SPACE COAST TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
ADOPTED | OCTOBER 8, 2015 THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT HAS BEEN FINANCED IN PART THROUGH GRANT(S) FROM THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNDER THE STATE PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM, SECTION 505 [OR METROPOLITAN PLANNING PROGRAM, SECTION 104(F)] OF TITLE 23, U.S. CODE. THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. SPACE COAST TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
ADOPTED | OCTOBER 8, 2015
prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS x PUBLIC NOTICE 47 COMMITTEES xii ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND TITLE VI 47 LRTP AMENDMENT & xvi INITIATION WORKSHOPS 48 MODIFICATION PROCESS SURVEY 50 RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION xix 3B: METAPLAN APPROACH 52 FEDERAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS xx METAPLAN SYNTHESIS 52 BICYCLING AND WALKING 53 CHAPTER ONE: BREVARD’S 19 BUSES AND RAIL 53 NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT SEAPORT, AIRPORTS, AND SPACEPORT 54 ROADWAYS 57 A NON-TRADITIONAL UPDATE PROCESS 22 INFILL AND MIXED-USE, HIGHER-DENSITY, 59 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT 24 OR CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT GATHERING INPUT 24 PARKING 59 SCENARIO PLANNING 24 TRANSPORTATION SYMPOSIUM 60 VISIONING 24 3C: BALANCING PLANNING 65 CORRIDOR PLANNING 25 AND THE ENVIRONMENT PRIORITIZATION 25 ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES 66 REVENUES 26 AND POLICIES 2040 COST FEASIBLE PLAN 26 PROGRAMS MONITORING 67 POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES BEYOND 2040 28 ETDM 68 MITIGATION BANKING 70 CHAPTER TWO: THE ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED 72 SPACE COAST LANDS PROGRAM PLANNING FOR ECONOMIC AND 74 WHAT IS THE LRTP? 33 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY SPACE COAST DEMOGRAPHICS 34 SPECIFIC PROJECT EXAMPLES 75 REGIONAL PLANNING & COORDINATION 35 CHAPTER FOUR: PHASE 76 FEDERAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 37 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
A NEW DIRECTION 77 CHAPTER THREE: PHASE 41 WHAT MATTERS? 78 1: GATHERING INPUT BUILDING SCENARIOS 78 SCENARIO RESULTS 80 3A: OUTREACH TOOLS 42 CURRENT TREND 80 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN 42 PORTS CENTERS 82 VISUALIZATION TOOLS 43 HIGH-TECH LIFESTYLE 83 COMMUNICATION 44 CONNECTED COMMUNITIES 84 WORKSHOPS 45 COMPARING THE SCENARIOS 85 BROCHURES 46 RATING THE SCENARIOS 85 WEBSITE 46 ECONOMIC PROSPERITY 86 UPDATED FINANCIAL TREND 155 POPULATION GROWTH 86 SINCE 2035 LRTP ADOPTION PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT 86 SUMMARY OF STATE/FEDERAL 156 REVENUE PROJECTIONS LIVE AND TRAVEL 86 SUMMARY OF LOCAL REVENUE 157 CHAPTER FIVE: PHASE 88 PROJECTIONS 3: VISIONING POTENTIAL NEW REVENUE SOURCES 157 ADOPTING THE VISION 91 PROJECTION OF REVENUES 158 STATE AND FEDERAL SOURCES 158 FUEL TAXES 160 CHAPTER SIX: PHASE 4: 94 STATE-DISTRIBUTED FUEL TAXES 160 CORRIDOR PLANNING LOCAL OPTION FUEL TAXES 160 TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES 96 SUMMARY OF FUEL TAXES 160 WALKING AND BIKING 97 IMPACT FEES 161 PREMIUM TRANSIT 99 OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS 162 COMMUTER RAIL 99 SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT (SCAT) 162 BUS RAPID TRANSIT 100 OTHER LOCAL SOURCES 162 ROADWAYS AND AUTOMATED VEHICLES 100 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED REVENUES 162 LAND USE STRATEGIES 102 REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR CAPACITY 164 VS. O&M IMPROVEMENTS STRATEGIC CORRIDOR PLANS 104 POTENTIAL NEW AND 165 MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR WORKSHOP 134 ILLUSTRATIVE REVENUES IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT NEEDS 137 MUNICIPAL FUEL TAX REVENUES 167 CORRIDOR BASED PROJECTS AND COSTS 168 CHAPTER SEVEN: PHASE 5: 140 COST FEASIBLE PLAN 169 COST FEASIBLE CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTING 224 PLAN & BEYOND THE VISION 7A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS 141 POLICY FRAMEWORK 225 CORRIDOR EVALUATION 141 MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLANNING 226 AND PRIORITIZATION THE STEPS TO IMPLEMENT TOD 227 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 144 MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR FUNDING 230 SAFETY 146 BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN EDUCATION 147 HIGHWAY AND CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS 233 ROAD SAFETY AUDITS 148 QUINTIMODAL IMPACTS 233 SECURITY 149 APPENDIX A: 235 FREIGHT 150 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 151 APPENDIX B: 263 7B: FINANCIAL FORECAST 155 APPENDIX C: 324 REVENUE FORECASTS 155 LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER ONE: BREVARD’S 19 FIGURE 3.8: TRANSIT ROUTES GO 51 DIRECTLY WHERE PEOPLE NEED NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT WITHOUT TRANSFERS FIGURE 1.1: FIRST LANDING ON THE 20 FIGURE 3.9: HOPKINS AVE AND 57 MOON, 1969 MINUTEMAN CSWY CONCEPTUAL FIGURE 1.2: SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH 21 RENDERINGS FIGURE 1.3: REVIEWING THE SPACE 22 FIGURE 3.10: N ATLANTIC AVE 58 COAST LRTP CONCEPTUAL RENDERING FIGURE 1.4: 2040 LONG RANGE 23 FIGURE 3.11: ETDM PROCESS 68 TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROCESS FIGURE 3.12: WETLANDS AND MITIGATION 71 FLOWCHART BANKS FIGURE 1.5: VISIONING PUBLIC 24 FIGURE 3.13: ENVIRONMENTALLY 73 WORKSHOP ENDANGERED LANDS FIGURE 1.6: VISIONING WORKSHOP 25 BROCHURE CHAPTER FOUR: PHASE 76 FIGURE 1.7: SPACE COAST 2040 LOGO 26 2: SCENARIO PLANNING FIGURE 1.8: BALANCING PROJECTS AND 27 FUNDING FIGURE 4.1: PLACE TYPES 76 FIGURE 1.9: PLANNING BEYOND 2040 28 FIGURE 4.2: CURRENT TREND SCENARIO 81 FIGURE 4.3: PORT CENTER SCENARIO 82 CHAPTER TWO: THE 31 FIGURE 4.4: HIGH-TECH SCENARIO 83 SPACE COAST FIGURE 4.5: CONNECTED COMMUNITIES 84 FIGURE 2.1: PROJECTED POPULATION 34 SCENARIO GROWTH BY 2040 FIGURE 4.6: COMPARING SCENARIOS: 85 FIGURE 2.2: URBANIZATION OF BREVARD 35 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION COUNTY SINCE 1960 IMPACTS, YEAR 2060 FIGURE 2.3: CENTRAL FLORIDA MPO 36 FIGURE 4.7: CHOICE WORKSHOP 86 ALLIANCE RESULTS OF SCENARIO RATING FIGURE 2.4: TPO MEETINGS REGARDING 37 THE 2040 LRTP UPDATE CHAPTER FIVE: PHASE 88 3: VISIONING CHAPTER THREE: PHASE 41 1: GATHERING INPUT FIGURE 5.1: ADOPTED TPO VISION 90 FIGURE 3.1: TIMELINE OF PUBLIC AND 42 FIGURE 5.2: HOW THE VISION RATED 91 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES AMONG THREE GOALS FIGURE 3.2: VARIOUS LRTP GRAPHICS 43 FIGURE 5.3: VISION GOALS AND MAP-21 91 AND VISUALIZATIONS FIGURE 3.3: BREAKDOWN OF PUBLIC 44 PARTICIPATION METHODS CHAPTER SIX: PHASE 4: 94 FIGURE 3.4: VISIONING WORKSHOP 46 CORRIDOR PLANNING BROCHURE FIGURE 6.1: MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR 95 FIGURE 3.5: STRATEGIC CORRIDOR 47 CONCEPT PLANS WORKSHOP BROCHURE FIGURE 6.2: COMPLETE STREET IN 98 FIGURE 3.6: 2040 LRTP WEBSITE 47 COCOA FIGURE 3.7: ABILITY TO GET TO DESIRED 51 FIGURE 6.3: BRT AND AUTOMATED 101 LOCATIONS BY SIDEWALKS / BIKE PATHS VEHICLES FIGURE 6.4: CONCEPTUAL STATION AREA 102 FIGURE 6.26: BABCOCK: CORRIDOR 9A: 129 EVOLUTION US 1 TO MALABAR RD FIGURE 6.5: STRATEGIC CORRIDORS 104 FIGURE 6.27: BABCOCK: CORRIDOR 9B: 130 FIGURE 6.6: CORRIDOR LIMITATIONS AND 105 MALABAR RD TO I-95 OPPORTUNITIES FIGURE 6.28: SR A1A: CORRIDOR 10A: 131 FIGURE 6.7: US 1 AND FEC 106 PORT CANAVERAL TO COCOA BEACH FIGURE 6.7.1 STRATEGIC CORRIDORS 107 FIGURE 6.29: SR A1A CORRIDOR 10B: 132 MAP COCOA BEACH TO SATELLITE BEACH FIGURE 6.8: US 1 NORTH: CORRIDOR 1A: 111 FIGURE 6.30: SR A1A CORRIDOR 10C: 133 MIMS TO COUNTRY CLUB DR SATELLITE BEACH TO US 1/US 192 FIGURE 6.9: US 1 NORTH: CORRIDOR 1B: 112 FIGURE 6.31: SUPPORT FOR PREMIUM 135 CHENEY HWY TO FAY BLVD TRANSIT BY CORRIDOR FIGURE 6.10: US 1 NORTH: CORRIDOR 1C: 113 FIGURE 6.32: WORKSHOP EVALUATION 136 WILLIAMS POINT TO SR 520 FIGURE 6.33: SUMMARY NEEDS MATRIX 137 FIGURE 6.11: US 1 CENTRAL: CORRIDOR 114 2A: DOWNTOWN COCOA TO VIERA BLVD CHAPTER SEVEN: PHASE 5: 140 FIGURE 6.12: US 1 CENTRAL: CORRIDOR 115 COST FEASIBLE 2B: VIERA BLVD TO LAKE WASHINGTON RD PLAN & BEYOND FIGURE 6.13: US 1 CENTRAL: CORRIDOR 116 2C: LAKE WASHINGTON RD TO FIGURE 7.1: PROJECT STATUS SCALE 143 DOWNTOWN MELBOURNE FIGURE 7.2: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 145 FIGURE 6.14: US 1 SOUTH: CORRIDOR 3A: 117 PROCESS US 192 TO CAPE MALABAR FIGURE 7.3: PROJECTS ON EVACUATION 149 FIGURE 6.15: US 1 SOUTH: CORRIDOR 3B: 118 CORRIDORS CAPE MALABER TO VALKARIA RD FIGURE 7.4: SIS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 150 FIGURE 6.16: US 1 SOUTH: CORRIDOR 3C: 119 VALKARIA RD TO MICCO RD FIGURE 7.5: HISTORICAL VEHICLE MILES 151 TRAVELED FIGURE 6.17: SR 528: CORRIDOR 4A: 120 ORANGE COUNTY LINE TO US 1 FIGURE 7.6: 2035 VS 2040 REVENUE 155 PROJECTIONS FIGURE 6.18: SR 528: CORRIDOR 4B: US 1 121 TO PORT CANAVERAL FIGURE 7.7: LOCAL/STATE/FEDERAL 156 REVENUE PROJECTIONS 2021-2040 FIGURE 6.19: PINEDA/ELLIS RD/ NASA 12 BLVD: CORRIDOR 5A: PINEDA CSWY TO FIGURE 7.8: CAPITAL REVENUE NEEDS 157 ELLIS RD FIGURE 7.9: CORRIDOR PLANNING 168 FIGURE 6.20: PINEDA/ELLIS RD/ NASA 123 CONCEPT BLVD: CORRIDOR 5B: I-95 TO US 1 FIGURE 7.10: COST FEASIBLE PLAN MAP 170 FIGURE 6.21: SR 520: CORRIDOR 6: WEST 124 CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTING 224 OF I-95 TO COCOA BEACH THE VISION FIGURE 6.22: FISKE/STADIUM: CORRIDOR 125 7A: COCOA TO VIERA FIGURE 8.1 FDOT TOD FRAMEWORK 226 DOCUMENT FIGURE 6.23: WICKHAM/MINTON: 126 CORRIDOR 8A STADIUM TO LAKE FIGURE 8.2: COMPLETE STREET DESIGN 229 WASHINGTON CONCEPT FIGURE 6.24: WICKHAM/MINTON/ 127 FIGURE 8.3: COMPLETE STREET IN 229 MALABAR: CORRIDOR 8B: LAKE COCOA WASHINGTON RD TO PALM BAY RD FIGURE 8.4: 2040-2060 INFRASTRUCTURE 230 FIGURE 6.25: WICKHAM/MINTON/MALABAR: 128 FIGURE 8.5: SR 60 TO SR 46 NORTH- 233 CORRIDOR 8C: PALM BAY RD TO US 1 SOUTH CONNECTOR LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER TWO: 31 TABLE 7.10: PROJECTIONS OF 166 ILLUSTRATIVE AND POTENTIAL REVENUE INTRODUCTION SOURCES
TABLE 2.1: FEDERAL PLANNING 39 TABLE 7.11: PROJECTIONS OF EXISTING 167 REQUIREMENTS MUNICIPAL FUEL TAX REVENUES TABLE 7.12: SUMMARY COSTS (IN $000’S) 169 TABLE 7.13 (A): SRATEGIC INTERMODAL 171 CHAPTER THREE: PHASE 43 SYSTEM PROJECTS 1: GATHERING INPUT TABLE 7.13 (B): OTHER ARTERIAL (STATE / 171 TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY SYMPOSIUM 62 FEDERAL FUNDS) FEEDBACK TABLE 7.13 (C): TRANSPORTATION 172 TABLE 3.2: ELIGIBLE PROJECTS FOR 67 MANAGEMENT AREA (TMA (SU)) ETDM SCREENING TABLE 7.13 (D): MIXED FUNDING 172 TABLE 3.3: MITIGATION BANKS 71 TABLE 7.13 (E): LOCAL/DEVELOPER 173 FUNDED TABLE 7.13 (F): PROGRAM PROJECTS 174 CHAPTER FIVE: PHASE 88 (BOXED FUNDS) 3: VISIONING TABLE 7.13 (G): SYSTEM OPERATION AND 174 MAINTENANCE TABLE 5.1: LRTP GOALS & OBJECTIVES 92 TABLE 7.14: CORRIDOR SUMMARY 175 TABLES
CHAPTER SEVEN: PHASE 140 5: COST FEASIBLE CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTING 224 PLAN & BEYOND THE VISION TABLE 8.1 TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN COSTS 231 TABLE 7.1: PROJECT EVALUATION 142 (IN 2015 $000S) CRITERIA TABLE 8.2: TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN 232 TABLE 7.2: TOP CORRIDORS BY GOAL 143 PHASING SCENARIO (IN 2015 $000S) TABLE 7.3: HIGH CRASH INTERSECTIONS 146 AND SEGMENTS IN PRIORITIZED ORDER TABLE 7.4: LRTP PERFORMANCE 154 MEASURES TABLE 7.5: STATE AND FEDERAL 159 REVENUE RESOURCES TABLE 7.6: IMPACT FEE RATE 161 ASSUMPTIONS TABLES 7.7: PROJECTED STATE/FEDERAL 163 AND LOCAL REVENUES, 2021-2040 TABLE 7.8: PROJECTED REVENUES 164 AVAILABLE FOR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS, 2021-2040 TABLE 7.9: PROJECTED REVENUES 165 AVAILABLE FOR O&M, 2021-2040 This page intentionally left blank ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION
ACS American Community Survey
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
BPTAC Bicycle Pedestrian Trails Advisory Committee
CAC Citizens Advisory Committee
CFRPM Central Florida Regional Planning Model
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CRA Community Redevelopment Agency
EEL Environmentally Endangered Lands
ETDM Efficient Transportation Decision Making
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FEC Florida East Coast Railroad
FHWA Federal HighWay Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG GreenHouse Gases
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems
LOGT Local Option Gas Tax
LOS Level Of Service
LRT Light Rail Transit
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan
x ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
MPM Mobility Performance Measures
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PD&E Project Development and Environmental
ROW Right Of Way
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient SAFETEA-LU Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
SCAT Space Coast Area Transit
SIS Strategic Intermodal System
SOS State Of the System report
Science, Technology, Engineering, STEM and Mathematics
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TALU Transportation Alternatives-Urban Area Funds
TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone
TMA Transporation Management Area
TOD Transit Oriented Development
TPO Transportation Planning Organization
TSMO Transportation System Management & Operation
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
YOE Year Of Expenditure xi SPACE COAST TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEMBERS as of OCT 2015
NAME REPRESENTING AGENCY
Comissioner Jerry Allender Canaveral Port Authority
Councilman Don Boisvert City of Cocoa
Mayor Kathy Meehan City of Melbourne
Councilwoman Betty Moore City of Melbourne
Councilman Mike Nowlin City of Melbourne
Councilman Harry Santiago Jr. City of Palm Bay
Councilman Tres Holton City of Palm Bay
Mayor William Capote City of Palm Bay
Councilman Patrick O’Neill City of Rockledge
Mayor Jim Tulley City of Titusville
Councilmember Martha Long City of Titusville
Comissioner Robin Fisher District 1
Comissioner Jim Barfield District 2
Comissioner Trudie Infantini District 3
Comissioner Curt Smith District 4
Comissioner Andy Anderson District 5
Mayor Rocky Randels North Beaches Coalition
Comissioner Gail Gowdy South Beaches Coalition
Councilwoman Barbara Smith City of West Melbourne
xii TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
NAME REPRESENTING AGENCY Conroy Jacobs Brevard County Planning & Zoning Arby Creach Brevard County Public Schools Transportation Devin Swanson Brevard County Public Works Bill Crowe Canaveral Port Authority Jeff Ratliff City of Cape Canaveral Public Works Director Ed Wegerif City of Cocoa Public Works Bob Torres City of Cocoa Public Works Richard Hood City of Grant-Valkaria City Manager Frank Guertin City of Indian Harbour Beach Jenni Lamb City of Melbourne Engineer Stuart Buchanan City of Palm Bay Growth Management Ken Poole City of Rockledge Public Works Courtney Barker City of Satellite Beach Public Works Brad Parrish City of Titusville Planning & Growth Development Scott Morgan City of West Melbourne Michele Jones Emergency Management Cliff Graham Melbourne Airport Authority Jim Liesenfelt Space Coast Area Transit Director Steve Szabo Space Florida Spaceport Development Ann Benedetti St. Johns Water Management District Michael Powell Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority Chris Chinault Town of Indialantic Town Manager Donald Krieger Town of Malabar James Titcomb Town of Melbourne Beach Stephen Borowski Valkaria Airport Director Dona Wayman Van Pool Services
xiii CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
NAME REPRESENTING AGENCY Jay Honeycutt Canaveral Port Authority James McCarthy City of Cocoa Jim Brown City of Melbourne Bob Klaproth City of Melbourne Howard Ralls City of Melbourne Hiram Grandoit City of Palm Bay Ethan Wagner City of Palm Bay Philip Weinberg City of Palm Bay Cindy Bertrand City of Rockledge Bob Willie City of Titusville Pete Petyk City of Titusville Sandra Michelson City of West Melbourne Rodney Honeycutt District 1 Jill Bakken District 1 Bob Baugher District 2 Tony Sasso District 2 Peter Fusscas District 3 Vacant District 3 George Bovell District 4 John Weiler District 4 Tom Gaume District 5 Leeanne Saylors District 5 John Price North Beaches Coalition Sal D’Amato South Beaches Coalition
xiv BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
NAME REPRESENTING AGENCY Brevard County Environmentally Brad Manley Endangered Lands Program Alan Woolwich Brevard County Housing and Human Services
Devin Swanson Brevard County Public Works
Corrina Gumm Brevard County Public Works
Glen Hawks Brevard Mountain Bike Association
Phil Moore Citizen
Tom Jordan Citizen
Lisa Frazier Citizen – Beaches
Alex Chamberlain Citizen – North
Drew Thompson Citizen – South
Janet Metz Citizen – South
Tom Milbourne Citizen – South
Todd Corwin City of Melbourne Planning
Heidi Lapin City of Palm Bay Parks and Recreation
Alix Townsend City of Rockledge
Joan Carter Florida Department of Transportation Bike Safety Program
Murray Hann Trail Partners
xv Besides the 5-year update cycle, there are times when the TPO may find it necessary to amend the LRTP. An amendment is a major revision that may include adding or deleting a project from the plan. It includes also major changes to project costs, initiation dates, or design concepts and scopes for existing projects. A major amendment resulting in a change in the cost feasibility of the adopted LRTP cost feasible plan requires financial analysis reaffirming the cost feasibility of the amended plan.An amendment requires public review and comment in accordance with the Public Involvement Process for LRTP Amendments, and re-demonstrating fiscal constraint. Florida Statute requires that theTPO Board adopt any amendments to the LRTP by a recorded roll call vote of the majority of the membership present.
The following table will be used throughout the timeframe that the 2040 LRTP is effective to record the adoption and any future amendments or modifications that are processed.
RECORD OF AMENDMENTS & MODIFICATIONS
AMENDMENT OR RESOLUTION APPROVAL REASON FOR MODIFICATION/ NUMBER MODIFICATION NUMBER DATE AMENDMENT Expand on Linking Planning and 1 Modification N/A 5/19/16 the Environment and Mitigation Strategies in Chapter 3 New projects added and project limit 2 Amendment 18-17 3/8/18 changes. See Appendix C, Page 324 3 Amendment 19-14 2/14/19 FHWA Corrective Actions See Appendix C, Page 326
xvi From Chapter 4 of Metropolitian Planning Organization Program Management Handbook. Besides the 5-year update cycle, there are times when an MPO may find it necessary to revise the LRTP. The Code of Federal Regulations defines two types of revisions. They include administrative modifications and amendments.
An administrative modification is a minor revision to the LRTP (or TIP). It includes minor changes to project/phase costs, funding sources, or project/phase initiation dates. It does not require public review and comment or re-demonstrating fiscal constraint. [23 C.F.R. 450.104]
An amendment is a major revision to the LRTP (or TIP). It includes adding or deleting projects from the plan. It includes also major changes to project costs, initiation dates, or design concepts and scopes for existing projects. An amendment requires public review and comment in accordance with the LRTP amendment and Public Involvement processes, and re- demonstrating fiscal constraint. Changes to projects, included only for illustrative purposes, do not require an amendment. [23 C.F.R. 450.104] As of December 11, 2007, and until the next five year update of the plan, an amendment will require revenue and cost estimates supporting the plan to use an inflation rate(s) to reflect year of expenditure dollars, based on reasonable financial principles and information. [23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(10)(iv)] For guidance on year of expenditure refer to "2035 Revenue Forecast Handbook”, and “errata and revisions document” which can be accessed at: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/revenueforecast/.
The LRTP can be revised at any time. It is important to note that the MPO does not have to extend the planning horizon of the LRTP out another 20 years for administrative modifications and amendments. That is only required for the periodic (e.g., 5 year) updates. Florida Statute requires that the MPO Board adopt any amendments to the LRTP by a recorded roll call vote or hand-counted vote of the majority of the membership present. [339.175(13), F.S.]. Figure 4C, page 4-21, shows the LRTP amendment process. Copies of the amended long- range plan should be distributed in accordance with Figure 4D, page 4-21, of this chapter.
Full Chapter can be found at this web address: http://www.dot.state. fl.us/planning/Policy/metrosupport/mpohandbook/ch4.pdf
xvii District provides TPO amends the Long Range Transortation financial estamates Plan because of changes in the TIP that must as needed be consistant with the plan for other reasons.
TPO Prepares a draft of the plan documenting the amendment(s).
The TPO provides ample opportunities for public input into the process at key stages in the plan development.
The TPO revises the plan based on public input and comments from other agiencies.
The TPO and District distribute the draft plan according to the MPO Handbook.
TPO approves final amended plan.
The TPO and the District distribute the final amended plan according to the MPO Handbook xix Requirement Location
Identify transportation facilities that should function as an integrated Chapter 7. Cost Feasible metropolitan transportation system, giving emphasis to those facilities Plan & Beyond that serve important national and regional transportation functions. [23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(A); 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(A); 23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(2)] Appendix B. Technical Analysis
Include no less than a 20-year planning horizon [23 C.F.R. 450.322(a)] Chapter 7. Cost Feasible Plan & Beyond
Describe the performance measures and targets used in Chapter 7. Cost Feasible assessing the performance of the transportation system in Plan & Beyond accordance with 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h) (2). [23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(B); 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(B)]
Include a report evaluating the condition and performance of the Chapter 7. Cost Feasible transportation system with respect to the targets described in 23 U.S.C. Plan & Beyond 134(h)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2), including progress achieved in meeting the targets in comparison with system performance recorded The TPO has elected to adopt in previous reports. [23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(C); 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(C)] targets after the FDOT has established statewide targets for consistency, per 23 U.S.C. 134(h) (2)(C); 49 U.S.C. 5303(h)(2)(C)
Include discussion of the types of environmental mitigation activities Chapter 3. Gathering Input and areas to carry them out, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan. Federal, state, and tribal, wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies should be included. [23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(D); 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(D); 23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(7)]
A financial plan that shows the adopted plan can be implemented Chapter 7. Cost Feasible and indicates public/private resources available to carry out Plan & Beyond the plan. This may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the adopted plan if additional resources were available. Projects in the financial plan are required to be expressed in Year of Expenditure costs. [23 U.S.C. 134(i) (2)(E); 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(E); 23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(10)]
Include operational and management strategies to improve the Chapter 7. Cost Feasible performance of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular Plan & Beyond congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods. [23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(F); 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(F); 23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(3)]
Include capital investment and other strategies to preserve the Chapter 7. Cost Feasible existing and future system and provide for multimodal capacity Plan & Beyond increases based on regional priorities and needs. [23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(G); 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(G); 23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(5)]
Source: USDOT Federal Highway Administration
xx Requirement Location
Include proposed transportation and transit enhancement activities. [23 Chapter 7. Cost Feasible U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(H); 49 U.S.C. 303(i)(2)(H); 23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(9)] Plan & Beyond
Within Transportation Management Areas (TMAs), the plan should Chapter 7. Cost Feasible address congestion management through a metropolitan-wide Plan & Beyond strategy of new and existing transportation facilities and the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies. [23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3); 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(3); 23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(4)]
In formulating the transportation plan, the MPO shall consider Chapter 7. Cost Feasible subsection (h) as the factors relate to a 20-year forecast Plan & Beyond period [23 USC 134(i)(2)(A)(ii); 49 USC 5303(i)(2)(A)(ii)]
Include both long and short range strategies/actions that lead to Appendix B. Technical Analysis the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people/goods in addressing current/future transportation demand. When updating the Plan use the latest available estimates and assumptions for population, land use, travel, employment, congestion, and economic activity. [23 C.F.R. 450.322(e)][23 C.F.R. 450.322(b)]
Identify the projected transportation demand of persons Appendix B. Technical Analysis and goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of the plan. [23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(1)]
Include the results of the congestion management process in TMAs, Chapter 7. Cost Feasible including the identification of Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) projects Plan & Beyond that result from a congestion management process in TMAs that are nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide. [23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(4)]
Describe proposed improvements in sufficient detail to Chapter 7. Cost Feasible develop cost estimates, e.g. design concept and design Plan & Beyond scope descriptions. [23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(6)]
Identify pedestrian walkway and bicycle transportation facilities in Chapter 7. Cost Feasible accordance with 23 U.S.C. 217(g). [23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(8)] Plan & Beyond
Include a safety element incorporating the priorities, goals, Chapter 7. Cost Feasible countermeasures, or projects for the MPA contained in the Plan & Beyond SHS Plan required under [23 U.S.C. 148], as well as (as appropriate) emergency relief and disaster preparedness plans and strategies/policies supporting homeland security (as appropriate) and safeguard the personal security of all motorized and nonmotorized users. [23 C.F.R. 450.322(h)]
Source: USDOT Federal Highway Administration
xxi PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 8. Emphasize the preservation of the The new planning requirements are performance- existing transportation system; driven, outcome-based approach to planning: 9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the CFR 450.306(a) The TPO, in cooperation with the transportation system and reduce or mitigate State and public transportation operators, shall storm-water impacts on surface transportation; and develop Long Range Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs through a 10. Enhance travel and tourism performance-driven, outcome-based approach to planning for metropolitan areas of the State. Transportation Performance Management is a strategic approach to connect investment and FAST Act Compliance and Federal Planning Factors policy decisions to help achieve performance goals. Performance measures are quantitative On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed criteria used to evaluate progress. Performance into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation measure targets are the benchmarks against Act, or “FAST Act”. This law provides long-term which collected data is gauged. The Moving funding certainty for surface transportation that Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act mostly maintains current program structures. The (MAP-21) requires State DOTs and TPOs to FAST Act replaces the previous law, MAP-21, the conduct performance-based planning by tracking Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, which performance measures and setting data-driven was a continuing bill adopted on July 6, 2012. targets to improve those measures. Performance- The planning process will address the following factors: based planning ensures the most efficient CFR 450.306(b) The metropolitan transportation investment of federal transportation funds by planning process shall be continuous, cooperative, increasing accountability, transparency, and and comprehensive, and provide for consideration providing for better investment decisions that focus and implementation of projects, strategies, and on key outcomes related to seven national goals: services that will address the following factors: • Improving Safety;
1. Support the economic vitality of the • Maintaining Infrastructure Condition; metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; • Reducing Traffic Congestion;
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system • Improving the Efficiency of the for motorized and non-motorized users; System and Freight Movement;
3. Increase the security of the transportation • Protecting the Environment; and, system for motorized and non-motorized users; • Reducing Delays in Project Delivery 4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act supplements the MAP 21 legislation 5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote by establishing timelines for State DOTs and energy conservation, improve quality of life, and TPOs to comply with the requirements of MAP-21. promote consistency between transportation State DOTs are required to establish statewide improvements and state and local planned targets and TPOs have the option to support growth and economic development patterns; the statewide targets or adopt their own.
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity All of the new targets are addressed in of the transportation system, across and Amendment Two adopted on February 14, 2019, between modes for people and freight; and can be found beginning on page 327. 7. Promote efficient system management and operation;
xxii
BREVARD’S NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT
n May 25, 1961, President John FIGURE 1.1: FIRST LANDING ON THE MOON, 1969 F. Kennedy announced the goal of sending an American safely to the moon before the Oend of the decade. Brevard County, a land of undisturbed marshes, rivers and pristine beaches, with a population of 111,435, would be at the forefront of making President Kennedy’s dream a reality. On July 20, 1969, the first American manned mission, Apollo 11, landed on the moon and Brevard’s role in space exploration was firmly established.
______
By 1977, the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (formerly known as the Brevard Metropolitan Planning Organization) was created to plan the continued growth of the local and regional transportation system. Through the years, projects focused on accommodating vehicles through adding new roadways and increasing the capacity of existing facilities. By the year 2000, Brevard had a population of 476,320 and growth was a continuation of historical patterns, single-family homes with expansion to the west, towards one of the county’s most precious natural resources, the St. Johns River. This movement to the n 2004, the announcement of the west left the previously vital and bustling US I retirement of NASA’s Space Shuttle 1 corridor along the Indian River Lagoon abandoned and neglected and has put a program would signify the beginning strain on the only other continuous north- south corridor to the west, Interstate 95. of Brevard’s need for a culture shift and recognition that we needed to take In 2004, the announcement of the retirement of NASA’s Space Shuttle program would a serious look at “who we’ve always signify the beginning of Brevard’s need for a culture shift and recognition that we been” and “who do we want to be next”. needed to take a serious look at “who we’ve always been” and “who do we want to be next”. The collapse of the housing industry and economy in 2007, coupled with over 8,000 jobs lost from the Shuttle program’s closure, only fueled the need to rethink
20 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER ONE BREVARD’S NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT
how the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) developed and updated FIGURE 1.2: SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH its Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
What makes the Space Coast TPO unique is the diverse transportation modes that it considers and includes in it’s LRTP. The SCTPO “quintimodal” modes include: roads, air, seaport, spaceport and transit
Space transportation combined with Brevard’s extensive natural resources presents both challenges and opportunities that sets the Space Coast TPO apart from other typical planning organizations.
In 2010, Census figures estimated Brevard’s population at 556,885 and projections were showing we were no longer growing at the same rate as the prior fifty (50) years. The TPO’s 2035 LRTP, adopted in October 2010, included some of the new types of investments in transportation (Complete Streets, Intelligent Transportation Systems) that would serve to change how we invest in our infrastructure and plant the seed for the 2040 LRTP vision process.
Federal and state regulations require TPOs to update their long range plan every five years. In 2013, the Space Coast TPO began the process of updating its Long Range Plan for the year 2040. The Space Coast and its communities came forward with what their vision was and the results showed common themes of diversification, re-development and re-invention. Other challenging reasons n 2013, the Space Coast TPO began spurring the need for change included: the process of updating its Long I • Funding limitations and community Range Plan for the year 2040. The opposition to large-scale roadway projects. Space Coast and its communities • Fluctuating energy prices raising concerns about over-reliance on autos. came forward with what their • Auto emissions and the impacts of vision was and the results showed sprawling development patterns raising common themes of diversification, global and local environmental concerns. re-development and re-invention. • The inability to walk and unconnected development leading to quality of life issues.
• The unknown impact of changing technologies, specifically the birth of having autonomous vehicles in the future.
CHAPTER ONE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 21 BREVARD’S NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT
A NON-TRADITIONAL UPDATE PROCESS FIGURE 1.3: REVIEWING THE SPACE COAST LRTP Brevard’s transportation system helped foster economic development and resulting growth, and will continue to do so in the future. Two key questions faced the Space Coast TPO at the outset of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) update:
• What kind of economic development should the county attract and how can transportation investments support or catalyze that development?
• What are the consequences of continuing to fund transportation improvements that support sprawling auto-oriented development patterns on the vitality of the US 1 corridor, on quality of life, particularly as it relates to economic development, and on the environment?
To answer these questions, the TPO embarked upon a process that tells a story of how Brevard is unique and how our vision of the future will change how we think, plan and build a transportation system that responds to the needs of the community. Typical and prior to this update, the TPO’s he TPO embarked on a long range plans have followed a traditional, capacity focused analysis using a travel T process that tells a story of demand model. The model would identify where congestion and growth was anticipated how Brevard is unique and how to take place, based upon assumptions our vision of the future will change made using historical trends. Roadways forecast to be deficient in the future would how we think, plan and build a be the ones to receive funding to continue the trend of more and wider roads. transportation system that responds to the needs of the community. The 2040 LRTP does not use this traditional, technical travel demand model approach. The 2040 LRTP used a process that includes the use of a regional travel demand model, but is focused on a bottom up approach that reflects the citizens’ aspiration and the type of future they prefer. In general, the process was built in phases, each building upon the previous. Following are the major phases of development:
22 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER ONE BREVARD’S NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT
FIGURE 1.4: 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Phase I: Gathering Input: PROCESS FLOWCHART Workshops, surveys, compilation of a “meta plan”, a synthesis of local, INPUT regional and state planning initiatives Workshops influencing the 2040 LRTP. Public Safety Transit Development Plan Metaplan Pedestrian/Bicycle/Trail Phase II: Scenario planning: A process Local Comprehensive Plans Mobility Plan where the public and stakeholders Intelligent Transportation Regional Freight Study weighed in on possible outcomes. Systems 2035 LRTP Response to the scenarios informed Complete Streets Countywide Safety Analysis the Vision, which charts a very different future for transportation investments
and development patterns. TotalT t Population: 873,343 SCENARIO New Households: 150,408 New Jobs: 145,529 multifammultifamilyamilya y hotelhoteh telte singlenglen familyfa y industryndusndustryus ry retailtailta l “Who officece Phase III: Visioning: PLANNING do we want to be” Keeping the Trend redevelopmentredevre velopmve pmpment jojobsobs jobs Connected Communities acreagecreagec ge housingousingo g housing Phase IV Corridor Planning: Identifying Connecting the Port Centers needs by corridors to achieve the Vision High Tech Lifestyles tratransitansia iti bicyclebiccyclecy lee VMTVMT Phase V: Cost Feasible Plan and Beyond: The final step was crafting a plan that respects the investment initiatives under way by the TPO VISION and begins the transition, in close Reaching beyond to 2060 coordination with partners, towards Goals investments aligning with the Vision. Economic Development Travel mode options Figure 1.4 graphically illustrates Balance of nature and development the development process.
STATION AREAS INTERMODAL COMMUTER RAIL
REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUTER RAIL REGIONAL INTERMODAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT Railroad REGIONAL BUS CORRIDOR RAPID TRANSIT ROW Width ROW Width NEIGHBORHOOD BUS RAPID TRANSIT Lake *Station Areas represent 1/2 mile Washington Rdradius walksheds
101’ PLANNING 150’ 6 lanes
Eau Gallie Blvd 1 track
117’ 93’ he 2040 Long Range 104’ 190’ Laurie St 109’ 105’ Right of way Application of vision to required for US1 8 lanes (140’) FEC 2 tracks 93’ Melbourne International Airport Right of Way required for Potential Transportation Plan looks corridors BRT Lanes ultimate 3 tracks Nasa Rd Right of way 79’ 160’ required for T 6 lanes (110’) Identification of Needs 1 track Downtown Melbourne 115’ FEC US 1 beyond the transportation system
Corridor OverviewCorridor to consider how the system should and could synergize sustainable COST FEASIBLE PLAN economic development, foster Application of Revenue differing development patterns to Forecast to Needs List Identification of Policies improve quality of life, and mitigate needed to reach vision by 2060 impacts to the environment.
CHAPTER ONE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 23 BREVARD’S NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT FIGURE 1.5: VISIONING PUBLIC WORKSHOP This report is organized and presented in the same sequence as how it was developed.
Gathering Input Documents the beginning phase and gathering of data and information. The feedback received from workshops and a public survey opened the door to explore where we wanted to go.
Scenario Planning Building upon the comments and input received, common themes were identified which were used to create various scenarios. The workshops held during this phase let us dream big and beyond the typical twenty year planning horizon all the way out to the year 2060. Four scenarios were presented:
• Current Trend: continuing to do business as we have in the past.
• Port Centers: connecting our ports (space, air and sea) to encourage economic development.
• High Tech Lifestyles: Consideration and impact of future technological advances on transportation from how we travel to how we conduct business in a global environment.
• Connected Communities: Connect where we live to where we work and play.
24 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER ONE BREVARD’S NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT
FIGURE 1.6: VISIONING WORKSHOP BROCHURE Visioning The scenarios led us down a path to
07/10/14 VISION Year 2060 a vision beyond anything like we have
2010-2060 considered before. In order to provide a Allocation of People existing
Economic Growth Vision Current Trend vision that represented “who we want to
transit and walk accessible auto-oriented transit and walk accessible auto-oriented low low regional mobility traditional moderate corridor commercial employment regional mobility traditional moderate corridor commercial employment mobility hub hub neighborhood density density center mobility hub hub neighborhood density density center be”, the adopted vision reaches out to 800k 800k 750k 750k the year 2060. The culture shift needed 700k 700k
650k 650k
(people) 600k (people) 600k and new ideas will take time to be 550k 550k 500k 500k incorporated not only into the mindset
population 450k population 450k
150k 150k but also into policies and procedures. 100k 100k 50k 50k Shifts in development patterns must
The Economic Growth Vision provides more choices in the places where people will live. While many will continue also evolve as we work to preserve our to live in single family oriented communities, many will also live in transit and walkable places. natural resources while ensuring we have PLACE TYPES economic diversity and quality of life. regional traditional mobility hub mobility hub neighborhood multifamily focus Corridor Planning Past long range plans included projects that are separated depending on their funding source or specific type of project corridor single family commercial employment center i.e., highway, transit, bike/ped, etc. The Space Coast TPO diverted from this old way of thinking to a more comprehensive and holistic approach and created a plan based on the corridors that connect us. Each corridor includes all modes and elements that feed into meeting the vision. 07/10/14 VISION Year 2060 LAND USE IMPACTS The corridors that bind us together include existing conditions year 2010 all modes and identify all the needs necessary to have a truly integrated system. 25% 50% 100% 150% 200% urban growth V Needs included use of the ‘metaplan’ that developed acres 147,422acres CT looked at existing plans and incorporated
25% 50% 100% 150% 200% them into a seamless, connected housing mix CT V multifamily 86,920units transportation system for all users. V single family 180,540units CT Prioritization
25% 50% 100% 150% 200% job mix The projects identified as needed VCTC office 131,396jobs improvements were evaluated against both retail 58,372jobs CT V
V the Vision-driven goals and objectives and industrial 40,436jobs CTC CTT V a project momentum measure. The latter hotel 4,604jobs measure reflects the practical reality of
25% 50% 100% 150% 200% historical investments and the need to follow sea level rise VCT at risk housing 0unitsnits through on those investments, particularly VCT at risk jobs 0jobsobs for improvements that have already been invested in for right of way or other pre-
This chart illustrates how the Vision compares to the Current Trend scenario across a number of measures. On every measure, the Vision compares favorably. construction phases. The Vision-driven evaluation was applied at the corridor level,
Source: TPO Visioning Workshop, July 2014
CHAPTER ONE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 25 BREVARD’S NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT
reflecting a multimodal approach to the FIGURE 1.7: SPACE COAST 2040 LOGO evaluation of improvement needs. A corridor, for example, identified as a multimodal corridor with a variety of improvement needs, including multimodal, highway capacity and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements, typically scored relatively highly, given the need within the corridor to address a broad range of objectives and the diverse opportunities associated with identified improvements. This priority was used to determine which projects were to be considered within the ‘cost feasible’ application.
Revenues Revenue forecasts for the 2040 Cost Feasible Plan rely on existing federal, state and local sources. While local gas tax revenues are needed in their entirety to fund the operation and maintenance of the existing county highway and transit systems, available state and federal revenue sources were allocated to a mix of roadway and multimodal improvements included in the Needs.
2040 Cost Feasible Plan The Cost Feasible Plan covers the 2016 to 2040 time frame; a transitional period for the TPO where the auto oriented momentum from previous plans and initiatives carry through to their natural conclusions, and plans, policies and investments for the future orient to the Vision. In many ways the transition has already begun, with an increasing number of multimodal, management and operations initiatives and investments in the previous two LRTP updates.
26 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER ONE BREVARD’S NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT
FIGURE 1.8: BALANCING PROJECTS AND FUNDING
In summary, the LRTP process was designed to:
• Develop a community vision for integrating transportation, land use, economic development and environmental stewardship
• Connect discreet individual plans into a synthesis by identifying common features, goals and aspirations
• Build a plan from the bottom up that reflects citizen aspirations for the type of future they prefer
• Break down community aspirations into four scenarios, identify pros and cons of each, formulate a vision that achieves “the most for the most”
• Identify practical steps (capital investment, policy, modal, inter- regional, funding, land use) integral to achieving the vision.
• Address limited funding for and public resistance to major capital projects by improving the existing system through modal diversification and improved operations.
• Minimize reliance on travel demand model for LRTP decision-making since the model does not provide good analysis of TSMO approaches and focus more on the use of Envision scenario planning tool.
• Organize the presentation of the plan in terms of corridors and integrate multiple planning recommendations to produce corridor master plans.
CHAPTER ONE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 27 BREVARD’S NEED FOR A CULTURE SHIFT
Beyond 2040 FIGURE 1.9: PLANNING BEYOND 2040
Developing and operating an interconnected, countywide premium transit system presents the greatest challenge for the 2060 Vision. Premium transit includes transit technologies such as commuter rail, light rail, and bus rapid transit, all of which require exclusive rights of way, supportive and integrated traffic and transit operations, optimally spaced and fixed station locations, transit oriented development (TOD) patterns and intensities surrounding stations and bike and pedestrian connections to stations. Making such changes in Brevard will take time and a concerted, coordinated, inter-agency effort. The Corridor Plans prepared for the 2040 LRTP provide the initial impetus and guidance for that effort.
28 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER ONE This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank
THE SPACE COAST
revard County is located on the mid - Atlantic coast of Florida with over 70 miles of beaches the along the eastern border. As Bhome to one of the busiest seaports in the State and the only spaceport in Florida, coordinates the planning processes within Brevard County Brevard County has historically played which includes: an important role in the region’s economy and the State as a whole. Another unique characteristic of Brevard County is its abundant natural resources, boasting one of the richest collections of endangered Brevard County Board of County Commissioners wildlife in the country in the marshland- rich western part of the County that is the watershed of the St. Johns River. The Indian River Lagoon, making up the Cape Canaveral Melbourne Beach intracoastal waterway in the eastern part of Cocoa Melbourne Village Cocoa Beach Palm Bay the County, is one of North America’s most Grant-Valkaria Palm Shores Indialantic Rockledge diverse estuaries. Of the County’s over Indian Harbour Beach Satellite Beach Malabar Titusville 1,500 square miles, approximately one third Melbourne West Melbourne is water, including ocean, river, and lagoon.
Melbourne International Airport The Space Coast Transportation Planning Space Coast Regional Airport Organization (TPO) is one of more than 340 federally required planning agencies across the United States for urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000 people. One of the TPO’s core functions is the Port Canaveral development of a long range transportation plan (LRTP) and the update of the plan at least once every five years. The urbanized area serviced by the Space Coast TPO includes the Palm Bay - Melbourne and Cape Canaveral Spaceport (Kennedy Titusville urbanized areas, as designated by Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air the U.S. Census Bureau. The TPO serves Force Station) the important function of coordinating the planning efforts of the various transportation
32 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER TWO THE SPACE COAST
and planning agencies, including the Florida Department of Transportation, the Brevard s home to one of the busiest County Public Works Department, Space seaports in the State and the only Coast Area Transit, and other planning and A implementing agencies. In addition to the spaceport in Florida, Brevard County County and the FDOT, the TPO’s planning partners include sixteen municipalities, two has historically played an important airports, one seaport, and one spaceport. role in the region’s economy and the State as a whole. WHAT IS THE LRTP? The development and update of the LRTP is one of several core functions required to be completed by the TPO by federal law. The primary purpose of the planning process is to assist citizens, businesses, and elected officials to establish a vision for the County through the next 25 years. The LRTP serves as an instrument to identify and assess infrastructure improvements to the transportation network to realize the vision and provides a long-term investment framework to address current and future challenges.
The LRTP includes a cost constrained plan with a phased implementation schedule of needed improvements to the County’s transportation system over a 25 year period of time. The process used to update the LRTP includes a balance of technical analysis, public engagement and agency coordination to reflect a technically sound and community supported vision of the future of Brevard County. The technical component of LRTP includes the 2040 forecasts of population and employment within the County; analysis of the transportation system’s capacity to accommodate the 2040 population; and detailed financial analysis to forecast revenue available to fund improvements and estimate the costs of those improvements.
The public engagement process involves an iterative process of reaching out to the public and stakeholders at key milestones, including population/employment forecasting; goals and objectives; infrastructure
CHAPTER TWO | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 33 THE SPACE COAST
needs assessment; and cost feasible FIGURE 2.1: PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH BY 2040 plan development. The LRTP Goals and Objectives, developed to guide the plan development process, emanated from the 750+ K public engagement and visioning process, +40% as described in detail in Chapter 3.
POPULATION 557K GROWTH SPACE COAST DEMOGRAPHICS The 1,000 square miles of developable land area in Brevard County were 273K populated by 536,000 residents and 230,000 jobs as of 2010. The historical population and employment centers in Brevard County prior to the 1960’s were concentrated in the Titusville, Cocoa, and Melbourne areas. The growth pattern 1960 1970 1980 1990 20102000 2020 2030 2040 between 1960 and 2010 followed a general pattern of westward growth.
1960 - 1970 Source: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research • The County’s population more than doubled with the establishment of NASA’s space program. • Growth was clustered along the US he population of Brevard County is 1 and SR A1A corridors, resulting in urbanization of the coastal T expected to surge to over 750,000 in communities throughout the County. 2040, an increase of 40%. Jobs are also • I-95 and the connection of SR 528 to SR 520 were also constructed expected to grow at a rate of 41% over the in this period, setting the stage for same period, representing a significant westward expansion of growth. rebound in the region’s economy. 1970 - 1980 • By 1980, another 43,000 people were added to the County 1990 - 2000 • SR 528 was extended to Port Canaveral, • Most of the area east of I-95 was developed. creating a critical regional connector • Further expansion of planned communities 1980 - 1990 continued sprawling pattern of growth
• Budding planned communities of Port St • Increased need for local and regional transportation John, Palm Bay, and Viera consolidated infrastructure, with emphasis in the southern half. the development trend in the central and western parts of the County
34 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER TWO THE SPACE COAST
FIGURE 2.2: URBANIZATION OF BREVARD COUNTY The County’s population is expected to SINCE 1960 surge to over 750,000 in 2040, an increase of 40%. Jobs are also expected to grow at 1960 a rate of 41%, representing a significant rebound in the County’s economy that has already begun since the retirement of NASA’s Space Shuttle Program.
The historical urbanization of the County is illustrated in Figures 2.1 and 2.2.
While the historical sprawling development growth patterns and anticipated growth is common to many counties in Florida, Brevard County is unique, as the only place in Florida that is quinti-modal. In addition to the typical modes of infrastructure that include road, rail, air, and sea to move people and freight, the 1990 County also has a burgeoning space travel mode that, since 2008, has been allocated funding in the FDOT Work Program. The revival of a space program that once defined Brevard County’s identity, now championed by both private and public interests, serves as both a distinction and economic development strategy and catalyst for the future.
REGIONAL PLANNING & COORDINATION The Space Coast is both a geographical hub and connector in the larger east central 2010 Florida region, with a major seaport boasting one of the world’s busiest cruise ports, a space port, and a central location between three of the four largest metropolitan areas in the state: Miami, Jacksonville, and Orlando. Collaboration with both its regional and local planning partners is therefore of fundamental importance to the Space Coast TPO. As one of the key roles of the TPO, coordination of the County’s transportation infrastructure planning must be balanced at the local, regional, and state/federal levels. The TPO is a partner in the Central Florida MPO Alliance, an organization made up of six MPOs and TPOs in the Central Source: United States Census Bureau Florida region. Partner agencies include:
CHAPTER TWO | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 35 THE SPACE COAST
• Lake-Sumter MPO • Metroplan Orlando s a key role of the TPO, coordination • Ocala/Marion County TPO A of the County’s transportation • Polk County TPO infrastructure planning must be • River to Sea TPO balanced at the local, regional, and Originally formed in 1997 as a partnership state/federal levels. between Metroplan Orlando and Volusia County MPO (now called the River to Sea TPO) to address the common needs of commuters traversing the boundaries of these two MPOs, the Alliance expanded, FIGURE 2.3: CENTRAL FLORIDA MPO ALLIANCE starting 2001, to include the Brevard MPO (now called the Space Coast TPO), Lake County (now the Lake-Sumter MPO), the Polk TPO, and the Ocala-Marion TPO. The Alliance is governed by an 18-member policy board consisting of three representatives from each of the six member organizations. The Alliance holds quarterly meetings to discuss regional transportation priorities and coordinate other regional transportation issues. Subsequent to the adoption of all of the respective member LRTPs, the Alliance will develop a Central Florida LRTP. While the regional long range plan is primarily a compilation of regional facility improvements in the local plans, multi-jurisdictional improvements are coordinated closely by the Alliance to achieve consensus on the form, extent, and schedule of important regional priorities. Two priority improvements included in the Alliance’s 2013 - 2014 Priorities are the Ellis Road/I-95 interchange improvements Source: Metroplan Orlando - www.metroplanorlando. and Ellis Road widening and the SR 528 com/partnerships/central-florida-mpo-alliance/ widening, both of which are included in the Space Coast 2040 cost feasible plan.
