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

Appendix B

Congestion Management Plan

January 26, 2015

This page is intentionally blank.

Congestion Management Process CMP Report

North Florida Transportation Planning Organization 1022 Prudential Drive

Jacksonville, FL 32207

July 2013



Executive Summary

The North Florida TPO is required to prepare a congestion management process to address recurring congestion within the region. The social and economic costs of recurring congestion within the North Florida region have staggering economic and social costs. More than $316 million are lost each year by travelers due to the lost time and excess fuel consumption associated with delays. When congestion resulting from crashes are considered, the total costs of congestion is $526 million. This amounts to 11 hours or $400 for each of our region’s 1.3 million residents. Since the economic peak in 2007, congestion has declined overall due to the recession, but is on the rise again. Fewer people are moving today than were in 2007 however the total travel delays still increased by 7.57%. Compared to 2011, the regional costs of congestion increased by $18.91 million. This congestion during this analysis period is more concentrated on key facilities such as I-10, I-95, I-295, Banding Boulevard, Southside Boulevard, Atlantic Boulevard, San Jose Boulevard, J.T. Butler Boulevard and SR A1A. Transit ridership has grown over the last five years due to increases in fuel prices, the economic downturn and greater accessibility. Since 2007, transit ridership increased by 20% from 11.3 million riders to 13.8 million in 2011. As accessibility to transit improves, ridership is expected to increase. In 2012, 46% of all residential households present within the North Florida region have a transit stop within the quarter-mile radius. 87% of all residential households within North Florida region are located within a five mile radius of a park and ride lot. As part of this plan, a series of congestion management corridors were established and then potential strategies to reduce congestion and improve mobility were identified. The goals and objectives of these strategies included: Leverage technology such as express lanes and digital traffic control to enhance the operations of

corridors so we can get the most out of our existing system.

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

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

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

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

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


Table of Contents

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... ii

List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ ii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ v

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Requirements .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Prior CMP ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.1. North Florida TPO’s CMP ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Year 2006 Update ................................................................................................................................ 4

3. Review of Best Practices .................................................................................................... 6

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

4. Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 13

4.1. FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures Program Database ..................................................... 13 4.2. Florida Sourcebook ............................................................................................................................. 14 4.3. National Transit Database by Federal Transit Administration .................................................. 15 4.4. Florida Department of Transportation Level-of-Service (LOS) Tables .................................... 15 4.5. BlueToad Data ...................................................................................................................................... 15

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

5.1. MAP-21 .................................................................................................................................................. 20 5.2. Florida Transportation Plan ............................................................................................................. 20 5.3. 2035 Envision Long Range Transportation Plan .......................................................................... 21 5.4. CMP Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................ 22

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

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

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

8. Congestion Mitigation Strategies ................................................................................... 48

8.1. Transportation Systems Management and Operational (TSM&O) Strategies ..................... 48 8.1.1. Surveillance and Incident Management Systems (1&5) ............................................................... 49 8.1.2. Access Management (1&5) ................................................................................................................. 50 8.1.3. Congestion Pricing (1&5) ...................................................................................................................... 51 8.1.4. Integrated Corridor Management (1&5) .......................................................................................... 52 8.1.5. Arterial Management Systems (1&5) ............................................................................................... 53 8.1.6. Hard Shoulder Running (1&5) ............................................................................................................. 54

i


8.1.7. Reversible Lanes (1&5) ........................................................................................................................ 55 8.1.8. One-way Streets (1&5) ........................................................................................................................ 56 8.1.9. Ramp Metering (1&5) ............................................................................................................................ 57 8.1.10. Transit Signal Priority (1&5) ............................................................................................................... 58 8.1.11. Variable Speed Limits (1&5) ............................................................................................................... 59 8.1.12. Dynamic Detours (1&5) ........................................................................................................................ 60 8.1.13. Queue Warning Systems (1&5) ............................................................................................................ 61 8.1.14. Traveler Information Systems (1&5) .................................................................................................. 61

8.2. Travel Demand Management (TDM) Strategies .......................................................................... 62 8.2.1. High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Incentives (1&5) .......................................................................... 62 8.2.2. Park-and-Ride Lots (1&5) .................................................................................................................... 63 8.2.3. Multimodal Transportation Corridors and Centers (1&5) ............................................................ 64 8.2.4. Commuter Assistance Service Programs (1&5) ............................................................................ 65

8.3. Transit Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 66 8.3.1. Local Bus Service Improvements (1&5) ........................................................................................... 66 8.3.2. Express Bus Service Improvements (1&5) ....................................................................................... 67 8.3.3. Bus Rapid Transit Improvements (1&5) ........................................................................................... 68 8.3.4. Light Rail Transit Improvements (1&5) ............................................................................................ 68 8.3.5. Commuter Rail Transit Improvements (1&5) .................................................................................. 69

8.4. Capacity Improvements .................................................................................................................... 70

9. Identification and Evaluation of Strategies ................................................................... 72

9.1. Congested Corridor Strategy Evaluation ...................................................................................... 72 9.2. Regional Strategy – Commuter Service Campaign ..................................................................... 76

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

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

11.1. North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) .................................................. 79 11.2. Other North Florida TPO Committees ........................................................................................... 80 11.3. The North Florida TPO Governing Board ...................................................................................... 80

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

12.1. Procedure for Periodic Assessment and Updates ...................................................................... 82 12.2. Integration with other North Florida TPO Plans ......................................................................... 82

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

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

List of Appendices

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

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

ii


List of Figures Figure 1 - North Florida CMP System Boundary ................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 - FHWA CMP Elements ............................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 - North Florida TPO’s CMP Prior Congestion Management Corridors .......................................... 5 Figure 4 - BlueToad Device Locations Planned for Implementation within North Florida TPO

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

iii


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

iv


List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AM ante meridiem or before noon BCR Benefit-Cost Ratio BPAC Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAC Citizens Advisory Committee CAP Commuter Assistance Program C-D Collector-Distributor CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement CMP Congestion Management Plan CMS Congestion Management System COG Council of Governments COJ City of Jacksonville ConOps Concept of Operations DDHV Directional Design Hour Volume DMS Dynamic Message Signs DOT Department of Transportation EMS Emergency Management Services EPA Environmental Protection Agency F.S. Florida Statute FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FFS Free Flow Speed FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIHS Florida Intrastate Highway System FL Florida ft. Feet FTA Federal Transit Administration FTP Florida Transportation Plan GIS Geographic Information Systems HAR Highway Advisory Radio HNTB HNTB Corporation HOT High-Occupancy Toll lanes HOV High-Occupancy Vehicles lanes I-10 Interstate 10 I-295 Interstate 295 I-95 Interstate 95 ICM Integrated Corridor Management ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems JTA Jacksonville Transportation Authority L Length (usually in feet) LOS Level-of-Service LRT Light Rail Transit LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan M&O Management and Operations MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century MOEs Measure of Effectiveness MP Mile Post MPH Miles per Hour MPM Mobility Performance Measures MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSV Maximum Service Volume MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan MVM Million vehicle miles NAS Naval Air Station NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NERPM Northeast Florida Regional Planning Model NHS National Highway System North Florida TPO North Florida Transportation Planning Organization

v


NTD National Transit Database NTD National Transit Database PC Planning Councils PD&E Project Development and Environment PIP Public Involvement Plan PM post meridiem or after noon PMT Person Miles Traveled ROI Return on Investment SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users SIS Strategic Intermodal Highway System SR State Road TAC Technical Advisory Committee TCC Technical Coordination Committee TDM Travel Demand Management TIM Traffic Incident Management TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMA Transportation Management Area TMT Truck Miles Traveled TSM&O Transportation Systems Management and Operations TSP Transit Signal Priority TTI Texas Transportation Institute UPWP Unified Planning Work Program US United States V/C Volume over Capacity ratio VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

vi


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

vii


1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose

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

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

The rule-making process for the CMP is not complete. In addition to the changes in governing boundary, the federal requirements that govern the development of a CMP have changed. 1.2. Requirements

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

MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), was signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. MAP-21 requires:

“within a metropolitan planning area serving a transportation management area, the transportation planning process under this section shall address congestion management through a process that provides for effective management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed and implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under this title and chapter 53 of title 49 through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies.”

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

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

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/congestion_management_process/cmp_guidebook/

1

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/congestion_management_process/cmp_guidebook/

IJ121

IJ108

IJ218

IJ315

IJ214

IJ13

IJ309D

IJ13A

IJ117

IJ210

IJ115

IJ20A

IJ209

IJ210A

IJ305

IJ115 A

IJ16A

IJ220

IJ203

IJ219A

IJ208

IJ217

IJ215

IJ119

IJ204

IJ99

IJ21

IJ118 1

IJ107

IJ213

IJ220A

IJ352

IJ200A

IJ125

IJ207A

IJ15A

IJ234

IJ121A

IJ739

IJ5A

IJ21B

IJ115 C

IJ18

IJ103

IJ228

IJA1A

IJ309C

IJ1363

IJ225

IJ315C

IJ219

IJ118 9

IJ1351

IJ100A

IJ116 2

IJ101A

IJ211

IJ1333

IJ116

IJ13B

IJ163

IJ105A

IJ216

IJ309B

IJ739B

IJ21D

IJ200B

IJ117 7

IJ110

IJ1359

IJ226

IJ1365

IJ106

IJ1335

IJ209B

IJ1339

IJ2016

IJ0019

IJ1337

IJ1447

IJ233

IJ2

IJ310

IJ1353

IJ220B

IJ117 9

IJ0012

IJ105B

IJ1332

IJ1206

IJ230A

IJ107A

IJ21A

IJ109A

IJ118 7

IJ1338

IJ312

IJ0016

IJ212

IJ228

IJ13A

IJ21B

IJ213

IJ209

IJ108

IJ211

IJ108

IJ315IJ225

IJ315

IJ110

IJ16A

IJ200A

IJ214

IJ110

IJ20A

IJ217

IJ209

IJ15A

IJ15A

IJ115

IJ200A

IJ209

IJ13A

IJ220

IJ107

IJ214

IJ225

IJ315

IJ209

IJ200A

IJ115 A

IJ119

IJ228

IJ13

IJ309C

IJ105A

§̈¦95

§̈¦295

§̈¦10

ST9

ST5

ST21

ST100

ST15

ST A1A

ST20

ST10

ST16

ST8

ST13

ST207

ST9A

ST200

ST228

ST115

ST105

ST202ST134

ST19

ST26

ST116

ST104

ST152

ST10A

ST109ST139

ST103

ST312

ST211

ST224

ST113

ST128 ST126

ST5A

ST102

ST117

ST101

ST 115 A

ST243

ST228A

ST129

STA1A

ST105

ST 113

ST5

ST16

ST200

ST15

STA1A

STA1A

ST105

ST115

STA1A

ST16

ST228

ST200

ST228

ST21

STA1A

ST20

STA1A

ST100

ST13

ST228

ST 21

STA1A

STA1A

STA1A

ST15

ST200

STA1A

STA1A

ST105

ST16

STA1A

ST105

ST10

£¤17

£¤23

£¤1

£¤90

£¤301

£¤ 90A£¤90A

£¤1

£¤17

£¤301

£¤301

£¤301

£¤17

0 2 41 Miles

North Florida CMP System Boundary

±LEGEND

North Florida TPO BoundaryCounty Boundaries

ClayDuvalNassauSt. JohnsOther Counties

NASSAU

DUVAL

CLAY

ST. JOHNS

Figure 1

Page 2


*Source: FHWA CMP Guidebook

Figure 2 - FHWA CMP Elements

3


2. Prior CMP (6)

2.1. North Florida TPO’s CMP

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

A total of 25 roadways were identified and ranked. The roadway lengths ranged from 0.2 miles to 8.04 miles. An interagency steering committee was formed and was responsible for input to finalize the list of congested roadways, compile performance reports, and prioritizing preliminary projects.

2.2. Year 2006 Update

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

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

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

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

The priority congested facilities were aggregated to recommend congestion management strategies. Figure 3 shows the CMS corridors recommended in the 2006 version of the CMP.

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

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

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

4

North Florida TPO's CMP Prior Congestion Management Corridors

Figure 3

Page 5


3. Review of Best Practices

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

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

3.1. Summary of CMPs Reviewed

A brief summary of key findings from the CMPs that were studied in the literature review are presented below:

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

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

3. None of the CMP studied evaluated trip-based performance measures through the use of origin-destination studies.

4. Many of the MPOs studied developed congestion mitigation strategies that were not related to the performance measures that were evaluated by the CMPs.

5. Most of the CMPs did not initiate public involvement during the CMP’s process development, performance measure or strategy selection or for prioritizing projects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6


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

CMP Evaluated

Ch

arlo

tte

Co

un

ty –

P

un

ta G

ord

a M

PO

Co

llie

r C

ou

nty

MP

O

Le

e C

ou

nty

MP

O

Po

lk T

PO

Sar

aso

ta –

Man

ate

e M

PO

Gai

ne

svill

e M

TP

O

Bay

Co

un

ty T

PO

Cap

ital

Re

gio

n T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

P

lan

nin

g A

ge

ncy

Flo

rid

a -

Ala

bam

a T

PO

Oka

loo

sa -

Wal

ton

TP

O

Ind

ian

Riv

er C

ou

nty

MP

O

Mar

tin

Co

un

ty M

PO

Pal

m B

eac

h M

PO

St.

Lu

cie

TP

O

Lak

e -

Su

mte

r M

PO

(L

RT

P)

ME

TR

OP

LA

N O

rlan

do

Sp

ace

Co

ast

TP

O

Vo

lusi

a T

PO

(L

RT

P)

Mia

mi –

Dad

e M

PO

He

rnan

do

Co

un

ty M

PO

Hill

sbo

rou

gh

Co

un

ty M

PO

Pas

co C

ou

nty

MP

O

Pin

ella

s C

ou

nty

MP

O

Process Regional Objectives

Un

der

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

Un

der

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

CMP Network Multimodal Performance Measures Continuing Monitoring

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

Performance Measures LOS

Un

der

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

Un

der

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

Volume/Capacity Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita Vehicle Hours of Travel

Weighted Volume/Weighted Service Volume Ratio

Truck Miles Traveled

Throughput

Person Trips

Average Daily Traffic

Speeds

Travel Times

Delays Trip Times

Intensity of Congestion

Duration of Congestion

7



CMP Evaluated

Ch

arlo

tte

Co

un

ty –

P

un

ta G

ord

a M

PO

Co

llie

r C

ou

nty

MP

O

Le

e C

ou

nty

MP

O

Po

lk T

PO

Sar

aso

ta –

Man

ate

e M

PO

Gai

ne

svill

e M

TP

O

Bay

Co

un

ty T

PO

Cap

ital

Re

gio

n T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

P

lan

nin

g A

ge

ncy

Flo

rid

a -

Ala

bam

a T

PO

Oka

loo

sa -

Wal

ton

TP

O

Ind

ian

Riv

er C

ou

nty

MP

O

Mar

tin

Co

un

ty M

PO

Pal

m B

eac

h M

PO

St.

Lu

cie

TP

O

Lak

e -

Su

mte

r M

PO

(L

RT

P)

ME

TR

OP

LA

N O

rlan

do

Sp

ace

Co

ast

TP

O

Vo

lusi

a T

PO

(L

RT

P)

Mia

mi –

Dad

e M

PO

He

rnan

do

Co

un

ty M

PO

Hill

sbo

rou

gh

Co

un

ty M

PO

Pas

co C

ou

nty

MP

O

Pin

ella

s C

ou

nty

MP

O

Extent of Congestion

Un

der

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

Un

der

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

Connectivity to Intermodal Facilities

Accessibility to Transit

% System Congested % of Travel Congested

Intersections

Reliability

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

Transit Service Network

Transit Service Frequency Transit Span of Service Transit Job Access

Transit Ridership or Load Factor Transit Ridership per Congested Lane Mile

Transit Reliability

% Population within 1/4 mile of Transit Service

% Transit Service by Headway

Transit Travel Times

Transit Farebox Recovery

Passenger Trips/Revenue Hour

Carpools and Vanpools Crashes Crashes Involving Trucks Bicycle Crashes

Sidewalk Miles

Customer Satisfaction

Costs of Congestion

Gallons of Fuel from Congestion

Signal Retiming Cost/Benefit Ratio

8



CMP Evaluated

Ch

arlo

tte

Co

un

ty –

P

un

ta G

ord

a M

PO

Co

llie

r C

ou

nty

MP

O

Le

e C

ou

nty

MP

O

Po

lk T

PO

Sar

aso

ta –

Man

ate

e M

PO

Gai

ne

svill

e M

TP

O

Bay

Co

un

ty T

PO

Cap

ital

Re

gio

n T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

P

lan

nin

g A

ge

ncy

Flo

rid

a -

Ala

bam

a T

PO

Oka

loo

sa -

Wal

ton

TP

O

Ind

ian

Riv

er C

ou

nty

MP

O

Mar

tin

Co

un

ty M

PO

Pal

m B

eac

h M

PO

St.

Lu

cie

TP

O

Lak

e -

Su

mte

r M

PO

(L

RT

P)

ME

TR

OP

LA

N O

rlan

do

Sp

ace

Co

ast

TP

O

Vo

lusi

a T

PO

(L

RT

P)

Mia

mi –

Dad

e M

PO

He

rnan

do

Co

un

ty M

PO

Hill

sbo

rou

gh

Co

un

ty M

PO

Pas

co C

ou

nty

MP

O

Pin

ella

s C

ou

nty

MP

O

Air Quality

Incident Severity

Incident Duration

Strategies Eliminate Trips or Vehicle Miles Traveled

Un

der

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

Un

der

Dev

elo

pm

en

t

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

Improve Safety

Support Economic Growth or Goods Movement

Support Environment

Implement Demand Management Strategies Implement Operational Management Strategies Incident Management Access Management Growth Management

Congestion Pricing

Public Transit Improvements Pedestrian/Bicycle Feature Improvements

Policy Approaches Smart Transportation (ITS)

Reporting Maps/Visualization

Trends Forecasts

9


Table 2: CMPs in Other States – Evaluation Matrix

CMP Evaluated

Wilmington Area Planning

Council (WILMAPCO)

Atlanta Regional Commission

(ARC)

Capital District Transportation

Committee (CDTC)

Southwestern Pennsylvania

Commission (SPC)

Delaware Valley Regional Planning

Commission (DVRPC)

Puget Sound Regional Council

(PSRC)

Process

Regional Objectives CMP Network Multimodal Performance Measures

Continuing Monitoring Analyze Congestion Problems Congestion Strategies Program Implementation Evaluate Strategy Effectiveness

Part of LRTP or MTP Public Involvement

Recurring Congestion Non-recurring Congestion Time of Day Considerations

Performance Measures

LOS Volume/Capacity Vehicle Miles Traveled

Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita

Vehicle Hours of Travel Weighted Volume/Weighted Service Volume Ratio Truck Miles Traveled

Throughput

Person Trips

Average Daily Traffic Speeds

Travel Times

Delays

Trip Times

Intensity of Congestion Duration of Congestion

Extent of Congestion

Connectivity to Intermodal Facilities

Accessibility to Transit

% System Congested

% of Travel Congested

Intersections

10



CMP Evaluated


Council (WILMAPCO)


(ARC)


Committee (CDTC)


Commission (SPC)


Commission (DVRPC)


(PSRC)

Reliability

Bicycle Facilities or Bicycle QOS

Pedestrian and Sidewalks Facilities or QOS

Multiuse Paths

Transit Service Network

Transit Service Frequency

Transit Span of Service

Transit Job Access Transit Ridership or Load Factor

Transit Ridership per Congested Lane Mile

Transit Reliability

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

Transit Farebox Recovery Passenger Trips/Revenue Hour Transit General Roadway Congestion

Transit Re-entry Congestion

Transit Mobility Device Loading Congestion

Transit Queuing Congestion

Carpools and Vanpools

Crashes Crashes Involving Trucks

Bicycle Crashes Sidewalk Miles Customer Satisfaction

Costs of Congestion

Gallons of Fuel from Congestion

Signal Retiming Cost/Benefit Ratio Air Quality Incident Severity Incident Duration Planning Time Index

Strategies Eliminate Trips or Vehicle Miles Traveled

Shift Trips to Other Modes Shift Trips to High Occupancy

11



CMP Evaluated


Council (WILMAPCO)


(ARC)


Committee (CDTC)


Commission (SPC)


Commission (DVRPC)


(PSRC)

Improve Roadway Operations Increase Roadway Capacity Improve Connectivity

Improve Safety

Support Economic Growth or Goods Movement

Support Environment

Implement Demand Management Strategies

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

Reporting Maps/Visualization Trends Forecasts

12


4. Data Collection

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

4.1. FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures Program Database

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

Table 3: Mobility Performance Measures for Highways

*Source: FDOT MPM brochure

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

13


Table 4: Mobility Performance Measures for Transit Systems

Mobility Performance Measure Definition Quantity of

Travel Ridership Total passenger trips

Quality of Travel

Auto/Transit Travel Time Ratio Door-to-door trip time

Reliability On-time performance

Accessibility

Coverage % person minutes served

Frequency Buses per hour

Span Hours of service per day

Utilization Load Factor % seats occupied *Source: FDOT MPM brochure

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

1. Rural Interstate Facility – Functional Classification Code = 1

2. Rural Principal Arterial Facilities - Functional Classification Code = 2

3. Rural Minor Arterial Facilities - Functional Classification Code = 6

4. Urban Interstate Facilities – Functional Classification Code = 11

5. Urban Freeway and Expressway Facilities - Functional Classification Code = 12

6. Urban Principal Arterial Facilities - Functional Classification Code = 14

7. Urban Minor Arterial Facilities - Functional Classification Code = 16

4.2. Florida Sourcebook

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

1. Vehicle miles

2. Person miles

3. Truck miles

4. Average speeds

5. Person delay

6. Reliability

7. Vehicle per lane mile

8. Percent miles congested

9. Percent travel congested

10. Duration of congestion

14


4.3. National Transit Database by Federal Transit Administration

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

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

4.4. Florida Department of Transportation Level-of-Service (LOS) Tables

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

4.5. BlueToad Data

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

15


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

16


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

17


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

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

I-95 Northbound Direction:

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

I-95 Southbound Direction:

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

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

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

18



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

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

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

19


5. Development of CMP Goals and Objectives

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

5.1. MAP-21

MAP-21 establishes national performance goals for Federal highway programs related to congestion management:

MAP – 21: Goals and Objectives Safety — To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Congestion reduction — To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the NHS. System reliability — To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system. Freight movement and economic vitality — To improve the national freight network, strengthen the

ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development.

Environmental sustainability — To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

5.2. Florida Transportation Plan

The 2060 Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) was adopted in 2010 and creates a shared vision for the future of transportation in Florida and the goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve this vision over the next 50 years are identified below: Florida Transportation Plan: Goals and Objectives 1) Invest in transportation systems to support a prosperous, globally competitive economy Maximize Florida’s position as a strategic hub for international and domestic trade, visitors, and

investment by developing, enhancing, and funding Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS). Improve transportation connectivity for people and freight to established and emerging regional

employment centers in rural and urban areas. Plan and develop transportation systems to provide adequate connectivity to economically

productive rural lands. Invest in transportation capacity improvements to meet future demand for moving people and

freight. Be a worldwide leader in development and implementation of innovative transportation technologies

and system. 2) Make transportation decisions to support and enhance livable communities Develop transportation plans and make investments to support the goals of the FTP and other

statewide plans, as well as regional and community visions and plans. Coordinate transportation investments with other public and private decisions to foster livable

communities. Coordinate transportation and land use decisions to support livable rural and urban communities.

