy for analyysis of I-95 fo
or existing annd future dem
mand.
O major asspect of the forthcoming study will be
One
b to assess parallel faciliities and alteernate
ro
outes along I--95. The I-95 SIP will tho
oroughly address both
thhe existing and
a
future (22035) conditions of the 222 mile
co
orridor. As such, the I-995 SIP data collected
c
willl be used
diirectly into the Housse Bill 10221 I-95 Alternative
A
T
Transportation
n Study.
•
W
What
GIS dataabase(s) was used?
u
Answer: GIS data is used extensively fo
A
or the I-95 SIP.
S
With
reegard to roaadway characcteristic, trafffic, and freiight data,
FD
DOT’s TranStat’s most-rrecent GIS databases
d
annd FDOT
D
District
5 travvel demand model
m
(netwo
orks and mo
ost recent
6
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
Z-data), CFRP
Z
PM IV, FDOT
T Statewide model, and the
t North Florida
F
Transpportation Plaanning
O
Organization’s
s NERPM traavel demand models. Othher databases, such as inttermodal facilities,
seeaports, environmental daata, and baseemapping dataa came from the Bureau of Transporttation
Sttatistics and Florida
F
Geographic Data Library,
L
respeectively. A fuull GIS data dictionary
d
has been
deeveloped for the I-95 SIP and
a will be included in thee final I-95 SIP
P report.
•
H
How
does thiss report assesss or analyze the affects off freight trafficc?
Answer: The following datta sources weere consulted to identify annd analyze the existing traaffic
A
annd freight con
nditions for thhe I-95 corrid
dor:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FDOT TraanStat (Statisttics)
Florida Traaffic Informattion 2007 DV
VD
Travel Dem
mand Modelss (Statewide Models,
M
NERP
PM, and CFRPM IV)
I-95 Masteer Plan Update – Travel Deemand Forecast Methodology
Florida Staatewide Freight Model
Florida Co
ommodity Flo
ow Survey 20002
D
Does
this repo
ort assess or identify parallel corridors to I-95 within the study area?
a
Answer: No. Identificattion of paralllel corridors to I-95 will be addresssed in the Future
A
F
C
Conditions
Reeport.
2.3
District 2: Nassau
D
N
Cou
unty, Duva
al County, and
a St. Joh
hns County
y Existing
C
Conditions
Report Sta
akeholder Meeting
d stakeholder session was held at the FDOT District 2 Jacksonville Urban Office
O
on Tueesday,
The third
August 188, 2009 in Jacksonville. Thhis location iss within Distrrict 2 and wass a central loccation for thee area
stakeholders. Of the tw
wenty individuals that werre invited, thirrteen attendeed.
oor was openn for comments and quesstions on the draft
Immediateely following the presentaation, the flo
Existing Conditions
C
Reeport and relaated topics/deliverables. The
T questionss were addresssed by the FDOT
F
Project Manager,
M
the consultant Project
P
Manaager, the connsultant Depputy Project Manager, and the
consultant Traffic Lead
d.
2.3.1 Questions
Q
and
a Comm
ments from Stakehold
ders
opics that werre discussed are
a listed belo
ow:
A summary of the questions and to
•
Why was I-95 from Miami to the Florid
W
da/Georgia state line divided into two (2) sections (2
( SIP
prrojects are taking
t
place simultaneoussly along I-95 with the study
s
area break-point
b
a the
at
Brevard Countty/Indian Riveer County line)?
7
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
•
D our data id
Did
dentify spikess in crashes inn areas of I-955 that were under
u
construuction?
Answer: No. The CARS crash databaases that wass provided byy FDOT to the
A
t consultannt and
allso assumed by the consuultant to be the
t only crassh databases to be utilizeed for the I-995 SIP
saafety assessment did not address
a
eitherr in actual craash location spreadsheet
s
b
breakdown
or high
crrash rate seggments delineeation a correelation betweeen at fault or
o other drivver being linkked to
co
onstruction zones.
z
•
Iss freight data included in thhe crash rate analysis?
Answer: Yes.. The FDOT
A
T CARS crassh databases for high craash rate road
dway segmennts do
id
dentify each segment’s totaal annual averrage daily traaffic (AADT), and truck AA
ADT is includ
ded in
thhe total AAD
DT for each high crash raate roadway segment. Fuurthermore, the
t consultannt did
linnk, via GIS, RCI unique segments off the actual 2007 truck AADT and 2007 truck traffic
uttilization (perrcent of total AADT).
•
o future fundiing/revenue affecting
a
the fiinal recommeendations of this
t project?
Iss availability of
Answer: The I-95 SIP will provide the initial data thhat will be ussed to develo
A
op the I-95 Master
M
Pllan.
•
Does this pro
D
oject consideer the impact of any futuure modes of
o transportaation that maay be
avvailable, such as high speed
d rail or commuter rail?
Answer: Yes.. A large po
A
ortion of thee I-95 SIP is focused on freight, includ
ding analyzingg and
prrojecting freight movements and lookking at opporrtunities suchh as high speed rail, comm
muter
raail, truck-onlyy lanes, and alternate
a
parrallel facilities along the I-95 SIP corrid
dor. Recentlly the
co
onsultant ob
btained existting and futuure year freeight model data that will be anaalyzed,
innterpreted, an
nd included into the I-95 SIP traffic methodology
m
t develop thhe 2035 projjected
to
trraffic lane calls. The level of
o detail, how
wever, will only include plannning-level assumptions.
•
H
How
does eveent-specific traffic affect thee findings in this
t report?
Answer: Even
A
nt-specific traaffic gets aveeraged into thhe data, but we do not go
g to this levvel of
deetail in analyssis.
•
Does this projject use the same
D
s
data that is being ussed by the TP
PO to develo
op the Long Range
R
T
Transportation
n Plan (LRTP))?
Answer: Yes.. All travel demand mod
A
dels and sociioeconomic (Z
( Data) suppporting MPO
O and
T
TPO
Long Range
R
Transpportation Plaans (LRTPs) are utilized
d for the I--95 SIP, enssuring
co
oncurrency that FDOT is utilizing the most recent and reflectivve databases for
f use in thee I-95
SIIP.
5
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
Answer: It waas decided byy FDOT to brreakup I-95 innto a North and
A
a South SIP
P area, similarr to I755. Furthermore, the breaakdown of North
N
and So
outh areas forr study are similar
s
to preevious
FD
DOT studies study areas.
•
W
What
traffic models
m
are being used for this
t analysis?
Answer: First, the existinng Travel demand models (NERPM, CFRPM,
A
C
and FDOT Stateewide
m
model,
and im
mpacts from Developmentts of Regionaal Impact (D
DRIs). Otherr sources will also
innclude the District 2 I-95 Master Plan traffic
t
methodology, FDO
OT freight mo
odel databasess, and
otther FDOT District
D
2 and
d District 5 trraffic lead perrsonnel inputt. The final trraffic method
dology
w be develop
will
ped by the ennd of Octobeer 2009 afterr the consultaants will meett with both FDOT
F
D
District
officess. Existing traffic
t
levels are
a assesses from the 20007 Florida Traffic
T
Inform
mation
D
DVD
and FDO
OT TranStat GIS
G databasess.
•
W was 2035
Why
5 selected as the horizon year?
y
Answer: The I-95 SIP leveel of study is not focused on
A
o micro-level analysis as that comparred to
thhe MPO/TPO
O 2035 Long Range Transpportation Plans. Additionnally, the analyysis of alternatives
w come out at the I-95 Master Plan and Project Developmentt & Environm
will
ment (PD&E) level.
20035 is also the selected horizon
h
year for the I-95 south SIP. It was a reqquirement to meet
FD
DOT budgett constraints and it was decided
d
the SIP can provvide a base that
t
will allow
w for
fo
orecasting oth
her horizon year
y
dates beyyond 2035.
•
Where does this project fitt into the timeline for the I-95 Master Plan?
W
P
A
Answer:
This project will serve as a baaseline approaach to the I-995 Master Plaan. FDOT District
2 has recently finalized their I-95 Master Plan; however, District 5 does not have
h
a currennt I-95
M
Master
Plan. The
T SIP will provide
p
aid inn providing baaseline data needed
n
to deevelop an oveerall I955 Master Plan
n.
•
W data from
Was
m the areas juust north and south of the project corriidor used in this
t analysis?
Answer: Not yet at this time, but we can
A
beegin to do so at this stage
s
with each
FD
DOT Districct. This is one
o of the main
m
reeasons FDOT wishes to
o reach out to
lo
ocal contacts.
•
How does this analysis equate data that
H
t
w generated
was
d with constraints with data
d
thhat was generrated withoutt constraints?
Answer: This issue is beingg addressed with
A
w
eaach FDOT District.
D
We do
d not intend
d to
ruun modeling data.
d
8
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
•
W
What
is the maximum num
mber of lanes that
t
can be reecommended
d?
Answer: At th
A
his time, we are still workking on that determination
d
n. Currently, there is a syystem
upp that a road
d must fail at a certain Levvel of Servicee (LOS) in orrder to call fo
or an additionn of a
neew lane.
•
W Master Plans from locaal MPOs be inncorporated into this repo
Will
ort?
Answer: At th
A
his time, the methodologyy is still to be determined. However, report
r
findinggs that
apppear to havee a significant impact on thhe I-95 corridor will be takken into conssideration.
•
Will the data from this reeport differ greatly
W
g
from the MPO Lo
ong Range Trransportationn Plan
daata?
A
Answer:
No. The
T data shouuld be similar.
•
W
What
data wass used for thee Crash Methhodology Repport?
A
Answer:
FDOT
T CARS cash databases annd high crash rate segmentt analysis years 2003-20077.
•
Are large scalee developmennts and sub-D
A
Developmentss of Regional Impact (DRI) considered in
i this
annalysis?
Answer: Onlyy DRIs were considered in this analyssis. For identifying the future conditio
A
ons of
thhe corridor, we
w will includ
de impacts fro
om both DRIs and sub-DR
RIs. The conssultant will id
dentify
thhe magnitudee of effect to
o the I-95 co
orridor and analyze
a
the DRIs
D
to idenntify potentiall new
paarallel corrido
ors to I-95.
•
There was a recommendat
T
r
tion to use different
d
phraasing than “m
mainline” conccepts, becausse the
phhrase infers that
t
extensivee analysis has been perform
med.
Answer: The mainline concepts report will include an
A
a introductio
on describingg the level of detail
thhat the mainline concepts report includ
des in order to
t avoid any possible
p
confuusion.
•
T
There
was a reecommendatiion to pare down the Execcutive Summaary.
A
Answer:
We will
w pare dow
wn the Executtive Summaryy to be ten (10) pages or leess.
•
T
There
was a reequest to make the projecct documentss available online via a projject website.
with the No
Answer: The Consultant iss currently coordinating
A
c
orth Florida TPO
T
to deveelop a
prroject websitte. Project innformation inncluding docuuments and other useful project
p
inform
mation
w be availablle once the website
will
w
is livee. The consuultants will alert the Stakeeholders abouut the
w
website
once we
w have gonee live.
9
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
2.4
C
Comment
Period
P
and
d Future Se
essions
At the co
onclusion of each
e
meeting, additional comments
c
on the draft Exxisting Condittions Report were
requested
d to be submiitted within 30
3 days after each stakeho
older session. Due dates fo
or comments were
as followss:
•
Comments fro
C
om Stakehold
ders in District 5: Brevard
d County – Due
D Wednessday, Septembber 9,
20009
•
Comments fro
C
om Stakehold
ders in Distriict 5: Volusiaa County & Flagler
F
Countty – Due Mo
onday,
Seeptember 14,, 2009
•
C
Comments
fro
om Stakeholders in Districct 2 – Due Thhursday, Septeember 17, 20009
mments are to
t be taken innto consideraation when reevising the drraft Existing Conditions
C
Reeport.
These com
A second
d set of stakkeholder sesssions is tentaatively scheduuled for the summer of 2010 in ord
der to
present annd review thee final Existingg Conditions Report.
ons Report was
w scheduleed for
The stakeeholders were also inforrmed that thhe draft Futuure Conditio
completio
on in January 2010, after which
w
the mainnline conceptts were develloped.
3.0
Summary
S
y of Futurre Conditions Repo
ort Stake
eholder In
nvolveme
ent
M
Meetings
3.1
District 2: Nassau
D
N
Cou
unty, Duva
al County, and
a St. Joh
hns County
y Future
C
Conditions
Report Sta
akeholder Meeting
The firstt stakeholder session inn the seriess of
sessions for the drafft Future Co
onditions Repport
T District 2 Jaacksonville Urrban
was held at the FDOT
une 14, 20100 in Jacksonvville.
Office onn Monday, Ju
This locattion was chossen because it
i offers a cenntral
location for the areaa stakeholders. Of thee 23
nvited, 11 attended.
individualss that were in
Immediateely followingg the presenttation, the floor
was open for commen
nts and questions on the draft
d
Conditions
and
relaated
Future
Report
d by
topics/delliverables. Questions werre addressed
the FDOT
T Project Maanager, the co
onsultant Pro
oject
Manager, the consultaant Deputy Project
P
Manaager,
and the FDOT Traffic Lead.
3.1.1 Questions
Q
and
a Comm
ments from Stakehold
ders
opics that werre discussed are
a listed belo
ow:
A summary of the questions and to
10
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
•
What is the reelationship beetween the I--95 Transporttation Alternatives Analyssis Study and the IW
955 Sketch Interstate Plan?
Answer: Thee Stakeholderrs were inforrmed that sttudies are disscreet and provide
A
p
a diffferent
fo
ocus. The group was info
ormed that thhe I-95 Sketchh Interstate Plan
P does, however, utilizee data
uttilized in the Transportatio
on Alternatives Analysis Sttudy. As a fo
ollow-up, all thhree groups of
o the
I-95 Sketch In
nterstate Plann Stakeholderrs were sentt an email prroviding accesss informatio
on for
oth documen
nts and a furthher explanatio
on of the stud
dies’ respective purpose and
a intent.
bo
•
A few stakeho
olders noted that
t
the purppose and the outcomes off the Future Conditions
C
R
Report
shhould be clariified because it wasn’t mad
de clear in the draft materrials they had reviewed to date.
Answer: The consultant
A
c
Prroject Manager noted to the group thhat this changge would be made
fo
or preparation
n of the final document.
•
Seeveral stakeh
holders inform
med the studyy that the no
ot all the major developm
ments in the report
r
no
oted as Deveelopments off Regional Im
mpact (DRI) may
m still be active
a
DRIs and,
a
as such,, they
w
would
not con
ntribute to the volume of cars
c on I-95.
A
Answer:
The report
r
was ed
dited to reflecct the more up-to-date
u
staatus of DRIs in
i the region..
3.2
District 5: Volusia
D
V
and
d Flagler Counties Fu
uture Cond
ditions Report
S
Stakeholder
r Meeting
The seco
ond stakeholder session in the serries of
sessions for
f the draft Future Connditions Repo
ort was
held at thhe Volusia Co
ounty MPO offices
o
on Thursday,
June 17, 2010 in Daaytona Beachh as it provvided a
ocation for th
he area stakeholders. Of the 24
central lo
individualss that were in
nvited, 13 attended.
Immediateely following the presentaation, the floor was
open for comments an
nd questions on the draft Future
a
related topics/deliveerables.
Conditionns Report and
Questionss were addressed by the
t
FDOT Project
P
Manager, the consulttant Project Manager, annd the
oject Managerr.
consultant Deputy Pro
3.2.1 Questions
Q
and
a Comm
ments from Stakehold
ders
opics that werre discussed are
a listed belo
ow:
A summary of the questions and to
•
A comment was
w offered thhat some of the
t Hurricanee Evacuation Routes noteed in the stud
dy are
no
ot accurate and
a should bee removed fro
om the reportt.
Answer: The routes
A
r
that were
w
noted to
o require deleetion or addition were inco
orporated intto the
reeport.
11
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
•
Seeveral stakeh
holders provided local peerspective onn growth centers within their regionn that
ad
dded to or, in
i some instaances, altered
d to the information provvided in the Future Cond
ditions
R
Report.
Answer: Thee local knowledge of growth centers provided byy the Stakeho
A
olders’ groupp was
inncorporated into the Futurre Conditionss Report.
3.3
D
District
5: Brevard
B
Co
ounty Future Conditions Reporrt Stakeholder Meetin
ng
The third stakeholder session for the draft Futuure Conditionns Report wass held at the Space Coast MPO
offices onn Wednesdayy, June 23, 20010 in the Citty of Viera ass it provided a central loccation for thee area
stakeholders. Of the 18 individuals that were invited, 17 atteended.
oor was openn for comments and quesstions on the draft
Immediateely following the presentaation, the flo
Future Conditions Reeport and related topics/deliverables. Questions were
w
addresssed by the FDOT
F
M
the consultant
c
Prroject Manageer, and the consultant
c
Deeputy Projectt Manager, annd the
Project Manager,
consultant Traffic Lead
d.
3.3.1 Questions
Q
and
a Comm
ments from Stakehold
ders
opics that werre discussed are
a listed belo
ow:
A summary of the questions and to
•
A comment was
w offered reggarding freighht assumptionns being heaviily dependentt upon fuel co
osts,
buut that the Fu
uture Conditiions Report does
d
not discuss 2035 fuel cost assumpptions. The
co
omment conttinues to state that truck-o
only lanes maake sense and
d requests thaat discussion
shhould be provvided as to why
w truck onlyy lanes would
d be discounteed in the repo
ort.
Answer: This comment has been noted. But changess to the Futurre Conditionss Report werre not
A
m
made.
Future reporting effforts will build
d upon the co
omments pro
ovided regarding fuel costs and
thhe considerattion of truck-o
only lanes.
•
One stakehold
O
der questioneed the interco
onnectedness of the I-95 Sketch
S
Intersttate Plan and other
reeports focuseed on the I-955 corridor.
Answer: Discussion was heeld during thee meeting and
A
d after to clarrify that the reports
r
utilizee
so
ome of the saame relevant data but havee different purposes and fo
ocuses.