Throughout the course of the 2040 LRTP update, the TPO held 10 meetings and workshops with local partner agency stakeholders, including six Technical Advisory Committee meetings; and participated in nine Central Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization
36 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER TWO THE SPACE COAST
FIGURE 2.4: TPO MEETINGS REGARDING THE Alliance meetings to coordinate local and 2040 LRTP UPDATE regional priorities with partner agencies.
FEDERAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS Since the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act x 10 (ISTEA) in 1991, TPOs have been required to adopt and maintain a fiscally constrained LOCAL MEETINGS long range transportation plan. This landmark legislation also expanded the role of TPOs in terms of multimodal considerations in the planning process and expanded public involvement requirements. Subsequent legislation in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), x 9 enacted in 2005, further expanded the fiscal constraint mandate in the requirement that REGIONAL MEETINGS revenues and costs be represented in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars, enhancing the fiscal rigor of the planning process. A renewed emphasis on system preservation and operational strategies pointed to the need for increased cost efficiency. The 2012 successor to SAFETEA-LU hroughout the course of the 2040 is the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), which includes T LRTP update, the TPO held 10 modifications to several transportation meetings and workshops with local infrastructure funding programs. The new Planning Emphasis Areas adopted by the partner agency stakeholders and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) participated in nine Central Florida since enactment of MAP-21 include: 1. Performance-based Planning and Metropolitan Planning Organization Programming - Performance-based Alliance meetings to coordinate local planning and programming includes using transportation performance and regional priorities with partner measures, setting targets, reporting agencies. performance, and programming transportation investments directed toward the achievement of transportation system performance outcomes.
CHAPTER TWO | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 37 THE SPACE COAST
This LRTP update includes a detailed performance based process in the evaluation of scenarios and development of a vision plan. Performance measures for future application are described in Chapter 7.
2. Regional Models of Cooperation- Ensures a Regional Approach to Transportation Planning by Promoting Cooperation and Coordination across jurisdictional boundaries.
The municipal, regional, and State planning partners that were engaged throughout the update of the 2040 LRTP provided a unified, coordinated approach to the ultimate cost feasible plan and Vision, beginning with the Transportation Symposium and culminating in the Strategic Corridors Workshop.
3. Ladders of Opportunity – Identification of transportation connectivity gaps to accessing essential services. Essential services include employment, health care, education, and recreation, especially for underserved populations.
The land use scenario testing and policy framework and multimodal corridor focus of this LRTP update was designed to maximize travel options for all residents of Brevard County and improve accessibility.
The progressively more stringent quantitative analysis and fiscal constraint, higher level of communication with and involvement of the public and regional planning partners, and emphasis on economic vitality, goods movement, and accessibility are represented in very specific guidelines for the update of long range transportation plans.
38 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER TWO This page intentionally left blank
A: OUTREACH TOOLS
ublic and stakeholder FIGURE 3.1: TIMELINE OF PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES engagement is a crucial exercise that involves gathering everything from Popinions and desires to existing plans and programs. Use of a variety of techniques and forums to communicate with the public, partner agencies, and
other stakeholders is one of the most Public survey APRIL 2013: Project initiation TAC/CAC and TPO Board important parts of a plan update. JUNE 2013: In addition to standard public OCTOBER 2013: Transportation Symposium engagement meetings, this plan
update included a public survey; a OCTOBER 2013: Survey results analysis TAC/CAC and TPO Board metaplan synthesis to identify and FEBRUARY 2014: Transportation Choices Workshop promote common goals and efforts
of agencies across the county; and MAY 2014: ScenarioMunicipalities results Visioning analysis WorkshopTAC/CAC and TPO Board an environmental outreach effort to obtain key input on existing programs JUNE 2014: to mitigate potentially negative JULY 2014: Visioning Workshop environmental impacts of transportation infrastructure improvements. SEPTEMBER 2014: Vision Plan adoption TAC/CAC and TPO Board
Strategic Corridor Plans Workshop FEBRUARY 2015: Municipalities Corridor Planning Workshop
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN MARCH 2015: The Space Coast TPO is committed to ensuring that ample opportunity is provided MAY 2015: NeedsMunicipalities Plan TAC/CAC Needs Planand TPOWorkshop Board for members of the public and stakeholders to attend and participate interactively in the JUNE 2015: planning process. While the primary purpose and goal of public engagement is to learn from participants how they would like their JULY 2015: Draft Cost Feasible Plan TAC/CAC and TPO Board communities and transportation infrastructure and services to evolve over time, it is also OCTOBER 2015: Cost Feasible Plan AdoptionTAC/CAC and TPO Boardf important for planners to communicate to participants the technical and financial Committees/Boards Public Workshops constraints, as well as the technological and best practice opportunities that play Stakeholder Workshops a role in how communities are shaped.
42 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE A: OUTREACH TOOLS
FIGURE 3.2: VARIOUS LRTP GRAPHICS AND One of the first steps in the plan update, VISUALIZATIONS STATION AREAS then, was the development of a Public INTERMODAL COMMUTER RAIL
REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL Percent of FDOT Involvement Plan that outlines the recommended station NEIGHBORHOOD area residents and jobs Future COMMUTER RAIL Volumes & REGIONAL INTERMODAL Levels of Service BUS RAPID TRANSIT Year 2005 protocols and activities to be undertaken. Railroad REGIONAL BUS Volumes & RAPID TRANSIT ROW Width ROW Width Levels of Service NEIGHBORHOOD BUS RAPID TRANSIT Pct based on existing Lake residents and jobs The public and stakeholder engagement *Station Areas represent 1/2 mile Washington Rdradius walksheds Pct based on forecasts of residents and jobs by 2060 101’ 40 50 Pct below 6 lanes C 150’ recommended minimum process consisted of numerous in-person by 2060 C 6 lanes Eau Gallie Blvd 1 track 50 60 8 lanes 60 70 activities, supplemented with a variety of 117’ F 8 lanes 93’ 104’ Transit Bus Rapid F 190’ 50 60 Laurie St 8 lanes 109’ opportunities in the electronic and print mail/ 105’ Right of way required for
US1 8 lanes (140’) Commuter Rail FEC 2 tracks 93’ 30 40 Melbourne International 6 lanes C media to participate in the plan update. All Airport Right of Way C required for Potential ultimate 3 tracks BRT Lanes Nasa Rd of the meetings summarized below were Right of way 79’ 40 50 160’ required for 6 lanes 6 lanes (110’) 1 track conducted with open access to the public. 50 60 Downtown Melbourne 115’ 8 lanes F
FEC US 1 *Note: Volumes in 000s of daily trips Station Areas Levels of Service 1. Series of public workshops
conducted at key plan milestones.
2. Series of stakeholder workshops conducted at key plan milestones. TotalT t Population: 873,343 New Households: 150,408 3. Regularly scheduled Citizen and New Jobs: 145,529 multifammultifamilyamilya y hotelhoteh telte singlenglen familyfa y industryndusndustryus ry Technical Advisory Committee retailtailta l officece and TPO Board meetings.
A timeline of public and stakeholder involvement activities undertaken in this plan update is depicted in Figure 3.1. A total of 840 people, in redevelopmentredevre velopmve pmpment jojobsobs jobs acreagecreagec ge housingousingo g housing aggregate, attended meetings.
Visualization Tools Visualization is an important technique used to communicate technical concepts to
tratransitansia iti the public and stakeholders in a way that bicyclebiccyclecy lee VMTVMT facilitates the accessibility of information that is often complex and therefore not straightforward and easy to understand. Visualization tools range from simple charts and graphs to report survey data or other statistics to complex animated renderings and three dimensional graphics. They also include maps, abstract conceptual graphics, and other types of graphical applications. The visualization techniques developed for this plan update process involve a mix of graphs, maps, and conceptual graphics, as depicted in Figure 3.2.
Source: TPO Planning Workshops
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 43 A: OUTREACH TOOLS
Communication FIGURE 3.3: BREAKDOWN OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION METHODS There are three general types of communication utilized in the LRTP update process, including workshops and meetings, print media, and electronic media. The public was provided 14 opportunities to attend plan update workshops and meetings, as well as regularly scheduled meetings with the TPO’s advisory committees and the TPO Board. A benefit of the varied nature of the meetings is the opportunity for participants 41% IN PERSON to interact with elected officials and staff level representatives of partner planning and implementing agencies. Valuable input was provided at each meeting, enabling the TPO to meaningfully consider and reflect the desires and needs of the local communities in the LRTP. Non-statistical questionnaires were administered at several of the workshops and a statistically valid survey with a sample of 400 interviews was completed in July 2013.
Printed materials were distributed at the 59% public meetings to enable participants to ELECTRONIC review the materials at their convenience during or after the meetings. Printed materials included agendas, powerpoint Source: TPO Strategic Corridor Plans presentations, brochures, and maps. workshop, March 2015 and web survey Finally, the electronic medium expanded the participation level to include people who were unable to attend physical meetings. Participation at the Corridor Strategic Plans workshop, for example, was more than doubled by on-line participation and he October 2013 Transportation completion of the same questionnaire Symposium facilitated consensus administered at the workshop. Presentations T at the workshops described below were building and, in fact, revealed that most provided in video format on the Get Involved page of the plan update website. of the stakeholders share many of the
same ideas and visions for the future such as the desire for complete streets and improved multi-modal travel.
44 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE A: OUTREACH TOOLS
Workshops
The TPO held a series of workshops over the room was divided into stations where the public course of the plan update, beginning with a project leisurely perused each of the scenarios. TPO staff initiation workshop to begin to conceptualize the and consultants were on hand to address questions general direction of the plan. This was followed by and help explain the strategies embodied in each a Transportation Symposium held in October 2013, of the scenarios. The event was very informal in giving Space Coast agencies and stakeholders order to encourage participants to move at their own the opportunity to present their transportation pace and express their reactions and comments to planning initiatives to one another, which allowed TPO staff and consultants. Attendees were asked to stakeholders to gain a clear understanding of complete a feedback form after visiting the stations, the different types of projects and goals that are intended to gain a sense of the public’s attitudes and occurring throughout the County from a variety preferences for the various scenarios and strategies of stakeholder perspectives. It also facilitated embodied in each. The results of the Choices consensus building and, in fact, revealed that most workshop were utilized to inform a Vision Plan, of the stakeholders share many of the same ideas which was the subject of the third workshop, which and visions for the future such as the desire for occurred in July 2014. Participants were asked complete streets and improved multi-modal travel. to comment on the Vision Plan, which represents It is with these shared goals and visions that the a synthesis of the scenario planning effort. TPO moved forward to embark on establishing The final workshop was held in March 2015 to solicit a Vision Plan and, ultimately the 2040 LRTP. input from the public on the corridor plans developed A third workshop was held in February 2014 to to manifest the Vision Plan in terms of specific give Brevard County residents the opportunity to recommended improvements. The purpose of the review and weigh in on potential Economic Growth Strategic Corridor Plans workshop was to inform Scenarios developed for the future of the Space the TPO as to the community’s level of support for Coast. The open house was held over a three- multimodal strategies planned for ten of the primary to four-hour span during the late afternoon/early travel corridors across Brevard County. evening to allow residents ample opportunity to freely attend outside of typical business hours. The
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 45 A: OUTREACH TOOLS
Brochures pacecoast2040.com has provided Printed materials distributed to meeting participants and also provided on the S both a clearinghouse for plan plan website include meeting agendas, printed presentations and maps, and materials and an informational resource brochures. The 16-page brochure depicted for plan update status, opportunities in Figure 3.4 was distributed at the Scenario planning workshop in February, for involvement, and on line surveys. 2014 to disseminate the results of four scenarios testing various land use and transportation investment scenarios. The graphical content in the brochure was specifically designed to relate the FIGURE 3.4: VISIONING WORKSHOP BROCHURE
07/10/14 07/10/14 scenario results in an easy-to-understand NATURAL RESOURCES: VISION Year 2060 PRESERVE WHAT IS UNIQUELY BREVARD LAND USE IMPACTS format in terms of a variety of technical • Protect and sustain our coastline and rivers • Keep our air and water clean and healthy existing conditions metrics and concepts. Another brochure, • Preserve open spaces for all to access and enjoy year 2010 25% 50% 100% 150% 200% urban growth V CT developed for the Strategic Corridor Plans developed acres 147,422acres
workshop held in March, 2015, contained 25% 50% 100% 150% 200% housing mix V multifamily 86,920units CT graphics depicting the highway level of V single family 180,540units CT service concept, including the relationship
25% 50% 100% 150% 200% job mix VCTC of number of vehicles to level of service. office 131,396jobs
retail 58,372jobs CT V
Other graphics were developed and V industrial 40,436jobs CTC CTT V included in the 2015 brochure to represent hotel 4,604jobs
varying levels of transit technology and 25% 50% 100% 150% 200% sea level rise V at risk housing 0unitsnits CT underlying land use intensities. Figure VCT at risk jobs 0jobsobs 3.5 shows the brochure that was used. This chart illustrates how the Vision compares to the Current Trend scenario across a number of measures. On every measure, the Vision compares favorably.
07/10/14 07/10/14 HOW WE LIVE AND TRAVEL: VISION Year 2060
PROVIDE CHOICES AND FIND BALANCE 2010-2060 Allocation of People existing WORKSHOP RESPONSES: Which scenarios are best at accomodating Brevard’s future population growth? Economic Growth Vision Current Trend transit and walk accessible auto-oriented transit and walk accessible auto-oriented low low regional mobility traditional moderate corridor commercial employment regional mobility traditional moderate corridor commercial employment Workshop participants responded that ports and high tech employment, combined with compact mobility hub hub neighborhood density density center mobility hub hub neighborhood density density center communities and travel choices are sound growth strategies 800k 800k Website 750k 750k 66% 700k 700k 60% 60% 650k 650k
(people) 600k (people) 600k
550k 550k
500k 500k
The plan update website, located at population 450k population 450k 21% 150k 150k
100k 100k spacecoast2040.com, went online 50k 50k Current Port High Tech Connected Trend Centers Lifestyles Communities
The Economic Growth Vision provides more choices in the places where people will live. While many will continue in August, 2013 to provide both a to live in single family oriented communities, many will also live in transit and walkable places. HIGH TECH LIFESTYLES CONNECTED COMMUNITIES PLACE TYPES clearinghouse for plan materials and an regional traditional mobility hub mobility hub neighborhood multifamily focus informational resource for plan update status, opportunities for involvement, and online surveys. The website has served as an effective medium of two-way corridor single family commercial employment center communication with the public, including video recordings of public workshops, opportunities for the public to complete surveys and provide comments, and a Source: TPO Visioning Workshop, July 2014 resource to download plan information and view a schedule of plan related activities.
46 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE A: OUTREACH TOOLS
FIGURE 3.5: STRATEGIC CORRIDOR PLANS WORKSHOP Public Notice BROCHURE Meetings and workshops were advertised in a variety of electronic and print media 03/03/2015 STATION AREA TYPES outlets, including the Space Coast TPO
While Regional, Community, and Neighborhood centers can all potentially accommodate the three levels of transit website, Facebook page, and LRTP technologies, the development densities required to support transit service investmentsvary within each station area type.
COMMUTER RAIL (CR) REGIONAL CENTER website. Other sources of advertising A regional center typically has a high concen- tration and mix of land uses that serve regional travel. included Brevard County’s primary daily Employment + Residential Units: 23,000 – 95,000 (varies by level of transit technology desired) newspaper publication, Florida Today, Neighborhood Station Area Mix of uses (% Residential/Non-Residential): 35%/65% Jobs/Housing Ratio: 6 : 1 with over 50,000 average daily circulation, COMMUNITY CENTER A community center typically has a less con- and the TPO’s E-News mailing list, which centrated mix of land uses that serve a mix of regional and local functions and travel. Regional Station Area Employment + Residential Units: 7,000 – 30,000 includes over 370 recipients. A press (varies by level of transit technology desired) BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BTR) Mix of uses (% Residential/Non-Residential): 45%/55% release was also issued in July, 2013 to Jobs/Housing Ratio: 3 : 1
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER solicit response to the survey administered
A neighborhood center typically has the least concentration of land uses and serves localized Neighborhood Station Area travel and accessibility. at that time. An additional television Employment + Residential Units: 2,000 – 8,000 (varies by level of transit technology desired) medium of advertisement and information Mix of uses (% Residential/Non-Residential): 75%/25% Jobs/Housing Ratio: 1 : 1 is the Space Coast Government TV, which Regional Station Area broadcasts government programming 24/7, including all TPO Board meetings. Source: TPO Strategic Corridor Plans workshop, March 2015
Environmental Justice and Title VI Executive Order 12898, signed by FIGURE 3.6: 2040 LRTP WEBSITE President Clinton in February 1994, directed all Federal agencies to make environmental justice a key part of its mission. Throughout the 2040 LRTP study process, the provisions of environmental justice, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration, were followed to ensure consistency with environmental justice and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. TPO staff and consultants made every effort to include all affected parties from varying socio-economic groups to ensure that their input was considered in the 2040 LRTP update. The Space Coast TPO is committed to developing strategies and methods to address the degree of impact of proposed transportation projects on minority and low-income communities. The TPO developed a public survey with a carefully Source: www.spacecoast2040.com designed sampling plan representative of the entire population of Brevard County, including underserved populations.
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 47 A: OUTREACH TOOLS
Extensive efforts were made to reach and serve disadvantaged populations during the LRTP update process. Local and state hen it comes to officials were asked to distribute study roadways, improving information to their constituents. Coordination W with SCAT in their targeted outreach to traffic flow and intersections are transit dependent populations represents a key aspect of the LRTP update and its top improvement priorities. commitment to serving these populations and focusing multimodal and transit improvements in those areas. LRTP outreach efforts were closely coordinated with the Brevard County Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board, an organization whose primary goals are to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and eliminating blight, principally for persons of low and moderate incomes. The County’s Housing and Human Services Department was consulted throughout the course of the plan update and at least one presentation was made to the CDBG Advisory Board. Board members were invited and kept apprised of all LRTP activities and meeting opportunities and County staff supporting the CDBG CDBG Advisory Board program was present at all LRTP workshops.
The use of innovative visualization techniques to communicate technical and sometimes complex concepts also represents a key strategy to reach segments of the Brevard County population that may otherwise find it difficult to participate in the process. The power of visualization to communicate can transcend language and other communication barriers, providing an effective tool to communicate with a wide audience.
INITIATION WORKSHOPS One of the first steps in this LRTP update was a project initiation workshop at the regularly scheduled public meetings of the Technical/Citizen Advisory Committees and TPO Board. The purpose of the workshop was to establish the preliminary
48 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE A: OUTREACH TOOLS
guiding principles of the scenario stories that would lead to a vision plan, to guide he workshop conclusions the update of the LRTP. The workshop effectively encapsulated began with a review of how the Space T Coast has grown and evolved over the the values, aspirations, and years through an examination of historic growth influences and trends that have led strategic thinking of the County’s to today’s existing conditions. Workshop participants were asked to reflect on the stakeholders and decision makers, information provided and envision how which are markedly consistent the County’s economy and transportation system can grow over the next 50 years with what was subsequently through an interactive group discussion.
learned in a public survey. The vigorous discussion that followed consisted of numerous distinct themes, ranging from economic development to environmental considerations. The workshop 3 0 RECIPIENTS conclusions effectively encapsulate the TPO e-news mailing list values, aspirations, and strategic thinking of the County’s stakeholders and decision makers, which are markedly consistent with what was subsequently learned in a public survey. The workshop discussion can 00 SUR EYS be summarized in the following themes: Completed • Economic development – invest in ports, connections to ports, connections to job centers
• Balanced growth – preserve open 0 PEOPLE space while embracing growth Attended meetings and • Multimodalism – walkable workshops neighborhoods, mixed use, transit oriented development
• Highway network connectivity – Alternate travel paths, more 00 ISITORS east/west capacity, ITS To spacecoast2040.com • County demographics – aging population, increasing diversity
• Energy and weather – increased energy costs, climate 50 000 READERS change, storm events Circulation of Florida Today • Technology – automated, connected vehicle technologies
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 49 A: OUTREACH TOOLS
The results of the initiation workshop provided clear direction, in terms of values and recognition of changing trends and their relevance to Brevard he majority of Brevard County. The ultimate scenarios, developed and County residents hold tested to represent the values and aspirations T derived from the workshops and public survey a favorable opinion of the summarized below, comprehensively account for these considerations and led to the goals and County’s roadway conditions. objectives that would guide the LRTP update.
and walkable town center land use improvements that promote travel choices. The following are SURVEY highlights of what was learned from the survey, The TPO administered a statistically valid public used to seed the scenario stories that informed survey to gain a clear understanding of Brevard the economic growth vision for the County. County residents’ travel behaviors and insights as to needed improvements to the transportation system, • Transportation habits indicate a very large as well as their thoughts on potential revenue sources percentage of people use personal vehicles to pay for those improvements. The random survey as their main form of transportation. sample consisted of 400 permanent residents of Eighty-five percent (85%) of respondents said Brevard County, who were interviewed July 9th-13th, they have used their personal vehicle for more 2013. The sample was balanced according to all than ten trips in the past month. Only 1% said known demographic characteristics of the County they have not made any trips, indicating the and all interviews were conducted using The Kitchens percentage of people who do not have access Group’s Internet Research Panel. The survey to a personal vehicle. Ninety-four percent (94%) sample led to a statistically significant analysis of the of respondents said they have not made any Brevard County population and their opinions and trips using public transit in the last month. priorities, regarding a number of topics, including: • Existing roadways were not viewed as a serious • Current travel habits problem, with the exception of two items. A third of the respondents (33%) said that • Perceptions of existing roadways traffic signal coordination is poor on existing and improvement needs roadways. The second biggest perceived • Perceptions of existing sidewalks, bike problem is the condition of the pavement, with paths and improvement needs 22% saying pavement conditions are poor. The ranking of future needs reflects these • Perceptions of existing bus service concerns. The top two priorities are improving and improvement needs traffic flow and improving intersections.
• Economic development and future growth • Many respondents said there are not sufficient sidewalks and bike paths. • Potential funding for transportation needs Nearly one-third of respondents (32%) rated the The conclusions drawn from the survey are availability of sidewalks and bike paths as poor. generally indicative of support for operational Thirty-three percent (33%) of respondents also roadway improvements, multimodal improvements, rated their ability to get to desired destinations and bus service improvements. Survey respondents as poor. Consistent with ranking data for also expressed support for rail improvements as future needs, the most desirable solution is the best way to promote economic development more bike paths and sidewalks (Figure 3.7).
50 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE A: OUTREACH TOOLS
• While a large percentage of people did not have an opinion of bus hen it comes to service, significant portions of transportation respondents identified with problems W regarding existing bus services. investments to support economic Half of respondents said they could not rate the bus service or other items related development, adding passenger to bus services, suggesting that at least rail connections within Brevard half of respondents have not utilized public transit in Brevard County. Twenty- County and to other parts of two percent (22%) of respondents rated the convenience of bus services as poor. Florida is the #1 ranked priority. Twenty-four percent (24%) said that the bus takes too long to get where they need FIGURE 3.7: ABILITY TO GET TO DESIRED LOCATIONS BY to go and 29% of respondents rated the SIDEWALKS / BIKE PATHS ability to go to a desired location without transferring buses as poor. Since only half UNSURE VERY GOOD the sample seems to have an opinion of 5% the bus service, these percentages can 11% GOOD be doubled to get a view of how people VERY POOR who use the system feel (Figure 3.8). 10% 18% • Desires for future development are focused on two items not requiring personal vehicles. 24% 32% The respondents feel the development POOR of rail service, both within the county and connected to other parts of the AVERAGE state, would be the best investment for future economic development in Brevard County. The style of FIGURE 3.8: TRANSIT ROUTES GO DIRECTLY WHERE development that respondents see PEOPLE NEED WITHOUT TRANSFERS as most desirable are walkable city centers, or village style development. VERY GOOD • While a large majority prefer GOOD 2% to use existing revenues only, respondents seem to support one 5% AVERAGE acceptable funding mechanism. 16% Sixty-one percent (61%) of the respondents say they would support an UNSURE 52% impact fee on new construction to pay for 13% future transportation needs. This is the POOR only funding mechanism that received 12% support from a majority of respondents. Regarding a new sales surtax, just under VERY POOR half of respondents (48%) supported a sales tax increase of up to 1 cent.
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 51 B: META PLAN APPROACH
METAPLAN SYNTHESIS PLANS EXAMINED IN METAPLAN While elected officials, citizen committees, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the public represent the guiding values for 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan the plan update, an equally important voice in Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology Report the planning process is that of the municipal, regional, and state agency stakeholders. Bicycle Pedestrian Mobility Plan The recognized importance of coordination FDOT Statewide Freight Plan between all Space Coast agencies at all Central Florida Regional Freight Study levels including municipalities and Community Tourism Development Plan Redevelopment Areas (CRAs), the Spaceport Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (including Cape Canaveral Air Force Station), Port Canaveral, Melbourne International Environmentally Endangered Lands (EELS) Airport, Patrick Air Force Base, and others is Canaveral Port Authority Master Plan encapsulated in a synthesis of existing plans, Community Redevelopment Agency Plans projects, and policies throughout the County. Strategic Intermodal System Plan Many of these programs have shared, but Local Agency Comprehensive Plans sometimes differing, objectives, goals, and visions for the future of Brevard County in Florida East Coast Railway Plans terms of non-auto modes, the interaction of Melbourne International Airport Master Plan land use and transportation systems, and key Space Coast Regional Airport Master Plan transportation corridors. The synthesis of the 45th Space Wing – Cape Canaveral Air Force various plans influencing transportation and Station/ Patrick Air Force Base – Future Plans development within Brevard County reveals Brevard County Public School Board Plans numerous common themes, including: Kennedy Space Center Future Development Plan • Bicycling and walking Space Florida Master Plan • Buses and Rail Chambers of Commerce - Legislative Agendas Future Corridors Task Force - Final Report • Seaport, Airports, and Spaceport Brevard County Blue Ribbon Committee Report • Roadways
• Infill and mixed-use, higher-density, or clustered development
• Parking
The following summaries for each of these emphasis areas and their coverage across local, regional, and state plans reveals common purpose and support for the themes that emerged from the public and stakeholder workshops as well as the public survey.
52 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE B: METAPLAN APPROACH
Bicycling and Walking Local, regional, and state plans all here is demonstrated support demonstrate the importance of non- for the improvement of automobile forms of transportation such as T biking and walking and the infrastructure transit-related infrastructure needed to support them. Related improvements include sidewalks, bicycle such as bus stop amenities lanes, bicycle racks, trails, and greenways. like shelters and benches. A notable plan that includes significant bicycle and walking improvements in Palm Bay is the Bayfront Community Redevelopment Agency 2024 Plan: “Creating a Bayfront Village on the Indian River Lagoon.” The plan envisions creating pedestrian and bicycle friendly Character Districts that will connect through a network of trails and open spaces oriented along US 1. A state-level commitment to multimodal improvements is evident in the FDOT’s incorporation of a trail improvement as part of a Strategic Intermodal System facility roadway capacity improvement on SR 528. The City of Titusville’s US1 Corridor Master Plan, ten municipal comprehensive plans, and numerous redevelopment and master plans all emphasize multimodal improvement strategies.
Buses and Rail A consistent focus on the importance of supporting Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) and emphasis of public transportation as an alternative transportation mode runs throughout stakeholder plans. There is also demonstrated support for the improvement of transit-related infrastructure such as bus stop amenities like shelters and benches. Public input from stakeholders to SCAT suggest that the most significant issues facing transit users are the time it takes to get to desired destinations, the limited number of bus shelters, and the frequency of bus services. Stakeholders suggested additional transit services should include trolley connections in all directions along Babcock Road, Wickham
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 53 B: META PLAN APPROACH
Road, and US 192, in Viera, and the area near Melbourne International Airport.
In addition to bus transit, the synthesis revealed support for examining the possibility of passenger rail routes on the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway and/ or Amtrak railway as well as improving access to rail facilities to improve intermodal access. Additionally, some plans highlight the conflicts between pedestrians and the FEC rail lines. A plan that has emphasized the importance of rail improvements is the Melbourne International Airport Master Plan Update. The plan identified a proposed Amtrak rail station adjacent to the airport as part of its long-term plans. Additionally, the plan recommends the designation of a potential light-rail or automated people mover corridor linking the proposed rail station to the airport passenger terminal to protect the ability to develop such a service in the future.
Seaport Future expansions of both cruise and cargo port terminals at Port Canaveral, particularly the Trident Basin north, as well as the development and expansion of Port Planning Areas 2-4 are well- documented as economic development opportunities. Documents also identify some of the challenges that may arise with expanding the Port such as the increased daily truck volumes it may cause on SR 401 and SR 528 making them more vulnerable to damage over uture expansions of both cruise time by fully-loaded vehicles. Additionally, and cargo port terminals are documents highlight the importance of F improving access to ports to improve well-documented as economic overall intermodal access in Brevard County. Finally, the Port Canaveral Master development opportunities. Plan identifies several plans to improve existing areas of public interest such as Jetty Park and Avocet Lagoon. Expansion plans at Port Canaveral underscore the need for a synthesized and collaborative
54 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE B: METAPLAN APPROACH
approach to the planning process, as the required highway capacity and intermodal equired highway capacity connectivity are crucial to the success R and intermodal connectivity of expanded operations at the Port. are crucial to the success of Airports expanded operations at the Port. Improved access to airports is a documented need to improve intermodal access, reduce aircraft-related noise levels in municipalities near airports and prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses near airports. One notable airport improvement plan is the “Melbourne International Airport Master Plan Update”. The plan states that by the year 2021 several improvements will be needed at the airport, some of which are already occurring. Improvements include the expansion of cargo facilities, new taxiways, additional airline gates, airline space (i.e. ticket counter area, administrative offices, passenger departure lounges, etc.), public space, concession areas, automobile parking both long- and short-term, as well as expansion of international flight facilities. Additionally, the plan identifies plans to develop a hotel/conference facility at the Airport. Any future aviation growth at the airport will likely happen along the boundary of the northwest quadrant of the site. The Melbourne International Airport represents a major intermodal center for both people and freight movement and economic driver, emphasizing the importance of access improvements to facilitate efficient interaction of the airport with other modes of transportation.
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 55 B: META PLAN APPROACH
Spaceport The Spaceport is another major economic development center, with ith the addition of new plans for both government and W spaceports in the future, it commercial future demand for exploration beyond earth’s orbit including: is important to continue to improve
• Human space flights intermodal connectivity to ensure that (adventure tourism) oversized cargo can be transported • Research effectively across the state. • Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) activities.
Both domestic and international markets are forecast to grow as more countries begin to recognize the opportunities and benefits associated with commercial space activities. Currently, Cape Canaveral launches an average of 12 out of the total 18 United States launches per year. By 2023, the number of launches for Cape Canaveral is expected to increase to around 17 per year. Of those total launches, seven are expected to be commercial launches.
A notable development in the works at Kennedy Space Center is a new 235+/- acre commercial research park, Exploration Park, which is intended to be the only place in the world with a Quadramodal Transportation Hub featuring transportation by land, air, sea and space. With the addition of new spaceports in the future, it is important to continue to improve intermodal connectivity to ensure that oversized cargo can be transported effectively across the state by trucks, planes, or ships.
Additionally, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Patrick Air Force Base are planning to develop and expand their facilities to include more public amenities such as beach access, a conference center, a larger marina, multi-use trails, and commercial areas. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station has also identified plans to create a coastal scrub wildlife corridor near the South Vertical Launch area as well as creating a new utility road and access road.
56 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE B: METAPLAN APPROACH
Roadways Roadway plans include a multi-purpose focus on along the US 1 and SR A1A corridors, recognizing roadway capacity improvements for automobiles that some sections of these roadways may be and development or preservation of opportunities constrained by policy or physical limits and cannot for multimodal improvements. Documents also be widened. Both facilties are important evacuation identify the need to protect right-of-way for possible routes and also part of the Indian River Lagoon future roadway expansions. Most documents seem National Scenic Byway and, as such, there is to indicate that roadways should only be widened a limited market potential for new development for safety and connectivity reasons where other along some sections due to the preservation of measures are impractical to achieving level of adjacent natural features. Grant-Valkaria and service (LOS) standards. Documents also identify Rockledge suggest that areas east of US 1 should future roadway expansions, such as near the Port limit the expansion of commercial development and roadways that are either policy or physically and consider more residential uses. Documents constrained that cannot be widened any further also identify issues facing US 1 due to at-grade such as sections of Highway US 1 and SR A1A. railroad crossings where trains block roadways for extended periods of time. Additionally, some There is a clear focus on enhancing multi-modal documents state the potential risk for increased transportation opportunities as well as mixed-use vehicular traffic demand on roadways if a development and redevelopment of existing sites passenger rail station were built along US 1. FIGURE 3.9A: HOPKINS AVE
FIGURE 3.9B: MINUTEMEN CAUSEWAY
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 57 B: META PLAN APPROACH
FIGURE 3.10: N ATLANTIC AVE CONCEPTUAL RENDERING
SR A1A is another major facility planned for A third primary north/south artery in the County is enhancement of multi-modal transportation I-95, which provides crucial intermodal connectivity opportunities as well as development and for ports, airports, and spaceports as well as redevelopment of existing sites along the corridor. areas of development opportunity, especially Like US 1, SR A1A, is constrained by policy or industrial, along the roadway. Construction to physical limits in some segments and cannot widen all of I-95 is either complete or funded be widened. The need for safety improvements such that the entire roadway is a six lane facility on SR A1A include high crash intersections by 2017. Additionally, documents identify some at Shepard Drive, SR 520, and Marion Lane. of the challenges that may arise with expanding Additionally, the SR 520 intersection has been the Port such as the increased daily truck identified as an operational issue for transit. The volumes on I-95. There is also a proposed direct Ocean Avenue intersection is also problematic connection from I-95 to the Melbourne Airport during peak tourist seasons due to vehicle that would be developed along a corridor which congestion. Documents have suggested several encompasses Ellis Road and there are three new other proposed A1A improvements including: interchange improvements identified along I-95 in FDOT’s current Five-Year Work Program. • Convert A1A from a one-way pair to two- way traffic to slow vehicular traffic
• Develop safer pedestrian crossings to support commercial activity in the Cocoa Beach area
• Create a pedestrian bridge across A1A to Samson’s Island in Satellite Beach
• Develop a “main street” or “boulevard” effect on A1A with on-street parking and higher intensity mixed-uses
• Operational and ITS improvements are planned on A1A from Pineda Causeway to US 192.
58 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE B: METAPLAN APPROACH
Infill and Mixed-Use, Higher-Density, or Clustered Development here is a policy emphasis on The encouragement of infill development T mixed-use, higher density, and through higher density/intensity and mixed use, density bonuses and/or clustered development, particularly in targeted redevelopment programs is a common theme in local comprehensive downtown areas, to promote shared plans. There is particular emphasis on parking facilities and a variety of historic or downtown areas to discourage urban sprawl, reduce greenhouse gases housing types and prices, and minimize (GHG) and decrease congestion. One carbon footprints and greenhouse notable infill plan is the “Miracle City Mall Redevelopment Plan” that is planning to gases, and encourage non-automotive transform an empty, existing enclosed mall structure in Titusville into the Miracle City modes of travel. Towne Centre open-air mall. The open- air mall will encompass approximately 300,000 square feet of retail shops, a movie theatre, offices, and restaurants. Demolition of the old mall structure was in progress in 2015. Once developed, the Miracle City Town Centre will become a major attractor in Brevard County.
The goal is to create communities that have services and employment centers within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. These types of developments are encouraged for both new developments and redevelopments.
Parking There is a focus in local comprehensive plans and community redevelopment plans on coordinated or shared parking, where feasible, when uses do not share the same peak parking demand, to minimize surface lots and free up land for infill development and green space. Public multi-story parking structures are considered solutions to
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 59 B: META PLAN APPROACH
alleviate on-site parking requirements for new development projects and encourage new development. Where practical and he symposium was essentially feasible, many feel that on-street parking a live demonstration of the should be allowed to provide additional T parking areas and promote traffic calming. metaplan synthesis, with full access In any case, parking spaces should be kept to a minimum in both quantity and size to the public. as a measure to encourage and increase the use of multimodal travel modes.
TRANSPORTATION SYMPOSIUM A transportation symposium held in October, 2013 provided a forum for municipal, regional, and state stakeholders to present their respective plans, programs, and policies with regard to planned land development and transportation investments. The symposium was essentially a live demonstration of the metaplan synthesis, with full access to the public. Each of 18 agencies, as listed in Table 3.1, delivered a presentation on their respective plans over the course of an entire morning, with break-out group discussions for the remainder of the day.
Cities throughout Brevard County stated that improving intermodal connectivity and economic development is very important to Brevard’s future economy, including both physical and functional links between the Spaceport (Kennedy Space Center/NASA), Port Canaveral, and Melbourne, International Airport (MLB). Cities feel that providing these links will enable businesses in Brevard to compete on a global scale. Cities located along US 1 and SR A1A generally expressed the desire for multimodal, complete streets improvements and better bicycle connectivity. US 1 communities also recognized the need for redevelopment with mixed-use developments to support potential commuter rail service resulting from improvements and upgrades to the Florida East Coast Railway as
60 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE B: METAPLAN APPROACH
part of All Aboard Florida. Other municipalities addressing the County’s economic development located near I-95 and west of US 1 are more and transportation needs and the development concerned with business development through of a narrative to frame the consolidated vision the creation of jobs and a stronger housing-to- of Brevard County in 2040 and beyond. The jobs connection. Cities located in this area also public survey and the Symposium supplemented expressed that the St. Johns Heritage Parkway the synthesis with direct communication to the is a key improvement for mobility in the area and residents of Brevard County and representatives that they would like to see continued Intelligent of the planning and implementing agencies Transportation Systems (ITS) and intersection across the County. Together, these efforts improvements along existing roadways. were instrumental to the subsequent scenario planning and vision plan development. The Agencies with countywide overview and clear focus of the public, stakeholder agencies, jurisdiction, including FDOT, Brevard County, and elected officials on economic development, and SCAT expressed support for through investing in: the airports, seaport and • Multimodal spaceports; highly traveled tourist routes like A1A; inter-regional transportation facilities like SR • Complete Streets 528 and US 1; and downtown redevelopment is clearly a central theme of that narrative. Another • Transit improvements is the broad support and need for multimodal FDOT discussed the development of updated and transit options for residents and visitors of multimodal guidelines and complete streets policies Brevard County. The need to embrace technology in response to expressed community sentiments. and take advantage of cutting edge operational The Department also discussed the increased use improvements to address transportation problems of Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) represents a third central element of the narrative. processes to improve transportation project development. Brevard County representatives made mention of the countywide ITS Master Plan currently underway, while SCAT expressed the gencies with countywide need to increase frequencies on existing fixed route services just to meet existing demand. A overview and jurisdiction, Overall, the initiatives and needs expressed including FDOT, Brevard County, by symposium participants generally align with and SCAT expressed support for the sentiments expressed in the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)/Citizens Advisory multimodal, complete streets, Committee (CAC) and TPO Board project initiation workshops held in April, 2013. In and transit improvements. addition, results from the Space Coast Public Opinion survey parallel the future plans and overall direction sought by stakeholder agencies. Table 3.1 summarizes the individual initiatives presented at the Symposium, which, together reveal a clear direction for the County’s desired growth and development, as well as the needed transportation infrastructure to support it.
The Metaplan Synthesis, public survey and Transportation Symposium together represent a collaborative and coordinated approach to
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 61 B: META PLAN APPROACH
TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY SYMPOSIUM FEEDBACK
ENTITIES/LOCATION INITIATIVES IN PURSUIT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF • Multi- Modal Corridor Planning Guidebook to address TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) non-traditional transportation planning.
SPACE FLORIDA • Advancing commercial heavy lifts • Supporting commercial crew and cargo • Expanding horizontal launch and landing • Expanding statewide space capacity • Attracting new emerging space systems • Florida unmanned systems
TITUSVILLE • Space Coast Loop Trail • Rail Trails (2) • Safe Routes to School • Complete Street – Hopkins Avenue
COCOA • Complete Streets – Florida Avenue and Peachtree Street • Encourage multi-modal transportation
ROCKLEDGE • Planning for aging population: • TOD around rail station • Door-to-door, non-profit, transportation service • Condominiums • Wider sidewalks/golf carts
PORT CANAVERAL • Expanding cruise terminal • Expanding cargo operations • Improving transportation around Port • SR 528 • New bridge over river • Rail connections to airports
CAPE CANAVERAL • Complete streets – Ridgewood Avenue, North Atlantic Avenue, and SR A1A • New City Hall, fire station, and waste water treatment plant
COCOA BEACH • Complete Streets • Minutemen Causeway – transit shelters currently being installed • SR A1A – sidewalk gaps along east side being filled in • Low impact stormwater designs • i.e. Ocean Beach Boulevard • Intersection improvement at SR 520 & A1A
62 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE B: METAPLAN APPROACH
ENTITIES/LOCATION INITIATIVES IN PURSUIT
SATELLITE BEACH • A1A Corridor • Access management • Pedestrian needs • Stormwater infrastructure • Shared parking • Non-conforming lots • Aesthetics • Mixed-Use Redevelopment Opportunity (100 acres) • Former Patrick Air Force Base housing
MELBOURNE • Mobility Fee Ordinance Adopted • Streetscaping • Complete Street – Hickory Street • Downtown focal points/gateways • 2000+ acres conservation (west of I-95) • Proposed Washingtonia Extension (Acquiring ROW)
MELBOURNE INTERNATIONAL • Expanded passenger operations AIRPORT (MLB) • Domestic and International • Expanded cargo operations • Airport will create 16,000 to 20,000 jobs by 2040
WEST MELBOURNE • Work with State agencies to address sidewalk gaps on non-city roads • More mixed-use/multi-modal • Key Projects: • St. Johns Heritage Parkway/Ellis new interchange • New Haven Avenue • Community redevelopment area • Norfolk Parkway • Field of Dreams (community gathering space)
GRANT-VALKARIA • New town – incorporated in 2006 • Wants to look the same in 2040 • Accommodate multiple modes (pedestrians, bicycles, horses, and golf carts) • Reclassify Valkaria Road and Grant Road for funding purposes • Resurface and widen Babcock Street • Intersection improvements
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 63 B: META PLAN APPROACH
ENTITIES/LOCATION INITIATIVES IN PURSUIT
PALM BAY • Agency-wide collaboration (i.e. Babcock Street) • St. Johns Heritage Parkway – mixed-use opportunities • US Highway 1 Redevelopment • Canals, easements, and trail networks for multiple modes
BIKE-PED COMPLETE STREETS • Pedestrian and shared-use path facilities • On-street bicycle and shared-use path facilities • Priority corridors • Connections to regionally significant projects, community centers, and activity nodes • Complete Streets – Hopkins Avenue, North Atlantic Avenue, Minutemen Causeway, Peachtree Street, Florida Avenue, and Hickory Street
SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT (SCAT) • New Route on October 14th, 2013 – Rockledge/Viera • Funds for five additional bus/drive fixed route shifts • 1- Titusville to Cocoa • 4 - Cocoa to Cocoa Beach • 6 - Cocoa/Rockledge • 25 – Palm Bay to Melbourne • Additional Palm Bay bus
ALL ABOARD FLORIDA (FLORIDA • Privately owned and operated intercity passenger rail service EAST COAST RAILWAY) • Miami to Orlando with stops in West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale (235 miles) - 3 hour trip • No stations within Brevard County
BREVARD COUNTY • County Projects • St. Johns Heritage Parkway • Ellis Road/I-95 Interchange • Ellis Road widening • Washingtonia Extension • Pineda Overpass • Viera Boulevard Interchange at I-95 • Barnes Boulevard widening • Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Master Plan
64 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT The metaplan synthesis provided the foundation for considering all modes in the development of the LRTP. In considering all of these plans, protecting Brevard’s unique and diverse environment is a key consideration. Brevard County boasts the most ecologically diverse estuary in all of North America, with more than 4,000 species of plants and animals in the Indian River Lagoon system. In addition to the inherent value of the numerous species dependent on the protection of Brevard’s ecologically rich areas, the region’s economy relies substantially on its natural resources. The Lagoon itself is a significant contributor to the region’s economy, estimated by the EPA’s Indian River National Estuary Program to be worth $3.7 billion in 2007.
In the Federal Strategies for Implementing Requirements for LRTPs expectations letter, provided by the FHWA in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration, it states that, “For highway projects, the LRTP must include a discussion on the types of potential environmental mitigation activities and opportunities which are developed in consultation with Federal, State and Tribal wildlife, land management and regulatory agencies.” Linking the planning process with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires discussion on the TPOs polices, programs and strategies used to ensure that there is planning consistency.
To integrate various programs used in Brevard to link planning with the environment, a system-wide level review is conducted to ensure that areas already identified in various conservation plans are preserved in order to restore and maintain the natural environmental functions of the lands. The processes and programs provide compliance with 23 CFR 450.322(f)(7).
Following are the Space Coast TPO’s policies, programs and strategies that are in place balancing the planning with the environment.
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 65 C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Environmental Practices and Policies Goal 3 of the LRTP, Balance preservation of the natural environment with economic everal programs were used development and livability, includes S to link planning to the two objective policies. The first is to improve air quality by lowering mobile environmental review process source emissions with energy efficient vehicles and reduce vehicle miles throughout the development traveled. The second is to promote of the LRTP. intergovernmental coordination to redevelop historic communities and concentrate development within multimodal hubs.
The TPO’s adopted Vision, focuses on a robust transit oriented demand (TOD) type environment. Local agencies are encouraged to adopt land use and amend comprehensive plans where appropriate to encourage more TOD development patterns. Steps to implement TOD are included in Chapter 8.
66 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Programs Monitoring Policies and Objectives •Both of these objectives are measured and reported on in the TPO’s annual State of the System (SOS) Report. The expected trends of these measures are included in the LRTP’s Performance Measures provided in Chapter 7 in table 7.4.
•The TPO’s adopted Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Master Plan includes an objective policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ITS helps the environment through efficient traffic coordination preserving both natural environment by reducing the need to widen and through better air quality with efficient movement of vehicles.
• The TPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan identifies short and long term pedestrian improvements and was developed with input from local government and environmental agencies. The projects identified in the plan have transit environmental benefits by providing bicycle and pedestrian linkage to transit. Having more mobility options also results in a decreased VMT and greenhouse gases.
• TPO regularly meets with local, regional and state agencies to coordinate projects and their impacts to the environment.
• Air quality and ozone levels are monitored on an annual basis and included in the TPOs SOS.
Strategies The TPO is engaged in various programs, or activities that work to preserve the environment and/or minimize and consider impacts. Strategies include use of the FDOT Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process (ETDM), wetlands mitigation banking, and Brevard County’s Environmentally Endangered Lands Program (EELs).
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 67 C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
ETDM The purpose of the FDOT’s ETDM process is to The ETDM is a two-tiered process involving both ensure that socio-cultural and environmental issues planning (long term) and programming/development are identified early so that they can be mitigated (short term) phases. This process is shown in Figure or addressed early on in the planning process. 3.11. The Space Coast TPO adheres to the guidelines As part of the ETDM planning screens, over and processes documented in the FDOT’s MPO twenty resource agencies at both the federal and Program Management Handbook, Chapter 4. state levels are requested to provide information regarding their resource specific conservation To provide visual representation of projects and plans as well as identify future key conservation their impacts to the environment, ETDM utilizes a efforts, as they relate to specific projects. GIS-based Environmental Screening Tool (EST) that enables project reviewers to interactively Other key elements are to: assess proposed transportation improvements.
•Involve local, regional agencies and This tool provides a wealth of environmental and public stakeholders in the planning sociocultural data that allows a comprehensive and project development process; review of the projects and their potential impacts. A list of projects in the 2040 cost feasible plan eligible •Link the planning and project for ETDM screening, in accordance with the ETDM development processes; manual is shown in Table 3.2. These projects have •Incorporate potential dispute resolution tools either already been screened or are in the queue for or methodologies in the planning process; screening via the ETDM planning screen. Projects are listed in priority category based on the status of •Include interagency reviews the projects in the TIP and LRTP Cost Feasible Plan.
FIGURE 3.11: ETDM PROCESS
Source: FDOT ETDM Manual
68 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
TABLE 3.2: ELIGIBLE PROJECTS FOR ETDM SCREENING
PROJECT LIMITS FROM LIMITS TO DESCRIPTION STATUS
PRIORITY I SR 524 I-95 Interchange South Industry Road Widen to 4 lanes In the queue
Washingtonia Ellis Road Pineda Causeway New 4 lane road parallel In the queue Extension and west of I-95 Malabar Road St. Johns Heritage Pkwy Minton Road Widen to 4 lanes In the queue
Babcock St. Johns Heritage Pkwy Malabar Road Widen to 4 lanes In the queue Space Commerce Way NASA Pkwy W Kennedy Pkwy N Widen to 4 lanes In the queue
PRIORITY II US 1 Pineda Causeway Park Avenue Widen to 6 lanes and In the queue intersection improvements at Pineda (SR 404) US 1 Malabar Road RJ Conlan Blvd Widen to 6 lanes In the queue
St. Johns Heritage Babcock Street I-95 Interchange New 4 lane road parallel In the queue Parkway (South) and west of I-95 Babcock Street Indian River County Line St. Johns Widen to 4 lanes In the queue Heritage Pkwy
Norfolk Pkwy Current Norfolk Pkwy Hollywood Drive New 2 lane road In the queue East Ext. and I-95 bridge US 192 St. Johns Heritage Pkwy Wickham Road Widen to 6 lanes In the queue
US 192 Wickham Road Dairy Road Widen to 6 lanes In the queue
SR 405 (South Street) Existing 4 lane section SR 50 Widen to 4 lanes In the queue
ETDM SCREENING COMPLETED / FULLY OR PARTIALLY FUNDED Viera Blvd at I-95 New Interchange (urban) #12960 Interchange SJHP/Palm Bay at I-95 New Interchange (urban) #11420 Parkway Interchange (South)
St. Johns Heritage Pkwy at I-95 and Ellis Road from New Interchange and #11460 Interchange (North) John Rodes to Wickham Widen to 4 lanes Clearlake (SR 501) Michigan Industry Road Widen to 4 lanes #13120
Malabar Road Babcock Street US 1 Widen to 4 lanes #13026
Note: Projects selected for EDTM screening in accordance with criteria in FDOT ETDM Manual
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 69 C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Mitigation Banking When a project that is vetted through the ETDM Mitigation banking activities in Brevard County process and an environmental impact is identified, are permitted and managed by the FDEP and the use of mitigation banking is a strategy used to the St. Johns River Water Management District allow projects to move forward. The stated purpose (SJRWMD), one of five districts across the state of Brevard County’s Wetland Protection ordinance is tasked with the management and preservation of to “protect, preserve, restore, replace and enhance, Florida’s water resources. The SJRWMD currently where feasible, the natural functions of wetlands manages 13 mitigation banks eligible for the within the county as to achieve a “no net loss.” mitigation of Brevard County wetlands impacts. (Sec. 62-3692). The ordinance defers to the Florida Permitees, including the Florida Department Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) of Transportation and other infrastructure definition of wetlands in Chapter 62-340, Florida development agencies typically purchase credits Administration Code, which includes areas inundated from one or more of these banks to offset the or saturated by water, including swamps, marshes, impacts of project development and achieve a bay heads, wet prairies, and other similar areas. A “no net loss”, as defined in the County’s Wetland map of wetlands, by type, as identified in the National Protection ordinance. There are currently Wetlands Inventory is depicted in Figure 3.12. over 2,690 credits available for purchase from these mitigation banks, including over 540 The FDEP defines mitigation banking as “…a at the Farmton South and Mary A mitigation practice in which an environmental enhancement banks, both located within Brevard County. and preservation project is conducted by a public agency or private entity (“banker”) to provide mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts within a defined region (mitigation service area)”. TABLE 3.3: MITIGATION BANKS MITIGATION SIZE/LOCATION TYPE AVAILABLE BANK CREDITS Mary A 2,000 acres in south Brevard County along the Indian River County line. General Wetlands 103.03 CGW 140.89 acres CGW Mitigation Bank. General Wetlands 4.4 Tosohatchee 1,312 acres on the Tosohatchee State Reserve, south of the General Wetlands 32.54 District’s Seminole Ranch property, in eastern Orange County. East Central 1,061 acres in the northeast corner of Orange County, along the General Wetlands 0 Florida Regional St. Johns River floodplain, in the vicinity of Christmas Creek. Lake Monroe 950 acres approximately 3 miles east of Lake Monroe, General Wetlands 47.05 on the northeastern portion of the 3,800-acre Beck Ranch property, in southern Volusia County. Colbert-Cameron 2,604 acres north of State Road 46, extending from General Wetlands 147.19 the southeast portion of Lake Harney eastward to the Brevard County line, in southern Volusia County. Farmton 23,922 acres, and is located at three sites (North, South, and West) Forested 1680.49 in Volusia County. The North site covers 16,289 acres and includes Freshwater, Crane Swamp and a portion of the headwaters of Spruce Creek. General Wetlands, The South site covers 4052 acres at Buck Lake. The West site Herbaceous Freshwater covers 3,581 acres that include Cow Creek and Deep Creek. TM Econ, Phases 5,197 acres (which includes 3,897.26 acres in phases General Wetlands 557.73 I-IV, Holland I-III, and 1,299.73 acres in phase IV) three miles south Properties of State Road 528, in southern Orange County. Basin 22 - Phase This permit authorizes the reduction of the Phase 1 project Forested Freshwater, 122.04 1 – UMAM area by 23.99-acres and a credit reduction of 7.56 credits. Herbaceous Freshwater
Source: St Johns River Water Management District
70 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
FIGURE 3.12: WETLANDS AND MITIGATION BANKS
1
95
46
50
405
407
528 401 528
3 520 524
Mitigation Bank
1 Wetland A1A Water
95
518
192 192
507
514 A1A
1 ¯
95 7
Miles
Source: St Johns River Water Management District
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 71 C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Environmentally Endangered Lands Program Another key program instituted by the he EEL program’s mission voters of Brevard County in 1990, and T statement is “Protecting and reaffirmed in 2004, to protect natural habitats in the County through the purchase Preserving Biological Diversity of environmentally sensitive lands, is the Environmentally Endangered Lands Through Responsible Stewardship Program (EEL). The EEL program is of Brevard County’s Natural coordinated closely with local, state, and federal partner agencies to maximize the Resources” through the purchase effectiveness and scope of the EEL program of lands to conserve natural to protect the County’s natural resources. resources and provide educational The EEL program’s mission statement is “Protecting and Preserving Biological and recreational opportunities. Diversity through Responsible Stewardship of Brevard County’s Natural Resources” through the purchase of lands to conserve natural resources and provide educational and recreational opportunities. The Board of County Commissioners appoints an eight- member committee, seven of which are specifically selected for their experience and knowledge of science. The eight committee member is selected to represent ecotourism interests but all eight members are Brevard County residents. The committee selects and purchases lands for the EEL program using criteria developed specifically for the program and documented in the EEL program Land Acquisition Manual. Some of the EEL properties were donated by developers to offset mitigation requirements for wetlands and scrub habitats.