3) Make transportation decisions to promote responsible environmental stewardship Plan and develop transportation systems and facilities in a manner which protects and, where

feasible, restores the function and character of the natural environment and avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts. Plan and develop transportation systems to reduce energy consumption, improve air quality, and

20


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

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

risks. 5) Improve mobility and connectivity for people and freight Expand transportation options for residents, visitors, and businesses. Reinforce and transform Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System facilities to provide multimodal

options for moving people and freight. Develop and operate a statewide high speed and intercity passenger rail system connecting all

regions of the state and linking to public transportation systems in rural and urban areas. Expand and integrate regional public transit systems in Florida’s urban areas. Increase the efficiency and reliability of travel for people and freight. Integrate modal infrastructure, technologies, and payment systems to provide seamless

connectivity for passenger and freight trips from origin to destination. 5.3. 2035 Envision Long Range Transportation Plan

As part of the 2035 Envision Long Range Transportation Plan the following goals and objectives applicable to the CMP were identified herein. Where multiple objectives were associated with each goal, only those objectives that are associated with the CMP are provided below:

2035 Envision Long Rang Transportation Plan: Goals And Objectives 1) Keep people and goods moving and help our region’s economy grow Improve access to port, airport and other intermodal facilities via designated connectors and

linkages. Ensure the efficient movement of freight within and through the urbanized area. Improve the connectivity of the local and regional transportation network with intra-regional, inter-

regional, interstate, and international transportation systems and facilities. Improve access to major employment centers. Minimize travel times within and through the area.

2) Increase the accessibility of our transportation system Encourage the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and their connection to trip

destinations. Ensure that all modes are accessible to persons with disabilities. Encourage delivery of more efficient and effective mass transit, such as implementing a bus rapid

transit system or other transit systems. Improve community access to transit by increasing the availability of transit stops and frequency of

transit service.

3) Promote consistency with the plans of each City and County, other regional agencies, and the State and recognize the inter-relationship between land use, transportation and economic development Ensure consistency with the Future Land Use and transportation related elements (Transportation,

Traffic Circulation and Transit) of local comprehensive plans and Traffic Circulation Map(s). Ensure consistency with the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) long- and short-range

plans and programs. Enhance the regional transportation system’s ability to provide adequate evacuation times in an

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

addition of turn lanes, transportation systems management, and intelligent transportation systems.)

21


2035 Envision Long Rang Transportation Plan: Goals And Objectives Encourage transportation demand management strategies to reduce the number of single occupant

vehicles (e.g., carpool, bike, walk, telecommuting and compressed work weeks). Add capacity to an existing facility and/or construct a new road only after all other alternatives

have been considered. Give priority to facilities that are currently deficient. Coordinate with the region’s congestion management system in relieving existing congestion and

preventing congestion where it has not yet occurred. 5) To improve the connectivity of our transportation system by better connecting travel modes Enhance existing connections between transit, rail and the local, regional, interstate and intrastate

road system. Promote the connection of transit systems and major employment centers. Encourage opportunities for connections between travel modes, such as the creation of park-and-

ride lots in close proximity to bus transit service. Promote the expanded use of ITS strategies and technologies to provide data that will keep people

and freight moving by facilitating connectivity between modes. Support transportation improvements that will accommodate future technology and

implementation. 6) To protect our environment, conserve energy and enhance our quality of life Consider energy usage; congestion; and air, noise, and water pollution when evaluating

transportation system improvements and alternatives. Give priority to transportation improvements that reduce energy consumption and air pollution. Consider the impact of CO2 emissions when evaluating alternatives. Identify opportunities for adjacent bicycle and pedestrian greenways as part of the limited access

corridor planning process. Identify opportunities to construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities in roadway improvement

projects. 7) Make our transportation system safer Encourage capital investments that will increase the security and safety of the entire transportation

system. Minimize the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians / bicyclists by encouraging the

creation of bicycle lanes and separating sidewalks / mixed-use paths from roadways. Ensure coordination with FDOT when selecting safety projects. Encourage the use of technologies that can increase transportation safety, such as automatic road

enforcement and emergency vehicle notification systems. Consider clearance times on roads that function as evacuation routes when establishing roadway

improvement priorities. Ensure that the regional transportation system can accommodate an efficient evacuation in an

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

5.4. CMP Goals and Objectives

The CMP is integrated into the North Florida TPO’s LRTP planning process, the goals and objectives for CMP are consistent with the North Florida TPO’s LRTP. The 2035 Envision LRTP contains policies for guiding the North Florida TPO’s actions and visions for the region’s future. The goals and objectives of the CMP are developed in accordance with those visions and policies. The MAP-21 and Florida Transportation Plan goals and objectives are used as a supplement to the LRTP goals and objectives. Although the CMP is titled “congestion management process” the intent of this process is to identify locations where additional “mobility” strategies are needed using a performance-based approach that provides a context-sensitive solution. This is a shift in approach from prior CMP plans for the North Florida TPO. This policy recognizes that we can no longer build our way out of congestion and the best congestion management strategies may include transportation systems management and operational (TSM&O)

22


approaches. A thorough review of the goals and objectives of the three (MAP-21, Florida Transportation Plan, and 2035 Envision LRTP) plans identified the following common themes for congestion management related goals and objectives: Economic Competitiveness Livability Safety Mobility

The CMP update identifies the following goals and objectives by primarily focusing on these four components. Benchmarks were identified for each of the objectives for the North Florida region and the current year performance measure values are provided for tracking the effectiveness of the proposed objective over the subsequent updates on the CMP. Some of the performance measures listed do not have current year performance measure values as sufficient data was unavailable during the course of this project. Goal 1: Invest in Projects That Enhance Economic Competitiveness

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

Table 5: Enhance Economic Competitiveness: Objectives and Performance Measures

Objective Performance Measure Benchmark

Improve travel reliability Travel time reliability Maintain or improve the reliability

Enhance access to jobs Jobs within 1/2 mile of a CMP system facility (1)

Maximize the return on investment

Benefit/Cost ratio Rank of benefit/cost ratio

Return on investment Rank of return on investment

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

Goal 2: Invest in Livable and Sustainable Communities

There is no single definition of what constitutes a “livable” or “sustainable” transportation system. According to the definition endorsed by the Transportation Research Board Sustainable Transportation Indicators Subcommittee, a sustainable transport system is defined as1:

Allows the basic access and development needs of individuals, companies, and society to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and promotes equity within and between successive generations. Is affordable, operates fairly and efficiently, offers a choice of transport mode, and supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced regional development.

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

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

23


Table 6: Livability and Sustainability: Objectives and Performance Measures


Enhance transit accessibility

1/4 mile walk accessibility to transit stops 95% of all households.

Households within 5 miles of major transit centers or park and ride lots (1)

Enhance transit productivity

Average number of passengers per revenue mile (2)

Average number of passengers per revenue hour (2)

Annual average trip length (miles) per passenger (2)

Average active fleet age (2)

Enhance bicycle and pedestrian quality of service

Lane mile with bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the quality of service standard 85% of lane miles

Reduce the cost of congestion per capita

Transportation costs per capita (3)

Costs of congestion (3)

Reduce emissions from automobiles

Hydrocarbon, nitrous oxides and volatile organic compound emission

Maintain non-attainment status

(1) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year unless major route changes or new transit operations are deployed; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

(2) Coordination with Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) and St. Johns County Council of Aging (COA) needed; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

(3) There are many exogenous factors that influence this performance measure including the price of fuels etc.; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

Goal 3: Enhance Safety

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

Table 7: Safety: Objectives and Performance Measures


Crashes Number of crashes Reduce by 0.25% each year

Crash rate per million vehicle miles Reduce or maintain

Fatal crashes Number of fatalities Reduce by 0.25% each year

Crash rate per million vehicle miles Reduce or maintain

Invest in safety projects Advance safety funding projects Fully obligate safety funding in each year’s TIP

Goal 4: Enhance Mobility

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

24


Table 8: Mobility: Objectives and Performance Measures

Objective Mobility Performance Measures Benchmark

Optimize the quantity of travel

Daily person-miles traveled (1)

Daily truck-miles traveled (1)

Daily vehicle-miles traveled (1)

Person trips (1)

Transit ridership (Passengers) Increase

Optimize the quality of travel

Average speed Maintain or improve the average travel speed

Daily delay Maintain or reduce the average vehicle delay

Average travel rate Maintain or increase the average trip time

Reliability Maintain or improve the reliability

LOS on rural facilities Maintain at LOS standard (D or better)

Improve the accessibility to mode choices

Proximity to major transportation hubs (2)

% lane miles with bicycle & Pedestrian accommodations (2)

Transit coverage Increase the % of households served with 1/4 mile

Optimize the utilization of the system

% system heavily congested Maintain or reduce the % of system heavily congested

% travel heavily congested Maintain or reduce the % of travel heavily congested

Vehicles per lane mile Optimize the vehicles per lane mile for a desired LOS

Duration of congestion Maintain or decrease the duration of congestion

Number of passengers per revenue mile Maintain or increase the number of passengers per revenue mile (1) Generally, increases in the quantity traveled (throughout) are preferred. However, consistent with livability and sustainability goals, one of the

objectives is to reduce the amount of travel needed. Therefore, no benchmarks are proposed, but monitoring is recommended. (2) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and

will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

25


6. Summary and Analysis of Performance Measures

The primary purpose of analyzing the roadway data collected is to identify congestion hot-spot facilities within the North Florida region. According to Florida’s Sourcebook 2010, the total population of the North Florida TPO regional boundary, including Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns counties, is approximately 1.32 million. The Sourcebook identified Duval County among the seven largest counties in Florida. The FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database shows the centerline miles and lane-miles for the four counties within the North Florida TPO boundary. A summary of the total miles and lane-miles of roadways with performance measures from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database within North Florida is presented below. Appendix A contains the Data Collection and Literature Review Report compiled for this CMP update. This report includes a number of tables, figures and charts that were compiled to summarize the Mobility Performance Measures data as follows. The following summarizes the changes that occurred in the highway network between 2003 and 2011.

Total Miles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lane-Miles:

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

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

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

o The total lane-miles for urban principal arterials showed 5% increase between 2003 and 2011. o The total lane-miles for rural principal arterials showed 2% decrease between 2003 and 2011. o The total lane-miles for urban minor arterials showed 5% increase between 2003 and 2011. o The total lane-miles for rural minor arterials showed 5% increase between 2003 and 2011.

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

26


Goal 1: Enhance Economic Competitiveness

Travel Time Reliability:

One of the objectives identified in this study was to estimate system reliability. As a result of the limited deployment of the BlueToad devices, a full analysis of the system reliability could not be performed.

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

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

Travel time reliability is recognized as one of the most important quality of service measures to travelers. Per FDOT’s reliability analysis methodology, the on-time or reliable trip is the amount of time it would take a vehicle to traverse the facility length no less than 10 MPH below the free flow speed within the relevant time period. Free flow speed is measured as the posted speed limit plus 5 MPH. A segment reliability of at-least 95% is anticipated for segments that are operating without any congestion. Any reliability percent below 95% shows that the segment will experience recurring congestion for commuters traveling on this segment. The I-95 BlueToad data was used to determine the reliability of travel within the corridor during the period sampled. Tables 9 through 13 estimates the reliability within individual segments of the I-95 corridor during the sampled period as follows:

Table 9: I-95 from I-295 to Racetrack Road – Reliability Analysis

Measure of Effectiveness Southbound(1) Northbound Free Flow Speed (FFS) 60 MPH 60 MPH Maximum of Average Speed 71.1 MPH 58.6 MPH Total Count 1,082 3,354 Unreliable Speed (FFS – 10 MPH) 50 MPH 50 MPH Counts with Reliable Speed 1,019 3,128 Reliability 94.18%(2) 93.26% Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours) n/a(2) 2.25 hours (1) On southbound I-95 between I-295 and Race Track Road, insufficient number of data points were

recorded during the period sampled that indicated typical operating conditions. The speeds within the corridor were representative of a major traffic accident or data collection failure. Data outliers where speeds were less than 5 MPH were removed.

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

Table 10: I-95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road – Reliability Analysis

Measure of Effectiveness Southbound Northbound Free Flow Speed (FFS) 60 MPH 60 MPH Maximum of Average Speed 77.3 MPH 78.5 MPH Total Count 3,358 3,358 Unreliable Speed (FFS – 10 MPH) 50 MPH 50 MPH Counts with Reliable Speed 3,109 3,300 Reliability 92.58% 98.27% Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours) 2.00 hours 0.00 hours

27


Table 11: I-95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive – Reliability Analysis

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

the sampled period.

Table 12: I-95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road – Reliability Analysis

Measure of Effectiveness Southbound Northbound Free Flow Speed (FFS) 75 MPH 75 MPH Maximum of Average Speed 69.9 MPH 72.1 MPH Total Count 571 559 Unreliable Speed (FFS – 10 MPH) 65 MPH 65 MPH Counts with Reliable Speed 441 553 Reliability 77.23% 98.93% Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours) 2.50 hours 0.25 hours

Table 13: I-95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200 – Reliability Analysis

Measure of Effectiveness Southbound Northbound Free Flow Speed (FFS) 75 MPH 75 MPH Maximum of Average Speed 82.8 MPH 81.6 MPH Total Count 538 532 Unreliable Speed (FFS – 10 MPH) 65 MPH 65 MPH Counts with Reliable Speed 535 510 Reliability 99.44% 95.86% Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours) 0.75 hours 0.50 hours

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

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

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

28

I-95 Northbound Speed Variation Chart and ReliabilityFigure 6

Page 29

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

20:30

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

Average Speed (M

PH)

Time of Day Average of Speed (mph) Min of Speed (mph) Max of Speed (mph)

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

20:30

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

No Data AvailableI‐95 from I‐295 to Baymeadows Road

I‐95 from Baymeadows Road to Bowden RoadI‐95 from Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

20:30

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

20:30

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

20:30

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

I‐95 from Race Track Road to I‐295

I‐95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road

I‐95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive

I‐95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road

I‐95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200

Measure of Effectiveness Values

Free Flow Speed (FFS) 60 MPHMax. of Ave. Speed 58.6 MPHUnreliable Speed 50 MPHReliability 93.26%Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours) 2.25 hours









0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

20:30

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

20:30

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

20:30

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30

Average Speed (M

PH)

Time of Day Average of Adjusted Speed Min of Adjusted Speed Max of Adjusted Speed

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

20:30

21:00

21:30

22:00

22:30

23:00

23:30


Free Flow Speed (FFS) 60 MPHMax. of Ave. Speed 71.1 MPHUnreliable Speed 50 MPHReliability 94.18% (*)Duration of Unreliable Speed (within 24 hours) n/a (*)







(*) – Insufficient data was available to estimate reliability

I-95 Southbound Speed Variation Chart and ReliabilityFigure 7

Page 30

No Data AvailableI‐95 from I‐295 to Baymeadows Road

I‐95 from Baymeadows Road to Bowden RoadI‐95 from Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge

I‐95 from Race Track Road to I‐295

I‐95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road

I‐95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road

I‐95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200

No Data AvailableI‐95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive


Access to Jobs:

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

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

Return on Investment:

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

ROI = Net Benefits / Total Costs

In the above equation, net benefits equals total benefits minus total costs. It is a measure of the incremental gain from the project (or loss).

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

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

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

BCR = Total Benefits / Total Costs

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

A bench mark is not established for this performance measure. BCR for investments will be evaluated as part of the LRTP where the strategies for congestion management will be evaluated in greater detail. Table 14 provides the current year values for the performance measures identified under Goal 1.

Table 14: Goal 1- Existing Year Performance Measures Values

Objective Performance Measure Benchmark Existing Year Value

Improve travel reliability Travel time reliability Maintain or improve the reliability On-going

Enhance access to jobs

Jobs within 1/2 mile of a CMP system facility (1) (1)

Maximize the return on investment

Benefit/Cost ratio Rank of benefit/cost ratio (2)

Return on investment Rank of return on investment (2)


(2) Performance measure value will vary depending on the program or project selected.

31


Goal 2: Livability and Sustainability

Enhance Transit Accessibility:

Transit accessibility plays a very important role for commuters to choose public transit or automobile travel. With better planning and enhanced access to transit stops and services, the potential for an increase in transit ridership can be achieved.

Two performance measures are identified to evaluate the transit accessibility.

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

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

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

Enhance Transit Productivity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enhance Bicycle and Pedestrian Quality of Service:

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

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

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

32% of major roads in the Jacksonville region have bicycle lanes or sidewalks. 17% of county roads in St. Johns County have bicycle lanes or sidewalks. 2% of all roads in Nassau County have bicycle lanes or sidewalks. No bicycle lane or sidewalk data was available for Clay County.

32


Reduce the Cost of Congestion Per Capita:

Increase in the cost of congestion impacts large and small businesses and hurts their competitiveness. Increased congestion costs can lead to loss of productivity and economic loss to the North Florida region.

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

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

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

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

Reduce Emissions from Automobiles:

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

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

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

33




Enhance transit accessibility

1/4 mile walk accessibility to transit stops

95% of all households. 46% of all residential households

Households within 5 miles of major transit centers or park and ride lots (1) 87% of all residential households

Enhance transit productivity

Average number of passengers per revenue mile

(2) JTA = 0.89, Sunshine = 0.38

Average number of Passengers per revenue hour (2) JTA = 14.55, Sunshine = 7.30

Annual average trip length (miles) per passenger (2) JTA = 5.85, Sunshine = 7.31

Average active fleet age (2) JTA = 4 years, Sunshine = 3 years

Enhance bicycle and pedestrian quality of service

Lane mile with bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the quality of service standard

85% of lane miles

32% of major roads in Jacksonville, 17% of county roads in St. Johns County, 2% of all roads in Nassau County, Clay County data was N/A

Reduce the cost of congestion per capita

Transportation costs per capita (3) Year 2011 cost of congestion per auto commuter = $635

Costs of congestion (3) Year 2011 cost of congestion in Jacksonville = $486 million

Reduce emissions from automobiles

Hydrocarbon, nitrous oxides and volatile organic compound emission

Maintain non-attainment status

Total vehicle miles traveled in year 2010 from NERPM = 46,148,232

(1) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year unless major route changes or new transit operations are deployed; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

(2) Coordination with Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) and St. Johns County Council of Aging (COA) needed; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

(3) There are many exogenous factors that influence this performance measure including the price of fuels etc.; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the LRTP.

34


Goal 3: Safety

Crashes:

Two performance measures are identified to evaluate the crashes within the North Florida region.

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

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

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

Fatal Crashes:

Two performance measures are identified to evaluate the fatal crashes within the North Florida region.

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

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

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

Invest in Safety Projects:

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




Crashes Number of crashes Reduce by 0.25% each year 16,839 crashes

Crash rate per million vehicle miles Reduce or maintain 1.10

Fatal crashes Number of fatalities Reduce by 0.25% each year 155 crashes

Crash rate per million vehicle miles Reduce or maintain 0.01

Invest in safety projects

Advance safety funding projects

Fully obligate safety funding in each year’s TIP N/A

Goal 4: Enhance Mobility

Optimize the Quantity of Travel:

Five performance measures are identified to evaluate the quantity of travel within the North Florida region.

Daily person-miles traveled (PMT). Daily truck-miles traveled (TMT). Daily vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). Person trips. Transit ridership (Passengers).

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

35


The daily and peak hour VMT and TMT are identified as the performance measures with regional significance. A summary of the trends observed in the daily and peak hour VMT and TMT within the North Florida region over the past nine years (2003 to 2011) from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures data is presented below.

Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):

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

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

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

o The urban principal arterials showed 6% decline in the daily VMT between 2003 and 2011. o The rural principal arterials showed 9% decline in the daily VMT between 2003 and 2011. o The urban minor arterials showed 2% decline in the daily VMT between 2003 and 2011. o The rural minor arterials showed 10% decline in the daily VMT between 2003 and 2011.

Peak Vehicle Miles Traveled:

o The urban Interstates showed an overall increase in the peak hour VMT in nine years. The

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

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

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

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

o The rural principal arterials showed 9% decline in the peak hour VMT between 2003 and 2011. o The urban minor arterials showed 2% decline in the peak hour VMT between 2003 and 2011. o The rural minor arterials showed 10% decline in the peak hour VMT between 2003 and 2011.

Daily Truck Miles Traveled (TMT):

o The urban Interstates showed an overall increase in the daily TMT in nine years. The daily

VMT showed 30% increase between 2003 and 2006 followed by 20% decline between 2006 and 2011.

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

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

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

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

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

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

36


Peak Hour Truck Miles Traveled (TMT):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optimize the Quality of Travel:

Five performance measures are identified to evaluate the quality of travel within the North Florida region.

Average speed. Daily delay. Average travel rate. Reliability. LOS on rural facilities.

Benchmarks are established in the CMP for these performance measures.

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

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

The LOS on rural facilities should be maintained at LOS D or better. There are existing rural facilities that have failing LOS (LOS E or F). These facilities can be evaluated further through the 2040 LRTP.

The daily and peak hour delay was identified as the performance measures with regional significance. A summary of the trends observed in the daily and peak hour delay within the North Florida region over the past nine years (2003 to 2011) from the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures data is presented below.

Daily Delay:

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

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

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

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

Peak Hour Delay:

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

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

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

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

37


Improve the Accessibility to Mode Choices:

Three performance measures are identified to evaluate the accessibility to various modes of transportation within the North Florida region.

Proximity to major transportation hubs. Lane-miles with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Transit Coverage.


The proximity of major transportation hubs to congested roadways is not anticipated to change significantly from year to year; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not appropriate. This performance measure will be evaluated in greater details in the 2040 LRTP.

The analysis of the lane-miles with bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit coverage was presented under Goal 2.

Optimize the Utilization of the System:

Five performance measures are identified to evaluate the existing system utilization.

Percent system heavily congested. Percent travel heavily congested. Duration of congestion (number of hours with LOS E or F). Vehicles per lane-mile. Average number of passengers per revenue mile.


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

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

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

Percent System Heavily Congested:

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

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

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

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

Percent Travel Heavily Congested:

o The urban interstates showed 63% increase in travel congestion between 2003 and 2007

followed by 51% decline between 2007 and 2011. o The urban freeways and expressways showed 29% decline in travel congestion between

2003 and 2008 followed by 21% increase between 2008 and 2011. o The urban principal arterials showed 45% increase in travel congestion between 2003 and

2005 followed by 62% decline between 2005 and 2011. o The urban minor arterials showed 48% increase in travel congestion between 2003 and

2005 followed by 53% decline between 2005 and 2011.