3.4
C
Comment
Period
P
and
d Future Stteps
onclusion of each
e
meetingg, additional comments
c
onn the draft Fuuture Condittions Report were
At the co
solicited, to be submittted within 300 days after eeach stakehollder session. Due dates fo
or comments were
as followss:
•
Comments fro
C
om Stakeholders in Districct 2: Nassau County,
C
Duvaal County, and
d St. Johns County
– Due Friday, July
J 16, 2010
12
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
•
Comments fro
C
om Stakehold
ders in Districct 5: Volusia and Flagler County
C
– Duee Wednesdayy, July
21, 2010
•
C
Comments
fro
om Stakeholders in Districct 5: Brevard County – Duue Friday, Julyy 23, 2010
mments are to
t be taken innto consideraation when reevising the drraft Existing Conditions
C
Reeport.
These com
A second
d set of stakkeholder sesssions is tentaatively scheduuled for the summer of 2010 in ord
der to
present annd review thee final Existingg Conditions Report.
ons Report was
w scheduleed for
The stakeeholders were also inforrmed that thhe draft Futuure Conditio
completio
on in January 2010, after which
w
the mainnline conceptts were develloped.
4.0
Recomme
R
endationss from Ex
xisting Co
onditions Report Stakehold
S
der
S
Sessions
t
first rouund of
From thee initial feedback from this
stakeholder meetinggs, the following
f
g
general
recommeendations werre made:
•
Paare down thee Executive Suummary (10 pages)
p
•
Provide a list of
o all data souurces
•
Provide stakeholders withh a 30-day review
o any meetingg
peeriod prior to
•
Create an onliine source off information about
C
thhe project (i.ee. website)
m the initial stakeholder
s
s
sessions,
the draft
With the collected feeedback and comments gaathered from
C
Reeport was reevised. Comm
ments were then
t
used to inform the Future Cond
ditions
Existing Conditions
Report drafting as weell as Stakeho
older Involvem
ment sessionns for the Futture Conditio
ons Report. Once
C
Reeport, they were
w
also inco
orporated intto the
comments were receivved on the draft Future Conditions
final Futurre Conditionss Report.
13
Stakeholder Involvement Report,
R
August 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
App
pendix
xA
Projject Corrid
C
dor Map
I‐95 Skketch Intersta
ate Plan: Stakeeholder Invollvement Summ
mary, Augustt 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
I‐95 Skketch Intersta
ate Plan: Stakeeholder Invollvement Summ
mary, Augustt 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
App
pendix
xB
Existin
ng Conditio
ons Re
eportt
Power
P
r Poin
nt Pre
esenta
ation
I‐95 Skketch Intersta
ate Plan: Stakeeholder Invollvement Summ
mary, Augustt 2010 Agenda
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP)
Public Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Welcome and Introductions
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
FDOT District 2 Jacksonville Urban Office
Discuss the Stakeholder Project Information Folders
Overview of the I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan Project and the
project progress to date
Presentation Date:
April 8,
8 2009
Questions and Answers
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
2
Stakeholder Project Information Folder Contents and CD
Project Overview: Why are We Meeting Here Today?
Today’s Meeting Agenda
Discuss the I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) project with
you, the stakeholders
PowerPoint Presentation of today’s meeting
We may have missed things and need your feedback
Type of information gathered and analyzed
Gain your input on freight mobility throughout the corridor
Further identifying areas impacting I-95 from potential new
developments and/or transportation projects that would affect
our traffic design methodology.
Difference between a “Sketch Plan” and a “Master Plan”
Project Location Map
Timeline and Process Diagram
Project Comments Form
FDOT & Project Team Contact Information
Project Team Business Cards
I-95 SIP Existing Conditions Report
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
3
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
4
1
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) – Project Overview
Overview of I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) – Location
Work began August 2008
Project ends in December 2010
Project Limits: I-95 SIS from the Brevard County / Indian
River County Line to the Florida / Georgia State Line
222 centerline miles long
64 interchanges
Study Area is within the I-95 mainline Right-of-Way
Study Area Traverses 6 Counties:
- Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler, Volusia, and Brevard
- Region anticipating significant population and economic future
growth
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
5
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
6
Sketch Interstate Plan is Much Different than a Master Plan
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) – Project Purpose
Outline a general course of action to improve users/travelers
mobility within the I-95 corridor by identifying mainline
concepts to provide the mobility to adequately serve high
speed, high volume travel facilitating interstate, regional
commerce and long-distance trips
Identify projected lane-calls
lane calls for I-95
I 95 mainline.
mainline
Significant focus on movement of trucks and freight
throughout the corridor
Analysis and reporting of existing and 2035 planning
horizon year conditions
GIS analysis and detailed mapping
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
7
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
8
2
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) – GIS Mapping
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Master Document Outline
Executive Summary
Purpose of Sketch Interstate Plan
Previous Reports / Studies
Project Team and Project Information Group
Existing Conditions Report
Traffic
T
ffi M
Methodology
th d l
Technical
T h i lM
Memo
Crash Methodology Technical Report
Future Conditions Report
Mainline Concepts Report
Stakeholder and Public Involvement Plan
Summary and Next Steps
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
9
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
10
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
Data Collection / Inventory Process
Crash Methodology Technical Memorandum
Traffic Methodology Technical Memorandum
Existing Conditions Report
Roadway Conditions
Bridge
g Conditions
Traffic Conditions
Environmental Conditions
Safety Conditions
Transit and Multi-Use Facilities
Informational Stakeholder Public Involvement meetings (August ‘09)
Beginning Future Conditions Report
Crash Methodology Technical Memorandum – Years 2003-2007
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
11
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
12
3
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
Crash Methodology Technical Memorandum (Continued)
Traffic Methodology Technical Report – Preliminary Methodology
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
13
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
14
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
Traffic Methodology Technical Report – AADT and Growth Rates
Existing Conditions Report
Previous Studies and Reports
Roadway Conditions
Bridge Conditions
Traffic Conditions
Environmental Conditions
Safety Conditions
Transit and Multi-Use Facilities
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
15
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
16
4
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
Existing Conditions Report - Roadway Conditions
Existing Conditions Report - Roadway Conditions (Con’t)
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
17
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
18
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
Existing Conditions Report – Environmental Conditions
Existing Conditions Report – Environmental Conditions (Con’t)
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
19
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
20
5
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
Existing Conditions Report - Traffic Conditions
Existing Conditions Report - Traffic Conditions (Con’t)
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
21
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
22
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
Existing Conditions Report – Safety Conditions
Existing Conditions Report – Safety Conditions (Con’t)
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
23
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
24
6
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Current Project Status
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) - Next Steps?
Existing Conditions Report – Transit and Multi-Use
Ongoing Efforts
Informational Public Involvement Stakeholders Meetings
Future Conditions Report
Next Steps……
Future Conditions Report – Finalize Traffic Methodology and
develop 2035 Design Year Traffic and 2035 Lane Calls
Mainline Concepts Report – I-95 Lane Call Assessment
(Interchange to Interchange level)
Compile Master I-95 SIP Document
Informational Public Involvement Stakeholders Meetings in
Summer 2010 to review master I-95 SIP Document
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
I-95 SIP – Public Informational Stakeholder Meeting
25
26
QUESTIONS???
Interstate 95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP)
WHO TO CONTACT:
John Taylor, PE
Florida DOT - Systems Planning
(850) 414
414-4930
4930 - Voice
[email protected]
John Zielinski
Florida DOT - District 5
(407) 482
482-7868
7868 - Voice
[email protected]
Barney Bennette, PE
Florida DOT - District 2
(386) 961
961-78787878 Voice
[email protected]
Andrew Nicol, AICP
Project Manager
(407) 875-8926 - Voice
(407) 790-0135 - Mobile
[email protected]
Douglas Lynch, GISP
GIS / Data Analysis
(407) 875-8938 - Voice
(407) 790-9849 - Mobile
[email protected]
Aaron Grilliot, PE
Traffic Lead
(614) 433-7800 - Voice
(614) 578-5170 - Mobile
[email protected]
7
I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
Appendix
xC
Future
F
e Con
ndition
ns Re
eport
Power
P
rPointt Pressenta
ation
I‐95 Skketch Intersta
ate Plan: Stakeeholder Invollvement Summ
mary, Augustt 2010 I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP)
Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Agenda
Welcome and Introductions
From the Brevard/Indian River County line to Florida/Georgia State Line
June 14, 2010
Stakeholder Project Information Folders
FDOT District 2 Jacksonville Urban Office
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan Progress to Date
• Involvement with HB 1021 for the I-95 Alternatives Transportation
Study
y
Presentation Date:
I-95 SIP Questions and Answers
April 8, 2009
Strategic Intermodal Systems Implementation &
Management (SISIM) Portal Presentation
2
Stakeholder Project Information Folder Contents
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Why are We Meeting Here Today?
Today’s Meeting Agenda
Progress Since Previous Stakeholder Meetings (June 2009)
PowerPoint Presentation
Summarize the Draft Future Conditions Report
Project Location Map
Receive Stakeholder Feedback
Timeline and Process Diagram
Comment Form
FDOT & Project Team Contact Information
Project Team Business Cards
3
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
4
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
1
Stakeholder Involvement Process
Project Overview
Duration: August 2008 December 2010
Project Limits: I-95 from the
Brevard County / Indian River
County Line to the Florida /
Georgia State Line
222 centerline miles long
64 interchanges
Study area is within the I-95
mainline right-of-way
Study area traverses 6 counties:
- Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler,
Volusia, and Brevard
5
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Corridor Studies: From Concept to Concrete
6
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Project Purpose
Outline a General Course of Action to
Improve Users/Travelers
Mobility…Adequately Serve High Speed,
High Volume Travel…Facilitating Interstate,
Regional Commerce and Long-Distance Trips
Identify 2035 Unconstrained Traffic Demand
Identify the 2035 Projected Lane-Calls for the
I-95 Mainline
Identify Potential Parallel Corridors to I-95
7
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
8
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
2
Where Are We Now?
Currently Finishing the Future Conditions Report
Contents of the Future Conditions Report
Future…
Incorporate Stakeholder Comments/Feedback
Submit to FDOT and Include Document into the Master
SIP document
Land Use and Development
Socioeconomic Conditions
Crash Methodology Technical Report
Traffic Methodology Technical Report
Existing Conditions Report
Future Conditions Report
Public Involvement Report
Roadway Conditions
Bridge Conditions
Multimodal Conditions
Traffic Conditions
Recommendations
9
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Land Use and Development
10
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Land Use Map Examples
Future Growth (following comprehensive
plans) is anticipated to consist mostly of
infill development
Nassau County: Between Yulee and
Fernandina Beach
Duval County: Areas north of I-295 to the
Nassau County line
St Johns County: Between the Duval County
line and St. Augustine
Flagler County: Mainly around Palm Coast
and Flagler Beach
Volusia County: Areas north of Ormond
Beach
Brevard County: Melbourne area including
Viera and Palm Bay
11
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
12
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
3
Future Population and Employment Density
2035 Population Projections
Flagler, St. Johns, and Nassau Counties = High Growth
Identified from NERPM and
CFRPM TAZ-level SE data
I-95 Will Play a Major Role in Accommodating Traffic
Locations within 5 miles
(east or west) of the I-95
corridor with higher
concentrations of
population/employment
density (persons/acre)
Identified future high growth
areas along the I-95 corridor
13
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Roadway Conditions
14
Future Multimodal Conditions
Identified all Hurricane
Evacuation Routes
Identified multimodal facilities
Many multimodal improvements are
planned along the I-95 corridor
Identified Potential Parallel
Corridors to I-95
The most concentrated areas for
improvements is located with the
City of Jacksonville in Duval County
Identified Roadway and
Transit Projects Directly
Impacting the I-95 corridor in
TIP, LRTP and FDOT Work
Programs
15
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Improvements may still contribute
to increased future traffic demand
on I-95
16
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
4
Future Traffic Conditions
Future Traffic Conditions - Statistics
Identified 2035 unconstrained
traffic demand on I-95
Identified projected 2035 lane
calls for the entire I-95 corridor
to satisfy LOS facility
segmentation
j crossroads
Identified major
over/under I-95 and their 2035
potential improvements
Reviewed feasibility of Truck
Only Lanes (TOL) and HOV
lanes by 2035, and other
potential freight impacts
17
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Traffic Conditions – 2035 Lane Calls
Existing low AADT ranges
around 30,000
Projected 2035 low AADT
ranges around 42,000
Existing high AADT ranges
around 119,000 in downtown
JJacksonville ((Duval County)
y)
Projected 2035 high AADT
ranges is around 190,000 for an
overall high AADT increase of
59.7% (downtown Jacksonville)
By 2035, I-95 corridor will have
doubled the existing daily traffic
18
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Conditions Report Recommendations
2035 Lane-Call Determination by
Utilizing the two Unconstrained Travel
Demand Models - Indicates that the I95 Corridor will Need Twice its
Current Capacity to Meet 2035 LOS
FDOT, along with Regional and Local Agencies Should
Identify Right-of-Way Where it is not Currently
Developed
Where Possible, all Identified Parallel Corridors Should be
Promoted and Expanded to Assist with Alleviating the
increased 2035 I-95 Traffic Demand
Results = Substantial Impacts to the
Natural and Built Environment
Prioritize Roadway Improvement Projects that Directly
Impact the I-95 Corridor
Study Provides Data that Supports
Further Studying of Multimodal
Solutions
19
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
20
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
5
Next Steps…
Address Stakeholder feedback for
Future Conditions Report
Continue coordinating with I-95
Alternatives Transportation Study
I-95 Alternatives Transportation Study Overview
HB 1021 was Signed by Governor Crist on May 27,
2009 Adding Section 26, Chapter 2009-85, Laws of
Florida, Stating:
“The Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Law
Enforcement, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Division of Emergency
Management of the Department of Community Affairs, the Office of Tourism, Trade, and
Economic Development, affected metropolitan planning organizations, and regional
planning councils within whose jurisdictional area the I-95 corridor lies, shall complete a
study
t d off ttransportation
p t ti alternatives
lt
ti ffor th
the ttravell corridor
id pparallel
ll l tto IInterstate
t t t 95 which
hi h
takes into account the transportation, emergency management, homeland security, and
economic development needs of the state. The report must include identification of costeffective measures that may be implemented to alleviate congestion on Interstate 95,
facilitate emergency and security responses, and foster economic development. The
Department of Transportation shall send the report to the Governor, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and each affected metropolitan
planning organization by June 30, 2010.”
Develop Final Public Involvement
Participation Report
Develop Master Sketch Interstate
Plan Document
Final Draft Document in October
2010
21
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Study Purpose
Assess Travel Demand and Freight
Moving Along the I-95 Corridor
Against Four (4) Measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Transportation
Emergency management
Homeland security
Economic development
22
I-95 Alternatives Transportation Study
HB 1021 was Signed by Governor Crist on May 27, 2009
Adding Section 26, Chapter 2009-85, Laws of Florida,
Stating:
“The Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Law
Enforcement, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Division of Emergency
Management of the Department of Community Affairs,
Affairs the Office of Tourism,
Tourism Trade,
Trade and
Economic Development, affected metropolitan planning organizations, and regional
planning councils within whose jurisdictional area the I-95 corridor lies, shall complete a
study of transportation alternatives for the travel corridor parallel to Interstate 95 which
takes into account the transportation, emergency management, homeland security, and
economic development needs of the state. The report must include identification of costeffective measures that may be implemented to alleviate congestion on Interstate 95,
facilitate emergency and security responses, and foster economic development. The
Department of Transportation shall send the report to the Governor, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and each affected metropolitan
planning organization by June 30, 2010.”
Identify Alternatives and Strategies to
Alleviate Congestion, Facilitate
Emergency and Security Response,
and Foster Economic Development in
the State of Florida
23
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
24
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
6
Study Purpose
Assess Travel Demand and Freight Moving Along the
I-95 Corridor Against Four (4) Measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Transportation
Emergency management
Homeland security
Economic development
Identify Alternatives and Strategies to Alleviate
Congestion, Facilitate Emergency and Security
Response, and Foster Economic Development in the
State of Florida
Data from I-95 SIP fed directly in to the I-95
Alternative Transportation Study and FEC High
Speed Rail Application
25
QUESTIONS?
John Taylor, PE
Florida DOT - Systems Planning
(850) 414-4930 - Voice
[email protected]
John Zielinski
Florida DOT - District 5
(407) 482-7868 - Voice
[email protected]
Bikram Wadhawan, PE, PTOE
Florida DOT – Systems Planning
(850) 414
414-4926
4926 - Voice
[email protected]
Jim Green
Florida DOT - District 2
(904) 360-5684 - Voice
[email protected]
Andrew Nicol, AICP
Project Manager
(407) 875-8926 - Voice
(407) 790-0135 - Mobile
[email protected]
Douglas Lynch, GISP
GIS / Deputy Project Manager
(407) 875-8938 - Voice
(407) 790-9849 - Mobile
[email protected]
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
7
Stakeholder Involvement Process
Project Overview
Duration: August 2008 December 2010
Project Limits: I-95 from the
Brevard County / Indian River
County Line to the Florida /
Georgia State Line
222 centerline miles long
64 interchanges
Study area is within the I-95
mainline right-of-way
Study area traverses 6 counties:
- Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler,
Volusia, and Brevard
5
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Corridor Studies: From Concept to Concrete
6
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Project Purpose
Outline a General Course of Action to
Improve Users/Travelers
Mobility…Adequately Serve High Speed,
High Volume Travel…Facilitating Interstate,
Regional Commerce and Long-Distance Trips
Identify 2035 Unconstrained Traffic Demand
Identify the 2035 Projected Lane-Calls for the
I-95 Mainline
Identify Potential Parallel Corridors to I-95
7
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
8
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
2
Where Are We Now?