The EEL program currently owns and manages 22 sanctuaries, depicted in Figure 3.13, including a total of almost 18,000 acres of EEL properties, about 15% of which were donated as part of mitigation requirements. All of the sanctuaries feature walking trails of varying distances, totaling over 60 miles for the entire program. Efforts are underway currently to acquire lands in the coastal areas of the County and the northern part of the Indian River Lagoon.
72 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
FIGURE 3.13: ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LANDS
1
95
46
50
405
407
528 401 528
3 520 524
1 A1A Environmentally Endangered Lands
95
518
192 192
507
514 A1A
1 ¯ 95
5
Miles
Source: Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 73 C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Planning for Economic and Environmental Sustainability The development of this LRTP was unique in that the use of scenario planning was utilized to identify how the citizens wanted to see Brevard grow and to reflect the importance of preserving Brevard’s natural lands to the maximum extent feasible. Scenarios were conducted on a system-wide approach that included utilization of GIS and layering of projects and plans over conservation lands. Outreach efforts were made throughout the process to ensure that there was ample opportunity for input and for resource agencies to review and compare their plans with proposed LRTP projects.
The LRTP workshops and meeting invitations announcements offered resource agencies the opportunity to directly participate at scheduled activities and to provide feedback (specific workshops and meetings are listed in Chapter 3). Agencies were asked to:
•Submit Existing Plans
•Attend LRTP Workshops
•Attend TPO and TAC CAC Board Meetings
•Comment on Draft LRTP
Resource agencies on distribution lists and announcements:
•St. Johns River Water Management District
•U.S. Fish and Wildlife
•Environmentally Endangered Lands
•Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
•Federal Highway Administration
•Florida Department of Transportation
•Environmental Protection Agency
•Economic Development Commission
During the plans initial development, the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge was represented at the transportation symposium held on October 3, 2013. At that time they provided no comments or concerns. Invitations were sent to the resource agencies listed above to attend the transportation choices workshop in February 2014; Visioning workshop July 2014; and Strategic corridor plans workshop March 2015. In July 2015, the draft Cost Feasible Plan was presented to the TPO Board and its committees and made available for all agencies and the public for review and comment.
The St. Johns River Water Management District is a representative on the TPO’s Technical Advisory Committee. As a representative on the advisory committee they directly received numerous announcements and materials and presentations. No comments were received from this agency.
At the July 2015 TPO Board Meeting when the Draft plan was presented, a member of the Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands (EELs) program was present. Comments were received regarding concerns over trail projects traversing over EELs properties. In response, TPO Staff presented to the EELs board in August of 2015, explaining the trail development process and how the LRTP plan only shows opportunities connecting conservation lands and not actual trail alignments. In an effort to alleviate concerns, the LRTP trail map lines were adjusted to go around the EELs properties, not through them. It was explained that the depiction of the trail alignments were to present opportunity only and that if a project was to move forward it would include direct coordination with the EELs program. The final LRTP plan shows the revised trail opportunity corridors.
74 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER THREE C: BALANCING PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Specific Project Examples The following current projects provide a few examples of active projects that involve direct coordination of linking planning and the environment.
Brevard Zoo Linear Trail – TPO staff have directly coordinated with Brevard County departments and the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) to review and identify an alignment that preserves the natural habitat of the area to the maximum extent possible. Coordination efforts and meeting records for this project are maintained by Brevard County. TPO staff will be participating in a field review with SJRWMD and county staff in which the trail alignment will be identified that minimizes wetland impacts and the need for the construction of boardwalks, thus reducing the cost of the project while preserving the natural environment.
Viera Boulevard Interchange with Interstate 95 – This project, coordinated by the Florida Department of Transportation, provided a unique opportunity to reflect good planning concepts that incorporate the environment. With a Bald Eagle nest located in the northeast corner of the project, the PD&E team identified the ability to implement the diverging diamond interchange design that requires a smaller blueprint of land, reduces vehicular turning movement conflicts that improves safety and allows for efficient traffic movement that will result in less idle time reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Specific records for this project are currently maintained by FDOT.
Malabar Road PD&E – In 2015, a PD&E was under development by the FDOT. The particular limits of the study traversed by an existing Environment Endangered Lands (EELs) property, the Malabar Scrub Sanctuary. Upon a presentation to the TPO, TPO staff worked with FDOT to re- evaluate the preliminary proposal and alignment of the facility, requesting a consistency in sidewalks on both sides of the road as there are significant trails connecting to Malabar Road. Moving the ROW line to the south to avoid the EEL property, provided enough room to include sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. This type of coordination is an excellent example of how the TPO works to link planning with the environment to achieve outcomes that benefit all parties.
Specific Project Schedule of Review and Coordination Projects already in process will continue to be reviewed and adhere to NEPA rules and guidelines as they move forward. Projects being administered by FDOT must utilize ETDM and incorporate strategies, such as use of mitigation banking when appropriate. Documentation of outreach and consultation efforts with relevant agencies will be maintained by the TPO in coordination with the FDOT.
Brevard Zoo Linear Trail (first section)
CHAPTER THREE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 75
PHASE 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
he public input and data collected in the early stages of this plan he scenario planning process update all pointed to major T ultimately led to a vision challenges facing Brevard County, that sets a new direction for the Tincluding economic sustainability beyond NASA’s Space Shuttle program and the health TPO and its planning partners, of the Indian River Lagoon. These challenges one that promotes economic required the Space Coast TPO to consider and environmental stainability transportation improvements in a larger and improves quality of life. context beyond simply improving mobility. The TPO opted to use a scenario planning process to connect with those larger issues. Scenarios provide glimpses into how differing transportation investments could influence, or be influenced by, alternative outcomes. They also crystallize issues and aspirations that matter to Brevard County to help identify and prioritize transportation investments.
A NEW DIRECTION The scenario planning process ultimately led to a vision that sets a new direction for the TPO and its planning partners, one that promotes economic and environmental sustainability and improves quality of life. Underpinning the vision are common aspirations expressed by a wide range of government and business leaders, planning officials and staff, and residents. The key ingredients to the vision are compact, walkable centers and neighborhoods, revitalized older towns, and viable travel alternatives to the automobile.
Making the vision come to life will require concerted, continuous and coordinated land use and transportation planning. To that end, the vision themes and map provide a clear and simple framework for future planning efforts of the TPO and others. The challenge ahead
CHAPTER FOUR | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 77 PHASE 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
The workshops and survey not only clarified aspirations, they confirmed the planning and policy t the Transportation changes the TPO began in earnest after the 2035 Symposium, over 80 Long Range Transportation Plan Update. The TPO’s A focus shifted from improving the county’s roadway local government and agency network to improving the operations and safety of the network, and to promoting multimodal transportation. staff and officials heard Initiatives such as the ITS Master Plan, the Bicyle/ about plans and initiatives Pedestrian/Trails Mobility Plan, and funding of Complete Streets tangibly demonstrate the shift. from the cities and agencies across Brevard County. BUILDING SCENARIOS Scenarios allow “test drives” of the future. Each begins with a story, from which a virtual version is is staying true to the vision with enough dexterity to created using computer simulations to determine how elegantly address unique conditions as they arise. the story plays out. The scenarios were designed to look out to the year 2060. The constants among the scenarios were total population and employment, the WHAT MATTERS? transportation improvement budget, and the pallet The scenario planning process began with a series of place types used to allocate future population of workshops and a survey. A series of Initiation and employment. What varied were the proportions Workshops with the TPO Board and its Technical of the future population and employment growth and Citizens Advisory Subcommittees elicited lively in differing place types, where those place types discussions and a common set of aspirations and were located, and the transportation improvements concerns. The community survey, with a statistically supporting the place type allocations and locations. valid sample of over 400 responses, followed. The Each scenario was created from a “virtual present,” survey asked people across the county about existing or computer representation of the existing land use transportation conditions, future aspirations and patterns and transportation network. The allocation potential transportation funding sources. Responses of population and employment to place types and to the aspirations questions mirrored those from locations was done with the Envision software, the Initiation Workshops. At the Transportation while the Central Florida Regional Planning Model Symposium, over 80 local government and agency (CFRPM) estimated travel demand for those differing staff and officials heard about plans and initiatives allocations. Both software packages also provided from the cities and agencies across Brevard County. feedback on the performance of the scenarios. After the presentations, participants were asked about aspirations and concerns. Responses were The stories used to seed the four scenarios similar to those from the Initiation Workshops and were based on what was learned from the the survey, with three common themes resonating: workshops and community survey:
• The need to expand economic prosperity • Current Trend - What will Brevard look like by leveraging and diversifying the logistics if past, auto-oriented suburban development and high tech clusters in Brevard patterns continue into the future?
• The need to protect the natural environment • Ports Centers - What happens if the TPO by properly managing growth and others heavily invest in connections to the county’s intermodal facilities (space, air • The need to provide more transportation and sea ports and rail and truck terminals)? and community choices
78 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER FOUR PHASE 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
• High-tech Lifestyle - What happens if the model, each place type includes building types and TPO and others anticipate and plan for intensities, supportive infrastructure (such as parking emerging technology changes, such as and storm water retention), and building occupancies automated vehicles and e-tailing, and how to translate population and/or employment allocations does it influence economic development? into needed building and land areas. The pallet of place types included existing suburban oriented • Connected Communities - What happens development places, such as single family subdivision if the TPO and others plan for and provide and strip-commercial centers, and new compact and both transportation and community choices? walkable places, such as mixed-use town centers.
Once the scenarios stories were crafted, the Based on the story, a concept map was prepared for population and employment growth to 2060 (338,000 each scenario to identify the locations of major job and 145,000 respectively) was proportioned to those centers and supporting neighborhoods, as well as place types best articulating the scenario story. For needed transportation facilities. The concept maps instance, most of the anticipated employment growth guided the “painting” of scenarios, or adding place for the Port Centers scenario was allocated to logistics types to the virtual present. In the painting process, oriented place types. In the Envision computer place types were assigned to 10 acre grids until
FIGURE 4.1: PLACE TYPES traditional urban core mobility hub neighborhood multifamily focus
corridor single family commercial employment center
Source: TPO Transportation Choices Workshop, February 2014
CHAPTER FOUR | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 79 PHASE 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
the county-wide 2060 demand for needed acres for type allocations, concept maps and transportation each place type is reached. The total place type investments. They also reviewed results for the inventory (population, employment, building area, scenarios. Based on what they learned, each land area) was assigned to a grid if it is vacant. If participant was queried about preferences and not, percentages of the inventory were assigned dislikes among the scenarios, and to select the based on the redevelopment potential of the grid. scenario they believed was best at meeting four That potential is based on a number of factors, most goals: providing economic prosperity, addressing notably the building to land value ratio. The lower future population growth, protecting the county’s the ratio, the higher the redevelopment potential. natural environment, and meeting their preferred way to live and travel. The following summaries provide The last step in the process was defining an overview of each scenario, highlights of scenario transportation improvements for each scenario within outcomes and reactions from workshop participants. a total investment budget of $4.6 billion per scenario. The types of investments differed by the concept Current Trend behind each scenario. For instance, to provide travel Overview: Development patterns continue choices for revitalized older cities along the US 1 as they have and most transportation funding corridor, commuter rail and bus rapid transit were the is dedicated to adding and widening roads. major investments in the Connected Communities Development continues to occur in suburban scenario. To the extent practical improvements were oriented place types and locate west of I-95. coded into the CFRPM. Post-processing of travel demand results estimated impacts when planned Outcomes: By 2060 nearly all of the vacant improvements could not be coded in the model. For land in Brevard is lost to development, with example, ridership for transit along the US 1 corridor the urban footprint of the county increasing by was estimated by applying a mode share factor to 60%. Travel continues to be predominantly traffic forecasts along the corridor. by automobile and energy consumption and air emissions nearly doubled over today. Reactions: Participants liked the preponderance SCENARIO RESULTS of single family housing and the familiarity of community types. Outweighing the positives Over 80 participants attended the Choices Workshop were concerns about the continuation of and reviewed in-depth information on each of the urban sprawl and reliance on auto travel. scenarios, including the underlying story, place
80 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER FOUR PHASE 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
FIGURE 4.2: CURRENT TREND SCENARIO
Source: TPO Planning Workshops
CHAPTER FOUR | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 81 PHASE 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
FIGURE 4.3: PORT CENTER SCENARIO Ports Centers Overview: The primary economic driver in this scenario is the county’s ports and intermodal facilities and logistics supporting those facilities.
Outcomes: Much of the county’s job growth occurs in the county’s ports and intermodal facilities and in new logistics centers adjacent to the facilities. Much of the population growth locates around those employment clusters. Because most intermodal facilities are located in the northern half of the county, this scenario reflects a major shift in growth from South Brevard, where most growth has occurred over the past 20 years, to North Brevard. As a result, many of the needed transportation improvements are located in the northern half of the county and designed to connect the intermodal facilities to each other and to improve commuting from neighborhoods to the employment centers. Compared with the Current Trend, a sizeable proportion of the employment and population growth occurs in walkable compact place types.
Reactions: Workshop participants liked the scenario’s emphasis on, and support of, logistics centers, and the allocation of much of the future growth into walkable place types. Participants did not like the scenario’s focus on the northern half of the county, nor the large amount of industrial development occurring around the intermodal hubs.
Source: TPO Transportation Choices Workshop, February 2014
82 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER FOUR PHASE 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
High-tech Lifestyle FIGURE 4.4: HIGH-TECH SCENARIO Overview: This scenario explores the potential impacts of high tech on lifestyles and travel, and how planning for technology could support the county’s existing high tech cluster.
Outcomes: The scenario anticipates people will rely more heavily on connecting via the internet, thereby work and shop more from home. On those occasions when people travel to work and shop, their destinations will be non-traditional offices and stores that require much less space. People will seek entertainment and recreational connections and prefer those destinations be clustered with other destinations, such as reconfigured work and shopping venues. Those clustered destinations will form high tech hubs. Compact and multi family oriented neighborhoods will locate around the hubs, and travel between the neighborhoods and the hubs will be by autonomous vehicles or high tech transit. Autonomous vehicles will increase roadway capacities and change how parking is provided. Rather than in front of buildings, parking will locate on the fringe of hubs as cars park themselves. Despite the higher capacities and simplified parking, changes in lifestyle preferences, including an emphasis on personal and environmental health, will foster walkable hubs and neighborhoods.
Reactions: Participants liked the “outside the box” thinking of the scenario and believed that it created options that could attract the next generation of high-tech workers. They also liked the increased connectivity via the internet and walkable high tech hubs and neighborhoods. Participants questioned whether such technologies and changes will become reality by 2060 and were concerned about the ability of older residents to adapt.
Source: TPO Transportation Choices Workshop, February 2014
CHAPTER FOUR | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 83 PHASE 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
FIGURE 4.5: CONNECTED COMMUNITIES SCENARIO Connected Communities Overview: This scenario explores transportation and community choices via investments in transit and walkable communities, and redirecting growth from the fringes back into Brevard’s original towns.
Outcomes: Much of the population and employment growth occurs along the US 1 corridor where the county’s original towns are located. Population and employment are also located in new town centers, such as Viera and the proposed Emerald City center. As a result, the county’s urban footprint is reduced to preserve open space around its natural systems, most notably the St. Johns River basin. Nearly all of the new growth occurs in new, compact and walkable place types. That development is served by a county-wide premium transit system to provide non-auto connectivity beyond centers and neighborhoods. The backbone of the transit network is commuter rail on the existing FEC rail line. Bus rapid transit along US 1 and other corridors feed into the commuter rail.
Reactions: Participants liked the concentration of growth, mix of housing options, and the multimodal emphasis in this scenario. The primary concerns included the cost of transit and its lack of economic drivers.
Source: TPO Transportation Choices Workshop, February 2014
84 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER FOUR PHASE 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
Comparing the Scenarios Rating the Scenarios Each of the alternative scenarios reduces the Choice Workshop participants ranked the amount of newly developed land by more than scenarios based on their ability to meet common half of the 60 percent increase of the Current aspirations expressed during earlier workshops Trend. Much of that reduction is due to higher and through the survey. The rankings are on a proportions of new residents living in multi-family one to five scale and results tabulated by summing housing. A high percentage of growth occurs in the top two rankings for each aspiration. compact walkable centers and neighborhoods, which promotes more walking. As a result, transportation investments and non-auto mode shares increase noticeably. Energy consumption and air emissions drop by 15 to 35% over the Current Trend. Sea level rise did not differ appreciably among the scenarios because only portions of the county are flooded by 2060.
FIGURE 4.6: COMPARING SCENARIOS: LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS, YEAR 2060
Source: TPO Transportation Choices Workshop, February 2014
CHAPTER FOUR | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 85 PHASE 2: SCENARIO PLANNING
FIGURE 4.7: CHOICE WORKSHOP RESULTS OF SCENARIO Economic Prosperity RATING When asked which of the scenarios is Scenario Comparisons among Goals best at positioning Brevard for economic Best at positioning Brevard for economic prosperity Leveraging ports and high tech are sound economic development prosperity, the Ports Centers scenario strategies rated high because of its emphasis on 77% 70% logistics and High-tech Lifestyles rated equally high because of its emphasis on 49% attracting the next generation of high tech workers. The Connected Community scenario did not rate as highly, slightly 9% less than half of participants ranked it
Current Trend Port Centers High Tech Lifestyle Connected Communities first or second, and only 9% selected the trend scenario as best positioning Scenario Comparisons among Goals accounting for economic prosperity. Best at addressing Brevard’s future population growth Increasing place type options and travel choices are sound growth management strategies Population Growth 78% While the Connected Community scenario 59% 56% scored lower than the Ports Centers and High-Tech Lifestyle scenarios on the economic prosperity goal, it scored
11% highest on addressing future population growth. The Ports Centers and High- Current Trend Port Centers High Tech Lifestyle Connected Communities tech Lifestyles scenarios were ranked first or second by slightly more than half Scenario Comparisons among Goals of respondents and only 11% believed Best at protecting the natural environment Compact communities, travel choices and high tech are sound the Trend best attained this goal. environmental protection strategies 73% 70% Protecting the Environment 52% Participants rated the High-Tech Lifestyle and Connected Communities scenarios highest at for protecting the county’s natural 13% environment. The Ports Centers scenario was ranked first or second by slightly more Current Trend Port Centers High Tech Lifestyle Connected Communities than half of the participants and the current trend is preferred by just over 13%. Scenario Comparison among Goals Best at meeting the way I live and travel Live and Travel Each of the scenarios improves quality of life over the Trend
66% Participants were evenly split between the 60% 60% three non-trend scenarios when ranking which scenario best meets the way I live and travel question. The Current Trend
21% scenario received just over 21%.
Current Trend Port Centers High Tech Lifestyle Connected Communities
Source: TPO Transportation Choices Workshop, February 2014
86 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER FOUR This page intentionally left blank
PHASE 3: VISIONING
he scenario planning process was of community, housing and transportation choices, and designed to inform an ultimate vision reactions to scenarios confirmed this preference. The plan that represents a composite types of transportation investments needed to provide scenario. The Vision incorporates choices go hand in hand with those envisioned for Tpreferred features of the alternate scenarios economic prosperity and sustainable growth. based on feedback from stakeholders and the public. The central themes of the Vision include:
Each of the scenarios provided key puzzle pieces for Economic prosperity (build on what’s the Vision Map. The Ports Centers scenario indicated uniquely Brevard) - a common theme through how the TPO and others can support logistics the Initiation Workshops, the community survey, industries. The High Tech Lifestyle scenario indicated how the TPO and others can anticipate and plan for the Transportation Symposium, and the Choices high tech in living and travel and how to attract the Workshop is a strong preference to grow and next generation of high tech workers. The Community diversify Brevard’s existing high-tech and logistics Choices scenario identified how the TPO can support balanced growth and increase travel choices. economic clusters; to leverage what is uniquely The Vision Map (Figure 5.1) identifies major Brevard. Transportation can support this aspiration destination place types including intermodal hubs, by prioritizing access to ports and intermodal facilities regional multimodal hubs, and neighborhood and providing multimodal transportation options in multimodal hubs. It also identifies major corridor types, including intermodal road and support of walkable centers and neighborhoods that rail for passenger and freight travel as well as can attract the next generation of high-tech workers. inter- and intra-County multimodal travel.
Sustainable growth (protect what is uniquely A computer version of the Vision map was created using the Envision software. Like the scenarios, Brevard) – economic prosperity will foster the population and employment growth increments growth, yet growth need not put undue pressures were first allocated to Vision oriented place types, on major ecosystems, including the Indian and and those types were painted on the virtual present to create a land use layer from which 2060 traffic Banana Rivers, nor continue to leave the oldest analysis zone (TAZ) forecasts were generated. centers and neighborhoods behind. Compact, Those forecasts were used in the CFRPM to generate 2060 travel demand that was used for later planning walkable communities and redirecting growth steps, most notably the Multimodal Corridor Concepts into existing, underused towns are strategies presented in a later chapter. that reduce the future urban footprint and better protect Brevard’s major ecosystems. Multimodal articipants continually transportation investments, particularly a county- Pexpressed the desire wide premium transit network, can support and for a greater variety of foster these two development strategies. community, housing, and Quality of life (provide choices) – participants transportation choices. continually expressed the desire for a greater variety
CHAPTER FIVE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 89 PHASE 3: VISIONING
FIGURE 5.1: ADOPTED TPO VISION
Source: Vision Plan as adopted by TPO Board, September 2014
90 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER FIVE PHASE 3: VISIONING
ADOPTING THE VISION FIGURE 5.2: HOW THE VISON RATED AMONG THREE GOALS Over 100 participants, including TPO Board members, attended the Transportation 43 3 Vision Workshop, where they had the 3 opportunity to review highlights of the scenario planning process and the Vision themes and map. Participants were asked to rate the Vision, with 4 results confirming broad support as 3 2 3 depicted in Figure 5.2. The TPO Board unanimously approved the Vision.
Because of the auto oriented nature of Brevard’s transportation network and development patterns, the ability to change will require a coordinated and Source: TPO Transportation Choices Workshop, February 2014 consistent land use and transportation planning approach. The Vision themes and map provide a target for such FIGURE 5.3: VISION GOALS AND MAP-21/FAST ACT planning. This LRTP update responds in kind. But the level of coordination LRTP GOALS among agencies and governments in 1 2 3 Brevard will require continuous attention. Support Economic Vitality
While representative of a long term Increase Safety future beyond 2040, the Vision informs the Goals and Objectives used to guide Increase Security the development of a 2040 cost feasible Increase Accessibility plan. The plan Goals and Objectives are presented in Table 5.1. The Goals are Protect Environment embodied in the 2040 LRTP in terms Enhance Connectivity of its form, function, and content. As described in more detail in the following Promote Efficient O&M chapters, the Vision Goals were utilized
PLANNING FACTORS Preserve Existing System to guide the plan update process. Figure 5.3 illustrates the consistency of the Enhance Travel and Tourism LRTP Goals with MAP-21 and FAST Act Improve Resiliency Planning Factors, as outlined in 23 USC and Reliability 134(i) (2)(A)(ii); 49 USC 5303(i)(2)(A)(ii). Mitigate Storm Water Impacts
Source: 23 USC 134(i)(2)(A) (ii); 49 USC 5303(i)(2)(A)(ii)
CHAPTER FIVE | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 91 PHASE 3: VISIONING
TABLE 5.1: LRTP GOALS & OBJECTIVES
GOAL 1 Enhance economic development through intermodal transportation connections
Objective 1.1 Promote economic development through the improved performance of highway and rail facilities providing connections to intermodal hubs and commerce centers.
Objective 1.2 Improve mobility for people and freight on the regional transportation system within the County.
Objective 1.3 Improve security through improvements to the capacity and efficiency of the County’s evacuation routes.
Objective 1.4 Employ operational strategies to optimize the performance of the County’s transportation infrastructure.
GOAL 2 Increase the range of community, housing and travel options
Objective 2.1 Increase the supply and use of non-automobile oriented transportation infrastructure, including transit, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and trails.
Objective 2.2 Improve the safety of County and State infrastructure for motorized and non-motorized users
GOAL 3 Balance preservation of the natural environment with economic development and livability
Objective 3.1 Improve air quality by lowering mobile source emissions with energy efficient vehicles and reduced vehicle miles traveled.
Objective 3.2 Promote intergovernmental coordination to redevelop historic communities and concentrate development within multimodal hubs.
92 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER FIVE This page intentionally left blank
PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
ssessment of transportation FIGURE 6.1: MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR CONCEPT improvement needs represents the foundation of a LRTP but the 1. 1. Highway process and resulting structure of the 2. Improvement needsA plan can take many forms. The process 2. Transit Service for this plan update began with a synthesis of Improvement plans developed by the TPO’s planning partners 3. Connecting at the local, regional, and state levels. The Multimodal Facility results of the synthesis, or metaplan, include 4. ITS Infrastructure a range of strategies and modal improvement needs, including non-motorized, transit, and both 3. 4. operational and capacity roadway improvements.
Two things became clear in the early stages of this analysis that guided the subsequent process The definition of a particular corridor and and ultimately the plan itself. First, the consistent projects identified within it can include supporting connections and, in some cases, multiple themes across a broad representation of plans parallel facilities. While each corridor is focused and stakeholders in the County include a focus on a specific facility, or roadway, the scope of a corridor is much broader. The synergistic on multimodal and transit improvements, infill effects of supporting multimodal connections and mixed-use development, coordinated parking to the primary facility within a corridor can, for strategies, and a range of roadway improvements. example, provide crucial transit access support that is necessary for the optimal implementation of effective transit strategies, while improving The second revelation that emerged from non-motorized infrastructure in its own right. Similarly, ITS infrastructure improves highway the metaplan synthesis was the variation of operations while providing a complementary improvement needs and strategies within many improvement that can be utilized for premium transit service operation through the use of signal of the individual corridors across the County, priority treatment as illustrated in Figure 6.1. presenting opportunities for economies of scale The corridor approach to planning transportation and, in some cases the challenge of sorting out improvements facilitates a contextual orientation conflicting strategies. The natural conclusion, of transportation needs and strategies, in terms of underlying land use, in addition to the in terms of the best approach to identifying and comprehensive orientation, similar to the Complete prioritizing specific improvements, was to apply a Streets approach, to solving transportation corridor planning framework. problems. The key to effective and relevant analysis is the combination of context and comprehensiveness. In other words, the underlying context informs the range of improvement
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 95 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
needs and the transportation function of the corridor inversely affects the land development as well. The comprehensive multimodal and multi-faceted strategy to the systems planning process takes full advantage of all options for improvement of the networks. The analytical process involved in the evaluation and prioritization of needed improvements is also facilitated by the corridor approach.
This chapter presents how corridor and place type planning and operations principles guided the development of a multimodal system plan and long term corridor plans for 10 of the TPO’s high priority corridors.
TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES An overwhelming preponderance of travel in Brevard is by automobile because much of the county developed after automobiles became ubiquitous in the United States. The consequence of those patterns has prompted many in the county to want a change. Providing travel choices is one of the three key themes of the TPO’s vision. Those choices include:
• Walking and biking
• Travel via premium transit, including:
• Commuter rail
• Bus rapid transit (BRT)
• Automated and/or conventional automobile travel
The sections below highlight the design concepts and guidelines used during the corridor planning process for each mode.
96 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
Walking and Biking Walking and biking for recreation is generating demand for additional mixed use trails throughout Florida, including Brevard. The Coast to Coast Connector, a mixed use trail stretching from the Atlantic in Brevard County to the Gulf of Mexico in Pinellas County, illustrates the public’s support for recreational trails. The TPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan presents the interconnected network of recreational trails planning for Brevard.
Demand is also increasing, and the interest clearly expressed, for the ability to walk and bike for everyday trips. The essential ingredients for meeting such demand and interest are:
• Walkable destinations (compact urban form) – pre-automobile, walking was the primary travel mode and because humans travel at less than five miles per hour, destinations were necessarily nearby, making cities compact and dense. Neighborhoods in walkable cities seldom covered more than a square mile because of time limitations and slow walking speeds. The downtown areas surrounding once active rail stations in Titusville, Cocoa, Melbourne and Palm Bay were developed prior to automobiles and are the only areas in Brevard designed for walking. As travel shifted to autos and with the completion of I-95, these downtown areas have struggled to keep up with more auto accessible developments, where large building footprints and parking lots make walking impractical. To promote walking, the TPO and its partners will need to reverse decades long trends by:
-- Planning for and implementing strategies that encourage development in the county’s existing walkable centers, designated as regional multimodal centers on the Vision map, and
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 97 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
omplete streets find the right balance -- Planning for new walkable centers between auto, walk and bike travel through redevelopment of existing C . auto oriented places or in vacant areas, designated either as regional multimodal centers or as multimodal centers on the Vision map.
• Complete streets – moving destinations closer is essential to making walking a viable option, as is making walking paths safe, comfortable and convenient. This requires redesigning and rebuilding major streets accessing and crossing through walkable areas. The TPO has effectively partnered with FDOT and localities to design and build “complete streets,” streets that find the right balance between auto, walk and bike travel, and will continue to do so, with a priority on major streets in regional multimodal and neighborhood multimodal centers.
• First mile for transit – there is a synergy FIGURE 6.2: COMPLETE STREET IN COCOA between walking, biking and transit Before that reinforces their success. Compact, walkable places promote transit because they provide easy access and egress from transit. Transit extends the reach of walking beyond a mile because it is a fast mode of transport when operating in its own right of way, free of congestion, and with infrequent stops (greater than a half-mile spacing).
After (rendering) Transit oriented development (TOD) is designed to create such synergy, with transit stations located in the middle of half mile walkable areas. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and FDOT recognize the importance of TOD in the viability of major transit investments. TOD Guidelines prepared by FDOT provide density, diversity and design targets for differing TOD types. Those targets helped identify how transit supportive regional multimodal and multimodal centers, as well as other potential TOD locations, currently are.
98 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
Premium Transit wo types of premium transit Typical design and operations appropriate for Brevard’s future are characteristics for premium transit include: T commuter rail and bus rapid transit. • Transit vehicles run in a dedicated right of way for much, if not all, of the corridor to maintain a high travel speed between stations (stops)
• Stations (stops) spaced at least a half mile apart, on average, to average at least a 25 mile per hour travel speed along the corridor, including stops
• Transit vehicles pass by stations (frequency of service) at least once per 15 minutes during the route operating period, with even more frequent service during peak periods
The two types of premium transit appropriate for Brevard’s future are commuter rail, similar to SunRail in Orlando and TriRail in South Florida, and bus rapid transit (BRT), similar to the Lymmo circulator in downtown Orlando and the US 1 Busway in south Miami-Dade County.
Commuter Rail Commuter rail typically operates on existing freight rail tracks. Up to three tracks may be needed to accommodate both passenger and freight rail on a corridor. Each track requires 15 feet of right of way. Combined with the need to access tracks, total right of way widths are 50 to 100 feet in heavily traveled corridors.
Routes extend for 15 to 50 miles connecting suburban and fringe neighborhoods with downtown areas. Service focuses on commuters, with high frequencies during peak commuting ours. Stations are spaced one to five miles apart. Depending on demand, commuter trains range from five to nine cars per train. Station platforms extend accordingly.
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 99 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
Of importance to the multimodal corridor analysis are the right of way requirements for commuter rail and supporting land densities around stations. As noted above, three tracks require up to 100 feet of right of way.
Bus Rapid Transit Buses along BRT routes operate in separate rights of way with stations spaced half to one mile apart to ensure buses maintain competitive travel speeds with automobiles.
There are variations in BRT configurations, ranging from buses bypassing traffic cues and provided prioritization at signalized intersections, to buses operating in completely separated rights of way. Buses can either operate along the shoulders of roadways or in medians. Of importance to the corridors analysis is the right of way requirements for BRT, around 30 feet between stations and 50 feet at stations, and the type of development densities in station areas needed to support ridership.
Roadways and Automated Vehicles A number of sources estimate that automated vehicles, including cars, trucks, buses and trains, will fully saturate the vehicle fleet by 2060 (Figure 6.3). The anticipated benefits of this technology are:
• Increased roadway efficiency – automated vehicles reduce spacing between vehicles thereby increasing roadway capacity. Some estimate automated vehicles will more than double roadway capacities on limited access highways (expressways) and around a 40 to 50 percent increase on reduce wind resistance and fuel consumption, but not to the same extent capacities are improved.
100 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
• Improved safety – automated vehicles have the potential to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities significantly; indeed, ome speculate that automated even the limited automation in vehicles vehicles can more than double today, such as collision avoidance/ S alert systems, improve safety. existing roadway capacities on limited • Greater flexibility in vehicle use – access roads and half again the capacity because autos are a necessity in Brevard County, those who are able on interrupted flow arterials. to drive typically purchase a car and cover its operating costs. With automated vehicles, many could schedule pick-ups and drop-offs for FIGURE 6.3: BRT AND AUTOMATED VEHICLES daily trips and simply rent the car for those trips. This concept could extend to demand response, or even fixed route transit, where larger vehicles could carry more passengers with common trip origins and destinations, thereby reducing the price per trip.
• Improved parking and land use efficiencies – automated vehicles could change how and where parking is provided, mitigating one of the largest impediments to compact, walkable urban form, which is parking. Vehicles could drop passengers off at the front door at a destination, then self-park at a remote lot or storage facility, then return to the same, or a different door, when summoned.
• Lower transit operating costs – paying drivers is one of the largest expenses for transit operators. Automated transit vehicles can reduce that expense, thereby increasing the feasibility of transit. Furthermore, automated transit vehicles can more efficiently pick up and drop off passengers, both increasing its attractiveness and its operating efficiency.
It is difficult to pinpoint when automated vehicles will become the norm and even more difficult to understand how they will influence future travel and development patterns. Many estimate the percentage of
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 101 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
FIGURE 6.4: CONCEPTUAL STATION AREA EVOLUTION automated cars, trucks, buses and trains will slowly increase, with a small percentage in use by 2020 and full saturation by 2060. The impacts on travel and land use are less clear, but the interest among Brevard’s residents to walk and bike for daily trips suggests the need for creating compact, walkable places despite the potential of the technology. It is also quite possible, as suggested above, for the technology to support both compact urban forms and multimodal travel.
Of importance to the corridor analysis is the potential impact of automated vehicles on roadway capacities and the resulting impact Example of present day typical on needed rights of way along multimodal shopping development corridors. As noted above, some speculate that automated vehicles can more than double existing roadway capacities on limited access roads and half again the capacity on interrupted flow arterials. With all vehicles automated, the potential four-lane arterial capacity increases to 60,000 vehicles per day compared to the current capacity of 40,000 vehicles per day. Such capacity increases mitigate the need for dedicated rights of way for private vehicles along multimodal corridors, providing room for other forms of travel, such as sidewalks, bike lanes and BRT. In spite of the efficiency improvements associated Potential future redevelopment of with automated vehicle technologies, present day site that supports transit roadway capacity improvements, including widening existing roadways and developing new roadways in some areas, are also needed in some areas that are expected to continue growing with suburban development patterns, particularly in Palm Bay and Viera. he goal is to create communities The transportation strategies included in that have services and both the Metaplan and the Vision Plan T thus represent a comprehensive tool employment centers within walking set of transportation improvements. distance of residential neighborhoods. LAND USE STRATEGIES The metaplan synthesis revealed a policy emphasis on mixed-use, higher density, and clustered developments, particularly in downtown areas, to promote shared parking facilities and a variety
102 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
of housing types and prices; minimize carbon footprints and greenhouse gases (GHGs); and encourage non-automotive modes of travel. The goal is to create communities that have services and employment centers within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. These types of developments are encouraged for both new developments and redevelopments.
Transit oriented development (TOD) is fundamental to the success of the multimodal and premium transit strategies outlined above in the strategic corridors. The reorientation and intensification of land uses in transit station areas is crucial to the success of premium transit, in terms of attracting transit riders to the system. Federal and state funding support is doubtful without assurances the transit investment will generate sufficient ridership. There are only a few places in Brevard, including downtown Titusville, Cocoa and Melbourne, all built during the heyday of rail travel, that have the form and structure necessary to support premium transit. However, although each has a fine grain street network and diverse land uses, all lack transit supportive development intensities because all have lost jobs and housing to suburban development in western Brevard County. For station areas identified in the transit system plan outside of those three communities, both intensities and development patterns must fundamentally change.
The place type definitions developed for the scenario planning process detailed in a previous chapter represent the range of land use archetypes, some of which are ubiquitous in Brevard County, others are less common. The implicit strategies in the place type definitions, all designed to address the vision goals derived from community and stakeholder input, include economic development in port and historic downtown areas, housing and travel choices, and compact development
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 103 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
that minimizes environmental damage. The development types in walkable transit organization of those place types and land use station areas along multimodal corridors strategies, as they relate to corridors, include three with the intensity and mix of land uses overarching location types for development: that support premium transit.
• Intermodal hubs – includes urban core, The vision calls for fundamental changes in traditional neighborhood, and multifamily both the types of land uses and transportation development types in and around the county’s investments expected to come into being slowly space, air, and sea ports as well as existing over time. This process will require coordinated and and planned rail and truck terminals. concerted planning and implementation efforts by a number of partners, including the TPO, the Florida • Regional multimodal hubs – includes urban Department of Transportation, Brevard County core and multifamily development in the and cities in Brevard County. While suburban historical towns along the FEC railroad and auto-oriented developments in the planned well as new larger hubs where walking takes communities in the Viera and Palm Bay areas will priority and multiple travel modes converge. continue to flourish, they must be complemented • Multimodal hubs – includes mobility hub, by transit oriented land use strategies in the urban traditional neighborhood and multifamily core and historical town center areas in order to meet the economic development and community goals at the foundation of this plan update. FIGURE 6.5: STRATEGIC CORRIDORS
US-1 North COMMUTER STRATEGIC CORRIDOR PLANS RAIL US-1 Central This section presents the bridge between the US-1 South vision, the metaplan synthesis and the LRTP. + It focuses on the intermodal and multimodal corridors illustrated on the vision map and summarizes existing conditions along each BUS RAPID corridor and those expected by 2060. The TRANSIT corridor features influencing the feasibility of transitions, as illustrated in Figure 6.6, include:
• Rights of way – the gap between available SR 528 versus needed right of way along each corridor indicates the challenge and COMMUTER Ellis/NASA RAIL potential costs and impacts of roadway and premium transit improvements.
• Existing and future travel demand – identifies the pressures for and potential timing of needed multimodal improvements. SR 520 BUS RAPID Fiske/Stadium • Existing and future multimodal hub TRANSIT Wickham/Minton (station area) activity – identifies the gap between existing development intensities Babcock and those needed to meet transit SR A1A oriented development (TOD) targets that support premium transit investments.
104 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
Analysis of the opportunities, constraints, and needs in each of the ten strategic ach corridor can realistically transition corridors confirms, to varying degrees, from existing auto-centric patterns to that each corridor can realistically E transition from existing auto-centric provide more travel and housing choices. patterns to provide more travel and housing choices. They also indicate the key rights of way, level of service and land use challenges along each corridor. Several overall conclusions are evident: FIGURE 6.6: CORRIDOR LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
• With anticipated mode shifts from more compact development patterns and premium transit, and capacity increases from automated vehicles, the travel demand generated by more intense land uses along each of the corridors does not result in severe congestion.
• Many of the transit station areas currently have or are close to having transit supportive intensities.
• Many corridor segments already have sufficient right of way widths, assuming cross section modifications, to accommodate all modes.
The following sections highlight the proposed multimodal plans and findings in each of the study corridors.
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 105 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
FEC COUNTY-WIDE (INCLUDED IN CORRIDORS 1, 2, and 3)
FIGURE 6.7: US 1 AND FEC The US 1 corridor, including the US 1 roadway and the FEC rail line, is the backbone of the transit system plan. Figure 6.8 presents the potential transit configuration along the corridor, including intercity rail provided by All Aboard Florida with a station in Cocoa, regional commuter rail extending from Micco on the south to Mims on the north, and BRT along US 1.
Opportunities • With a stop at Cocoa, the corridor provides passenger rail connections to major destinations south of Brevard (Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach) via AAF and a possible connection north to Jacksonville in the future.
• Regional commuter rail stops at the county’s original rail stations in Titusville, Cocoa, Eau Gallie, Melbourne and Palm Bay.
• Station at Melbourne International Airport and the Space Coast Regional Airport in Titusville.
• It indirectly connects at the AAF hub in Cocoa with Port Canaveral and the Orlando International Airport.
• BRT along US 1 provides connections from commuter rail stations to locations in-between.
• Rights of way along nearly the entire length of the alignment can accommodate three tracks in the future.
Constraints • The commuter rail station area in Titusville will need additional intensity to support commuter rail service.
106 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
Vision Plan - Strategic Corridors
Details of each of theses strategic corridors are included in the following tables and figures.