38


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

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

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

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

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


39



Objective Mobility Performance Measures Benchmark Existing Year Value


Daily person-miles traveled (1) 42,439,000

Daily truck-miles traveled (1) 1,934,000

Daily vehicle-miles traveled (1) 27,383,000

Person trips (1) 47,832

Transit ridership (Passengers) Increase JTA = 11,283,132, Sunshine = 195,419


Average speed Maintain or improve the average travel speed 37.46 mph

Daily delay Maintain or reduce the average vehicle delay 24,159 vehicle.hours

Average travel rate Maintain or increase the average trip time 5,238 vehicles per hour

Reliability Maintain or improve the reliability On-going, See I-95 Reliability Analysis Section

LOS on rural facilities Maintain at LOS standard (D or better)

All roadway classified as Rural or Transition have LOS D or better in the existing year (per FDOT

2011 LOS Report)


Proximity to major transportation hubs (2) Evaluated in detail in the LRTP

% lane miles with bicycle & Pedestrian accommodations (2)

32% of major roads in Jacksonville, 17% of county roads in St. Johns County, 2% of all roads

in Nassau County, Clay County data was N/A

Transit coverage Increase the % of households served within 1/4 mile

46% of all residential households within 1/4 mile of a transit stop


% system heavily congested Maintain or reduce the % of system heavily congested 10.20%

% travel heavily congested Maintain or reduce the % of travel heavily congested 4.70%


Vehicles per lane mile Optimize the vehicles per lane mile for a desired LOS 8,015 vehicles

Duration of congestion Maintain or decrease the duration of congestion 2,301 hours

Number of passengers per revenue mile Maintain or increase the number of passengers per revenue mile

JTA = 0.89, Sunshine = 0.38

(1) Generally, increases in the quantity traveled (throughout) are preferred. However, consistent with livability and sustainability goals, one of the objectives is to reduce the amount of travel needed. Therefore, no benchmarks are proposed, but monitoring is recommended.


40


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

6.1. Hot-Spot Analysis

The ArcGIS Hot-Spot Analysis tool was used to develop the congestion hot-spot locations for each of the key performance measures identified below: Duration of Congestion (Hours per Day at LOS E or F) Daily Delay Peak Hour Delay

When the ArcGIS Hot-Spot Analysis tool is run on the key performance measures, it returns a Z-Score value. For statistically significant positive Z-Scores, the larger the Z-Score is, the more intense the clustering of high values (hot-spots) and for statistically significant negative Z-Score, the smaller the Z-Score is, the more intense the clustering of low values (cold-spots). Appendix B of this report shows the hot-spot temperature charts for the key performance measures identified above. The temperature charts produced from the GIS analysis provide a visual representation on the extent of congestion within the North Florida region. Regions that are prone to congestion can be identified through these charts and these can be an excellent visual source in identifying regions where congestion mitigation programs can be deployed. By reviewing the data from these hot-spot temperature maps, the following regions are identified as regions that experience congestion on a daily basis: Argyle/Orange Park Southpoint Gateway Mandarin Intracoastal West San Jose/Sans Souci Arlington Fernandina

These regions were identified to be prominent in the hot-spot analysis of all the key performance measures. Other regions that are of regional significance can be used to augment this above listed locations based on agency review. These regions can be used as a starting point for the deployment of congestion mitigation programs within the North Florida TPO boundary.

41


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

42

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Daily PMT (in 1,000) 41,160 43,021 43,585 44,978 45,423 43,943 43,333 42,825 42,439

Daily VMT (in 1,000) 26,558 27,771 28,133 29,012 29,298 28,352 27,958 27,626 27,383

Daily TMT (in 1,000) 2,425 2,415 2,795 2,933 2,534 2,349 2,234 1,948 1,934

Average Daily Speed (mph) 35.98 34.75 34.49 35.45 34.83 36.47 35.85 37.53 37.46

Daily Weighted Speed (mph*VMT) 955,556.84 965,103.97 970,307.17 1,028,475.40 1,020,351.68 1,034,123.45 1,002,356.43 1,036,926.57 1,025,828.04

Congested VMT - Daily (in 1,000) 1,750 2,087 2,398 2,271 2,309 1,728 1,700 1,277 1,286

Peak Hour PMT (in 1,000) 3,295 3,446 3,497 3,612 3,648 3,527 3,477 3,436 3,404

Peak Hour VMT (in 1,000) 2,126 2,223 2,256 2,328 2,353 2,274 2,242 2,215 2,195

Peak Hour TMT (in 1,000) 196 197 228 239 208 193 184 162 160

Average Peak Hour Speed (mph) 32.32 31.66 31.29 32.01 31.72 33.46 32.81 33.85 33.80

Travel Rate 5,813 5,706 5,775 5,680 5,576 5,490 5,389 5,158 5,238

Peak Hour Weighted Speed (mph*VMT) 68,705.24 70,370.30 70,590.24 74,524.46 74,647.62 76,090.57 73,565.01 74,967.91 74,195.88

Congested VMT - Peak Hour (in 1,000) 460 529 569 608 568 458 418 344 365

Miles Congested (miles) 121.37 129.13 133.86 146.01 128.17 112.04 90.80 86.79 90.54

Total Daily Vehicles Per Lane 21,995,901 22,796,298 23,278,617 24,138,223 23,983,192 22,678,964 21,961,913 21,387,525 21,290,593

Average Daily Vehicles Per Lane 8,238 8,538 8,719 9,041 8,982 8,494 8,225 8,010 7,974

Total Peak Hour Vehicles Per Lane 1,780,128 1,848,871 1,889,672 1,963,173 1,951,420 1,842,130 1,785,276 1,737,162 1,729,974

Average Peak Hour Vehicles Per Lane 667 692 708 735 731 690 669 651 648

Daily Delay (Veh-Hrs) 39,076.33 48,821.14 53,418.88 45,287.41 45,298.42 34,158.92 30,206.24 23,610.69 24,159.00

Daily Persons Delay (Person-Hrs) 61,014.13 75,679.78 82,681.50 70,310.48 70,497.49 52,816.91 47,006.57 36,785.95 37,678.19

Peak Hour Delay (Veh-Hrs) 11,987.23 14,201.39 15,434.77 14,297.93 13,163.72 10,429.76 8,833.84 7,711.49 7,425.36

Peak Hour Persons Delay (Person-Hrs) 18,672.92 21,995.15 23,842.46 22,127.09 20,391.06 16,078.13 13,676.73 11,972.61 11,509.00

Peak Hour Delay - LOS EF (Veh-Hrs) 1,162.47 1,661.76 1,837.52 1,057.42 2,138.35 981.57 1,202.06 815.11 829.30

Hour per Day - LOS EF (Total Hrs) 2,946 2,996 3,193 3,030 2,869 2,544 2,551 2,186 2,301

Volume - Daily Persons (in 1,000) 149,100 154,644 158,377 165,776 163,832 154,932 149,228 145,055 144,569

Volume - Daily Vehicles (in 1,000) 95,416 99,001 101,404 106,062 104,795 99,162 95,526 92,834 92,523

Volume - Daily Trucks (in 1,000) 7,627 7,881 9,407 10,028 8,314 7,887 7,258 6,221 6,234

Volume - Peak Hour Persons (in 1,000) 12,140 12,612 12,929 13,556 13,400 12,650 12,191 11,841 11,806

Volume - Peak Hour Vehicles (in 1,000) 7,769 8,069 8,275 8,670 8,568 8,094 7,800 7,576 7,553

Volume - Peak Hour Trucks (in 1,000) 625 647 774 825 686 654 602 515 517

Total Miles 883.58 875.48 874.14 856.48 876.15 881.95 887.97 887.11 887.26

Total Lane-Miles 3,263.04 3,283.21 3,304.88 3,246.15 3,335.24 3,374.94 3,401.73 3,408.78 3,416.74

Percent System Heavily Congested (%) 13.74% 14.75% 15.31% 17.05% 14.63% 12.70% 10.23% 9.78% 10.20%

Percent Travel Heavily Congested (%) 6.59% 7.52% 8.52% 7.83% 7.88% 6.09% 6.08% 4.62% 4.70%

Vehilces per lane-mile 8,140 8,459 8,513 8,938 8,785 8,401 8,219 8,105 8,015

Person Trips 46,584 49,140 49,861 52,516 51,844 49,825 48,801 48,275 47,832

PerformanceMeasure

Year of Analysis


7. Identification of Congested Corridors

The recent regional trends have suggested an increase in the congestion levels within the North Florida region. The following summarizes the analysis performed to identify the congested facilities within the North Florida TPO governing boundary:

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

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

Congested facilities within the North Florida region were identified utilizing the FDOT LOS base map

roadway extents. Figures 8 and 9 show these congested facilities.

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

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

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

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

43


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

44

ID Rank

County Name

Name of Area Facility Roadway

BeginMP

EndMP

RoadwayLength

(Mi)

RoadwayLength

(Ft.) From Location To LocationAreaType

FacilityType Class MSV

Peak HourMSV

LOSBase Year

Daily PMT

DailyVMT

DailyTMT

AverageDaily Speed(mph)

Peak HourPMT

Peak HourVMT

Peak HourTMT

AveragePeak

Speed(mph)

Duration ofCongestion

(Hrs)

Daily Delay

(Veh.Hrs)

PeakHourDelay

(Veh.Hrs)

8 1 Clay Clay County Blanding Blvd. 71070000 10.003 11.912 1.909 10,080 College Dr Suzanne Ave Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 F 144,872 101,309 2,680 23.49 11,470 8,021 212 13.42 4.50 486.10 201.65151 2 St. Johns St Johns County SR A1A 78001000 4.584 5.370 0.786 4,150 CR 210 (Corona Rd) Solana Rd Urbanized Arterial class Il 33,200 3,220 F 87,425 57,517 994 23.32 6,922 4,554 79 12.86 4.23 340.85 137.67

9 3 Clay Clay County Blanding Blvd. 71070000 11.912 12.624 0.712 3,759 Suzanne Ave SR 224/Kingsley Ave Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 F 83,392 58,316 1,530 22.43 6,603 4,617 121 12.27 5.81 388.56 133.5310 4 Clay Clay County Blanding Blvd. 71070000 12.624 14.498 1.874 9,895 SR 224/Kingsley Ave (SR-224) Duval Co. Line Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 F 57,594 40,140 1,051 20.63 4,560 3,178 83 10.87 8.31 433.45 122.69

152 5 St. Johns St Johns County SR A1A 78001000 5.370 7.151 1.781 9,404 Solana Rd Duval Co. Line Urbanized Arterial class I 36,700 3,560 F 58,289 38,291 900 23.54 4,615 3,032 71 13.64 4.26 322.97 103.9925 6 Duval Jacksonville Atlantic Blvd. 72100000 7.954 11.018 3.064 16,178 St Johns Bluff Rd Girvin Rd Urbanized Arterial class I 55,300 5,360 F 89,064 56,370 1,851 24.53 7,052 4,463 147 14.60 2.88 219.54 101.27

150 7 St. Johns St Johns County SR A1A 78001000 3.089 4.584 1.495 7,894 CR 210 (Palm Valley Rd) CR 210 (Corona Rd) Urbanized Arterial class Il 33,200 3,220 F 75,103 49,410 1,029 24.58 5,946 3,912 81 14.63 2.64 170.85 84.6875 8 Duval Jacksonville Southside Blvd. 72040000 4.933 7.539 2.606 13,760 J.T.B. Beach Blvd Urbanized Arterial class I 36,700 3,560 F 42,735 27,048 980 31.95 3,430 2,171 79 20.16 7.73 331.59 76.62

155 9 Clay Orange Park US 17 71020000 12.650 13.997 1.347 7,112 SR 224 (Kingsley Ave) Wells Rd Urbanized Arterial class Il 50,300 4,880 F 52,844 36,954 2,487 24.59 4,184 2,926 197 14.78 3.68 140.88 64.9485 10 Duval Jacksonville University Blvd. 72014000 2.160 4.005 1.845 9,742 I-95 Beach Blvd (SR 212) Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 F 62,832 39,767 2,182 40.43 5,130 3,247 181 28.18 4.00 158.81 61.76111 11 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72280000 11.660 13.140 1.480 7,814 SR 202 (J.Turner Butler Blvd) Bowden Rd Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 F 80,632 51,033 4,513 46.21 6,793 4,299 380 28.01 7.24 189.58 60.18

144 12 St. Johns St Johns County SR 13 78070000 16.303 17.294 0.991 5,232 Racetrack Rd. Duval Co. Line Urbanized Arterial class I 36,700 3,560 F 35,275 23,207 626 22.83 2,793 1,837 50 12.37 4.44 148.87 55.73140 13 Nassau Nassau County SR AIA 74060000 0.000 4.384 4.384 23,148 US 17/SR 5 CR 107/Brackrock Road Urbanized Arterial class I 36,700 3,560 F 51,324 35,642 2,569 25.27 4,064 2,822 203 15.76 1.91 104.73 54.2349 14 Duval Jacksonville J.T. Butler 72292000 0.000 0.510 0.510 2,693 Phillips Hwy I-95 Urbanized Arterial class Il 33,200 3,220 F 73,046 46,232 3,766 27.97 6,074 3,844 315 18.89 7.27 182.82 53.21135 15 Duval Jacksonville Beach Third St. 72100000 18.065 19.270 1.205 6,362 Beach Blvd 19th St Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 F 38,660 24,469 731 24.46 3,061 1,937 58 14.41 2.67 91.75 45.0424 16 Duval Jacksonville Atlantic Blvd. 72100000 6.559 7.703 1.144 6,040 Monument Rd SR 9A Urbanized Arterial class Ill 48,200 4,680 F 39,880 25,241 973 33.20 3,160 2,000 77 25.75 2.33 83.84 43.09113 17 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72280000 13.480 15.360 1.880 9,926 University Blvd Emerson Expy Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 F 64,365 40,737 3,338 63.58 5,424 3,433 281 43.21 3.80 49.20 39.27

182 18 Duval Jacksonville San Jose Blvd. 72160000 1.865 3.332 1.467 7,746 Loretto Rd I-295 Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 F 72,768 46,056 3,862 39.08 5,960 3,772 323 30.48 2.43 70.11 37.5034 19 Duval Jacksonville Beach Blvd. 72190000 3.343 4.800 1.457 7,693 SR 228 Southside Blvd Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 F 27,792 17,590 444 21.80 2,200 1,393 35 12.89 5.90 130.91 35.06136 20 Duval Jacksonville Beach Third St. 72100000 19.270 19.840 0.570 3,010 19th St 34th St Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 F 26,720 16,911 453 23.95 2,116 1,339 36 13.71 3.36 72.01 32.61174 21 Duval Jacksonville Atlantic Blvd. 72100000 7.703 7.954 0.251 1,325 SR 9A St. Johns Bluff Rd Urbanized Arterial class I 55,300 5,360 F 29,559 18,708 611 29.92 2,342 1,482 48 21.48 2.61 65.60 31.5566 22 Duval Jacksonville US 1/ Phillips Hwy. 72070000 10.244 12.089 1.845 9,742 Baymeadows Rd J.T.B. (SR 202) Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 F 27,521 17,418 974 24.67 2,179 1,379 77 14.77 2.50 58.87 29.5339 23 Duval Jacksonville Blanding Blvd. 72170000 0.000 0.467 0.467 2,466 Clay Co. Line I-295 Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 F 14,426 9,471 205 20.17 1,142 750 16 11.40 9.35 115.84 25.66

162 24 St. Johns St Augustine US 1 78010000 16.064 16.763 0.699 3,691 SR 207 King Street Urbanized Arterial class I 35,500 3,560 F 13,628 8,966 240 22.49 1,079 710 19 12.33 5.43 71.26 23.52114 25 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72280000 15.360 16.793 1.433 7,566 Emerson Expy Atlantic Blvd Ramps Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 F 31,540 19,962 1,825 55.75 2,659 1,683 154 29.10 5.85 44.91 22.79

5 26 Clay Middleburg Blanding Blvd. 71070000 1.855 2.881 1.026 5,417 CR 218 N. City Limit (Palmetto St) Urbanized Arterial class I 36,700 3,560 F 18,218 12,740 328 24.81 1,442 1,009 26 14.95 2.38 40.06 20.82148 27 St. Johns St Johns County US 1 78010000 15.054 16.064 1.010 5,333 SR 312 SR 207 Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 F 16,296 10,721 289 23.62 1,290 849 23 13.58 3.97 43.65 19.81115 28 Duval Jacksonville SR 10 72020000 0.000 0.677 0.677 3,575 Atlantic Blvd Downtown Exit (SR 5) Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 F 15,967 10,106 884 42.03 1,341 849 74 16.35 9.35 90.72 18.75

156 29 Clay Orange Park US 17 71020000 13.997 14.365 0.368 1,943 Wells Rd Duval Co. Line Urbanized Arterial class Il 58,680 5,693 F 10,348 7,236 479 24.33 819 573 38 14.63 4.63 36.53 14.68166 30 Duval Jacksonville Rail Connector/Pritchard Rd 72000026 1.730 2.517 0.787 4,155 I-295 Old Kings Urbanized Arterial class I 16,500 1,600 F 71,409 45,196 6,261 49.20 5,994 3,794 527 46.74 4.75 37.29 11.30195 31 Duval Neptune Beach Atlantic Blvd. 72100000 13.847 14.264 0.417 2,202 Ramp to A1A W A1A Junction Urbanized Arterial class I 35,500 3,440 F 7,866 4,979 161 23.23 623 394 13 13.58 4.40 40.30 11.29137 32 Duval Jacksonville Beach Third St. 72004000 0.000 0.692 0.692 3,654 St Johns Co. Line 34th Ave Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 F 9,918 6,345 191 27.57 787 504 15 15.96 3.80 25.29 11.19189 33 Duval Jacksonville SR 9A 72002000 13.396 15.441 2.045 10,798 St Johns Bluff Rd Beach Boulevard (SR 212) Urbanized Freeway 73,600 6,770 F 22,960 14,532 514 61.04 1,910 1,209 43 54.15 3.00 10.71 7.7230 34 Duval Jacksonville Baymeadows Rd. 72028000 1.912 2.799 0.887 4,683 US 1 (Phillips Hwy) I-95 Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 F 61,099 38,670 3,810 43.69 5,117 3,239 321 36.10 2.52 11.77 5.96161 35 St. Johns St Augustine San Marco 78010027 1.315 2.191 0.876 4,625 Orange Street May Street Urbanized Arterial class Il 12,160 1,256 F 8,653 5,692 256 25.87 685 451 20 17.81 2.25 2.21 1.59

157 36 St. Johns St Augustine Bridge of Lions 78040000 16.703 17.041 0.338 1,785 Bridge of Lions State Hwy A1A Urbanized Arterial class I 16,500 1,600 F 1,379 907 31 25.16 109 72 2 16.89 5.55 2.30 1.02179 37 Duval Jacksonville Ocean St. 72050000 8.773 8.845 0.072 380 Ocean St Main St Urbanized Arterial class Ill 28,920 2,808 F 9,727 6,156 331 28.65 770 487 26 25.35 8.59 0.00 0.0026 38 Duval Jacksonville Atlantic Blvd. 72100000 11.018 12.383 1.365 7,207 Girvin Rd San Pablo Rd Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 E 159,917 101,213 4,020 24.99 12,661 8,014 318 15.20 2.67 351.02 174.0658 39 Duval Jacksonville Mathews Bridge Expy. 72040000 12.808 14.735 1.927 10,175 University Blvd Haines St Expy Urbanized Highway 64,300 6,040 E 31,480 19,924 686 15.55 2,492 1,577 54 10.02 12.09 588.69 71.1336 40 Duval Jacksonville Beach Blvd. 72190000 7.065 9.005 1.940 10,243 SR 9A Kernan Blvd Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 E 38,951 24,652 712 22.56 3,084 1,952 56 12.61 5.21 128.11 51.16

154 41 Clay Orange Park US 17 71020000 12.218 12.650 0.432 2,281 Elbow Rd SR 224 (Kingsley Ave) Urbanized Arterial class Il 50,300 4,880 E 36,992 25,869 1,758 23.33 2,929 2,048 139 13.58 4.52 99.52 45.1140 42 Duval Jacksonville Blanding Blvd. 72170000 0.467 4.121 3.654 19,293 I-295 103rd St (SR 134) Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 E 48,645 30,788 677 21.95 3,851 2,438 54 13.79 5.69 101.05 44.9635 43 Duval Jacksonville Beach Blvd. 72190000 4.800 7.065 2.265 11,959 Southside Blvd SR 9A Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 E 42,944 27,179 760 29.98 3,413 2,160 61 20.14 4.42 85.02 41.5131 44 Duval Jacksonville Baymeadows Rd. 72028000 2.799 3.504 0.705 3,722 I-95 Old Baymeadows Road Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 E 78,938 49,961 4,463 43.36 6,588 4,169 375 36.13 4.65 84.89 23.04

133 45 Duval Jacksonville SR 9A 72002000 20.370 24.840 4.470 23,602 SR 152 (Baymeadows Rd) US 1 Urbanized Freeway 73,600 6,770 E 76,813 48,616 2,369 53.92 6,464 4,091 199 49.33 4.63 43.76 17.0095 46 Duval Jacksonville I-10 72270000 20.118 20.546 0.428 2,260 McDuff Ave SR 228/US 17 Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 E 23,366 14,789 983 63.31 1,970 1,247 83 43.84 3.94 21.42 12.1297 47 Duval Jacksonville I-10 72270000 21.060 21.667 0.607 3,205 Stockton Ramps I-95 Urbanized Freeway 146,500 13,480 E 14,760 9,342 516 49.88 1,244 788 44 30.54 8.22 56.60 11.6296 48 Duval Jacksonville I-10 72270000 20.546 21.060 0.514 2,714 SR 228/US 17 Stockton Ramps Urbanized Freeway Aux 166,500 15,280 E 20,474 12,958 595 64.22 1,726 1,092 50 43.86 3.40 16.10 11.5899 49 Duval Jacksonville I-295 72001000 3.087 4.896 1.809 9,552 Old St Augustine Road SR 13 (San Jose Blvd) Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 E 64,353 40,730 5,125 62.30 5,418 3,429 432 54.52 2.45 11.39 8.90

158 50 St. Johns St Augustine King St. 78010027 0.000 0.654 0.654 3,453 US 1 Cordova Street Urbanized Arterial class Il 15,960 1,648 E 5,321 3,501 132 24.32 421 277 10 15.68 5.90 24.61 8.27104 51 Duval Jacksonville I-295 72001000 20.647 22.199 1.552 8,195 I-10 Commonwealth Ave. Urbanized Freeway 73,600 6,770 E 21,366 13,523 1,932 65.35 1,801 1,140 163 54.26 3.35 10.00 6.78

18 52 Duval Jacksonville Arlington Expy. 72040000 11.685 12.354 0.669 3,532 Arlington Road N Cesery Blvd (SR 109) Urbanized Highway 64,300 6,040 D 76,180 48,215 1,641 19.52 6,032 3,817 130 10.05 9.69 724.79 172.21171 53 Clay Orange Park Kingsley Ave. 71130000 2.234 2.781 0.547 2,888 Doctors Lake Drive US 17 Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 88,477 61,872 4,081 24.68 7,005 4,899 323 14.70 2.67 222.66 105.76

173 54 Duval Jacksonville Arlington Expy. 72040000 10.197 11.685 1.488 7,857 Southside Blvd Arlington Rd Urbanized Highway 64,300 6,040 D 41,741 26,418 888 18.27 3,305 2,092 70 10.00 11.10 443.89 94.7464 55 Duval Jacksonville US 1/ Phillips Hwy. 72070000 5.667 6.724 1.057 5,581 SR 9A Southside Blvd Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 50,305 31,839 2,710 23.99 3,983 2,521 215 14.02 3.33 140.72 59.8671 56 Duval Jacksonville San Jose Blvd. 72160000 0.000 1.865 1.865 9,847 St Johns County Loretto Rd Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 D 49,785 31,772 856 23.64 3,942 2,516 68 13.44 3.71 130.29 58.9517 57 Duval Jacksonville Arlington Expy. 72040000 12.354 12.808 0.454 2,397 Cesery Blvd (SR 109) University Blvd Urbanized Highway 64,300 6,040 D 25,533 16,160 476 16.59 2,022 1,279 38 10.03 11.53 352.52 57.54

