Comments
Description
Transcript
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