Currently Finishing the Future Conditions Report
Contents of the Future Conditions Report
Future…
Incorporate Stakeholder Comments/Feedback
Submit to FDOT and Include Document into the Master
SIP document
Land Use and Development
Socioeconomic Conditions
Crash Methodology Technical Report
Traffic Methodology Technical Report
Existing Conditions Report
Future Conditions Report
Public Involvement Report
Roadway Conditions
Bridge Conditions
Multimodal Conditions
Traffic Conditions
Recommendations
9
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Land Use and Development
10
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Land Use Maps
Future Growth (following comprehensive
plans) is anticipated to consist mostly of
infill development
Flagler County: Mainly around
Palm Coast and Flagler Beach
Volusia County:
y Areas primarily
p
y
north of Ormond Beach
Brevard County: Melbourne area
including Viera and Palm Bay
11
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
12
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
3
Future Population and Employment Density
2035 Population Projections
Flagler County is the Highest Growth County by 2035 in
the northern I-95 corridor
I-95 Will Play a Major Role in Accommodating Traffic
Identified from NERPM and
CFRPM TAZ-level SE data
Locations within 5 miles
(east or west) of the I-95
corridor with higher
concentrations of
population/employment
density (persons/acre)
Identified future high growth
areas along the I-95 corridor
13
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Volusia County 2025 Thoroughfare Plan
14
Future Roadway Conditions
Williamson Blvd Ext.
Airport Rd.
Madeline Ave Ext.
LPGA Blvd Ext.
Dunn Ave Ext.
Tomoka Farms Rd Ext.
Timber Creek Rd.
Identified all Hurricane
Evacuation Routes
Identified Potential Parallel
Corridors to I-95
Identified Roadway and
Transit Projects Directly
Impacting the I-95 corridor in
TIP, LRTP and FDOT Work
Programs
All play a vital role to future I-95 demand
throughout Volusia County
Source: Volusia County
15
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
16
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
4
Future Multimodal Conditions
Future Traffic Conditions
Identified 2035 unconstrained
traffic demand on I-95
Identified projected 2035 lane
calls for the entire I-95 corridor
to satisfy LOS facility
segmentation
j crossroads
Identified major
over/under I-95 and their 2035
potential improvements
Reviewed feasibility of Truck
Only Lanes (TOL) and HOV
lanes by 2035, and other
potential freight impacts
Identified multimodal facilities
Many multimodal improvements are
planned along the I-95 corridor
The most concentrated areas for
improvements is located with the
City of Jacksonville in Duval County
Improvements may still contribute
to increased future traffic demand
on I-95
17
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Traffic Conditions – Volusia County Statistics
18
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Traffic Conditions – Flagler County Statistics
Table 7.4b:Volusia County Horizon Year (2035) Lane Calls
Table 7.4c: Flagler County Horizon Year (2035) Lane Calls
19
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
20
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
5
Future Traffic Conditions – 2035 Lane Calls
Future Conditions Report Recommendations
2035 Lane-Call Determination by
Utilizing the two Unconstrained
Travel Demand Models - Indicates that
the I-95 Corridor will Need Twice its
Current Capacity to Meet 2035 LOS
FDOT, along with Regional and Local Agencies Should
Identify Right-of-Way Where it is not Currently
Developed
Where Possible, all Identified Parallel Corridors Should be
Promoted and Expanded to Assist with Alleviating the
increased 2035 I-95 Traffic Demand
Results = Substantial Impacts to the
Natural and Built Environment
Prioritize Roadway Improvement Projects that Directly
Impact the I-95 Corridor
Study Provides Data that Supports
Further Studying of Multimodal
Solutions
21
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Next Steps…
Address Stakeholder feedback for
Future Conditions Report
Continue coordinating with I-95
Alternatives Transportation Study
Develop Final Public Involvement
Participation Report
22
I-95 Alternatives Transportation Study
HB 1021 was Signed by Governor Crist on May 27, 2009
Adding Section 26, Chapter 2009-85, Laws of Florida,
Stating:
“The Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Law
Enforcement, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Division of Emergency
Management of the Department of Community Affairs,
Affairs the Office of Tourism,
Tourism Trade,
Trade and
Economic Development, affected metropolitan planning organizations, and regional
planning councils within whose jurisdictional area the I-95 corridor lies, shall complete a
study of transportation alternatives for the travel corridor parallel to Interstate 95 which
takes into account the transportation, emergency management, homeland security, and
economic development needs of the state. The report must include identification of costeffective measures that may be implemented to alleviate congestion on Interstate 95,
facilitate emergency and security responses, and foster economic development. The
Department of Transportation shall send the report to the Governor, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and each affected metropolitan
planning organization by June 30, 2010.”
Develop Master Sketch Interstate
Plan Document
Final Draft Document in October
2010
23
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
24
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
6
Study Purpose
QUESTIONS?
Assess Travel Demand and Freight Moving Along the
I-95 Corridor Against Four (4) Measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Transportation
Emergency management
Homeland security
Economic development
Identify Alternatives and Strategies to Alleviate
Congestion, Facilitate Emergency and Security
Response, and Foster Economic Development in the
State of Florida
Data from I-95 SIP fed directly in to the I-95
Alternative Transportation Study and FEC High
Speed Rail Application
25
John Taylor, PE
Florida DOT - Systems Planning
(850) 414-4930 - Voice
[email protected]
Andrew Nicol, AICP
Project Manager
(407) 875-8926 - Voice
(407) 790-0135 - Mobile
[email protected]
John Zielinski
Florida DOT - District 5
(407) 482-7868 - Voice
[email protected]
Jim Green
Florida DOT - District 2
(904) 360-5684 - Voice
[email protected]
Douglas Lynch, GISP
GIS / Deputy Project Manager
(407) 875-8938 - Voice
(407) 790-9849 - Mobile
[email protected]
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
7
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP)
Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Agenda
Welcome and Introductions
From the Brevard/Indian River County line to Florida/Georgia State Line
June 23, 2010
Stakeholder Project Information Folders
Brevard Government Center, Viera, FL
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan Progress to Date
• Involvement with HB 1021 for the I-95 Alternatives Transportation
Study
y
Presentation Date:
I-95 SIP Questions and Answers
April 8, 2009
Strategic Intermodal Systems Implementation &
Management (SISIM) Portal Presentation
2
Stakeholder Project Information Folder Contents
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Why are We Meeting Here Today?
Today’s Meeting Agenda
Progress Since Previous Stakeholder Meetings (June 2009)
PowerPoint Presentation
Summarize the Draft Future Conditions Report
Project Location Map
Receive Stakeholder Feedback
Timeline and Process Diagram
Comment Form
FDOT & Project Team Contact Information
Project Team Business Cards
3
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
4
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
1
Stakeholder Involvement Process
Project Overview
Duration: August 2008 December 2010
Project Limits: I-95 from the
Brevard County / Indian River
County Line to the Florida /
Georgia State Line
222 centerline miles long
64 interchanges
Study area is within the I-95
mainline right-of-way
Study area traverses 6 counties:
- Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler,
Volusia, and Brevard
5
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Corridor Studies: From Concept to Concrete
6
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Project Purpose
Outline a General Course of Action to
Improve Users/Travelers
Mobility…Adequately Serve High Speed,
High Volume Travel…Facilitating Interstate,
Regional Commerce and Long-Distance Trips
Identify 2035 Unconstrained Traffic Demand
Identify the 2035 Projected Lane-Calls for the
I-95 Mainline
Identify Potential Parallel Corridors to I-95
7
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
8
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
2
Where Are We Now?
Currently Finishing the Future Conditions Report
Contents of the Future Conditions Report
Future…
Incorporate Stakeholder Comments/Feedback
Submit to FDOT and Include Document into the Master
SIP document
Land Use and Development
Socioeconomic Conditions
Crash Methodology Technical Report
Traffic Methodology Technical Report
Existing Conditions Report
Future Conditions Report
Public Involvement Report
Roadway Conditions
Bridge Conditions
Multimodal Conditions
Traffic Conditions
Recommendations
9
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Land Use and Development
10
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Land Use Maps
Future Growth (following comprehensive
plans) is anticipated to consist mostly of
infill development
Brevard County: Melbourne area
including Viera and Palm Bay
Flagler County: Mainly around
Palm Coast and Flagler Beach
Volusia County: Areas primarily
north of Ormond Beach
11
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
12
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
3
Future Population and Employment Density
2035 Population Projections
Flagler, St. Johns, and Nassau Counties = High Growth
Identified from NERPM and
CFRPM TAZ-level SE data
I-95 Will Play a Major Role in Accommodating Traffic
Locations within 5 miles
(east or west) of the I-95
corridor with higher
concentrations of
population/employment
density (persons/acre)
Identified future high growth
areas along the I-95 corridor
13
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Roadway Conditions
14
Proposed St. Johns Heritage Parkway
Parallel Corridor to I-95
Identified all Hurricane
Evacuation Routes
Would alleviate some traffic
demand throughout Brevard
County on the I-95 corridor
Identified Potential Parallel
Corridors to I-95
Identified Roadway and
Transit Projects Directly
Impacting the I-95 corridor in
TIP, LRTP and FDOT Work
Programs
15
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Source: Florida Today
16
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
4
Future Multimodal Conditions
Future Traffic Conditions
Identified 2035 unconstrained
traffic demand on I-95
Identified projected 2035 lane
calls for the entire I-95 corridor
to satisfy LOS facility
segmentation
j crossroads
Identified major
over/under I-95 and their 2035
potential improvements
Reviewed feasibility of Truck
Only Lanes (TOL) and HOV
lanes by 2035, and other
potential freight impacts
Identified multimodal facilities
Many multimodal improvements are
planned along the I-95 corridor
The most concentrated areas for
improvements is located with the
City of Jacksonville in Duval County
Improvements may still contribute
to increased future traffic demand
on I-95
17
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Traffic Conditions – Brevard County Statistics
18
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Future Traffic Conditions – 2035 Lane Calls
2035 Lane-Call Determination by
Utilizing the two Unconstrained Travel
Demand Models - Indicates that the I95 Corridor will Need Twice its
Current Capacity to Meet 2035 LOS
Table 7.4a: Brevard County Horizon Year (2035) Lane Calls
Results = Substantial Impacts to the
Natural and Built Environment
Study Provides Data that Supports
Further Studying of Multimodal
Solutions
19
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
20
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
5
Future Conditions Report Recommendations
Next Steps…
FDOT, along with Regional and Local Agencies Should
Identify Right-of-Way Where it is not Currently
Developed
Address Stakeholder feedback for
Future Conditions Report
Continue coordinating with I-95
Alternatives Transportation Study
Where Possible, all Identified Parallel Corridors Should be
Promoted and Expanded to Assist with Alleviating the
increased 2035 I-95 Traffic Demand
Develop Final Public Involvement
Participation Report
Develop Master Sketch Interstate
Plan Document
Prioritize Roadway Improvement Projects that Directly
Impact the I-95 Corridor
Final Draft Document in October
2010
21
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
I-95 Alternatives Transportation Study
22
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Study Purpose
Assess Travel Demand and Freight Moving Along the
I-95 Corridor Against Four (4) Measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
HB 1021 was Signed by Governor Crist on May 27, 2009
Adding Section 26, Chapter 2009-85, Laws of Florida,
Stating:
“The Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Law
Enforcement, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Division of Emergency
Management of the Department of Community Affairs,
Affairs the Office of Tourism
Tourism, Trade
Trade, and
Economic Development, affected metropolitan planning organizations, and regional
planning councils within whose jurisdictional area the I-95 corridor lies, shall complete a
study of transportation alternatives for the travel corridor parallel to Interstate 95 which
takes into account the transportation, emergency management, homeland security, and
economic development needs of the state. The report must include identification of costeffective measures that may be implemented to alleviate congestion on Interstate 95,
facilitate emergency and security responses, and foster economic development. The
Department of Transportation shall send the report to the Governor, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and each affected metropolitan
planning organization by June 30, 2010.”
23
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
1.
2.
3.
4.
Transportation
Emergency management
Homeland security
Economic development
Identify Alternatives and Strategies to Alleviate
Congestion, Facilitate Emergency and Security
Response, and Foster Economic Development in the
State of Florida
Data from I-95 SIP fed directly in to the I-95
Alternative Transportation Study and FEC High
Speed Rail Application
24
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
6
QUESTIONS?
John Taylor, PE
Florida DOT - Systems Planning
(850) 414-4930 - Voice
[email protected]
Andrew Nicol, AICP
Project Manager
(407) 875-8926 - Voice
(407) 790-0135 - Mobile
[email protected]
John Zielinski
Florida DOT - District 5
(407) 482-7868 - Voice
[email protected]
Jim Green
Florida DOT - District 2
(904) 360-5684 - Voice
[email protected]
Douglas Lynch, GISP
GIS / Deputy Project Manager
(407) 875-8938 - Voice
(407) 790-9849 - Mobile
[email protected]
7
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP)
Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Agenda
Welcome and Introductions
From the Brevard/Indian River County line to Florida/Georgia State Line
June 17, 2010
Stakeholder Project Information Folders
Volusia County MPO, Daytona Beach, FL
I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan Progress to Date
• Involvement with HB 1021 for the I-95 Alternatives Transportation
Study
y
Presentation Date:
I-95 SIP Questions and Answers
April 8, 2009
Strategic Intermodal Systems Implementation &
Management (SISIM) Portal Presentation
2
Stakeholder Project Information Folder Contents
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
Why are We Meeting Here Today?
Today’s Meeting Agenda
Progress Since Previous Stakeholder Meetings (June 2009)
PowerPoint Presentation
Summarize the Draft Future Conditions Report
Project Location Map
Receive Stakeholder Feedback
Timeline and Process Diagram
Comment Form
FDOT & Project Team Contact Information
Project Team Business Cards
3
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
4
I-95 SIP – Stakeholder Informational Meeting
1
I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
Appendix
xD
Meetting Sign-In
S
n She
eets
I‐95 Skketch Intersta
ate Plan: Stakeeholder Invollvement Summ
mary, Augustt 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
App
pendix
xE
Proje
ect Tea
am Contacct Info
ormattion
Florida
a Departm
ment of
Transp
portation
Pro
oject Con
nsultant
Central Office
O
John Tayylor, Systemss Planning – FDOT
Project Manager
M
(850) 4144-4903
john.taylo
[email protected]
And
dy Nicol, AIC
CP – Projectt Manager
(4077) 875-8926
[email protected]
Central Office
O
Bikram Wadhawan,
W
PE,
P PTOE
FDOT Prroject Coorrdinator
(850) 4144-4926
bikram.w
wadhawan@d
dot.state.fl.uus
District 2
Barney Bennette,
B
PE – Transport
rtation
Statistics
(386) 961-7878
ot.state.fl.us
barney.beennette@do
Douuglas Lynch, GISP – Deputy Project
Mannager & GIS Lead
(4077) 875-8938
[email protected]
Aaro
on Grilliot, PE
P – Traffic Lead
(6144) 433-7808
[email protected]
m
Lorii Cox, AICP – Planning Staff
S
(4077) 875-8940
leco
[email protected]
District 2
James Grreen – Urban Planning
(904) 3600-5684
[email protected]
District 5
John Ziellinski – Strattegic Intermo
odal
Systems
(407) 4822-7868
[email protected]
District 5
Mansoorr Khuwaja – FDOT Projeect
Coordinaator
(407) 4200-4225
mansoorr.khuwaja@h
hdrinc.com
I‐95 Skketch Intersta
ate Plan: Stakeeholder Invollvement Summ
mary, Augustt 2010 I-9
95 Sketch
h Interstatte Plan (S
SIP)
F
From
the India
an River / Breva
ard County Line
e to the Florida
a / Georgia Statte Line
App
pendix
xF
Stake
ehold
der Co
omme
ent
Ma
atrice
es
I‐95 Skketch Intersta
ate Plan: Stakeeholder Invollvement Summ
mary, Augustt 2010 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Comment
Number
Chapter
• All the topics look like good items to go over and briefly explain in the existing conditions report, but not to a PD&E or design level of detail.
Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
•
Maybe it is better to speak of the existing conditions in terms of constraints along the corridor that would prohibit or restrict the needed footprint to accommodate future travel demand.
• Highlight right of way constraints or other constraints contained in the sections listed under 2.0- Existing Conditions, 3.0- Existing Bridge Conditions, 4-Existing Traffic Conditions, or 5-Existing Environmental Conditions that would
1
affect the future sketch footprint.
• The items
listed under Existing Bridge Conditions look too detailed. Horizontal and Vertical Clearance can be discussed in general identifying any exceptions and the bridge condition and sufficiency rating is too much detail.
Existing
Conditions
Jennifer Fortunas, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Text added.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Text added.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Map added as directed.
Jim Green, FDOT
Text added.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
• All of the environmental conditions should be described at a view from 10,000 feet identifying only fatal flaws.
• It seems that all these topics are good items to put in the discussion, but do not need their own section. Some of the items will be just a couple of sentences. This existing conditions discussion should be very general and from a sketch
plan perspective.
B
C
D
It is District 2 policy to omit company logos from graphics within reports, and used for displays. It is my understanding this is a Department preference also. Request removing the consultant’s logo from all graphics in the Report
Throughout the document, nearly all of the geographic references are solely to milepost numbers along I‑95. Suggest adding physical references (“Main Street/ US 99 (321.0)”), as milepost locations mean nothing to most readers of
the document.
Comments about the Base Maps: 1) Add Seaports. 2) Add I-95 Rest Areas. 3) Need more contrast for the Exit Numbers, the yellow does not show well. 4) Airports - what does the symbol represent? Commercial service airports on the
SIS? 5) Patrick AFB - why is this the only military installation shown? Suggest removing it. 6) Jacksonville Inset - the symbol for Exit 353D should be at 8th Street, not the mainline ramp terminus.
The correct spelling of the local name of US 1 in south of the St. Johns River, in Duval County, is “Philips
F
The correct spelling of the local name of SR 152 is “Baymeadows
G
Throughout, the document refers to “20
H
(Clay, Duval, Nassau, St. Johns) Jacksonville metro area. Until late 2008, the organization (same coverage area) was known as the First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization. In other reports, we adopted the convention of always
th
Highway” – with only one “L”; it appears with two throughout the document. (Exits 339 and 348)
Road” – all one word, not two words as used throughout the document. (Exit 341)
Street ;” please use the proper designation: “Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway” which can be abbreviated “MLK Parkway”. (Exit 354)
As the MPO serving the Jacksonville area changed names recently, suggest adding a brief discussion, perhaps in the Introduction of Chapter 1. The North Florida Transportation Planning Organization is the MPO for the four-county
referring to the agency at the North Florida TPO, and to reports by the name current when the report was published (the name that would appear on the report).