60 58 Duval Jacksonville Mayport Rd. 72230000 1.213 2.300 1.087 5,739 Church Road A1A Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 34,487 21,827 882 23.20 2,731 1,728 70 13.24 4.86 158.31 53.48177 59 Duval Jacksonville Emerson St. 72015000 1.381 2.373 0.992 5,238 I-95 Emerson St Expy Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 74,530 47,171 3,593 48.11 6,247 3,954 302 30.71 4.40 70.01 52.52147 60 St. Johns St Johns County US 1 78010000 13.981 15.054 1.073 5,665 Lewis Point Rd SR 312 Urbanized Arterial class Ill 48,200 4,680 D 42,096 27,694 777 24.34 3,333 2,193 62 14.21 3.17 110.40 52.27112 61 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72280000 13.140 13.480 0.340 1,795 Bowden Rd University Blvd Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 77,658 49,150 4,339 62.25 6,546 4,143 366 41.42 4.34 138.85 52.17116 62 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72020000 0.677 2.664 1.987 10,491 Downtown Exit (SR 5) I-10 "Fuller Warren Brdg" Urbanized Freeway 146,500 13,480 D 48,163 30,483 2,525 43.95 4,056 2,567 213 20.69 8.63 249.31 51.70110 63 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72280000 9.345 11.660 2.315 12,223 SR 152 (Baymeadows Rd) SR 202 (J.Turner Butler Blvd) Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 94,258 59,657 5,605 52.04 7,935 5,022 472 37.49 6.00 147.87 48.7673 64 Duval Jacksonville Southside Blvd. 72040000 2.165 2.759 0.594 3,136 Belle Rive Blvd Baymeadows Rd Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 D 45,069 28,525 1,592 25.48 3,568 2,258 126 15.77 2.00 80.57 47.1476 65 Duval Jacksonville Southside Blvd. 72040000 7.539 9.572 2.033 10,734 Beach Blvd Atlantic Blvd Urbanized Arterial class I 36,700 3,560 D 29,817 18,872 681 22.09 2,361 1,494 54 12.74 5.99 141.67 42.5650 66 Duval Jacksonville J.T. Butler 72292000 0.510 1.070 0.560 2,957 I-95 Belfort Rd Urbanized Highway 96,400 9,060 D 58,158 36,809 3,002 33.84 4,867 3,081 252 23.62 9.28 194.41 41.5638 67 Duval Jacksonville Beach Blvd. 72190000 10.778 12.047 1.269 6,700 Hodges Blvd San Pablo Pkwy Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 D 35,338 22,366 797 23.67 2,798 1,771 63 13.33 3.26 88.54 41.17


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

45

ID Rank

County Name

Name of Area Facility Roadway

BeginMP

EndMP

RoadwayLength

(Mi)

RoadwayLength

(Ft.) From Location To LocationAreaType

FacilityType Class MSV

Peak HourMSV

LOSBase Year

Daily PMT

DailyVMT

DailyTMT

AverageDaily Speed(mph)

Peak HourPMT

Peak HourVMT

Peak HourTMT

AveragePeak

Speed(mph)

Duration ofCongestion

(Hrs)

Daily Delay

(Veh.Hrs)

PeakHourDelay

(Veh.Hrs)

142 68 Duval Neptune Beach Third St. 72100000 15.531 16.710 1.179 6,225 Atlantic Blvd (SR 10) Seagate Ave Urbanized Arterial class Il 25,000 3,220 D 46,347 29,333 1,166 25.69 3,669 2,322 92 16.67 1.50 56.90 34.20134 69 Duval Jacksonville Beach Third St. 72100000 16.710 18.065 1.355 7,154 Seagate Ave Beach Blvd Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 32,953 20,856 815 25.28 2,609 1,651 65 15.90 2.00 54.28 29.84102 70 Duval Jacksonville I-295 72001000 17.443 19.384 1.941 10,248 SR 208 (Wilson Blvd.) SR 228 (Normandy Blvd) Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 171,070 108,272 13,852 63.99 14,415 9,123 1,167 58.61 1.89 28.67 28.0823 71 Duval Jacksonville Atlantic Blvd. 72100000 5.722 6.559 0.837 4,419 SR 115 (Southside Blvd) Monument Rd Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 20,614 13,047 594 21.31 1,632 1,033 47 12.70 6.58 82.44 26.0283 72 Duval Jacksonville University Blvd. 72014000 1.123 1.454 0.331 1,748 St Augustine Road Powers Ave Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 12,085 7,649 218 20.07 957 606 17 10.40 9.11 103.11 25.92

120 73 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72020000 5.237 5.836 0.599 3,163 SR 15/US 17 SR 122 (Golfair Ave.) Urbanized Freeway Aux 130,300 11,950 D 33,218 21,024 1,876 57.97 2,800 1,772 158 33.80 4.67 59.10 24.7784 74 Duval Jacksonville University Blvd. 72014000 1.454 1.736 0.282 1,489 Powers Ave Phillips Ave Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 D 10,982 6,951 220 19.69 870 550 17 10.24 9.81 98.46 23.9419 75 Duval Jacksonville Arlington Expy. 72040345 0.000 0.765 0.765 4,039 Southside Blvd Regency Mall Entrance Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 12,213 7,730 305 17.95 967 612 24 10.89 10.51 122.69 21.36

22 76 Duval Jacksonville Atlantic Blvd. 72100000 3.234 5.722 2.488 13,137 SR 109 (University Blvd) SR 115 (Southside Blvd) Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 18,592 11,767 403 24.31 1,472 932 32 14.33 3.11 44.95 21.1961 77 Duval Jacksonville Normandy Blvd. 72120000 16.058 18.474 2.416 12,756 Herlong Rd I-295 Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 28,671 18,146 1,317 25.64 2,270 1,437 104 16.51 2.00 35.05 21.09

131 78 Duval Jacksonville SR 9A 72002000 12.854 13.396 0.542 2,862 SR 10 (Atlantic Blvd) St Johns Bluff Rd Urbanized Freeway 73,600 6,770 D 26,834 16,983 690 45.60 2,169 1,373 56 41.85 1.89 43.12 20.92129 79 Duval Jacksonville SR 9A 72002000 10.316 11.410 1.094 5,776 Merrill Rd Monument Rd Urbanized Freeway 73,600 6,770 D 26,169 16,563 678 37.81 2,139 1,354 55 31.92 4.00 58.16 20.53130 80 Duval Jacksonville SR 9A 72002000 11.410 12.854 1.444 7,624 Monument Rd SR 10 (Atlantic Blvd) Urbanized Freeway 73,600 6,770 D 29,220 18,494 726 39.63 2,376 1,504 59 33.99 2.41 43.08 19.9572 81 Duval Jacksonville Southside Blvd. 72040000 0.000 2.165 2.165 11,431 Phillips Hwy Belle Rive Blvd Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 15,756 9,972 567 21.55 1,248 790 45 12.07 6.79 52.62 19.9062 82 Duval Jacksonville Normandy Blvd. 72120000 18.474 19.767 1.293 6,827 I-295 Lane Ave Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 22,084 13,977 1,015 25.64 1,748 1,107 80 16.51 2.00 27.00 16.2570 83 Duval Jacksonville US 17/ Roosevelt Blvd. 72030000 7.939 8.935 0.996 5,259 Park St Edgewood Ave Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 D 8,871 5,615 137 20.92 702 445 11 11.72 7.60 69.22 16.07163 84 St. Johns St Augustine US 1 78010000 16.763 17.425 0.662 3,495 King Street Castillo Dr Urbanized Arterial class Il 25,000 3,220 D 11,516 7,576 215 23.91 912 600 17 14.08 3.79 41.21 15.80175 85 Duval Jacksonville Baymeadows Rd. 72028000 0.501 1.912 1.411 7,450 Craven Road US 1(Phillips Hwy) Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 15,723 9,951 248 25.09 1,245 788 20 15.48 2.13 27.30 14.75181 86 Duval Jacksonville US 17/ Roosevelt Blvd. 72030000 8.935 9.434 0.499 2,635 Edgewood Ave McDuff Avenue Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 D 8,219 5,202 116 22.03 651 412 9 12.35 6.17 55.07 14.57121 87 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72020000 5.836 7.129 1.293 6,827 SR 122 (Golfair Ave.) SR 115 (Lem Turner Rd.) Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 23,053 14,591 1,316 59.83 1,943 1,230 111 39.75 4.06 31.00 14.2032 88 Duval Jacksonville Baymeadows Rd. 72028000 3.978 6.417 2.439 12,878 SR 115 (Southside Blvd) SR 9A Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 31,816 20,136 1,050 50.95 2,654 1,680 88 42.33 4.13 31.97 13.84118 89 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72020000 3.801 4.608 0.807 4,261 SR 139/US 23 SR 114 (8th St.) Urbanized Freeway 146,500 13,480 D 14,237 9,011 864 45.50 1,196 757 73 25.45 7.98 42.17 13.4914 90 Duval Jacksonville 8th St. 72005000 0.000 0.584 0.584 3,084 Francis St Perry St Urbanized Arterial class Ill 31,900 3,100 D 12,187 7,713 765 39.85 1,024 648 64 17.93 6.50 39.04 13.38

98 91 Duval Jacksonville I-295 72001000 0.000 3.087 3.087 16,299 I-95 Old St Augustine Road Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 98,650 62,437 7,945 65.50 8,316 5,263 670 57.71 2.54 15.26 13.25132 92 Duval Jacksonville SR 9A 72002000 17.833 19.009 1.176 6,209 SR 202 (J.Turner Butler) Gate Parkway Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 27,013 17,097 828 59.55 2,274 1,439 70 45.04 3.77 27.08 12.2494 93 Duval Jacksonville I-10 72270000 19.237 20.118 0.881 4,652 Luna Ramps McDuff Ave Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 36,023 22,799 1,334 64.81 3,037 1,922 112 54.11 2.85 17.04 11.22101 94 Duval Jacksonville I-295 72001000 15.913 17.443 1.530 8,078 SR 134 (103rd St.) SR 208 (Wilson Blvd.) Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 67,813 42,920 5,217 60.87 5,712 3,615 440 56.12 2.20 13.18 10.7493 95 Duval Jacksonville I-10 72270000 18.555 19.237 0.682 3,601 Cassat Ave Luna Ramps Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 32,714 20,705 1,090 65.49 2,758 1,745 92 55.69 2.48 11.73 9.5392 96 Duval Jacksonville I-10 72270000 17.300 18.555 1.255 6,626 Lane Ave Cassat Ave Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 49,298 31,201 2,194 66.22 4,156 2,630 185 59.18 2.27 9.46 9.46

11 97 Clay Clay County Branan Field Road 71393000 0.000 2.275 2.275 12,012 Kindlewood Dr Duval Co. Line Urbanized Arterial class I 16,500 1,600 D 10,330 7,224 579 24.79 818 572 46 15.44 3.31 17.19 9.18117 98 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72020000 2.664 3.801 1.137 6,003 I-10 SR 139/US 23 (Kings Rd) Urbanized Freeway 146,500 13,480 D 11,602 7,343 647 52.51 975 617 54 38.45 5.81 25.09 7.11

172 99 Duval Jacksonville 103rd St. 72220000 7.116 7.730 0.614 3,242 Ricker Rd I-295 Urbanized Arterial class Il 53,100 5,150 D 14,724 9,319 731 35.31 1,218 771 61 28.94 4.14 20.85 6.903 100 Duval Atlantic Beach Atlantic Blvd. 72100000 14.264 15.531 1.267 6,690 W A1A Junction Third St (E A1A Junction) Urbanized Arterial class Il 33,200 3,220 D 6,805 4,307 151 25.25 539 341 12 15.60 1.88 12.09 6.76

87 101 Duval Jacksonville University Blvd. 72110000 0.000 0.548 0.548 2,893 SR 10A (Arlington Expy) Arlington Rd Urbanized Arterial class Il 35,100 3,400 D 3,846 2,434 79 20.47 304 193 6 11.84 7.92 29.19 6.0444 102 Duval Jacksonville Dunn Ave. 72018000 5.982 6.876 0.894 4,720 Biscayne Blvd I-95 Urbanized Arterial class Ill 48,200 4,680 D 6,619 4,189 223 25.64 524 332 18 16.51 2.00 8.09 4.87119 103 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72020000 4.608 5.237 0.629 3,321 SR 114 (8th St.) SR 15 (20th St) Urbanized Freeway Aux 130,300 11,950 D 11,902 7,533 756 59.35 1,003 635 64 42.17 4.03 10.68 3.83

109 104 Duval Jacksonville I-95 72280000 7.500 9.345 1.845 9,742 Exit to Southside Blvd (SR 115) SR 152 (Baymeadows Rd) Urbanized Freeway 110,300 10,150 D 82,433 52,173 5,328 64.52 6,945 4,396 449 57.14 2.93 5.68 3.7881 105 Duval Jacksonville Union St. 72080101 0.000 1.024 1.024 5,407 I-95 Main St (SR 5) Urbanized Arterial class Ill 38,820 3,768 D 6,784 4,293 322 32.24 542 343 26 25.07 9.59 11.98 3.1979 106 Duval Jacksonville State St. 72080000 0.000 0.818 0.818 4,319 SR 5 (Main St) Union St Urbanized Arterial class Ill 38,820 3,768 D 6,289 3,980 295 28.80 503 318 24 22.56 10.74 11.27 2.9780 107 Duval Jacksonville State St. 72040000 15.651 15.968 0.317 1,674 Liberty St US Hwy 1 Urbanized Arterial class Il 42,540 4,128 D 8,634 5,465 277 28.26 684 433 22 24.52 7.37 2.67 0.90105 108 Duval Jacksonville I-295 72001000 22.199 24.676 2.477 13,079 Commonwealth Ave. Pritchard Rd Urbanized Freeway 73,600 6,770 D 57,396 36,326 5,166 64.83 4,837 3,061 435 66.21 1.68 2.69 0.81

HASTINGS

PALATKA

JACKSONVILLE

FERNANDINA BEACHHILLIARD

ST. AUGUSTINE

JACKSONVILLE BEACH

GREEN COVE SPRINGS

ORANGE PARK

BALDWIN

CALLAHAN

PENNEY FARM ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH

KEYSTONE HEIGHTS

IJ121

IJ108

IJ218

IJ214

IJ315

IJ13

IJ309D

IJ13A

IJ117

IJ210

IJ115

IJ209

IJ210A

IJ305

IJ16A

IJ220

IJ203

IJ115 A

IJ208

IJ217

IJ215

IJ119

IJ204

IJ99

IJ118 1

IJ107

IJ213

IJ20A

IJ220A

IJ200A

IJ207A

IJ15A

IJ739

IJ5A

IJ21B

IJ115 C

IJ103

IJA1A

IJ121A

IJ309C

IJ1363

IJ315C

IJ219

IJ225

IJ118 9

IJ116 2

IJ101A

IJ211

IJ116

IJ13B

IJ163

IJ105A

IJ216

IJ228

IJ21

IJ21D

IJ117 7

IJ110

IJ1359

IJ226

IJ1365

IJ106

IJ2016

IJ0019

IJ1447

IJ2

IJ1353

IJ220B

IJ117 9

IJ310

IJ311

IJ105B

IJ125

IJ107A

IJ1342

IJ117 5

IJ109A

IJ212

IJ13A

IJ228

IJ217

IJ16A

IJ13A

IJ110

IJ15A

IJ225

IJ107

IJ110

IJ214

IJ108

IJ105A

IJ315

IJ115

IJ15A

IJ105A

IJ214

IJ209

IJ108

IJ13

IJ220

IJ119

IJ200A

IJ213

IJ211

IJ209

IJ220A

IJ209

IJ115 A

§̈¦95

§̈¦295

§̈¦10

ST9

ST5

ST21

ST200

ST15

ST A1A

ST16

ST100

ST20

ST13

ST10 ST8

ST207

ST228

ST115

ST105

ST202ST134

ST23

ST116

ST111

ST104

ST19

ST152

ST26

ST10A

ST109ST139

ST103

ST312

ST211

ST224

ST113

ST128 ST126

ST102

ST117

ST115 A

ST243

ST228A

STA1A

ST228

ST228

ST139

ST 21

ST115

ST105

ST16

ST5

STA1A

ST105

ST115

STA1A

STA1A

STA1A

ST20

ST105

ST21

ST A1A

ST15

ST A1AST2

00

ST10

STA1A

£¤17

£¤23

£¤1

£¤90

£¤301

£¤90A£¤90

A

£¤1

£¤ 1

£¤17

Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO

LEGENDNorth Florida TPO BoundaryCongested FacilitiesCities

County BoundariesDuvalSt. JohnsClayNassauOther Counties

0 2 41 Miles±NASSAU

DUVAL

CLAY

ST. JOHNS

DOWNTOWNINSET 1

ST. AUGUSTINEINSET 2

Figure 8

Page 46

JACKSONVILLE

IJ103

IJ21B

IJ213

IJ211

IJ228

IJ109A

IJ211

§̈¦95§̈¦10

ST9

ST111

ST10

ST139

ST212

ST115

ST109

ST15

ST228

ST103 ST13

ST211

ST5

ST128 ST21 ST126

ST115A

ST228A

ST129

ST122

ST10

ST228

ST228

ST15

ST228

ST211

ST15

ST15

ST10

ST13 ST228

ST5

ST139

£¤90

£¤23

£ ¤17

£¤1

£¤1A

£¤1

£¤1A

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

Figure 9

ST. AUGUSTINE

ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH

IJ214

IJ5A

IJA1A

IJ1363

IJ1351

IJ1359

IJ1365

IJ1339IJ1337

IJ1335

IJ1353

IJ1340

IJ1354

IJ1332

IJ1349

IJ1342

IJ1333

IJ1344

IJ1347

IJ5

IJ1338

IJ312

ST5

STA1A

ST207

ST312

ST5A

ST9

STA1A

STA1A

STA1A

£¤1

£¤1B

Page 47

Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO - Inset 1Downtown Region



0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles±

DUVAL

ST. JOHNS


8. Congestion Mitigation Strategies

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

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

• Travel Demand Management (TDM) Strategies.

• Transit Improvements.

• Capacity Improvements.

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

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

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

o Surveillance and Incident Management Systems.

o Access Management.

o Congestion Pricing.

o Integrated Corridor Management.

o Arterial Management Systems.

o Hard Shoulder Running.

o Reversible Lanes.

o One-way Streets.

o Ramp metering.

o Transit Signal Priority.

o Variable Speed Limits.

o Dynamic Detours.

o Queue Warning Systems.

o Traveler Information Systems.

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

48


8.1.1. Surveillance and Incident Management Systems (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

Through the use of a freeway incident detection and management system, incident duration can be reduced by an average of 10 minutes. By reducing travel delays, fuel consumption, emissions, and secondary incidents, Traffic Incident Management (TIM) boosts the national and regional economy. According to Texas Transportation Institute (TTI’s) Urban Mobility Report 2011, travel time value for each person-hour of travel was $16.79 in 2011; for trucks the value was $86.81 for the Jacksonville area. The costs of travel delay drive up freight costs, which are passed on to consumers through product and commodity price increases.

Implementation:

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

Typical Vehicle Positioning during Incidents

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short IMPACT: Corridor/Region WHO: City/State/EMS HURDLES: Policy Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

Figure 10 - Freeway Surveillance

49


8.1.2. Access Management (1&5)

Description:

By employing a program of access management a number of state and local highway agencies are finding it possible to improve average travel speeds, safety performance, and capacity of arterials. Access management elements often include one or more of the following:

The physical restriction of left turns,

Restricting curb cuts and direct access driveways,

Separating obvious conflict areas,

Eliminating parking,

Locating intersections at no less than minimum intervals, and

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

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

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

Controlling or managing access along highways is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks facing local officials and transportation engineers. Good access management begins at the early stages of development when access management techniques can more easily be integrated into the design. Retrofitting is difficult and costly, but possible. Subdivision regulations and development standards/ordinances should be carefully crafted to facilitate access management implementation. One approach for providing effective access management is to undertake a corridor-level planning study. Corridor analyses which assess future demands and capacity of freeway and parallel facilities and evaluate major development proposals provide essential information to decision makers.

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short/Moderate IMPACT: Corridor WHO: City/State HURDLES: Retrofit/Business

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

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

50


8.1.3. Congestion Pricing (1&5)

Description:

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

An alternate, less congested route,

A different departure time,

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

To telecommute or eliminate low-priority trips.

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Moderate IMPACT: Corridor WHO: Public Agency HURDLES: Public Acceptance Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

Figure 12 - Congestion Pricing – Miami, Florida

51


8.1.4. Integrated Corridor Management (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Moderate IMPACT: Corridor/Region WHO: City/State HURDLES: Institutional Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

Figure 13 - Integrated Corridor Management

52


8.1.5. Arterial Management Systems (1&5)

Description:

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

Incident detection and follow-up action to remove incidents:

o Service patrols

o Roving tow vehicles at key sites

o Motorist information systems

o Incident teams

Intersection surveillance and monitoring, using:

o Loop detectors

o Interconnected signal systems

o Video monitoring of key intersections

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

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

Traffic surveillance and metering

Benefit/Costs:

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

Reduce vehicular travel time along travel corridors

Increase street/intersection capacity

Eliminate vehicular blockage at intersections

Eliminate double parking

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

Implementation:

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

53


8.1.6. Hard Shoulder Running (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

Hard shoulder running is beneficial in delaying the onset of congestion by increasing capacity and improving trip reliability for all drivers. This strategy increases throughput by temporarily increasing capacity for all motorists. It also provides an alternative lane for use during incidents and work zones. The cost of implementing hard shoulder running can vary greatly based on the existing infrastructure available on the roadway.

Implementation:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Moderate IMPACT: Corridor/Region WHO: City/State HURDLES: Institutional Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

Figure 14 - Components of Arterial Management Systems

54


8.1.7. Reversible Lanes (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short IMPACT: Corridor WHO: State/FHWA HURDLES: Right-of-way, Public

Support, Design, Operation

Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short/Moderate IMPACT: Corridor/Spot WHO: City/State/FHWA HURDLES: Public Awareness,

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

Figure 15 - Hard Shoulder Running in Europe

Figure 16 - Bay Street, Jacksonville, FL – Reversible Lanes

55


8.1.8. One-way Streets (1&5)

Description:

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

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

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

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

Benefit/Costs:

One-way streets provide increased capacity, as they:

Reduce intersection delays caused by vehicle turning movement conflicts and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.

Reduce travel time.

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

Redistribution of traffic to relieve congestion on adjacent streets.

Simplify traffic signal timings.

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

Implementation:

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

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

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

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

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

Proper transit service can be maintained.

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

56


8.1.9. Ramp Metering (1&5)

Description:

Ramp metering (also known as ramp flow control) uses specialized traffic signals that release vehicles onto a freeway in a smooth and even manner. The goal is to keep entering vehicles from crowding out freeway traffic and creating stop-and-go traffic that ripples upstream and slows the entire freeway. By releasing one or two vehicles at a time, ramp meter signals keep the freeway moving efficiently for a longer period of time. Less stop-and-go traffic means fewer crashes that cause additional congestion. In return, vehicles will wait on the ramp. This strategy may not completely eliminate traffic congestion, but can delay its onset and shorten the duration. Queue by-pass lanes can be added to ramps to give priority to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV), including carpools and buses.