1A
US 1
SR 50 I-95
1B
SR 407
SR 528 Legend 4A 4B Bus Rapid Transit Line
SR 520 1C 6 Commuter Rail Line 10A
2A SR A1A 7
10B 2B Pineda Extention 8A
10C 5A 8B 2C
US 192 5B 3A 9A 8C 3B
US 1 9B I-95 3C
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 107 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING , with 2060 daily about half of the corridor will US 1: SOUTH , although four will be sufficient with Future traffic levels will require six Future congestion is likely along the entire • lanes at most mode shifts and automated vehicles • Needed travel lanes, including BRT, requires 140 feet of right way; require additional right of way • Additional station area intensities are needed throughout • corridor assuming existing lanes 3A: US 192 to Port Malabar volumes ranging from 70,000 in the northern sections and 50,000 in the south 3B: Port Malabar to Valkaria Rd the to support for BRT requiring up , will extend along (110 feet) and two BRT not accounting for mode US 1: CENTRAL additional right of way • With mode shifts and automated vehicles need for additional highway capacity could drop to six traffic lanes lanes (30 feet), a total of 140 feet • Many of the station areas can support BRT in long term assuming the Vision land use plan • There are several sections near and south of Eau Gallie needing service • The Cocoa and Eau Gallie commuter rail station areas will require additional intensities BRT service • Future congestion, shifts and automated vehicles much of this corridor, with daily traffic volumes nearing 100,000 in several sections, to 10 traffic lanes 2A: Downtown Cocoa to Viera Blvd 2B: Viera Blvd to Lake Washington 2C: Lake Washington to Downtown Melbourne 3C: Valkaria Rd to Micco US 1: NORTH congestion is anticipated to for nearly the entire corridor ROW constraints on the segment Right of way for BRT and future traffic demand • 1C: Williams Point to SR 520 1A: Mims to Country Club Dr 1B: Cheney Hwy (SR 50) to Fay Blvd is adequate • Nearly all station areas have the needed intensities for BRT by 2060 under the Vision land use • There are within Titusville where the road splits into a one- way pair • With the exception of stations in Titusville area, existing densities are not sufficient to support BRT in the near term • Congestion will be an issue along the one-way pair segments •With new and redevelopment efforts focused along the US 1 corridor, occur on various segments from SR 528 to north of Kings Hwy Corridor Segment(s) Opportunities Constraints Congestion
108 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING in the future if cross pose the primary challenge SR 520 west of Cocoa will one way pair in Cocoa and the Indian • Rights of way for traffic and BRT are adequate nearly the entire length of corridor • Future year station area population and employment are near TOD targets • The River Bridge crossing for multimodal improvements in this corridor • Much of the corridor experience congestion section remains at four lanes • Mode shift and automated vehicles may mitigate the congestion 6: West of I-95 to Cocoa Beach ,which supports needed for a of the Pineda Causeway significant issue along I-95 Interstate 95/Ellis Rd/NASA Blvd potential extension , the need to protect adequate right of way Right of way along the N/S portion route 5A: Pineda Causeway to Ellis Rd • The 5B: I-95 to US 1 can provide the right of way passenger rail connection from the Orlando Intl. Airport to the Melbourne Intl. • East of I-95, the rail connection would have to swing south to connect Ellis Rd/NASA Pkwy • is complex because of existing power and gas lines along I-95, and the need to accommodate extension of the Washingtonia from Ellis Rd to the Viera property • Right of way along both Ellis and NASA is limited, particularly along with the western portion of Ellis • Congestion is a segment from Pineda to Ellis need for Washingtonia Extension project adding to the will impact the level of SR 528 (Beachline) includes a number of interchange growth in both cruise passengers 4A: Orange County Line to US 1 • The optimal cross section for this limited access facility is 300 feet, allowing for proper drainage and clearance zones for high speed travel; Much of the right of way west US 1 is 300 feet 4B: US 1 to Port Canaveral • Right of way east US 1 drops to around 200 feet • The corridor and river crossing bridges complexity and cost of any major raodway transit improvement • Future Port and freight activities congestion significantly along this corridor Corridor Segment(s) Opportunities Constraints Congestion
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 109 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING , existing BRT may be to accommodate SR A1A insufficient rights of way Mode shifts and automated vehicles Unique to this corridor feasible along the corridor in short term • There are for traffic lanes plus BRT along much of the corridor, with optimal cross section requiring 110 feet and the existing widths typically around 100 feet • will be necessary future travel demands as current policy does not support widening 10C: Satellite Beach to US 1/US 192 • intensities for most stations areas meet BRT targets, suggesting 10A: Port Canaveral to Cocoa Beach 10B: Cocoa Beach to Satellite Babcock St , with 2060 daily volumes Additional rights of way for Congestion is expected for • both four and six traffic lanes plus two BRT lanes are necessary along much of the corridor • Four traffic lanes will accommodate 2060 traffic demand along most of the corridor except for the section between Malabar and Valkaria, which requires six • most of the corridor south US 192 reaching 70,000 between Malabar and Valkaria • TOD targets are met at nearly all the station areas , with nearly the Wickham/Minton/Malabar primary challenge for this • The corridor is right of way entire length east of I-95 near or less than the 110 feet needed • Future year congestion is expected along nearly the entire length of corridor 8B: Lake Washington to Palm Bay Rd8C: Palm Bay Rd to US 1 9B: Malabar Rd to I-95 8A: Stadium to Lake Washington 9A: US 1 to Malabar Rd • A future cross section of four traffic lanes and two BRT will accommodate 2060 demand assuming mode shifts and automated vehicles • Most station areas will meet the targeted intensities Fiske/Stadium Future year congestion is • Marginal increases in station area intensities will be needed to support BRT service • likely on nearly the entire length of the corridor • Mode shifts and automated vehicles may mitigate the need for more than four traffic lanes 7: SR 520 to Viera • Rights of way along nearly the entire length of the corridor are adequate for four taffic lanes and two BRT lanes • Future year station area intensities are near targets at all potential locations Constraints Congestion Corridor Segment(s) Opportunities
110 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C C C s es es es n n n e 0 a a a l l l 30 4 30 060 4 4 4 ervic S of daily trips C C ear 2 olumes olumes Note: olumes in 000s Note: olumes evels ofevels 30 20
olumes olumes ear 2010 ear
evel Transit evels of evels Service Bus Rapid Bus
Commuter Rail Commuter ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by 215
Potential Lanes BRT
ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’)
4 lanes 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W *One-way pair 57 73 58 47 138 168 145 128 162 157 226 199 295 301 297 128 111 164 103 114 188
Right of Way required for ultimate 3 tracks
1 track 1 tracks 2 Railroad R W Width R W 56 53 51 60 98 104 104 113 127 104 160 150 103 303 196 SR 46 Country Club Dr Dairy Rd Harrison St CORRIDOR 1A: US 1 NORTH- CORRIDOR 1A: US 1 NORTH- MIMS TO COUNTRY CLUB DR CLUB MIMS TO COUNTRY Titusville Rd N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius
Parrish Rd Parrish
FIGURE 6.8 :
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 111 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C 50 50 50 e lanes lanes lanes 6 6 6 060 ervic S olumes ear 2 C C evels ofevels 30 30 30 Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes Service evels of evels olumes olumes ear 2010 ear
Bus Rapid Transit Transit Rapid Bus
Commuter Rail Commuter ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by
ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
6 lanes 6 lanes 4 R W Width R W 156 205 183 118 157 140 212 141 146
Right of Way required for ultimate 3 tracks
2 tracks 2 3 tracks 3 tracks 2 Railroad R W Width R W 85 104 114 103 123 CHENEY HWY TO FAY BLVD CHENEY HWY TO FAY CORRIDOR 1B: US 1 NORTH- CORRIDOR 1B: US 1 NORTH- Fay Blvd Fay King Hwy Columbia Blvd N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius
FIGURE 6.9 :
112 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING s p tri y C C C C C C s s s es es n n 50 30 40 50 40 e a a lane l l lane lane 6 4 4 6 6 ervic S
C evels ofevels 30 40 30 20 ear 2060 olumes ear 2060 olumes Note: olumes in 000s of dail Note: olumes olumes olumes ear 2010 ear
evels of evels Service Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus
Commuter Rail Commuter ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Potential Lanes BRT Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’)
4 lanes 4 6 lanes 6 R W Width R W 144 143 135 157 143 184 174 122 132 324
1 track 1 tracks 2 track 1 3 tracks 3 tracks 2 97 107 98 100 Railroad R W Width R W Railroad 103 184 136 148 100 290 SR 520 for ultimatefor 3 tracks Right of required Way CORRIDOR 1C: US 1 NORTH- CORRIDOR 1C: US 1 NORTH- WILLIAMS POINT TO SR 520 Dixon Blvd Dixon N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius SR 528 Camp Rd
FIGURE 6.10 :
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 113 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING s s s s s s e 0 0 80 80 80 9 7 060 100 lane lane lane lane lane 8 8 8 8 ervic lane 8 S 8 olumes ear 2 ear evels ofevels C Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 40 50 50 40 50 40
olumes olumes ear 2010 ear Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus
evels of evels Service
Commuter Rail Commuter ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by Potential Lanes BRT Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’)
ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
6 lanes 6 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W 150 135 159 157 127
Right of Way required for ultimate 3 tracks
1 track 1 tracks 2 Railroad R W Width R W 97 81 100 110 102 105 Viera Blvd N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS Barnes Blvd CORRIDOR 2A: US 1 CENTRAL- CORRIDOR 2A: US 1 CENTRAL- Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius DOWNTOWN COCOA TO VIERA BLVD Eyster Blvd
Downtown Cocoa Downtown
: FIGURE 6.11
114 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C e 80 60 50 100 lanes 060 6 lanes lanes lanes ervic 8 8 8 S ear 2 olumes olumes C evels ofevels Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 50 40 50 60
Service evels of evels Transit Rapid Bus
olumes olumes ear 2010 ear
Commuter Rail Commuter ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
4 lanes 4 6 lanes 6 R W Width R W
145 109 106 123 133 114 168 135 250
2 tracks 2 1track Railroad Railroad R W Width R W 93 95 101 148 133 109 100 113 required for required for Right of Way ultimate 3 tracks Post Rd Post N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS Pineda Causeway CORRIDOR 2B: US 1 CENTRAL- CORRIDOR 2B: US 1 CENTRAL- Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius VIERA BLVD TO LAKE WASHINGTON RD TO LAKE WASHINGTON VIERA BLVD
Viera Blvd
FIGURE 6.12 :
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 115 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C C s s s s s s 0 e 50 60 7 60 40 50 60 060 lane lane lane lane lane lane ervic 6 8 8 8 6 6 8 lanes S ear 2 olumes olumes C C evels ofevels Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 50 50 60 30 40 50 40
olumes olumes ear 2010 ear evels of evels Service
ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) 6 lanes 6 R W Width R W
93
93 150 104 190 109 160 115
2 tracks 2 1 track 1 1 track 1 Railroad Railroad R W Width R W 79 101 105 117 required for required for Right of Way ultimate 3 tracks Downtown Melbourne Downtown Nasa Rd N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS CORRIDOR 2C: US 1 CENTRAL- CORRIDOR 2C: US 1 CENTRAL- Laurie St Melbourne International Airport Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius d n R o Eau Gallie Blvd Lake Rd Washington LAKE WASHINGTON TO DNTN MELBOURNE LAKE WASHINGTON
FIGURE 6.13 :
116 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C s s s s s s 0 0 e 60 50 50 4 4 70 lane lane lane lane lane lane 8 8 6 6 6 6 060 ervic S ear 2 olumes olumes C evels ofevels Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes
40 30 40 30 50 50 Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus olumes olumes ear 2010 ear
evels of evels Service
Commuter Rail Commuter ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’)
6 lanes 6 8 lanes 8 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W 95 102 184 164 101 162 156 198 101 130 214 152 158
Right of Way
required for required for ultimate 3 tracks
1 track 1 tracks 2 track 1 Railroad Railroad R W Width R W 95 93 100 261 212 121 201 US 192 TO PORT MALABAR MALABAR US 192 TO PORT CORRIDOR 3A: US 1 SOUTH– CORRIDOR 3A: US 1 SOUTH– Port Malabar Blvd Port N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS Palm Bay Rd Palm Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius Shenandoah Rd
: US 1 SOUTH: CORRIDOR 3A: US 192 TO CAPE MALABAR FIGURE 6.14 : US 1 SOUTH: CORRIDOR 3A: 192 TO
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 117 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING s 50 lane 6 060 ervice S ear 2 olumes olumes Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes evels ofevels 30
olumes olumes ear 2010 ear Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus evels of evels Service
Commuter Rail Commuter ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W
145 131 137 173 151 123 1 track 1 Railroad Railroad R W Width R W 93 97 99 104 126 205 106 189 167 required for required for Right of Way ultimate 3 tracks Valkaria Rd Valkaria CORRIDOR 3B: US 1 SOUTH– CORRIDOR 3B: US 1 SOUTH– d PORT MALABAR TO VALKARIA RD PORT r R N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS a b a l a Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius MalabarM Rd
: US 1 SOUTH: CORRIDOR 3B: CAPE MALABER TO VALKARIA RD VALKARIA FIGURE 6.15 : US 1 SOUTH: CORRIDOR 3B: CAPE MALABER TO
118 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING s 50 lane 6 ervice S olumes evels ofevels Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 30
olumes olumes ear 2010 ear Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus
evels of evels Service
Commuter Rail Commuter bs n o ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W 135 156 223 144 140
Right of Way required for ultimate 3 tracks
2 tracks 2 1 track 1 1 track 1 Railroad Railroad R W Width R W 87 99 142 107 100 130 116 Micco Rd VALKARIA RD TO MICCO RD VALKARIA RD TO MICCO CORRIDOR 3C: US 1 SOUTH– CORRIDOR 3C: US 1 SOUTH– d rant R Grant Rd G N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius
: US 1 SOUTH: CORRIDOR 3C: VALKARIA RD TO MICCO RD RD TO FIGURE 6.16 : US 1 SOUTH: CORRIDOR 3C: VALKARIA
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 119 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes
301
0 7 C
Commuter Rail
295
40
I-95 306
2 lanes 2 lanes 60
300
CORRIDOR 4A: SR 528 – CORRIDOR 4A: SR 528 – 396 C
ORANGE COUNTY LINE TO US 1 ORANGE COUNTY LINE TO US 1
e of evels ervic S evels of Service of evels
R W Width R W
olumes olumes olumes olumes
060 2 ear ear 2010 ear N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS
Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius FIGURE 6.17 : SR
120 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes
88
a l 4 es n
30 20
Note: Alignment across the anana River to be determined by further study. to be determined by the anana River Note: Alignment across 4 lanes 349
a l 4 es n
50 30 185 Commuter Rail ANAVERAL
C
240
es a n l 4
40 0 ORT 7
P 460
2 lanes 2 lanes
240
Courtenay Pkwy Courtenay 203 CORRIDOR 4B: SR 528 –
US 1 TO
e es n a l 4
80 60
219
US 1 US
R W Width R W evels of Service of evels e ervic S of evels
olumes olumes olumes olumes
ear 2010 ear 060 2 ear N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS
Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius FIGURE 6.18 : S
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 121 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C 0 4 e 150 1 lanes lanes 8 060 8 ervic S olumes ear 2 evels ofevels Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 80 70 olumes olumes ear 2010 ear
evels of evels Service ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by
ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
3 lanes 3 3 lanes 3 R W Width R W ineda llis d ineda 300 401 293 341 232 d rant R Grant Rd G N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS
Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius y Eau Gallie Blvd Pineda Cswy
CORRIDOR 5A: PINEDA / ELLIS ROAD / CORRIDOR 5A: PINEDA / ELLIS ROAD /
NASA BLVD– PINEDA CSWY TO ELLIS RD PINEDA CSWY TO ELLIS RD NASA BLVD– FIGURE 6.19 :
122 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX
PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
Apollo Blvd Apollo
n a es l 4
30 20 96
n a es l 4
146
0 2 10 Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 4 lanes C C
Commuter Rail
51
es n a l 4
20 30
Wickham Rd Wickham
145
n es a l 4
20 10 40
ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by
ervice S of evels evels of Service of evels
ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
olumes olumes olumes olumes
R W Width R W 060 ear 2 ear ear 2010 ear
llis d l d Apollo Blvd Apollo d rant R / NASA BLVD– I-95 TO US 1 / NASA BLVD– Grant Rd G N R A C R RA R NA C R RA N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius
CORRIDOR 5B: PINEDA / ELLIS ROAD CORRIDOR 5B: PINEDA / ELLIS ROAD
Wickham Rd Wickham
I-95
FIGURE 6.20 :
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 123 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
A1A
Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes
8 lanes (140’) lanes 8
required for required
Right of way of Right
es a l 4 n
6 lanes (110’) lanes 6 30
required for required Right of way of Right
196
4 lanes 30 C C Transit Bus Rapid
BRT Lanes BRT s lane 6
0 4
Potential
s lane 6
30 132
s lane 6
122 6 lanes 50 60
CourtenayPkwy
s lane 6
80
60 90
140
s lane 6
50 60
193
220
30 US 1 US
101 200
C
es a l 4 n
20 0 4 228 4 lanes
CORRIDOR 6: SR 520– CORRIDOR 6: SR 520–
I-95 200
WEST OF I-95 TO COCOA BEACH
e ervic S f o evels evels of Service of evels R W Width R W
olumes olumes olumes
060 2 ear ear 2010 ear N R A C R RA R NA C R RA N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS
ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by
Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius
ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs : SR 520: CORRIDOR 6: WEST OF I-95 TO COCOA BEACH COCOA FIGURE 6.21 : SR 520: CORRIDOR 6: WEST OF I-95 TO
124 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING e ervic S
060 ear 2 evels ofevels olumes s s s s s 40 50 40 50 40 50 lane lane lane lane lane 6 6 lanes 6 6 6 6
C Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 30 20 10 20 olumes olumes ear 2010 ear s
evel evels of evels Service
s b ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W is e l d 101 150 190 150 130 COCOA TO VIERA COCOA TO VIERA 314 SR 520 St Andrews Dr St Andrews 12 pt Viera Blvd CORRIDOR 7: FISKE / STADIUM– CORRIDOR 7: FISKE / STADIUM– N R A C R RA R NA C R RA N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS Eyster Blvd Tuckaway Dr Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius
FIGURE 6.22 :
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 125 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C C s s s s s es es n n e 60 30 40 30 40 50 40 a a lane l lane l lane lane lane 060 8 4 6 4 6 6 6 ervic S ear 2 olumes olumes evels ofevels C C Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 40 30 20 40 30 olumes olumes ear 2010 ear
evels of evels Service Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W ic ham d 95 85 150 100 112 127 115 150 100 102 Post Rd Post Lake Washington Rd Washington Lake Pineda Cswy N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS Suntree Blvd Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius CORRIDOR 8A: WICKHAM/MINTON/ Baytree Dr MALABAR– STADIUM TO LAKE WASHINGTON TO LAKE WASHINGTON MALABAR– STADIUM
Lake Andrew Dr Andrew Lake
FIGURE 6.23 :
126 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C C 0 0 0 es es es es es n n n n n 4 30 4 50 30 50 4 e a a a a a l l l lanes l lanes l 060 4 4 4 6 4 6 4 ervic S ear 2 olumes olumes evels ofevels C C Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 30 40 30 40 olumes olumes ear 2010 ear
evels of evels Service
it ransit Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Ra Bus Bus s ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by
ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W 80 92 81 102 125 133 102 129 219 319 ic ham d d inton Lake Lake Rd Washington N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS
Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius Eau Gallie Blvd Nasa Blvd US 192 Rd Fell CORRIDOR 8B: WICKHAM / MINTON / CORRIDOR 8B: WICKHAM / MINTON MALABAR– LAKE WASHINGTON TO PALM BAY BAY TO PALM MALABAR– LAKE WASHINGTON
: WICKHAM/MINTON/MALABAR: CORRIDOR 8B: LAKE WASHINGTON RD TO PALM BAY RD BAY PALM RD TO CORRIDOR 8B: LAKE WASHINGTON FIGURE 6.24 : WICKHAM/MINTON/MALABAR:
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 127 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C es es es n n n 30 40 60 30 20 a a a lanes l lanes l l 6 4 6 6 lanes 4 4 e 060 ervic S ear 2 olumes olumes C evels ofevels Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 40 30 20 40 10
olumes olumes ear 2010 ear Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus evels of evels Service ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’)
4 lanes 4 lanes 6 lanes 2 R W Width R W inton d 70 60 178 232 120 136 231 185 231 183 133 190 129 115 294
US 1 Malabar Rd Babcock St N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS San Filippo Dr Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius MALABAR– PALM BAY RD TO US 1 BAY MALABAR– PALM CORRIDOR 8C: WICKHAM / MINTON / CORRIDOR 8C: WICKHAM / MINTON Palm Bay Rd Palm
Americana Blvd
FIGURE 6.25 :
128 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C C s e s s es es 0 n n 060 a a 4 20 30 40 50 lane ervic l l lane lane 6 S 4 4 6 6 ear 2 olumes olumes evels ofevels C C C C C Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 20 30 40 30 50 40 olumes olumes ear 2010 ear evels of evels Service ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W abcoc t 70 73 80 79 96 101 114 102 114 116 108 120 177 113 107 130 191 256 US 1 Nasa Blvd US 1 TO MALABAR RD US 1 TO MALABAR RD Malabar Rd CORRIDOR 9A: BABCOCK– CORRIDOR 9A: BABCOCK– N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS
Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius US 192 Blvd University Bay Rd Palm Malabar Blvd Port
FIGURE 6.26 :
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 129 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C e 0 7 60 50 060 lanes lanes lanes ervic 8 8 6 S ear 2 olumes olumes evels ofevels C C C Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 30 20 10 olumes olumes ear 2010 ear evels of evels Service
Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by
ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W abcoc t abcoc 86 73 98 94 236 206 113 108 217 108 222 Potential BRT Lanes BRT required for required for Right of way Right of way 8 lanes (140’) 6 lanes (110’) Malabar Rd
MALABAR RD TO I-95 MALABAR RD TO I-95 CORRIDOR 9B: BABCOCK– CORRIDOR 9B: BABCOCK– N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS Grant Rd Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius Valkaria Rd Valkaria
FIGURE 6.27 :
130 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C C f s s s 0 s s e es 50 4 30 n 50 30 060 a lane lane lane l els o lane lane ervic v 6 6 6 4 6 6 S e ear 2 olumes olumes C C C Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 40 30 40 30 30 20 30 Service
evels of evels
olumes olumes ear 2010 ear Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus
ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’)
senal 6 senal 4 R W Width R W 96 91 100 102 74 98 88 111 197 111 349 11th St SR 528 CORRIDOR 10A: SR A1A– CORRIDOR 10A: SR A1A– N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS
Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius SR 520 Minutemen Cswy PORT CANAVERAL TO COCOA BEACH CANAVERAL TO COCOAPORT BEACH
FIGURE 6.28 :
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 131 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C C e es es es n n n a a a 060 l l l 30 40 30 4 4 4 ervic S ear 2 olumes olumes C evels ofevels Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 30
olumes olumes ear 2010 ear Bus Rapid Transit Rapid Bus evels of evels Service
ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W 117 89 99 Jackson Ave Jackson Pineda Cswy Jupiter St Jupiter CORRIDOR 10B: SR A1A– CORRIDOR 10B: SR A1A– N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius COCOA BEACH TO SATELLITE BEACH COCOA BEACH BEACH TO SATELLITE
N R A C R RA R NA C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S N R S RA RANS N R C R RA R NA S RA RANS
Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius FIGURE 6.29 :
132 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING C C C C C C e s es es 060 n n a a ervic 30 40 30 40 l l lane S 4 4 6 ear 2 olumes olumes evels ofevels C C Note: olumes in 000s of daily trips Note: olumes 30 20 30
olumes olumes ear 2010 ear evels of evels Service Transit Rapid Bus
ct based on existing existing ct based on residents and obs forecasts ct based on of residents and obs 2060 by ct belo recommended minimum 2060 by ercent of ercent recommended station area residents and obs
Potential Lanes BRT
Right of way required for 8 lanes (140’) Right of way required for 6 lanes (110’) 4 lanes 4 R W Width R W 99 81 94 95 70 83 107 109 117 101 Downtown Melbourne US 192
CORRIDOR 10C: SR A1A– CORRIDOR 10C: SR A1A– N R A C R RA R NA C R RA N R C R RA R NA N R A RA RANS S R NA S RA RANS N R S RA RANS e v Eau Gallie Blvd A Station Areas represent 1/2 mile al sheds radius o s
ackson A Jackson Ave Jackson
SATELLITE BEACH TO US 1/US 192 BEACHSATELLITE TO US 1/US 192 FIGURE 6.30 :
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 133 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
MULTI-MODAL CORRIDOR WORKSHOP The strategic corridors were presented to municipal stakeholders and the public at large in March 2015 to obtain buy-in and comment on the associated transportation and land use strategies. The workshops included a detailed presentation of the community input from the initial public survey, transportation symposium, scenario choices workshops, and vision plan workshop, all of which led to the identification and detailing of the corridors. The opportunities, constraints, and needs within each of the corridors were presented graphically in plots of each corridor. Participants were given the opportunity to review and discuss each corridor in an open house setting. A poll and comment card was also developed for each corridor to collect specific input on the level of support for multimodal and premium transit strategy in each corridor (Figure 6.31). The results of the poll varied by corridor, with the I-95/ Ellis corridor getting highly supported by 40% of participants but the SR 520 corrridor received 93%. The other corridors ranged from 67% to 88% of people rating them in the two highest categories of support.
In addition to the poll on the strategic corridors, participants were encouraged to provide open-ended comments. The input that was received included an array of both specific and general comments on transportation and growth issues in Brevard County, all of which were incorporated into the needs assessment process and given due consideration in the assembly and evaluation of needed improvements. Comments included:
• Pineda Connection has great opportunity for future growth from Viera Regional Commercial at I-95
• Consider water transportation
• Consider growth in Titusville area
134 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
• Consider limited stop commuter • Most people drive 1/2 hour to work. This rail to minimize adverse impact is a long walk or bike to job clusters transportation in cities • Consider improving the intersection • Consider a connection to Sebastian Inlet at US-1 and SR 528
• Consider more A1A crosswalks in Indialantic, • Consider the increasingly heavy particularly in the middle stretch of the town. truck traffic out of Port Canaveral There are virtually no lights/crosswalks through the center stretch of town • Consider the growth in cruise passenger traffic, particularly multimodal • Consider local bus connections like needs at Port Canaveral Patrick from Eau Gallie to Ocean Blvd • Port Canaveral expansion will increase • Improvements should minimize the impacts the need for rail in SR 528 corridor on residential properties adjacent to the corridor. Additional noise and/or property • SR 520 is approaching capacity and taking impacts should be avoided at all costs. alternates to more lanes are necessary
• Impacts to residential properties • Consider improvements to Courtenay Parkway along A1A should be minimized • Stadium Parkway provides an important
FIGURE 6.31: SUPPORT FOR PREMIUM TRANSIT BY CORRIDOR
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% US 1 A1A SR 528 SR 520 I-95 / Ellis Fiske Blvd / Wickham / Babcock Stadium Minton
Low 2 3 4 5 High
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 135 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
connection to the St Johns Heritage Parkway, A final piece of input solicited from participants was serving the growing demand of Palm Bay an evaluation of the workshop, in terms of location, and relieving other north/south corridors schedule, format, and overall effectiveness of the meeting (Figure 6.32). Results of that evaluation • Low income residents rely on mass for the corridor workshop were positive, with all transit, especially in Cocoa area of the elements rated “super” or “good”, with • The Viera Connection to US 1 is only one receiving a “fair” rating from some an important improvement responders. The day/time scheduling of the workshop was rated as “fair” by 7% of participants. • The Babcock corridor is very important, as it serves a high work commute demand
• The Minton, St. Johns Heritage Parkway, and US 192 corridors are very important to serve the growing Palm Bay west area.
FIGURE 6.32: WORKSHOP EVALUATION
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% Location Day/Time Advance Program Presentation Overall Registration Format Rating
Poor Fair Good Super
136 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT NEEDS FIGURE 6.33: SUMMARY NEEDS MATRIX The corridors that were assembled for analysis and evaluation in the needs plan include a mix of roadway, rail, and multimodal corridor types, based on the urban form and function of the respective corridors. There are two broad classifications for the purpose of the LRTP analysis, including:
Highway CapacityTransit CapacityBike/Ped andITS Complete StreetsOther HighwayCorridor Ops Study Implementations • Intermodal roads and rail – provide inter-regional connectivity to and Babcock between the quintimodal logistics Banana River Dr. hubs in and around Brevard. Clearlake / SR 524 Culver and Norfolk • Multimodal – provide connectivity Dairy Rd via multiple travel options between Brevard’s neighborhoods, intermodal Deering Parkway logistics hubs, multimodal hubs and Dixon Blvd major high tech employment centers. Eau Gallie Blvd Ellis Rd A total of twenty corridors emerged Eyster Blvd from the metaplan synthesis, primarily Grissom Blvd the following plans/programs: Hollywood Blvd 1. 2035 LRTP Lake Andrew Dr 2. ITS Master Plan Malabar Rd (SR 514) Micco Rd 3. Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trails Mobility Plan Minton Rd 4. Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology Pineda Causeway Pirate Ln 5. SCAT Transit Development Plan Sarno Rd 6. FDOT SIS Plan Space Commerce Way SR A1A The metaplan projects and the ten strategic SR 3 corridors derived from the vision that SR 46 was articulated by the community and SR 405 (South St) stakeholders through surveys and workshops comprise the foundation of the needs plan. SR 406 (Garden St) Together, the thirty corridors represent an SR 520 array of regional, inter-regional, and local SR 528 transportation function, providing mobility St. Johns Heritage Pkwy and connectivity to points within and outside US 1 of Brevard County. The corridor approach US 192 to the development and analysis of the Viera Blvd needs plan, and subsequent cost feasible Washingtonia/Stadium/Fiske plan, highlights the multimodal nature of the plan and the variation of needed Wickham Rd improvements in many of the corridors. The opportunities presented by the
CHAPTER SIX | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 137 PHASE 4: CORRIDOR PLANNING
assortment of specific modal improvement needs are also underlined by this approach. There are several types of synergistic effects that can be capitalized on by combinations of needed improvements, including, but not limited to the following:
1. ITS/Transit – the technological infrastructure improvements used to improve roadway operations, particularly at signalized intersections can be multi-purposed for premium transit operational features including signal priority and signal preemption
2. Roadway expansion/bike or ped roadway improvements to add capacity often include bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Specific identified bicycle and pedestrian improvement needs should be implemented as part of any roadway improvements.
3. Roadway expansion/Transit – opportunities to reserve right-of-way for eventual premium transit improvements should be considered as part of roadway expansion improvements.
The corridor organization of the plan thus facilitates use of the plan as an implementation tool to both maximize synergistic opportunities and prevent situations where some improvements are precluded by the implementation of other improvements. While there will inevitably be either/or situations where project development analysis will sort out the most appropriate improvements within a corridor, in most cases accommodation of multiple modal needs is possible and desired.
Figure 6.33 includes a summary matrix of the needs plan that outlines the range of improvement needs identified for each respective corridor. It is noteworthy that all but two of the corridors include more than one improvement type, with 18 identified for three or more modalities. A complete list of projects by corridor are listed in Chapter 7.
138 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SIX This page intentionally left blank
A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
he development of a cost feasible plan begins with the he ultimate prioritization of needs evaluation and prioritization T projects is based on a composite of needed improvements that ranking system that affirms established Tare not all affordable. The second step is to balance the prioritized improvements against project priorities. projected revenues to ultimately develop a cost constrained set of improvements.
CORRIDOR EVALUATION AND PRIORITIZATION The structure of the cost feasible plan The needs evaluation process consists of two tiers, or involves breaking down the period between steps. The first tier is based on eight criteria that were 2021 and 2040 into four periods, each developed to represent the Vision Goals in terms of consisting of five years. The prioritization of measurable improvement relative to specific elements in the Goals. Each of the criteria were assigned a scale long term improvements is complemented between 1 and 5, used to score corridors and the extent in the cost feasible plan by parallel efforts to which they meet the criteria. The criteria evaluation was applied at the corridor level to take into consideration to prioritize and implement specific types the varying needs and opportunities within each. A of improvements, including capacity, safety corridor, for example, identified as a multimodal corridor that includes needed non-motorized infrastructure and congestion management projects, improvements, as well as highway capacity and ITS some of which are affordable in the short improvements, would score relatively highly, given the need within the corridor to address a broad range of term, between 2016 and 2020. These objectives and the diverse opportunities associated funded projects are listed in the Cost with identified improvements. Table 7.1 outlines the feasible Tables on Pages 171-174 specific criteria and respective scales by Goal. The second evaluation tier involves the prioritization of specific improvements according to their status or level Other improvements, particularly the of historical investment. The purpose of this criteria is to premium transit investments that are central recognize and prioritize the planned improvements that are to the implementation of the Vision Plan, “in the pipeline” and have already undergone study, design, or right-of-way acquisition. A hierarchical project status are not necessarily affordable between scale used to evaluate project status prioritizes projects now and 2040, but with the necessary with funding allocated in the TPO’s 5-year Transportation Improvement Program as the highest priorities, followed by land use and fiscal policy actions, can be projects included in the TPO’s Project Priorities. Figure 7.1 part of a longer term future. This chapter depicts the full scale of project status evaluation criteria. provides the nuts and bolts of the needs The ultimate prioritization of needs projects is based on a evaluation, revenue projections, cost composite ranking system that affirms established project priorities in the context of corridor evaluations by the LRTP feasible plan development, and vision policy goals. Table 7.2 lists the top ten prioritized corridors by the three respective Vision Goals. The first goal, to enhance guidance that are central to the LRTP.
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 141 A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
TABLE 7.1: PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
doesn’t meet GOAL CRITERIA SCALE meets criteria criteria
LEVERAGE ACCESS TO No connection Minor feeder to Major feeder to Direct WHAT IS INTERMODAL to intermodal direct intermodal direct intermodal connection to UNIQUELY HUBS hub connection connection intermodal hub BREVARD
(Enhance ACCESS TO No connection Minor feeder Major feeder Direct economic COMMERCE to commerce to direct to direct connection to development CENTERS center connection connection to employment through to commerce employment center intermodal center center transportation connections) CONGESTED No delay Low amount Medium amount High amount FACILITIES of delay of delay of delay
SECURITY No connection Minor feeder Major feeder Designated to evacuation connection to connection to evacuation route route evacuation route evacuation route
PROVIDE CHOICES AND No non-auto Low non- Moderate non- High non- TRAVEL BALANCE travel auto travel auto travel auto travel CHOICES AND IMPROVE LIVABILITY
(Increase SAFETY No crashes Low crash rate Moderate High crash rate the range of crash rate community, housing and travel options)
PRESERVE AIR QUALITY No or negative Low impact Moderate High impact WHAT IS impact on on air quality impact on on air quality UNIQUELY air quality air quality BREVARD (Balance preservation of the natural environment ACCESS TO No connection Minor feeder Major feeder Direct with economic MULTIMODAL to multimodal to direct to direct connection to development HUBS hub multimodal multimodal multimodal hub and livability) connection connection
142 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
TABLE 7.2: TOP CORRIDORS BY GOAL
GOAL 1: ENHANCE GOAL 2: INCREASE TRAVEL GOAL 3: BALANCE LIVABILITY ECONOMIC CHOICES & ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PRESERVATION
Ellis Rd St. Johns Heritage Pkwy SR A1A I-95 US 192 US 1 SR 407 Wickham Rd Fiske/Stadium Pkwy US 192 US 1 Babcock St Babcock St Fiske/Stadium Pkwy Malabar Rd SR 528 SR 520 US 192 US 1 SR 3 Wickham Rd SR 3 SR 406 St. Johns Heritage Pkwy Clearlake Rd Ellis Rd SR 520 Space Commerce Way Lake Andrew Dr Ellis Rd
economic development, clearly favors those FIGURE 7.1: PROJECT STATUS SCALE corridors that connect to major commerce centers and intermodal hubs. The second goal, PROGRAMMED IN TIP FOR to increase travel choices, favors corridors PRE-CONSTRUCTION FUNDING with multimodal and safety improvement needs. The third goal, to balance livability and environmental preservation, prioritizes INCLUDED IN TPO PROJECT PRIORITIES those corridors that maximize access to multimodal hubs identified in the Vision Plan. INCLUDED IN 2035 LRTP COST FEASIBLE PLAN The prioritization results of the corridors and respective improvements are reflected in the prioritized cost feasible plan INCLUDED IN 2035 LRTP UNFUNDED project list in Table 7.13 on page 168. PRIORITIES It should be noted that the Cost Feasible Plan does not address any transit needs. The funding INCLUDED IN PARTNER AGENCY MASTER PLAN constraints do not allow for the expansion of transit in the near future. Chapter 8, Implementing the Vision focuses on this OTHER EXISTING PLANS shortcoming of the cost feasible plan.
The following sections highlight some of the key elements of the LRTP, in terms of objectives and improvement types that play a significant role in the prioritization of improvements. Management of congestion, safety, security, and freight movement are part and parcel of the plan; indeed, they represent the undeniable pillars of the plan.
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 143 A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
Each of these specific areas of improvement are addressed below, some with references to parallel processes undertaken by the TPO to advance these important objectives.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT As one of the primary objectives of any transportation plan, mobility and the alleviation of congestion plays a crucial role in this LRTP. The Texas Transportation Institute’s 2012 Annual Mobility Report found that the average commuter in the United States endured 38 hours of delay in 2012, compared to only 16 hours in 1982 and that the cost of congestion is over $120 billion annually, or more than $800 for every commuter. Congestion is clearly more than a mere inconvenience and must be dealt with effectively to further economic development interests.
Two of the prominent desires that emerged in the community and stakeholder visioning and scenario planning process were to support the growth of the County’s intermodal transportation connections and to support the continued growth of the County’s high tech industrial commerce. The success of both of these expressed desires is at least partially dependent on the efficient movement of people and goods in and around Brevard County. Mitigation of congested roadways, therefore, represents a central goal of the 2040 LRTP. Facilities that provide access to the County’s commerce centers intermodal hubs are of particular importance to achieving success.
Specific measurable objectives of the LRTP include:
• Promote economic development through the improved performance of highway and rail facilities providing connections to intermodal hubs and commerce centers.
144 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
• Improve mobility for people and in that first period are numerous intersection freight on the regional transportation improvements designed to optimize the traffic system within the County. flow at intersections identified as hot spots.
• Employ operational strategies to The TPO’s annual update of the Space Coast optimize the performance of the County’s State of the System Report (SOS) represents transportation infrastructure. its Congestion Management Plan (CMP), which includes a detailed monitoring system that tracks: There are both short- and long-term strategies to address these objectives, including capital • Congestion investments in the County’s arterial and limited access roadways providing access to major • Safety economic generators like ports, downtown areas, • Mode choice and other emerging employment centers as well as incremental improvements in the County’s ITS • and other metrics. system. $65 million is allocated in the cost feasible plan toward implementation of the Space Coast Figure 7.2 portrays the process used by the TPO ITS Master Plan, including $8 million in the first to prioritize and program short term congestion period beyond the Transportation Improvement management improvements. Program horizon, from 2021 to 2025. Other congestion management improvements included Congestion Management Process FIGURE 7.2: SCTPO CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS
System Performance Measures
Coordinated Data Collection
STATE OF THE SYSTEM REPORT Process Flow Segment System Trends & LRTP Strategy Potential Process Flow Technical Conditions Recommendations Ranking Measures
Prepare Strategy Strategy Findings State of the Recommendations System Report
Coordination & Prioritization (Project Priorities)
Programming (Transportation Improvement Program)
Strategy Implementation Evaluation
Monitoring Source: Space Coast State of the System Report
18 of 100
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 145 A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
TABLE 7.3: HIGH CRASH INTERSECTIONS AND SEGMENTS SAFETY IN PRIORITIZED ORDER Improving the safety of the transportation system in Brevard County is another Intersections Improvement Period integral piece of the transportation planning Sarno & Wickham Corridor study TBD puzzle, one that plays a major role in any and all infrastructure improvements, across Babcock & Palm Bay Highway capacity 2021-2025 modes and across improvement types. Emerson & Minton Highway capacity 2026-2030 The TPO’s efforts to measure and track Hollywood & Palm Bay Highway capacity 2031-2035 safety performance at the intersection Post & Wickham Intersection 2021-2025 and segment level through the Annual improvement Countywide Safety Report demonstrates a commitment to safety. Analysis of Babcock & Malabar Highway capacity 2021-2025 prioritized intersections and segments Eau Gallie & Wickham Intersection 2021-2025 in the report and the safety data utilized improvement in it was instrumental in the prioritization Minton & US 192 & Wickham Intersection 2018 process of needs projects for inclusion in improvement the cost feasible plan. A combination of SR 520 & Sykes Creek N/A N/A crash severity and frequency data were Aurora & Wickham N/A N/A analyzed to identify those facilities with the greatest need for safety improvements. In Lake Washington & Wickham N/A N/A addition, facilities in need of multimodal Segments Improvement Period infrastructure improvements were recognized in this analysis as crucial to the Eau Gallie from S. Corridor study TBD improved safety of vulnerable road users, Patrick to SR A1A including pedestrians and bicyclists. US 1 from Post to Highway capacity 2026-2030 Analysis of intersection and segment Pineda Cswy crash data consistent with the safety US 1 from SR 528 to N/A N/A emphasis areas outlined in the Florida Canaveral Groves Strategic Highway Safety Plan enables Malabar from Babcock to Corey Highway capacity 2026-2030 a comprehensive and measurable N. Courtenay from Corridor study TBD methodology to prioritize needed Needle to Lucas safety improvements. The cost feasible SR 520 from I-95 to Burnett Complete Street TBD plan includes intersection or segment improvements at eight of the 13 highest US 192 from John Highway capacity 2036-2040 Rodes to Wickham crash intersections, prioritized in the Countywide Safety Report by analysis Babcock from Palm Complete Street TBD of five distinct crash type frequencies, Bay to Eber including angle, left turn, sideswipe, lane SR A1A from Fisher Corridor study TBD departure and rear end crash types. to St. Lucie Of the top 11 high crash segments, Wickham from Pineda N/A N/A prioritized by analysis of the frequency to Jordan Blass of six crash emphasis areas, including aggressive, at risk, vulnerable, lane departure, impaired, and distracted crash types, nine are included for multimodal or highway improvements in the cost feasible plan, as listed in Table 7.3.
146 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN EDUCATION The TPO also conducts a Bicycle/Pedestrian Education program focused on educating both non-motorized and motorized users on traffic laws and safe transportation practices. Through partnership with Brevard County Schools, TPO staff has worked on many programs, including the Walking School Bus Program, and Walk to School and Bike to School Day Events. In 2014, over 700 preschool children received pedestrian safety through the Head Start Program and 18 Brevard County schools completed the 3 week elementary curriculum in bicycle pedestrian safety. A total of 30 schools participated in Walk to School day and 37 participated in Bike to School Day in 2014. Other safety education programs administered by TPO staff include: • Bicycle Rodeos • Safety Fairs and Exhibits total of 30 schools participated in Walk to School Day and 37 • Bicycle helmet program in partnership A with the Florida Pedestrian and participated in Bike to School Day in Bicycling Safety Resource Center 2014. • Elementary School Programs • Safe Routes to School Program • National Walk to School Day – held the first Wednesday of October • National Bike to School Day – held the first Wednesday of May • Feet Not Fuel website
• Walking School Bus Program
The education element of the TPO’s safety activities are a crucial part of advancing safety for users of multimodal and roadway infrastructure. Effectiveness of these programs is maximized by the breadth of participants involved. Offering bicycle/ pedestrian safety training to motorists, for example, is just as, if not more important than training for pedestrians and bicyclists to ensure that laws protecting non-motorized users are adhered to by drivers.
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 147 A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
ROAD SAFETY AUDITS A new program established by the TPO to assess roadway safety for all users is a series of Road Safety Audit Field Reviews. Currently, the TPO is performing these safety audits on five roadway segments, including: • Wickham Road (Sarno to Parkway), Melbourne • Malabar Road (Jupiter to Minton and Emerson to San Filippo), Palm Bay • SR A1A from US 192 to Eau Gallie, Indialantic and Melbourne • Babcock Street from Malabar to Palm Bay Rd, Palm Bay • Emerson Drive (Jupiter to Minton and on Minton from Emerson to Palm Bay Road and on Palm Bay Road edestrian and bicycle safety from Minton to Culver), Palm Bay reviews are being conducted, Specific pedestrian and bicycle safety reviews P are also being conducted, with a focus on with a focus on crash frequency and crash frequency and severity reduction and both short-and long-term solutions to severity reduction and both short-and identified safety issues on the roadways. The long-term solutions to identified safety field reviews are currently underway, with reports due to be completed with findings and issues on the roadways. recommendations in February 2016. Bicycle/ pedestrian safety reviews are being completed on the following roadway segments: • SR A1A from Fisher Park Drive to Columbia Lane, Cocoa Beach • SR A1A from McKinley Avenue to Atlantic Avenue, Cape Canaveral • US 1 from Broadway Boulevard to Fay Boulevard, Port St. John • Palm Bay Road from Babcock Street to Limpscomb Street, Palm Bay • US 1 from University Boulevard to New Haven Avenue, Melbourne • Clearlake Road from Dixon Road to Michigan Avenue, Cocoa
148 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
SECURITY FIGURE 7.3: PROJECTS ON EVACUATION CORRIDORS Security issues can be categorized in terms of either nefarious activities or natural disasters, both of which are mitigated in transportation infrastructure improvements by focusing on evacuation needs. Other important measures and improvements include the security system infrastructure at the military, seaport, airports, and public transit facilities across the County. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) recommends three types of security strategies:
• Prevention and Protection
• Redundancy
• Recovery
While all three strategies are included in the LRTP in the form of intergovernmental coordination and extensive communications technology through the ITS Master Plan improvements included in the plan, the primary strategy addressed by the LRTP cost feasible plan is Redundancy. Ensuring the capacity necessary for large scale evacuation is in place in the event of a disaster is crucial to the mitigation of potential security threats. Effective and efficient operation of the transportation system is also a key mitigation strategy. Source: 2013 State of the System report As one of the criteria in the needs evaluation process, mobility needs on designated evacuation routes represents a key metric in the prioritization of improvements for inclusion in the cost feasible plan. In addition to the ITS program funding in the plan, the cost feasible plan includes more than 60 centerline miles of improvements on designated evacuation corridors, representing more than 50% of the total investments in the cost feasible plan. Figure 7.3 depicts cost feasible capacity improvements on evacuation routes.
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 149 A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
FIGURE 7.4 : SIS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS FREIGHT The movement of freight represents the lifeblood of economic activity, facilitating both commerce and the supply of vital goods to residents. Freight movement is particularly important to Brevard County in this time of economic recovery and advancement of high tech industries, which include the manufacturing sector, a sector that is heavily dependent on efficient freight mobility. There are several important projects included in the cost feasible plan that improve major freight corridors and improve access to the airports and seaport in Brevard County. These improvements represent a central LRTP goal to focus on economic development and improved access to intermodal centers, as well as employment centers. This includes those facilities that form the backbone of the County’s economy with primary emphasis on the FDOT Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), which includes I-95, SR 528, the FEC railroad and the intermodal port/ airport hubs and connecting facilities.
Approximately 43% of the projected resources accounted for in the cost feasible plan are apportioned to improving these facilities as depicted in Figure 7.4. The widening of SR 528, which provides direct east/west access to Port Canaveral, and Ellis Road, which provides direct east/west access to the reight movement is particularly Melbourne International Airport, are important to Brevard County in the most significant goods movement F capacity improvements, complementing this time of economic recovery and recent capacity improvements on the primary north/south artery in the County advancement of high tech industries on I-95 and other improvements in the cost feasible plan on regional east/ west facilities including US 192, SR 405, SR 524, and Malabar Rd. Capacity improvements to non-SIS north/south goods movement corridors include the widening of Babcock St, Wickham Rd, and US 1.
150 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
The Space Coast TPO represents one of seven SOS, illustrates the steady reduction in vehicle miles counties included in the Central Florida Regional traveled on the County’s roadway system since 2008. Freight Mobility Study developed in 2013. As the second leading “producer” of goods in the There are different types of performance measures, region, with 20% of total imports and exports categorized by FDOT in the Florida Multimodal combined and 23% of total outbound tonnage, Mobility Performance Measures Source Book, in the Space Coast TPO plays an integral role in terms of Quantity, Quality, Accessibility, and Utilization. the regional economy. Brevard County is also Quantity measures refer to those measures that home to the only deepwater port in the region, quantify travel, or use of the transportation system. handling over 3 million tons of freight annually. VMT is one example of a quantity measure. Quality measures are oriented to the performance of In 2013 and 2014 TPO staff members were the system and include measures such as hours active participants in the development of the of delay or levels of congestion. Accessibility statewide Florida Freight Mobility and Trade measures refer to how well the transportation Plan. All of the TPO’s freight planning efforts system serves travel needs in terms of modal were reviewed and incorporated into the plan. choices or connectivity and typically are oriented to non-automobile measures, like sidewalk coverage. Utilization relates the quality measures to the overall system performance and can include the proportion PERFORMANCE MEASURES of lane miles that are congested, for example. Performance measurement plays an important The LRTP performance measures selected for the role in the planning, programming, and monitoring Space Coast LRTP include eight specific metrics that of both the transportation system and specific are designed based on three primary considerations. transportation facilities. The TPO has maintained its The first is the consideration of the Vision Goals SOS process for more than 15 years, a process that developed to guide the LRTP process. Consistency, in has contributed to effective investments, evident in terms of the variables and elements of the measures, the performance improvements tracked and reported with the evaluation criteria reported above represents on an annual basis. Figure 7.5, taken from the 2013
FIGURE 7.5: HISTORICAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
14.0 12.58 12.04 11.70 11.81 11.46 11.16 12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
VMT (miilions of miles) VMT 4.0
2.0
- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: 2013 State of the System report
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 151 A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
an important linkage between the development of the incentives are offered to employers creating high plan and the evaluation of the plan’s performance. wage jobs in these industries. Brevard County’s There is a primary difference in how evaluation criteria attraction of this type of economic development is and performance measures are applied because crucial to the County’s future economic prosperity. the evaluation criteria strive to isolate measures to specific improvements, while performance measures Desired Trend: Increase the number are system-based. The other considerations involve of high tech jobs in the County maintenance of a degree of consistency with the Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics employment SOS system of measurement and the FDOT MPM codes consistent with Enterprise Florida Source Book. The FDOT’s continuing work on the Qualified Targeted Industries for Incentives refinement of its mobility performance measures and the development of statewide performance targets will Measure: % regional roadway lane be tracked by the TPO and used to make appropriate miles operating at LOS C or better modifications to the performance measures and adopt targets to maintain a level of consistency. The specific Purpose: Regional roadways are key to Brevard metrics are listed below by goal, with purpose, County’s economic prosperity, providing mobility data source, and desired direction of change in the for people and goods for access to employment variable. Targets for the measures will be set at a later centers, intermodal centers and tourist destinations. date, but Table 7.4 includes data for the years 2010 Desired Trend: Increase the percent of regional and 2013 to serve as a benchmark for each measure. roadway lane miles operating at LOS C or better. GOAL 1: ENHANCE ECONOMIC Source: TPO Annual Traffic Counts DEVELOPMENT THROUGH INTERMODAL Program, FDOT Traffic Counts and TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS Generalized Level of Service tables Measure: % roadway lane miles of SIS facilities operating at LOS C or better Measure: Lane miles of designated evacuation routes monitored by video Purpose: Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) roadways are key to Brevard County’s economic Purpose: Evacuation routes are generally limited to prosperity, particularly in linking the high tech major regional roadways and are vital for the safety industries to other regional destinations such as and security of residents. While Brevard County has Melbourne and Orlando International Airports. not been hit by a major hurricane in many years, the low lying coastal areas are still vulnerable to a major Desired Trend: Increase the percent of SIS weather event. Other potential catastrophic events roadway lane miles operating at LOS C or better. are highly dependent on an effective evacuation system to protect the residents and visitors of Brevard Source: TPO Annual Traffic Counts County, particularly in the coastal communities Program, FDOT Traffic Counts and that have limited travel options to exit the region. Generalized Level of Service tables Desired Trend: Increased video monitored Measure: Number of high tech jobs lane miles of designated evacuation routes. : Enterprise Florida, a public-private Purpose Source: Brevard County Emergency enterprise created by State Statute to serve as the Operations Center, Brevard County economic development organization for the State of inventory of ITS improvements Florida, has nine targeted industries for economic development, including high tech employment Measure: Centerline miles of sectors associated with Cleantech, Life Sciences, roadways with ITS infrastructure Infotech, Aviation/Aerospace, Homeland Security/ Defense, and Financial/Professional Services. Tax Purpose: In the age of information connectivity
152 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
and limited financial resources for transportation Purpose: Automobile crashes are caused by infrastructure improvements, transportation agencies many factors, most of which are not dependent must leverage new technologies to improve the on roadway geometry. Distracted driving, weather efficient operation of the transportation system. conditions, and other factors contribute to these This includes many uses such as measuring crashes. Reducing crashes is nevertheless a traffic and congestion to target problem areas, primary objective of all transportation agencies. making better use of existing infrastructure through traffic signal coordination, and presenting Desired Trend: Decreased annual drivers with up to date information on traffic and number of automobile crashes. providing alternative routes. Synergies between Data Source: Signal 4 Analytics roadway ITS and premium transit operations can improve the economic efficiency of the system. GOAL 3: BALANCE PRESERVATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Desired Trend: Increased centerline miles WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT of roadways with ITS infrastructure. AND LIVABILITY Data Source: Space Coast ITS Master Plan Measure: Annual VMT per capita (miles per day) shapefiles, Brevard County and municipalities inventory of ITS improvements. Purpose: Reduction in vehicle miles traveled is directly correlated with reduction of mobile GOAL 2: INCREASE THE RANGE emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases. OF COMMUNITY, HOUSING AND TRAVEL OPTIONS Desired Trend: Decreased annual VMT per day on major roadways. Measure: Annual transit ridership (1,000s) Data Source: TPO Annual Traffic Counts Purpose: Annual transit ridership is a direct measure Program, FDOT Traffic Counts and Central Florida of the demand on the bus system. An increase in Regional Planning Model highway network boardings is indicative of effective transit operations and can improve fare box recovery rates, leading Measure: % of countywide activity to the affordability of more transit services. units (households plus employment) located in multi-modal hubs Desired Trend: Increase in annual transit ridership. Purpose: Increasing the percent of homes Data Source: National Transit Database countywide that are located near multimodal hubs profile for Space Coast Area Transit leads to both urban infill which has the benefit Measure: Annual number of of reducing trip lengths and promotes use of bicycle/pedestrian crashes alternative modes of transportation by reducing the access time to transit and increases the Purpose: Protecting vulnerable road users, accessibility to jobs and destinations from transit such as pedestrians and bicyclists is a primary through increased access at these hubs. objective of all transportation improvements, particularly in the context of the multimodal Desired Trend: Increased percent of countywide vision plan central to this LRTP. homes located at multimodal hubs.
Desired Trend: Decreased number of annual Data Source: Yearly households by block group bicycle and/or pedestrian crashes. taken from ACS 5 year averages. Employment taken from InfoUSA data. Multimodal hubs Data Source: Signal 4 Analytics defined existing/planned hubs in Vision Plan.
Measure: Annual number of automobile crashes
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 153 A: PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
TABLE 7.4: LRTP PERFORMANCE MEASURES
GOAL GOALS OBJECTIVES MEASURES DATA GOAL MET?
% roadway lane 2010: 99% miles of SIS facilities Enhance Promote economic development operating at LOS economic through the improved performance C or better 2013: 99% development of highway and rail facilities through providing connections to intermodal 2010: 14,155 intermodal hubs and commerce centers. Number of high transportation tech jobs connections 2013: 13,777
Improve mobility for people and % regional roadway 2010: 94% freight on the regional transportation lane miles operating system within the County. at LOS C or better 2013: 96%
Lane miles of 2010: 1,325 Improve the capacity and efficiency designated of the County’s evacuation routes. evacuation routes 2013: 1,362
Employ operational strategies Centerline miles 2010: 160 to optimize the performance of roadways with of the County’s transportation ITS infrastructure infrastructure. 2013: 183
2010: 1,605 Annual transit Increase ridership (1,000s) the range of Increase the safe non-automobile 2013: 2,285 community, oriented transportation infrastructure, housing and including transit, sidewalks, 2010: 350 travel options bicycle facilities, and trails. Annual number of bicycle/pedestrian crashes 2013: 476
2010: 10,808 Maximize the safety of County and Annual number of State transportation infrastructure automobile crashes 2013: 12,646
Maintain air quality by lowering 2010: 21.5 mobile source emissions with Annual VMT per Balance energy efficient vehicles and capita (miles per day) preservation reduced vehicle miles traveled. 2013: 20.5 of the natural environment % of countywide Promote intergovernmental 2010: 37.5% with economic activity units coordination to redevelop historic development (households plus communities and concentrate and livability employment) located development within multimodal hubs. 2013: 36.6% in multi-modal hubs
154 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
REVENUE FORECASTS The Space Coast LRTP is required, by ocal revenue projections are based federal law, to contain a cost feasible plan comprised of needed improvements to the L on a number of factors, including transportation system that are affordable, historical revenue per capita, projected relative to financial revenue projections for the period of the plan. The revenues include fuel consumption, population growth, Federal, State and Local sources of funding. and Florida Gross State Product The first five years of the plan period are projections. already funded and are not included in the projections since the revenue for that period is encumbered by projects included in the TPO’s Transportation Improvement Program FIGURE 7.6: 2035 VS 2040 REVENUE PROJECTIONS (Page 338). The total revenue projected to be available between the years 2020 and 2040 for Space Coast transportation $2,074 improvements is $2.1 billion, in present day dollars, inclusive of Strategic Intermodal System funding, which is allocated by the $750 FDOT.
$1,862
Updated Financial Trend Since $927 2035 LRTP Adoption LOCAL The state of funding availability for transportation improvements and operation of the existing system is dependent in $800 part on the state of the economy as a whole. Other factors driving financial resource allocation to transportation + include federal and state legislation, population growth, fuel consumption, $301 STATE / FEDERAL tax policy, and travel behaviors. Since (SIS) the adoption of the 2035 LRTP by the Space Coast TPO in 2010, national, $634 state, and local economic conditions have $524 changed considerably and the outlook for affordable transportation improvements + has changed along with them.
There are three general sources of STATE / FEDERAL (non-SIS) transportation revenue available to the Space Coast region, including Federal, State, and Local dollars. The State and 2035 2040 Federal revenues are generally projected by the FDOT and provided to transportation Source: Space Coast 2035 LRTP, FDOT 2040 Forecast planning organizations. Local revenues are of State and Federal Revenues for Statewide and Metropolitan Plans (in millions, present day dollars)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 155 B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
FIGURE 7.7: LOCAL/STATE/FEDERAL REVENUE projected by the TPO, based on a number PROJECTIONS 2021-2040 of factors, including historical revenue per capita, projected fuel consumption, $510 projected population growth, and Florida Gross State Product projections. A comparison of 2035 LRTP revenue $282 $251 projections for the 21-year period in the $101 current LRTP to 2040 LRTP revenue $112 projections, also covering a 21-year period, is $23 reflected in Figure 7.6, in consistent present LOCAL day dollars, revealing an overall increase of more than $400 million dollars in projected revenue since the adoption of the 2035 LOGT LRTP. This reflects a major change in the economic climate since 2010, and provides IMPACT FEES a significantly more optimistic picture of the COUNTY FUEL TAX future. The increased funding is composed NINTH CENT FUEL TAX entirely of State and Federal revenues, most CONSTITUTIONAL FUEL TAX SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT of which are allocated to State Intermodal System (SIS) improvements.
Summary of State/Federal $1,269 Revenue Projections The State and Federal funding available for improvements in Brevard County include a variety of sources and types of funding, each of which has specific requirements with respect to allowable expenditures. The largest allocation of these monies to Brevard County is + $451 dedicated to SIS facility improvements. SIS funding is allocated to improvements $269 on the SIS network by FDOT and is not $122 available for improvements identified by the STATE/ TPO. The remainder of State and Federal FEDERAL $12 funding includes a mix of capital, operations, and enhancement funding for both highway and multimodal uses as identified and prioritized by the TPO through the LRTP TRANSIT update process. Two of the funding sources ENHANCEMENT are very flexible, in that they can be utilized for a variety of improvement types, while the others are more prescriptive in their OTHER ARETERIALSURBANIZED & ROW AREA (aka TMA) application. The two flexible sources are STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM the Transportation Management Area (TMA) and Other Arterials and Right of Source: FDOT 2040 Forecast of State and Federal Way (OA) funds. Figure 7.7 depicts State Revenues for Statewide and Metropolitan Plans (in millions, year of expenditure dollars) and Federal funding levels by program.
156 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
Summary of Local Revenue Projections he Brevard County Blue Ribbon Local revenues also include a variety Transportation Advisory of sources and types of funds with T varying eligibility requirements for their Committee...recommended re- expenditure. The majority of local funding instituting the Transportation sources are gasoline tax revenues from a number of programs, including the Local Impact Fee revenue collection, Option Gas Tax (LOGT), the County fuel tax, the Constitutional fuel tax, and as well as levying an additional the Ninth Cent fuel tax on diesel fuel. six cents of Local Option Gas A portion of these revenue sources are dedicated to debt service on Constitutional Tax and a half cent sales surtax and LOGT revenue bonds and to the dedicated to transportation operation and maintenance of the existing transportation system and the remainder improvements and maintenance. is eligible for capacity improvements.