1
2
3
General
Comments
E
I
General
Comments
At approximate milepost 9.690 of Roadway ID 72020000, in northern Duval County, there is a loop style entrance ramp from Clark Road to southbound I-95. No other movements are possible at this location. This entrance ramp is
only mentioned or depicted a few times in the Draft document, please add it throughout the report.
3.0 Roadway Conditions Right of Way: Add text to explain that "University Boulevard and south of Broward Road" segment is in Jacksonville/Duval County.
Speed Limits: Similiarly explain that "I-295 to … Pecan Park Road" segment is also in Jacksonville.
Bridges: Numerous bridges have been identified within the project corridor which, do not mee the Department's minimum vertical clearance standard of 16'6.
There appears to be a misplacement of a comma here. I believe it can be omitted entirely. Similar punctuation errors appear throughout the document.
General
Comments
General
Comments
General
Comments
General
Comments
General
Comments
General
Comments
Executive
Summary,
Page 2
Executive
Summary,
Page 3
LOS
Executive
This is the first appearance of the corridor regions “(southern, central, and northern)”; recommend adding a copy of Figure 1.1 here, which defines them
Summary,
Page 6
Jacksonville Metropolitan Area / Duval County / Nassau County
The data also suggest that there are quite a few trips occurring that begin in Jacksonville and end at the Jacksonville Beaches areas, including Neptune Beach and Atlantic Beach and from northwest Nassau County to the Fernandina
4
Beach area. It is assumed that some of those trips would likely utilize a portion of the I 95 corridor to the south of Downtown Jacksonville.
The phrase about Nassau County trips does not belong in this discussion about using I 95 south of Downtown Jacksonville. Suggest using part of it in the next passage:
As the majority of journey-to-work trips within Nassau County are from the northwestern part of the county to Fernandina Beach and Yulee, they would likely utilize other local routes since the majority of these trips are east-west.
5
Executive
Summary,
Page 7
St. Augustine Area
Executive
Typo about midway down the paragraph: “Since St. Johns County has experienced substantial growth …” (not “experience”)
Summary,
Page 7
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Comment
Number
Existing Freight Trends
6
“Truck VMT” is not a mode, strike VMT from the first sentence. Later, in the bullets, move “VMT” to the right of the hyphen:
Truck – VMT increased from …
Existing Freight Trends, last paragraph (from previous page)
7
8
[a] The segments overlap significantly, one goes from Indian River County to the City of Jacksonville, the other from Indian River County to Nassau County. Please verify the limits of the segments.
[b] Please verify the values in this paragraph, as they do not seem to correlate properly. One segment averages up to 300 tons per trip (600,000 tons / 2,000 trips), the other 20 tons per truck trip (20,000 tons / 1,000 trips).
Chapter
Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Executive
Summary,
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Noted.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Text added.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Noted.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Page 8
Executive
Summary,
Page 9
5.0 Environmental Considerations, paragraph 10 (section continued from prior page)
Executive
The noise abatement walls in Duval County are not in “downtown Jacksonville neighborhoods.” They are south of the downtown area.
Summary,
Page 10
9
5.0 Environmental Considerations, paragraph 11 (section continued from prior page)
Executive
Did the State of Florida recommend to EPA that any of the counties in the study corridor be Non-Attainment with the 2010 EPA designations?
Summary,
Page 10
10
5.0 Environmental Considerations, paragraph 13 (section continued from prior page)
Executive
I-95 crosses the St. Johns River in downtown Jacksonville; are there any flood plain issues at this location?
Summary,
Page 10
11
6.0 Crashes and Safety Review
Executive
It is not necessary to cite roadway section numbers in the last sentence of this section, when they have not been used previously.
Summary,
Page 10
Chapter 1 - Introduction
12
Recommend discussion of why the I-95 Sketch Plan stops at the Indian River / Brevard County Line. Why does the I-95 Sketch Plan omit the more than 150 miles south to the terminus of I-95 in Dade County?
1.2 Plan Development
13
In the first sentence, pluralize IOAR, as all the other items in the list are plural.
2.2 Previous Reports, Studies, and Transportation Plans
14
[a] Suggest grouping the studies to follow the already established “regions” pattern.
[b] The Draft Report makes later reference to the First Coast MPO Freight Mobility Study, recommend summarizing it here, also.
I-95 Overland Bridge VE Study
15
The VE Study also recommended changes in the configuration of some southbound exits within the Overland Bridge project area. This recommendation was also accepted by the Design Team.
Functional Classification Summary
16
Recommend adding a row with the county name at each county break; or a column with the county name.
Draft Report, 11
Draft Report, 16
Draft Report,
Pages 2-1 thru
2-8
Draft Report,
Page 2-2
Draft Report,
Table 2.6
Crossroad Functional Classifications
[a] As with Table 2.6, add County information.
[b] Add US / SR numbers to all such facilities
[c] Correction – should be “Old St. Augustine Rd. (Exit 335)” [“Old” is omitted]
17
[d] 72040443 – SR 115, Functional Classification = Urban Principal Arterial – Freeway & Expressway
[e] Adams Street – this is a local street, so the Functional Classification is likely Urban Collector
Draft Report,
Table 2.7
[f] Correction – should be “MLK Parkway (Exit 354A)” [not 20th Street]
[g] 7202048 – Broward Road, Functional Classification = Urban Collector
[h] Correction – should be “Dunn Ave. / Busch Dr. (Exit 360)” [not Dan Jones]
2.7 Intermodal Connections, SIS Facilities
18
[a] Paragraph 1 – suggest using “developed” rather than “founded” in the discussion of the SIS.
[b] Paragraph 4 – “approximately” three seaports? Don’t we know how many?
Intermodal Connections
19
The maps do not indicate Norfolk-Southern (N-S) or FEC railway corridors, all rail alignments are marked as CSX. (N-S will only appear on 2.3C)
Intermodal Connections – North Region
20
Add a “10” symbol for Dames Point / Blount Island, near the intersection of SR9A and SR105.
Draft Report,
Page 2-23
Draft Report,
Figure 2.3
Draft Report,
Figure 2.3C
SIS Intermodal Facilities and Connector Routes
Port of Jacksonville
21
[a] Apparent typo: there are two rows with only the word “boundary”.
[b] List omits the Jacksonville Cruise (Passenger) Terminal. The SIS Connector is: SR9A to SR105 (Zoo Parkway) to August Drive to the Terminal.
Draft Report,
Table 2.11
[c] All of the distances between the Port of Jacksonville and I 95 are shown as 3.0 miles, this cannot be, as they are in different locations.
2.8 ITS Infrastructure (section continued from prior page)
22
Recommend adding list of ITS features for the I 95 from I 295 S to I 10 segment, as shown for the next segment.
Draft Report,
Page 2-29
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Comment
Number
ITS Coverage – North
23
The map does not show the ITS features between I-10 and Airport/Duval Road. This may be because the source material (2002 FDOT I-95 ITS Corridor Implementation Plan) is dated.
Chapter
Draft Report,
Figure 2.4C
Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Section 2.10, Table 2.13 and Figure 2.5 Pavement Condition
24
[a] The text and table identify discrete conditions – Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor. The maps identify blended conditions – Good/Very Good, Fair/Good, etc. Recommend consistency.
[b] District 2 has two projects (2132172 and 2132175) for rigid pavement rehabilitation, from south of Greenland Road (near I-295S) to Atlantic Boulevard (south of the Fuller Warren Bridge) in FY2010/11. This seems more consistent
Draft Report,
Page 2-33
with the “Fair/Good” rating shown on the map, than the “Good” as indicated in the text and table.
Interchanges – St. Johns County
25
Exit 323 Correction – should be International Golf Parkway [not “Gold”]
Draft Report,
Table 2.14
Interchanges – Duval County
[a] Exit 337 – SR9A/I-295 – this is a System-to-System interchange
[b] Exits 346 / 346B – Bowden Road and University Boulevard – function as a Split Interchange, neither of them provides for all movements, they have to work together
[c] Exit 348 – Philips Hwy./US 1 – should be classified as “Y Intersection” or “Other”, it is not a Partial Diamond
[d] Exit 352A – Myrtle Avenue – there is no interchange with Myrtle Avenue, it was closed as part of the I-10 Interchange reconstruction. Should this be the I-10 Interchange? If so, it is a System-to-System type.
26
[e] Exit 353B – Union Street – typo, should be US 23 South (not North)
[f] Exit 353C – Kings Road – add US 23 North in the first column
Draft Report,
Table 2.14
[g] Exit 360 – correction
correction, should be “Dunn Ave
Ave. / Busch Drive”
Drive”, not “Dan Jones”
[h] Exit 362B – SR9A/I-295 – this is a System-to-System interchange
[i] Exit 363 – Airport Road – add SR 102 in first column
Interchanges – Nassau County
27
Exit 373 – SR 200 – correction, 2nd column should be SR 200/SR A1A
2.12 FDOT Work Plans, SIS/FIHS Plans, MPO Plans
28
Identify the fiscal years for which each of these plans is effective.
Draft Report,
Table 2.14
Draft Report,
Page 2-39
FDOT Five-Year Work Program Construction Projects
[a] Indicate which five fiscal years
29
[b] Add the Phase (PE, ROW, CST, etc.) from the Work Program
[c] Recommend sorting the projects geographically, at least by the three regions established for this study, and identifying the regions (or counties).
Draft Report,
Table 2.15
[d] 213337-3 Typo: “bridge” not “bride”
FDOT STIP Projects
30
Please add symbol or line color for Pavement Rehabilitation / Resurfacing.
Draft Report,
Figure 2.6
FIHS/SIS Plans
[a] Indicate which fiscal years
31
[b] Add the Phase (PE, ROW, CST, etc.) from the SIS Program
[c] Recommend sorting the projects geographically, at least by the three regions established for this study, and identifying the regions (or counties).
Draft Report,
Table 2.16
[d] 424026
424026-1 typo, should be “International”
“
i
” not “Internal”
“
”
MPO TIP I-95 Projects
[a] Indicate which five fiscal years
32
[b] Add the Phase (PE, ROW, CST, etc.) from the TIP
[c] Recommend sorting the projects geographically, at least by the three regions established for this study, and identifying the regions (or counties).
FDOT,SIS/FIHS, MPO Plans Summary
33
Some of the projects listed for the North Florida TPO 2030 LRTP have been completed; suggest identifying those projects. This may apply to the discussion of the other MPO LRTPs. This also applies to the relevant Tables.
Chapter 3 – Existing Bridge Conditions
34
The previous section (TIPs, Work Programs, etc.) lists a number of “bridge replacements,” yet there is no discussion in this chapter about this topic
Draft Report,
Tables 2.17
thru 2.21
Draft Report,
Page 2-46
Draft Report,
Page 3-1
Bridge Location Inventory
[a] Prior to the tables, provide an explanation of the “Condition” column, what is the range of possible scores? Is a “1” very good, or very bad? What is the meaning of the scores, for example, does a “2” require immediate
35
replacement?
[b] Often the Horizontal Clearance is the same as the Roadway Width; I infer from this there is no recovery clearance outside the roadway.
Draft Report,
Tables 3.1 thru
3.6
Duval County Bridges
[a] Just south of the Spring Glen Road underpass, there is a Pedestrian Overpass at MP14.187, #729007
[b] 720630 – Use “Riverside Ave.” as the local name, as US 17 is being relocated to another route.
36
[c] 720159 and 720462 – I-10 is not a “Partial Diamond”
[d] 720163 – Myrtle Avenue, goes over RR tracks, it is not a “direct connect” interchange.
[e] Between Kings Ave. and 8th Street, is a Pedestrian Overpass, at MP4.135, #729005.
[f] 720092 – Clark Road, this partial interchange provides 1 Loop Ramp in the NW quadrant, serving as an entrance to SB I-95
Draft Report,
Table 3.5
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Comment
Number
3.2 Vertical and Horizontal Clearance
37
In addition to providing the minimum vertical clearance over roadways, also provide the minimum vertical and horizontal clearance for Railroads; and identify those that are deficient.
Chapter
Draft Report,
Page 3-7
Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
3.2 Vertical and Horizontal Clearance
Request removing the word “simply” from this sentence:
38
In these cases, special techniques … include work on the approaches, or simply lowering the roadway profile beneath the bridge.
There may be nothing “simple” about such an effort, with potential problems ranging from drainage, to interference with bridge supports, to meeting the adjacent grade, and others.
3.3 Typical Sections – Interchange Types
39
Typo in the second line: paPrallel
40
The District 2 Modeling Coordinator provided comments on the methodology and related topics, in a separate email.
Draft Report,
Page 3-7
Draft Report,
Page 3-7
Chapter 4
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
4.4 Existing AADT
41
Although the “FDOT goal for this project” is LOS C, please note in the text that the FIHS/SIS Minimum LOS Standard for Rural Freeways is LOS B. LOS C applies to most other Freeway sections, except in large urbanized areas
(>500,000 population) like Jacksonville, where the Minimum Standard is LOS D.
Existing Traffic Volumes
42
The presentation is not logical, the diagrams read right-to-left across each page. Please revise these figures so they read in the normal left-to-right orientation.
Draft Report,
Page 4-6
Draft Report,
Figure 4.1
Existing Traffic Volumes
43
[a] Add “(Future)” to the River Crossing Interchange.
[b] Add the “SR 9B (Future)” interchange between the CR 210 and Old St. Augustine Road interchanges.
Existing Traffic Volumes
44
Add “St. Johns River” between the Palm Ave. and Park Street interchanges.
Draft Report,
Figure 4.1C
Draft Report,
Figure 4.1D
Existing Traffic Volumes
[a] Correction: it should be Forsyth St., not 4th Street.
45
[b] Add State St. to Kings Road
[c] Add Airport Road to Duval Road
Draft Report,
Figure 4.1E
[d] Correction: it should be SR 200 / SR A1A (not 1A)
AADT, Various Methods
46
What do the dashed horizontal lines represent? The key identifies these with different lane calls. If it is showing the “LOS C” volume for different lane calls, please identify this in the Figures. Although this is mentioned in the text, the
reference
f
is
i severall pages ffrom th
these Fi
Figures.
Draft Report,
Figure
Fi
4.3
43
4.7 Journey to Work – Jacksonville Metropolitan Area / Duval County / Nassau County
The data also suggest that there are quite a few trips occurring that begin in Jacksonville and end at the Jacksonville Beaches areas, including Neptune Beach and Atlantic Beach and from northwest Nassau County to the Fernandina
47
Beach area. It is assumed that some of those trips would likely utilize a portion of the I 95 corridor to the south of Downtown Jacksonville.
The phrase about Nassau County trips does not belong in this discussion about using I 95 south of Downtown Jacksonville. Suggest using part of it in the next passage:
Draft Report,
Page 4-34
As the majority of journey-to-work trips within Nassau County are from the northwestern part of the county to Fernandina Beach and Yulee, they would likely utilize other local routes since the majority of these trips are east-west.
First Coast MPO Freight Mobility Study 2006 Update
48
[a] Duval County – revise: “and reconstruction of I 95 at I-295/SR 9A North Interchange. Construction Improvement of an …”
[b] Port of Fernandina – revise: “11 miles of SR 200 / SR A1A from I 95 to the Amelia River Bridge from four to six lanes, in addition …”
Draft Report,
Page 4-36
Trends and Conditions
49
“Truck VMT” is not a mode, strike VMT from the first sentence. Later, in the bullets, move “VMT” to the right of the hyphen:
Truck – VMT increased from …
Florida Statewide Model – Commodity Flow
50
Please verify the values in this paragraph, as they do not seem to correlate properly. One segment averages up to 300 tons per trip (600,000 tons / 2,000 trips), the other 20 tons per truck trip (20,000 tons / 1,000 trips).
Existing
g Land Use
51
The accompanying Figures have significant areas shaded for “Conservation Areas.” These Tables do not have a corresponding “Conservation Area” column. Please either add this column, or identify via footnotes to the Tables, in
which of the other categories it is included.
Existing Land Use
52
Typo in the bottom row – should be “Regional Land Use” not “Lanud”
Draft Report,
Page 4-37
Draft Report,
Page 4-38
Draft
Report,
D ft R
t
Tables 5.1 thru
5.3
Draft Report,
Tables 5.1 thru
5.3
St. Johns
53
Typo: should be SR 16, not SR 19.
Draft Report,
Page 5-13
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Comment
Number
Chapter
Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Duval County
[a] Flagler Center – this DRI includes a hospital that does not appear in the description.
[b] The Avenues – I am not aware of a hotel within the Avenues.
54
[c] Freedom Commerce Center – to match wetland permits, this DRI has reduced the proposed size (square footage) significantly from the original approval.
[d] Bay Meadows [sic] Shopping Mall – it is difficult to tell from the description to which of several shopping centers at this intersection this refers. If it is the one in the NW quadrant at Old Baymeadows at Southside Boulevard, it is
Draft Report,
Page 5-15
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Text added.
Jim Green, FDOT
Noted.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Ji Green,
G
Jim
FDOT
C
t d throughout
th
h t document.
d
t
Corrected
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
now a campus of Florida State College of Jacksonville (formerly Florida Community College of Jacksonville).
Downtown Jacksonville DRIs
55
I do not believe either the Northside West or Downtown DRIs are “100% built out”.
Draft Report,
Page 5-16
5.3 Community Facilities
56
There does not appear to be any clear distinction between “Community Facilities” and “Institutions” in the text and tables of this section. All of the “Institutions” also appear in the “Community Facilities” tables. Is the Northern
Region the only one where some of these entities border I 95? It is the only one with the distinction in the tables (however unclear it is).
Institutions
57
Please revise the title to: Institutions that Border I-95 – Northern Region, and make similar revisions to the tables in the other regions.