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

A substantial amount of time is needed to plan and implement a ramp metering system. The implementation process must include local officials as well as the state DOT. Public acceptance of ramp metering remains the pivotal issue in the successful implementation of a ramp metering system. The public must be convinced of the benefits that can be achieved from ramp metering. The operators must also stay vigilant in adjusting operational strategies to take maximum advantage of the system. Individual ramps selected for this technique must be in locations where arterials feeding the ramps will not become severely congested as a consequence of ramp metering implementation. The FDOT recently completed a study that evaluated the feasibility of implementing Ramp Metering along I-95, I-10 and I-295 within the North Florida region.

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short/Moderate IMPACT: Corridor/Spot WHO: City/State/FHWA HURDLES: Public Awareness,

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

Figure 17 - One-way Streets in Downtown Jacksonville

57


8.1.10. Transit Signal Priority (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short IMPACT: Corridor WHO: State HURDLES: Acceptance Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short IMPACT: Local/Corridor WHO: City/State/Fire/

EMS/Police/Rail and Transit

HURDLES: Multiple Agency Involvement


Figure 18 - Ramp Metering along I-95, Miami, FL

Figure 19 - Transit Signal Priority, Philips Highway, Jacksonville, FL

58


8.1.11. Variable Speed Limits (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

This strategy is most applicable for implementation on freeways and roads experiencing frequent congestion and in areas that are susceptible to adverse weather conditions. This technology has been successful in Europe, but is new to the United States. Public acceptance and understanding of the system is crucial to its success. Drivers must be able to understand why the speed limit is being reduced and that their travel times and trip reliability will improve. Whether the new speed limit is advisory or mandatory must also be clearly understood by all drivers. Enforcement can be difficult. Furthermore, the automated implementation of the dynamic speed display without operator intervention ensures that changes are implemented prior to breakdown. Also, the speed limits signs have to be positioned such that they are visible to all the vehicles.

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Moderate IMPACT: Corridor WHO: State/FHWA HURDLES: Public Support,

Legal Authority, Operations


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

59


8.1.12. Dynamic Detours (1&5)

Description:

This term was coined by the North Florida Regional ITS Coalition for the concept of detouring traffic in real time based on real time traffic information. A major part of the dynamic detour system is the ITS component that collects real-time traffic information from the road network and disseminated information to travelers to help them make informed decisions on selecting an alternate route or choose to continue on the original route. Detour routes are a common feature of the highway system. Many detours are planned in conjunction with work zones or special events, but the roadway used for the detour may not be able to accommodate the additional traffic without prior improvements. Improvements to detour routes are intended to improve the capacity of corridors.

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Moderate IMPACT: Corridor WHO: City/State HURDLES: Schedule, Cost,

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

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

60


8.1.13. Queue Warning Systems (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

The successful implementation of queue warning systems will aid in the reduction in preliminary and secondary crashes by alerting drivers regarding congested conditions. When in place, these systems can delay the onset of congestion, allowing smooth and efficient traffic flow and improve trip reliability. This strategy also provides environmental benefits through decreased emissions, noise, and fuel consumption.

Implementation:

Queue warning systems are best implemented along freeways and roadways experiencing frequent congestion. This system is reliable when implemented on facilities with frequent queues in predictable locations. When queue warning is included in a larger traffic management project that has land control signals and variable speed limits, it is possible to reduce the speed incrementally between gantries and evacuate traffic from one lane to provide access and shelter for emergency vehicles. Work zones also take advantage of queue warnings. Many agencies use mobile message signs to warn approaching traffic of queues. Queue warning can be more effective when deployed in conjunction with speed harmonization. When implemented with speed harmonization, the queue warning pictograms and/or flashing lights need to be visible to all vehicles. An expert system that deploys the strategy based on prevailing roadway conditions without requiring operator intervention is optimal. 8.1.14. Traveler Information Systems (1&5)

Description:

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

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Moderate IMPACT: Corridor WHO: State HURDLES: Public Support,

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

Figure 22 - Queue Warning System on European Motorway

61


information on demand, or have it pushed to them via email or text message subscription services. Once familiar with these services, nearly 80% of drivers use traveler information to make daily decisions about route or departure time. In the future many of these traveler information systems will be integrated with in-vehicle devices.

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

Queue warning systems are best implemented along freeways and tollways and along major arterial streets. Though relatively inexpensive, these critical systems face budgeting and funding challenges. However, the same infrastructure that provides traveler information also enables more effective incident management and performance measurement – which can mean a greater return on the investment. Maintaining and upgrading these systems to reflect the most up-to-date technology requires implementation and maintenance funding.

8.2. Travel Demand Management (TDM) Strategies

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

o High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Incentives.

o Park-and-Ride Lots.

o Multimodal Transportation Centers.

o Commuter Assistance Service Programs.

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

8.2.1. High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Incentives (1&5)

Description:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short IMPACT: Corridor/Region WHO: Local/State HURDLES: Supporting

Communications Infrastructure


Figure 23 - Traveler Information System on I-95, Jacksonville, FL

62


Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

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

8.2.2. Park-and-Ride Lots (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Moderate IMPACT: Corridor WHO: State/FHWA HURDLES: Institutional, Public

Support, Legislative Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

Figure 24 - HOV Lanes, Atlanta, GA

63


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

Implementation:

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

8.2.3. Multimodal Transportation Corridors and Centers (1&5)

Description:

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

Similarly, multimodal transportation centers take the corridor concept and condense it into a single facility that combines multiple modes including bus, rail, bicycle, rental cars, taxis, and other transportation services. These facilities provide high connectivity and convenience for all users. Planning and designing multimodal corridors and centers relies on knowing the specific needs and resources of the surrounding community.

Benefit/Costs:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Moderate IMPACT: Site WHO: Transit Provider HURDLES: Ease of Access Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

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

64


Implementation:

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

8.2.4. Commuter Assistance Service Programs (1&5)

Description:

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

Encourage ridesharing, carpools and vanpools.

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

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

Participate in Transportation Management Associations.

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Moderate IMPACT: Urban Corridor WHO: City/Region HURDLES: Right-of-Way Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

Figure 26 - Proposed Jacksonville Transportation Center, Jacksonville, FL

65


8.3. Transit Improvements

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

o Local Bus Service Improvements

o Express Bus Service Improvements

o Bus Rapid Transit Improvements

o Light Rail Transit Improvements

o Commuter Rail Improvements

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

8.3.1. Local Bus Service Improvements (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

Improving local bus service will reduce the total traffic on roadways by taking single-occupancy cars off the road. It also increases mode choice for individuals that are seeking non-automobile travel options. Improvements to local bus services also improve air quality and decreases energy consumptions. Local bus services enhancements will improve travel time along roadway corridors and improve the quality of life for all motorists and more people can be served along the corridor in fewer vehicles.

Implementation:

The target market is for those that rely upon transit to make trips as well as single occupant commuter motorists. While many of the Duval County’s residents have not considered public transportation in the past, the addition of more routes and increased frequencies can make transit an attractive alternative. As with any transportation improvement, funding can be a problem with this strategy. In addition, some suburbs have preconceived notions about the effectiveness of transit and additional education might be needed.

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short IMPACT: Region WHO: City/Private HURDLES: Coordination,

Public Support Source: I-35 Corridor Optimization Study – Strategy Notebook

Figure 27 - North Florida TPO Cool-to-Pool Program, Jacksonville, FL

66


8.3.2. Express Bus Service Improvements (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short/Moderate IMPACT: Regional/Corridor WHO: Transit Agencies HURDLES: Funding, Public

Support, and Supportive Lane Use Policies


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

67


8.3.3. Bus Rapid Transit Improvements (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

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

8.3.4. Light Rail Transit Improvements (1&5)

Description:

Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a medium capacity rail transit technology utilized for public transportation using a steel-tracked fixed guideway that provides passenger capacities ranging from 2,000 to 20,000 travelers an hour. Light rail can operate on either grade-separated, reserved right-of-way and can operate in mixed traffic on city streets. The latter operation is commonly known as streetcar service. Passenger loading platforms are usually low level and operation is manual. LRT cars can operate singly or in trains and can easily be coupled or uncoupled to adapt to changing traffic conditions. The JTA currently operates automated monorail trains on fixed guideway, called the Skyway. It includes 2.5 miles of track serving eight stations in downtown Jacksonville, and crosses the St. Johns River on the Acosta Bridge. The Skyway operates free of charge to customers. JTA is currently planning an

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Short/Moderate IMPACT: Regional WHO: Transit Agencies HURDLES: Funding, Public

Support, and Supportive Lane Use Policies


Figure 29 -Example of a BRT System - Eugene, Oregon

68


extension to this system.

Benefit/Costs:

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

Implementation:

Light rail transit is most suitable for service to non-residential concentrations of 35 to 50 million square feet. If rights-of-way can be obtained at grade, thereby lowering capital costs, this threshold can be lowered to the 20 million square foot range. Average residential densities of about 9 dwelling units per acre over the line’s catchment area are most suitable. For longer travel distances where higher speeds are needed, rapid transit is most suitable for non-residential concentrations beyond 50 million square feet and in corridors averaging 12 dwelling units per acre or more. 8.3.5. Commuter Rail Transit Improvements (1&5)

Description:

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

Benefit/Costs:

Commuter rail services can be the least costly high capacity rail services to implement because they operate on existing mainline rail lines. Typically, commuter rail services have very heavy peak hour service with little or even no off-peak service. Because underutilized railroad track exists in many places, it is often possible to run a few peak hour trains by adding only locomotives, cars and labor. Therefore, commuter rail services can become a very attractive alternative for public agencies seeking to connect suburban areas with central cities. Commuter rail services would provide an alternative to automobile and bus travel by:

Decreasing travel times.

Providing an alternative transportation option for travelers.

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Long IMPACT: Region/Corridor WHO: City/State HURDLES: Coordination &

Funding, Private Industry Support


Figure 30 - Light Rail Transit System, Minneapolis, MN

69


operating conditions.

Providing an efficient transportation option, particularly in inclement weather.

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

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

Implementation:

Commuter rail service, with its high speed, relatively infrequent service (based on printed schedule rather than regular headways) and greater station spacing is suitable for low density residential areas – 1 or 2 dwelling units per acre. However, the volumes required are only likely in corridors leading to non-residential concentrations of 100 million square feet or more, found only in the nation’s largest cities. Many times development patterns and/or land use constrains limit the construction of new or expanded streets or highways. Fixed guideway transit facilities such as commuter rail services are good options to consider in such areas. Rail facilities can move tens of thousands of riders per hour within narrow rights-of-way. Commuter rail services can also be used to greatly enhance the people-carrying capacity of existing roadways. The feasibility of implementing commuter rail services is being studied along three (3) corridors by the JTA within the North Florida region.

8.4. Capacity Improvements

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

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

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

Strategy Evaluation

Cost: TIME: Long IMPACT: Region/Corridor WHO: City/State HURDLES: Coordination &

Funding, Private Industry Support


Figure 31 - Commuter Rail Station, Tri-Rail, Miami, FL

70


into a transportation network.

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

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

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

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

71


9. Identification and Evaluation of Strategies

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

9.1. Congested Corridor Strategy Evaluation

The previous section identifies a wide variety of congestion management strategies. Table 20 provides the strategy evaluation matrix. A total of 108 congested facilities were identified within the North Florida region. These 108 congested facilities were condensed into 42 corridors. A congested corridor is composed of multiple congested facilities along the same roadway. Condensing the congested facilities into corridors can aid in the deployment of congestion mitigation strategies. Many congestion mitigation strategies identified in the previous section yield greater benefit if they are applied consistently through the entire roadway corridor, than implementing them on shorter congested facilities. A consumer report format was used to identify the effectiveness of each of the congestion management strategies on the roadway corridors identified in the CMP. Figure 32 below identifies the general categories for the congestion management strategies. The strategy evaluation matrix is arranged so that the measures on top of the Figure 32 take precedence over those on the bottom.

Figure 32 - Prioritization of Strategy Evaluation Matrix

Maximize Effectiveness and Efficiency of Existing System - (TSM&O Strategies)

Shift Trips from Single-Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) to Other Modes - (TDM Strategies)

Shift Trips from Auto to Other Modes of Transportation - (Transit Improvements)

Capacity Improvements

72


Table 20: Strategy Evaluation Matrix – Page 1 of 3

STRATEGY RATING

High (Good), Score: 5-4

◐ Medium (Fair), Score: 2-3

Low Benefits (Poor) Score: 1

− Neutral/No Change, Score: 0

73

Transportation Systms Management and Operational Management Strategies

No.CountyName Facility From To Surv

eilla

nce

and In

cide

nt Man

agem

ent S

yste

ms

Acces

s Man

agem

ent

Conges

tion

Pricin

g

Inte

grat

ed C

orrid

or M

anag

emen

t

Arter

ial M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

s

Hard

Shoul

der R

unning

Rever

sible

Lan

es

One-way

Str

eets

Ramp M

eter

ing

Transit

Sig

nal P

riorit

y

Variab

le Spe

ed Li

mits

Dynam

ic Deto

urs

Queue

War

ning

Sys

tem

s

Travele

r Info

rmat

ion

Syste

ms

1 Duval I-95 SR 115 Southside Blvd. Downtown Exit − ◐ − ◐ − − ◐ ◐ ◐

2 Duval I-95 Downtown Exit SR 115 Lem Turner Rd. − ◐ − ◐ − − ◐ ◐

3 Duval I-295 I-95 SR 116 Merrill Rd. − ◐ − ◐ − ◐ − ◐ ◐ ◐4 Duval I-295 SR 13 San Jose Blvd. I-95 − − − − ◐ ◐

5 Duval I-295 SR 134 103rd St. I-10 − − ◐ ◐ − ◐ − ◐ ◐

6 Duval I-295 I-10 Pritchard Rd. − ◐ ◐ − ◐ ◐ − ◐ − ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐7 Duval I-10 SR 103 Lane Ave. I-95 − ◐ − ◐ − ◐ − ◐ ◐

8 Duval SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. SR 109 University Blvd. I-295 ◐ − − − − − − − ◐ −9 Duval SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. I-295 SR A1A 3rd St. − − − − − − − ◐ −10 Duval US 90 Beach Blvd. SR 228 Commodore Point Expy. San Pablo Rd. − − − − − − − −11 Duval SR 115 Southside Blvd. US 1 Philips Hwy. SR 152 Baymeadows Rd. ◐ − ◐ − − − − ◐ − − ◐ −12 Duval SR 115 Southside Blvd. SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd. SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. − ◐ − − − − − − ◐ −13 Duval SR 152 Baymeadows Rd. SR 13 San Jose Blvd. I-295 ◐ − − − − − − − ◐ −14 Duval Emerson St. I-95 Emerson St. Expy. ◐ ◐ − − − − − − − −15 Duval SR 109 University Blvd. St. Augustine Rd. US 90 Beach Blvd. − − − − − − − ◐ −16 Duval SR 21 Blanding Blvd. Duval/Clay County Line SR 134 103rd St. − − − − − − − −17 Duval SR 13 San Jose Blvd. Duval/St.Johns County Line I-295 ◐ ◐ − − − − − − − ◐ −18 Duval SR 134 103rd St. Ricker Rd. I-295 ◐ − ◐ − − − − ◐ − − −19 Duval SR 228 Normandy Blvd. Herlong Rd. SR 103 Lane Ave. ◐ − − − − − − − −20 Duval SR 202 J.T. B. Blvd. US 1 Philips Hwy. Belfort Rd. ◐ − ◐ − ◐ − − − ◐ − −21 Duval SR 104 Dunn Ave. Biscayne Blvd. I-95 ◐ − − − − − ◐ − − ◐ −22 Duval University Blvd. SR 115 Arlington Expy. Arlington Rd. − ◐ ◐ − − − − − − −23 Duval US 1 Philips Hwy. I-295 SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd. ◐ − − − − − − ◐ ◐ −24 Duval US 17 Roosevelt Blvd. Park St. SR 129 McDuff Ave. − ◐ ◐ − − − − − − −25 Duval Rail Connector/Pritchard Rd. I-295 US 1 Old Kings Rd. − ◐ ◐ − − − − − − −26 Duval 8th St. Francis St. Perry St. ◐ − − − − − ◐ − − −27 Duval SR 115 Arlington Expy. Haines St. Expy. Regency Mall Entrance − − − − ◐ ◐ − −28 Duval US 17 King/State St. US 23 Union St. Liberty St. ◐ ◐ − − − − − − − ◐ −29 Duval US 23 Union St. US 17 Kings St. Liberty St. ◐ ◐ − − − − − − − ◐ −30 Duval SR A1A Mayport Rd. SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. SR A1A ◐ − ◐ ◐ − − − − − − −31 Duval SR A1A 3rd St. Duval/St.Johns County Line SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. − − − − − − − ◐ −32 Clay SR 21 Blanding Blvd. CR 218 Duval/Clay County Line − − − − − − − −33 Clay US 17 Elbow Rd. Duval/Clay County Line ◐ − − − − − ◐ − − ◐ −34 Clay Kingsley Ave. Doctors Lake Dr. US 17 Roosevelt Blvd. ◐ − − − − − ◐ − − ◐ −35 Clay SR 23 Branan Field Rd. Kindlewood Dr. Duval/Clay County Line − ◐ ◐ − − − − − − −36 St. Johns SR 13 San Jose Blvd. Racetrack Rd. Duval/St.Johns County Line ◐ ◐ − − − − − ◐ − − ◐ −37 St. Johns SR A1A CR 210 Palm Valley Rd. Duval/St. Johns County Line − − − − − − − ◐ −38 St. Johns US 1 Dixie Hwy. Lewis Point Rd. Castillo Dr. ◐ − − − − − ◐ − − −39 St. Johns San Marco Ave. Orange St. SR A1A May St. − − − − − ◐ − − −40 St. Johns King St. US 1 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Cordova St. ◐ − − − − − − − −41 St. Johns Bridge of Lions Avenida Menendez SR A1A Anastasia Blvd. ◐ − − − − − − − − − −42 Nassau SR A1A Buccaneer Trail US 17 Brackrock Rd. ◐ − − − − − − − −



STRATEGY RATING





74

Travel Demand Management Transit Improvements

No.CountyName Facility From To HOV In

centiv

es

Park-

n-Rid

e Lots

Mult

imoda

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion C

ente

rs

Comm

uter A

ssist

ance

Ser

vice

Pro

gram

s

Local

Bus

Serv

ice Im

prove

men

ts

Expre

ss B

us Ser

vice

Impro

vem

ents

Bus R

apid

Tra

nsit

Impr

ovem

ents

Light

Rail

Tra

nsit

Impr

ovem

ents

Comm

uter R

ail I

mpr

ovem

ents

1 Duval I-95 SR 115 Southside Blvd. Downtown Exit ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐

2 Duval I-95 Downtown Exit SR 115 Lem Turner Rd. ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐

3 Duval I-295 I-95 SR 116 Merrill Rd. ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐

4 Duval I-295 SR 13 San Jose Blvd. I-95 ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐

5 Duval I-295 SR 134 103rd St. I-10 ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐

6 Duval I-295 I-10 Pritchard Rd. ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐

7 Duval I-10 SR 103 Lane Ave. I-95 ◐ ◐ ◐

8 Duval SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. SR 109 University Blvd. I-295 − ◐

9 Duval SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. I-295 SR A1A 3rd St. − ◐ ◐

10 Duval US 90 Beach Blvd. SR 228 Commodore Point Expy. San Pablo Rd. − ◐

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

12 Duval SR 115 Southside Blvd. SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd. SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. − ◐ ◐

13 Duval SR 152 Baymeadows Rd. SR 13 San Jose Blvd. I-295 − ◐

14 Duval Emerson St. I-95 Emerson St. Expy. − ◐ ◐

15 Duval SR 109 University Blvd. St. Augustine Rd. US 90 Beach Blvd. − ◐ ◐ ◐

16 Duval SR 21 Blanding Blvd. Duval/Clay County Line SR 134 103rd St. − ◐ ◐ ◐

17 Duval SR 13 San Jose Blvd. Duval/St.Johns County Line I-295 − ◐ ◐

18 Duval SR 134 103rd St. Ricker Rd. I-295 − ◐ ◐ ◐

19 Duval SR 228 Normandy Blvd. Herlong Rd. SR 103 Lane Ave. − ◐ ◐

20 Duval SR 202 J.T. B. Blvd. US 1 Philips Hwy. Belfort Rd. ◐ ◐

21 Duval SR 104 Dunn Ave. Biscayne Blvd. I-95 − ◐ ◐ ◐

22 Duval University Blvd. SR 115 Arlington Expy. Arlington Rd. − ◐

23 Duval US 1 Philips Hwy. I-295 SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd. − ◐ ◐ ◐

24 Duval US 17 Roosevelt Blvd. Park St. SR 129 McDuff Ave. − ◐ ◐ ◐

25 Duval Rail Connector/Pritchard Rd. I-295 US 1 Old Kings Rd. − ◐

26 Duval 8th St. Francis St. Perry St. −

27 Duval SR 115 Arlington Expy. Haines St. Expy. Regency Mall Entrance ◐ ◐ ◐

28 Duval US 17 King/State St. US 23 Union St. Liberty St. − ◐

29 Duval US 23 Union St. US 17 Kings St. Liberty St. − ◐

30 Duval SR A1A Mayport Rd. SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. SR A1A −

31 Duval SR A1A 3rd St. Duval/St.Johns County Line SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. − ◐ ◐ ◐

32 Clay SR 21 Blanding Blvd. CR 218 Duval/Clay County Line − ◐ ◐ ◐

33 Clay US 17 Elbow Rd. Duval/Clay County Line − ◐ ◐

34 Clay Kingsley Ave. Doctors Lake Dr. US 17 Roosevelt Blvd. − ◐ ◐

35 Clay SR 23 Branan Field Rd. Kindlewood Dr. Duval/Clay County Line − ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐36 St. Johns SR 13 San Jose Blvd. Racetrack Rd. Duval/St.Johns County Line − ◐ ◐

37 St. Johns SR A1A CR 210 Palm Valley Rd. Duval/St. Johns County Line − ◐ ◐

38 St. Johns US 1 Dixie Hwy. Lewis Point Rd. Castillo Dr. − −

39 St. Johns San Marco Ave. Orange St. SR A1A May St. − ◐ − ◐

40 St. Johns King St. US 1 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Cordova St. − − ◐

41 St. Johns Bridge of Lions Avenida Menendez SR A1A Anastasia Blvd. − ◐ −

42 Nassau SR A1A Buccaneer Trail US 17 Brackrock Rd. − ◐ ◐



STRATEGY RATING





75

Capacity Improvements

No.CountyName Facility From To Add

New L

anes

Add New

Man

aged

Lan

es

Inte

rsec

tion

Impr

ovem

ents

Inte

rcha

nge Im

prove

men

ts

Add Aux

iliar

y Lan

es

1 Duval I-95 SR 115 Southside Blvd. Downtown Exit − ◐2 Duval I-95 Downtown Exit SR 115 Lem Turner Rd. − ◐3 Duval I-295 I-95 SR 116 Merrill Rd. − ◐