Another local funding source dedicated FIGURE 7.8: CAPITAL REVENUE NEEDS to capacity projects is the Transportation Impact Fee. The Brevard County 000Board of Commissioners enacted a moratorium $3,500,000 on impact fee assessment on development that has a sunset date of December 31, 2017. The revenue projections in Figure $3,000,000 UNFUNDED 7.4 assume the impact fee will be in place after 2019 at rates in place prior to the moratorium. Figure 7.8 illustrates $2,500,000 the proportion of impact fee and other IMPACT FEE / developer contributions necessary to fund DEVELOPER FUNDED the cost feasible plan. The unfunded portion $2,000,000 of those capital needs represent 12% of total capital needs.
$1,500,000 Potential New Revenue Sources The Brevard County Blue Ribbon $1,000,000 Transportation Advisory Committee was established in 2013 to review the state of transportation funding in Brevard County $500,000 and recommend solutions to potential STATE / FEDERAL deficits. The Committee completed a FUNDED thorough review and reported to the $- Board of County Commissioners in March, 2014 on the affordability and solvency of the County’s local transportation revenues with respect to needed
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 157 B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
maintenance and capacity improvements to as provided in the 2040 Revenue Forecast the local roadway system. The report indicated Handbook (July, 2013) prepared by FDOT. a significant backlog in roadway maintenance needs, amounting to $18 million per year for the “Other Arterials” revenues can be applied to non- next 15 years. The Committee recommended FIHS/SIS State Highway System roadways and re-instituting the Transportation Impact Fee “Transit” revenues can go toward technical and revenue collection, as well as levying an operating/capital assistance for transit, paratransit, additional six cents of Local Option Gas Tax and rideshare programs. “Transportation and a half cent sales surtax dedicated to Management Area” (TMA) funds are the same transportation improvements and maintenance. as “SU” funds in the State’s work program. “Transportation Alternatives” funds, separated by Needed capacity improvements identified in the urban (TALU) and districtwide (TALT) are used for 2040 LRTP update also present a fiscal challenge locally defined and regional projects, respectively, for the County. The capacity program funding providing enhancements beyond that typical represented below assumes the re-institution of the for projects and are not used to fund capacity transportation impact fee. Potential revenue from improvements. “TRIP” funds apply to improvements a half cent sales tax of over $700 million is also on facilities designated as regionally significant included in Table 7.10 for illustrative purposes. and the funds are allocated within each district based on regional project prioritization processes.
Projection of Revenues State and Federal Sources Approximately 25 percent of total transportation revenues forecasted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for 2014 through 2040 come from Federal sources, 67 percent are from State sources and 8 percent are Turnpike revenues. According to Florida’s Transportation Tax Sources – A Primer, for fiscal year 2013, the receipts collected by the State Transportation Trust Fund (STTF) broke down as follows: state motor fuel tax comprised 32 percent of STTF receipts; motor vehicle tag and title fees were 15 percent; aviation fuel tax, rental car surcharge, and documentary stamp taxes were each less than three percent; and Federal Aid, which comes primarily from the federal fuel tax, was 34 percent. The balance of receipts came from toll facility reimbursement, local government participation, and other miscellaneous sources.
The figures discussed above represent statewide revenues. Brevard County receives its proportionate share based on a series of formulas tied to population and gas tax receipts. Table 7.7 (found at the end of this memo) provides revenue projections of State and Federal sources available to Brevard County
158 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
Table 7.5 outlines the available state and federal • FEC Railroad sources and the potential uses of the funds. TALT and TRIP funds are utilized only for illustrative • Intercoastal Waterway purposes due to their discretionary nature. • Patrick Air Force Base, plus With the exception of SIS allocations, the 2040 roadway connector State and Federal revenues mentioned above • Melbourne International Airport are only slightly greater than those considered (emerging), plus roadway connector during the preparation of the 2035 LRTP, with an additional five years in the time horizon. • Melbourne Greyhound Terminal (emerging), plus roadway connector The State will continue to place an emphasis on allocating revenues to the Strategic Intermodal • Ellis Road (to be designated) System (SIS) facilities. SIS facilities in Brevard County eligible for SIS funding include: The 2040 SIS/FIHS Cost Feasible Plan includes the construction of capacity improvements for three • I-95 sections of SR 528. The three sections from west of I-95 to SR 524; from SR 524 to SR 3; and from • SR 528 SR 3 to SR 401 are all slated for construction in the • Port Canaveral, plus roadway connector period between 2026 and 2030.
• Cape Canaveral Spaceport, plus connector
TABLE 7.5: STATE AND FEDERAL REVENUE RESOURCES
FUNDING TYPES SOURCE USES
SIS State/Federal SIS facilities (corridors, connectors and hubs)
OTHER ARTERIALS State/Federal Non-SIS/FIHS state highway system roadways
Technical, operating or capital assistance for TRANSIT State/Federal transit, paratransit, or rideshare
Federal, state and local roadways, transit, sidewalk TMA Federal and bike infrastructure, and enhancements
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES Federal Non-capacity improvements
TRIP State/Local (mathces) Regionally significant facilitiies
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 159 B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
Fuel Taxes local option tax of six cents per gallon on motor and Fuel tax revenues were projected only for diesel fuels and the Ninth Cent tax on diesel fuels Brevard County government. Fuel taxes only. The County has the additional, unrealized distributed to municipal governments are taxing option of another six cents per gallon – noted at the end of this document. the Ninth Cent and second local option of five cents – for locally imposed taxes on motor fuels. State-Distributed Fuel Taxes In projecting future Local Option Fuel Tax revenues, There are two types of fuel taxes collected at the actual revenue distributions by year and the the State level that are distributed to county county population estimates for those years used governments. These taxes are not part of the by the State for revenue sharing were used to local option taxes, and are collected for every calculate per capita revenue values for Brevard gallon of fuel sold in the state. For each gallon County government from FY 2009-2013, and the of motor fuel sold, the Constitutional Fuel Tax average of those past values was used for the base yields two cents per gallon, and the County Fuel year (2015) projection. Future years were projected Tax yields one cent per gallon. Every county is out to 2040 using this average per capita value eligible for Constitutional Fuel Tax and County and adjusting for inflation per FDOT guidelines. Fuel Tax revenues through an allocation formula used by the State that is based on the certified fuel Summary of Fuel Taxes gallons sold and a distribution factor calculated Brevard County has committed a significant portion using the county’s population, land area, and of its future Constitutional Fuel Tax revenues to statewide tax collected in the previous fiscal year. paying debt service on bonds through 2020, so the Constitutional Fuel Tax revenues can be used for revenues through this time period are assumed the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of to be debt committed. The revenues from this roads. County Fuel Tax revenues can be used for tax after 2020 are assumed to be available for any legitimate county transportation purpose. capacity projects. However, the recent report by Brevard County’s Blue Ribbon Advisory Board for In projecting future Constitutional and County Fuel Transportation Infrastructure noted that the County Tax revenues, the actual revenue distributions has regularly scheduled infrastructure maintenance to Brevard County government by year from FY needs and a substantial existing backlog of 2000-2014 were averaged in order to mitigate the roadway reconstruction and maintenance needs impact of high-growth and recessionary periods to which these tax revenues could be allocated. within the overall 15-year period. This base value County Fuel Tax revenues are used for operations for each tax was then projected into the future and maintenance functions and are projected to using the latest long term forecast of annual be policy committed for such uses through 2040. change in Gross State Product prepared by the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax revenues are also assumed UCF Center for Economic Competitiveness, and to be committed to operations and maintenance. adjusted for inflation per FDOT guidelines. The six-cent Local Option Fuel Tax is a significant Local Option Fuel Taxes local revenue source for Brevard County. For All Florida counties have the option to raise FY 2014, the Department of Revenue estimated additional revenues by augmenting the State’s the county-wide distribution of these taxes at $9 taxes on highway fuels that are discussed above. million. The Local Option Fuel Tax revenues shown Local governments are authorized to collect in Table 7.7 are separated into two categories: another 12 cents (Ninth-Cent Fuel Tax and debt committed and operations/maintenance maximum Local Option Fuel Taxes) per gallon, committed. No Local Option Fuel Tax revenues which may be spent on local or state transportation are projected to be available for future capacity projects. Brevard County has partially exercised improvements. The projections in Table 7.7 its option to raise these taxes by imposing the first assume for Brevard County that a portion of the
160 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
local option taxes are committed through 2037, Table 7.8 are intended to be conservative and a which corresponds with the term of existing starting point for discussion. Current impact fee bonds that are backed by these tax revenues. rates were used to project future revenue even Given the volatility of gas prices and long term if a jurisdiction has enacted a moratorium on revenue tied to fuel consumption, Table 7.7 also transportation impact fees at the present time. assumes that fuel consumption declines by Currently available impact fee schedules for the one percent per year after 2015, to reflect the relevant jurisdictions were analyzed and average projections for 2040 published by the U.S. Energy fees per dwelling unit (for residential land uses) Information Administration in its Annual Energy or per 1,000 square feet (for non-residential land Outlook 2014. This equates to a situation where uses) were calculated using selected property type fuel tax revenues gradually decline over time to categories that were determined to be generally reflect a peaking of oil consumption and the use representative of that land use. Residential land of alternate fuels and energy sources into the uses were classified as single-family or multifamily. future. Initiatives are currently underway at the The non-residential land uses analyzed were Federal level to re-evaluate fuel tax revenues and classified as industrial, commercial, or service to consider alternatives to consumption based taxes. conform to the employment categories used in the regional travel demand model. The property types selected to calculate the average impact
fee rates are generally described as follows: Impact Fees • Single-Family Residential: single-family homes The Brevard County government, the City of Melbourne, and the City of Palm Bay have • Multifamily Residential: townhouses, historically charged impact fees on new duplexes, and condominiums development to fund transportation facilities. In November, 2014, the Brevard County Board of • Industrial: wholesale/warehousing County Commissioners extended a moratorium • Commercial: retail of 100,000 on County impact fees through the year 2016. The square feet or less City of Melbourne also has instituted a moratorium on City impact fees through March, 2016. It is • Service: general office of 100,000 square assumed that when the impact fee moratoria feet or less, office park, medical office expire, resumption of impact fee collection will begin, which is four years before the first year The average impact fee assumptions per land of revenue projections for the 2040 LRTP. use for each jurisdiction are shown in Table 7.6.
Given the inherent uncertainty of forecasting future development, the projections shown in
TABLE 7.6: IMPACT FEE RATE ASSUMPTIONS
JURISDICTION SINGLE-FAMILY MULTIFAMILY INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL SERVICE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL BREVARD COUNTY $4,353 $2,529 $0 $5,819 $8,235 MELBOURNE $3,047 $1,667 $1,556 $4,270 $6,465 PALM BAY $4,353 $2,551 $2,201 $8,380 $11,893 note: In order to convert the non-residential impact fee rates from per-1,000-square-feet to per-worker, building space usage of one employee per 1,000 square feet for industrial, two employees per 1,000 square feet for commercial, and three employees per 1,000 square feet for service were assumed. City of Palm Bay Impact Fee calculations are limited to residential development.
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 161 B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
The average annual number of new dwelling units revenues for the transit agency by the population and workers forecast for each jurisdiction from of the county to obtain per capita revenue values 2010-2040 was multiplied by the relevant impact for the fiscal years addressed in the TDP. For fee rate assumption for that jurisdiction to estimate subsequent years, the annual increase in revenue the annual revenue from transportation impact fees. was tied to the increase in population and the Furthermore, the non-residential fee estimates inflation factors recommended by FDOT. To were reduced by 25 percent to account for new project revenues for future years, the average jobs that “backfill” into existing building space rather per capita revenues for the last five fiscal years than locate within newly developed building space. in the TDP was set as the base per capita value Unlike other revenue sources, future impact fee from which to calculate annual inflation-adjusted revenues were not adjusted for inflation because values. These per capita values were in turn the fee rates are not changed on an annual basis applied to the population projections of the and also to produce a more conservative estimate. county to yield annual local transit revenues.
Other Contributions Other Local Sources Developer or private contributions are another Other local revenue sources available for local source of revenue to be considered. Private transportation improvements or maintenance contributions provide direct revenues to fund and operations activities include grants, infrastructure for a given project or area. These proportionate fair share contributions, ad revenues are above and beyond credits granted valorem or general revenues, and tax increment for impact fees or proportionate fair share financing or other Community Redevelopment payments. Mobility fees are another source of Area sources. Forecasting the availability of potential local revenue. The “Other Contributions” these resources is difficult and many of these revenue category assumes revenue equal to resources already are being tapped to their the costs of roadway improvements assumed maximums. As such, these sources are not to be partially or completely funded by private included in the revenue projections for the LRTP. development interests. Project tables at the end of this chapter identify those projects that are partially or completely privately funded. Summary of Projected Revenues Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) The total revenues available in the 20-year SCAT receives both operating and capital period between 2021 and 2040 include a total revenues from federal, state, and local sources. of $3.4 billion in YOE dollars, including $2.1 Local operating and capital revenue estimates billion in state/federal revenues, and $1.4 were collected from SCAT’s most recent Transit billion in local revenues. Table 7.7 provides a Development Plan (TDP). SCAT provided estimates summary of revenues by period, by source, but of operating and capital revenues through FY 2022. does not include the discretionary programs Projections for subsequent years were prepared like TRIP, TALT, and New Starts. Revenues using FDOT’s inflation guidelines. All federal and from these programs, summarized in Table 7.10 state revenue assumptions in the TDP, for both are considered in the hypothetical premium the capital and operating categories, were not transit improvements considered beyond included in the analysis, in order to reduce the 2040, as described later in this chapter. likelihood of double-counting potential federal and state revenues. State and federal transit funding figures from the 2040 Revenue Forecast Handbook were used instead (see Table 7.8).
Projections to 2040 were estimated by dividing the TDP-estimated local operating and capital
162 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
TABLE 7.7: PROJECTED STATE/FEDERAL AND LOCAL REVENUES, 2021-2040
PROJECTED REVENUES BY PLANNING PERIOD (IN MILLIONS OF YOE $) 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 TOTAL STATE/FEDERAL REVENUES (1) SIS Highways/FIHS Const ROW $24.7 $1,244.3 $0.0 $0.0 $1,269.0 Other Arterial Const/ROW $112.4 $106.3 $116.3 $116.3 $451.3 Transit $63.2 $66.4 $69.7 $69.7 $268.9 TMA Funds $30.6 $30.6 $30.6 $30.6 $122.4 TALU (Urban funds for TMA) $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $12.0 Subtotal State/Federal $233.9 $1,450.6 $219.6 $219.6 $2,123.6 LOCAL REVENUES (2) Brevard County Impact Fees (capacity) (3) $89.8 $89.8 $89.8 $89.8 $359.4 City of Palm Bay Impact Fees (capacity) (3) $30.8 $30.8 $30.8 $30.8 $123.2 City of Melbourne Impact Fees (capacity) (3) $6.8 $6.8 $6.8 $6.8 $27.1 Constitutional Fuel (ops/mtc committed) $41.5 $53.4 $68.6 $87.8 $251.3 County Fuel (ops/mtc commited) $18.5 $23.8 $30.7 $39/2 $112.2 Ninth Cent from diesel fuel sales (ops/mtc committed) $4.5 $5.3 $6.3 $7.3 $23.5 Local Option Fuel (debt committed) $30.1 $29.4 $29.2 $11.7 $100.3 Local Option Fuel (opt/mtc committed) $24.3 $35.0 $36.2 $76.2 $181.7 SCAT Local Capital $3.4 $3.6 $3.8 $3.9 $14.7 SCAT Local Operating $20.2 $21.3 $22.3 $23.3 $87.1 Subtotal Local $309.8 $322.5 $347.0 $415.1 $1,394.3 TOTAL $543.7 $1,773.1 $566.5 $634.6 $3,404.05 notes:
1. State/Federal Revenues from March 2014 Appendix for the Metropolitan Long Range Plan, 2040 Forecast of State and Federal Revenues for Statewide and Metropolitan Plans. Totals may not sum perfectly due to rounding.
2. Fuel tax collections and distribution rates as reported by the Florida Department of Revenue's Office of Tax Research. Municipal fuel tax distributions are not included. Projected fuel tax revenues decline 1% per year from the base assumption to account for declining fuel consumption trends.
3. Impact Fees revenues based on 2010-2040 household and employment forecasts, using current fee rates and are represented in present day dollars. ops = operations mtc = maintenance
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 163 B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
Revenues Available for Capacity vs. O&M Improvements
Revenues at the local, state, and federal levels all are more prescriptive. Table 7.8 summarizes have eligibility requirements with respect to how the revenues that are available for capacity the revenues are allocated. While there is some improvements, broken down by State/Federal flexibility for some of the revenues sources, others and Local revenues for a total of $2.5 billion.
TABLE 7.8: PROJECTED REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS, 2021-2040
PROJECTED REVENUES FOR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS (IN MILLIONS OF YOE $)
2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 TOTAL
STATE/FEDERAL REVENUES (1) SIS Highways/FIHS Const ROW $24.7 $1,244.3 $0.0 $0.0 $1,269.0
Other Arterial Const/ROW $112.4 $106.3 $116.3 $116.3 $451.3
Transit $4.8 $4.3 $4.6 $1.8 $15.5
TMA Funds $30.6 $30.6 $30.6 $30.6 $122.4
Subtotal State/Federal $172.5 $1,385.5 $151.5 $148.7 $1,858.2
LOCAL REVENUES (2) Brevard County Impact Fees $89.8 $89.8 $89.8 $89.8 $359.4 City of Palm Bay Impact Fees $30.8 $30.8 $30.8 $30.8 $123.2
City of Melbourne Impact Fees $6.8 $6.8 $6.8 $6.8 $27.1 SCAT Local Capital $3.4 $3.6 $3.8 $3.9 $14.7
Subtotal Local $170.7 $154.3 $143.7 $169.5 $638.2
TOTAL Capacity $343.2 $1,539.8 $295.1 $318.2 $2,496.4
note: Under LOCAL REVENUES (2), the Impact Fee revenue projections represent forecasted fee collections based on projected population growth and current impact fee rates in constant present day dollars.
164 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
Table 7.9 contains the balance of the projected Potential New and Illustrative Revenues revenues available for operation and maintenance Discretionary revenues available statewide or (O&M) of the transportation system. Fuel FDOT districtwide for potential allocation to taxes levied by and/or allocated to Brevard Brevard County improvements include the regional County are committed entirely to system O&M. portion of Transportation Alternatives, or TALT, The SCAT O&M budget consists of a mix Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP), of state/federal grant programs and general and federal New Starts program. FDOT operation revenue from the Brevard County budget as and maintenance funds for the State Highway well as advertising, fare box revenue, and System are also allocated at the district level. other miscellaneous local contributions. Other potential new funding sources identified by Brevard County’s Blue Ribbon Advisory Board for Transportation Infrastructure include three tax sources commonly levied in other counties. Brevard County has the option of taxing motor fuel sales for another six cents per gallon – the Ninth Cent and second local option of five cents – for locally imposed taxes on motor fuels. (Brevard County currently levies the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax only on diesel fuel sales.)
TABLE 7.9: PROJECTED REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR O&M, 2021-2040
PROJECTED REVENUES AVAILABLE FOR O&M, ENHANCEMENTS and DEBT SERVICE (IN MILLIONS OF YOE $)
2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 TOTAL
STATE/FEDERAL REVENUES (1) Transit $58.4 $62.1 $65.1 $67.8 $253.4
TALU (Urban funds for TMA) $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $12.0
Subtotal State/Federal $61.4 $65.1 $68.1 $70.8 $265.4
LOCAL REVENUES (2) Constitutional Fuel $41.5 $53.4 $68.6 $87.8 $251.3
County Fuel $18.5 $23.8 $30.7 $39.2 $112.2
Ninth Cent from diesel fuel sales $4.5 $5.3 $6.3 $7.3 $23.5
Local Option Fuel (debt committed) $30.1 $29.4 $29.2 $11.7 $100.3 Local Option Fuel $24.3 $35.0 $46.2 $76.2 $181.7
SCAT Local Operating $20.2 $21.3 $22.3 $23.3 $87.1
Subtotal Local $139.1 $168.2 $203.3 $245.6 $756.1
TOTAL O&M and DEBT SERVICE $200.5 $233.3 $271.4 $316.4 $1,021.6
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 165 B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
The five-cent Local Option Fuel Tax is not applied services, above the six percent standard sales to diesel, and may only be used for transportation tax, as a revenue stream for local government expenditures needed to meet the requirements of infrastructure. Fees collected may be used to the capital improvement element of an adopted finance, plan, and construct infrastructure, which local government comprehensive plan and other includes transportation infrastructure. In order to capacity-adding projects. The Department of levy the surtax, an ordinance must be enacted Revenue estimates the revenue that would be by the County Commission and approved by generated each year if the County had levied these voters in a countywide referendum. Projection two taxes, so the average of the per capita amounts estimates for this surtax, both at 0.5 percent and for FY 2009-2013 was used to forecast these new 1.0 percent, were calculated based on the average revenues, then adjusted for a gradual long term of actual surtax revenues that would have been decline in fuel consumption as discussed above. collected in each county from FY 2009-2013 at The five-cent local option tax receipts can be the two tax rates, based on figures provided by distributed to each unit of local government in the the Department of Revenue. The collected tax county according to the default allocation formula receipts can be distributed to each unit of local used by the Florida Department of Revenue, or the government in each county according to the County has the option to set a different allocation default allocation formula used by the DOR, or the formula with its municipalities through an interlocal County has the option to set a different allocation agreement. The results are shown in Table 7.10. formula with its municipalities through an interlocal agreement. Revenue projections for the sales Brevard County can also levy a discretionary sales surtax at both tax rates are shown in Table 7.10. surtax of either 0.5 or 1.0 percent on goods and
TABLE 7.10: PROJECTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIVE AND POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES
OTHER REVENUES FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES (IN MILLIONS OF YOE $) 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 TOTAL EXISTING REVENUE SOURCES Districtwide State Highway System O&M $2,029.0 $2,223.0 $2,441.5 $2,441.5 $9,135.0
TALT (districtwide) $25.8 $25.8 $25.8 $25.8 $103.2
TRIP Funds (districtwide) $10.0 $10.0 $10.1 $10.1 $40.1
New Starts Funds (statewide) $174.3 $174.3 $174.3 $174.3 $697.1
Municipal Services Taxing Unit $72.1 $85.9 $102.5 $122.5 $382.9 POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES Theoretical Ninth Cent Fuel Tax $16.2 $19.1 $22.4 $26.1 $83.7 (Motor Fuel Only) Theoretical 1-5 Cents Fuel Tax $7.1 $8.4 $9.8 $11.5 $36.8 (default County share) 1 Cent Infrastructure Surtax $255.6 $317.4 $391.2 $479.6 $1,443.7 (default County share) 0.5 Cent Infrastructure Surtax $127.8 $158.7 $195.6 $239.8 $721.8 (default County share)
Source: Infrastructure Surtax projections based on 2009-2013 Local Government Financial Information Handbook for annual yields
166 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
Municipal Fuel Tax Revenues fund. Each municipality’s share of the funds Municipalities receive fuel tax revenues from two is calculated based on an adjusted municipal sources: the municipal share of any Local Option population, municipal sales tax collections, Fuel taxes, and the Municipal Fuel Tax. These and a municipality’s relative ability to raise revenues are not included in Table 7.11 but are revenue. The Municipal Fuel Tax’s portion of the presented here for informational purposes. trust fund is determined by the Department of Revenue, and varies each year depending on The municipal share of the six-cent Local Option tax collections. For both of these taxes the total Fuel Tax was projected using the methodology for all municipalities is presented in Table 7.11. described earlier in this document, applying the If the five-cent Local Option Fuel Tax were to be average of the distribution percentages from implemented in Brevard County the municipalities FY 2009-2013 applicable to the municipalities could receive a share of that tax revenue, in Brevard County. The Municipal Fuel Tax is a depending on the distribution formula that is used. one-cent per gallon tax on motor fuel sold within the State’s municipalities, and is collected within the Municipal Revenue Sharing Program trust
TABLE 7.11: PROJECTIONS OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL FUEL TAX REVENUES
REVENUE SOURCES 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 TOTAL
6-Cent Local Option Fuel Tax $72.1 $85.9 $102.5 $122.5 $383.0 (Municipal Share)
Municipal Fuel Tax $20.8 $24.8 $102.5 $35.4 $110.6
TOTAL $92.9 $110.7 $132.1 $157.9 $493.6
Source: FDOT 2040 Forecast of State and Federal Revenues for Statewide and Metropolitan Plans
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 167 B: FINANCIAL FORECAST
CORRIDOR BASED PROJECTS AND COSTS FIGURE 7.9: CORRIDOR PLANNING CONCEPT The organization of the plan in terms of corridors, and respective improvements, is both a reflection of the multimodal nature of the LRTP as well as an important implementation tool for the plan itself. The corridor summary tables included on the following pages illuminate opportunities to take advantage of potential economies of scale in the implementation of various corridor improvements as packages of improvements. As projects are studied in more detail and undergo project development, the cost efficiencies promoted by the corridor approach can facilitate substantial cost savings. In some cases, the potential implementation of operational strategies like ITS offer potential alternatives to other more capital-intensive improvements.
The corridor summary tables on the following pages summarize all corridor improvements Bicycle Lane in each respective corridor, organized within each table by mode. The cost feasibility status of specific improvements fall within one of five categories, as identified in the Status column of the tables, including:
• Cost Feasible Capital Improvement – Widen to 4 lanes by period of construction funding
• Corridor Studies Program – includes projects eligible for Corridor Studies boxed funds
• ITS Program – includes projects New Bus Service eligible for ITS boxed funds
• Multimodal Program – includes projects eligible for Multimodal boxed funds
• Unfunded – includes unfunded needs projects
A summary of the cost feasible plan with detailed accounting of phase costs in YOE ITS Operations dollars is presented in the following section. Shared Use Path
168 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
COST FEASIBLE PLAN Table 7.13 depict and list all projects in the cost feasible plan, with phase costs represented The cost feasible plan, summarized by project in five-year bands. While the ITS, Multimodal, type and funding source, represents a cost and Corridor Studies programs are considered constrained program of improvements within cost feasible programs, the projects listed in the the respective 5-year plan periods. Table 7.12 Corridor Summary tables on the following pages demonstrates the costs of the plan balanced with are not necessarily all affordable. The programs revenues. In the case of local Impact Fee and are designed to reserve funding for appropriate SIS programs, the projected revenues exceed improvements under each program as the need the costs of projects eligible for those funds, as and readiness arises on a project-by-project basis. shown in the Balance column. Figure 7.10 and
TABLE 7.12: SUMMARY COSTS (IN $000’S) REVENUE COST BALANCE STATE/ SIS $1,269,000 $1,260,100 $8,900 FEDERAL Roadway Capacity $98,000 ITS Program $15,000 TMA Multimodal Program $15,000 TOTAL TMA $122,400 $122,100 $300 + Roadway Capacity $437,300 ITS Program $40,000 Other Arterials* Corridor Studies Program $35,000 TOTAL OTHER ARTERIALS $503,800 $503,800 $- Multimodal Program $15,500 Transit SCAT Operations $253,400 Total Transit $269,000 $269,000 $- TALU Multimodal Program $12,000 $12,000 $- LOCAL County TIF Local Roadway Capacity $359,400 $217,300 $142,100 Palm Bay TIF Local Roadway Capacity $123,200 $110,100 $13,100 Melbourne TIF Local Roadway Capacity $27,100 $2,000 $25,100 Constitutional Fuel Tax $251,300 County Fuel Tax County Roadway $112,200 Ninth Cent from system O&M net of $568,700 diesel fuel sales LOGT Debt Service** $23,500 Local Option Gas Tax $181,700 Subtotal Local Fuel Taxes $568,700 $568,700 $- SCAT Local Capital & Operating*** $101,800 $101,800 $- Private Developer Funds $668,900 $668,900 $- TOTAL $4,025,300 $3,835,800 $189,500
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding *Includes 12% of FDOT revenue estimate for product support activities **Total LOGT revenue is $282 million, minus $100.3 debt service obligation, $181 million for O&M ***No new transit services are included in cost feasible plan. The portion of state Transit funding is supplemented with other State/Federal/Local funding reflected in SCAT Transit Development Plan to sustain current transit services.
169 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN COST FEASIBLE PLAN
FIGURE 7.10: COST FEASIBLE PLAN
Note: Projects funded in the 2016-2020 time frame has been updated on pages 171-174
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 170 TABLE 7.13 (A): STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM PROJECTS in millions YOE $s 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035 2036‐2040 2016‐2040 FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT SOURCE PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST TOTAL Add Lanes & Rehabilitate I-95 (SR 9) SR 406 SR 46 ACNP 0.21$ Pvmnt 0.21$ Add Lanes & Rehabilitate I-95 0.5 mile N of SR 46 Volusia Co Line ACNP 0.57$ Pvmnt 0.57$ DIH,DI,DDR 7.71$ 7.71$ SR 528 (Beachline) East of SR 524 (Industry) East of SR 3 Add Lanes & Reconstruct SIS 7.72$ 644.54$ 652.26$ Port Canaveral DIH,DI,DDR 7.00$ 7.00$ SR 528 East of SR 3 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Interchange SIS 9.89$ 406.39$ 416.28$ at Ellis Rd/St Johns DIH,TCSP,DDR,ACSA,DI,DS, I-95 Int Interchange (New) 3.64$ 10.40$ 44.47$ 58.51$ Heritage Pkwy ACNP SA 5.61$ 5.61$ St Johns Heritage John Rhodes Blvd W of Wickham Widen to 4 lanes SIS 9.53$ 12.66$ 22.19$ Pkwy/Ellis Rd Other Arterial 28.58$ 28.58$ SR 405 Spaceport Connector SIS Add Left Turn Lane(s) ACNP 1.06$ 2.17$ 3.23$ Intersection Improvements at Sisson Rd Spaceport SR 405 Add Left Turn Lane(s) ACNP 0.94$ 0.65$ 1.59$ Connector SR 528 Beachline East SR 524 (Industry PKYI,DI 5.30$ 5.30$ SR 520 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Widening PD&E Study Road) SIS 6.69$ 134.26$ 140.95$ at St Johns Heritage LF 14.84$ 14.84$ I-95 Int Interchange (New) Pkwy/Palm Bay Pkwy N of S129,ACNP,DDR 0.38$ 34.50$ 34.87$ PVT 12.60$ $ 12.60 I-95 Interchange at Viera Blvd Interchange (New) DIH,DDR,DS 1.81$ 7.32$ 9.13$ NASA Causeway East Roadway West Roadway Approach Bridge Replacement NASA 3.30$ 1.50$ Bridges* Approach SR 401 Bridges (3 Cape Canaveral Air SR 401/SR 528 Interchange Bridge Replacement SIS 5.00$ Bascule) * Force Station Space Commerce Way* NASA Pkwy W Kennedy Pkwy N Widen to 4 lanes SIS 1.11 3.32 24.04 28.47$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Misc. * Federal or State Grants being pursued for remaining phases 8.60$ 23.08$ 16.96$ 89.89$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ State/Federal 138.53$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Misc. local funds ‐$ ‐$ 14.84$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 14.84$ SUBTOTAL ‐ SIS 5.00$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 9.53$ 12.66$ 1.11$ 3.32$ 24.30$ 1,209.23$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 1,265.15 SUBTOTAL ‐ Other Arterial ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 28.58$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 28.58 SUBTOTAL ‐ Developer ‐$ ‐$ 12.60$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ $ 12.60
TABLE 7.13 (B): OTHER ARTERIAL (STATE/FEDERAL FUNDS) in millions YOE $s 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035 2036‐2040 2016‐2040 FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT SOURCE PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST TOTAL SR 5 (US 1) N of Pine St N of Cidco Rd Add Lanes & Reconstruct DS 0.15$ 0.15$ DS,DIH,DDR 4.01$ 4.01$ SR 514 (Malabar Rd) Babcock St US 1 PD&E/EMO Study Other Arterial 5.26$ 31.05$ 36.31$ DS,DIH,DDR 2.55$ 2.55$ SR 501 Michigan Avenue Industry Road PD&E/EMO Study Other Arterial 1.66$ 6.65$ 8.31$ SR 514 Weber Rd Corey Rd Add Left Turn Lane(s) DDR,DS,DIH 0.11$ 0.55$ 2.22$ 2.89$ Cocoa Operations Fixed Capital Outlay FCO 0.01$ 0.01$ Complex Phase I Cocoa Operations Complex Phase Major Fixed Capital Outlay FCO 16.00$ 16.00$ Phase I & Phase II Construction SR 5 (US 1) at Suntree Blvd Intersection (Modify) DIH,HSP 0.61$ 0.86$ 1.46$ A1A at SR 520 Intersection improvements Other Arterial 0.01$ 0.02$ 0.03$ 0.13$ 0.19$ 0.19$ Eau Gallie Blvd at US 1 Left turn lane Other Arterial 0.01$ 0.02$ 0.03$ 0.13$ 0.19$ International Dr A1A Atlantic Ave Intersection realignment Other Arterial 0.04$ 0.11$ 0.16$ 0.80$ 1.11$ Sarno Rd at US 1 Right turn lane Other Arterial 0.01$ 0.04$ 0.06$ 0.28$ 0.39$ Widen to 6 lanes and improve DIH, DDR 1.76$ 1.76$ US 1 Pineda Causeway Park Ave interchange at Pineda (SR Other Arterial 2.63$ 7.89$ 10.96$ 64.74$ 86.22$ 404) US 1 Barnes Blvd Park Ave Widen to 6 lanes Other Arterial 0.84$ 2.51$ 3.49$ 20.60$ 27.44$ SR 524 South Friday Rd Industry Rd Widen to 4 lanes Other Arterial 3.24$ $ 4.49 22.47$ 30.20$ South St (SR 405) Existing 4 lane section State Road 50 Widen to 4 lanes Other Arterial 1.99$ 5.96$ 9.73$ 48.64$ 66.32$ US 192 Wickham Rd Dairy Road Widen to 6 lanes Other Arterial 1.07$ 5.25$ 3.22$ 26.23$ 35.77$ St. Johns Heritage Pkwy Other Arterial 0.76$ 3.72$ 2.28$ 18.61$ 25.37$ US 192 Wickham Rd Widen to 6 lanes (SJHP) Developer 0.76$ 3.72$ 2.28$ 18.61$ 25.37$ US 1 Malabar Rd RJ Conlan Widen to 6 lanes Other Arterial 1.96$ 5.88$ 9.59$ 47.97$ 65.40$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Other Arterial ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 3.54$ 13.83$ 26.14$ 30.46$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 116.39$ 5.78$ 11.84$ 28.29$ 48.64$ ‐$ 5.50$ ‐$ 92.81$ $ 383.22 SUBTOTAL ‐ Misc. 1.76$ 7.28$ 0.55$ 19.23$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ State/Federal 28.82$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Developer ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 0.76$ ‐$ 3.72$ ‐$ ‐$ 2.28$ ‐$ 18.61$ 25.37$ COST FEASIBLE PLAN
TABLE 7.13 (C): TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AREA (TMA (SU)) in millions YOE $s 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035 2036‐2040 2016‐2040 TABLE 7.13 (E): LOCAL/DEVELOPER FUNDED in millions YOE $s 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035 2036‐2040 2016‐2040 FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT SOURCE PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST TOTAL FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT SOURCE PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST TOTAL Apollo Blvd Sarno Rd Eau Gallie Blvd Add Lanes & Reconstruct SU 0.06$ 0.06$ Melbourne Impact Fee 0.07$ 0.20$ 0.28$ 1.41$ 1.96$ Pirate Ln Babcock St Lipscomb St Widen to 4 lanes Wickham Rd at Eau Gallie Blvd Right turn lane SU 0.28$ 0.28$ Developer 0.27$ 0.81$ 1.13$ 5.66$ 7.87$ Wickham Rd at Post Rd Right turn lane SU 0.28$ 0.28$ St. Johns Heritage Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.19$ 0.58$ 0.80$ 4.02$ 5.59$ Degroodt Rd Babcock St New 4 lane Norfolk Parkway East Ext. Current Norfolk Pkwy Hollywood Blvd New 2 lane SU 0.44$ 1.32$ 2.44$ 12.21$ 16.41$ Parkway Developer 1.74$ 5.21$ 7.24$ 36.19$ 50.38$ SUBTOTAL ‐ TMA (SU) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0.06$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0.56$ 0.44$ 1.32$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 2.44$ 12.21$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 17.03$ Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.09$ 0.27$ 0.40$ 1.98$ 2.74$ Bombardier Blvd St Johns Heritage Pkwy Degroodt Rd Widen to 4 lanes Developer 0.27$ 0.82$ 1.19$ 5.95$ 8.23$ TABLE 7.13 (D): MIXED FUNDING in millions YOE $s 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035 2036‐2040 2016‐2040 Culver Dr Emerson Dr Palm Bay Rd Widen to 4 lanes Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.22$ 0.66$ 0.96$ 4.79$ 6.63$ FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT SOURCE PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST TOTAL Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.81$ 2.42$ 3.50$ 17.52$ 24.25$ Degroodt Extension CR 512 (Fellsmere) San Fillipo New 4 lane LF 3.12$ 3.12$ Developer 7.25$ 21.74$ 31.54$ 157.68$ 218.21$ St Johns Heritage Pkwy US 192 Ellis Rd Interchange New Road Construction CIGP 3.12$ 3.12$ Minton Rd Malabar Rd US 192 Widen to 6 lanes County Impact Fee 0.83$ 2.48$ 3.60$ 18.00$ 24.91$ TMA (SU) 0.19$ 0.19$ St. Johns Heritage Pkwy Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.47$ 1.40$ 2.03$ 10.16$ 14.06$ Bombardier Rd Malabar Rd New 4 lane SR 500/US 192 at Wickham Rd Add Turne Lane(s) ACSU 0.30$ 0.30$ (SJHP) Developer 1.40$ 4.20$ 6.09$ 30.47$ 42.16$ Other Arterial 0.06$ 0.28$ 0.34$ Norfolk Parkway West County Impact Fee 0.43$ 1.28$ 2.09$ 10.45$ 14.25$ St Johns Heritage Pkwy Minton Rd New 2 lane TMA (SU) 0.58$ 0.58$ Ext. Developer 1.28$ 3.84$ 6.27$ 31.34$ 42.73$ SR 500/US 192 at Hollywood Blvd Add Turne Lane(s) 4.78$ Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.14$ 0.41$ 0.67$ 3.34$ 4.56$ DIH,DDR 4.78$ Garvey Rd Bombardier Rd Garbelmann Rd Widen to 4 lanes Other Arterial 0.06$ 0.28$ 0.34$ Developer 0.41$ 1.23$ 2.00$ 10.01$ 13.65$ SA 2.01$ 2.01$ County Impact Fee 0.23$ 0.70$ 5.70$ 6.63$ Corridor/Subarea Planning Babcock Connector Egan Rd (IR Co) Babcock St New 2 lane LF 1.50$ 1.50$ Developer 0.70$ 2.09$ 17.09$ 19.88$ SJHP Washingtonia Ellis Road Pineda TMA (SU) 17.87$ 17.87$ Judge Fran Extension Stadium Pkwy Wickham Rd Widen to 4 lanes Developer 0.53$ 1.60$ 2.32$ 11.58$ 16.03$ New 4 lane County Impact Fee 5.15$ 7.15$ 17.87$ 30.17$ Jamieson Palm Bay Parkway local I-95 Interchange Developer 2.81$ 5.15$ 7.15$ 35.74$ 50.85$ Babcock St New 4 lane Developer 0.88$ 2.63$ 3.65$ 18.25$ 25.41$ LF 3.37$ 3.37$ access roads (S) Hollywood St Palm Bay Rd US 192 Widen/Resurface Exist Lanes Palm Bay Parkway local I-95 Interchange TRIP 3.37$ 3.37$ Micco Rd New 4 lane Developer 0.75$ 2.25$ 3.13$ 18.47$ 24.60$ County Impact Fee 1.27$ 3.81$ 5.53$ 35.21$ 45.82$ access roads (S) TRIP 1.50$ 1.50$ Lake Andrews Dr Judge Fran Jamieson Stadium Pkwy New 4 lane Developer 0.65$ 1.95$ 2.70$ 13.51$ 18.81$ 2100 feet south of Micco LF 1.50$ 1.50$ Widen to 4 lanes & Babcock St Malabar Road Add Lanes & Reconstruct Viera Blvd. Powerline Rd US 1 Developer 0.34$ 1.02$ $ 1.42 7.08$ 9.86$ Road/ Deer Run Road DIH,DDR 27.51$ 27.51$ operational improvements Brevard/Volusia Co Other Arterial 15.88$ 15.88$ Deering Pkwy I-95 Widen to 4 lanes Developer 23.88$ 23.88$ TRIP 0.50$ 0.50$ Line LF 0.50$ 0.50$ Stadium Pkwy Pineda Wickham Rd New 4 lane Developer 2.13$ 6.38$ 10.41$ 52.07$ 70.99$ PD&E/EMO Study Malabar Rd Palm Bay Parkway Minton Rd TMA (SU) 6.15$ 6.15$ Widen to 4 lanes SUBTOTAL ‐ Local Impact Fees $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0.26$ 0.78$ 1.08$ 5.43$ 2.42$ 7.23$ 10.49$ 52.45$ 0.80$ 2.39$ 2.76$ 13.79$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 5.70$ 105.58$ Palm Bay Impact Fee 3.75$ 15.38$ 19.13$ County Impact Fee 15.38$ 15.38$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Developer $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 4.63$ 13.87$ 19.27$ 99.16$ 9.45$ 28.36$ 41.14$ 205.68$ 2.39$ 7.16$ 8.27$ 65.23$ 2.13$ 6.38$ 10.41$ 69.16$ 592.69$ TMA (SU) 7.98$ 7.98$ 2100 ft South of of Micco Other Arterial 18.42$ 18.42$ Babcock St Malabar Rd Widen to 4 lanes Rd/Deer Run Rd County Impact Fee 3.68$ 36.85$ 40.53$ Palm Bay Impact Fee 18.42$ 18.42$ TMA (SU) 2.41$ 14.74$ 17.15$ St. Johns Heritage Babcock St Indian River County Widen to 4 lanes Palm Bay Impact Fee 14.74$ 14.74$ Pkwy (SJHP) County Impact Fee 7.23$ 2.95$ 29.48$ 39.66$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Local Impact Fees $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 8.90$ 7.15$ 17.87$ 1.27$ 3.81$ 5.53$ 30.76$ $ ‐ 7.23$ 6.63$ 90.48$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 44.22$ 223.85$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Misc. local funds 2.00$ 1.50$ 3.37$ 3.12$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 9.98$ SUBTOTAL ‐ TMA (SU) $ ‐ 0.76$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 17.87$ $ ‐ 7.98$ 6.15$ $ ‐ 2.41$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 14.74$ 49.91$ SUBTOTAL ‐ TRIP 0.50$ 1.50$ 3.37$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 5.37$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Other Arterial $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0.12$ 16.44$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 18.42$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 34.98$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Misc 2.01$ 0.30$ 32.29$ 3.12$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ State/Federal 37.72$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Developer $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 2.81$ 5.15$ 7.15$ 35.74$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 50.85$
172 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN COST FEASIBLE PLAN
TABLE 7.13 (E): LOCAL/DEVELOPER FUNDED in millions YOE $s 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035 2036‐2040 2016‐2040 FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT SOURCE PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST TOTAL Melbourne Impact Fee 0.07$ 0.20$ 0.28$ 1.41$ 1.96$ Pirate Ln Babcock St Lipscomb St Widen to 4 lanes Developer 0.27$ 0.81$ 1.13$ 5.66$ 7.87$ St. Johns Heritage Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.19$ 0.58$ 0.80$ 4.02$ 5.59$ Degroodt Rd Babcock St New 4 lane Parkway Developer 1.74$ 5.21$ 7.24$ 36.19$ 50.38$ Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.09$ 0.27$ 0.40$ 1.98$ 2.74$ Bombardier Blvd St Johns Heritage Pkwy Degroodt Rd Widen to 4 lanes Developer 0.27$ 0.82$ 1.19$ 5.95$ 8.23$ Culver Dr Emerson Dr Palm Bay Rd Widen to 4 lanes Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.22$ 0.66$ 0.96$ 4.79$ 6.63$ Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.81$ 2.42$ 3.50$ 17.52$ 24.25$ Degroodt Extension CR 512 (Fellsmere) San Fillipo New 4 lane Developer 7.25$ 21.74$ 31.54$ 157.68$ 218.21$ Minton Rd Malabar Rd US 192 Widen to 6 lanes County Impact Fee 0.83$ 2.48$ 3.60$ 18.00$ 24.91$ St. Johns Heritage Pkwy Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.47$ 1.40$ 2.03$ 10.16$ 14.06$ Bombardier Rd Malabar Rd New 4 lane (SJHP) Developer 1.40$ 4.20$ 6.09$ 30.47$ 42.16$ Norfolk Parkway West County Impact Fee 0.43$ 1.28$ 2.09$ 10.45$ 14.25$ St Johns Heritage Pkwy Minton Rd New 2 lane Ext. Developer 1.28$ 3.84$ 6.27$ 31.34$ 42.73$ Palm Bay Impact Fee 0.14$ 0.41$ 0.67$ 3.34$ 4.56$ Garvey Rd Bombardier Rd Garbelmann Rd Widen to 4 lanes Developer 0.41$ 1.23$ 2.00$ 10.01$ 13.65$ County Impact Fee 0.23$ 0.70$ 5.70$ 6.63$ Babcock Connector Egan Rd (IR Co) Babcock St New 2 lane Developer 0.70$ 2.09$ 17.09$ 19.88$ Judge Fran Stadium Pkwy Wickham Rd Widen to 4 lanes Developer 0.53$ 1.60$ 2.32$ 11.58$ 16.03$ Jamieson Palm Bay Parkway local I-95 Interchange Babcock St New 4 lane Developer 0.88$ 2.63$ 3.65$ 18.25$ 25.41$ access roads (S) Palm Bay Parkway local I-95 Interchange Micco Rd New 4 lane Developer 0.75$ 2.25$ 3.13$ 18.47$ 24.60$ access roads (S) Lake Andrews Dr Judge Fran Jamieson Stadium Pkwy New 4 lane Developer 0.65$ 1.95$ 2.70$ 13.51$ 18.81$ Widen to 4 lanes & Viera Blvd. Powerline Rd US 1 Developer 0.34$ 1.02$ $ 1.42 7.08$ 9.86$ operational improvements Brevard/Volusia Co Deering Pkwy I-95 Widen to 4 lanes Developer 23.88$ 23.88$ Line Stadium Pkwy Pineda Wickham Rd New 4 lane Developer 2.13$ 6.38$ 10.41$ 52.07$ 70.99$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Local Impact Fees $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 0.26$ 0.78$ 1.08$ 5.43$ 2.42$ 7.23$ 10.49$ 52.45$ 0.80$ 2.39$ 2.76$ 13.79$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 5.70$ 105.58$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Developer $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 4.63$ 13.87$ 19.27$ 99.16$ 9.45$ 28.36$ 41.14$ 205.68$ 2.39$ 7.16$ 8.27$ 65.23$ 2.13$ 6.38$ 10.41$ 69.16$ 592.69$
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 173 COST FEASIBLE PLAN
TABLE 7.13 (F): PROGRAM PROJECTS (BOXED FUNDS) in millions YOE $s 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035 2036‐2040 2016‐2040 FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT SOURCE PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST TOTAL Other Arterial 1.10$ 3.90$ 2.20$ 7.80$ 3.30$ 11.70$ ITS Program ITS Master Plan improvements 65.00$ TMA (SU) 0.66$ 2.34$ 2.64$ 9.36$ 1.10$ 3.90$ 3.30$ 11.70$ TALU/TALT 0.43$ 2.86$ 3.00$ 3.00$ 3.00$ 3.00$ Bicycle/Pedestrian and Transit 4.80$ 4.30$ 4.60$ 1.80$ Multimodal Program Complete Streets TMA (SU) 1.00$ 9.92$ $ 5.00 4.00$ 57.24$ improvements Misc. State/Federal 0.45$ 1.62$ 3.12$ Local 1.33$ Other Arterial 1.10$ 3.90$ 2.64$ 9.36$ 2.20$ 7.80$ Corridor studies & Corridor Studies/ TMA (SU) 16.76$ 0.44$ 1.56$ 1.10$ 3.90$ 1.10$ 3.90$ implementation of 62.19$ Implementation Program Misc. State/Federal 4.02$ 2.32$ recommended improvements Local 0.09$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Other Arterial $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 2.20$ $ ‐ 7.80$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 4.84$ $ ‐ 17.16$ $ ‐ 5.50$ $ ‐ 19.50$ 57.00$ SUBTOTAL ‐ TMA (SU) 16.76$ 1.00$ $ ‐ 9.92$ $ ‐ 1.10$ $ ‐ 3.90$ $ ‐ 3.74$ $ ‐ 13.26$ $ ‐ 2.20$ $ ‐ 12.80$ $ ‐ 3.30$ $ ‐ 15.70$ 83.67$ SUBTOTAL ‐ TALU/TALT 0.43$ $ ‐ $ ‐ 2.86$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 3.00$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 3.00$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 3.00$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 3.00$ 15.29$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Transit $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 4.80$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 4.30$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 4.60$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 1.80$ 15.50$ SUBTOTAL ‐ Misc. 4.47$ 3.95$ $ ‐ 3.12$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 11.55$ State/Federal SUBTOTAL ‐ Misc. Local 0.09$ $ ‐ $ ‐ 1.33$ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ 1.42$