Draft Report,
Page 5-17
Draft Report,
Table 5.6
Community Facilities
[a] Please revise the title to: Community Facilities within 0.5 mile of I-95 – Northern Region, and make similar revisions to the tables in the other regions.
[b] Following is a partial list of “community facilities” omitted, there are others, including additional schools and churches:
i. The Museum of Science and History (MOSH)
58
ii. Prime Osborn Convention Center
iii. Salvation Army
Draft Report,
Table 5.7
iv. Florida State College of Jacksonville (FSCJ) – Downtown Campus (formerly Florida Community College of Jacksonville)
v. Shands Hospital at Jacksonville
vi. Stanton College Preparatory School (a public high school)
5.4 Activity Centers
59
Please define the terms “Activity Center” and “Mixed Use” as used here.
5.5 Cultural Features
60
The list that begins here does not appear to be a “list of archaeological sites,” but a list of studies and assessments.
Wetlands and Water Drainage Basins
61
Recommend modifying the Figures so “Wetlands” are the most prominent feature, not “Drainage Basins.” For the purposes of a Sketch Plan, impacts to wetlands seem the more important factor.
Conservation Lands and Wildlife Corridors
62
Organize this list in Regions, and south-to-north, as all other information in the report. As presented, the list is random.
Draft Report,
Page 5-20
Draft Report,
Page 5-21
Draft Report,
Figure 5.2
Draft Report,
Page 5-30
Endangered Species and Habitats, Northern Region
63
[a] Typo – the first sentence refers to the “central region”, not northern.
[b] There are several preservation areas adjacent to or near I 95 in the Northern Region; most notably, the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, in northeastern Duval County, which extends across I 95.
Draft Report,
Page 5-31
Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System
The Note says, in part:
64
The ranking system … habitat values ranging from 1 to 10 … which collectively represent quality habitat. The higher the habitat score the higher the quality of the habitat.
The text (Page 5-31) says the range is from 1-10 (best to worst). In that case, a low score (with all or mostly “1” scores) would represent the “best” habitat.
Draft Report,
Figure 5.3
5.7 Physical Environment, Northern Region
65
[a] Typo – the first sentence refers to the “central region”, not northern.
[b] Noise – The noise abatement walls in Duval County are not in “downtown Jacksonville neighborhoods.” They are south of the downtown area.
Draft Report,
Page 5-35
Brownfields
[a] Please provide additional location information, beyond the names.
66
[b] “Cecil Field” is more than 10 miles west of I 95, remove it from this list.
[c] There are several Ash Dump contamination sites adjacent to, or near, I 95; some had to be remediated as part of the I-10 / I-95 interchange reconstruction project. Others are subject to future remediation.
5.8 Drainage and Floodplains
67
II-95
95 crosses th
the St
St. JJohns
h River
Ri
near downtown
d
t
Jacksonville,
J k
ill and
d crosses the
th Trout
T
t River,
Ri
a major
j ttributary
ib t
off th
the St
St. JJohns
h River,
Ri
about
b t five
fi miles
il north
th off downtown
d
t
Jacksonville.
J k
ill Both
B th have
h
associated
i t d floodplains.
fl d l i
Draft Report,
Page 5-36
Draft Report,
Page 5-37
5.9 Sinkhole Susceptibility …
This paragraph does not appear to be internally consistent:
68
Per Florida Geological Survey data there is only one example of a sinkhole within the entire study area limits.
Then, a couple sentences later:
Draft Report,
Page 5-41
The area between Daytona Beach and St. Augustine indicates numerous sinkholes with cohesive clay sediments …
5.10 Hurricane Damage Susceptibility – Northern Region
[a] Suggest the report identify the locations of the several “medium” to “medium high” risk areas.
69
[b] Although not a “damage” issue, it is definitely a “hurricane” issue – the I 95 bridge across the St. Johns River (Fuller Warren Bridge) is susceptible to closure once wind speeds reach an established velocity (typically 40 mph). As this
is a major evacuation route for the east coast, this can be an issue.
Draft Report,
Page 5-41
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Comment
Number
Chapter
Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Chapter 6 – Existing Safety Conditions
70
The first sentence is much too long; recommend splitting it so the following comprises the first sentence. The deleted text can be added to the methodology explanations which follow.
This Chapter of the I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan (SIP) Existing Conditions Report identifies high crash roadway segments within the study area.
Chapter 6 – Existing Safety Conditions
71
Instead of “all available crashes,” I believe the CARS Database compiles only “long form” accident reports, which tend to be the more severe crashes.
Draft Report,
Page 6-1
Draft Report,
Page 6-1
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green
Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document
document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green
Corrected throughout document.
6.2 High Crash Frequency Locations (section continued from prior page)
72
Remove extra word:
The majority of the corridor does not have lighting with the exception of the Jacksonville area, near interchanges, and at truck
Draft Report,
rest areas.
Page 6-2
Duval County – Roadway ID 72280000
73
and Roadway ID 72020000
Draft Report,
[a] Provide the “from” and “to” of this (and the other Duval) sections.
Pages 6-4 and
[b] The text says “I-95 in Duval County has lighting along the corridor in the Jacksonville area …” Yet, the column heading in the corresponding Tables (6.7 and 6.8) says “Light Condition Dark (No Street Light)” Please be consistent.
2007 I-95 Sip Study Area Crash Statistics
74
[a] Typo in title “SIP” should be all caps.
[b] Recommend using “I-95” in the titles of these two tables A and B), instead of “Study Area.” The latter could imply inclusion of cross roads or other facilities.
Statewide and District Statistics
75
Does footnote 2 say that the District statistics include other Interstates within the respective Districts? For example, I-10, I-75, and I-295 in D2. Please clarify.
Crash Rates and Historical Trends (section continued from prior page)
76
Is there an objective value, above which a segment is considered a “high crash rate” segment? This section uses a great many numbers, averages, and ratios, but never says, “When the Crash Rate exceeds X.XX, the segment is
considered a ‘High Crash Rate Segment’.” This would be useful to put Figure 6.2 – High Crash Roadway Segments in perspective.
6-5
Draft Report,
Table 6.9
Draft Report,
Table 6.9C
Draft Report,
Page 6-5,
et.seq.
Crash Rates and Historical Trends (section continued from prior page)
The following sentence is circular reasoning:
77
The average crash rates for the rural and urban high crash segments are higher than both the state-wide
state wide average and the corridor-wide
corridor wide average,
average which allows the conclusion that these locations are high crash segments.
segments
The crash rates in high-crash areas are higher than the average that includes low crash areas, therefore they are high. Please remove this sentence.
Crash Rates, 2003-2007
78
In the Legend, recommend having one of the break-points between colors use the “high crash” threshold discussed above.
79
Each of the “high crash” segments discussed here is identified by letter (e.g. “Duval County – Location A”). Please use these letters on the appropriate Figures (6.2 and 6.4).
Draft Report,
p
Page 6-7
Draft Report,
Figure 6.4
Draft Report,
Pages 6-20 and
6-21
Duval County Transit (section continued from prior page)
Skyway – There are other Skyway stations “in the vicinity” of I-95. The Kings Avenue Station is approximately 350 feet north of I 95, and the garage serving this station is a similar distance south of I-95 (as noted later on this same
80
page). The other two Skyway stations on the Jacksonville Southbank (San Marco and Riverplace) are both within one-quarter mile of I-95. North of the St. Johns River, in addition to the Convention Center Station mentioned in the
report, the Jefferson Street Station is one-half mile from I-95, and, of course, the guideway connecting the stations is “near” I-95.
Draft Report,
Page 7-8
I include these because, earlier in the report, one-half mile was considered “in the vicinity” of I 95.
Duval County Transit (section continued from prior page)
81
Two typos in the bullets about Park-n-Ride lots:
[a] “Bulter” should be “Butler”
[b] “Warren Fuller Bridge” should be “Fuller Warren Bridge”
Multi-Use Facilities
82
Add: S-Line Multi-Use Trail, crosses under I-95 adjacent to 13th Street north of the 8th Street interchange, in Duval County. Roadway ID 72020000, MP 4.90 (approx.).
Draft Report,
Page 7-8
Draft Report,
Page 7-9
Farmton proposed Comp Plan Amendment (2060 Plan)
Melissa Booker, Volusia County,
2 new interchanges in S. Volusia County & N. Brevard County
Transportation Planner
6800 pm peak hour external trips thru 2025
Corrected throughout document.
Volusia County ECO - Environmental Conservation Overlay District Please email & I'll provide information.
Stakeholder
I was invited to this meeting without being provided with information on what the project was about. It would be helpful to attach the Executive Study in the email/invitation.
Meeting
Melissa Booker, Volusia County,
General
Transportation Planner
Corrected throughout document.
Comment
Stakeholder
Status of DRI in St. Johns County have changed due to economy. No DRI in… DRI's rarely build-out and never as originally planned.
Meeting
Denise Bunnewith, North
General
Florida TPO
Corrected throughout document.
Comment
Stakeholder
It is important to document where traffic is coming from before suggesting 14 lanes are needed. Local traffic is contributing to congestion and needs to be removed by off SIS improvement.
Meeting
Denise Bunnewith, North
General
Florida TPO
Comment
Corrected throughout document.
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Comment
Number
Chapter
Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Future
83
Conditions
Page I-4. Add SIS to the listing of project types in the last paragraph.
Report
John Zielinski, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
John Zielinski, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
John Zielinski, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Comment
Future
84
Page 7-20. Although the percetnage trucks in northern Brevard is greater than 20%, the volumes are only between10 and 15K. A volume threshold for feasibility should also be established as they did in the Georgia Study. The lower
Conditions
Report
volume at this location at least needs to be mentioned here.
Comment
Future
85
Conditions
Figure 2.1b identifies Orange City as Ocean City - needs to be corrected
Report
Comment
Future
Conditions
86
Throughout the document, the local name of the portion of US 1 in southern Duval County is misspelled; it should be Philips
(with one “L”).
Report,
General
Comment
Future
Conditions
87
Throughout the document, please update all references to the “First
Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization ” to the “North Florida Transportation Planning Organization.”
Report,
General
Comment
Future
Conditions
88
I only reviewed the text and tables pertaining to the three District 2 counties. Some of these comments may also apply to the District 5 sections. I did not review the figures in the appendices.
Report,
General
Comment
Future
89
Executive Summary – Current and Future Built Environment
- Consider adding the number of MPOs that I-95 traverses.
Conditions
Report, Page i
90
Executive Summary – Future Traffic Demand
- Briefly discuss that these traffic assignments, and the resultant lane-calls, are from “all-or-nothing” model runs, with unconstrained demand. - Recommend adding a sentence to
say (or similar wording): Lane-calls of this magnitude should prompt serious consideration of transit and other alternatives to single-occupant vehicles to main line I-95 capacity expansion.
Future
Conditions
Report, Page ii
Future
91
1.3 Stakeholder Involvement (from prior page) – last paragraph
- In addition to being responsible for LRTP updates, the MPO/TPOs … are deeply involved in their respective region regions for suggesting and implementing transportation
planning and growth management policies, … Besides the typo, are MPOs involved in “implementing growth management policies ”? Isn’t this a function of local governments?
Conditions
Report, Page 14
Future
92
1.4 Relationships with Other Plans/Agencies
Conditions
- Please add, and list, recent Interstate Master Plans.
Report, Page 14
Future
93
2.1 Future Land Use – St. Johns County
- Suggest modification: “… attractive to both residents , visitors, and businesses .” Tourism is important to St. Johns County, especially the historic St. Augustine area. - “All expectations
are that the population should show similar growth between 2007 and 2010.” I do not believe this to be true with the virtual halting of residential development during this time.
Conditions
Report, Page 22
2.1 Future Land Use – Nassau County (from prior page), last paragraph
94
- The last paragraph does not appear to be internally consistent. The first sentence says: With the continued success of the timber industry in the central and
western portions of the County, anticipated future development is mostly expected in the eastern half of the county between Yulee and Fernandina Beach . But the remainder of the paragraph talks about… substantial
residential changes east of Yulee and immediately surrounding Callahan in the western portion of the County . - And: To the west of the SR 200/SR A1A (exit 373) interchange over 3,000 acres are scheduled to be developed
as residential and mixed use . - Table 2.2 DRIs near I-95 - Exit #335 (Old St. Augustine Road) is in Duval County, not St. Johns.
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 24
Future
95
Table 2.2 DRIs near I-95
Conditions
- Exit #335 (Old St. Augustine Road) is in Duval County, not St. Johns.
Report Page 2Report,
5
2.2 Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) – St. Johns County
96
- The text and table are not consistent: There are approximately twelve (12) DRIs within a ten (10) mile long by fifteen (15) mile wide stretch of northern St. Johns County
…
Table 2.2 lists only eight (8) or ten (10) if you count the two Duval DRIs. - Later in the paragraph, the erroneous location of the Old St. Augustine Road exit in St. Johns County continues. This exit is approximately 3.3 miles north of the
6
county line.
3.1 Employment Centers and Proposed High Growth Development Areas – Duval County (continued from prior page)
97
- US 1/ Phillips Philips Highway parallels I-95 from just south of the St. Johns River to approximately a half-mile
north of the I‑295 interchange . US 1 and I-95 have an interchange approximately one-half mile north of the I‑295 interchange, but the roadways continue to be roughly parallel into St. Johns County, intersecting again in
southern St. Johns County. - The corridor includes several high-rise commercial developments located near I-95 and SR 9A . There are no high-rise developments near the I-95 / SR 9A interchange. The closest might be the midrise medical center at the Old St. Augustine Road exit, to the south.
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 2-
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 32
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Comment
Number
Chapter
Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Future
98
3.1 Employment Centers and Proposed High Growth Development Areas – Nassau County…
utilize the US 1 / US 301 corridor which connects to I-295 in Duval County . - US 1 and US 301 are not the same roadway south of
Callahan. US 1 does intersect I-295, with the local name “New Kings Road” in northwest Duval County. US 301 intersects with I-10 in Baldwin, in extreme western Duval County.
Conditions
Report, Page 3-
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Text added.
Jim Green
Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document
document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
2
st
99
3.2 Future Population and Employment Density, 1
Future
paragraph - Mention that the North Florida TPO was developing their 2035 LRTP using updated NERPM data, but adoption in November 2009 was too late to include in the
Conditions
Report, Page 3-
SIP.
2
Future
100
3.2 Future Population and Employment Density – Duval County
- Two minor corrections in the first sentence: There are … for Duval County including the beach communities cities of Atlantic Beach, … the City Town of Baldwin
Conditions
Report, Page 3-
in …
4
Future
101
4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – St. Johns County
- If you are going to discuss, and dismiss, the “minor parallel facility ” of SR A1A, consider similar treatment for SR 13.
Conditions
Report, Page 45
4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Duval County
102
- Revise the explanation of the corridors discussed in the Nassau County section: It should be noted that both US 1 (New Kings Road) and US 17 (Main Street) in northern Duval
County, are mentioned included in the Nassau County section as they relate to parallel routes in Nassau County and portions of Northern Duval County . - Add SR 115 to the discussion. South and east of the St. Johns River, it
provides a parallel alternative as Southside Boulevard and the Arlington Expressway to the Mathews Bridge. North and west of the river, the parallel facility is via Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Lem Turner Road.
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 46
Future
103
4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Duval County, SR 9A
- At its intersection with SR 9A, Atlantic Boulevard is not limited access, it is an arterial with frequent driveways and several signalized intersections. - The description of the
number of lanes on SR 9A is incorrect, the only current six-lane section is the Napoleon B. Broward (Dames Point) Bridge, from SR 105 (Heckscher Drive) to SR 116 (Merrill Road).
Conditions
Report, Page 46
4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Duval County, First Coast Outer Beltway
104
- What is the source of the “2030 ” expected completion date? - Include that the Department anticipates that this facility will be a Public-Private
Partnership, and thus a toll facility. If the PPP occurs within the next few years, we expect it will be open to traffic much sooner than 2030. If the PPP does not happen, we do not have any plans or funding to complete the
project.
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 46
Future
105
4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Nassau County, US 17
- US 17 continues south into Duval County and downtown Jacksonville where it becomes a four-lane facility. - US 17 (Main Street) becomes four lanes at New Berlin Road, just
north of I‑295, near Jacksonville International Airport, approximately nine miles north of downtown.
Conditions
Report, Page 47
nd
106
4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Nassau County, SR A1A, 2
Future
paragraph -To the east of the interchange, SR A1A continues east onto Amelia Island where it turns south and follows the coast into Duval County …Actually, east of the
bridge, SR A1A turns north to Fernandina Beach, then south along the coast to Duval County.
Conditions
Report, Page 47
Future
107
4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Transit Facilities
- It is the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (not Transit ). Please review document for other instances.
Conditions
Report, Page 48
Future
108
4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Passenger Rail Facilities
- From Orlando, Amtrak also serves Tampa.
Conditions
Report, Page 48
Future
109
4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Passenger Rail Facilities (from prior page)
- The application for ARRA funding for the Amtrak on FEC service refers to 90 mph speeds, I do not believe that meets the definition of “High Speed
Conditions
Report, Page 4-
Rail”.
9
Future
110
Table 4.3 Anticipated Projects…
- Page number 4-12 appears on each page Table 4.3, followed by page 4‑13 with text. - There are several inconsistencies (in the D2 counties) between this table, and both the 2030 LRTP or
the 2035 LRTP Cost Feasible plans of the North Florida TPO. - There are also some errors in the representation of specific projects. If requested, I can provide a detailed review of this table.
Conditions
Report, Page 412
Future
111
4.4 Major Future Roadway and Transit Projects
- Identify the data source for these future projects. Also identify the proposed roadway type (limited access / divided arterial /other as appropriate) and number of lanes.
Conditions
Report, Page 413
Future
112
4.4 St. Johns County
- I-95 Mainline Widening – completion by 2018 is dependent upon concurrent implementation of the First Coast Outer Beltway (FCOB). Without the FCOB, this project has a much longer time-line. -
CR 2209 Extension Projects – please note the number of lanes and roadway type proposed (4-lane divided arterial).