4 Duval I-295 SR 13 San Jose Blvd. I-95 ◐ − ◐5 Duval I-295 SR 134 103rd St. I-10 ◐ − ◐ ◐6 Duval I-295 I-10 Pritchard Rd. ◐ − ◐ ◐7 Duval I-10 SR 103 Lane Ave. I-95 ◐ ◐ − ◐

8 Duval SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. SR 109 University Blvd. I-295 − − −9 Duval SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. I-295 SR A1A 3rd St. − − −10 Duval US 90 Beach Blvd. SR 228 Commodore Point Expy. San Pablo Rd. − − −11 Duval SR 115 Southside Blvd. US 1 Philips Hwy. SR 152 Baymeadows Rd. ◐ − − −12 Duval SR 115 Southside Blvd. SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd. SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. − − −13 Duval SR 152 Baymeadows Rd. SR 13 San Jose Blvd. I-295 − − −14 Duval Emerson St. I-95 Emerson St. Expy. ◐ − − −15 Duval SR 109 University Blvd. St. Augustine Rd. US 90 Beach Blvd. − − −16 Duval SR 21 Blanding Blvd. Duval/Clay County Line SR 134 103rd St. − − −17 Duval SR 13 San Jose Blvd. Duval/St.Johns County Line I-295 ◐ − − −18 Duval SR 134 103rd St. Ricker Rd. I-295 − ◐ − −19 Duval SR 228 Normandy Blvd. Herlong Rd. SR 103 Lane Ave. ◐ − − −20 Duval SR 202 J.T. B. Blvd. US 1 Philips Hwy. Belfort Rd. ◐ ◐ −

21 Duval SR 104 Dunn Ave. Biscayne Blvd. I-95 − − −22 Duval University Blvd. SR 115 Arlington Expy. Arlington Rd. ◐ − − −23 Duval US 1 Philips Hwy. I-295 SR 202 J.T.B. Blvd. ◐ − − −24 Duval US 17 Roosevelt Blvd. Park St. SR 129 McDuff Ave. ◐ − − −25 Duval Rail Connector/Pritchard Rd. I-295 US 1 Old Kings Rd. ◐ − ◐ − −26 Duval 8th St. Francis St. Perry St. − − −27 Duval SR 115 Arlington Expy. Haines St. Expy. Regency Mall Entrance − ◐ ◐28 Duval US 17 King/State St. US 23 Union St. Liberty St. − − −29 Duval US 23 Union St. US 17 Kings St. Liberty St. − − −30 Duval SR A1A Mayport Rd. SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. SR A1A ◐ − ◐ − −31 Duval SR A1A 3rd St. Duval/St.Johns County Line SR 10 Atlantic Blvd. − − −32 Clay SR 21 Blanding Blvd. CR 218 Duval/Clay County Line − − −33 Clay US 17 Elbow Rd. Duval/Clay County Line − − −34 Clay Kingsley Ave. Doctors Lake Dr. US 17 Roosevelt Blvd. − − −35 Clay SR 23 Branan Field Rd. Kindlewood Dr. Duval/Clay County Line ◐ − ◐ − −36 St. Johns SR 13 San Jose Blvd. Racetrack Rd. Duval/St.Johns County Line ◐ − − −37 St. Johns SR A1A CR 210 Palm Valley Rd. Duval/St. Johns County Line − − −38 St. Johns US 1 Dixie Hwy. Lewis Point Rd. Castillo Dr. − − −39 St. Johns San Marco Ave. Orange St. SR A1A May St. − − − −40 St. Johns King St. US 1 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Cordova St. − − − −41 St. Johns Bridge of Lions Avenida Menendez SR A1A Anastasia Blvd. − − − − −42 Nassau SR A1A Buccaneer Trail US 17 Brackrock Rd. − − −


9.2. Regional Strategy – Commuter Service Campaign

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

An assessment of potential markets for enhancing the Cool-to-Pool program was performed as part of this CMP. As part of this assessment the following analysis was performed:

o Reviewed congestion “hot-spots”, to identify areas experiencing congestion well beyond the peak hours in the AM and PM.

o Assessed the commute patterns for employers within the North Florida region with more than 300 employees by conducting a travel demand analysis using the NERPM model.

o Evaluated the ability to geographically concentrate media and communications efforts in a cost-effective manner.

o Identified push/pull communications strategies targeting commuters and employers.

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

As part of a regional strategy to alleviate congestion, a public information campaign will be conducted targeting Clay County commuters and major employers within the Southpoint/Baymeadows/Town Center business area, as well as NAS Jacksonville by the North Florida TPO. The next steps are to:

o Develop a communications strategy targeting Clay County commuters to potentially encompass dynamic message signs, targeted cable TV and radio, and social media.

o Develop an employer outreach program focusing on major employers cited by previous commuting surveys.

o Create special offers/incentives for commuters to sign-up in the Cool to Pool database and log their commute.

76

ORANGE PARKAREA

IJ121

IJ108

IJ218

IJ214

IJ315

IJ13

IJ309D

IJ13A

IJ117

IJ210

IJ115

IJ209

IJ210A

IJ305

IJ16A

IJ220

IJ203

IJ115 A

IJ208

IJ217

IJ215

IJ119

IJ204

IJ99

IJ118 1

IJ107

IJ213

IJ20A

IJ220A

IJ352

IJ200A

IJ207A

IJ15A

IJ739

IJ5A

IJ21B

IJ115 C

IJ103

IJA1A

IJ121A

IJ309C

IJ1363

IJ315C

IJ219

IJ225

IJ118 9

IJ1351

IJ116 2

IJ101A

IJ211

IJ1333

IJ116

IJ13B

IJ163

IJ105A

IJ216

IJ228

IJ739B

IJ21

IJ21D

IJ117 7

IJ110

IJ1359

IJ226

IJ1365

IJ106

IJ1335

IJ209B

IJ1339

IJ2016

IJ0019

IJ1337

IJ1447

IJ2

IJ1353

IJ220B

IJ117 9

IJ310

IJ311

IJ0012

IJ105B

IJ1332

IJ125

IJ107A

IJ21A

IJ1342

IJ109A

IJ118 7

IJ1338

IJ312

IJ0016

IJ212

IJ110

IJ108

IJ211

IJ13A

IJ16A

IJ13A

IJ220

IJ225

IJ107

IJ110

IJ214

IJ217

IJ115

IJ213

IJ15A

IJ105A

IJ209

IJ15A

IJ105A

IJ13

IJ315

IJ315

IJ119

IJ214

IJ220A

IJ105A

IJ209

IJ209

IJ200A

IJ209

IJ115 A

IJ108

IJ315

IJ309C

IJ228

§̈¦95

§̈¦295

§̈¦10

ST9

ST5

ST21

ST200

ST15

ST A1A

ST16

ST100

ST20

ST13

ST10 ST8

ST207

ST228

ST115

ST105

ST202ST134

ST23

ST116

ST111

ST104

ST19

ST152

ST26

ST10A

ST109ST139

ST103

ST312

ST211

ST224

ST113

ST128 ST126

ST5A

ST102

ST117

ST101

ST115 A

ST243

ST228A

ST15

STA1A

ST A1A

ST105

STA1A

ST21

ST115

ST200

ST200

ST115

ST228

STA1A

STA1A

ST105

STA1A

ST228

ST139

STA1A

STA1A

ST 21

ST100

ST10

ST228

ST5

ST16

ST A1A

£¤17

£¤23£¤1

£¤90

£¤301

£¤ 90A£¤90A

£¤1

£¤17

£¤1

Total Trips Utilizing Blanding Boulevard for CommuteFigure 33

LEGENDEmployers > 300

North Florida TPO Boundary

Total Daily Trips

500 - 1500

1500 - 3000

3000 - 5000

5000 - 15000

15000 - 30000

30000 - 55000


DUVAL

CLAY

ST. JOHNS

Page 77


10. Strategy Effectiveness

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

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

Figure 34 - CMP Strategy Evaluation Cycle

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

Identify Congested Corridors

Identfy Congestion

Management Strategies

Monitor Strategy Effectiveness

Calibrate Strategies and

Implementation Process

78


11. Implementation and Management

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

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

11.1. North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC)

The North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) will serve as the CMP steering committee. This committee is composed of entities with specific interest in the congested corridors within their respective regional boundaries. Members of the following agencies are represented on the North Florida TPO’s TCC:

o City of Jacksonville Planning Department

o City of Jacksonville Public Works

o Jacksonville Transportation Authority

o Florida Department of Transportation

o Atlantic Beach Planning Department

o Jacksonville Beach Planning Department

o Jacksonville Aviation Authority

o Jacksonville Port Authority

o North Florida Regional Council

o Town of Orange Park

o City of Keystone Heights

o National Park Service

o Department of Environmental Protection

o Clay County Engineering Department

o Clay County Planning Department

o Clay County Public Works

o Green Cove Springs Public Works

o Nassau County Engineering

o Nassau County Planning Department

o City of St. Augustine Planning & Building

o St. Johns County

o City of St. Augustine Beach

79


o US Navy

o Ocean Highway & Port Authority, Nassau County

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

11.2. Other North Florida TPO Committees

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

o Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

o Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Group

11.3. The North Florida TPO Governing Board

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

80


12. Conclusion and Recommendations

A CMP Update is conducted for the North Florida TPO planning area and identified corridors with recurring congestion problems. Priority rankings were assigned to this list of congested corridors for funding and management strategies were developed for alleviating congestion. The CMP policies, goals, and objectives for the North Florida TPO planning area were compiled and are summarized in this report. A brief review of the updated CMP policies is present below: A corridor analysis shall be performed before any capacity expansion project is proposed and shall be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analyze the existing operating conditions on the corridors being studied.

Identify the causes of congestion on these roadways.

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

Develop implementation strategy that can relieve congestion on the roadway.

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

81


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

12.1. Procedure for Periodic Assessment and Updates

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

The BlueToad data collection technology is anticipated to be enhanced over time and more data is anticipated to be available for further analysis. The North Florida TPO will update the BlueToad data analysis outlined in this report annually to obtain the reliability information on the roadway network with Bluetooth devices with the availability of realistic and accurate BlueToad data. 12.2. Integration with other North Florida TPO Plans

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

12.2.1. Integration with the LRTP

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

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

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

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

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

12.2.2. Integration with the TIP

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

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

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

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

82


12.2.3. Integration with the Public Involvement Plans

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

12.2.4. Integration with the NEPA Process

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

83


13. References

1. A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Publication# IR-054A, 1989, 3rd Printing, pp. 1-154.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Congestion Management Process for the Baltimore Region, Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, pp. 1-12 (PDF 1,591 KB).

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

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

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

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

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

84

Appendix A

Year 2012 CMP Update Data Collection and Literature Review Report

(On CD)

Appendix B

Hot-Spot Analysis Temperature Charts (On CD)

2014 Annual Mobility Report

1022 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207 (904) 306-7500 www.northfloridatpo.com June 30, 2014

http://www.northfloridatpo.com/


In 2013, the North Florida TPO completed a Congestion Management Process (CMP) that includes the

development of performance measures and 2007-2011 trend analysis. The CMP identified congested corridors

and recommended strategies and tactics to address them. The 2014 Annual Mobility Report includes the most recent

2012 data and examines mobility trends in the North Florida TPO planning boundary encompassing Clay, Duval,

Nassau and St. Johns counties.

In 2012, the trend of declining vehicle usage continued with a

2.4 percent reduction in person miles traveled by automobile.

Since 2008, automobile use has declined within the region by

5.7 percent. The decline in vehicle use is believed to be the

result of the economic downturn, changing travel patterns

associated with an aging population and generally reduced

automobile dependence by younger drivers. According to the

American Planning Association’s 2014 National Poll, 81 percent

of millenials and 77 percent of active boomers say “affordable

and convenient alternatives to the car are at least somewhat

important in deciding where to live and work.”

PE

RS

ON

Mile

s Tr

avel

ed

2.4%

1.6%

1.8%

0.65%

30

.8%

2.73%

16.4

%

5.7%

2011-2012

2011-2012

2011-2012

2011-2012

2008-2012

2008-2012

2008-2012

2008-2012Average PeakPeriod Speed

TRANSIT UseAlthough transit use in North Florida

continues to be less than 1% of all person

travel miles, transit use continued to rise with

a 1.8 percent annual increase from 2011 to

2012. Since 2008, transit use in the area has

increased by 30.8 percent.

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

additional lane miles of highways between 2008 and 2012. These

improvements included the opening of SR 9B from I-295 to US

1 and resulted in enhanced quality of travel within the region.

Average speeds during the peak periods improved by 2.73

percent from 2008 to 2012 and 0.65 percent from 2011 to 2012.

These average speeds resulted in a positive economic impact to

the local economy of $280 million per year.

The exception to this reduction is an increase in

the truck miles traveled within the region. Over

the last five years, truck traffic is down 16.4

percent overall, but saw a 1.6 percent increase

in 2012 compared to 2011, reflecting the

beginning of the economic recovery.

2014 AnnuAl MObIlITy REPORT

TRUCK Traffic

lOOKINgAhEAd

The demand for travel is anticipated to return to pre-recession levels by the year 2018 and

improvements to enhance our mobility are needed to meet these needs.

A significant number of major projects to address system bottlenecks and add capacity to

our transportation system are scheduled to be completed and open for travel by 2018 - 2020.

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

Travel is anticipated to increase in the region for

the next five years as a result of the economic

recovery and new growth within the region.

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

Facility From To ImprovementNEW ROADS

SR 23 First Coast Expressway Blanding Boulevard I-10 New Expressway

SR 9B I-95 SR 5/US 1 Philips Highway New Four Lane Road

Crawford Road CR 121 US 301 New Two Lane Road

JIA Access Road Airport Road Pecan Park Road New Four Lane Road

US 301 Baldwin Bypass New Four Lane Road

WIDENING PROJECTS

I-295 I-95 SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard Add two express lanes

I-295 (Buchman Bridge) SR 5/US 17 Park Street SR 13 San Jose Boulevard Add two express lanes

SR 21 Blanding Boulevard CR 218 Allie Murray Road Widen to six lanes

SR A1A/SR 200 I-95 Scott Road Widen to six lanes

US 301 Baldwin Callahan Widen to four lanes

INTERCHANGE PROJECTS

I-10 I-295 Interchange Modifications

I-10 SR 5/US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard Interchange Modifications

I-10 Hammond Boulevard New Interchange

I-10 I-295 Interchange Modifications

I-95 SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard Interchange Modifications

I-95 I-295 North Interchange Modifications

MAJOR TRANSIT SERVICE

BRT Southwest Corridor Downtown Jacksonville Orange Park Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

BRT East Corridor Downtown Jacksonville Jacksonville Beach Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

BRT Southeast Corridor Downtown Jacksonville Avenues Mall Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

BRT North Corridor Downtown Jacksonville I-295 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

306.7500 // 1022 Prudential drive


i

ContentsList of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... ii

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Data Collection and Analysis Methodology .......................................................................................... 10

Mobility Performance Measures Analysis ............................................................................................ 12

Optimize the Quantity of Travel ....................................................................................................... 12

Person‐Miles Traveled In Automobiles ........................................................................................ 12

Truck‐Miles Traveled .................................................................................................................... 16

Vehicle‐Miles Traveled ................................................................................................................. 18

Person Trips .................................................................................................................................. 18

Transit Ridership (Passengers) ..................................................................................................... 18

Optimize the Quality of Travel ......................................................................................................... 20

Average Speed .............................................................................................................................. 20

Daily Delay .................................................................................................................................... 20

Average Travel Rate ...................................................................................................................... 20

Reliability ...................................................................................................................................... 20

LOS on Rural Facilities .................................................................................................................. 25

Accessibility ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Utilization of the System .................................................................................................................. 25

System Lane Miles ........................................................................................................................ 25

Percent Miles Severely Congested ............................................................................................... 25

Vehicles per Lane per Hour .......................................................................................................... 28

Duration of Congestion ................................................................................................................ 28

Number of Passengers per Revenue Mile .................................................................................... 28

I‐95 Corridor Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 31

Summary............................................................................................................................................... 39


ii

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

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


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

data was available.

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

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

MAP-21, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), was signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. MAP-21 requires:

“within a metropolitan planning area serving a transportation management area, the transportation planning process under this section shall address congestion management through a process that provides for effective management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed and implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under this title and chapter 53 of title 49 through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies.”

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

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

Figure 1 summarizes the CMP and the planning factors.

The North Florida TPO’s planning boundaries for which this CMP was developed is shown on Figure 2. The congested facilities identified in the CMP are shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4 and are summarized in Table 1.

1


Figure 1. Congestion Management Process

2

IJ121

IJ108

IJ218

IJ315

IJ214

IJ13

IJ309D

IJ13A

IJ117

IJ210

IJ115

IJ20A

IJ209

IJ210A

IJ305

IJ115 A

IJ16A

IJ220

IJ203

IJ219A

IJ208

IJ217

IJ215

IJ119

IJ204

IJ99

IJ21

IJ118 1

IJ107

IJ213

IJ220A

IJ352

IJ200A

IJ125

IJ207A

IJ15A

IJ234

IJ121A

IJ739

IJ5A

IJ21B

IJ115 C

IJ18

IJ103

IJ228

IJA1A

IJ309C

IJ1363

IJ225

IJ315C

IJ219

IJ118 9

IJ1351

IJ100A

IJ116 2

IJ101A

IJ211

IJ1333

IJ116

IJ13B

IJ163

IJ105A

IJ216

IJ309B

IJ739B

IJ21D

IJ200B

IJ117 7

IJ110

IJ1359

IJ226

IJ1365

IJ106

IJ1335

IJ209B

IJ1339

IJ2016

IJ0019

IJ1337

IJ1447

IJ233

IJ2

IJ310

IJ1353

IJ220B

IJ117 9

IJ0012

IJ105B

IJ1332

IJ1206

IJ230A

IJ107A

IJ21A

IJ109A

IJ118 7

IJ1338

IJ312

IJ0016

IJ212

IJ228

IJ13A

IJ21B

IJ213

IJ209

IJ108

IJ211

IJ108

IJ315IJ225

IJ315

IJ110

IJ16A

IJ200A

IJ214

IJ110

IJ20A

IJ217

IJ209

IJ15A

IJ15A

IJ115

IJ200A

IJ209

IJ13A

IJ220

IJ107

IJ214

IJ225

IJ315

IJ209

IJ200A

IJ115 A

IJ119

IJ228

IJ13

IJ309C

IJ105A

§̈¦95

§̈¦295

§̈¦10

ST9

ST5

ST21

ST100

ST15

ST A1A

ST20

ST10

ST16

ST8

ST13

ST207

ST9A

ST200

ST228

ST115

ST105

ST202ST134

ST19

ST26

ST116

ST104

ST152

ST10A

ST109ST139

ST103

ST312

ST211

ST224

ST113

ST128 ST126

ST5A

ST102

ST117

ST101

ST 115 A

ST243

ST228A

ST129

STA1A

ST105

ST 113

ST5

ST16

ST200

ST15

STA1A

STA1A

ST105

ST115

STA1A

ST16

ST228

ST200

ST228

ST21

STA1A

STA1A

ST100

ST13

ST228

ST 21

STA1A

STA1A

STA1A

ST15

ST200

STA1A

STA1A

ST105

ST16

STA1A

ST105

ST10

£¤17

£¤23

£¤1

£¤90

£¤301

£¤ 90A£¤90A

£¤1

£¤17

£¤301

£¤301

£¤301

£¤17

0 2 41 Miles

daNorth Flori TPO CMP System Boundary

±LEGEND

North Florida TPO BoundaryCounty Boundaries

ClayDuvalNassauSt. JohnsOther Counties

NASSAU

DUVAL

CLAY

ST. JOHNS

Figure 2

Page 3

HASTINGS

PALATKA

JACKSONVILLE

FERNANDINA BEACHHILLIARD

ST. AUGUSTINE

JACKSONVILLE BEACH

GREEN COVE SPRINGS

ORANGE PARK

BALDWIN

CALLAHAN

PENNEY FARM ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH

KEYSTONE HEIGHTS

IJ121

IJ108

IJ218

IJ214

IJ315

IJ13

IJ309D

IJ13A

IJ117

IJ210

IJ115

IJ209

IJ210A

IJ305

IJ16A

IJ220

IJ203

IJ115 A

IJ208

IJ217

IJ215

IJ119

IJ204

IJ99

IJ118 1

IJ107

IJ213

IJ20A

IJ220A

IJ200A

IJ207A

IJ15A

IJ739

IJ5A

IJ21B

IJ115 C

IJ103

IJA1A

IJ121A

IJ309C

IJ1363

IJ315C

IJ219

IJ225

IJ118 9

IJ116 2

IJ101A

IJ211

IJ116

IJ13B

IJ163

IJ105A

IJ216

IJ228

IJ21

IJ21D

IJ117 7

IJ110

IJ1359

IJ226

IJ1365

IJ106

IJ2016

IJ0019

IJ1447

IJ2

IJ1353

IJ220B

IJ117 9

IJ310

IJ311

IJ105B

IJ125

IJ107A

IJ1342

IJ117 5

IJ109A

IJ212

IJ13A

IJ228

IJ217

IJ16A

IJ13A

IJ110

IJ15A

IJ225

IJ107

IJ110

IJ214

IJ108

IJ105A

IJ315

IJ115

IJ15A

IJ105A

IJ214

IJ209

IJ108

IJ13

IJ220

IJ119

IJ200A

IJ213

IJ211

IJ209

IJ220A

IJ209

IJ115 A

§̈¦95

§̈¦295

§̈¦10

ST9

ST5

ST21

ST200

ST15

ST A1A

ST16

ST100

ST20

ST13

ST10 ST8

ST207

ST228

ST115

ST105

ST202ST134

ST23

ST116

ST111

ST104

ST19

ST152

ST26

ST10A

ST109ST139

ST103

ST312

ST211

ST224

ST113

ST128 ST126

ST102

ST117

ST115 A

ST243

ST228A

STA1A

ST228

ST228

ST139

ST 21

ST115

ST105

ST16

ST5

STA1A

ST105

ST115

STA1A

STA1A

STA1A

ST20

ST105

ST21

ST A1A

ST15

ST A1AST2

00

ST10

STA1A

£¤17

£¤23

£¤1

£¤90

£¤301

£¤90A£¤90

A

£¤1

£¤ 1

£¤17

Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO




DUVAL

CLAY

ST. JOHNS

DOWNTOWNINSET 1

ST. AUGUSTINEINSET 2

Figure 3

Page 4

JACKSONVILLE

IJ103

IJ21B

IJ213

IJ211

IJ228

IJ109A

IJ211

§̈¦95§̈¦10

ST9

ST111

ST10

ST139

ST212

ST115

ST109

ST15

ST228

ST103 ST13

ST211

ST5

ST128 ST21 ST126

ST115A

ST228A

ST129

ST122

ST10

ST228

ST228

ST15

ST228

ST211

ST15

ST15

ST10

ST13 ST228

ST5

ST139

£¤90

£¤23

£ ¤17

£¤1

£¤1A

£¤1

£¤1A

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

Figure 4

ST. AUGUSTINE

ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH

IJ214

IJ5A

IJA1A

IJ1363

IJ1351

IJ1359

IJ1365

IJ1339IJ1337

IJ1335

IJ1353

IJ1340

IJ1354

IJ1332

IJ1349

IJ1342

IJ1333

IJ1344

IJ1347

IJ5

IJ1338

IJ312

ST5

STA1A

ST207

ST312

ST5A

ST9

STA1A

STA1A

STA1A

£¤1

£¤1B

Page 5

Congested Facilities within North Florida TPO - Inset 1Downtown Region



0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles±

DUVAL

ST. JOHNS


Table 1. Congested Facilities ID County

Name Name of

Area Facility From Location To Location

8 Clay Clay County SR 21 Blanding Boulevard College Drive Suzanne Avenue 151 St. Johns St Johns County SR A1A CR 210 (Corona Road) Solana Road