TABLE 7.13 (G): SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE in millions YOE $s FACILITY SOURCE 2016‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035 2036‐2040 2016‐2040 Constitutional Fuel Tax $ 41.45 $ 53.37 $ 68.64 $ 87.84 257.97$ County Fuel Tax $ 18.51 $ 23.83 $ 30.65 $ 39.23 112.22$ Brevard County Roadways $ 6.67 Ninth Cent from diesel fuel $ 4.53 $ 5.35 $ 6.27 $ 7.31 23.46$ 6-cent Local Option (County) $ 24.31 $ 34.96 $ 46.24 $ 76.23 181.74$ Transit (State/Federal) $ 13.11 $ 58.40 $ 62.10 $ 65.10 $ 67.90 266.61$ Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) Misc. Local Revenue $ 11.23 $ 23.55 $ 24.92 $ 26.12 $ 27.22 113.04$ State Highway System* State/Federal $ 93.96 $ 2,029.00 $ 2,223.00 $ 2,441.50 $ 2,441.50 9,228.96$
*Funds reflected in periods between 2021-2040 TOTAL - Developer -$ -$ 12.60$ -$ 7.44$ 19.02$ 26.42$ 134.90$ 9.45$ 28.36$ 41.14$ 205.68$ 3.15$ 7.16$ 11.99$ 65.23$ 2.13$ 8.66$ 10.41$ 87.77$ 681.51$ reference FDOT District 5 districtwide allocation to TOTAL - SIS 5.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9.53$ 12.66$ 1.11$ 3.32$ 24.30$ 1,209.23$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,265.15$ State Highway System operation and maintenance. TOTAL - Other Arterials & ROW -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.54$ 16.03$ 54.84$ 54.70$ -$ -$ -$ 116.39$ 5.78$ 16.68$ 28.29$ 84.22$ -$ 11.00$ -$ 112.31$ 503.78$ These funds are not reflected in table summarizing TOTAL - TMA (SU) 16.76$ 1.76$ -$ 9.97$ -$ 1.10$ -$ 22.33$ 0.44$ 13.04$ 6.15$ 13.26$ 2.41$ 2.20$ 2.44$ 25.01$ -$ 3.30$ -$ 30.44$ 150.61$ TOTAL - TALU/TALT 0.43$ -$ -$ 2.86$ -$ -$ -$ 3.00$ -$ -$ -$ 3.00$ -$ -$ -$ 3.00$ -$ -$ -$ 3.00$ 15.29$ TOTAL - Transit (State/Federal) 13.11$ -$ -$ -$ 58.40$ -$ -$ 4.80$ 62.10$ -$ -$ 4.30$ 65.10$ -$ -$ 4.60$ 67.90$ -$ -$ 1.80$ 282.11$ TOTAL - Local Transit -$ -$ -$ 11.23$ -$ -$ -$ 23.55$ -$ -$ -$ 24.92$ -$ -$ -$ 26.12$ -$ -$ -$ 27.22$ 113.04$ TOTAL - TRIP 0.50$ 1.50$ 3.37$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.37$ TOTAL - Misc. State/Federal 16.85$ 34.62$ 49.80$ 115.36$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 216.62$ TOTAL - Fuel Taxes -$ -$ -$ 6.67$ -$ -$ -$ 88.80$ -$ -$ -$ 117.51$ -$ -$ -$ $ 151.80 $ - -$ -$ 210.61$ 575.39$ TOTAL - Impact Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.26$ 9.68$ 8.23$ 23.30$ 3.69$ 11.04$ 16.02$ 83.21$ 0.80$ 9.62$ 9.39$ $ 104.27 $ - -$ -$ 49.92$ 329.43$ TOTAL - Misc Local 2.09$ 1.50$ 18.20$ 4.45$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 26.24$ TOTAL 54.73$ 39.38$ 83.97$ 150.53$ 69.64$ 45.83$ 99.02$ 368.04$ 76.79$ 55.76$ 87.61$ 1,777.50$ 77.24$ 35.66$ 52.11$ 464.25$ 70.03$ 22.96$ 10.41$ 523.07$ 4,164.54$
174 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
TABLE 7.14: CORRIDOR SUMMARY NEEDS
BABCOCK STREET From: US-1 Functional Classification: Urban/Rural Principal/Minor Arterial/Collector To: Indian River Corridor Length: 20.3 Miles County Line Community: Palm Bay/Melbourne/Grant Valkaria/Micco CORRIDOR PROJECTS Period Project Type Facility From To Description Net Cost 2021-2025 Babcock St Malabar Rd Palm Bay Rd Widen to 6 lanes $22,098 St. Johns 2031-2035 Babcock St Malabar Rd Widen to 4 lanes $85,556 Heritage Pkwy Highway St. Johns Capacity Babcock St Indian River County Widen to 4 lanes $70,420 Heritage Pkwy 2036-2040 Babcock Egan Rd (Indian Babcock St New 2 lanes $6,627 Connector River County) Total: $184,701 Designated Bignonia St US 192 Melbourne Ave $19 Bike Lane 150’ south of 1350’ N of Palm Designated Babcock St $26 Sunlake Dr Bay Road NE Bike Lane 2200’ NW of Buffer Off Road Shared- Babcock St Valkaria Rd $3,163 Preserve Dr Use Path M-1 Canal Off Road Shared- Florida Ave Stack Blvd $577 Pedway/Greenway Use Path S Melbourne Florida Ave / Stack Blvd / Off Road Shared- Canal System $805 Dairy Rd Pirate Lane Use Path Greenway 2350’ NW of Tim Off Road Shared- Babcock St Valkaria Road $3,156 Goodwin Rd Use Path Bike/Ped Babcock St Malabar Rd Valkaria Sidewalk $412 Multimodal Florida Avenue 2000’ E of Babcock St Lipscomb St Paved Shoulder $68 Program Univ Boulevard/ Babcock St US 192 Sharrow Marking $371 Country Club Port Malabar Blvd 850’ W of Babcock St Babcock St Sharrow Marking $58 Valkaria Rd San Filippo Drive Leg Horn Rd Sidewalk $447 Babcock St Malabar Rd Valkaria Paved shoulder $314 Babcock St Brevard Ave 150’ S of Lagoon Ave Sidewalk $59 Babcock St W Fee Ave New Haven Ave Sidewalk $32 Nieman Ave Lorraine Dr Babcock St Sidewalk $105 W Fee Ave Airport Blvd S Appollo Blvd Sidewalk $78 San Filippo Dr De Groot Rd Wyoming Dr Sidewalk $557 Babcock St University Sheridan Complete Street TBD Complete County Club US 192 Edgewood Complete Street TBD Streets Babcock St Palm Bay Rd Eber & Pirate Ln Complete Street TBD *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in YOE $s. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 175 C: COST FEASIBLE
BABCOCK STREET, CONTINUED CORRIDOR PROJECTS, CONTINUED ITS ITS Babcock St Malabar Rd Nasa Blvd ITS Improvements $1,897 Program New fixed route Babcock St $600 service Unfunded Transit Melbourne regional Emerald City New bus rapid Babcock St $713,156 mm hub regional mm hub transit service
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
176 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
BANANA RIVER DRIVE From: Mathers Bridge Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial/Urban Major Collector/Urban Local To: SR A1A Corridor Length: 1.3 miles Community: Merritt Island CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost Corrridor Corridor Study Banana River Corrridor Study Studies Mathers Bridge SR A1A TBD Implementation Dr/Pinetree Implementation Program 2800’ W of E Merritt Island Designated Multimodal N Banana River Dr $217 Bike/Ped Triangle Rd Causeway Bike Lane Program N Banana River Dr Highway 528 N Furman Road Sidewalk $9
*Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Project Priorities (2015)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 177 C: COST FEASIBLE
CLEARLAKE RD/SR 524 From: SR 520 (West) Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial To: SR 520 (East) Corridor Length: 8.0 miles Community: Cocoa CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Clearlake Rd. Michigan Industry Rd Widen to 4 lanes $8,311 Highway 2021-2035 I-95 Interchange Capacity SR 524 Industry Rd Widen to 4 lanes $17,433 (South) Total: $25,744 ITS ITS SR 501 SR 520 SR 528 ITS improvements $559 Program 2600’ E of E Designated Clearlake Rd King Street $366 Industry Rd Bike Lane Range/ Clearlake Rd 400’ S of W King St Paved Shoulder $68 Pluckebaum Rd Bike/Ped 2300’ south of Friday Rd Highway 524 Paved Shoulder $48 Multimodal Highway 524 Program 600’ north of W Cox Rd SR 524 Sidewalk $218 King Street La Marche Dr Otterbein Ave Michigan Ave Sidewalk $50 Complete Michigan Range Clearlake Complete Street TBD Streets West Cocoa New fixed route Unfunded Transit $300 Circulator service *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
178 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
CULVER DRIVE/ NORFOLK PARKWAY From: St Johns Functional Classification: Urban Major Collector Heritage Parkway To: Hollywood Blvd Corridor Length: 7.2 miles Community: Palm Bay CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* 2026-2030 Culver Dr Emerson Dr Palm Bay Rd Widen to 4 lanes $6,633
Highway Norfolk Parkway St. Johns Minton Rd New 2 lanes $14,245 Capacity West Extension Heritage Pkwy 2031-2035 Norfolk Parkway New 2 lanes and Current Norfolk Pkwy Hollywood Dr. $16,421 East Extension I-95 Bridge Total: $37,299 ITS ITS Emerson Dr St. Johns Pkwy N Minton Rd ITS improvements $729 Program RJ Conlan Designated Palm Bay Road NE US 1 $125 Boulevard NE Bike Lane North of Palm Off Road Shared- Robert J. Conlan Blvd Norfolk Pkwy $1,659 Bay Rd Use Path Bike/Ped Multimodal Palm Bay Road Main Street NE US 1 Sidewalk $21 Program 100’ N of Carr Riviera Drive Palm Bay Road Circle/Fairfield Sidewalk $14 Circle NE Complete Palm Bay Rd RJ Conlan US 1 Complete Street TBD Streets US 1/Heritage New fixed route Unfunded Transit Corridor to $300 service Palm Bay * Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 179 C: COST FEASIBLE
DAIRY RD From: US 192 Functional Classification: Urban Major Collector To: Hibiscus Blvd Corridor Length: 0.5 miles Community: Melbourne CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Dairy Rd Carpenter Rd US 1 Paved shoulder $185 Multimodal Dairy Rd Old Dixie Hwy US 1 Sharrow marking $117 Bike/Ped Program 1800’ east Dairy Rd Old Dixie Hwy Sidewalk $84 of US 1 Highway Unfunded Dairy Rd US 192 Hibiscus Blvd WIden to 4 lanes $4,155 Capacity *Cost estimates reflect capital costs of improvements. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
180 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
DAIRY RD DEERING PARKWAY From: US 192 Functional Classification: Urban Major Collector From: I-95 Functional Classification: N/A To: Hibiscus Blvd Corridor Length: 0.5 miles To: Volusia County Line Corridor Length: 1.1 miles Community: Melbourne Community: Farmton DRI CORRIDOR PROJECTS CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Cost* Dairy Rd Carpenter Rd US 1 Paved shoulder $185 Highway Deering Parkway N/A Farmington DRI I-95 Widen to 4 lanes - Capacity (W. Stuckway Rd) Multimodal Dairy Rd Old Dixie Hwy US 1 Sharrow marking $117 Bike/Ped Program 1800’ east *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Dairy Rd Old Dixie Hwy Sidewalk $84 of US 1 Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars. Highway Unfunded Dairy Rd US 192 Hibiscus Blvd WIden to 4 lanes $4,155 Capacity *Cost estimates reflect capital costs of improvements. Estimated costs for Program REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars • Farmton 17th Objective - Brevard Comprehensive Plan Amendment (2009)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 181 C: COST FEASIBLE
DIXON BOULEVARD From: Clearlake Road Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial To: US-1 Corridor Length: 1.1 miles Community: Cocoa CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Corridor Corridor Corridor Study Studies Study/ Dixon Blvd Clearlake Rd (SR 501) US 1 Implementation TBD Program Implementation Program ITS ITS Dixon Blvd Clearlake Rd SR 5/US 1 ITS improvements $737 Program *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast TPO Project Priorities (2015)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
182 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
EAU GALLIE BOULEVARD From: I-95 Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial To: SR A1A Corridor Length: 7.9 miles Community: Melbourne CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Highway 2021-2025 Eau Gallie Blvd At US 1 Left turn lane $184 Capacity Total: $184 Corridor Corridor Corridor Study Studies Study/ Eau Gallie Blvd S. Patrick Dr SR A1A Implementation TBD Program Implementation Program ITS ITS Eau Gallie Cswy SR 5/ US-1 SR A1A ITS improvements $972 Program 300’ west of Eau Gallie Blvd US 1 Designated Bike Lane $72 Stewart Ave Commordore Eau Gallie Blvd Jones Road Designated Bike Lane $490 Blvd Bike/Ped John Rodes Blvd Silver Heron Drive Eau Gallie Blvd Paved Shoulder $44 S Patrick Drive Banana River Drive Eau Gallie Blvd Sharrow Marking $325 Multimodal 450’ west of Eau Gallie Blvd Groveland Sidewalk $47 Program Jones Road Riverside & S Eau Gallie Cswy SR A1A Complete Street TBD Patrick Dr Complete Eau Gallie Montreal Pineapple Complete Street TBD Streets Blvd (WB) Ave & US 1 Eau Gallie Blvd Montreal Ave Pineapple Complete Street TBD WB & US 1 *Cost estimates reflect capital costs of improvements. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast TPO Project Priorities (2015)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 183 C: COST FEASIBLE
EYSTER BOULEVARD From: Murrell Rd Functional Classification: NA To: Fiske Blvd Corridor Length: 1.3 miles Community: Rockledge CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Highway Unfunded Eyster Blvd Murrell Rd Fiske Blvd Widen to 4 lanes $10,554 Capacity *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP
184 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
GRISSOM PARKWAY From: Columbia Blvd Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial To: SR 528 Corridor Length: 10.9 miles Community: Port St John, Cocoa CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* 2700’ south of Designated Bike/Ped Grissom Pkwy Kings Highway $263 Fay Boulevard bike lane Multimodal 150’ south of Columbia Bike/Ped Grissom Pkwy Paved shoulder $19 Program Meadow Lark Drive Boulevard
Bike/Ped Grissom Pkwy Bridge Rd Camp Rd Paved Shoulder $180
Grissom Pkwy New fixed Unfunded Transit $600 N/S Corridor route service *Cost estimates reflect capital costs of improvements. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 185 C: COST FEASIBLE
HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD From: US 192 Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial To: Palm Bay Road Corridor Length: 3.1 miles Community: West Melbourne CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Highway 2031- 2035 Palm Bay Road US 192 Widen to 4 lanes $45,826 Capacity Total: $45,826 ITS SR 500/ ITS Hollywood Blvd Palm Bay Rd ITS improvements $612 Program US 192 1200’ south Designated Hollywood Blvd US 192 $93 of Henry Ave bike lane 1200’ south of Designated Hollywood Blvd Fell Road $25 Henry Ave bike lane 900’ north of Hollywood Blvd Palm Bay Rd Paved shoulder $18 Palm Bay Rd Multimodal 1200’ northwest Bike/Ped Hollywood Blvd Palm Bay Rd Sidewalk $30 Program of Palm Bay Rd Hollywood Blvd Henry Ave Belmont Way Sidewalk $66 Hollywood Blvd W New Haven Ave Henry Ave Sidewalk $65 750’ south of Lakes of Hollywood Blvd Eber Blvd Sidewalk $62 Melbourne Drive *Cost estimates reflect capital costs of improvements. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
186 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
LAKE ANDREW DRIVE From: Stadium Parkway Functional Classification: To be assigned To: Wickham Rd Corridor Length: 2.5 miles Community: Viera CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Highway TBD Lake Andrew Dr Judge Fran Jamieson Stadium Pkwy New 4 lane $- Capacity *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 187 C: COST FEASIBLE
MALABAR ROAD From: St. Johns Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial/Minor Arterial Heritage Parkway To: US-1 Corridor Length: 10.7 miles Community: Palm Bay/Malabar CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* 2026-2030 Malabar Rd Babcock St US 1 Widen to 4 lanes $36,567 Highway St. Johns 2031-2035 Capacity Malabar Rd Minton Rd Widen to 4 lanes $49,086 Heritage Pkwy Total: $85,653 ITS St. Johns West of San ITS Malabar Rd ITS improvements $1,680 Program Heritage Pkwy Filippo Dr 600’ east of Designated Malabar Rd Babcock St $13 Babcock St Bike Lane 750’ east of 2900’ west of Designated Malabar Rd San Filippo $861 Snapdragon Dr Bike Lane Dr SE Off Road Shared Malabar Rd Babcock St US 1 $1,298 Multimodal Use Path Bike/Ped Program Parallel to Off Road Shared Malabar Rd Malabar Rd $270 Jupiter Rd Use Path 2900’ west of Off Road Shared Malabar Rd W Malabar Rd Snapdragon $275 Use Path Dr 600’ parallel east 5700’ south of Off Road Shared Malabar Rd $384 of W Malabar Rd Malabar Rd Use Path US 1/Heritage New fixed route $300 Corridor via Malabar service Unfunded Transit Palm Bay New fixed route $600 Circulator service Heritage High School New fixed route service $300 *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
188 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
MICCO ROAD From: Babcock St Functional Classification: Rural Major Collector To: US 1 Corridor Length: 7.6 miles Community: Micco CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Multimodal Bike/Ped Micco Rd Evemia St US 1 Sidewalk $28 Program Highway I-95 Interchange Unfunded Micco Rd US 1 Widen to 4 lanes $57,308 Capacity (South) *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 189 C: COST FEASIBLE
MINTON ROAD From: US 192 Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial To: Malabar Rd Corridor Length: 5.6 miles Community: Palm Bay/West Melbourne CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Highway 2026-2030 Minton Rd Malabar Rd US 192 Widen to 6 lanes $24,910 Capacity Total: $24,910 ITS ITS Minton Rd Malabar Rd Emerson Dr ITS improvements $1,096 Program 1100’ north of Minton Rd Malabar Rd Designated bike lane $27 Multimodal Malabar Rd Bike/Ped Program Minton Rd Eber Blvd Palm Bay Rd Paved shoulder $118
*Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
190 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
PINEDA CAUSEWAY From: Osceola County Functional Classification: Urban/Rural Principal Arterial To: SR A1A Corridor Length: 16.3 miles Community: Palm Shores, South Patrick Shores CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* ITS Pineda Cswy SR 513 SR A1A ITS $106 ITS Program Pineda Cswy SR 5/US-1 SR 513 ITS $277 Pineda Cswy 150' west of I-95 US 1 Designated Bike Lane $396 Multimodal Bike/Ped Pineda Off Road Shared- Program 2750' west of I-95 I-95 $175 Cswy Ext Use Path Highway Pineda Unfunded Osceola County line I-95 New 2 lane $82,180 Capacity Extension *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• East Central Florida Corridor Task Force Final Report
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 191 C: COST FEASIBLE
PIRATE LANE From: Babcock St Functional Classification: Local To: Lipscomb St Corridor Length: 1.0 miles Community: Palm Bay CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Highway 2021-2025 Pirate Ln Babcock St Lipscomb St Widen to 4 lanes $1,969 Capacity Total: $1,969 Multimodal Lipscomb St/ Palm Bay Bike/Ped Pirate Ln Sharrow Marking $367 Program Clearmont St Road NE *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
192 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
SARNO ROAD From: Eau Gallie Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial To: US-1 Corridor Length: 3.9 miles Community: Melbourne CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Highway 2021-2025 Sarno Rd At US 1 Right turn lane $386 Capacity Total: $386 Corridor Corridor Study Corridor Study/ Studies Sarno Rd Wickham Rd US 1 Implementation TBD Implementation Program Program 1500’ east of Sarno Rd US 1 Designated bike lane $284 Multimodal Wickham Rd Bike/Ped Program 1200’ west of Sarno Rd Eau Gallie Blvd Sidewalk $160 Wickham Rd *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Project Priorities (2015)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 193 C: COST FEASIBLE
SR A1A From: US 192 Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial/Minor Arterial To: SR 528 Corridor Length: 22.9 miles Community: Indiatlantic/Indian Harbour Beach/Satellite Beach/Cocoa Beach/Port Canaveral CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Intersection SR A1A At SR 520 $184 Highway improvements 2021-2025 Capacity International Intersection re- N Atlantic Ave SR A1A $1,110 Drive alignment Total: $1,294 Corridor study Corridor SR A1A US 192 Pineda TBD Corridor Study implementation Study/ Implementation Corridor study Implementation SR A1A Pineda George King TBD implementation Riverside Dr Falcon Dr Eau Gallie Cswy ITS improvements $274 SR A1A Minuteman Cswy Pineda Cswy ITS improvements $1,294 ITS Program ITS South of George SR A1A Minuteman Cswy ITS improvements $2,819 King Blvd SR A1A SR 520 SR 528 Designated bike lane $358 Brevard SR A1A US 192 Designated bike lane $2,178 County Line SR A1A US 192 Eau Gallie Blvd Designated bike lane $433 SR A1A Eau Gallie Blvd Pineda Cswy Designated bike lane $671 SR A1A Pineda Cswy Ocean Beach Blvd Designated bike lane $1,243 Ocean Beach 100’ southwest of SR A1A Paved shoulder $225 Blvd Buchanan Ave Ocean Beach E Grant Ave Hendry Ave Paved shoulder $76 Blvd 50’ east of Sea Park Blvd SR A1A Paved shoulder $34 Brixton Lane Multimodal Bike/Ped 100’ north of E Sharrow and Program SR A1A Wakulla Lane $74 Volusia Lane BMUFL sign SR A1A Fifth Ave Ninth Ave Sharrow and BMUFL sign $25 Ocean Beach Cocoa Beach Blvd/Wakulla SR A1A Sharrow marking $218 Cswy Lane S Banana River Cocoa Beach SR A1A Sharrow marking $179 Blvd/St Lucie Ln Cswy W Alachua Cocoa Beach Ln/ N Banana SR A1A Sharrow marking $253 Cswy River Blvd SR A1A S 8th St 20th St Sidewalk $160 200’ south of SR A1A S 2nd St Sidewalk $56 S 5th St
194 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
SR A1A, CONTINUED CORRIDOR PROJECTS Period Project Type Facility From To Description Net Cost* SR A1A Banana River 16th St Sidewalk $584 S Riverside Dr US 192 Andrews Dr Sidewalk $179 Cassia Blvd S Patrick Dr Temple St Sidewalk $88 1000’ north of SR A1A Ocean Blvd Sidewalk $65 Bike/Ped Pineda Cswy 1400’ north of SR A1A School Ave Sidewalk $59 S Tech Rd 500’ north of 2400’ north of SR A1A Sidewalk $231 Cresent Beach Dr Jupiter St George King Blvd N Atlantic SR A1A Complete Street TBD Ridgewood Saint Lucia Ln Washington Ave Complete Street TBD N Atlantic SR A1A Central Complete Street TBD Washington Ave N Atlantic Ridgewood Complete Street TBD Brevard Minuteman Cswy SR A1A Complete Street TBD
Complete Ocean Beach Blvd Wakulla Ln Ridgewood & SR 520 Complete Street TBD Streets Minuteman Cswy Brevard Orlando Complete Street TBD SR A1A Escambia Ln Wakulla Ln Complete Street TBD SR A1A Minuteman Cswy Brevard Complete Street TBD S Riverside Oak St & A1A Riverside & US 192 Complete Street TBD Banana River S Patrick Dr SR A1A Complete Street TBD Cassia S Patrick Dr SR A1A Complete Street TBD Minuteman Cswy New fixed $300 E/W Connector route service Unfunded Transit Melbourne New bus rapid SR A1A Port Canveral $2,089,867 regional MM hub transit service *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
• Space Coast TPO Project Priorities (2015)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 195 C: COST FEASIBLE
SR 3 From: Space Commerce Way Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial/Rural Principal Arterial To: Mathers Bridge Corridor Length: 26.9 miles Community: Merritt Island CORRIDOR PROJECTS Period Project Type Facility From To Description Net Cost* Corridor Corridor Study/ Corridor study Studies SR 3 Fortenberry Smith/Grant Rd TBD Implementation implementation Program ITS ITS Courtenay Pkwy SR 528 Cone Rd ITS improvements $418 Program Designated SR 3 Grant Rd/ Smith Rd SR 528 $66 bike lane 2600’ east Off road shared 83rd SR 3 $348 of SR 3 use path Area 3700’ Off road shared Hall Rd SR 3 $779 east of SR 3 use path Off road shared Kennedy Pkwy N SR 3 Beach Rd $1,160 use path Merritt Wildlife 1500’ southwest Off road shared SR 3 $297 Refuge of Circle Rd use path 850’ south Off road shared SR 3 Pine Island Road of Chase $1,279 use path Hammock Road 3100’ northwest Off road shared SR 3 Kennedy Pkwy N $3,271 of Taylor Road use path SR 3/ Max Brewer Off road shared Parrish Park Kennedy Pkwy N $2,210 Bike/Ped Memorial Pkwy use path 1400’ north of Off road shared Multimodal S Tropical Trail Waring Way $537 Duskview Dr use path Program 300’ northwest Off road shared S Tropical Trail Banana River Dr $3,577 of S Oaks Dr use path N Tropical Trail Pioneer Rd Tanglewood Ln Paved shoulder $60 Grant Rd/ SR 3 Hall Rd Sharrow marking $399 Smith Rd N Tropical Trail/ 550’ northwest SR 3 Sidewalk $118 Grant Road of 3 Oaks Dr Grant Rd/ SR 3 Hall Road Sidewalk $199 Smith Rd N Tropical Trail Fields Ave Easy Street Sidewalk $119 S Tropical Trail Marlin Dr Tropical Cove Dr Sidewalk $296 150’ north of 200’ south of SR 3 Sidewalk $31 Marine Harbor Dr Heidi Ln Lucas N Tropical Trail SR 3 Complete Street TBD Complete Streets Merritt Ave SR 3 Plumosa Complete Street TBD SR 3 Merritt Ave Lucas Complete Street TBD
196 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
SR 3, CONTINUED *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 197 C: COST FEASIBLE
SR 406 From: N Carpenter Rd Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial/Major Collector To: US-1 Corridor Length: 3.3 miles Community: Titusville CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Corridor Corridor Corridor Study Studies Study/ SR 406 W/O I-95 US 1 Implementation TBD Program Implementation Program Fox Lake/ 10,200’ northwest Off road shared Carpenter Rd $1,060 Knox McRae of Fox Lake Park use path Kennedy Off road shared Beach Rd SR 3 $1,612 Pkwy N use path
N Singleton Ave Tropic St South St Paved shoulder $82
Tropic St N Singleton Ave Mantor Ave S Paved shoulder $44 Multimodal Bike/Ped Program Sharrow and Garden St 600’ west of Park Ave US 1 $109 BMUFL sign 700’ west Garden St Carpenter Rd Sharrow marking $162 of I-95
Carpenter Rd SR 46 Garden St Sidewalk $483
250’ north of N Singleton Ave Garden St Sidewalk $14 Westfield Dr *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Project Priorities (2015)
198 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
SR 520 From: Orange County Line Functional Classification: Rural/Urban Principal Arterial To: SR A1A Corridor Length: 16.3 miles Community: Cocoa/Merritt Island/Cocoa Beach CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Corridor Corridor Study Corridor Study/ Studies SR 520 US 1 Humphrey Bridge Implementation TBD Implementation Program Program ITS ITS SR 520 Bridge Milford Point Dr SR A1A ITS improvements $1,505 Program Sykes Creek 350’ southeast E Merritt Designated bike lane $29 Pkwy of Merritt Ave Island Cswy
Peachtree St Clearlake Rd Pineda St Paved shoulder $55
Sykes Creek Old Audubon Rd Merritt Ave Paved shoulder $82 Pkwy 1400’ east of Sharrow and King St US 1 $72 Florida Ave BMUFL sign W Cocoa 1000’ west of S Ocean Beach Sharrow and $75 Beach Cswy Banana River Blvd Blvd BMUFL sign
Peachtree St Pineda St Forrest Ave Sharrow marking $373
1000’ west Bike/Ped Lake Dr Clearlake Rd Sidewalk $60 of Varr Ave
Peachtree St Pineda St Forrest Ave Sidewalk $134
500’ east of Multimodal W King St Dellanoy Ave Sidewalk $11 Dellanoy Ave Program 300’ east of Willard St Dellanoy Ave Sidewalk $7 Dellanoy Ave Merritt Island 100’ west of 150’ west of Sidewalk $36 Cswy West End Rd Belt Rd Cone Rd/ Merritt Island SR 3 Sidewalk $149 Plumosa St Cswy
Peachtree St Clearlake Rd Pineda St Sidewalk $67
Peachtree St Pineda St Forest Complete Street TBD
Cox Rd & SR 520 I-95 & SR 520 Complete Street TBD SR 520 Complete Streets School St Fiske N Wilson Ave Complete Street TBD
Willard St & Hubert Humphrey SR 520 (WB) King St (prior Complete Street TBD Memorial Bridge to 520 split)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 199 C: COST FEASIBLE
SR 520, CONTINUED CORRIDOR PROJECTS Project Period Facility From To Description Net Cost* Type Hubert Humphrey SR 520 (EB) Florida Ave & Forrest Complete Street TBD Memorial Bridge Lake Dr & SR 520 Clearlake Complete Street TBD Multimodal Complete Pineda St Program Streets Ocean SR 520 Banana River Blvd Beach Blvd & Complete Street TBD Ridgewood
St Lucie Banana River Blvd SR A1A Complete Street TBD
Orlando Airport New express route $900 Express Unfunded Transit SR 520 Bus New bus rapid SR 524 SR A1A $1,518,348 Rapid Transit transit service *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
• Space Coast TPO Project Priorities (2015)
200 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
SR 405 From: US 1 Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial To: SR 50 Corridor Length: 5.4 miles Community: Titusville CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Highway Existing 4 lane 2031-2035 South St (SR 405) SR 50 Widen to 4 lanes $66,528 Capacity section Total: $66,528 ITS South St SR 50 S Singleton Ave ITS improvements $605 ITS Program SR 3/SR 405 SR 528 US 1 ITS improvements $932 Designated SR 50 750’ west of I-95 South St $63 bike lane Fox Lake Rd/ 1300’ of South Carpenter Rd Paved shoulder $209 Harrrison St Park Ave 500’ south 400’ north of South St of Fox Lake/ Paved shoulder $91 Multimodal Swan Lake Bike/Ped Knox McRae Program South St Park Ave US 1 Sharrow marking $274
Fox Lake/ 500’ east of Alexander Dr Sidewalk $40 Knox McRae Carpenter Rd 900’ northeast of Sisson Rd Columbia Blvd Sidewalk $22 Columbia Blvd *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 201 C: COST FEASIBLE
ST. JOHNS HERITAGE PARKWAY From: I-95/Ellis Functional Classification: TBD To: I-95/Micco Corridor Length: 23 miles Community: West Melbourne/Palm Bay/Grant Valkaria CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* I-95 Palm Bay Pkwy Babcock St interchange New 4 lane $25,398 local access roads (south) 2021-2025 Palm Bay Pkwy I-95 interchange Micco Rd New 4 lane $24,600 local access roads (south) St. Johns DeGroodt Ext Babcock St New 4 lane $5,597 Highway Heritage Pkwy Capacity St. Johns Bombardier Dr Malabar Rd New 4 lane $14,056 Heritage Pkwy 2026-2030 DeGroodt Ext SR 512 (Fellsmere) San Filippo New 2 lane $24,246 St. Johns Bombardier Dr DeGroodt Widen to 4 lanes $2,745 Heritage Pkwy Bombardier 2031-2035 Garvey Rd Garbelmann Rd Widen to 4 lanes $4,547 Dr Total: 101,889 St. Johns Emerson Dr Ellis Rd ITS improvements $710 ITS Heritage Pkwy ITS St Johns Program Malabar Rd Emerson Dr ITS improvements $418 Heritage Pkwy 5200’ parallel 5200’ north 5200’ north of W Off road shared north of of Palm Bay $349 Malabar Rd use path Malabar Rd Regional Park Between 2800’ west of Off road shared Halloran St SE Babcock St $2,180 Spinoza Ave use path & Titan Rd SE Multimodal John Rodes Off road shared Bike/Ped Sheridan Rd 2150’ west of I-95 $270 Program Blvd use path Lakeside Ave/ Tim Goodwin Off road shared Lake Washington Rd $8,786 Jones Rd Rd use path 2900’ west of Emerson Dr Amador Ave Sidewalk $72 Emerson Dr
Pace Dr Gillmar Ave Glendale Ave Sidewalk $141
Highway St. Johns Bombardier Dr DeGroodt New 4 lane $57,789 Capacity Heritage Pkwy Unfunded St. Johns Heritage New fixed route Transit $600 Pkwy Corridor service *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
202 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
ST. JOHNS HERITAGE PARKWAY, CONTINUED
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 203 C: COST FEASIBLE
US 1 SR 46 Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial To: Micco Rd Corridor Length: 59.4 miles Community: Brevard County CORRIDOR PROJECTS Period Project Type Facility From To Description Net Cost* 2026-2030 US1 Park Ave Barnes Blvd Widen to 6 lanes $26,600 Widen to 6 lanes and study needed Pineda 2026-2030 Highway US 1 Barnes Blvd Interchange $83,600 Causeway Capacity Improvements at Pineda (SR 404) RJ Conlan Study need to 2036-2040 US 1 Malabar Rd $65,409 Blvd widen to 6 lanes Total: $175,609 Corridor Study/ Corridor study Corridor Study US 1 SR 50 SR 406 TBD Implementation implementation US 1 (Titusville SR 406 SR 405 ITS improvements $1,297 area) University SR 5/US 1 Babcock St ITS improvements $772 Blvd South of ITS Program ITS SR 5/US 1 Pineda Cswy Barnes ITS improvements $1,629 Blvd SR 5/US 1 Lake Washington Rd Pineda Cswy ITS improvements $608 $1,351 SR 5/US 1 Cidco Rd SR 405 ITS improvements
University US 1 Sarno Road Blvd/ Designated bike lane $600 Country Club 2300’ west of Barnes Blvd US 1 Designated bike path $235 Murrell Rd Near Pomello Valkaria Rd Valkaria Rd & Off road shared Ranch/Valkaria & 250’ west $741 Hideaway Ln use path Airport of 3rd Ave Soutwest of Multimodal Valkaria Rd/ Off road shared Bike/Ped Valkaria Rd Micco Rd $2,480 Program Grant Rd/ use path Pines Sap Ave Leg Horn Rd Malabar Rd Valkaria Rd Off road shared use path $1,171 Area east of 550’ north of Gus Area west of Off road shared $400 Turbridge Circle Hipp/Roy Wall Brantley Cir use path Between Off road shared Pebble Hill Way Barnes Blvd Viera Blvd $824 use path & Riomar Dr US 1 Dairy Rd Garden St Off road shared use path $733
204 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
US 1, CONTINUED CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Off road shared Aurantia Rd I-95 US 1 $473 use path Folsom Rd/ 29,400’ northwest Off road shared US 1 $3,961 Broadway St of Aurantia Rd use path 1600’ east of Off road shared Huntington Ave US 1 $688 Tradewinds Way use path Valkaria Rd Old Dixie Hwy US 1 Paved shoulder $20 700’ north of US 1 Valkaria Rd Paved shoulder $409 Riverview Dr 100’ west of Aurora Rd Pineapple Ave Paved shoulder $9 Highland Ave S Deleon Ave Blanton St Palmetto St Paved shoulder $30
N Singleton Ave SR 46 Kirby Dr Paved shoulder $120
1300’ southeast 300’ northwest Old Dixie Hwy Paved shoulder $6 of Parrish Rd of Nichols Rd
Parrish Rd Holder Rd US 1 Paved shoulder $160
1200’ north of Sharrow and Multimodal US 1 South St $98 Bike/Ped Garden St BMUFL sign Program University Blvd/ Lipscomb St Florida Ave Sharrow marking $184 Country Club University Blvd/ Grant St US 1 Sharrow marking $268 Country Club
US 1 Aurora Rd Sarno Rd Sharrow marking $305
300’ west of S Washington Harrison St Sharrow marking $417 Barna Ave Ave 2500’ east of 1100’ west of Harrison St Sharrow marking $47 Park Ave Barna Ave
US 1 St. John St Grace St Sharrow marking $79
Brockett Rd US 1 Hammock Rd Sharrow marking $455
600’ southwest Dixon Blvd US 1 Sidewalk $15 of US 1 600’ north of Forrest Ave Cocoa Pl Sidewalk $33 Grimes St Michigan Ave Cocoa Lakes Dr US 1 Sidewalk $28
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 205 C: COST FEASIBLE
US 1, CONTINUED CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* US 1 Cidco Rd Cocoa Blvd Sidewalk $495 750’ southeast Pineapple Ave Parkway Dr Sidewalk $32 of Parkway Dr RJ Conlan Haverhill Rd US 1 Sidewalk $94 Blvd NE Palm Bay US 1 RJ Conlan Sidewalk $430 boundary Skelly Dr/ Florida Ave Rosa L Jones Dr Sidewalk $39 Freeman Way
Old Dixie Hwy 200’ north of Dairy Rd Draa Rd Sidewalk $266
100’ north of Bike/Ped S Hopkins Ave Brevard St Sidewalk $56 Sycamore St
Kings Hwy 700’ west of Kuesaw Ln US 1 Sidewalk $112
US 1 Williams Point Blvd Indian River Dr Sidewalk $26
US 1 Kings Hwy Broadway Blvd Sidewalk $296
Multimodal US 1 Canaveral Grove/Lee Cidco Rd Sidewalk $204 Program Rockledge Blvd Suntree Blvd Roberts Rd Sidewalk $271
Canveral Grissom Pkwy US 1 Complete Street TBD Groves Blvd
Old Dixie Dairy Road Parrish Complete Street TBD
Forrest Peachtree St US 1 Complete Street TBD
Florida Ave US 1 Forrest & SR 520 Complete Street TBD Complete Streets Lipscomb Florida Ave University Complete Street TBD
Croton Parkway Post Complete Street TBD
Front Melbourne New Haven Complete Street TBD
Hibiscus Apollo US 1 Complete Street TBD
Hickory US 192 NASA Complete Street TBD
206 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
US 1, CONTINUED CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost*
Line St Lipscomb US 1 Complete Street TBD
Parkway Pineapple & US 1 Croton Complete Street TBD
Pineapple Eau Gallie Blvd WB Parkway & US 1 Complete Street TBD
Post Rd Croton US 1 Complete Street TBD
Eau Gallie Blvd & US 1 Magnolia Eau Gallie Blvd Complete Street TBD & Montreal Ave
Country Club Dr Hopkins US 1 Complete Street TBD
DeLeon Harrison Garden St Complete Street TBD
Garden St Singleton DeLeon Complete Street TBD
Hopkins SR 50 Country Club Dr Complete Street TBD Complete Streets Hopkins Harrison US 1 (SB) Complete Street TBD
Knox McRae Raney Hopkins Complete Street TBD
Old Dixie Garden St Dairy Rd Complete Street TBD
Park Ave South St Garden St Complete Street TBD
Raney Knox McRae Country Club Dr Complete Street TBD
Singleton Parrish Tropic Complete Street TBD
South St US 1 Park Ave Complete Street TBD
Tropic Singleton Park Ave Complete Street TBD
US 1 Knox McRae Country Club Dr Complete Street TBD Near rail tracks US 1 (NB) South St Complete Street TBD (north)
US 1 (SB) Near rail tracks (north) South St/SR 405 Complete Street TBD
Cocoa/Rockledge New passenger Passenger rail station Rail Station Melbourne New passenger Passenger Transit rail station Rail Station Titusville New passenger Passenger rail station Rail Station
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 207 C: COST FEASIBLE
US 1, CONTINUED) CORRIDOR PROJECTS Period Project Type Facility From To Description Net Cost* Port St John New fixed to Titusville $1,099 route service Circulator Kennedy Space New express $1,099 Center Express route Sebastian & New fixed $1,099 South County route service Canveral National New fixed $1,099 Seashore route service New fixed BCC Connector $1,500 route service Unfunded Transit New express US 1 Express $900 route US 1 North Bus Cocoa regional New bus rapid Mims multimodal hub $2,073,333 Rapid Transit multimodal hub transit service Melbourne US 1 Central Bus Cocoa regional New bus rapid regional $1,774,624 Rapid Transit multimodal hub transit service multimodal hub US 1 South Bus Melbourne regional New bus Micco $1,269,240 Rapid Transit multimodal hub rapid transit US 1 Commuter Sebastion New commuter Mims multimodal hub $5,478,883 Rail multimodal hub rail service *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
• Space Coast TPO Project Priorities (2015)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
208 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
US 192 From: Osceola Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial/Rural Principal Arterial County Line To: SR A1A Corridor Length: 18.3 miles Community: Melbourne/West Melbourne/Indiatlantic CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* At Hollywood Intersection 2021-2025 US 192 Add turning lanes $333 Highway Blvd/Evans improvements Capacity St. Johns US 192 Wickham Rd Widen to 6 lanes $25,376 2036-2040 Heritage Pkwy US 192 Wickham Rd Dairy Road Widen to 6 lanes $35,765 Total: $61,807 ITS SR 500/ US 192 Dairy Rd SR 5/US 1 ITS improvements $1,672 ITS Program Melbourne Cswy SR 5/US 1 SR A1A ITS improvements $446 Off road shared Evans Rd Evans Rd US 192 $595 use path
US 192 2000’ west of US 1 SR A1A Sharrow marking $1,016
Bike/Ped Front St US 192 Melbourne Ave Sharrow marking $42
US 192 Bignonia St McQuaid St Sharrow marking $135 Multimodal Program University Blvd/ New Haven Ave Edgewood Dr Sidewalk $66 Country Club
Fee Ave Airport US 1 Complete Street TBD
Complete New Haven US 1 US 192 Complete Street TBD Streets
US 192 US 1 New Haven Complete Street TBD
Highway US 192 Dairy Rd Babcock St Widen to 6 lanes $9,156 Capacity US 192 E/W New fixed route $300 Corridor service Downtown Unfunded New fixed route Melbourne to $300 Transit service A1A Condo Park
St. Johns Melbourne New bus rapid US 192 $696,622 Heritage Pkwy regional mm hub transit service
*Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 209 C: COST FEASIBLE
US 192, CONTINUED
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
210 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
VIERA BOULEVARD From: Sawmill Grade Functional Classification: Minor Arterial/ Urban Local To: US-1 Corridor Length: 4.2 miles Community: Viera CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Highway TBD Viera Blvd Herons Landing Schenck Rd Widen to 4 lanes $- Capacity ITS ITS Program Viera Blvd Stadium Pkwy SR 5/US 1 ITS improvements 551 Murrell Rd Ventana Blvd Viera Blvd Sharrow marking $664 3600’ east of Multimodal Viera Blvd US 1 Sharrow marking $443 Bike/Ped Murrell Rd Program Power Line Rd/ 1400’ west of Viera Blvd Sharrow marking $350 Sawmill Grade Stadium Pkwy *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
RREFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 211 C: COST FEASIBLE
WASHINGTONIA EXT/STADIUM PKWY/FISKE BLVD From: SR 520 Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial/ Urban Minor Arterial To: Eau Gallie Corridor Length: 18.3 miles Community: Viera/ Rockledge/ Cocoa CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Highway Washingtonia 2021-2025 Ellis Rd Pineda Cswy New 4 lane $49,747 Capacity Extension Total: $49,747 Stadium Pkwy Pineda Wickham Rd New 4 lane $- Judge Fran Widen to Highway Stadium Pkwy Wickham Rd $- TBD Jamieson 4 lanes Capacity Widen to Stadium Pkwy Viera Blvd Barnes Blvd $- 4 lanes Corridor Study Corridor Study/ Corridor study Fiske Blvd Barnes Blvd SR 520 TBD Implementation Implementation implementation S Fiske Blvd/ ITS ITS ITS Program Summer Path Barton Blvd $1,060 Stadium Pkwy improvements 1400’ east of Designated Barnes Blvd Fiske Blvd $35 Fiske Blvd bike lane Gus Hipp/Roy Designated Fiske Blvd Rosa L Jones Dr $413 Wall Blvd bike lane Between Off road shared Brunswick Ln & Fiske Blvd Murrell Rd $455 use path King Post Rd South of Judge Fran Off road shared Power Line Rd $115 Hollister Ln Jamieson Way use path South Fisk Blvd/ 1500’ south of I-95 Viera Blvd Paved shoulder $170 Bike/Ped Stadium Pkwy Judge Fran Sharrow Stadium Pkwy Wickham Rd $498 Jamieson Way marking Multimodal Varr Ave Peachtree St W King St Sidewalk $18 Program Range/ 400’ west of Clearlake Rd Sidewalk $91 Pluckebaum Rd Fiske Blvd 300’ south of Fiske Blvd Barnes Blvd Sidewalk $74 Prosperity Pl
Fiske Blvd Gus Hipp/Roy Wall Tuckaway Dr Sidewalk $32
Fiske Blvd SR 520 Dixon Complete Street TBD Pineda Peachtree St School St Complete Street TBD Complete Varr Ave SR 520 Peachtreet St Complete Street TBD Streets Barton Fiske Blvd Murrell Rd Complete Street TBD Fiske Barton Rosa L Jones Complete Street TBD
212 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
WASHINGTONIA EXT/STADIUM PKWY/FISKE BLVD, CONTINUED CORRIDOR PROJECTS Period Project Type Facility From To Description Net Cost* Viera Cocoa regional regional New bus rapid Fiske/Stadium $1,003,599 multimodal hub multimodal transit service Unfunded Transit hub New fixed route Viera Circulator $600 service *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
• Space Coast TPO Project Priorities (2015)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 213 C: COST FEASIBLE
WICKHAM ROAD From: Stadium Pkwy Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial/ Minor Arterial To: US 192 Corridor Length: 13.7 miles Community: West Melbourne/Melbourne/Suntree/Viera CORRIDOR PROJECTS Net Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost* Intersection Wickham Rd at Eau Gallie Blvd Add turning lanes $277 Highway improvements 2021-2025 Capacity Intersection Wickham Rd at Post Rd Add turning lanes $277 improvements Total: $554 Wickham Rd/ Lake Washington Sunset Rd Designated bike lane $741 Minton Rd Power Line Rd/ Wickham Rd 8800’ east of I-95 Designated bike lane $306 Sawmill Grde 150’ south of Wickham Rd Pineda Cswy Designated bike lane $43 Pine Branch Dr Power Line Rd/ 21,200’ west 9,600’ east of Off road shared $3,743 Wickham Rd of Viera Blvd Lake Winder Rd use path 300’ north of Pinehurst Ave Endicott Rd Paved shoulder $61 Kerry Downs Cir
Bike/Ped St Andrews Blvd Jubilee St Wickham Rd Paved shoulder $55
Multimodal St Andrews/ Pinehurst Ave Wickham Rd Sharrow marking $234 Program Brisbane Blvd
Aurora Rd Fox Bay Dr Wickham Rd Sidewalk $123
175’ south of Wickham Rd Ridge Club Dr Sidewalk $20 Ridge Club Dr 200’ south of Wickham Rd Industrial Rd Sidewalk $17 Talona Dr
Wickham Rd Nasa Blvd New Haven Ave Sidewalk $174
Wickham Rd Ellis Eau Gallie Blvd Complete Street TBD Complete Streets Wickham Rd US 192 Sheridan Complete Street TBD
Intersection Highway Wickham Rd at Suntree Add turning lanes $277 improvements Unfunded Wickham Rd/ Viera regional US 1 commuter New bus rapid Transit $663,554 Minton multimodal hub rail Malabar transit service *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
214 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
WICKHAM ROAD, CONTINUED
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 215 C: COST FEASIBLE
SIS FUNDED SR 528 From: Orange Functional Classification: Urban/Rural Principal Arterial/Freeways & Expressways County Line To: SR 401 Corridor Length: 17.4 miles Jurisdiction(s): Cocoa/Titusville/Merritt Island CORRIDOR PROJECTS Period Project Type Facility From To Description Net Cost* Highway 2026-2030 SR 528 I-95 SR 401 Widen to 6 lanes $1,209,497 Capacity
Total: $1,209,497
Brevard Off road shared SR 528 US 1 $3,650 Multimodal County Line use path Bike/Ped Program SR 528 Multi- Off road shared W of US 1 Port Canveral $- use Trail use path Highway SR 528 Orange County line I-95 Widen to 8 lanes $84,492 Capacity SR 528 Commuter Orlando International New commuter Port Canveral $1,934,744 Rail/Transit Airport rail service Unfunded BCC to UCF New express Transit $900 Express route SR 520 to Port New fixed $600 Canaveral route service *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
216 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
SIS FUNDED ELLIS ROAD/ NASA BOULEVARD From: I-95 Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial To: FEC Railroad Corridor Length: 5.9 miles Community: West Melbourne/Melbourne CORRIDOR PROJECTS Period Project Type Facility From To Description Net Cost* Highway 2021-2025 Ellis Rd John Rodes Blvd Wickham Rd Widen to 4 lanes $50,761 Capacity Total: $50,761 ITS Ellis Rd/ ITS W of I-95 SB SR 5/US 1 ITS improvements $1,960 Program Nasa Blvd Ellis Rd John Rodes Blvd 350’ east of East Dr Designated bike lane $97 950’ north of Designated West Nasa Blvd Gateway Dr $48 Evans Rd bike lane John Rodes Off road shared Ellis Rd 1200’ west of I-95 $207 Blvd use path 950’ south of Evans Rd Nasa Blvd Paved shoulder $19 Nasa Blvd Bike/Ped Multimodal West Nasa Blvd Woody Burke Blvd Airport Blvd Sharrow marking $329 Program 350’ east of 2,300’ west of Ellis Rd Sharrow marking $83 Distribution Dr Wickham Rd 750’ north of Airport Blvd Nasa Blvd Sidewalk $42 Eddie Allen Rd
Nasa Blvd Wickham Rd Grumman Ln Sidewalk $159
Complete W Nasa Blvd Wickham Rd Evans & Nasa Blvd Complete Street TBD Streets Freight at Melbourne Freight $60,000 Intermodal Hub International Airport Unfunded Pineda/Ellis Orlando International Melbourne New commuter Transit Commuter $1,389,418 Airport regional mm hub rail service Rail/Transit *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
• Space Coast TPO Complete Streets Evaluation Methodology (2014)
• Space Coast TPO ITS Master Plan (2014)
• Space Coast Area Transit Development Plan (2012)
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 217 C: COST FEASIBLE
SIS FUNDED SPACE COMMERCE WAY From: Nasa Pkwy Functional Classification: Rural Principal Arterial To: Kennedy Pkwy Corridor Length: 2.6 miles Community: Merritt Island CORRIDOR PROJECTS Period Project Type Facility From To Description Net Cost* Highway Space Commerce Kennedy 2026-2030 Nasa Pkwy W Widen to 4 lanes $28,462 Capacity Way Pkwy N Total: $28,462 Pine Island Multimodal Space Commerce Off road shared Bike/Ped Nasa Cswy Conservation $2,172 Program Way use path Area *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CORRIDOR LOCATION MAP • Space Coast Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan (2013)
218 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
OTHER PROJECTS FROM BOXED FUND PROGRAMS Project Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost Dairy Rd Palm Bay Rd SR 500/US-192 ITS $597 Foundation San Filippo Dr Malabar Rd ITS $513 Park Blvd ITS Program ITS Jupiter Blvd Emerson Dr San Filippo Dr ITS $967 Port Malabar Blvd Babcock St SR 5/US-1 ITS $351 SR 513 Eau Gallie Cswy Pineda Cswy ITS $1,491 Hickory St New Haven Ave SR 500/US-192 ITS $458 Designated Fay Blvd Golfview Avenue Grissom Parkway $241 Bike Lane Off Road Aurora Rd Jones Rd John Rodes Blvd Shared- $221 Use Path Off Road Shared- Post Rd I-95 Turtle Mound Rd $172 Use Path Off Road 1600' south of Lake Washington West of I-95 Shared- $2,083 Wickam Road Rd Use Path Starts Between Off Road Wadpole Town Road SW & Eldron/Cogan Dr Shared- $2,321 Road SW Topeka Rd SW Use Path Off Road Multimodal 27000' west of 11,100' east Bike/Ped Tim Goodwin Rd Shared- $3,716 Program Babcock St of I-95 Use Path Buck Lake 6300' northwest Off Road Shared- SR 46 $427 Conservation Area of Hatbill Rd Use Path
Canaveral 2600' south of SR Off Road Marshes 50 in Canaveral W King St Shared- $5,970 Conservation/ Marshes Use Path Satellite Blvd
Off Road Hammock Road/ Brockett Road Indian River Shared- $320 Galaxy Ln Use Path Off Road Near Blake 2200' north SR 46 Shared- $148 Lee Trail of SR 46 Use Path
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 219 C: COST FEASIBLE
OTHER PROJECTS FROM BOXED FUND PROGRAMS Project Period Project Type Facility From To Description Cost St. Johns 15,000' northwest Off Road Shared- Wildlife in St. Johns 2800' SE of SR 50 $1,242 Use Path Refuge Refuge Flemming 7100' W of Off Road Shared- Micco Rd $939 Grant Rd Boychuck Pl Use Path Off Road Shared- East of I-95 Wickam Rd Post Rd $1,600 Use Path Carpenter Garden St SR 46 Paved Shoulder $403 Rd Country 150' E of 200' W of Travis Pl Paved Shoulder $12 Club Dr Nelson Place 950' south of Shepard Dr Armstrong Dr Shepard Drive & Paved Shoulder $89 Grissom Pkwy 50' south of 950' northeast of Sisson Road Paved Shoulder $33 Oakwood Place Grissom Pkwy Canaveral Morris Ave E Railroad Ave Paved Shoulder $29 Groves/Lee Curtis Blvd 90' E of Song Dr 900' NW of Fay Blvd Paved Shoulder $55 250' west of SR 46 N Singleton Ave Paved Shoulder $100 Multimodal Palm Ave Bike/Ped Program SR 46 N Carpenter Rd 250' W of Holder Rd Paved Shoulder $43 Brisbane Portage Trail/ Milestone Dr Paved Shoulder $19 Boulevard Melrose Ct Newfound Worley Ave Angel Ave Paved Shoulder $18 Harbor Drive Carpenter Garden St Fox Lake Rd Sharrow Marking $826 Rd St. Andrews/ Brisbane Pineda Cswy Interlachen Rd Sharrow Marking $619 Blvd Range Rd Rice Dr Rosetine St Sidewalk $78 Airport Blvd Hibiscus Blvd Espanola Way Sidewalk $45 150' E of Aurora Rd Mosswood Dr Sidewalk $24 Glenwood Dr S Appollo Columbus Ave W Fee Ave Sidewalk $9 Blvd Turtle Post Rd Pine Cone Rd Sidewalk $106 Mound Rd Turtle Parkway Dr Lake Washington Rd Sidewalk $101 Mound Rd
220 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER SEVEN C: COST FEASIBLE
OTHER PROJECTS FROM BOXED FUND PROGRAMS Period Project Type Facility From To Description Project Cost De Groot Rd Heritage St SW Lachine St SW Sidewalk $48 Eldron/ Paigo St SE Torrence Ave SE Sidewalk $222 Cogan Dr 250' west of 200' southwest of Riviera Drive Sidewalk $26 Cromey Rd NE Woodlawn Cr NE Camp Road Grissom Pkwy US 1 Sidewalk $218 Canaveral Grissom Pkwy Hess Ave Sidewalk $43 Groves/Lee Hall Road/N 300' west of Horse 400' south of Sidewalk $26 Tropical Trail Shoe Bend Meadow Lark Ln Bike/Ped Pineda Cswy Wickam Rd SR A1A Sidewalk $610 Multimodal Program S Patrick Dr Pineda Cswy Ocean Blvd Sidewalk $39 Aurora Road John Rodes Blvd Morgan Ct Sidewalk $23 Eddie Sleepy Hollow Rd Airport Blvd Sidewalk $28 Allen Rd Edgewood 140' west of 145' east of Reed Ave Sidewalk $17 Drive Manorwood Dr Florida Ave Hollister Dr Dairy Rd Sidewalk $53 John Rodes Aurora Rd Lariope Way Sidewalk $30 Blvd Complete Range Tiger Trail Michigan Complete Street TBD Streets Aurora Croton Stewart Complete Street TBD *Cost estimates reflect publicly funded capital costs in $000’s YOE. Estimated costs for Program and Unfunded projects are represented in present day dollars.