Conditions
Report, Page 415
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Comment
Number
4.4 St. Johns County – First Coast Outer Beltway
113
- Revise the first sentence: The First Coast Outer Beltway is a proposed limited access southwest outer- bypass beginning in western of Jacksonville connecting at I-10 and extending
south I-95 through Duval, Clay County, and terminating at I-95 between the International Golf Parkway and CR 210 interchanges in St. Johns Counties County (the locally preferred alternative). - The last sentence says
completion is not anticipated until 2030. If we implement the Public-Private Partnership in the next year or two, we anticipate completion much sooner. - Please add that if the PPP comes to fruition, this will be a toll facility.
4.4 Duval County – I-95 Main Line Widening 114
FDOT is intending to widen (one lane northbound and one lane southbound) several sections of I-95 … including: …from exit 344 (SR 202 / Turner Butler Boulevard) to exit 347 (Emerson St.
/ ALT US 1), exit 356 (Norwood/Lem Turner Road) to exit 362 (I-295 / SR 9A), and exit 363 (Duval Road / International Airport) to the Nassau County line. - The Department has completed all of these improvements, bringing the
mainline of I-95 to six lanes, over the last few years. There are no current plans to go to eight lanes, except from the St. Johns County line to I-295 / SR 9A South (which I omitted from the above quote).
4.4 Duval County – SR 9B
Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 4-
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green
Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document
document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
16
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 416
- Suggest some minor rewording: SR 9B is a planned limited access freeway in south east of Jacksonville in both Duval and St. Johns Counties. Its northern … will continue southwest and connect to I-95 at a
new interchange near the county line. SR 9B is anticipated to … Northern northern St. Johns County. And eventually connect to the planned First Coast Outer Beltway . - Strike the remainder of the paragraph (after the above
115
Chapter
sentence), and replace with: “In March 2010 a Design-Build project began for the segment between US 1 (Philips Hwy.) and SR 9A; completion of this four-lane limited access connection is expected in the summer of 2012.
Final design and right-of-way phases continue for the segment between I-95 and US 1, including the interchanges at both facilities. There is no construction funding programmed at present, beyond the current Design-Build
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 416
project.”
Tables 5.1d, 5.1e, and 5.1f
116
- These tables for St. Johns, Duval, and Nassau Counties appear to be lists of all projects along or near I-95, which may or may not have associated bridge construction. - What is the source of the
“Completion Date ” information? Just using Duval County as an example of some of the numerous errors: Mathews Bridge replacement – not by 2011; The two US 1 projects – not by 2011; I-95 @ Airport Road Flyover –
not this year; I-95 @ MLK – not 2012; And others - The list omits a major bridge replacement project (2133043) the I‑95 Overland Bridge Replacement, from the south end of the Fuller Warren Bridge to north of San
Future
Conditions
Report, Pages
5-3 through 5-5
Diego Road, a Design-Build project to begin in FY 2011/12 and take five years to complete.
Future
117
4.4 Nassau County
- For the interchange projects, there is one (1) potential new interchange, and one (1) interchange modification, not two new interchanges.
Conditions
Report, Page 5-
6.1 Future Multimodal Facilities – Duval County – Airport Facilities - Jacksonville International Airport
118
– in addition to the industrial development mentioned, JIA is undergoing a significant reconstruction of the passenger
Future
terminal. - Craig Municipal Airport – “… and helps divert general aviation traffic … ” - Herlong Airport – “… lies nine (9) miles west of I-95, along and 2 miles south of I-10, outside Jacksonville and is a … ” - Cecil Field – as
Conditions
with Herlong, strike “outside Jacksonville ” as Jacksonville comprises nearly all of Duval County. Add, “With its 12,500 foot runway, Cecil Field was recently designated as a commercial Space Port for horizontal launch and
Report, Pages
6-2 and 6-3
landing spacecraft.”
Future
119
6.1 Duval – Other Facilities
- Note several minor corrections: The Jacksonville Regional Intermodal Transportation Center was awarded funding in 2008 for design , right-of-way acquisition and construction of a multimodal … housing
… and the First Coast Metropolitan North Florida Transportation Planning Organization, all located … The latter later phases … 876 vehicles, an Amtrak and Commuter Rail terminal …
Conditions
Report, Page 64
7.1 Traffic Methodology, 2
120
nd
paragraph - Regarding the reference, “[The NERPM] travel demand model was used to obtain traffic volume forecasts within the FDOT District 2 region .” - Specify that NERPM 2030, as the NERPM 2035
is now available, and there may be some confusion about extrapolating model values to 2035. - Does “within the FDOT District 2 region ” refer to the region within the I-95 SIP corridor? NERPM-2030 only covered Clay,
Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns counties, not the entire District. Perhaps it would be clearer to specify the I-95 counties covered by NERPM.
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 71
Future
121
7.3 Horizon Year (2035) Traffic … (from prior page)
- The first full paragraph on the page (“A minimum LOS …”) refers variously to minimum LOS standards for the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) and the State
Highway System (SHS) . It is more appropriate to refer to LOS standards for the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) for I-95.
Conditions
Report, Page 72
Future
122
7.4 Existing LOS and Horizon Year Lane Calls, and Table 7.4
- Add an explanation
p
to each county’s
y text and a note to each table that the Horizon Year volumes are based on unconstrained model runs. Although
g the section
introduction mentions it, this is important enough to warrant repeating in each discussion and table to avoid misunderstanding.
Conditions
Report Pages
Report,
7-4 through 713
Future
123
Table 7.4d St. Johns County Horizon Year Lane Calls
- I believe each of the “Other Urban ” Area Type designations should be “Transitioning” as the area is outside the Jacksonville Urbanized Census boundary, and inside the
Planning/TPO Boundary. Please review to determine if this affects the LOS and lane-call determination.
Conditions
Report, Page 710
Future
124
7.4 Horizon Year Lane Calls – Duval County
- See earlier note (Comment #26) regarding “FDOT intending to widen (one lane northbound and one lane southbound) several sections of I-95 within Duval County … ”
Conditions
Report, Page 710
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Comment
Number
Chapter
Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Future
125
7.4 Horizon Year Lane Calls – Duval County (from prior page)
- I am disappointed the summary does not mention “transit” as a possible means to mitigate some of the projected demand.
Conditions
Report, Page 7-
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
Jim Green, FDOT
Corrected throughout document.
11
Future
126
Table 7.4f Nassau County Horizon Year Lane Calls
- I believe each of the “Other Urban ” Area Type designations should be “Transitioning” as the area is outside the Jacksonville Urbanized Census boundary, and inside the
Planning/TPO Boundary. Please review to determine if this affects the LOS and lane-call determination.
Conditions
Report, Page 713
Table 7.5a Volume Minus Capacity Methodology … (and related text)
- Do the values in this table represent volumes exceeding capacity on a daily (from AADT) or hourly (peak hour or DHV) basis? The subsequent county
tables use AADT. However, the maximum threshold in this table is 650 vehicles more than the capacity of the roadway (freeway/expressway). If this is a daily value, and assuming 10% of AADT is during the peak hour that
127
would be 65 more vehicles than the peak hour capacity. This very small percentage of hourly lane capacities (about 1 vehicle per minute), and does not seem to justify the remedies indicated in the table. If the thresholds
are hourly values (>650 vehicles per hour/per lane), the calculations in the individual county tables should be adjusted to synchronize the hourly thresholds and daily (AADT) traffic. This recalculation my affect the
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 714
recommended improvements.
Chapter 8 Recommendations Bullet 5
128
- “Passenger rail … is being considered … as a viable option to roadway expansion, requires substantial financial improvements. Currently, those finances do not exist … ” - Suggest replacing the
word “improvements ” with “investments”. - However, roadway expansion also requires “substantial financial investment .” Part of the reason “those finances do not exist ” is due to policy decisions made by FDOT and local
agencies regarding use of flexible transportation dollars.
Future
Conditions
Report, Page 81
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
1
Comment
Page 1.4. Add SIS to the listing of project types in the last paragraph.
Chapter Comment Made By
1
John Zielinski
A volume threshold for feasibility should also be established as they did in the Georgia Study. The lower volume at this location
7
John Zielinski
at least needs to be mentioned here.
3
4
5
6
Figure 2.1b. Orange City in Volusia County is identified on the figure as Ocean City.
Throughout the document, the local name of the portion of US 1 in southern Duval County is misspelled; it should be "Philips"
(with one "L")
Throughout the document, please update all references to the "First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization" to the "North
Florida Transportation Planning Organization".
Add total number of MPOs through which I-95 traverses to Executive Summary - Current and Future Built Environment
Text added to document
MODIFY LAST SENTENCE: The portions of I-95 through
Page7-20. Although the percentage trucks in northern Brevard is greater than 20%, the volumes are only between 10 and 15K.
2
Revision/Notes
northern Brevard with relatively lower total traffic
volumes are the only portions of the corridor reflecting
significant truck percentages.
2
John Zielinski
Corrected throughout document.
A
Jim Green
Corrected throughout document.
A
Jim Green
Corrected throughout document.
E
Jim Green
Done
E
Jim Green
Text added to document
E
Jim Green
Text added to document
1
Jim Green
Corrected throughout document.
1
Jim Green
Text added to document
Pa e i,
Page
i Executive
E ec ti e Summary
S mmar – F
Future
t re Traffic Demand
7
[a] Briefly discuss that these traffic assignments, and the resultant lane-calls, are from “all-or-nothing” model runs, with
unconstrained demand.
Page i, Executive Summary – Future Traffic Demand [b] Recommend adding a sentence to say (or similar wording):
8
Lane-calls of this magnitude should prompt serious consideration of transit and other alternatives to single-occupant vehicles to
main line I-95 capacity expansion.
Page 1-4, Section 1.3 Stakeholder Involvement (from prior page) – last paragraph
In addition to being responsible for LRTP updates, the MPO/TPOs … are deeply involved in their respective region regions for
9
suggesting and implementing transportation planning and growth management policies, …Besides the typo, are MPOs involved
in “implementing growth management policies”? Isn’t this a function of local governments?
Page 1-4, Section 1.4 Relationships with Other Plans/Agencies
10
Please add, and list, recent Interstate Master Plans.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Chapter Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Page 2-2, Section 2.1 Future Land Use – St. Johns County
[a] Suggest modification: “… attractive to both residents, visitors, and businesses.” Tourism is important to St. Johns County,
11
especially the historic St. Augustine area.
[b] “All expectations are that the population should show similar growth between 2007 and 2010.” I do not believe this to be
2
Jim Green
Text added to document
2
Jim Green
Text modified.
2
Jim Green
Text modified.
2
Jim Green
Text modified.
3
Jim Green
Reworded
3
Jim Green
Reworded
true with the virtual halting of residential development during this time.
Page 2-4, Section 2.1 Future Land Use – Nassau County (from prior page), last paragraph
The last paragraph does not appear to be internally consistent. The first sentence says:
With the continued success of the timber industry in the central and western portions of the County, anticipated future
development is mostly expected in the eastern half of the county between Yulee and Fernandina Beach.
12
But the remainder of the paragraph talks about
… substantial residential changes east of Yulee and immediately surrounding Callahan in the western portion of the County.
And:
To the west of the SR 200/SR A1A (exit 373) interchange over 3,000 acres are scheduled to be developed as residential and
mixed use.
13
Page 2-5 Table 2.2 DRIs near I-95
E i #335 (Old S
Exit
St. A
Augustine
i R
Road)
d) iis iin D
Duvall C
County, not S
St. JJohns.
h
Page 2-6. Table 2.2 lists only eight (8) or ten (10) if you count the two Duval DRIs.
2.2
Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) – St. Johns County
[a] The text and table are not consistent:
14
There are approximately twelve (12) DRIs within a ten (10) mile long by fifteen (15) mile wide stretch of northern St. Johns
County
[b] Later in the paragraph, the erroneous location of the Old St. Augustine Road exit in St. Johns County continues. This exit is
approximately 3.3 miles north of the county line.
Page 3-2. 3.1 Employment Centers and Proposed High Growth Development Areas – Duval County (continued from prior
page)
15
[a] US 1/Phillips Philips Highway parallels I-95 from just south of the St. Johns River to approximately a half-mile north of the I
295 interchange. US 1 and I-95 have an interchange approximately one-half mile north of the I 295 interchange, but the
roadways continue to be roughly parallel into St. Johns County, intersecting again in southern St. Johns County.
Page 3-2. Section 3.1. [b] The corridor includes several high-rise commercial developments located near I-95 and SR 9A. There are
16
no high-rise developments near the I-95 / SR 9A interchange. The closest might be the mid-rise medical center at the Old St.
Augustine Road exit, to the south.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Chapter Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Page 3-2. Section 3.1 Employment Centers and Proposed High Growth Development Areas – Nassau County
… utilize the US 1 / US 301 corridor which connects to I-295 in Duval County.
17
US 1 and US 301 are not the same roadway south of Callahan. US 1 does intersect I-295, with the local name “New Kings
3
Jim Green
Reworded
3
Jim Green
Text added to document
3
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
SR 13 isn't continuous through the corridor.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Reference removed.
Road” in northwest Duval County. US 301 intersects with I-10 in Baldwin, in extreme western Duval County.
Page 3-2 Section 3.2 Future Population and Employment Density, 1st paragraph
18
Mention that the North Florida TPO was developing their 2035 LRTP using updated NERPM data, but adoption in November
2009 was too late to include in the SIP.
Page 3-4 Section 3.2 Future Population and Employment Density – Duval County
19
Two minor corrections in the first sentence:
There are … for Duval County including the beach communities cities of Atlantic Beach, … the City Town of Baldwin in …
Page 4-5 Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – St. Johns County
20
If you are going to discuss, and dismiss, the “minor parallel facility” of SR A1A, consider similar treatment for SR 13.
Page 4-6 Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Duval County
[a] Revise the explanation of the corridors discussed in the Nassau County section:
21
It should be noted that both US 1 (New Kings Road) and US 17 (Main Street) in northern Duval County, are mentioned
included in the Nassau County section as they relate to parallel routes in Nassau County and portions of Northern Duval
County.
Page 4-6 Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Duval County [b] Add SR 115 to the discussion. South and east of the St.
22
Johns River, it provides a parallel alternative as Southside Boulevard and the Arlington Expressway to the Mathews Bridge.
North and west of the river, the parallel facility is via Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Lem Turner Road.
Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Duval County, SR 9A
23
[a] At its intersection with SR 9A, Atlantic Boulevard is not limited access, it is an arterial with frequent driveways and several
signalized intersections.
Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Duval County, SR 9A
24
[b] The description of the number of lanes on SR 9A is incorrect,
the only current six-lane section is the Napoleon B. Broward (Dames Point) Bridge, from SR 105 (Heckscher Drive) to SR 116
(Merrill Road).
Page 4-6 Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Duval County, First Coast Outer Beltway
25
[a] What is the source of the “2030” expected completion date? COMMENT: I don't see such a reference.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Page 4-6 Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Duval County, First Coast Outer Beltway
26
Chapter Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
[b] Include that the Department
anticipates that this facility will be a Public-Private Partnership, and thus a toll facility. If the PPP occurs within the next few
years, we expect it will be open to traffic much sooner than 2030. If the PPP does not happen, we do not have any plans or
4
Jim Green
Added text.
4
Jim Green
Requires rewording
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Corrected throughout document.
4
Jim Green
Corrected throughout document.
4
Jim Green
Corrected throughout document.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Noted.
funding to complete the project.
Page 4-7 Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Nassau County, US 17
US 17 continues south into Duval County and downtown Jacksonville where it becomes a four-lane facility.
27
US 17 (Main Street) becomes four lanes at New Berlin Road, just north of I 295, near Jacksonville International Airport,
approximately nine miles north of downtown.
Page 4-7 Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Nassau County, SR A1A, 2nd paragraph
To the east of the interchange, SR A1A continues east onto Amelia Island where it turns south and follows the coast into Duval
28
County …
Actually, east of the bridge, SR A1A turns north to Fernandina Beach, then south along the coast to Duval County.
Page 4-8 Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Transit Facilities
29
It is the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (not Transit). Please review document for other instances.
Page 4-9 Section 4.2 Parallel Corridors to I-95 – Passenger Rail Facilities (from prior page)
30
The application for ARRA funding for the Amtrak on FEC service refers to 90 mph speeds, I do not believe that meets the
definition of “High Speed Rail”.
Page 4-12 Table 4.3 Anticipated Projects…
31
32
33
[a] Page number 4-12 appears on each page Table 4.3, followed by page 4 13 with text.
Page 4-12 Table 4.3 Anticipated Projects…
[b] There are several inconsistencies (in the D2 counties) between this table, and
both the 2030 LRTP or the 2035 LRTP Cost Feasible plans of the North Florida TPO.
Page 4-12 Table 4.3 Anticipated Projects…
[c] There are also some errors in the representation of specific projects. If
requested, I can provide a detailed review of this table.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Chapter Comment Made By
Page 4-13 Section 4.4 Major Future Roadway and Transit Projects
34
Identify the data source for these future projects. Also identify the proposed roadway type (limited access / divided arterial
/other as appropriate) and number of lanes.
Revision/Notes
The source is identified in the write-up. If the other info
4
Jim Green
can be added to the table and it still be readable, it should
be added.
Page 4-15, Section 4.4 St. Johns County
35
36
[a] I-95 Mainline Widening – completion by 2018 is dependent upon concurrent implementation of the First Coast Outer
Beltway (FCOB). Without the FCOB, this project has a much longer time-line.
Page 4-15, Section 4.4 St. Johns County [b] CR 2209 Extension Projects – please note the number of lanes and roadway type
proposed (4-lane divided arterial).
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
Page 4-16, Section 4.4 St. Johns County – First Coast Outer Beltway
[a] Revise the first sentence:
37
The First Coast Outer Beltway is a proposed limited access southwest outer-bypass beginning in western of Jacksonville
connecting at I-10 and extending south I-95 through Duval, Clay County, and terminating at I-95 between the International Golf
Parkway and CR 210 interchanges in St. Johns Counties County (the locally preferred alternative).
38
39
Page 4-16, Section 4.4 St. Johns County – First Coast Outer Beltway [b] The last sentence says completion is not anticipated
until 2030. If we implement the Public-Private Partnership in the next year or two, we anticipate completion much sooner.