9 Clay Clay County SR 21 Blanding Boulevard Suzanne Avenue SR 224 Kingsley Ave 10 Clay Clay County SR 21 Blanding Boulevard SR 224 Kingsley Avenue Duval Co. Line

152 St. Johns St Johns County SR A1A Solana Road Duval Co. Line 25 Duval Jacksonville SR 212 Atlantic Boulevard St Johns Bluff Road Girvin Road

150 St. Johns St Johns County SR A1A CR 210 Palm Valley Road CR 210 Corona Road 75 Duval Jacksonville SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard Beach Boulevard

155 Clay Orange Park US 17 SR 224 Kingsley Avenue Wells Rd 85 Duval Jacksonville SR 109 University Boulevard I-95 US 90 Beach Boulevard

111 Duval Jacksonville I-95 SR 202 J. Turner Butler Boulevard Bowden Road 144 St. Johns St Johns County SR 13 Racetrack Road Duval Co. Line 140 Nassau Nassau County SR AIA US 17/SR 5 CR 107/Brackrock Road

49 Duval Jacksonville SR 202 J.T. Butler Boulevard US 1 Philips Highway I-95 135 Duval Jacksonville Beach SR A1A Third St. US 90 Beach Boulevard 19th Street

24 Duval Jacksonville SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 116 Monument Road SR 9A 113 Duval Jacksonville I-95 SR 109 University Boulevard Emerson Expressway 182 Duval Jacksonville SR 13 San Jose Boulevard Loretto Road I-295

34 Duval Jacksonville US 90 Beach Boulevard SR 228 Hart Bridge Expressway Southside Boulevard 136 Duval Jacksonville Beach SR A1A Third Street 19th St 34th Street 174 Duval Jacksonville SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard I-295 St. Johns Bluff Road

66 Duval Jacksonville US 1/ Philips Highway SR 152 Baymeadows Road SR 202 J. Turner Butler Boulevard 39 Duval Jacksonville SR 21 Blanding Boulevard Clay Co. Line I-295

162 St. Johns St Augustine US 1 SR 207 King Street 114 Duval Jacksonville I-95 SR 228 Emerson Expressway Atlantic Boulevard Ramps

5 Clay Middleburg SR21 Blanding Boulevard CR 218 N. City Limit - Palmetto Street 148 St. Johns St Johns County US 1 SR 312 SR 207 115 Duval Jacksonville SR 10 SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 5 Exit Downtown 156 Clay Orange Park US 17 Wells Road Duval County Line 166 Duval Jacksonville Rail Connector/Pritchard Road I-295 Old Kings Road 195 Duval Neptune Beach SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Ramp to A1A West A1A Junction

6


ID County Name

Name of Area

Facility From Location To Location

137 Duval Jacksonville Beach SR A1A Third Street St Johns Co. Line 34th Avenue 189 Duval Jacksonville SR 9A St Johns Bluff Rd US 90 Beach Boulevard

30 Duval Jacksonville SR 152 Baymeadows Road US 1 Philips Highway I-95 161 St. Johns St Augustine San Marco Orange Street May Street 157 St. Johns St Augustine SR A1A Bridge of Lions SR A1A Bridge of Lions SR A1A 179 Duval Jacksonville Ocean Street Ocean Street US 17 Main Street

26 Duval Jacksonville SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Girvin Road San Pablo Road 58 Duval Jacksonville SR 115 Mathews Bridge

Expressway SR 109 University Boulevard Haines St Expressway

36 Duval Jacksonville US 90 Beach Boulevard SR 9A Kernan Boulevard 154 Clay Orange Park US 17 Elbow Road SR 224 Kingsley Avenue

40 Duval Jacksonville SR 21 Blanding Boulevard I-295 SR 134 103rd Street 35 Duval Jacksonville US 90 Beach Boulevard SR 115 Southside Boulevard I-295 31 Duval Jacksonville SR 152 Baymeadows Road I-95 Old Baymeadows Road

133 Duval Jacksonville I-295 SR 152 Baymeadows Road US 1 Philips Highway 95 Duval Jacksonville I-10 SR 129 McDuff Avenue US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard 97 Duval Jacksonville I-10 Stockton Ramps I-95 96 Duval Jacksonville I-10 SR 228/US 17 Stockton Road Ramps 99 Duval Jacksonville I-295 Old St Augustine Road SR 13 San Jose Boulevard

158 St. Johns St Augustine King St. US 1 Cordova Street 104 Duval Jacksonville I-295 I-10 Commonwealth Avenue

18 Duval Jacksonville SR 115 Arlington Expressway Arlington Road North SR 109 Cesery Boulevard 171 Clay Orange Park SR 224 Kingsley Avenue Doctors Lake Drive US 17 173 Duval Jacksonville SR 115 Arlington Expressway SR 115 Southside Boulevard Arlington Road

64 Duval Jacksonville US 1 Philips Highway I-295 SR 115 Southside Boulevard 71 Duval Jacksonville SR 13 San Jose Boulevard St Johns County Loretto Road 17 Duval Jacksonville SR 155 Arlington Expressway SR 109 Cesery Boulevard SR 109 University Boulevard 60 Duval Jacksonville Mayport Road Church Road A1A

177 Duval Jacksonville SR 126 Emerson Street I-95 SR 228 Emerson Expressway 147 St. Johns St Johns County US 1 Lewis Point Road SR 312 112 Duval Jacksonville I-95 Bowden Road SR 109 University Boulevard 116 Duval Jacksonville I-95 SR 5 Downtown Exit I-10 Fuller Warren Bridge 110 Duval Jacksonville I-95 SR 152 Baymeadows Road SR 202 J. Turner Butler Boulevard

7


ID County Name

Name of Area


73 Duval Jacksonville SR 115 Southside Boulevard Belle Rive Boulevard SR 152 Baymeadows Road 76 Duval Jacksonville SR 115 Southside Boulevard US 90 Beach Boulevard SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard 50 Duval Jacksonville SR 202 J.T. Butler Boulevard I-95 Belfort Road 38 Duval Jacksonville US 90 Beach Boulevard Hodges Boulevard San Pablo Parkway

142 Duval Neptune Beach SR A1A Third Street SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard Seagate Avenue 134 Duval Jacksonville Beach SR A1A Third Street Seagate Ave US 90 Beach Boulevard 102 Duval Jacksonville I-295 SR 208 Wilson Boulevard SR 228 Normandy Boulevard

23 Duval Jacksonville SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 115 Southside Boulevard Monument Road 83 Duval Jacksonville SR 109 University Boulevard St Augustine Road Powers Avenue

120 Duval Jacksonville I-95 SR 15/US 17 SR 122 Golfair Avenue 84 Duval Jacksonville SR 109 University Boulevard Powers Ave US 1 Philips Avenue 19 Duval Jacksonville SR 115 Arlington Expressway SR 155 Southside Boulevard Regency Mall Entrance 22 Duval Jacksonville SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard SR 109 University Boulevard SR 115 Southside Boulevard 61 Duval Jacksonville SR 228 Normandy Boulevard Herlong Road I-295

131 Duval Jacksonville I-295 SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard St Johns Bluff Road 129 Duval Jacksonville I-295 Merrill Rd Monument Road 130 Duval Jacksonville I-295 Monument Rd SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard

72 Duval Jacksonville SR 115 Southside Boulevard US 1 Philips Highway Belle Rive Boulevard 62 Duval Jacksonville SR 228 Normandy Boulevard I-295 Lane Avenue 70 Duval Jacksonville US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard Park Street Edgewood Avenue

163 St. Johns St Augustine US 1 Ponce de Leon Boulevard King Street Castillo Drive 175 Duval Jacksonville SR 152 Baymeadows Road Craven Road US 1Philips Highway 181 Duval Jacksonville US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard Edgewood Avenue McDuff Avenue 121 Duval Jacksonville I-95 SR 122 Golfair Avenue SR 115 Lem Turner Road

32 Duval Jacksonville SR 152 Baymeadows Road SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 9A 118 Duval Jacksonville I-95 SR 139/US 23 SR 114 8th Street

14 Duval Jacksonville 8th St. Francis Street Perry Street 98 Duval Jacksonville I-295 I-95 Old St Augustine Road

132 Duval Jacksonville I-295 SR 202 J. Turner Butler Boulevard Gate Parkway 94 Duval Jacksonville I-10 Luna Ramps SR 129 McDuff Avenue

101 Duval Jacksonville I-295 SR 134 103rd Street SR 208 Wilson Boulevard 93 Duval Jacksonville I-10 Cassat Avenue Luna Ramps

8


ID County Name

Name of Area


92 Duval Jacksonville I-10 Lane Avenue Cassat Avenue 11 Clay Clay County Branan Field Road Kindlewood Drive Duval Co. Line

117 Duval Jacksonville I-95 I-10 US 23 Kings Road 172 Duval Jacksonville SR 134 103rd Street Ricker Road I-295

3 Duval Atlantic Beach SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard West A1A Junction SR A1A Third Street 87 Duval Jacksonville SR 109 University Boulevard SR 10A Arlington Expressway Arlington Road 44 Duval Jacksonville SR 104 Dunn Avenue Biscayne Boulevard I-95

119 Duval Jacksonville I-95 SR 114 8th Street SR 15 20th Street 109 Duval Jacksonville I-95 Exit to SR 115 Southside Boulevard SR 152 Baymeadows Road

81 Duval Jacksonville US 90 Union Street I-95 US 17 Main Street 79 Duval Jacksonville US 90 State Street US 1 Main Street US 23 Union Street 80 Duval Jacksonville US 90 State Street Liberty Street US 1

105 Duval Jacksonville I-295 Commonwealth Avenue Pritchard Road

9


Data Collection and Analysis Methodology Existing data was used to identify and analyze trends and compare progress in achieving the

mobility goals for the region. Table 2 on the following page summarizes the performance measures for mobility identified in the CMP.

Data was collected using the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Mobility Performance Measures database for data in the year 2012. This data was then analyzed and compared to data from prior years to assess the progress in achieving the benchmarks discussed.

For each of the performance measures, a five-year summary from 2008 to 2012 was analyzed. This period also quantifies the trend that has occurred since the first year observable data of the recession was available. (The amount of travel within the region peaked in 2007.) A 2003 to 2012 trend is also provided in the form of charts to provide a visual representation of the trends over the period that mobility performance measure data is available. The visual representation of the trend is useful in understanding the overall trend prior to the recession.

The data used as a foundation for the performance measure program is based on data collected using the statewide telemetered traffic monitoring system (TTMS). In 2005 and 2007 there were sampling errors related to the speed data collected within North Florida and this resulted in an over reporting of speed data.

There is natural variation in the data collected and this variation is most prominent on the special (facility) level. The system wide trends from year to year are reasonable. Therefore, maps and facility level summaries of the data are not shown in this report. A minimum three years of data since the CMP base year (2011) are needed to report a moving average on a facility level to provide appropriate summaries.

In the CMP, the I-95 corridor was used to establish a benchmark for reliability within the region. However, the reliability of the BlueToad data collected was not sufficient to establish a year over year trend of the reliability within the network.

The accessibility performance measures, as noted in the CMP, will not change significantly from year to year. These measures and benchmarks were included for assessment in the long-range transportation planning process.

10


Table 2. Summary of Mobility Performance Measures Objective Mobility Performance Measures Benchmark


Daily person-miles traveled (1) Daily truck-miles traveled (1) Daily vehicle-miles traveled (1) Person trips (1) Transit ridership (passengers) Increase


Average speed Maintain or improve the average travel speed

Daily delay Maintain or reduce the average vehicle delay Average travel rate Maintain or increase the average trip time Reliability Maintain or improve the reliability Level of Service (LOS) on rural facilities Maintain at LOS standard (D or better)


Proximity to major transportation hubs (2) Percent of lane-miles with bicycle and pedestrian accommodations (2)

Transit coverage Increase the percent of households served within 1/4 mile


Percent of the system severely congested (LOS E or worse)

Maintain or reduce the percent of system heavily congested

Percent of travel severely congested (LOS E or worse)

Maintain or reduce the percent of travel heavily congested

Vehicles per lane-mile Optimize the vehicles per lane mile for a desired LOS

Duration of congestion Maintain or decrease the duration of congestion

Number of passengers per revenue-mile Maintain or increase the number of passengers per revenue mile

(1) Generally, increases in the quantity traveled (throughout) are preferred. However, consistent

with livability and sustainability goals, one of the objectives is to reduce the amount of travel needed. Therefore, no benchmarks are proposed, but monitoring is recommended.

(2) This performance measure will not change significantly from year to year; therefore a benchmark in the context of the CMP is not established and will be evaluated in greater detail in the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan.

11


Mobility Performance Measures Analysis

Optimize the Quantity of Travel

Person-Miles Traveled In Automobiles The person-miles traveled on a daily basis within the region declined slightly within the region from

2011 to 2012. The decline was not uniform across all facility and area types, but was within the standard sampling error overall. Table 3 summarizes the change in person miles traveled since 2008 and Figure 5 (next page) shows the trend.

Table 3. Daily Person Miles Traveled (thousands) Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Person-Miles Traveled 44,076 43,502 42,996 42,641 41,634

In addition to the primary performance measure of daily performance identified in Table 2 and shown Figure 5, peak-hour, person-miles traveled is also summarized in Figure 6.

Since person-miles traveled represents the most significant performance measure in understanding trends in mobility since 2003, a special analysis was provided for this measure and is summarized Table 4. From 2003 to 2007 (the peak before the economic downturn), person-miles traveled for automobiles increased by 2.24percent percent per year (compound annual growth rate). The recession resulted in a decrease in vehicle use that has had lingering effects through 2012. Since 2008 person-miles traveled have declined by 0.19percent overall showing the negative trend is declining.

Based on analysis of prior economic recoveries, the post-recession growth rates are expected to return to pre-recession growth rates and this return is anticipated to occur in 2013-2014. Table 4 on the next page provides a summary of the changes since 2003. The 2014 data will be available in the 2015 Annual Mobility Report.

12


Table 4. Summary of Changes in Daily Person-Miles Traveled (Thousands per Day)

Functional Class Area Percent Change

2003-2007

2003-2011

2003-2012

2007-2012

2008-2012

2011-2012

Interstate Rural 121.42% 123.73% 118.18% 97.34% 98.97% 95.52% Principal Arterial Rural 100.85% 93.13% 105.47% 104.58% 107.52% 113.25% Minor Arterial Rural 100.79% 91.45% 64.46% 63.95% 65.04% 70.49% Major Collector Rural 121.43% 100.00% 100.00% 82.35% 100.00% 100.00% Subtotal

112.18% 109.72% 106.82% 95.22% 97.15% 97.35%

Interstate Urban 112.92% 121.97% 117.49% 104.05% 111.70% 96.33% Freeways and Expressways Urban 131.92% 74.65% 73.16% 55.46% 56.48% 98.01% Principal Arterial Urban 101.13% 93.48% 92.51% 91.47% 93.00% 98.96% Minor Arterial Urban 102.04% 97.91% 96.98% 95.05% 95.53% 99.05% Collector Urban 168.00% 64.00% 60.00% 35.71% 750.00% 93.75% Subtotal

108.68% 90.58% 89.50% 82.35% 83.61% 98.81%

TOTAL

109.68% 96.02% 94.43% 86.09% 87.53% 98.33%

Compound Annual Growth Rate from 2003 2.34% -0.51% -0.64% -2.95% -3.27% -0.19%

13


Figure 5. Person-Miles Traveled Daily (Thousands of Person-Miles)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Interstate (Rural) 4543 5077 4936 5348 5516 5425 5566 5466 5621 5369Principal Arterial (Rural) 2577 2565 2597 2624 2599 2528 2484 2436 2400 2718Minor Arterial (Rural) 1134 1088 1123 896 1143 1124 1115 1105 1037 731Major Collector (Rural) 14 15 14 15 17 14 14 14 14 14Interstate (Urban) 12071 12289 12732 13468 13630 12697 12540 14875 14723 14182Freeways & Expressways (Urban) 4840 5051 5361 6178 6385 6269 6240 3589 3613 3541Principal Arterial (Urban) 8824 9499 9377 9124 8924 8777 8350 8347 8249 8163Minor Arterial (Urban) 7122 7519 7483 7361 7267 7230 7182 7151 6973 6907Collector (Urban) 25 50 43 42 42 17 16 17 16 15

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Thou

sand

s Person-Miles Traveled (Daily)

14


Figure 6. Person-Miles Traveled during the Peak Hour (Thousands of Person-Miles)


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Thou

sand

s Person-Miles Traveled (Peak Hour)

15


Similar to the total person-miles traveled changes, there has also been a reduction in the average travel per person per day in automobiles across the region. These changes could be a product of changing land use patterns and household locations that result in less need for longer trips or less driving for non-essential longer trips. The number of trips passing through the region driven by tourism or other industries could also result in reduced average travel per person. Table 5 summarizes the average amount of travel per day per person.

Table 5. Summary of Percent Change in Person-Miles Traveled Per Person per Day Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Person-Miles Traveled (Thousands) 44,081 43,507 43,000 42,646 41,640

Population 1,294,319 1,305,837 1,318,481 1,322,280 1,331,616 Average Person-Miles Traveled per Day (Miles) 34.06 33.32 32.61 32.25 31.27

Truck-Miles Traveled Similar to automobile person-miles, truck-miles traveled have declined as a result of the recession.

However, in 2012 a small increase in the truck-miles traveled was observed. This change is a leading economic indicator of the economic recovery. Table 6 summarizes the trends in truck-miles traveled since 2008 and Figure 7 shows the trend since 2003.

Table 6. Truck-Miles Traveled Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Truck Miles Traveled 2,244 2,134 1,860 1,846 1,876 Percent Change from 2008 95.12% 82.91% 82.28% 83.59% CAGR from 2008 -4.88% -8.95% -6.29% -4.38% CAGR from 2011 to 2012 0.39%

16


Figure 7. Truck-Miles Traveled (Daily)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Interstate (Rural) 434 374 409 452 431 402 412 364 370 365Principal Arterial (Rural) 209 207 217 221 174 165 159 141 143 158Minor Arterial (Rural) 50 57 67 51 32 39 35 34 32 24Major Collector (Rural) 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1Interstate (Urban) 857 791 1,044 1,115 1,035 1,049 902 909 898 856Freeways and Expressways (Urban) 170 209 239 273 191 201 255 84 83 92Principal Arterial (Urban) 328 378 381 375 311 215 205 182 177 220Minor Arterial (Urban) 272 294 314 317 213 175 169 150 146 163Collector (Urban) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Thou

sand

s Truck-Miles Traveled (Daily)

17


Vehicle-Miles Traveled Vehicle-miles traveled trends have followed the same trends as the person-miles traveled and are

summarized in the table below.

Table 7. Summary of Vehicle-Miles Traveled Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Vehicle-miles Traveled (Daily) in thousands 26,997 26,629 26,310 26,081 25,474

Person Trips A viable way to estimate the number of person trips that are occurring each year does not exist at

this time. Because this performance measure is a desirable to determine the effectiveness of land use and transportation decisions, it is remaining in the CMP summary of measures and will be reported in the future if data become available.

Transit Ridership (Passengers) Transit use in North Florida continues to be less than 1 percent of all person-miles traveled.

However, transit use continued to rise with a 1.8 percent annual increase from 2011 to 2012. Since 2008, transit use in the area has increased by 30.8 percent.1 Table 8 summarizes the transit ridership for the Jacksonville Transportation Authority and the Sunshine Bus Company. Factors that have contributed to an increase in transit usage are believed to be the economic effects of the recession and the changing preferences for transit in the elderly drivers over 65 who are the largest growth sector of our population and less able to drive and 18 to 24 year olds who are less able to afford to drive and less willing.

Table 8. Transit Ridership Transit System 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Jacksonville Transportation Authority 54,524,160

54,873,285

62,393,143

69,837,248

70,826,923

St. Johns County Council on Aging (The Sunshine Bus Company)

1,116,219

1,011,012

1,362,376

1,675,407

1,958,710

Total

55,640,379

55,884,297

63,755,519

71,512,655

72,785,633 Percent Change 2011 to 2012 1.78% Percent 2008 to 2012 30.8%

1 http://www.dot.state.fl.us/transit/Pages/2013FloridaTransitHandbook.pdf

18


Figure 8. Vehicle-Miles Traveled (Daily)


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Thou

sand

s Vehicle-Miles Traveled (Daily)

19


Optimize the Quality of Travel

Average Speed Average speeds across the network are generally improving. The exception to this is the Minor

Rural Arterial classification but the 1 MPH difference modeled is within the standard error of the model. Figure 9 summarizes the trends in average vehicle speed since 2003. Table 9 summarizes the trend since 2008.

Table 9. Summary of Average Vehicle Speed (Daily) Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Speed (MPH) 51.38 50.92 52.13 52.03 52.38

Daily Delay Similar to person-miles and other performance measures there is a general decline in daily delay

when analyzing recent trends. When using the Mobility Performance Measure Database, there are two years where the model results are outlying data sets when compared to other trends. These outliers occurred for urban interstates in the years 2005 and 2007. These data are shown in Figure 10. Figure 11 shows the trends with the outlier data removed. Table 10 summarizes the vehicle hours of delay. The data for years 2005 and 2007 were estimated through linear interpolation.

Table 10. Summary of Vehicle Hours of Delay (Daily) Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Delay (Vehicle-Hours) 50,164 40,487 32,153 36,183 33,536

Average Travel Rate Average travel rate, which is the inverse of speed, is not reported. This performance measure is

redundant with the average vehicle speed and is not recommended for future updates.

Reliability The reliability of the network did not change significantly from 2011 to 2012. Since 2003, urban

minor arterials have improved their reliability while the reliability on urban freeway and expressways has declined. Table 11 summarizes the travel time reliability on a daily basis weighted by the vehicle-miles traveled. Figure 12 shows the trend since 2003.