CHAPTER SEVEN | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 221 This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank 8 IMPLEMENTING THE VISION 8
IMPLEMENTING THE VISION ransit oriented development (TOD) The Vision Plan that was derived from the scenario planning process represents a T is fundamental to the success of longer term outlook than 2040. So, while the 2040 cost feasible plan was developed premium transit because it reorients with the Vision in mind, to support the Vision and intensifies land uses in transit and work toward it, the substantial land development and infrastructure investment station areas to attract riders. shift will involve significant policy action. The following describes the necessary policy framework to make the Vision a reality.
The strategic corridors that comprise the Vision Plan to develop intermodal and multimodal corridors with premium transit improvements are dependent on transit supportive land use and fiscal policy action. The land use policy necessary to prepare the corridors for viable premium transit revolves around the promotion of transit oriented development with the appropriate land use mix and intensities as outlined in the FDOT Framework for Transit Oriented Development in Florida. Fiscal policy action is also necessary to provide the required funding for both capital and operating expenses associated with the development and operation of premium transit. The following sections include land use policy guidance and a demonstration of the affordability of the Vision Plan with the adoption of a sales surtax, which garnered the most support, of all the potential new revenue sources, in the public survey administered in 2013.
Source: thedowntowngallery.net Policy Framework This section presents the steps needed to develop the multimodal corridors identified in the transit system plan. There are two primary policy areas that are critical to the success of premium transit development in Brevard County. The first is the land use policy needed for transit supportive development. The second is the funding, or revenue
CHAPTER EIGHT | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 225 8 IMPLEMENTING THE VISION
streams, necessary to develop and operate/ The substantial development pattern changes maintain premium transit service. The focus is on embodied in the Vision Plan will require land use changes needed to support premium a coordinated and consistent planning transit within each corridor and on funding. effort. Local comprehensive plans and land development regulations are the key Transit oriented development (TOD) is fundamental tools to affect the required changes. to the success of premium transit because it reorients and intensifies land uses in transit station To update their plans and regulations, localities areas to attract riders. Federal and state funding in Brevard can rely heavily on the Florida support is doubtful without assurances the transit Department of Transportation’s “Transit Oriented investment will generate sufficient ridership. Development Guidebook.” The Guidebook There are only a few places in Brevard, including provides model language, measures and criteria downtown Titusville, Cocoa and Melbourne, all for incorporating TOD into local comprehensive built during the heyday of rail travel, that have the plans and land development regulations. form and structure necessary to support premium transit. However, although each has a fine grain street network and diverse land uses, all lack transit supportive development intensities because all have lost jobs and housing to suburban development FIGURE 8.1 FDOT TOD FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT in western Brevard County. For station areas identified in the transit system plan outside of those three communities, both intensities and development patterns must fundamentally change.
Multimodal Corridor Planning Unlike transportation improvements, which can happen in relatively short order with a straightforward planning process, changing long standing auto-oriented land development patterns along each of the multimodal corridors will occur incrementally over a long period of time because of:
• Fragmented property ownership – Each owner of parcels along a corridor has differing motivations and financial resources.
• The incremental nature of land development – While property owners initiate or inhibit change, market forces dictate the rate and type of change. Transportation is one of the primary influences on the market.
• The number of stakeholder interests involved – Property owners, tenants, developers, local governments, adjacent property owners and residents all have an interest in the development process.
226 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER EIGHT IMPLEMENTING THE VISION 8
The Steps to Implement TOD The TOD Guidebook presents a six step process to develop and adopt TOD supportive plans and regulations:
STEP 1: Prioritize Transit and TOD. The of the Station Area plan typically requires first steps occur in the Comprehensive coordination among private property owners and Plan, where the local government identifies various government agencies. Accordingly, public transit and TOD as a local priority. outreach activities must be carefully structured to achieve a consensus strategy for the Station Area.
STEP 2: Commit to Inter-Agency Coordination. Coordination among local governments, STEP 5: Adoption of TOD Supportive transit agencies, MPOs, the Department of Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies. Transportation, and other relevant agencies, The local government amends its Comprehensive both public and private, is necessary to Plan to guide TOD, ideally as identified in its identify and support potential transit modes, TOD Vision or Station Area Master Plan. alignments, and resolve related issues.
STEP 6: Adoption of TOD Supportive Land STEP 3: Identify Potential TOD Station Areas Development Regulations. The local government & Analyze Using the Place Type Methodology. advances the TOD Vision or Station Area Master Evaluation of potential transit station locations Plan by adopting land development regulations to and the surrounding land use context must be direct site-level development in support of TOD. conducted. This analysis will help ascertain Following the model code, this is a two-step process: the limitations and opportunities for TOD STEP 6A: Adoption of the Street Network based on the unique conditions of the area. Overlay. To implement the Vision or master This analysis is utilized to inform the creation plan established for the station area, the Street of a Station Area Vision or Master Plan. Network Overlay identifies the location of existing streets and planned connections to enhance mobility throughout the TOD Station STEP 4: Development of TOD “Vision” (or Station Area over time. The Street Network Overlay Area Master Plan) (OPTIONAL). Engaging the identifies the ultimate design for thoroughfares public and partner agencies to create a unified and denotes primary street designations vision for the station area is recommended (which are used to orient new buildings to successfully accomplish TOD. Working in the TOD Zoning districts) and specific with property owners and other stakeholders, frontage types assigned to certain streets. consensus should be sought regarding a wide range of issues (e.g., the scale of new buildings, STEP 6B: Rezone to the TOD Zoning acceptable development densities/intensities, Districts. Using the TOD Vision or Station desired urban form, land uses, improving Area Master Plan as a guide, the appropriate interconnectivity throughout the area). Determining TOD zoning districts (TOD-Urban Core, TOD- areas where redevelopment is not desirable or Urban Center, TOD General, TOD-Edge) are likely to occur (e.g., established neighborhoods assigned to each parcel as appropriate for with multiple owners, recently constructed future TOD within the Station Area. Together development) is also an important part of this with the Street Network Overlay, the regulatory process. A significant part of this step, especially framework is then established to create a in Suburban Retrofit or Greenfield areas, is the transit-supportive environment and advance identification of improvements to the street and TOD geared to the local community. block network of the Station Area. This component
CHAPTER EIGHT | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 227 8 IMPLEMENTING THE VISION
Several localities in Brevard have already • Long term travel demand, based on prioritized transit and TOD in their market demand, as a basis for identifying comprehensive plans and the TPO encourages the types and timing of transportation the remaining jurisdictions along multimodal improvements, most notably premium transit corridors to do so in the near term. • Fully functional premium transit operations The Space Coast TPO initiated Step 2, building characteristics based on travel demand, a commitment for TOD, through a series of including route end-to-end travel time multimodal corridor workshops held during the (including station stops), number of LRTP update. The TPO also initiated Step 3, stations, vehicle headway (peak and non- defining corridor station areas, with locations peak) and span of service targets and types depicted in the multimodal corridor summaries presented elsewhere in this report. • Station locations based on operational targets and supportive walk networks and land uses To provide more contextual information for the TOD planning, the TPO will prepare • Multimodal project list, such as TOD more detailed corridor level information street networks, complete streets, bike and guidance through Multimodal Corridor and walk paths, multimodal intelligent Master Plans, which will include: transportation system (ITS) strategies and re-orientation of existing transit operations • Market demand to establish the types of to mimic the ultimate operational targets development anticipated and the rate of land use change along each corridor • Implementation plan including the cost and timing of identified projects.
228 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER EIGHT IMPLEMENTING THE VISION 8
FIGURE 8.2: COMPLETE STREET DESIGN CONCEPT According to the Guidebook, developing a TOD Master Plan for each station area is optional, but the TPO strongly encourages localities to develop such plans as part of or soon after each Multimodal Corridor Master Plan is completed. The TOD Master Plan provides much needed insights, including:
• A clear vision for the station area that coordinates planning and implementation
• A basis for form-based code regulations
• An infrastructure strategy, including parking, stormwater, parks and street networks
As noted in the Guidebook, a fine grained block and street structure essential for a functional TOD, including “last mile” multimodal access facilities. The design FIGURE 8.3 COMPLETE STREET IN COCOA and construction of these networks are Before eligible for funding through the TPO.
After (rendering)
CHAPTER EIGHT | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 229 8 IMPLEMENTING THE VISION
Multimodal Corridor Funding FIGURE 8.4: 2040-2060 INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX (IN 2015 $000S) Premium transit will incur substantial capital costs because it requires separated guideways (rail tracks or bus lanes) and enhanced stations. It also imposes an on-going operational and maintenance cost. This section presents capital and operating costs for the transit system plan and an illustrative phasing scenario for those improvements.
The transit system plan is ambitious, requiring capital and operational investments exceeding the TPO’s current revenue sources. Although ambitious, the plan can be funded through a penny sales tax, the typical revenue source for premium transit systems in the United States, including Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix.
The transit system plan implementation strategy assumes the Multimodal Corridor and TOD Master Plans prepared in the near term will successfully create transit supportive development in some, if not all, of the corridors by the 2040 to 2060 planning horizon when major capital funding for the transit system can be expected to occur.
The funding and phasing scenario illustrates both the feasibility of the transit system plan and how projects can be brought online over the 2040 to 2060 planning horizon. The scenario is generalized, relying on unit costs developed from other studies and revenue information generated for this plan. All costs are represented in year 2015 dollars.
Table 8.1 presents the net capital and operating costs for the transit system plan. The total capital cost totals around $1.9 billion, and grants and subsidies from the federal and state governments are expected to reduce the cost to the county to around $1.2 billion. Projects will be constructed over 20 years, making the average annual net capital cost around $62 million. When fully built, the annual net operating cost for the system will total nearly $27 million. Operating subsidies and farebox receipts will cover around 25 to 30 percent of the total operating costs.
230 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER EIGHT IMPLEMENTING THE VISION 8
Table 8.2 presents the phasing for the funding From 2040 to 2057, the phasing scenario scenario. The first improvement is the US 1 / FEC requires between $68 and $85 million annually commuter rail because it is the backbone for the in local revenues. A one penny sales tax can entire system. Its total capital cost is spread over generate around $50 million of that total and a five year construction period. The Babcock, US the remainder would come from a variety of 192, SR 520 and Fiske/Stadium BRT corridors funding sources, including the TPO’s federal would be constructed following the completion of and state sources and local option gas taxes. the commuter rail. The SR A1A corridor follows, Once the system is fully constructed, the then the US 1 north, central and south corridors annual expense is just under $27 million, which would be built. The Wickam/Minton BRT corridor could be covered by a half penny sales tax. is the last corridor constructed. Net annual operating costs accumulate over the planning period as each new corridor comes on line.
TABLE 8.1: TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN COSTS (IN 2015 $000S)
NET CAPITAL NET ANNUAL NET CAPITAL CORRIDOR FROM TO MILES ANNUALIZED OPERATIONS COST ($000s) COST ($000s) ($000s) US1/ Mims S Of Malabar FECCommuter Rd 50.0 $427,600 $21,380 $4,704 Rail US1 BRT North Mims TICO Airport/ 10.0 $69,140 $3,457 $1,882 Nasa Cswy US1 BRT Central Downtown Downtown 16.0 $110,480 $5,524 $3,011 Cocoa Melbourne US1 BRT South Downtown Malabar Rd 6.0 $41,520 $2,076 $1,129 Melbourne SR 520 BRT Clearlake Rd Sr A1A 9.0 $62,280 $3,114 $1,693 (West Cocoa) Fiske/Stadium Downtown Viera Gov’t 8.0 $55,240 $2,762 $1,505 BRT Cocoa Center Wickham/ Viera Gov’t US1 And 27.0 $186,480 $9,324 $5,080 Minton BRT Center Malabar Rd Babcock BRT Downtown Emerald City 9.0 $62,280 $3,114 $1,693 Melbourne/Mia (Proposed) Sr A1A BRT Port Canaveral Downtown 25.0 $172,580 $8,629 $4,704 Melbourne Us 192 BRT St. Johns Downtown 8.0 $55,240 $2,762 $1,505 Heritage Pkwy Melbourne
TOTAL $1,242,840 $62,142 $26,907
CHAPTER EIGHT | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 231 8 IMPLEMENTING THE VISION
While the total revenue projected from a one analysis represents an overview of the costs penny infrastructure surtax in the period from associated with the Transit System Plan and 2040 to 2060 of $1,808 million exceeds the the potential of a common revenue source to total net capital and operating costs of the implement such a plan. It can be concluded from premium transit improvements, the revenue the cost and revenue projections that a half penny projection does not distinguish revenues that surtax will not support the implementation of may be dedicated to transit improvements from the plan and the full penny will be required, at a revenues allocated to municipalities for local minimum, to realize the premium transit vision. roadway and transit improvement needs. This
TABLE 8.2: TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN PHASING SCENARIO (IN 2015 $000S)
NET CAPITAL NET OPERATING TOTAL CORRIDOR YEAR (000S) (000S) (000S)
US 1 / FEC COMMUTER RAIL 2040 $85,520 - $85,520
US 1 / FEC COMMUTER RAIL 2041 $85,520 - $85,520
US 1 / FEC COMMUTER RAIL 2042 $85,520 - $85,520
US 1 / FEC COMMUTER RAIL 2043 $85,520 - $85,520
US 1 / FEC COMMUTER RAIL 2044 $85,520 - $85,520
BABCOCK / 192 / SR 520 /FISKE BRT 2045 $78,347 $4,704 $83,051
BABCOCK / 192 / SR 520 /FISKE BRT 2046 $78,347 $4,704 $83,051
BABCOCK / 192 / SR 520 /FISKE BRT 2047 $78,347 $4,704 $83,051
SR A1A BRT 2048 $57,527 $11,101 $68,628
SR A1A BRT 2049 $57,527 $11,101 $68,628
SR A1A BRT 2050 $57,527 $11,101 $68,628
US1 NORTH / CENTRAL / SOUTH BRT 2051 $55,285 $15,805 $71,090
US1 NORTH / CENTRAL / SOUTH BRT 2052 $55,285 $15,805 $71,090
US1 NORTH / CENTRAL / SOUTH BRT 2053 $55,285 $5,805 $71,090
US1 NORTH / CENTRAL / SOUTH BRT 2054 $55,285 $5,805 $71,090
WICKAM / MINTON BRT 2055 $62,160 $1,827 $83,987
WICKAM / MINTON BRT 2056 $62,160 $21,827 $83,987
WICKAM / MINTON BRT 2057 $62,160 $21,827 $83,987
NA 2058 - $6,907 $26,907
NA 2059 - $26,907 $26,907
NA 2060 - $26,907 $26,907
TOTAL $1,242,840 $196,837 $1,499,679
232 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER EIGHT IMPLEMENTING THE VISION 8 HIGHWAY AND CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS
Although transit plays a vital role in implementing FIGURE 8.5 SR 60 TO SR 46 NORTH-SOUTH CONNECTOR the vision, the need for highway and capacity to compliment a TOD vision should not be forgotten.
The SIS is the backbone to move both goods and freight through and within brevard county and must continue to be monitored for future
needs and improvements. Such facilities are S 1 critical to keeping Brevard as an economic and SR 50 employment generator for the region. Planning 59- for the regional corridors connecting to the west (Pineda Extension, 528 Super corridor, rail, etc.) must be considered as a priority to allow for new SR 407 connections to accommodate future growth. SR 528
Within Brevard county, the vision focuses on TOD along the new and redeveloped US1 north-south corridor. Interstate 95 is limited SR 520 by available right of way to address capacity needs. Therefore, other north-south connections must be considered. Figure 8.5 represents one such alternative connects SR60 south of SR A1A Brevard county to SR46 in North Brevard.
QUINTIMODAL IMPACTS Brevard’s unique claim as a quintimodal planning agency, requires continued planning and coordination among all transportation modes that impact the transportation system. Port Canaveral’s Master Plan calls for increased growth in cruise passenger and cargo/freight operations. SR 528 will be directly impacted S 192 by this growth and must be monitored.
Passenger rail is anticipated to become a reality with the planned All Aboard Florida service. Efforts to establish a station in Brevard and potential expansion of the service north to
S 1 Jacksonville could launch the paradigm shift -95 to implementing the TOD based vision.
CHAPTER EIGHT | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 233 8 IMPLEMENTING THE VISION THE NEXT ERA OF SPACE EXPLORATION
Commercial space operations will continue to capture high tech workers which will allow Brevard to be at the forefront of new transportation technologies. A renewed interest in space exploration beyond the moon will begin the next era of space exploration. Incorporating technologies as a standard in our transportation system such as ITS and automated vehicles will compliment improvements already initiated such as complete streets and multi-modal corridors. These planning efforts provide a high quality of life that protects our natural resources and makes Brevard a top choice of where to work, play and live.
SpaceX made history in December 2015 by Launching a Falcon 9 on a orbital mission and returning the first stage rocket booster safely back to Canaveral Airforce Base. Above: A time-exposure showing the initial SpaceX Falcon 9 launch as one streak and the landing of the booster as another
Photo Credit: SpaceX
234 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | CHAPTER EIGHT
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
INTRODUCTION The public and stakeholder involvement program included a series of workshops and meetings and a statistically valid public survey. A description of each workshop and highlights of what was learned at each are presented below. The public and stakeholder comments presented in this document form the basis for the Vision Plan, Vision Goals and, ultimately, TAC/CAC Workshop Part 1, April 2013 the cost feasible plan that was derived from a prioritization process linked to those components. Project Initiation Workshop, Part 2 Part 2 of the workshop was conducted first with the APRIL 2013: PROJECT INITIATION TAC/CAC TAC/CAC, and then a few days later with the Board. AND TPO BOARD Both meetings occurred in May 2013. Part 2 began The 2040 LRTP project initiation workshop, with a summary of comments from Part 1 regarding Envisioning the Future of Transportation how the County’s economy and transportation system in Brevard, was conducted during the can grow over the next 50 years, along with some months of April and May 2013 at regularly potential initiatives and influences that could affect scheduled public meetings before the TAC/ Brevard’s economic growth. A general discussion CAC and the Board, respectively. This followed with workshop participants regarding the workshop was conducted in two parts. 2040 LRTP. After the discussion, an explanation of the scenario planning process was provided, beginning with the first step of building the scenarios.
Project Initiation Workshop, Part 1 Finally, the results of the draft public survey beta Part 1 of the workshop was conducted first with test were discussed, along with a review of the the TAC/CAC, and then a few days later with comments received regarding the administration the Board. Both meetings occurred in April and application of the survey. A brief discussion 2013. Part 1 began with a review of how the regarding the pubic survey followed among Space Coast has grown and evolved over the participants prior to the close of the workshop. past 50 years through an examination of historic growth influences and trends that have led to today’s existing environment and conditions.
An in-depth, interactive group discussion followed with workshop participants asked to reflect on the information provided and then envision how the County’s economy and transportation system can grow over the next 50 years. At the conclusion of the group discussion, participants were provided copies of a draft public survey TPO Board Meating, May 2013 to be provided to Brevard County residents in the near future. Participants were asked beta test the survey in an online internet version and prepare feedback prior to Part 2.
236 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Input/Comments Highlights of the discussion topics and comments • Increasing diversity received from the project initiation workshops are categorized by topic area and presented below. – Impact on market demands / expectations
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / GROWTH • Impacts of mobility and development patterns on health • Ports as county’s future economic generators • Improved intermodal freight connectivity MARKET DEMAND (air, rail, sea, roads, space) • No change in market expectations • Transportation to support job centers, – Continued demand for existing commercial / industrial development development patterns • Balance between open space and development • Change in market expectations • Preservation of open space – Mixed use development and buildings TRANSPORTATION / LAND USE ENERGY AND WEATHER • Walkable neighborhoods • Impact of fluctuating energy prices – Destinations nearby • Impact of decreasing energy – Quality of schools supplies and increasing prices • Mixed use development – Road travel, development patterns • Transit oriented development – Air travel versus rail • Multimodal development and improvements – Freight movement – US 1 • Impact of climate change and sea level rise – A1A • Impact of increase in major storm events
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY • Increase network connectivity • What does transportation mean 50 years from now? – Alternative travel paths • Intelligent, efficient cars • Added east / west capacity – Improved roadway capacity • Sufficient arterial capacity – Crash avoidance – South Brevard County – Improvements in energy efficiency • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) • Improved connectivity • Alternatives to roadway widening – Travel decision DEMOGRAPHICS AND HEALTH – Lifestyle (i.e., telecommuting) • Aging population – “E-tailing” – Impact on building and development patterns – Just in time shipping – Impact on mobility / transportation options
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 237 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
JULY 2013: PUBLIC SURVEY MILES TYPICALLY DRIVEN ON AN AVERAGE WEEKDAY Four hundred permanent residents in Brevard County, Florida were interviewed in a random sample taken July 9th-13th, 2013. Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their travel habits; their perceptions of existing roadways and improvement needs; their perceptions of existing sidewalks, bike paths and improvement needs; their perceptions of existing bus service and improvement needs; economic development and future growth; and potential funding for transportation needs. The sample was balanced according to all known demographic factors. All interviews were conducted using The Kitchens Group’s Internet Research Panel. The margin of error for this survey is ± 4.9%, with a 95% confidence level. Results Highlights of the survey results are presented below.
Miles Typically Driven on an Average Weekday • When it comes to roadways, Improving traffic flow • 34% of people said they used and intersections are top improvement priorities. WALKING as their primary means of transportation 1 to 5 times a month. • Respondents are equally divided about the availability of sidewalks and bike paths in the • 17% of people said they used BICYCLING County: 32% percent of people say availability as their primary means of transportation is GOOD while another 32% say availability one or more times a month. is POOR. Remaining 36% say availability • Only 6% of people say they have used is AVERAGE or they are UNSURE PUBLIC TRANSIT (BUS) as their primary means of transportation in a typical month.
• The majority of Brevard County residents hold a favorable opinion of the County’s roadway conditions, especially to work/ school and to errands/shopping.
• A majority of residents agree that signal timing and coordination as well as pavement conditions could be improved in the County.
• When it comes to road signs and personal safety, the majority of Brevard County residents hold a favorable opinion of the visibility and clarity of road signs as well as their personal safety while driving.
238 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Ability to Get to Desired Locations by Sidewalks/Bike Paths • When it comes to improving Sidewalks/Bike Paths, Adding new sidewalks and bike paths as well as improving connections of sidewalks and bike paths to jobs and shopping are resident priorities.
• One-half of Brevard County residents are not familiar with SCAT services.
• Of those who use SCAT bus service, the majority of bus riders hold an unfavorable opinion of the service especially when it comes to convenience, the amount of time it takes to get somewhere by bus, and where bus stops are located.
THE ABILITY TO GET TO DESIRED LOCATIONS BY SIDEWALKS/BIKE PATHS
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 239 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Routes Go Directly Where People ROUTES GO DIRECTLY WHERE PEOPLE NEED WITHOUT Need Without Transfers TRANSFER
• When it comes to improving bus services, adding new bus routes and increasing bus frequency and reducing wait times at bus stops were the top priorities.
• When it comes to transportation investments to support economic development, adding passenger rail connections within Brevard County and to other parts of Florida is the #1 ranked priority.
• When it comes to future growth, reinvesting in and around existing cities along US 1 as well as continued investment along I-95 are the top two ranked priorities.
Future Growth
• When it comes to future growth, reinvesting in and around existing cities along US 1 as well as continued investment along I-95 are the top two ranked priorities. WHEN IT COMES TO WALKABLE CITY CENTERS AND • When it comes to walkable CITY CENTERS WALKABLE TOWN CENTERS, 89% OF PEOPLE SAY THEY and walkable TOWN CENTERS, 89% ARE IMPORTANT. of people say they are important.
• When it comes to a MIX of housing types, two-thirds (66%) of respondents feel townhomes, apartments, and single family homes are all important.
• When it comes to MAINLY single-family homes in a community, 69% of people believe they are important for future development.
• When it comes to golf course communities, 68% of residents feel that new golf course communities are NOT important for the future of Brevard County.
240 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Support for New or Increased Public Revenues • Regarding, support for new or increased public revenues, 28% of respondents support a 1 mil increase in property taxes.
• Regarding, support for new or increased public revenues, 15% of respondents support a 6-cent increase (per gallon) in gasoline tax.
• Regarding, support for new or increased public revenues, 49% of respondents support a 1-cent increase in the sales tax.
• Regarding, support for new or increased public revenues, 61% of respondents support the assessment of impact fees on new construction.
• Regarding, support for new or increased public revenues, 78% of respondents support the use of existing revenue without increasing any taxes or fees.
SUPPORT FOR NEW OR INCREASED PUBLIC REVENUES
SUPPORT OPPOSE AVERAGE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OPTION (%) (%) SCORE
1. Existing 78 18 1.7 HIGH
2. Impact Fees 61 36 2.3 HIGH
3. Sales Tax 49 49 2.6 MIXED
4. Property Tax 28 66 3.1 LOW
5. Gas Tax 15 82 3.4 LOW
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 241 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
OCTOBER 2013: TRANSPORTATION SYMPOSIUM The transportation symposium occurred on • Palm Bay - importance of connections to the Heritage Parkway Thursday, October 3rd, 2013. Participants included members of the general public as well • Needs to be a more regional discussion as Space Coast agencies throughout Brevard about passenger rail in the County County. The purpose of the event was twofold. First, to give Space Coast agencies throughout • Expressed their desire to balance new growth with historical growth patterns Brevard County the opportunity to present their future plans and initiatives to the group; and • As a port-of-call, Port Canaveral is a major second, to hold round table discussions to review driver of economic development in the area and discuss how the 2040 LRTP can support balance between rail and port interconnectivity and environmental components future plans and initiatives as revealed by Brevard County agencies. Space Coast TPO staff • Importance of the Indian River contacted Brevard County agencies individually to Lagoon (IRL) to the area. inform them of the event personally by telephone • Desired improvements along A1A such as and email. The event was also advertised on improved transit headways, traffic calming to the official 2040 LRTP website and the Space reduce speeding vehicles, better connectivity Coast TPO agency website. In addition, the through bike/ped improvements, and a bike/ Florida Today newspaper published an article ped crossing such as a boardwalk advertising the symposium and a press release • Important to address transportation was issued in the days leading up to event. quality-of-life issues along the IRL A total of 81 persons from throughout the • Expressed how important the Safe Routes County attended the event. Attendees were to School program is for students asked to complete straw polls soliciting • Palm Bay - desire for more mixed- feedback on the event program and format. use and Intelligent Transportation Systems along Malabar Road. Input/Comments • Grant-Valkaria - maintain a rural lifestyle Highlights of comments received from that provides for more leisure-oriented stakeholders and the general public at the multi-modal facilities to accommodate transportation symposium are presented below. equestrian, bicycles, and pedestrians • Importance of connections,especially • West Melbourne - would like to see an to area airports increase in the number of multi-family land uses in West Melbourne • Melbourne International Airport (MLB) needs to be connected to the rest of the County • West Melbourne - alternative modes of transportation such as bike shares, • Connection of Brevard County north- golf carts, or public transit to-south by passenger rail and east- to-west by public transit bus routes • Melbourne - Bicycle, pedestrian and trail improvements that connect places such • Intermodal connectivity issues and as parks and schools is desired opportunities for all ports including sea, rail, air, and space • Melbourne - provide more pedestrian improvements such as sidewalks for airport • As a port-of-call, Port Canaveral is a major workers who like to exercise during the lunch driver of economic development in the area break as well as providing bicycle racks for balance between rail and port interconnectivity people who may travel to the airport by bicycle and environmental components
242 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
• Emerging trends: The public was then able to visit four different - younger people driving less scenario stations to learn more about each one and how it compared to the other scenarios. - ethnicity/demographic shifts The public was asked to share their reactions - driverless cars and feedback for each of the scenarios via discussions with project representatives • Intermodal-connectivity, intelligent transportation located at each of the stations as well as systems (ITS), and the limited demand for transit along US Highway 1 due to the with straw poll feedback cards included in current limited commercial/employment. their workbooks. A total of 84 persons from throughout the County attended the event.
FEBRUARY 2014: TRANSPORTATION CHOICES WORKSHOP
This workshop occurred on Wednesday, February 26th, 2014. Participants included members of the general public as well as Space Coast agencies throughout Brevard County. The purpose of the event was to unveil four future economic growth scenarios for Brevard County, including a ‘current trend’ scenario. Space Coast TPO staff contacted Brevard County agencies individually to inform them of the event personally by telephone and email. The event was also advertised on the official 2040 LRTP website and the Space Coast TPO agency website. In addition, the Florida Today newspaper published an article advertising the workshop and a press release was issued in the days leading up to event.
The event began with presentations from both the TPO staff and project consultants who described how the future economic growth scenarios will help shape the County’s 2040 LRTP. Additionally, the presentations explained how the four scenario types were developed through input gathered from Space Coast TPO workshops (Spring 2013), Public Surveys (Summer 2013), and a Public Transportation Symposium (Fall 2013). The presentations were interactive and participants were provided a workbook to follow along and stay engaged, with a name-image matching exercise and fill-in-the-blank statements synced with the presentation slides.
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 243 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Input/Comments WHEN COMPARING ALL OF THE SCENARIOS, THE ONE THAT IMPROVES THE WAY I LIVE AND TRAVEL IS... Workshop participants were asked a series of questions about each of the scenarios, including what they liked best about each scenario, what they liked least about each scenario, and how they thought transportation funding should be allocated within each scenario. Participants were also asked to rate each scenario in terms of how well the scenarios addressed the three primary goals of livability, population growth, economic prosperity, and natural resource protection. The results of these polls are presented below.
WHEN COMPARING ALL OF THE SCENARIOS, THE ONE THAT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH IS...
244 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
WHEN COMPARING ALL OF THE SCENARIOS, THE WHAT DO YOU LIKE THE BEST OVERALL ABOUT THE ONE THAT POSITIONS BREVARD FOR ECONOMIC SCENARIOS? PROSPERITY IS.. • Intermodal connectivity between different communities (19 comments)
• Using Port for economic growth (15 comments)
• Increased innovative transit options – Bus Rapid Transit and Rail (10 comments)
WHAT DO YOU LIKE THE LEAST OVERALL ABOUT THE SCENARIOS?
• Dislike Current Trend (29 comments) – Increase in network miles – Urban sprawl – Less green space
• Fear of how older demographic will adapt WHEN COMPARING ALL OF THE SCENARIOS, THE ONE to new technologies (8 comments) THAT PROTECTS THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IS.. • Hesitant about high urban growth options (6 comments)
WHAT IS THE BEST USE OF TRANSPORATION FUNDS OVERALL IN THE SCENARIOS?
• Mass Transit (24 comments) – Passenger Rail – Bus Rapid Transit • Intelligent Transportation Systems (10 comments)
• Improving existing major roadways (7 comments)
WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT THE CURRENT TREND SCENARIO?
• Familiar – No need to change lifestyle (12 comments)
• Single family housing (8 comments)
• Planned communities (3 comments)
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 245 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE CURRENT WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE PORT TREND SCENARIO? CENTERS SCENARIO?
• Urban sprawl (35 comments) • Less liveable friendly environment (10 comments)
– Pushes into environmentally sensitive lands • Focuses improvements in northern part of County (6 comments) – Reduces green space available • Over emphasis on employment • Relies too much upon the centers (3 comments) automobile (18 comments) • Large amount of industrial land – Too few walkable communities uses (3 comments)
WHAT IS THE BEST USE OF TRANSPORATION FUNDS IN THE CURRENT TREND SCENARIO? WHAT IS THE BEST USE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS IN THE PORT CENTERS SCENARIO? • Improving existing roadways (i.e. signal coordination) (14comments) • More transportation options to/from the airports and port with stops for • More Complete Streets (10 comments) local residents (30 comments) – Multi-modal improvements – Bus rapid transit • Increasing existing transit service (6 comments) – Passenger rail
• Making it easier to get to transit (2 comments)
WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT THE CONNECTED WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT THE PORT COMMUNITIES SCENARIO? CENTERS SCENARIO? • Concentrated growth (29 comments) • Emphasizes what is unique about Brevard (22 comments) – Promotes infill development
• Limits urban growth and promotes walkability/ – Reduces network miles compact developments (17 comments) – Reserves green space • Increased transit possibilities (16 comments) – Walkable/healthy communities • Mix of housing (7 comments) • Multi-modal emphasis (29 comments)
– Mobility hubs
– Bus rapid transit
– Rail
• Mix of housing options (9 comments)
246 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE CONNECTED WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE HIGH COMMUNITIES SCENARIO? TECH LIFESTYLE SCENARIO?
• Fear in the change of lifestyle associated • Huge assumptions about future with scenario (13 comments) technologies (9 comments)
• Costs to implement bus rapid – Hard to plan for what does not exist transit and rail (8 comments) • May be hard to adapt to new technologies • Overemphasizing multifamily for older demographics (6 comments) housing (6 comments) • Will technologies be affordable? (4 comments) • Lack of identified economic drivers (5 comments) • Create somewhat unhealthy lifestyle – sitting in front of smart phone/computer all day (3 comments)
WHAT IS THE BEST USE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS IN THE CONNECTED COMMUNITIES SCENARIO? WHAT IS THE BEST USE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS IN THE HIGH TECH LIFESTYLE • Mass Transit (28 comments) SCENARIO?
– Bus rapid transit (bus only lanes) • Retrofitting existing infrastructure to accommodate future technologies (14 comments) – Passenger rail • Mass Transit (13 comments) • Multimodal improvements (11 comments) – Bus rapid transit – Sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and multi-use trails – Passenger rail • Encourage infill development (3 comments) • Walking and bicycling infrastructure (5 comments) – Transit oriented developments (TODs)
WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT THE HIGH TECH LIFESTYLE SCENARIO?
• Walkable communities (22 comments)
• “Outside of the box” thinking (19 comments)
– Creates “Silicon Valley” feel for Brevard
• Attracts next, younger, generation of Brevard residents (6 comments)
• Working from home options (6 comments)
• Mobility hubs (6 comments)
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 247 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
JUNE/JULY 2014: VISIONING WORKSHOPS Review Draft Vision Plan with Central Public Vision Workshop Brevard Municipal Agencies The purpose of the event was to unveil the Economic TPO staff and project consultants met with Growth Vision for the 2040 LRTP. Space Coast Central Brevard municipal agencies to review TPO staff contacted Brevard County agencies and solicit comments and suggestions on individually to inform them of the event personally the draft Vision Plan for the 2040 LRTP. The by telephone and email. The event was also meeting was held on June 10th, 2014, at the advertised on the official 2040 LRTP website and West Melbourne City Council Chambers. the Space Coast TPO agency website. In addition, Meeting participants gathered around a table the Florida Today newspaper published an article and reviewed a large scale plot of the vision advertising the workshop and a press release plan. TPO staff and project consultants began was issued in the days leading up to event. with a description of the draft vision plan and participants were encouraged to markup the plan The event began with presentations from both the and include notes on the plot during discussion. TPO staff and project consultants who described The meeting was attended by representatives the 2040 LRTP scenario-driven process to date of the Melbourne Airport Authority, the City of and how the economic growth vision will determine Melbourne, and the City of West Melbourne. the direction of the Space Coast into the future. Additionally, the presentations explained how the Review Draft Vision Plan with economic growth vision was developed primarily the City of Palm Bay from the input received from the Transportation TPO staff and project consultants met with Choices Workshop in May 2014, along with input representatives from the City of Palm Bay to gathered from Space Coast TPO workshops (Spring review and solicit comments and suggestions 2013), Public Surveys (Summer 2013), and the on the draft Vision Plan for the 2040 LRTP. The Public Transportation Symposium (Fall 2013). meeting was held on June 10th, 2014, in the City The public was then able to visit numerous Manager’s Conference Room at the Palm Bay workstations to learn more about the information City Hall. Meeting participants gathered around used to develop the vision and the important a table and reviewed a large scale plot of the themes that comprise the vision. Participants were vision plan. TPO staff and project consultants provided with a program booklet that included began with a description of the draft vision plan the information shown at each of the workstation and participants were encouraged to markup to follow along. The public was asked to share the plan and include notes on the plot during their reactions and feedback on the economic discussion. The meeting was attended primarily growth vision, especially pertaining to how the by representatives of the City of Palm Bay. vision addresses community identified goals and aspirations for the future of Brevard County. TPO staff and project consultants were available at each of the workstations to assist with questions and take comments from the participants. Also participants were given workshop feedback forms to complete and turn in before leaving. A total of 85 persons from throughout the County attended the event.
This workshop occurred on Thursday, July 14th, 2014. Participants included members of the general public as well as Space Coast agencies throughout Brevard County.
248 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
ADOPTED TPO VISION MAP
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 249 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Input/Comments WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT THE 2060 ECONOMIC GROWTH VISION FOR BREVARD COUNTY? Workshop participants were asked a series of three questions regarding their thoughts about the draft Vision. The first question asked what people liked BEST about the Vision. The second question asked what people thought were the greatest challenges to achieving the Vision. The third question asked what people liked LEAST about the Vision.
CONNECTIVITY (x12) • Like connected communities idea
• Linking the ports together
• Compact, connected communities
• Connectivity and rail
• Connected communities
• More connectivity
• Connected communities
• Connectivity (Pineda, St. John’s Heritage Parkway, Apollo Blvd.)
• Connectivity
• Connect and enhance quintimodal freight logistics systems (each system cannot function in a vacuum – need intermodal connectivity)
• Conversation concerning connecting dots
NATURAL RESOURCES (X9) • Plans to protect our unique resources
• Preserve natural resources
250 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
• Protect our coastline, rivers, • Considerations for younger preserve open spaces generation’s needs/desires
• Preserving what is uniquely Brevard • Asking the questions what will “they” want – the youth/the next users • Still preserves uniqueness of Brevard and protects it • Attract and keep young and right talent
• Focus on preserving/leveraging • High tech vision natural resources – one of the reasons many have come here • High tech lifestyle
• Environmental component TRANSIT / MULTIMODAL (x11)
• Increased conservation • The vision for more transit, more mobility hubs • Balance growth and the natural environment • Ferries PORTS / FREIGHT (x12) • Includes non-current transportation modes • Focus on port • The plan takes into consideration all • Port centers forms of transportation modes.
• Passenger rail service to airports to port • New/alternate transportation choices and improved traffic • Multiple ports • More transportation options • Growth at the ports • Has a quintimodal transportation • Port center; trains intersecting transfer point west of US 1 • Location of the port centers • Increase community, housing, • Ports and high tech focus and travel options
• Inland port at Titusville • Connectivity and rail
• Focus on quintimodal freight system • The walkable consideration hubs – social collaborations • Linking the ports together • Provide choices for how individuals • Intermodal hubs are in north county, south like to live and travel county needs to see identified growth and only one hub accomplishes this possibility of offshore ECONOMY (x4) Fasco LNG hub for port not ruled out by plan • Focus on economic hubs
HIGH TECH (x9) • Economic prosperity • High tech lifestyle • Economic emphasis • Emphasis on high tech hubs • Strongly coincides with my economic • High tech growth plan for FL House District 51 (see my website at www.joemurrayflhouse.org • Expanding high tech focus/corridors
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 251 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
HOUSING CHOICES (x3) • Smart planning to keep up with growth trends
• Limiting sprawl and more • The clarity presented regarding multifamily housing choices quintimodal transportation
• Increase community, housing, • Palm Bay is the largest city being and travel options considered for future
• Provide choices for how individuals • Reduced urban sprawl like to live and travel • Input from industry and conservationists GROWTH MANAGEMENT (x5) • That plans are being made to concentrate • Multiple public comments uses in appropriate locations • Incorporates unique aspects of Brevard County
• New urban development • A long, long look ahead
• Less intense development • I appreciate the effort that went into • Balance growth and the natural environment this. It’s good to consider the future.
• Compact, connected communities • Transportation vision overall
TRAFFIC FLOW (x2) • Nothing • That plans are being made • Very well thought out and holistic strategy to improve traffic flow to deal with transportation issues
• New/alternate transportation • Good visuals choices and improved traffic • Willingness to communicate plan OTHER (x28) in plan words (no acronyms)
• Hubs • I like the multifaceted approach • That the vision tries to break apart into hubs and investigation.
• It is good that quality of life was considered. • Was comprehensive, far-sighted
• The plan is comprehensive and • Quality hand outs addresses salient issues in Brevard. • That you are doing the exercise
• Improving what we have • Future planning
• Coordinating the future • Tax and expenditures not discussed. • Nothing You have found magic money.
• Community involvement
• Addresses a broad range of issues
• New to the area and I’m in learning mode. This was a good opportunity to learn about the vision
252 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
WHAT ARE THE GREATEST CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING STAKEHOLDER / PUBLIC SUPPORT (x14) THIS TRANSPORTATION VISION? • Commercial developer support
• Citizen support for high density living
• The vision is incompatible with our residents’ values and wishes
• NIMBY
• Stakeholder consensus
• Preserving the lifestyle we enjoy here
• Getting some population to buy into changes
• Support from communities
• Lack of sensitivity to what citizens want
• Lack of community buy in
• Close-minded people who FINANCIAL (x24) do not like change • Funding (x15) • Close-minded people who do • Funding to purchase land/transportation modes not think of “the next generation” and their successful future • Funding: we need to work hard and smart • Buy in from the various types of users • Obtaining funds locally to execute the plan • Getting the people to buy in • Economically viable alternate transportation modes POLITICAL SUPPORT (x4)
• Environmental and funding constraints • Political will
• Funding the needed infrastructure • Politics improvements • Political will to get the funding
• The funding. The locals won’t • Political will and commitments have the money to do this to implement the vision
• Economic uncertainty CURRENT TREND / MOMENTUM (x6) • Money and other inadequate resources • Understanding and adapting to new transportation methods BALANCED GROWTH (x4) • Livability with transportation • Current trend of development hub increased capacity • Stopping single family/ • Balancing livability with environmental pollution single lot development
• Balancing growth and natural resources
• Managing growth
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 253 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
• Distributing the growth away • We are a very long county – probably if not from Palm Bay/Melbourne the longest, but one of the longest in the state and I don’t care for the plan. The rail runs right • Zoning changes to change density through the heart of communities. What kind • Changing mindset of plan is that? The rail should be in the center of the state away from communities along the AUTO DEPENDENCE (x5) coast. This will have a very negative effect (the • Giving up auto mobility rail) on our lifestyle and tourism. A very large part of the economy and why people come to • “Education” that roads are not only for cars our area. What will be done with sewage for these high density controlled growth areas? • Using other modes such as bicycling, trains • Colonialism > folks resenting expansion • Convincing the current community > hoping to maintain “small town to get out of the 1 person car feel” that many moved into
• Getting people to switch from • Implementing environmental preservation/ cars to mass transit coordination of resources
OTHER (x34) • Time -> should be ASAP -> quicker draw • Need to identify when a port reaches to commerce and financial growth with its point of diminishing returns for the positive effect on prop values and taxation local community; what good comes from being the pass through point • Planning connectivity circulation for freight when it pollutes the local • Environmental blocks hindering connections communities in the process? • Creating enough jobs close to their homes • Convincing realtors that the property values will not go down with properly • Resurfacing roads managed transportation development (Many of them think that rail is that • Obtaining continuity of goals old stuff adjacent US 1 think Japan between government entities rail system NOT 1950’s technology. • Staying focused and on track
• Create foreign trade zone in • Not giving into the lure of easy Rockledge Industrial Park money from tourism
• Permanently destroys property values • Presentation to keep momentum high along river due to noise/vibration • Communication on the changes from • No economic development state and federal participation inside space center • Would the population trend marry with the • Coordination future the way transit is developed?
• 72 miles of county with many, many hubs – connecting those through consistency but also highlighting the unique offerings
• Growing for economy and balancing nature and preservation
254 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
• Intergovernmental communication/ CURRENT TREND (x3) public-private partnerships • Current trend among the scenarios
• Convincing involved parties of the • Current trend must stop value/need for walkable communities and sustainable development • Consider planning to accommodate largest population is south Brevard (Palm Bay) • Using local contractor a must! ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (x12) • Small rail system for US 1 and A1A • Loss of green space and wildlife habitat • Planning • No mention of provision for wildlife • Climate change/sea level rise corridors (please add, this. Bridges; identify migratory routes) • Environmental regulations • Coasts and rivers preserve • Need to connect passenger rail functional values with buffers from Cocoa to Port Canaveral! • Will our natural resources be affected/ • The rivers, lagoons, and ponds destroyed (rivers/wetlands) which limit roadways • May need even greater focus • Lack of vision; there is nothing new here on preservation and sustainable • Providing amenities that will attract travel/conveyance options and keep high tech workers • No discussion about the Indian River Lagoon – important asset WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE 2060 ECONOMIC that needs to be protected GROWTH VISION FOR BREVARD COUNTY? • We have new connections facing environmental locks
• Concern about the health of our water ways and resources now
• There are no ‘cradle to grave’ environmental pollution and liveability scenarios pointing to what future generations will be left to deal with
• Where is stainability?
• Built-out from Atlantic Ocean to St. John’s River – environment is doomed!
• Single family homes need further restrictions on irrigation and fertilizer or the river pollution algae blooms will increase
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 255 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
FUNDING (x4) NO TRAILS (x2) • Does not address funding requirements • Need a little more focus on trails
• Without $ it will be difficult to reach the plan • Lack of trails for rollberblading/skating
• Not clear how economic prosperity goal PORT CONNECTION (x3) will bring/keep money in Brevard and • Port needs to connect to FEC through support investments in transportation air force and NASA, not 528
• Funding for implementation of • Emphasis on Port Canaveral growth vision was not discussed • Base closure at Patrick Air Force Base are not ACCESS TO BEACHES (x5) addressed as this would cause a major now • Consider whether additional access hub. Show intermodal connections for that. to barrier island is needed? OTHER (x33) • Difficulty accessing the beach • Connecting with the public with • Connect river ferries to port more modern media
• Another south causeway? Not mentioned • Assumptions are unclear
• More definition of ferry – include • More people Valencia Dock at Rockledge • This is not a realtor/economic PRIVATE PROPERTY (x5) development project • Restrictions on property use • None
• Reduction in private land ownership • Nothing
• Increases in public ownership • Time/schedule of land (50-75%) • Does not address my flying car (kidding) • Restrictive land use regulations • Everything is great • Using transportation funding to dictate local land use • That it will take until 2060! Want it now!
HIGH TECH LIFESTYLE (x4) • All good! • Would like more clarity about the • Should have started on time! designation of high tech centers • Had to catch up when not • Still limited investigation into travel options present at previous events independent of future technologies • That I won’t be here to see how it turned out • Needed to better describe the changes to future generations lifestyles from this • Thought all was good. Thank you very current housing and transportation we have much. Only comment to improve – make website more visible (red over blue) and • Not much considerations for mention more frequently and display promoting work from home • Not enough information about what programs will be implemented
256 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
• Emphasis on trains • No mention of safety i.e. where hurricane evacuation zones are, the impact for • Rail connections may be insufficient residential zones by 34 freight trains • Does not address impact of snow birds (many double decker sea containers) -> no sound barriers, ground vibration • A lot of emphasis on regional aspects from double deckers, RRX’s, people and animals traversing the tracks • I did not see the language transit oriented development (TOD). The assumption is in the vision, but to have specific locations identified, then the investments will be realized.
• Identify intermodal hub at the end of Barnes Blvd with industrial zone
• Bus routes and bus traffic down canal and powerline easement not show. The work proving approved corridors and more walkable communities.
• High density living – don’t want it to look like Miami
• Passenger rail shown ending in Cocoa
• No involvement from younger generation
• Not many multimodal hubs north of Hwy 50 – hope to change that landscape as a destination high-tech social collaboration and embrace diversity
• Plan needs to incorporate the City of Palm Bay’s redevelopment area – as is high tech lifestyle center area and connected communities area
• Congestion due to growth not allowed to utilize more space west
• How will this regional component shape Brevard’s network coordination/cooperation with Osceola, Orange Counties?
• Rail needs to move west, away from the coast
• Does not specifically plan for modern commuter rail adjacent to and NORTH of SR 528 (Bennet Causeway)
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 257 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2015: CORRIDOR PLANNING WORKSHOPS Strategic Corridor Plans The public was then able to visit five different corridor Stakeholder Workshop stations to review each corridor in detail and learn This workshop occurred on Wednesday, more about each one in terms of opportunities, February 10th, 2015. Participants included constraints, and context. The public was asked to Space Coast agencies throughout Brevard share their reactions and feedback by completing County. The purpose of the event was to a short questionnaire for each corridor that gauged unveil strategic corridor plans for the ten vision level of support for the multimodal strategic plan corridors and to solicit feedback and input for each. A total of 47 persons from throughout from the agencies regarding their concurrence the County attended the event. 16 questionnaires with the plans as well as any concerns. Space were collected and summarized. The questionnaire Coast TPO staff contacted Brevard County was also placed on the LRTP website, resulting agencies individually to inform them of the in an additional 24 completed questionnaires. event personally by telephone and email. Input/Comments Strategic Corridor Plans Public Workshop There was generally a high to medium level This workshop occurred on Tuesday, March of support for multimodal solutions in all ten 3rd, 2015. Participants included members of the strategic corridors presented at this of the general public as well as Space Coast workshop. US 1, SR 520, and Babcock Rd agencies throughout Brevard County and TAC/ received the highest level of support. The CAC members. The purpose of the event was to full results of the poll are included below. unveil strategic corridor plans for the ten vision corridors. Space Coast TPO staff contacted LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR MULTIMODAL SOLUTIONS BY Brevard County agencies individually to inform CORRIDOR them of the event personally by telephone and email. The event was also advertised on the official 2040 LRTP website and the Space Coast TPO agency website. The event began with presentations from both the TPO staff and project consultants who described the process to arrive at a Vision Plan and the ten multimodal/intermodal corridors presented at the workshop. The presentation described the detailed analysis used to represent the Vision Plan in terms of neighborhood and regional multimodal and intermodal hubs and identify appropriate transit technology by type corridor.
258 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING WORKSHOP • 4.2 increase, 8.0 million, foot traffic • Pineda Connection has great for cruise in less than 10 years opportunity for future growth from • Rail need for port expansion Viera Regional Commercial at I-95 (SR 528 by Astronaut Blvd)
• Why isn’t water transportation • SR 520 is approaching capacity and being considered? alternates to more lanes is necessary
• Pay attention to design details on US-1 corridor • Why not Courtenay (SR 520 corridor)?