Page 4-16, Section 4.4 St. Johns County – First Coast Outer Beltway
[c] Please add that if the PPP comes to fruition, this will
be a toll facility.
Page 4-16, Section 4.4 Duval County – I-95 Main Line Widening
FDOT is intending to widen (one lane northbound and one lane southbound) several sections of I-95 … including: …from exit
344 (SR 202 / Turner Butler Boulevard) to exit 347 (Emerson St. / ALT US 1), exit 356 (Norwood/Lem Turner Road) to exit 362
40
(I-295 / SR 9A), and exit 363 (Duval Road / International Airport) to the Nassau County line.
The Department has completed all of these improvements, bringing the mainline of I-95 to six lanes, over the last few years.
There are no current plans to go to eight lanes, except from the St. Johns County line to I-295 / SR 9A South (which I omitted
from the above quote).
Page
4-16
Duvall C
County
P
4 16 4.4
44D
t – SR 9B
[a] Suggest some minor rewording:
41
SR 9B is a planned limited access freeway in southeast of Jacksonville in both Duval and St. Johns Counties. Its northern … will
continue southwest and connect to I-95 at a new interchange near the county line. SR 9B is anticipated to … Northern
northern St. Johns County. And eventually connect to the planned First Coast Outer Beltway.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Chapter Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Page 4-16 4.4 Duval County – SR 9B [b] Strike the remainder of the paragraph (after the above sentence), and replace with:
“In March 2010 a Design-Build project began for the segment between US 1 (Philips Hwy.) and SR 9A; completion of this four42
lane limited access connection is expected in the summer of 2012. Final design and right-of-way phases continue for the
4
Jim Green
Text modified.
5
Jim Green
Text modified.
5
Jim Green
Text modified.
5
Ji Green
Jim
G
Text
T t modified.
difi d
5
Jim Green
Text modified.
6
Jim Green
Text modified.
6
Jim Green
Text modified.
6
Jim
J
Green
Text modified.
6
Jim Green
Text modified.
segment between I-95 and US 1, including the interchanges at both facilities. There is no construction funding programmed at
present, beyond the current Design-Build project.”
Pages 5-3 thru 5-5 Tables 5.1d, 5.1e, and 5.1f
43
[a] These tables for St. Johns, Duval, and Nassau Counties appear to be lists of all projects along or near I-95, which may or may
not have associated bridge construction.
Pages 5-3 thru 5-5 Tables 5.1d, 5.1e, and 5.1f
[b] What is the source of the “Completion Date” information? Just
using Duval County as an example of some of the numerous errors:
• Mathews Bridge replacement – not by 2011
44
• The two US 1 projects – not by 2011
• I-95 @ Airport Road Flyover – not this year
• I-95 @ MLK – not 2012
• And others
Pages 5-3 thru 5-5 Tables 5.1d, 5.1e, and 5.1f
45
[c] The list omits a major bridge replacement project (2133043) the I 95
O
l d Bridge
B id Replacement,
R l
f
h south
h end
d off the
h Fuller
F ll Warren
W
B id to north
h off San
S Diego
Di
R d a Design-Build
D i B ild
Overland
from
the
Bridge
Road,
project to begin in FY 2011/12 and take five years to complete. (In Duval County)
Page 5-5 Section 4.4 Nassau County
46
For the interchange projects, there is one (1) potential new interchange, and one (1) interchange modification, not two new
interchanges.
Pages 6-2 and 6-3 Section 6.1 Future Multimodal Facilities – Duval County – Airport Facilities
47
48
49
[a] Jacksonville International Airport – in addition to the industrial development mentioned, JIA is undergoing a significant
reconstruction of the passenger terminal.
Pages 6-2 and 6-3 Section 6.1 Future Multimodal Facilities – Duval County – Airport Facilities [b] Craig Municipal Airport – “…
and helps divert general aviation traffic …”
Pages 6-2 and 6-3 Section 6.1 Future Multimodal Facilities – Duval County – Airport Facilities [c] Herlong Airport – “… lies
nine (9) miles west
est of I-95,
I 95 along
alon and 2 miles south
so th of I-10,
I 10 outside
o tside Jacksonville
Jackson ille and is a …”
”
Pages 6-2 and 6-3 Section 6.1 Future Multimodal Facilities – Duval County – Airport Facilities [d] Cecil Field – as with Herlong,
50
strike “outside Jacksonville” as Jacksonville comprises nearly all of Duval County. Add, “With its 12,500 foot runway, Cecil Field
was recently designated as a commercial Space Port for horizontal launch and landing spacecraft.”
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Chapter Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Page 6-4, Section 6.1 Duval – Other Facilities
Note several minor corrections:
51
The Jacksonville Regional Intermodal Transportation Center was awarded funding in 2008 for design, right-of-way acquisition
and construction of a multimodal … housing … and the First Coast Metropolitan North Florida Transportation Planning
6
Jim Green
Text modified.
7
Jim Green
Text modified.
7
Jim Green
Text modified.
7
Jim Green
Text modified.
7
Jim Green
Text modified.
7
Jim Green
Text modified.
7
Ji Green
Jim
G
Text
T t modified.
difi d
7
Jim Green
Text modified.
7
Jim Green
Text modified.
Organization, all located … The latter later phases … 876 vehicles, an Amtrak and Commuter Rail terminal …
Page 7-1, Section 7.1 Traffic Methodology, 2nd paragraph
Regarding the reference,
“[The NERPM] travel demand model was used to obtain traffic volume forecasts within the FDOT District 2 region.”
52
[a] Specify that NERPM 2030, as the NERPM 2035 is now available, and there may be some confusion about extrapolating
model values to 2035.
Page 7-1, Section 7.1 Traffic Methodology, 2nd paragraph
53
[b] Does “within the FDOT District 2 region” refer to the region
within the I-95 SIP corridor? NERPM-2030 only covered Clay, Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns counties, not the entire District.
Perhaps it would be clearer to specify the I-95 counties covered by NERPM.
Page 7-2, Section 7.3 Horizon Year (2035) Traffic … (from prior page)
The first full paragraph on the page (“A minimum LOS …”) refers variously to minimum LOS standards for the Florida
54
g
y System
y
((FIHS)) and the State Highway
g
y System
y
((SHS).
) It is more appropriate
pp p
Intrastate Highway
to refer to LOS standards for
the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) for I-95.
Pages 7-4 thru 7-13, Section 7.4 Existing LOS and Horizon Year Lane Calls, and Table 7.4
Add an explanation to each county’s text and a note to each table that the Horizon Year volumes are based on unconstrained
55
model runs. Although the section introduction mentions it, this is important enough to warrant repeating in each discussion
and table to avoid misunderstanding.
Page 7-10, Table 7.4d St. Johns County Horizon Year Lane Calls
I believe each of the “Other Urban” Area Type designations should be “Transitioning” as the area is outside the Jacksonville
56
Urbanized Census boundary, and inside the Planning/TPO Boundary. Please review to determine if this affects the LOS and
lane-call determination.
Page 7-10, Section 7.4 Horizon Year Lane Calls – Duval County
57
See earlier note (Comment #26) regarding “FDOT
FDOT intending to widen (one lane northbound and one lane southbound) several
sections of I-95 within Duval County …”
Page 7-11, Section 7.4 Horizon Year Lane Calls – Duval County (from prior page)
58
I am disappointed the summary does not mention “transit” as a possible means to mitigate some of the projected demand.
Page 7-13, Section 7.4 Horizon Year Lane Calls – Duval County (from prior page)
59
I am disappointed the summary does not mention “transit” as a possible means to mitigate some of the projected demand.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Chapter Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Page 7-14, Table 7.5a Volume Minus Capacity Methodology … (and related text)
Do the values in this table represent volumes exceeding capacity on a daily (from AADT) or hourly (peak hour or DHV) basis?
The subsequent county tables use AADT. However, the maximum threshold in this table is 650 vehicles more than the capacity
of the roadway (freeway/expressway). If this is a daily value, and assuming 10% of AADT is during the peak hour that would be
60
65 more vehicles than the peak hour capacity. This very small percentage of hourly lane capacities (about 1 vehicle per
7
Jim Green
Text noted.
8
Jim Green
Text modified.
8
Jim Green
Text modified.
G
General Comments
minute), and does not seem to justify the remedies indicated in the table. If the thresholds are hourly values (>650 vehicles per
hour/per lane), the calculations in the individual county tables should be adjusted to synchronize the hourly thresholds and daily
(AADT) traffic. This recalculation my affect the recommended improvements.
Page 8-1, Chapter 8 Recommendations Bullet 5
“Passenger rail … is being considered … as a viable option to roadway expansion, requires substantial financial improvements.
61
Currently, those finances do not exist …”
[a] Suggest replacing the word “improvements” with “investments”.
Page 8-1, Chapter 8 Recommendations Bullet 5 [b] However, roadway expansion also requires “substantial financial
62
investment.” Part of the reason “those finances do not exist” is due to policy decisions made by FDOT and local agencies
regarding use of flexible transportation dollars.
Email sent 6/21/10 to distribution lists for Stakeholder
64
What is the relationship of the I-95 Transportation Alternatives Study and the I-95 Sketch Interstate Plan?
groups - Discussion should be included in report Executive
Summary.
65
How was the City of Bunnell's future growth (given the recent annexation of 80,000 acres) address in the traffic demand
modeling?
G
66
Why wasn't the Intercoastal Waterway considered a parallel route in the Alternatives Study?
G
67
The Future Conditions Report is not clear about recommending lanes in addtion to existing lanes. Needs to be clarified.
G
68
Purpose and outcomes of Future Conditions study should be clarified.
G
69
70
The Future Conditions Report descirbes Viera as a city. Viera is noted to be a large DRI in unincorporated Brevard County with
a small section in Rockledge.
Edits to the DRI table(s) are required. DRI's that were never approved should be removed. The criteria for what DRIs make the
list should be clarifed.
G
Amy Skinner, City of
Bunnell
Noted.
The Intercoastal Waterway is more of a parallel route for
rail corridors.
See 77, below.
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Bob Kamm, Brevard
County
G
Text modified.
Text modified.
DRIs removed.
The number of lanes for each roadway should be double checked. "On page 4-3, the report states that US-1 (SR 5) is 5 or 6
71
lanes for approximately 10 miles in the Daytona Beach and Port Orange Area. It is not. I believe throughout Daytona Beach,
South Daytona and Port Orange it is a 4 lane facility with a raised, landscaped median. Perhaps it has been confused with Nova
4
Robert Keeth, Volusia
County MPO
Text modified.
Road (SR 5A) which is 5 or 6 lanes throughout this area."
72
"All state highways should be identified with the state route number, not just the federal number."
G
Robert Keeth, Volusia
County MPO
Where practicle.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
73
74
Comment
"On page 4-3, the report states that SR A-1-A extends to Canaveral National Seashore Park. Actually the state jurisdiction ends
at 6th Av in New Smyrna Beach. From that point to the Seashore Park, it is a county-maintained roadway (CR A-1-A)."
"On page 4-3, regarding Williamson Blvd, the report states that Williamson Blvd “stretches along the eastern side of I-95 from
SR 40/Tomoka Rd (exit 268) in Ormond Beach to just south of Taylor Road/SR 412 (exit 256) in Port Orange.” Actually, it
crosses to the west side of I-95 at a point 1.6 miles north of SR 421. Please correct that description of the alignment, and correct
Chapter Comment Made By
4
4
the reference to SR 421 (not SR 412). Also, note that the local name for SR 40 in Ormond Beach is Granada Blvd, not Tomoka
"The report does not mention SR 5A (Nova Rd) as a parallel route to I-95. This road runs between SR 5 (US-1) and Williamson
75
Blvd, extending from SR 5 (US-1) in Ormond Beach to SR 5 (US-1) in Port Orange (a distance of 15.6 miles through the greater
G
Daytona Beach area)."
76
"On page 5-2, the SR 417 Extension from NE Orlando to I-95 is included in the Volusia MPO’s 2025 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan as
a feasibility study funded only. Right-of-way and Construction are not included in Plan."
5
Robert Keeth, Volusia
County MPO
Robert Keeth, Volusia
County MPO
Robert Keeth, Volusia
C
County
MPO
Robert Keeth, Volusia
County MPO
Revision/Notes
Text modified.
Text modified.
Nova Rd is shown on Fig 4.1b.
Text modified.
"Recommendation #5 on page 8-1 is asking for regional and local agencies to set aside right-of-way to accommodate “…the
77
number of lanes identified to handle the increased demand by 2035.” In some cases, this may be as many as 14 lanes. I
understood that the number of lanes identified to handle the 2035 demand (lane calls) was just a “what-if” scenario, not an
8
Robert Keeth, Volusia
County MPO
Text modified.
accepted objective. Please clarify what is expected here."
78
A comment was made that it would have been helpful if we ran through the Future Conditions Report at the Stakeholders'
meetings.
G
A suggestion was made to carefully evaluate the opportunity cost of doubling capacity of I-95 against the public cost (cost vs.
79
benefit). A further suggestion was made that the money spent improving the I-95 corridor to double capacity should be
G
evaluated for improving parallel corridors, investing in alternative modes (rail), and public transportation.
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Noted and will influence future Stakeholder meetings.
Text modified.
"The sketch plan appears to be confined solely to the I-95 corridor, yet it DOES include critical land use assumptions to drive
demand on the corridor. These critical land use assumptions create demand that might be more effectively and efficiently
80
served by other modes or corridors. Essentially, it seems that the methodology of this project 'picks and chooses' which
G
variables to use and applies them in a 'one way' fashion. The best long term transportation solutions are those that include
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Noted.
appropriate modes for appropriate travel characteristics."
81
82
"Iss us
using
ga
an u
unconstrained
co st a ed model
ode realisitc?
ea s tc? I realize
ea e this
t s applies
app es primarily
p
a y to traffic
t a c demand,
de a d, but there
t e e are
a e also
a so social-economic
soc a eco o c
constraints at play. Specifically funding limitations and priorities."
"Tolls. Has tolling been evaluated as a means to manage demand and perhaps generate revenue?"
G
G
Wade Morefield,
o e e d, Port
o t
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
N t d
Noted.
Not included scope of study.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
83
84
85
Comment
"Pg. 3-6. DRI's. Are these approved or planned DRI's. The Phenion Gallery DRI is abandoned(?) and there is no reference to
Deseret Ranch development in western Brevard and eastern Orange County."
Pg. 4-3. Careful analysis of the impacts of the planned St. Johns Heritage Parkway on I-95 is required"
Question regarding the major capacity improvement projects listed on Pg
Pg. 4
4-15
15 as to whether they are under study or in
advance planning.
Chapter Comment Made By
3
4
4
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield,
Morefield Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Revision/Notes
Phenion removed. Deseret Ranch not added because
rezoning amendment was withdrawn in 2008.
Noted.
Text modified.
86
Comment offered that the Future Conditions report should provide a better evaluation of multi-modal options.
G
87
Comment was offered that parallel corridors are not listed/shown for Brevard local traffic
G
88
Question as to why SR 528 is shown in bold on page 4-16.
4
Text modified.
G
Text modified.
89
90
91
92
93
94
Question regarding the statement that a Level 2 detailed corridor analysis is expected to begin in the next year on the SR 528
corridor.
Comment that the summary on page 4-20 seems unsupported and that the data comes later in the document.
Comment that SR 528 should be factored more heavily into the study and a question was posed regarding a PD&E study for two
(2) additional lanes by 2020.
Pg 6-1 Maritime. Port Canaveral is accessed from I-95 via SR 528/SR A1A, not solely SR A1A. Actually, the more applicable
reference for this connection is simply SR 528 w/o the SR A1A designation.
Request for additonal discussion about other facilities in the Cape Canaveral area such as the Cape Canaveral spaceport,
hotel/conference centers, etc.
Comment offered that discussion on Page 7-6 seems to support the addition of capacity to the I-95 corridor at the expense of
alternative modes (such as rail) that may offer greater benefit for the money.
4
G
6
G
7
Comment notes that freight assumptions are heavily dependent upon fuel costs, but that the report does not discuss the 2035
95
96
97
98
fuel cost assumptions. The comment notes that truck only lanes make sense and requests that if they are to be discounted by
the report, discussion should be provided as to why.
A question was asked as to why truck travel time restrictions for freight movement weren't discussed. A comment was offered
that freight movement can be easily modified to avoid peak traffic and that many truckers already do this.
"Fig. 7.6a - I would think that truck AADT would be much more consisitent and that trucks would certainly would be more
consistent along the corridor than cars."
"The maps include I-4 due to Volusia Couty, but NOT SR 528 due to Brevard County. That seems inconsistent."
G
G
7
1
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Wade Morefield, Port
Canaveral
Noted.
Noted.
Text clarified and reordered.
Text clarified and reordered.
Text modified.
Noted.
Noted.
Text modified.
Text modified.
Noted.
Text modified.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
99
100
Comment
Comments on recommendations in numerical order: "1) no good; 2) no good; 3) Federal policy; 4) local parallel not needed for
widening; 5) set aside ROW…..for what?"
Advisory: As of July 2010, the Volusia County MPO will be the Volusia County TPO. Please make this change throughout the
document.
Chapter Comment Made By
8
G
revise this, as this is not accurate. Daytona Beach is the home to major special events, equivalent to 4 to 6 Super Bowls per
2
year.
Pages 2-5 & 2-6, Table 2.2: Please be advised that Ormond Crossings DRI is no longer a DRI and was approved by City Council
units and non-residential square footage is proposed to change. Also, Farmton is a comprehensive plan amendment that has
County, Transportation
Noted.
Corrected throughout document.
County, Transportation
Text modified.
Planner
Melissa Booker, Volusia
as an activity center. Additionally, Hunter’s Ridge DRI is currently going through a substantial deviation, and the number of
102
Canaveral
Melissa Booker, Volusia
Planner
Melissa Booker, Volusia
Page 2-2, Volusia County: Volusia County is described as “mostly suburban residential and golf course communities.” Please
101
Wade Morefield, Port
Revision/Notes
2
County, Transportation
Planner
received objections from DCA. The County is still working with DCA to address the outstanding issues. If Farmton is approved,
Moved Ormond Crossing and Farmton to separate table
of "Substantial Developments"
all resulting developments will be developed as DRIs.