Table 11. Travel Time Reliability (Daily) Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Travel Time Reliability 68.95 69.77 69.41 69.59 69.26

20


Figure 9. Average Travel Speeds during the Peak Hours (MPH)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Interstate (Rural) 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74Principal Arterial (Rural) 54 53 52 52 53 53 53 53 53 54Minor Arterial (Rural) 53 54 54 55 55 55 55 56 56 55Major Collector (Rural) 59 59 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 60Interstate (Urban) 63 63 61 61 61 64 61 64 63 64Freeways & Expressways (Urban) 51 51 53 51 52 53 53 48 47 49Principal Arterial (Urban) 33 33 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36Minor Arterial (Urban) 31 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

MPH

Average Travel Speed (Peak Hour)

21


Figure 10. Total Daily Delay (Vehicle Hours)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Interstate (Rural) - - - 5 5 1 1 4 4 1Principal Arterial (Rural) 424 507 535 483 345 371 297 480 552 491Minor Arterial (Rural) 11 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 -Major Collector (Rural) - - - - - - - - - -Interstate (Urban) 18,474 7,097 64,060 20,914 61,917 11,957 14,970 2,146 3,512 8,160Freeways and Expressways (Urban) 15,565 20,673 20,874 17,705 16,009 9,830 2,643 5,629 7,180 2,786Principal Arterial (Urban) 16,654 26,366 28,571 19,157 18,331 17,263 12,624 14,380 16,608 13,538Minor Arterial (Urban) 16,139 19,921 22,961 15,452 13,118 10,694 9,924 9,440 8,266 8,519Collector (Urban) 77 85 100 93 43 48 28 73 61 40

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Vehi

cle

Hous

Total Delay in Vehicle Hours (Daily)

22


Figure 11. Total Daily Delay (Vehicle Hours) – Adjusted

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Interstate (Rural) - - - 5 5 1 1 4 4 1Principal Arterial (Rural) 424 507 535 483 345 371 297 480 552 491Minor Arterial (Rural) 11 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 -Major Collector (Rural) - - - - - - - - - -Interstate (Urban) 18,474 7,097 14,006 20,914 16,436 11,957 14,970 2,146 3,512 8,160Freeways and Expressways (Urban) 15,565 20,673 20,874 17,705 16,009 9,830 2,643 5,629 7,180 2,786Principal Arterial (Urban) 16,654 26,366 28,571 19,157 18,331 17,263 12,624 14,380 16,608 13,538Minor Arterial (Urban) 16,139 19,921 22,961 15,452 13,118 10,694 9,924 9,440 8,266 8,519Collector (Urban) 77 85 100 93 43 48 28 73 61 40

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Vehi

cle

Hour

s Total Delay in Vehicle Hours (Daily) - Adjusted

23


Figure 12. Travel Time Reliability (Peak Hour)


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

Travel Time Reliability (Peak Hour)

24


LOS on Rural Facilities On rural facilities, the percent of miles meeting the LOS criteria during the peak period has not

changed. All of the interstates, minor arterials and major collectors currently operate at a LOS D or better according to the FDOT’s Mobility Performance Measures database. About 95 percent of the rural principal arterials operate at LOS D and this percent has not changed. Figure 13 summarizes the percent- miles traveled meeting LOS criteria on rural facilities. Table 12 summarizes the trend for the last five years.

Table 12. Percent of Rural Miles Meeting LOS Criteria Items 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percent of Rural Miles Meeting LOS Criteria 99.42 99.72 99.72 99.45 99.68

Accessibility The accessibility performance measures are not anticipated to change significantly from year to

year; therefore a benchmark in this report is not appropriate. Based on analysis conducted as part of the Congestion Management Plan, about 46% of all residential households present within the North Florida region have a transit stop within the quarter-mile radius and 87% of all residential households within North Florida are located within a five-mile radius of a park and ride lot. This value is not anticipated to change significantly from year to year.

Utilization of the System

System Lane Miles To understand changes that have occurred with system utilization is useful to first understand the

changes in the network that have occurred over time. Since 2008, 63 lane miles of capacity have been added to the network in North Florida.

Table 13. System Lane Miles Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 System Lane Miles 3,371 3,398 3,405 3,413 3,434

Percent Miles Severely Congested The urban interstate system was the most congested system on a per mile basis for much of the

analysis period from 2003 to 2012. Between 2011 and 2012 there was a drop in the miles of congestion such that the urban freeway and expressway roadways are less congested. This change is likely a result of traffic diverting with the opening of SR 9B and the improvements at the I-95/I-10 interchange being completed.

The data available shows that the percentage of the miles severely congested is declining for all facility types and area types. This is a result of new facilities opening within the region and the reduction in vehicle-miles traveled. Figure 14 shows the trend since 2003.

25


Figure 13. Percent of Rural Miles Meeting LOS Criteria

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Interstate (Rural) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Principal Arterial (Rural) 95 94 94 94 96 96 95 97 94 95Minor Arterial (Rural) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Major Collector (Rural) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

60

70

80

90

100

%

Percent Miles Meeting LOS Criteria (Peak Period) - Rural Facilities

26



0

5

10

15

20

25

%

Percent Miles Severely Congested (Peak Hour)

Figure 14. Percent Miles Severely Congested During the Peak Hour

27


Vehicles per Lane per Hour The number of vehicles that operate on each facility per lane mile demonstrates the utilization of

each functional classification within the highway network. Urban interstate facilities serve significantly more vehicles per lane-mile than the other functional classifications. The trends observed with this performance measure are consistent with the other system utilization and person-mile traveled trends. Table 14 summarizes the vehicles per lane per hour from 2008 to 2012. Figure 15 shows the trend since 2003.

Table 14. Vehicles per Lane per Hour (Peak Hour) Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Vehicles per Lane per Hour 642.1 633.9 622.8 620.2 604.3

Duration of Congestion The duration of congestion, or the average number of hours LOS E or F exists on the network was

analyzed and consistent with other measures, there has been a decline in the duration of congestion. In 2003-2009 the average duration of congestion on urban interstate facilities was 2 hours. Since 2009 the average is 1 hour or less. This data is rounded by the FDOT Mobility Performance Measures database. Figure 16 shows the trend since 2003.

Number of Passengers per Revenue Mile The number of passengers per revenue mile within the region increased significantly year over year

for the last five years. This trend shows that the increase in ridership previously discussed is a result of more people using services than growth based on significant changes in the services provided. As shown in Table 15, the number of revenue miles JTA operates has actually been reduced while ridership has increased. Table 16 summarizes the passengers per revenue mile.

Table 15. Revenue Miles Transit System 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jacksonville Transportation Authority 9,780,214 9,098,872 9,384,591 9,162,689 9,018,194 St. Johns County Council on Aging (The Sunshine Bus Company) 388,277 349,987 457,381 478,647 466,125 Total 10,168,491 9,448,859 9,841,972 9,641,336 9,484,319 Table 16. Passengers per Revenue Mile Transit System 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jacksonville Transportation Authority 5.57 6.03 6.65 7.62 7.85 St. Johns County Council on Aging (The Sunshine Bus Company) 2.87 2.89 2.98 3.50 4.20

Average 5.47 5.91 6.48 7.42 7.67

28


Figure 15. Vehicles per Lane Mile in the Peak Hour

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Interstate Rural 621 618 631 661 670 658 668 662 677 643Princiapal Arterial 312 296 303 317 298 296 288 285 281 267Minor Arterial 298 286 279 299 277 269 269 253 234 233Major Collector 121 129 121 125 145 121 113 121 113 113Interstate Urban 1,437 1,422 1,492 1,557 1,585 1,390 1,480 1,363 1,379 1,330Freeways 934 952 936 1,085 1,062 1,035 979 858 866 830Princiapal Arterial 548 575 575 562 549 534 502 506 500 486Minor Arterial 420 436 440 418 413 402 391 397 385 383Collector 172 335 284 274 278 219 275 403 371 341

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Vehi

cles

per

Lan

e pe

r Ho

ur

Vehicles per Lane per Hour (Peak Hour)

29


Figure 16. Duration of Congestion (Hours)


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Hour

s Hours Severely Congested (Daily)

30


I-95 Corridor Analysis The FDOT, in partnership with North Florida TPO, deployed Bluetooth devices along major roadways

within the North Florida region to obtain real-time data. Figure 7 shows the location of the BlueToad device deployments planned within the North Florida TPO governing boundary. Approximately 60 percent of devices were deployed successfully. Figure 8 shows the BlueToad devices currently active within the North Florida TPO boundary.

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

As part of the CMP, the I-95 corridor was chosen to conduct a reliability analysis utilizing the travel time and speed data collected by the Bluetooth devices. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the year-to-year changes on this roadway.

Data was downloaded from the BlueToad website during the same 5-week period used in 2013 - Sunday, January 27th, 2014 and Saturday, March 2nd, 2014. A minimum of one month’s data is essential on corridors to perform statistically significant reliability analysis. The I-95 corridor within the limits of the study area is composed of eight segments each along the northbound and southbound direction. The pair ID and the description of these segments are listed below:


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


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

31

BlueToad Device Locations Activewithin the North Florida TPO Boundary

Figure 17

Page 32

BlueToad Device Locations Plannedwithin the North Florida TPO Boundary

Figure 18

Page 33


The travel time and speed information obtained for these roadway segments was available over 15-minute intervals for 24 hours a day. A total of 3,360 (35 days times 96, 15-minute intervals) data records should have been available if the Bluetooth units collected the data continuously over the five-week time-period. Although the availability of data that was available improved from the prior analysis, consistent data records could not be obtained over the study period for several segments. The data records that were available for each segment during the 5-week period were analyzed. The segments are as listed below:


Pair ID 4270 – I-295 to North of Baymeadows Road - 0 Records - (100percent Data Missing) Pair ID 3604 – North of Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road - 0 Records – (100percent Data

Missing) Pair ID 4272 – Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge - 0 Records - (100percent Data Missing)


Pair ID 4273 – Acosta Bridge to Bowden Road - 0 Records - (100percent Data Missing) Pair ID 3603 – Bowden Road to North of Baymeadows Road - 0 Records - (100percent Data

Missing) Pair ID 4271 – North of Baymeadows Road to I-295 - 0 Records - (100percent Data Missing)

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 17 and shown in Figures 19 and 20. Red highlights on the figures indicate where reliability is less than 95 percent. Green highlights on the table show where improvements were identified. Yellow is a small decline and red where a significant decline was identified.

The most significant change in the reliability occurred on the northbound segment between SR 105 Heckscher Drive and SR 200. The performance of these rural segments was negatively impacted by several crashes that occurred during this period.

It is anticipated that enhancements will be performed on the BlueToad data collection technology in the coming months and more data should be available for future updates. The improvements will enhance the consistency and quality of the data. Additional coverage into the beaches, Clay and St. Johns counties will also be provided.

In addition, the construction of the I-95 overland bridge project had a significant impact on the availability of data. Future year analysis will provide a more detailed look at the impacts of construction of the reliability and operations during construction operations.

34


Table 17. Summary of I-95 Corridor Reliability, I-95 Southbound

From To Free Flow

Speed (MPH)

Maximum Average Speed (MPH)

Unreliable Speed (MPH)

Reliability (%)

Duration of Unreliability

(hours)

February 2013 I-95 Southbound

Pecan Park Road SR 200 Buccaneer Trail 75.0 81.6 65.0 98.93% 0.50 SR 200 Buccaneer Trail SR 105 Heckscher Drive 75.0 72.1 65.0 99.91% 0.25 SR 105 Heckscher Drive US 1 Kings Road 60.0 67.6 50.0 98.27% - US 1 Kings Road Acosta Bridge 60.0 78.5 50.0 93.26% - Acosta Bridge Bowden Road 60.0 - - - - Bowden Road SR 152 Baymeadows Road 60.0 - - - - SR 152 Baymeadows Road I-295 60.0 58.6 50.0 99.91% 2.25

I-95 Northbound I-295 SR 152 Baymeadows Road 60.0 - - - - SR 152 Baymeadows Road Bowden Road 60.0 - - - - Bowden Road Acosta Bridge 60.0 - - - - Acosta Bridge US 1 Kings Road 60.0 78.5 50.0 98.27% 0.25 US 1 Kings Road SR 105 Heckscher Drive 60.0 67.6 50.0 99.91% 0.25 SR 105 Heckscher Drive Pecan Park Road 75.0 72.1 65.0 98.93% 0.25 Pecan Park Road SR 200 Buccaneer Trail 75.0 81.6 65.0 95.86% 0.50

February 2014 I-95 Southbound

Pecan Park Road SR 200 Buccaneer Trail 75.0 79.7 65.0 97.56% 0.25 SR 200 Buccaneer Trail SR 105 Heckscher Drive 75.0 74.6 65.0 91.36% 0.75 SR 105 Heckscher Drive US 1/SR 23 Kings Road 60.0 67.1 50.0 99.82% 0.25 US 1 Kings Road Acosta Bridge 60.0 78.5 50.0 96.78% 0.25 Acosta Bridge Bowden Road 60.0 - - - Bowden Road SR 152 Baymeadows Road 60.0 - - - SR 152 Baymeadows Road I-295 60.0 - - -

35


From To Free Flow

Speed (MPH)

Maximum Average Speed (MPH)

Unreliable Speed (MPH)

Reliability (%)

Duration of Unreliability

(hours)

I-95 Northbound I-295 SR 152 Baymeadows Road 60.0 - - - - SR 152 Baymeadows Road Bowden Road 60.0 - - - - Bowden Road Acosta Bridge 60.0 - - - - Acosta Bridge US 1 Kings Road 60.0 78.5 50.0 94.46% 1.00 US 1 Kings Road SR 105 Heckscher Drive 60.0 - 50.0 - - SR 105 Heckscher Drive Pecan Park Road 75.0 73.1 65.0 75.40% 5.50 Pecan Park Road SR 200 Buccaneer Trail 75.0 79.4 65.0 92.89% 2.50

Change from 2013 to 2014 I-95 Southbound

Pecan Park Road SR 200 Buccaneer Trail 75.0 (1.9) 65.0 -1.37% (0.25) SR 200 Buccaneer Trail SR 105 Heckscher Drive 75.0 2.5 65.0 -8.55% 0.50 SR 105 Heckscher Drive US 1 Kings Road 60.0 (0.5) 50.0 1.55% 0.25 US 1 Kings Road Acosta Bridge 60.0 - 50.0 3.52% 0.25 Acosta Bridge Bowden Road 60.0 - - - - Bowden Road SR 152 Baymeadows Road 60.0 - - - - SR 152 Baymeadows Road I-295 60.0 - - - -

I-95 Northbound I-295 SR 152 Baymeadows Road 60.0 - - - - SR 152 Baymeadows Road Bowden Road 60.0 - - - - Bowden Road Acosta Bridge 60.0 - - - - Acosta Bridge US 1 Kings Road 60.0 - 50.0 -3.81% 0.75 US 1 Kings Road SR 105 Heckscher Drive 60.0 - - 0.00% - SR 105 Heckscher Drive Pecan Park Road 75.0 1.0 65.0 -23.53% 5.25 Pecan Park Road SR 200 Buccaneer Trail 75.0 (2.2) 65.0 -2.97% 2.00

36

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:0

010

:30

11:0

011

:30

12:0

012

:30

13:0

013

:30

14:0

014

:30

15:0

015

:30

16:0

016

:30

17:0

017

:30

18:0

018

:30

19:0

019

:30

20:0

020

:30

21:0

021

:30

22:0

022

:30

23:0

023

:30

Spee

d (M

PH)

Time of Day

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:0

010

:30

11:0

011

:30

12:0

012

:30

13:0

013

:30

14:0

014

:30

15:0

015

:30

16:0

016

:30

17:0

017

:30

18:0

018

:30

19:0

019

:30

20:0

020

:30

21:0

021

:30

22:0

022

:30

23:0

023

:30

Spee

d (M

PH)

Time of Day

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:0

010

:30

11:0

011

:30

12:0

012

:30

13:0

013

:30

14:0

014

:30

15:0

015

:30

16:0

016

:30

17:0

017

:30

18:0

018

:30

19:0

019

:30

20:0

020

:30

21:0

021

:30

22:0

022

:30

23:0

023

:30

Spee

d (M

PH)

Time of Day

I-95 Northbound Speed Variation Chart and Reliability Figure 19

Page 37

I-95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road

I-95 from Kings Road to Heckscher Drive

I-95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road

I-95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200

Measure of Effectiveness Values Free Flow Speed (FFS) 60 MPH

Max. of Ave. Speed 61.0 MPH

Unreliable Speed 50 MPH Reliability 95.20% Duration of Unreliable

0.25 hours Speed (within 24 hours)

I-95 from Race Track Road to I-295









No Data Available I-95 from I-295 to Baymeadows Road

I-95 from Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road I-95 from Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:0

010

:30

11:0

011

:30

12:0

012

:30

13:0

013

:30

14:0

014

:30

15:0

015

:30

16:0

016

:30

17:0

017

:30

18:0

018

:30

19:0

019

:30

20:0

020

:30

21:0

021

:30

22:0

022

:30

23:0

023

:30

Spee

d (M

PH)

Time of Day

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:0

010

:30

11:0

011

:30

12:0

012

:30

13:0

013

:30

14:0

014

:30

15:0

015

:30

16:0

016

:30

17:0

017

:30

18:0

018

:30

19:0

019

:30

20:0

020

:30

21:0

021

:30

22:0

022

:30

23:0

023

:30

Spee

d (M

PH)










0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:0

010

:30

11:0

011

:30

12:0

012

:30

13:0

013

:30

14:0

014

:30

15:0

015

:30

16:0

016

:30

17:0

017

:30

18:0

018

:30

19:0

019

:30

20:0

020

:30

21:0

021

:30

22:0

022

:30

23:0

023

:30

Spee

d (M

PH)

Time of Day

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:0

010

:30

11:0

011

:30

12:0

012

:30

13:0

013

:30

14:0

014

:30

15:0

015

:30

16:0

016

:30

17:0

017

:30

18:0

018

:30

19:0

019

:30

20:0

020

:30

21:0

021

:30

22:0

022

:30

23:0

023

:30

Spee

d (M

PH)

Time of Day

(*) – Insufficient data was available to estimate reliability

I-95 Southbound Speed Variation Chart and Reliability Figure 20

Page 38

No Data Available I-95 from I-295 to Baymeadows Road

I-95 from Baymeadows Road to Bowden Road I-95 from Bowden Road to Acosta Bridge

I-95 from Race Track Road to I-295

I-95 from Acosta Bridge to Kings Road

I-95 from Heckscher Drive to Pecan Park Road

I-95 from Pecan Park Road to SR 200

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













0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:0

010

:30

11:0

011

:30

12:0

012

:30

13:0

013

:30

14:0

014

:30

15:0

015

:30

16:0

016

:30

17:0

017

:30

18:0

018

:30

19:0

019

:30

20:0

020

:30

21:0

021

:30

22:0

022

:30

23:0

023

:30

Spee

d (M

PH)

Time of Day

0

20

40

60

80

0:00

0:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30

5:00

5:30

6:00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:0

010

:30

11:0

011

:30

12:0

012

:30

13:0

013

:30

14:0

014

:30

15:0

015

:30

16:0

016

:30

17:0

017

:30

18:0

018

:30

19:0

019

:30

20:0

020

:30

21:0

021

:30

22:0

022

:30

23:0

023

:30

Spee

d (M

PH)




Unreliable Speed 50 MPH Reliability n/a (*) Duration of Unreliable

n/a (*) Speed (within 24 hours)


Summary In 2013, the North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) completed a Congestion

Management Process that included the development of performance measure trends and analysis. The Congestion Management Process identified congested corridors and recommended strategies and tactics to address these corridors. This report identifies mobility trends occurring in the North Florida TPO planning boundary.

In 2012, the trend of declining vehicle usage continued with the vehicle-miles traveled with a 2.4 percent reduction in the person miles traveled by automobile. Since 2008, automobile use has declined within the region by 5.7 percent. These declines in vehicle use are believed to be the result of the economic downturn, changing travel patterns associated with an aging population and younger driver’s reduced automobile dependence. The exception to this reduction is an increase in the truck miles traveled within the region. Over the last five years, truck traffic is down 16.4 percent overall, but saw a 1.6 percent increase in 2012 compared to 2011 reflecting the beginning of the economic recovery.

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

The reduction in automobile use and increase in transit use combined with the opening of 62 additional lane miles of highways between 2008 and 2012. These improvements included facilities such as the opening of SR 9B from I-295 to US 1 and resulted in significant benefits in the quality of travel within the region. Average speeds during the peak periods improved by 2.73 percent from 2008 to 2012 and 0.65 percent from 2011 to 2012. These average speeds resulted in a positive economic impact to the local economy of $280 million per year.

Travel is anticipated in increase in the region for the next five years as a result of the economic recovery and new growth within the region. The demand for travel is anticipated to return to pre- recession levels by the year 2018 and improvements to enhance our mobility are needed to meet these needs.

A significant number of major projects to address system bottlenecks and add new capacity to our transportation system are scheduled to be completed and open by 2018. These major projects will have positive benefits to the travelers and a summary is provided in Table 19.

A significant number of major projects to address system bottlenecks and add new capacity to our transportation system are scheduled to be completed and open for traffic by 2018. These major projects will have positive benefits to the travelers of the region and summary is provided in Table 19.

39


40

Table 18. Summary of Performance Measures Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Quantity of Travel Vehicle‐miles Traveled (Daily) in thousands 26,997 26,629 26,310 26,081 25,474 Vehicle‐miles Traveled (Peak Hour) in thousands 2,161 2,132 2,105 2,087 2,036 Person Miles Traveled (Daily) in thousands 44,081 43,507 43,000 42,646 41,640 Person Miles Traveled (Peak Hour) in thousands 3,520 3,472 3,432 3,403 3,323 Truck Miles Traveled (Daily) in thousands 2,249 2,139 1,866 1,851 1,880 Transit Ridership (thousands) 55,640 55,884 63,755 72,785 72,785

Quality of Travel Average Travel Speed (Peak Hour) 51.38 50.92 52.13 52.03 52.38 Delay (Daily) 18,316 14,782 11,740 13,211 12,244 Travel Time Reliability (Daily) 68.95 69.77 69.41 69.59 69.26 percent Miles Meeting LOS Criteria (Daily) Rural Facilities 99.42 99.72 99.72 99.45 99.68 Transit Coverage

System Utilization Percent Miles Severely Congested (Peak Hour) 5.26 6.49 4.41 5.52 3.64 Percent Travel Severely Congested (Daily) 2.83 4.08 2.52 3.75 2.43 Percent Travel Severely Congested (Peak Hour) 0.23 0.34 0.21 0.31 0.20 Hours Severely Congested (Daily) 0.81 1.10 0.81 0.80 0.80 Hours Severely Congested (Yearly) 153.94 226.70 105.04 184.41 120.45 Vehicle per lane Miles (Peak Hour) in hundreds 642.1 633.9 622.8 620.2 604.3 Passengers per Revenue Mile 5.47 5.91 6.48 7.42 7.67


41

Table 19. Major Improvements Proposed to Open by 2018 Facility From To Improvement

New Roads SR 23 First Coast Expressway Blanding Boulevard I‐10 New expressway SR 9B I‐95 SR 5/US 1 Philips Highway New four‐lane road Crawford Road CR 121 US 301 New two‐lane road JIA Access Road Airport Road Pecan Park Road New four‐lane road US 301 Baldwin Bypass New four‐lane road

Widening Projects I‐295 I‐95 SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard Add two express lanes I‐295 (Buchman Bridge) SR 5/US 17 Park Street SR 13 San Jose Boulevard Add two express lanes SR 21 Blanding Boulevard CR 218 Allie Murray Road Widen to six lanes SR A1A/SR 200 I‐95 Scott Road Widen to six lanes US 301 Baldwin Callahan Widen to four‐lanes

Interchange Projects I‐10 I‐295 Interchange Modifications I‐10 SR 5/US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard Interchange Modifications I‐10 Hammond Boulevard New Interchange I‐10 I‐295 Interchange Modifications I‐95 SR 202 J. T. Butler Boulevard Interchange Modifications I‐95 I‐295 North Interchange Modifications

Major Transit Service BRT Southwest Corridor Bus Rapid Transit BRT East Corridor Bus Rapid Transit BRT Southeast Corridor Bus Rapid Transit BRT North Corridor Bus Rapid Transit


Documents

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