Page 3-1, Employment Centers and Proposed High Growth Development Areas: What about tourism along the corridor and
yearly “snow birds” from the north during the winter season? Please revise the section on Volusia County, as the area at Old
103
Dixie Highway is not foreseen as a noteworthy employment center and the interchange at Dunlawton Avenue in Port Orange is
not mentioned. The area north of Ormond Beach is depicted in the study as an area that will grow substantially. The Ormond
Melissa Booker, Volusia
3
County, Transportation
Corrected throughout document.
Planner
Crossings development was downsized. This in addition to the City now being a DULA/TCEA and the challenged economy may
warrant otherwise. Additionally, please replace “Ocean City” with “Orange City.”
104
Additionally, FDOT is coordinating with the City of Daytona Beach to conduct the International Speedway Blvd (US 92)
Corridor Study, a study that will involve significant land use changes and mobility strategies.
Melissa Booker, Volusia
2
County, Transportation
Not included in scope of study.
Planner
Melissa Booker, Volusia
105
106
Page 3-4, Volusia County, first line: Please fix “TheWhat” reference.
Page 3-6, Volusia County: Advisory: We have seen noticeable development interest at the SR 44 interchange in New Smyrna
Beach, i.e., the northwest and northeast quadrants of the interchange.
3
5A, SR 421 and SR 44 are included in the list. The summary should include major discussion on the potential hurricane route
bottlenecks; especially the need for the I-4/US 92/I-95 Systems interchange and the lack of this system interchange to handle
Text modified.
Planner
Melissa Booker, Volusia
3
County, Transportation
Noted.
Planner
Page 4-1, Volusia Hurricane Evacuation Routes near I-95: Please modify to show that CR 442 is SR 442, US 17 is deleted, and SR
107
County, Transportation
Melissa Booker, Volusia
4
County, Transportation
Text modified.
Planner
evacuation and major events.
Melissa Booker, Volusia
108
109
Page 4-3, SR A1A: Please note that SR A1A does not connect to SR A1A in Brevard County.
Page 4-3, Williamson Blvd: Williamson Blvd is planned to be extended through to SR 442/Indian River Blvd extension west of I95.
4
County, Transportation
Text modified.
Planner
Melissa Booker, Volusia
4
County, Transportation
Planner
Noted.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Chapter Comment Made By
Pages 4-8 & 4-9, Multi-Modal Options: A multi-modal map would be helpful if contained in the study document. Additionally,
110
future commuter rail service is expected to start operations in 2015 at the
Revision/Notes
Melissa Booker, Volusia
4
Deland Amtrak station. Please identify where the 8 new high speed rail stations will be located between Jacksonville and Miami.
County, Transportation
Text modified.
Planner
Table 4.3, page 4-12: Please note the following: 1) SR 417 connector to I-95 is not politically supported by the local governments.
2) Several segments of the future I-95 and I-4 widening have incorrect anticipated completion dates and have not been
111
coordinated with the 2035 SIS cost feasible plan. 3) The Interchange at I-95/Pioneer Trail is very unlikely due to the political and
public
bli sensitivity
iti it associated
i t d with
ith d
development
l
t iimpacts
t th
the iinterchange
t
h
would
ld b
bring.
i
4) Th
The iinterchange
t
h
plans
l
att II-95/US
95/US 1 h
have
Melissa Booker, Volusia
4
County,
y, Transportation
p
Noted and text modified.
Planner
now changed due to the Ormond Crossings activity center no longer being a DRI, downsizing its intensity, and no longer
committing to paying for the new interchange.
Pages 4-16 & 4-17: Please delete reference to the SR 417 Eastern Connector Study since FDOT and the Volusia County TPO are
112
not pursuing this study. Please delete the I-95 Ormond Crossings Interchange since Ormond Beach is no longer pursing this
major investment. And finally, please also delete the Pioneer Trail interchange since it is being removed via the 2035 Volusia
Melissa Booker, Volusia
4
County, Transportation
Text modified.
Planner
County TPO LRTP.
Melissa Booker, Volusia
113
Page 5-2, Table 5.1b: Please delete references per our #13 comment.
5
County, Transportation
Text modified.
Planner
114
Page 5-2, Table 5.1b: Additionally, please add the I-95/SR 421 interchange improvements for 2020, which is included in the SIS
Cost Feasible Plan. Please correct the anticipated completion dates to be coordinated with the SIS Cost Feasible Plan.
Melissa Booker,
Booker Volusia
5
Airport has a master plan that includes a major industrial park. Plus Embry Riddle Aeronautical University has a major research
Melissa Booker, Volusia
6
park planned adjacent to the airport.
116
Page 6-2, Transit Facilities: Please note that VOTRAN will also be pursuing expansion around the DeBary commuter rail
station.
Yes, if the comment is correct and it is a bridge project.
Planner
Page 6-2, Airport Facilities: Regarding reference to the unknown future plans for the airport, Daytona Beach International
115
County, Transportation
County, Transportation
Text modified.
Planner
Melissa Booker, Volusia
6
County, Transportation
Noted.
Planner
Page 7-8. Table 7.4b: 1) If growth in traffic is leading to the lane call need for 8 lanes between Brevard County and SR 442, why
does the rural area type still apply? Why wouldn’t the LOS Standard change to reflect the type of traffic using the interstate?
Otherwise, the lane call information clearly suggests that the LOS Standard of B is creating a situation where the roadway’s
117
capacity isn’t being fully used and the widening really isn’t needed; therefore, resulting in an erroneous lane call. The same
concept could be applied to segments adjacent to the Daytona Beach metropolitan area. At what point should the LOS
standard be changed from C to D to reflect changes in area type, population and traffic growth? 2) 2008 Existing conditions
should reflect that I-95 is 4 lanes between SR 421 and I-4 as opposed to 6 lanes. 3) Please delete referenced comments in #13. 4)
How will the lane calls be impacted by SB 360 and resulting TCEAs in DULAs?
Melissa Booker,
Booker Volusia
7
County, Transportation
Planner
Noted and text modified.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Chapter Comment Made By
Revision/Notes
Melissa Booker, Volusia
118
Page 7-16, Table 7.5c: Please delete interchanges per comments #13.
7
County, Transportation
Text modified.
Planner
Page 8-1, Conclusions: 1) Please revise to reflect that the high growth development area in Volusia County is not necessarily
119
around Ormond Beach. Please refer to previous comments. 2) Will the study recommend the need for Time of Day Pricing
Melissa Booker, Volusia
8
“Lexus Lanes” or HOV lanes on I-95?
County, Transportation
Text modified.
Planner
Make sure the I-95 improvements are consistent with the current SIS Cost Feasible Plan. Also Melissa is correct regarding the
120
US1 interchange. The city has stopped the IJR /IMR process at US1 and I-95 due to a lack of funding for the reasons stated in her
G
John Taylor, FDOT
Noted and text modified.
comments.
121
"Page I-4. Last sentence: The I-95/I-10 Interchange is still under construction."
1
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Text modified.
"Page 2-2, Volusia County description. Substantial future growth in Volusia County is also anticipated in western Port Orange,
western New Smyrna Beach, and western Edgewater and will include the development of the Farmton DRI, Restoration DRI
122
(Edgewater), the Venetian Bay and the Gardens 207 areas of New Smyrna Beach, and the Woodhaven and Planned Community
2
1 areas of Port Orange (Listed in DRI Section 2.2 and on page 2-6). Also check with Daytona Beach and Ormond Beach
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Text modified.
concerning proposed large scale development in these communities.
123
124
"Page 2-4. Section 2.2 Paragraph 3, Check grammar in lines 5 and 6. Remove “in” in line 5."
"Page 2-6, Volusia County paragraph. Please check with the Volusia TPO concerning the likelihood of a new interchange being
constructed
t
t db
between
t
E
Exits
it 268 and
d 273 iin th
the nextt fi
five years.""
2
2
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
O
Text modified.
Text modified.
"Page 3-1, Volusia County paragraph. Please check to ensure that Exit 278 (Old Dixie Highway) is considered a noteworthy
employment area. This area is mostly rural. Add the Dunlawton Ave (SR 421) interchange (Exit 256) to this listing. This
interchange consists of large commercial and industrial complexes including the Planned Community 1 area (US Foods
distribution facility, Raydon, large vacant tracts of commercial/industrial properties, and the recently completed Pavilion at Port
125
Orange Shopping Center) among other large shopping centers both on the east and west sides of I-95. This interchange is also
3
reflected in the change in I-95 truck volumes shown on Figure 7.6a. Employment density should be revised for the area of Port
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Text modified.
Orange northwest of the I-95/SR 421 interchange to reflect the land use and existing and emerging development. Also, in the
last sentence, change Ocean City to Orange City. Also make this change on the last paragraph on pages 3-3 and 3-4 and in the
Map series."
126
127
"Page 3-4. Sentence #1: Remove the word What. Substantial growth likely will also occur in south Port Orange, and western
New Smyrna
N
S
and
d Edgewater
Ed
as well
ll as portions
i
off Daytona
D
Beach
B
h west off I-95."
I 95 "
"Page 3-5. Add western New Smyrna Beach (and Edgewater) to the listing of Volusia County areas. Add SR 421 in the last
paragraph under the Volusia County roadways."
3
3
"Page 4-1. Table 4-1. Add SR 421 and SR 400 to the list of Hurricane Evacuation routes in Volusia County. Both of these
128
principal arterials intersect with I-95."
4
Bill McCord, City of Port
O
Orange
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Text modified.
Text modified.
Text modified.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Chapter Comment Made By
"Page 4-3, US 1. US 1 is not six lanes through Daytona Beach or Port Orange. Currently it is a four lane divided roadway with
129
on-street parking lanes. FDOT is now considering removing much of the parking lanes and restriping these as bike lanes."
4
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Revision/Notes
Noted
"Page 4-3. Williamson Blvd. This roadway is a 4-lane divided roadway from LPGA Blvd. in Daytona Beach to SR 400; 2-lanes
from SR 400 to just north of Taylor Road (DR 421) and 4-lane divided from Taylor Road to Airport Road. The overpass at I-95 is
130
b t 3 miles
il south
th off SR 400.
400 the
th extension
t
i from
f
Pi
T il tto SR 44 iis approximately
i t l 2 miles
il long.
l
A extension
t
i from
f
about
Pioneer
Trail
An
SR
44 to SR 442 west of I-95 is also planned. This segment would be approximately 5 miles long. Please check to total distance of
4
Bill M
C d Cit
McCord,
City off P
Portt
Orange
Noted
the existing and proposed Williamson Blvd. from SR 40 to SR 442. This is greater than 13 miles. (Indicate the complete corridor
on Figure 4.2b)."
131
"Page 4-4, US 17. US 17 is located east of the St. Johns River in Volusia County. It is located west of the St. Johns River from
Palatka northward to Jacksonville."
4
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Text modified.
"Page 4-9. Passenger Rail Facilities. Indicate that intercity passenger rail service by AMTRAK is proposed for the FEC Railway
132
line which parallels I-95. This is separate from proposed High Speed rail service. Railroads are not distinguishable on Figure 4.2.
or most other figures."
4
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Noted.
"Table 4.3. Check the listing of roadways for consistency with adopted Long Range Plans. Also in the Brevard County Section,
g
p Check approximate
pp
g
g
p j
several listed segments
of I-95 overlap.
lengths
of segments.
Some of the projects
with future y
year
133
completion dates have been completed. Also, the development reported as the Spruce Creek and Spruce Creek Village is not a
4
DRI. These projects were developed as subdivisions now known as Summer Trees PUD and Cypresshead PUD, respectively."
134
135
"Page 4-16. Volusia County Projects. The Volusia TPO is now developing the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. This plan
may include significant new transit projects that should be considered with this report."
"Page 4-16 and Page 7-8. I-95 is four lanes from SR 400 (Exit 260) south to the Brevard County line and 6 lanes from SR 400/I-4
to the Flagler County line and northward. Two additional lanes are not proposed on the segments north of SR 400/I-4. 6-laning
4
4
of I-95 south of SR 400 will not be completed by FDOT by 2012."
"Page 4-16. SR 417 Eastern Connection Study. Please check with the Volusia TPO concerning this project. This is not being
136
137
considered as part of the 2035 Long Range Plan."
" Page 5-2, Table 5-1b. Volusia Planned Bridge Related Projects. Project information for the bridge project needs to be
amended to address updated 2035 Long Range Plans."
4
5
Bill McCord,
McCord City of Port
Orange
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Text modified.
Noted
Text modified.
Text modified.
Text modified.
"Page 6-2. Contact Daytona Beach International Airport and the Volusia TPO about future development plans at the airport.
Exit 256 is SR 421 (Taylor Road) not CR 415. Also add rail facilities to the listing. The Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) mainline
138
runs parallel to I-95 throughout the corridor from Jacksonville southward. Passenger service (AMTRAK) is proposed on this
line. There area also numerous freight customers along the line. In addition the CSX mainline, with existing AMTRAK service,
runs parallel to US 17 from Jacksonville to Orlando. It is suggested that the Intracoastal Waterway be mentioned."
6
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Text modified.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
Comment
Chapter Comment Made By
139
"Page 7-1, paragraph 1, line three: Insert the word projecting after corridor."
7
140
"Page 7-6. Portions of I-95 in Brevard are now 6-lanes and other segments are now being widened to 6-lanes."
7
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Revision/Notes
Text modified.
Text modified.
"Page 7-8. Change the Volusia County paragraph to indicate the existing cross-section of I-95 (also see comment # 15 above).
The completion date of 6-laning of I-95 south of Beville Road/SR 400 has not been determined. Also recent model runs
conducted for the Volusia 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan update (Model Run Alternatives 1 and Alternatives 2) indicate
141
volumes ranging from 37,072 on the southerly portion of the county to 79,447 between I-4 and US 92. These volumes will not
7
require more than between 4 lanes in the southern (rural) portion of the County to 6 lanes in the area north of SR 442 in order
Bill McCord, City of Port
O
Orange
Text modified.
to maintain the adopted level of service. However, these model runs may contain constraints not considered as part of this
study exercise. (This should also be addressed in the Summary on Page 7-23.)"
142
"Table 7.4b. Change the existing lane configuration from Exit 256 to Exit 260 to 4 lanes."
7
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Text modified.
" Table 7.5c. Volusia County Future Unconstrained Traffic Operational Analysis. SR 421 is actually a five lane divided facility (3
EB through lanes and 2 WB through lanes) with turn lanes (Dual lefts EB and single left WB) in the I-95 underpass area. This
will affect the reported unconstrained total capacity volumes. The aforementioned 2035 model run indicates a 2035 volume on
143
Williamson Blvd. of 29,782 and the Pioneer Trail crossing ranges from 14,927 to 15, 429. Williamson Blvd. is an undivided 2 lane
arterial roadway with turn bays. LPGA Blvd. is a four lane divided arterial. Airport Road is an undivided roadway. Check to see
7
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Text modified.
the facility type of the future Ormond Crossing interchange. It is doubtful that, once constructed, this will be an undivided
roadway without turn lanes. The reported total capacity of like roadways seems to conflict (See Indian River Blvd (Exit 244) and
SR 44 (Exit 249)). Both are listed as 4-lane divided arterials but have much different listed total capacities."
144
" Page 7-20. last sentence in paragraph 5. delete…section of I-95 in…"
7
145
"Page 8-1, Recommendation #2. Add Port Orange west of I-95 in the list of growth nodes."
8
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Text modified.
Text modified.
The scale of the map is such that the Port Orange
146
"Advisory Comment: Appendix A. The City anticipates adopting a new Comprehensive Plan by the late Summer of 2010. This
will include changes to Future Land Use Element and the Transportation Mobility Element including significant policy changes."
A
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
modifications might not show in a really visible way. The
changes would still have to work their way through the
DCA process, so they might not take effect until the SIP is
complete.
"Appendix C, Figure 4. 4b., Future Roadway Projects, needs to be amended to include projects that have been completed and
147
new projects
j t that
th t are now under
d construction
t
ti or programmed
d for
f construction.
t
ti
Please
Pl
coordinate
di t this
thi activity
ti it with
ith the
th Volusia
V l i
C
TPO."
148
"...Viera in Brevard County is repeatedly referred to as the City of Viera. It is not an incorporated city. "
G
Bill McCord, City of Port
Orange
Scott Nelson, Space Coast
Area Transit
N t d
Noted.
Text modified.
FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT - STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Comment
Number
149
150
151
Comment
"...page 6-1 states that SCAT has 14 bus routes. We currently have 16 routes, planned to shrink to 15. So report should state
15 routes."
(Paraphrased) comment noted that projections of high rates of growth reflected in the report may be too optimistic given the
economy.
(P
h
d) commentt th
ti off II-95
95 congestion
ti iis iinflated
fl t d b
i
t other
th highways
hi h
(
h as on the
th westt
(Paraphrased)
thatt persective
by comparison
to
(such
coast) in the nation.
Chapter Comment Made By
6
2
G
(Paraphrased) comment regarding truck regulation on I-95 - note that truck regulation would increase safe travel on I-95.
152
Examples provided from other states included enforcement of trucks occupying the extreme right-hand lane unless passing and
7
that trucks have a lower posted speed limit than passenger vehicles. There was also a note that truck-only lanes are a bad idea.
153
Page 5-1, Table 5-1a: Correct Source information. North Florida TPO is not correct for Brevard County.
5
Remove consultant name from text throughout the document. Example on pages 7-13 & 7-14
7
154
Scott Nelson, Space Coast
Area Transit
Scott Nelson, Space Coast
Area Transit
S
tt N
l
S
C
t
Scott
Nelson,
Space
Coast
Area Transit
Scott Nelson, Space Coast
Area Transit
Revision/Notes
Text modified.
Noted
Noted
Noted
Text modified.
Scanned document chapters. Where consultant name
appeared, changed to FDOT