• Titusville area to expand dramatically • Tropical Park intersection at SR 520
• What would we do with all those • SR 520 strategy West flea markets on US 1? Canaveral Groves on 520
• Commuter Rail in US-1 corridor - Great! High • Stadium parkway connects St John Speed Rail Terrible! Too many stops could Heritage Parkway. This regional system adversely impact transportation in cities feeds the County west and relieves • Connection from US-1 to Sebastian Inlet many corridors. Look at demographic projections. Palm Bay will be largest • More A1A crosswalks in Indialantic, particularly growth area dominating population. in the middle stretch of the town. There are virtually no lights/crosswalks through • Low income residents rely on mass the center stretch of town, and it is not transit - especially in Cocoa area uncommon to see folks running across to • Remember the Viera Connection to US 1 beach accesses, dangerously dodging cars • Stadium will continue south to connect • Please consider local bus connections like Pineda! Why go through the traffic circle? Patrick from Eau Gallie to Ocean Blvd • Babcock corridor serves a lot • Improvements in SR 528 corridor should of working people – good minimize the impacts on adjacent residential properties adjacent to the corridor. • Palm Bay west demographics population will Additional noise and/or property taking be 300,000 residents. Minton and St. Johns impacts should be avoided at all costs. Heritage Pkwy Important. 192 Significant • No impacts to residential properties along SR 528 route
• Most people drive 1/2 hour to work. This is a long walk or bike to job clusters
• Tough Intersection at US-1 & SR 528 - 4-6 lanes?
• Right of way issues in SR 528 corridor? (at Intermodal station area at FEC)
• Huge increase in truck traffic out of port
APPENDIX A | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 259 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
JUNE 2015: MUNICIPALITIES NEEDS • SR 528 widening west of I-95 PLAN WORKSHOP should be 6 lanes, not 8 TPO staff and project consultants met with • Continue transit on Wickham from Eau Gallie municipal agencies to review and solicit to US 192 with a connection to the airport comments and suggestions on the draft Needs Plan for the 2040 LRTP. The meeting was held on June 3rd, 2015, at the Viera Government Center. TPO staff and the project consultants began with a description of the Needs Plan components and asked participants to markup four modal plan plots after the presentation. The meeting was attended by 26 people representing the Melbourne Airport Authority, the City of Melbourne, and the City of West Melbourne.
Input/Comments Comments received at the workshop include the following, all of which were used to modify or confirm projects carried forward for evaluation and potential inclusion in the cost feasible plan.
• Improve connectivity to St Johns Heritage Parkway
• Improve Babcock St and Malabar Rd
• Transit service on US 1 is important and needed before 2040
• Canaveral National Seashore transit project is not worth pursuing
• Pineda Causeway at US 1 is in need of safety improvements
• Consider intersection improvement at Wickham and Suntree/US 1
• The Washingtonia 4-lane extension project is needed
• A transit connection to Melbourne International Airport is needed
• South St improvement (widening, access management, or other improvement) is a high priority for the City of Titusville
260 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX A This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION FIGURE A.1: VIRTUAL PRESENT CANVAS The Envision software was used to create land use and development information for scenarios. The software was developed by Envision Uta for scenario planning. Vision uses an excel spreadsheet for the bulk of its analysis, and interfaces with ArcGIS software package.
The steps used to generate and evaluate scenarios were:
• build a virtual present
• developed a pallet of place types Green grid cells are off-limits and white cells are available • allocate growth to place types for assignment based on a redevelopment factor. Colored cells illustrate the painting of place types on the canvas. • locate place types on the virtual present
• evaluate results
Details of each of these steps are provided in the following sections.
VIRTUAL PRESENT
The first step in creating the virtual present, or computer rendition of existing conditions, was sub-dividing the county into 10 acre grids cells (polygons) then overlaying the grid on GIS layers, including environmental, parcel, and roadway data. The overlay identified underlying characteristics of each grid cell. Those cells wholly filled by environmental or other public, conservation features were tagged as off limits for place type assignments. All other grid cells were deemed potentially developable and available for assignments. A factor was applied to non-vacant, available grid cells to reflect the potential for redevelopment and ranged from 0 to 100, with 100 reflecting vacant parcels.
The factor was based on underlying conditions, such as the land use type, building age and value, and the ratio of building to land value, with lower ratios indicating higher probability for redevelopment.
264 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE A.2: ENVISION BUILDING TYPE INPUTS
Basic building information, as shown above, as well as other building details, including occupancy (not shown) are one of three sets of Place Type inputs.
PLACE TYPES The Envision software comes with prepackaged Figure A.2 illustrate the building types used in building types that are used to create place types. this process. Open space and infrastructure The building type information includes features information, including street types and right of way, such as lot size, building coverage, landscaping civic uses and parks, are the second set of place coverage, parking coverage, height and floor types inputs. Figure A.3 illustrates those inputs. area ratio. Building occupancy, or the number of The final set of inputs are defining and persons per Welling unit and number of workers per proportioning building types for each place square foot of non-residential building, provide the type. Figure A.4 illustrates those inputs. connection between population and employment forecasts and place type demand. Each new person added will require a certain amount of residential building, which in turns requires a certain amount of land and that those ratios translate people and jobs to acres. Because each building type and place type has varying densities, the amount of land added for added person and job will vary.
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 265 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE A.3: STREET AND OPEN SPACE INPUTS
Non-building characteristics of Place Types are the second set of inputs.
FIGURE A.4: BUILDING TYPES AND PROPORTIONS
Each Place Type is defined by a mix of building types.
266 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
ALLOCATION FIGURE A.5: PORTS CENTERS PLACE TYPE Population and employment growth between 2010 ALLOCATION in 2060, 338,000 and 145,000 respectively, was allocated to those place types selected for each of the scenarios. The place types were chosen based on the scenario story as well as a scenario concept map. For example, the Ports Centers scenario assumes much of Brevard’s employment growth will occur in and around its ports and intermodal facilities in logistics / distribution based place types. The allocations of place types for the Port Centers scenario is shown in Figure A.5 below. The rest are shown in the body of the report.
PAINTING
The Envision software calculates the total land area needed for the increment of population in employment growth based on building occupancy information and building densities. An overview of those ratios is provided above. The total population and employment stayed the Place types are painted on the virtual present same across scenarios, the allocation among canvas (as shown in Figure A.1) based on place types (bars in the graph) varied. this scenario stories and concept maps.
The painting allocates the total demand for each place type across the county. Figure A.6 illustrates the Port Centers concept map and Figure A.7 the painted scenario.
Once the painting for each scenario was finished, Envision provided a details of place type characteristics, including population and employment, building areas and developed land areas for a variety of geographic scales. Summaries of population and employment for each city, for example, are available. A key summary from the painting were traffic analysis zone (TAZ) data for the Central Florida Regional Planning Model (CFRPM) with which 2060 travel demand was estimated.
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 267 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE A.6: PORTS CENTERS CONCEPT MAP
Each concept map identified where growth would occur for the scenario.This illustrates the concentration of growth around Brevard’s ports and intermodal facilities.
268 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE A.7: PORTS CENTERS PAINTED CANVAS (PLACE TYPE LOCATIONS
The place types and painting align with the scenario story and concept map.
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 269 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
EVALUATION FIGURE A.8: SCENARIO EVALUATION The final Envision modeling step provided evaluation information for the scenarios used to compare how each performed against each other and against the current conditions. Results from the CFRPM generated the remaining evaluation information. Figures A.8 and A.9 present the comparisons of all scenarios across the measures used. This information was presented at the Choices Workshop to help participants comment on and rank the scenarios.
Those comments and rankings were the basis for the Vision themes and concept map, which guided the final allocation of population and employment growth to place types and final painting of place types to the virtual present canvas. These steps generated detailed socioeconomic, building and land use information for the Vision, including TAZ data used to estimate 2060 travel demand for the Vision. Figure A.10 presents the final painted canvas for the vision. The place types and painting align with the The Envision spreadsheet, including information scenario story and concept map. for each of the scenarios as well as the Vision, is available in the TPO’s data library. The CFRPM inputs and outputs for the scenarios and Vision are also available in the library. FIGURE A.9: SCENARIO EVALUTION
The place types and painting align with the scenario story and concept map.
270 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE A.9: VISION PLACE TYPE ALLOCATION
Legend
Undevelopable Area ERASE
Urban Center Core
Mobility Hub
Traditional Neighborhood
Moderate Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Employment Center
Corridor
Commercial
0 2 4 8 Miles UV407 ´
UV528
UV528
05.28.2014
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 271 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
TRAVEL DEMAND The technical analysis of network performance represents a crucial component of the planning process. The federal requirement to “Identify the projected transportation demand of persons and goods in the metropolitan planning area over the period of the plan” [23 C.F.R. 450.322(f)(1)] is addressed through the use of a travel demand model to forecast future demand and its impact on the performance of the highway and transit infrastructure
The travel demand model used for this analysis was developed by FDOT and includes a 9-county area defined as the Central Florida Region as depicted in Figure A.10. The Central Florida Regional Planning Model v5 (CFRPM) was validated by FDOT to observed conditions in the year 2010.
The method used to forecast network deficiencies in the plan horizon year (2040) is through the use of an Existing-plus-Committed (E+C) network simulation. The E+C scenario includes the existing network with committed improvements, defined as those improvements fully funded in the 5-year work program, or TIP. This represents a minimum investment scenario that, when simulated against 2040 demand, highlights network deficiencies. The demand variable in the E+C scenario is represented by 2040 population and employment projections, developed from the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research county level projections, historical development trends, and current land use policy. stimated population and employment growth between 2010 and 2040 is depicted in the maps in Figures A.11 and A.12 The projected population growth countywide is more than 160,000 people, or 40%, accompanied by an increase of almost 100,000 jobs, or 41% employment growth.
Capacity improvements included in the E+C transportation network include several roadway widening projects, new interchanges, and turn lane improvements, as listed in Table A.1.
272 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B
CFRPM v5.0 Procedural Guide Florida Department of Transportation District Five
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Figure 1 – CFRPMv50 Coverage Area APPENDIX B:
FIGURE A.10: 2005 BASE YEAR CFRPM REGIONAL NETWORK
2
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 273 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
TABLE A.1: FUNDED SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS
FACILITY FROM TO DESCRIPTION YR. FUNDED
I-95 0.5 mile N of SR 46 Volusia County line Add lanes and rehabilitate pavement Under Construction Under US-1 N of Pine St N of Cidco Rd Add lanes and reconstruct Construction St Johns Heritage Under Parkway (Phase I) Palm Bay city limits US 192 New roadway Construction Under I-95 SR 406 Volusia County line Add lanes and rehabilitate pavement Construction
St Johns Heritage Pkwy Malabar Rd Palm Bay city limits New roadway 2015
@St Johns New interchange and local connector I-95 Heritage Pkwy between Babcock and Micco 2016 St. Johns Heritage Parkway Interchange @Ellis Rd New interchange at northern 2017 (North) at I-95/Ellis Rd terminus of Parkway & Ellis Rd
I-95 @Viera Blvd New interchange 2017
St Johns Heritage Ellis Rd Parkway (Phase II) US 192 interchange New roadway 2017
SR 405 @Spaceport Connector Add left turn lane(s) 2017
SR 405 @Sisson Rd Add left turn lane(s) 2017 US 192 @ Wickham Rd Add turn lane 2018 SR 514 Weber Rd Corey Rd Add left turn lane(s) 2019
Wickham Rd @Eau Gallie Add SB and NB right turn lane 2020
Source: Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) FY2016 – FY2020
274 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE A.11: POPULATION GROWTH 2010-2040
1
95
46
50 405
407
528 401 528 Population Growth 3 520 524 2010 - 2040 No Growth 1 - 500 1 A1A 501 - 1,000 1,001 - 1,500
95 1,501 - 2,000 2,001 >
518
192 192
507
514 A1A
1 ¯
95 5
Miles
Source: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 275 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE A.12: EMPLOYMENT GROWTH 2010-2040
1
95
46
50 405
407
528 401 528 Employment Growth 3 520 524 2010 - 2040 No Growth 1 - 500 1 A1A 501 - 1,000 1,001 - 1,500
95 1,501 - 2,000 2,001 >
518
192 192
507
514 A1A
1 ¯
95 5
Miles
Source: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research
276 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
The E+C scenario simulation results in significant mobility issues, with particular prevalence in the Viera and Palm Bay areas. The majority of north/south oriented regional facilities in the Palm Bay area are projected to be congested, as are the primary east/west roadways. The congestion portrayed in Figure A.13 is computed as a balanced measure that takes into consideration both model simulated congestion, computed as volume to capacity ratio, and historical traffic growth on a facility basis. This hybrid approach to the interpretation of the forecast model results is designed to increase the reliability of the results at the roadway level. Needs Plan projects evaluated for inclusion in the cost feasible plan were selected, in part, based on this deficiency analysis.
The remainderr of this appendix consists of Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) maps for reference and 2040 socioeconomic data arranged by TAZ. Figurers A.14, A.15, and A.16 represent three sections of the county destinguished by North, Central, and South sections of the County, respectively.
FIGURE A.13: CONGESTED FACILITIES IN 2040
1
95
46
50 405
407
528 401 528
3 520 524
1 Roadway Deficiencies A1A E+C Model Deficiency Growth Model Deficiency 95
518
192 192
507
514 A1A
1 ¯
95 5 Source: Central Florida Miles Regional Planning Model
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 277 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
278 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE A.14: BREVARD COUNTY NORTH TAZ - VOLUSIA COUNTY LINE TO MICHIGAN AVE
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 279 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE A.15: BREVARD COUNTY CENTRAL TAZ - PORT ST JOHN PARKWAY TO EBER BLVD FIGURE A.16: BREVARD COUNTY SOUTH TAZ - WICKHAM RD TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LINE
280 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE A.15: BREVARD COUNTY CENTRAL TAZ - PORT ST JOHN PARKWAY TO EBER BLVD FIGURE A.16: BREVARD COUNTY SOUTH TAZ - WICKHAM RD TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LINE
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 281 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
282 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3146 395 803 0 0 0 0 3147 129 249 36 68 0 0 3148 356 763 452 957 0 0 3149 385 722 163 297 0 0 3150 0 0 2 2 0 0 3151 711 1410 437 865 0 0 3152 276 464 396 665 0 0 3153 403 835 95 196 0 0 3154 316 636 104 206 0 0 3155 594 1164 220 431 0 0 3156 335 575 212 336 0 0 3157 11 17 262 393 131 177 3158 46 77 121 176 732 988 3159 0 0 8 0 0 0 3160 119 165 318 433 0 0 3161 0 0 0 0 0 0 3162 474 1057 25 56 0 0 3163 1 2 223 320 0 0 3164 2 3 219 312 0 0 3165 537 1021 115 214 0 0 3166 780 1802 81 175 0 0 3167 9 12 71 117 0 0 3168 547 1133 123 251 0 0 3169 459 1088 14 33 0 0 3170 229 482 4 8 0 0 3171 996 2629 11 28 0 0 3172 731 1787 30 72 0 0 3173 123 294 19 45 0 0 3174 265 528 22 43 0 0 3175 522 1253 253 480 0 0 3176 337 809 9 22 0 0 3177 558 1347 6 13 0 0 3178 1084 2751 1 2 0 0 3179 687 1648 48 120 0 0 3180 0 0 3 8 0 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 283 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 2901 43 102 0 0 0 0 2902 29 67 37 86 0 0 2903 239 517 123 247 103 139 2904 387 898 67 153 0 0 2905 94 224 39 90 0 0 2906 335 675 15 29 46 62 2907 198 464 62 144 0 0 2908 163 433 31 82 0 0 2909 379 910 154 369 0 0 2910 687 1347 111 180 0 0 2911 441 998 543 1216 0 0 2912 19 40 7 14 0 0 2913 240 548 118 261 0 0 2914 1234 2794 193 410 0 0 2915 283 672 22 46 0 0 2916 45 85 6 11 0 0 2917 67 143 4 9 0 0 2918 63 151 9 22 0 0 2919 335 770 92 200 200 270 2920 630 1390 13 28 0 0 2921 906 2098 19 42 0 0 2922 137 322 649 1054 0 0 2923 19 46 0 0 0 0 2924 270 672 6 14 0 0 2925 547 1242 5 11 0 0 2926 145 351 0 0 0 0 2927 892 1967 8 18 629 849 2928 392 884 8 17 0 0 2929 460 881 223 403 0 0 2930 56 131 78 145 46 62 2931 148 319 4 9 0 0 2932 299 581 167 318 0 0 2933 138 294 112 239 0 0 2934 6 5 5 4 0 0 2935 262 651 8 19 0 0
284 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 2936 251 627 5 11 0 0 2937 178 304 36 61 0 0 2938 625 1327 255 540 0 0 2939 246 554 7 16 0 0 2940 139 279 184 369 0 0 2941 132 216 692 1135 0 0 2942 23 28 305 372 394 532 2943 335 647 91 154 0 0 2944 517 970 353 648 0 0 2945 809 1624 21 41 0 0 2946 320 763 165 382 0 0 2947 184 322 313 518 0 0 2948 441 1067 0 0 0 0 2949 1 3 17 17 57 77 2950 152 237 89 125 503 679 2951 125 133 262 272 0 0 2952 7 16 0 0 0 0 2953 4 7 2 4 0 0 2954 90 205 5 10 0 0 2955 256 596 0 0 0 0 2956 518 927 460 823 0 0 2957 456 831 255 454 0 0 2958 211 376 140 245 0 0 2959 0 0 1 0 709 957 2960 511 1183 14 30 0 0 2961 819 1988 109 257 0 0 2962 404 693 289 490 0 0 2963 606 883 702 1005 0 0 2964 0 0 12 14 0 0 2965 297 452 547 818 0 0 2966 928 1843 69 134 0 0 2967 174 404 52 121 0 0 2968 550 1161 97 205 0 0 2969 0 1 3 3 0 0 2970 45 51 4417 4991 2755 3719
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 285 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 2971 905 1957 489 1020 743 1003 2972 719 1588 116 246 0 0 2973 1605 3571 330 721 0 0 2974 377 693 136 247 0 0 2975 145 303 324 598 669 903 2976 0 0 1 0 0 0 2977 0 0 5 0 0 0 2978 321 490 27 39 131 177 2979 491 1179 69 136 0 0 2980 0 0 0 0 0 0 2981 1313 3152 19 45 0 0 2982 1196 2870 0 0 0 0 2983 43 102 0 0 0 0 2984 35 84 134 322 0 0 2985 23 61 0 0 492 664 2986 79 190 31 58 0 0 2987 0 0 0 0 0 0 2988 0 0 0 0 0 0 2989 0 0 0 0 0 0 2990 0 0 0 0 0 0 2991 0 0 0 0 0 0 2992 0 0 0 0 0 0 2993 2 5 0 0 0 0 2994 0 0 0 0 0 0 2995 0 0 0 0 0 0 2996 0 0 4 0 0 0 2997 0 1 1 2 0 0 2998 0 0 0 0 0 0 2999 96 231 0 0 0 0 3000 273 656 80 152 0 0 3001 3 7 3 4 0 0 3002 3 7 0 0 0 0 3003 900 1569 898 1525 0 0 3004 953 2562 0 0 0 0 3005 1326 3366 0 0 0 0
286 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3006 1003 2578 0 0 0 0 3007 757 1431 426 805 0 0 3008 800 2061 7 18 0 0 3009 1701 4266 51 128 0 0 3010 351 932 0 0 0 0 3011 754 1897 0 0 0 0 3012 1139 2878 0 0 0 0 3013 390 805 173 346 0 0 3014 69 162 138 317 0 0 3015 764 1977 16 40 0 0 3016 55 132 0 0 0 0 3017 5 42 131 1102 0 0 3018 42 95 244 482 0 0 3019 169 323 94 165 0 0 3020 61 150 0 0 0 0 3021 24 215 276 2476 0 0 3022 36 78 458 980 80 108 3023 365 908 13 33 0 0 3024 630 1578 7 17 0 0 3025 195 465 192 444 0 0 3026 12 24 277 543 57 77 3027 293 616 22 45 0 0 3028 12 28 19 46 0 0 3029 1 3 0 0 0 0 3030 124 288 7 16 857 1157 3031 131 315 4 10 0 0 3032 257 517 255 462 692 934 3033 344 826 3 7 0 0 3034 418 1014 8 19 0 0 3035 1283 2964 0 0 0 0 3036 0 0 0 0 0 0 3037 2 5 152 180 0 0 3038 175 359 4 7 0 0 3039 289 621 46 96 0 0 3040 58 138 12 20 566 764
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 287 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3041 0 0 0 0 480 648 3042 106 228 63 130 0 0 3043 437 913 292 610 0 0 3044 125 297 2 5 0 0 3045 165 302 426 780 0 0 3046 320 605 85 158 0 0 3047 121 242 34 65 0 0 3048 410 860 398 792 0 0 3049 232 398 128 212 0 0 3050 510 1094 64 135 0 0 3051 0 0 0 0 0 0 3052 172 301 120 201 234 316 3053 418 1065 64 162 0 0 3054 496 1144 326 729 0 0 3055 288 586 216 428 0 0 3056 514 1218 0 0 0 0 3057 221 443 403 779 0 0 3058 55 98 14 22 0 0 3059 271 509 554 831 429 579 3060 560 1405 70 174 686 926 3061 14 40 8 23 0 0 3062 80 160 30 57 0 0 3063 70 150 149 319 0 0 3064 88 184 168 336 0 0 3065 13 19 301 436 263 355 3066 0 0 0 0 0 0 3067 7 20 11 32 0 0 3068 308 797 102 263 0 0 3069 186 489 246 647 0 0 3070 86 122 422 599 0 0 3071 0 0 1 1 0 0 3072 26 59 2 0 0 0 3073 1013 2150 485 991 0 0 3074 345 835 3 7 0 0 3075 317 820 28 63 0 0
288 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3076 6 14 44 102 0 0 3077 204 373 100 181 69 93 3078 20 53 10 26 0 0 3079 242 474 296 580 0 0 3080 302 492 174 278 0 0 3081 4 6 0 0 0 0 3082 822 1996 9 20 0 0 3083 74 152 155 287 0 0 3084 12 23 211 386 0 0 3085 337 701 198 412 0 0 3086 984 2214 348 771 0 0 3087 2 4 94 169 0 0 3088 764 1848 331 766 0 0 3089 1943 4737 379 911 109 147 3090 764 1664 122 243 0 0 3091 449 1343 9 27 0 0 3092 107 193 32 50 74 100 3093 759 1932 5 12 0 0 3094 541 1394 3 8 0 0 3095 472 1198 118 299 0 0 3096 462 951 995 1732 0 0 3097 1810 4561 37 93 0 0 3098 24 58 8 20 0 0 3099 156 381 28 67 74 100 3100 268 511 281 521 63 85 3101 0 0 0 0 0 0 3102 769 1845 0 0 0 0 3103 839 1922 148 289 0 0 3104 95 225 12 27 0 0 3105 345 859 42 93 0 0 3106 130 311 45 85 0 0 3107 49 118 21 40 0 0 3108 1319 3113 197 465 0 0 3109 1451 2603 29 56 0 0 3110 1430 3165 46 101 0 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 289 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3111 859 1722 1 2 0 0 3112 0 0 0 0 0 0 3113 1375 2832 287 521 0 0 3114 176 423 31 59 0 0 3115 1 2 694 1098 0 0 3116 104 249 104 197 0 0 3117 0 0 26 50 606 818 3118 189 490 0 0 720 972 3119 6 14 81 48 0 0 3120 696 1225 445 783 0 0 3121 769 1845 3 5 0 0 3122 938 2121 114 220 0 0 3123 514 1233 31 75 0 0 3124 1122 2567 2 4 0 0 3125 1035 2392 3 5 0 0 3126 388 916 0 0 0 0 3127 240 413 487 838 0 0 3128 254 571 294 632 0 0 3129 64 151 17 40 0 0 3130 57 153 14 38 0 0 3131 411 1048 41 105 0 0 3132 244 527 2 4 0 0 3133 262 668 8 20 0 0 3134 249 549 9 14 0 0 3135 387 862 58 121 0 0 3136 565 1554 43 118 0 0 3137 332 664 122 244 0 0 3138 352 671 289 538 0 0 3139 0 0 0 0 0 0 3140 0 0 1 0 0 0 3141 92 191 11 23 0 0 3142 452 1047 183 416 0 0 3143 854 1968 24 53 0 0 3144 796 1675 1 1 0 0 3145 1707 3916 2 3 0 0
290 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3181 48 114 14 27 0 0 3182 0 0 29 50 0 0 3183 59 83 777 1088 3344 4514 3184 90 147 580 724 0 0 3185 1008 1409 2128 2914 0 0 3186 123 177 708 883 0 0 3187 484 548 2073 2317 0 0 3188 218 239 872 957 0 0 3189 477 820 492 839 332 448 3190 113 115 739 694 2315 3125 3191 0 0 805 919 252 340 3192 36 33 1180 1068 5362 7239 3193 717 1220 605 1020 743 1003 3194 0 0 2351 1867 5499 7424 3195 132 279 197 405 0 0 3196 316 604 3 6 0 0 3197 187 303 381 617 0 0 3198 68 85 311 389 0 0 3199 626 1077 705 1213 63 85 3200 278 366 1383 1680 372 502 3201 1078 2587 0 0 0 0 3202 1078 2587 0 0 0 0 3203 1079 2587 1 0 0 0 3204 137 325 2 4 0 0 3205 133 319 1 2 0 0 3206 985 2365 4 8 0 0 3207 986 2367 2 3 0 0 3208 0 0 0 0 0 0 3209 240 577 0 0 0 0 3210 514 1233 10 19 0 0 3211 436 1046 256 488 0 0 3212 357 951 0 0 0 0 3213 788 1891 4 8 503 679 3214 212 509 13 31 0 0 3215 723 1418 0 0 0 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 291 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3216 184 408 133 242 0 0 3217 292 551 5 9 0 0 3218 272 506 114 208 0 0 3219 31 79 0 0 480 648 3220 178 311 444 568 51 69 3221 522 1253 253 480 0 0 3222 418 1004 253 480 0 0 3223 148 355 0 0 0 0 3224 270 647 8 19 0 0 3225 515 1385 10 27 0 0 3226 0 0 0 0 0 0 3227 0 0 0 0 0 0 3228 4 9 0 0 0 0 3229 657 1738 20 53 0 0 3230 547 1630 0 0 0 0 3231 926 2463 0 0 0 0 3232 695 1667 35 87 0 0 3233 357 722 56 110 0 0 3234 678 1895 0 0 0 0 3235 234 446 349 645 0 0 3236 1152 2542 202 443 0 0 3237 260 523 87 152 0 0 3238 0 0 0 0 0 0 3239 335 862 3 6 0 0 3240 123 310 2 5 0 0 3241 1163 2904 122 280 0 0 3242 0 0 1 1 0 0 3243 0 0 1 2 0 0 3244 763 1533 9 17 0 0 3245 84 117 512 721 0 0 3246 713 1483 513 1059 0 0 3247 514 881 1722 2945 0 0 3248 1199 2431 131 261 0 0 3249 156 250 353 545 0 0 3250 263 625 7 15 0 0
292 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3251 52 124 0 0 0 0 3252 384 819 168 334 0 0 3253 381 922 4 10 0 0 3254 822 1551 1022 1893 0 0 3255 359 725 229 447 0 0 3256 921 2076 359 806 0 0 3257 287 682 1 2 0 0 3258 842 1852 44 97 0 0 3259 793 1855 24 56 0 0 3260 118 211 132 220 0 0 3261 336 732 84 183 0 0 3262 88 141 225 360 0 0 3263 0 0 0 0 0 0 3264 0 0 0 0 0 0 3265 843 1583 513 940 0 0 3266 510 1010 218 432 0 0 3267 2 5 2 4 0 0 3268 34 60 166 292 0 0 3269 97 169 104 179 0 0 3270 59 103 38 67 0 0 3271 110 139 170 209 0 0 3272 2 6 12 37 0 0 3273 44 105 1 3 0 0 3274 268 642 90 170 0 0 3275 145 339 21 49 0 0 3276 0 0 622 1294 0 0 3277 1194 2663 12 27 0 0 3278 922 2087 38 86 0 0 3279 1 2 0 0 0 0 3280 51 95 14 26 0 0 3281 303 538 91 161 0 0 3282 106 214 2 4 0 0 3283 279 566 194 394 0 0 3284 57 133 2 2 0 0 3285 178 491 37 102 937 1265
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 293 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3286 662 1280 891 1662 0 0 3287 177 368 56 116 0 0 3288 149 301 45 91 0 0 3289 0 0 0 0 0 0 3290 0 0 0 0 0 0 3291 543 1067 152 297 572 772 3292 0 0 13 0 0 0 3293 860 1069 52 98 0 0 3294 0 0 250 422 2892 3904 3295 0 0 1 0 0 0 3296 3 7 191 422 0 0 3297 0 0 230 584 274 370 3298 688 1442 554 1156 0 0 3299 451 927 87 176 0 0 3300 146 217 236 351 486 656 3301 449 888 4 8 0 0 3302 114 175 294 446 0 0 3303 164 250 67 101 0 0 3304 129 207 336 552 0 0 3305 12 13 184 201 320 432 3306 1078 2585 11 4 0 0 3307 133 320 0 0 0 0 3308 1181 2928 11 28 0 0 3309 747 1675 45 100 3098 4182 3310 432 837 500 955 835 1127 3311 331 738 54 119 0 0 3312 411 1143 41 114 0 0 3313 162 230 241 343 0 0 3314 180 303 723 1202 0 0 3315 492 1016 161 323 0 0 3316 79 132 108 170 0 0 3317 494 1147 38 87 0 0 3318 1515 3922 15 39 0 0 3319 920 1765 388 679 0 0 3320 1342 2947 63 137 0 0
294 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3321 0 0 594 663 0 0 3322 250 401 371 569 0 0 3323 448 1087 223 534 0 0 3324 46 90 45 81 0 0 3325 840 2222 0 0 0 0 3326 674 1740 48 109 0 0 3327 464 882 909 1685 0 0 3328 590 1417 442 840 0 0 3329 150 292 159 283 0 0 3330 96 231 118 224 0 0 3331 367 876 43 62 0 0 3332 370 792 172 306 0 0 3333 920 1464 1247 1956 0 0 3334 897 2099 9 21 0 0 3335 0 0 37 54 0 0 3336 0 0 106 177 0 0 3337 698 1676 0 0 0 0 3338 238 570 0 0 0 0 3339 955 2416 0 0 0 0 3340 141 355 8 19 0 0 3341 60 145 0 0 0 0 3342 0 0 0 0 0 0 3343 68 164 978 1274 383 517 3344 539 980 2135 3536 755 1019 3345 0 0 0 0 0 0 3346 193 355 55 101 0 0 3347 40 86 148 182 0 0 3348 248 642 0 0 0 0 3349 204 493 4 10 0 0 3350 563 1446 0 0 0 0 3351 0 0 236 406 0 0 3352 0 0 0 0 0 0 3353 323 716 0 0 0 0 3354 91 166 354 626 0 0 3355 739 1566 32 60 0 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 295 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3356 483 1026 65 133 0 0 3357 33 73 4 7 0 0 3358 83 155 261 323 0 0 3359 916 2220 0 0 0 0 3360 0 0 0 0 0 0 3361 1127 2805 0 0 0 0 3362 511 958 180 336 0 0 3363 737 1373 638 1135 0 0 3364 672 1717 29 56 0 0 3365 77 163 9 18 0 0 3366 96 209 1 1 0 0 3367 87 145 415 666 697 941 3368 636 1526 1 3 0 0 3369 381 937 0 0 0 0 3370 887 2129 0 0 0 0 3371 693 1745 0 0 0 0 3372 242 627 10 26 0 0 3373 322 791 0 0 0 0 3374 465 1159 0 0 0 0 3375 806 1983 0 0 0 0 3376 715 1372 795 1261 474 640 3377 960 2242 0 0 0 0 3378 844 2026 92 179 0 0 3379 480 1029 21 40 0 0 3380 150 361 0 0 0 0 3381 72 173 0 0 0 0 3382 379 910 1 0 0 0 3383 976 2444 8 20 0 0 3384 72 196 0 0 0 0 3385 0 0 452 1153 0 0 3386 616 1482 0 0 0 0 3387 205 509 0 0 0 0 3388 495 1293 39 103 0 0 3389 229 634 0 0 0 0 3390 0 0 0 0 0 0
296 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3391 1 1 1 0 1155 1559 3392 0 0 278 575 0 0 3393 83 207 77 151 0 0 3394 172 444 5 13 0 0 3395 457 1045 21 43 0 0 3396 223 505 1 2 0 0 3397 166 410 0 0 0 0 3398 168 418 0 0 0 0 3399 420 1049 245 610 0 0 3400 0 0 0 0 0 0 3401 389 916 53 108 0 0 3402 818 1989 4 10 0 0 3403 152 366 1 1 0 0 3404 584 1575 1 1 0 0 3405 798 1909 0 0 0 0 3406 511 1244 0 0 0 0 3407 898 2148 0 0 0 0 3408 1111 2618 0 0 0 0 3409 745 1738 0 0 0 0 3410 263 590 0 0 0 0 3411 191 512 0 0 0 0 3412 77 193 4 10 0 0 3413 127 309 8 19 0 0 3414 117 297 14 36 0 0 3415 275 678 17 41 0 0 3416 55 128 6 14 0 0 3417 89 206 6 12 0 0 3418 449 1077 182 346 0 0 3419 566 1358 305 579 0 0 3420 1159 2908 0 0 0 0 3421 1 3 5 15 0 0 3422 543 1360 7 13 0 0 3423 237 577 2 5 0 0 3424 196 457 1 2 0 0 3425 46 118 1 3 0 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 297 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3426 417 966 18 35 0 0 3427 642 1625 0 0 0 0 3428 450 1119 0 0 0 0 3429 580 1433 82 192 0 0 3430 251 639 0 0 0 0 3431 563 1427 0 0 0 0 3432 761 1870 11 24 0 0 3433 2524 6056 1 1 0 0 3434 4712 11309 4 8 0 0 3435 591 1322 10 19 0 0 3436 192 476 629 1198 0 0 3437 279 665 788 1499 0 0 3438 469 890 48 87 0 0 3439 299 716 1 2 0 0 3440 322 766 0 0 0 0 3441 0 0 0 0 0 0 3442 46 110 1 3 0 0 3443 455 1048 4056 5355 0 0 3444 0 0 0 0 0 0 3445 262 388 510 755 0 0 3446 1711 3609 826 1248 80 108 3447 178 430 35 84 0 0 3448 47 121 0 0 0 0 3449 384 897 31 65 0 0 3450 358 850 15 29 0 0 3451 464 1057 25 52 0 0 3452 0 0 0 0 0 0 3453 0 0 0 0 0 0 3454 315 832 0 0 0 0 3455 998 2012 122 242 0 0 3456 0 0 0 0 0 0 3457 0 0 0 0 0 0 3458 0 0 0 0 0 0 3459 332 571 218 366 594 802 3460 387 621 310 487 0 0
298 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3461 521 911 360 616 0 0 3462 383 832 1199 2359 0 0 3463 439 974 49 108 0 0 3464 75 128 56 96 0 0 3465 603 1070 415 728 0 0 3466 663 1372 210 435 0 0 3467 918 1491 347 511 0 0 3468 1089 2264 145 296 0 0 3469 779 1762 77 173 0 0 3470 519 1019 285 553 0 0 3471 448 1010 4 9 0 0 3472 286 395 957 1321 0 0 3473 1040 1865 420 745 46 62 3474 163 279 105 180 0 0 3475 654 1145 436 763 149 201 3476 28 35 435 508 3813 5148 3477 1540 3029 569 1076 0 0 3478 208 493 0 0 0 0 3479 941 2123 88 195 0 0 3480 13 17 589 677 1258 1698 3481 427 875 120 243 97 131 3482 245 421 156 268 114 154 3483 785 1398 382 670 0 0 3484 552 1192 83 179 0 0 3485 328 572 48 83 0 0 3486 730 1267 567 882 0 0 3487 809 995 1437 1768 40 54 3488 665 1227 170 304 86 116 3489 1523 2558 459 756 29 39 3490 374 523 141 192 51 69 3491 0 0 2 3 0 0 3492 0 0 0 0 0 0 3493 0 0 0 0 0 0 3494 0 0 0 0 0 0 3495 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 299 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3496 0 0 0 0 0 0 3497 0 0 0 0 0 0 3498 98 210 4 9 0 0 3499 0 0 0 0 0 0 3500 70 150 5 11 0 0 3501 11 26 8 18 51 69 3502 64 120 39 70 0 0 3503 5 23 2 9 0 0 3504 0 0 6 7 0 0 3505 48 115 521 750 0 0 3506 25 53 29 60 0 0 3507 60 145 0 0 0 0 3508 117 280 0 0 0 0 3509 197 479 0 0 0 0 3510 684 1737 0 0 0 0 3511 648 1636 0 0 0 0 3512 148 384 0 0 0 0 3513 526 1312 0 0 0 0 3514 101 289 6 17 0 0 3515 92 223 15 36 0 0 3516 0 0 0 0 0 0 3517 115 303 0 0 0 0 3518 211 555 0 0 0 0 3519 317 798 0 0 0 0 3520 132 316 1 2 0 0 3521 111 228 122 231 0 0 3522 1231 2401 276 504 0 0 3523 265 509 97 179 0 0 3524 73 153 3 6 0 0 3525 264 655 0 0 0 0 3526 137 330 0 0 0 0 3527 260 665 0 0 0 0 3528 115 300 0 0 0 0 3529 124 309 0 0 0 0 3530 341 818 0 0 0 0
300 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3531 411 1008 4 10 0 0 3532 207 498 0 0 0 0 3533 383 966 0 0 0 0 3534 438 1107 0 0 0 0 3535 121 300 0 0 0 0 3536 129 321 0 0 0 0 3537 455 948 60 114 0 0 3538 530 1222 56 106 0 0 3539 217 389 33 62 0 0 3540 632 1294 8 15 0 0 3541 8 9 144 167 0 0 3542 183 435 4 9 0 0 3543 588 1454 0 0 0 0 3544 133 326 0 0 0 0 3545 12 35 2 6 0 0 3546 604 1593 0 0 0 0 3547 227 518 0 0 0 0 3548 96 232 0 0 0 0 3549 70 175 0 0 0 0 3550 311 801 0 0 0 0 3551 619 1457 72 136 0 0 3552 177 450 2 6 0 0 3553 166 496 16 48 0 0 3554 294 700 0 0 0 0 3555 146 364 0 0 0 0 3556 250 615 2 5 0 0 3557 2 5 0 0 0 0 3558 0 0 0 0 0 0 3559 456 1104 71 135 0 0 3560 0 0 0 0 0 0 3561 311 746 3 7 0 0 3562 1036 2567 2 3 0 0 3563 154 403 0 0 0 0 3564 379 944 0 0 0 0 3565 0 0 0 0 0 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 301 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Single Single Family Multi Family Multi Family Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel TAZ Family DUs Population DUs Population Units Population 3566 123 276 2 4 0 0 3567 61 159 1 3 0 0 3568 222 512 0 0 0 0 3569 264 634 107 204 0 0 3570 153 367 62 118 0 0 3571 66 158 35 67 0 0 3572 0 0 0 0 0 0 3573 487 1169 2 5 0 0 3574 553 1456 3 9 0 0 3575 30 76 0 0 0 0 3576 309 737 0 0 0 0 3577 93 259 1 2 0 0 3578 330 683 0 0 0 0 3579 371 888 0 0 0 0 3580 289 695 0 0 0 0 3581 158 369 0 0 0 0 3582 214 446 0 0 0 0 3583 123 262 16 30 0 0 3584 127 326 0 0 0 0 3585 324 798 0 0 0 0 3586 144 368 6 12 0 0 3587 206 524 0 0 0 0 3588 261 664 0 0 0 0 3589 92 231 0 0 0 0 3590 398 970 2 5 0 0 3591 227 569 3 5 0 0 3592 4432 10637 0 0 0 0 3593 2 1 29 18 0 0 3594 24 51 1 2 0 0 3595 0 0 0 0 0 0 3596 2426 5823 881 1676 0 0 3597 1773 4255 0 0 0 0 3598 372 887 4 7 0 0 3599 891 2138 0 0 0 0 3600 405 972 346 656 0 0
302 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 303 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 2901 3 21 13 37 0 2902 5 2 0 7 0 2903 1 340 226 567 0 2904 33 92 104 229 1 2905 0 0 0 0 0 2906 1 1 160 162 0 2907 7 24 27 58 0 2908 1 2 6 9 0 2909 5 215 139 359 0 2910 58 87 93 238 0 2911 73 36 142 251 133 2912 0 0 2 2 0 2913 6 8 0 14 0 2914 47 82 108 237 0 2915 6 63 37 106 0 2916 1 21 147 169 162 2917 3 27 35 65 0 2918 86 8 5 99 0 2919 7 97 43 147 14 2920 12 30 15 57 0 2921 219 194 28 441 33 2922 77 85 58 220 0 2923 0 52 28 80 0 2924 5 3 8 16 0 2925 0 2 63 65 0 2926 0 0 217 217 409 2927 15 100 286 401 394 2928 14 23 37 74 0 2929 138 54 143 335 42 2930 31 52 2459 2542 0 2931 12 0 338 350 0 2932 42 33 165 240 0 2933 89 37 176 302 0 2934 14 36 174 224 0 2935 10 4 17 31 0
304 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 2936 2 0 34 36 135 2937 2 272 83 357 0 2938 95 415 268 778 0 2939 10 0 1273 1283 0 2940 132 133 1481 1746 2 2941 6 9 193 208 0 2942 172 253 2344 2769 0 2943 0 0 12 12 0 2944 13 1 49 63 0 2945 8 145 155 308 0 2946 4 0 42 46 0 2947 5 0 8 13 0 2948 2 10 104 116 0 2949 0 26 184 210 476 2950 54 377 452 883 0 2951 20 91 317 428 0 2952 3 145 71 219 0 2953 49 75 30 154 0 2954 2 5 117 124 257 2955 5 5 68 78 93 2956 3 1 89 93 0 2957 21 34 285 340 115 2958 78 196 230 504 64 2959 9 289 36 334 0 2960 83 222 60 365 0 2961 14 68 306 388 0 2962 0 175 46 221 0 2963 0 34 274 308 0 2964 0 155 115 270 0 2965 225 385 575 1185 34 2966 13 29 139 181 217 2967 38 2 60 100 164 2968 24 117 264 405 0 2969 0 4 0 4 0 2970 26 132 158 316 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 305 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 2971 12 558 113 683 0 2972 27 523 149 699 24 2973 33 68 451 552 232 2974 49 30 48 127 0 2975 197 376 440 1013 172 2976 271 169 501 941 189 2977 479 36 302 817 0 2978 299 66 238 603 0 2979 116 27 2 145 0 2980 46 0 45 91 0 2981 34 150 0 184 0 2982 0 177 0 177 0 2983 3 21 13 37 0 2984 5 10 58 73 0 2985 5 130 149 284 0 2986 28 143 242 413 0 2987 3 49 48 100 0 2988 0 0 25 25 0 2989 25 3 35 63 0 2990 2905 0 4 2909 0 2991 0 0 0 0 0 2992 26 2 2548 2576 0 2993 0 0 0 0 0 2994 0 0 0 0 0 2995 60 0 3036 3096 0 2996 47 69 171 287 0 2997 0 2 0 2 0 2998 319 163 124 606 0 2999 7 0 42 49 0 3000 11 131 52 194 0 3001 0 0 0 0 0 3002 0 0 0 0 0 3003 21 189 393 603 0 3004 3 8 412 423 837 3005 20 2 31 53 0
306 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3006 24 17 143 184 225 3007 32 222 209 463 0 3008 12 3 32 47 0 3009 65 88 186 339 50 3010 2 2 10 14 0 3011 7 9 16 32 0 3012 28 91 125 244 167 3013 42 349 227 618 0 3014 7 18 6 31 0 3015 39 19 117 175 0 3016 0 18 0 18 0 3017 10 8 427 445 0 3018 97 110 126 333 0 3019 1 99 172 272 237 3020 0 162 87 249 0 3021 66 15 593 674 0 3022 36 315 51 402 0 3023 3 25 12 40 0 3024 14 13 14 41 0 3025 257 2 23 282 0 3026 293 261 424 978 0 3027 40 115 104 259 0 3028 680 136 138 954 0 3029 64 11 48 123 0 3030 9 83 156 248 0 3031 7 0 117 124 0 3032 19 70 50 139 0 3033 32 17 24 73 0 3034 18 125 121 264 0 3035 92 102 69 263 0 3036 0 29 125 154 0 3037 5 444 202 651 0 3038 1 1 0 2 0 3039 7 203 153 363 0 3040 5 100 143 248 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 307 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3041 517 396 181 1094 0 3042 17 47 48 112 5 3043 6 183 112 301 0 3044 1 15 2236 2252 331 3045 7 95 136 238 224 3046 43 138 194 375 0 3047 0 37 173 210 0 3048 14 114 101 229 136 3049 3 127 160 290 24 3050 36 137 199 372 20 3051 7 119 195 321 0 3052 6 172 630 808 13 3053 25 54 46 125 0 3054 173 95 162 430 275 3055 37 85 205 327 261 3056 11 4 21 36 0 3057 149 112 164 425 0 3058 33 7 46 86 27 3059 7 128 173 308 0 3060 28 142 181 351 0 3061 140 228 288 656 0 3062 65 149 121 335 0 3063 214 163 351 728 10 3064 39 88 154 281 0 3065 150 183 1128 1461 0 3066 114 102 174 390 0 3067 53 156 157 366 0 3068 23 134 256 413 0 3069 5 103 126 234 0 3070 67 262 534 863 41 3071 37 288 706 1031 0 3072 13 38 56 107 0 3073 4 83 287 374 46 3074 11 48 121 180 226 3075 6 48 275 329 177
308 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3076 15 232 629 876 13 3077 3 18 66 87 0 3078 2 12 391 405 424 3079 108 111 387 606 179 3080 10 86 783 879 107 3081 0 0 0 0 0 3082 9 3 111 123 0 3083 341 396 1238 1975 452 3084 37 108 223 368 0 3085 32 351 443 826 0 3086 64 189 223 476 0 3087 815 161 742 1718 39 3088 10 21 67 98 278 3089 30 117 273 420 0 3090 10 215 119 344 0 3091 308 295 223 826 0 3092 181 137 28 346 0 3093 31 100 284 415 0 3094 4 9 174 187 0 3095 13 30 89 132 0 3096 91 505 320 916 0 3097 64 118 429 611 200 3098 405 677 303 1385 0 3099 186 72 231 489 0 3100 118 173 366 657 0 3101 0 0 0 0 0 3102 0 0 740 740 0 3103 24 1 301 326 0 3104 3 8 979 990 307 3105 8 42 1152 1202 0 3106 8 65 3604 3677 722 3107 2 21 586 609 0 3108 26 2 163 191 0 3109 6 21 994 1021 0 3110 17 5 84 106 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 309 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3111 126 277 255 658 0 3112 0 0 0 0 0 3113 124 200 1724 2048 0 3114 1 53 5299 5353 0 3115 25 1897 1035 2957 0 3116 36 159 380 575 0 3117 10 1529 1010 2549 0 3118 3 213 313 529 0 3119 16 61 927 1004 13 3120 34 247 418 699 0 3121 0 0 740 740 0 3122 7 13 534 554 0 3123 0 0 150 150 0 3124 67 217 304 588 0 3125 70 224 230 524 0 3126 30 56 230 316 0 3127 0 98 66 164 0 3128 14 3 27 44 0 3129 9 35 66 110 3 3130 101 17 9 127 0 3131 12 16 18 46 0 3132 2 2 16 20 0 3133 50 18 50 118 0 3134 9 77 67 153 0 3135 6 7 6 19 0 3136 144 53 154 351 0 3137 219 91 469 779 50 3138 19 73 281 373 0 3139 793 0 0 793 0 3140 20 69 58 147 0 3141 0 3 1 4 0 3142 27 296 592 915 0 3143 22 68 405 495 301 3144 35 258 205 498 0 3145 14 49 199 262 173
310 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3146 8 13 41 62 69 3147 0 2 0 2 0 3148 17 56 636 709 148 3149 12 193 208 413 0 3150 0 1 164 165 507 3151 6 185 239 430 30 3152 102 52 221 375 173 3153 7 176 180 363 342 3154 6 2 80 88 0 3155 20 448 94 562 0 3156 10 181 34 225 0 3157 168 253 1030 1451 0 3158 7 593 336 936 6 3159 12 440 750 1202 0 3160 26 44 252 322 146 3161 106 523 556 1185 0 3162 28 14 181 223 38 3163 14 1328 340 1682 0 3164 10 18 59 87 0 3165 7 380 93 480 0 3166 59 60 314 433 240 3167 213 88 357 658 0 3168 10 7 43 60 0 3169 6 2 172 180 235 3170 12 3 120 135 0 3171 11 6 36 53 0 3172 36 28 100 164 0 3173 0 10 7 17 0 3174 5 3 11 19 0 3175 35 144 790 969 0 3176 24 223 216 463 0 3177 5 203 25 233 0 3178 235 141 485 861 301 3179 456 358 346 1160 0 3180 0 0 3 3 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 311 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3181 939 327 505 1771 0 3182 621 535 1052 2208 0 3183 84 205 570 859 0 3184 153 575 1636 2364 0 3185 84 276 507 867 208 3186 159 80 575 814 0 3187 78 127 397 602 0 3188 35 172 144 351 0 3189 54 218 2625 2897 0 3190 8 442 389 839 51 3191 11 454 286 751 0 3192 7 177 449 633 0 3193 52 310 639 1001 0 3194 55 155 1337 1547 0 3195 36 3 421 460 626 3196 9 0 14 23 0 3197 23 237 333 593 139 3198 95 468 894 1457 0 3199 30 58 120 208 0 3200 26 70 118 214 0 3201 4 401 3 408 0 3202 4 401 3 408 0 3203 4 401 3 408 0 3204 0 35 11 46 0 3205 0 38 3 41 0 3206 21 72 109 202 0 3207 21 72 109 202 0 3208 0 0 0 0 0 3209 0 0 0 0 0 3210 0 0 125 125 0 3211 0 7 549 556 294 3212 7 109 140 256 0 3213 59 281 700 1040 0 3214 9 73 516 598 0 3215 0 19 64 83 0
312 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3216 1 124 138 263 0 3217 17 6 389 412 0 3218 1 136 171 308 0 3219 373 183 756 1312 0 3220 364 171 190 725 0 3221 35 144 790 969 0 3222 0 0 1170 1170 0 3223 0 0 0 0 0 3224 1 0 8 9 0 3225 26 105 372 503 236 3226 0 0 0 0 0 3227 0 0 0 0 0 3228 0 0 0 0 0 3229 64 29 56 149 0 3230 1 0 42 43 0 3231 13 53 59 125 0 3232 228 152 345 725 0 3233 61 158 286 505 0 3234 23 8 19 50 0 3235 22 449 389 860 286 3236 23 80 27 130 0 3237 48 85 53 186 0 3238 0 0 0 0 0 3239 6 0 6 12 0 3240 17 11 4 32 0 3241 27 249 545 821 0 3242 0 0 381 381 183 3243 0 0 10 10 0 3244 1 19 58 78 0 3245 15 26 467 508 172 3246 8 351 181 540 0 3247 17 35 277 329 0 3248 161 131 275 567 0 3249 112 89 505 706 0 3250 48 2 111 161 9
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 313 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3251 0 7 3 10 0 3252 34 1 66 101 0 3253 28 376 274 678 0 3254 167 402 513 1082 92 3255 91 29 111 231 291 3256 175 113 310 598 318 3257 2 37 20 59 0 3258 30 214 924 1168 0 3259 126 130 327 583 205 3260 28 62 363 453 754 3261 101 71 446 618 40 3262 91 430 942 1463 0 3263 188 215 69 472 0 3264 11 836 312 1159 0 3265 142 153 666 961 11 3266 41 37 388 466 0 3267 0 0 27 27 0 3268 0 7 31 38 0 3269 38 3 83 124 0 3270 5 50 75 130 0 3271 18 33 75 126 11 3272 37 19 3 59 0 3273 3 84 10 97 0 3274 69 46 221 336 0 3275 1345 841 757 2943 7 3276 1363 904 1563 3830 0 3277 324 54 227 605 202 3278 29 111 1087 1227 151 3279 9 8 53 70 0 3280 20 30 143 193 0 3281 23 128 1036 1187 0 3282 23 128 1036 1187 0 3283 1072 382 571 2025 331 3284 32 15 2 49 0 3285 60 157 127 344 0
314 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3286 1123 647 1416 3186 0 3287 409 242 717 1368 0 3288 2367 312 1677 4356 0 3289 0 3 318 321 0 3290 0 480 288 768 17 3291 88 186 1038 1312 0 3292 2325 344 1343 4012 0 3293 1658 30 12 1700 0 3294 39 301 2282 2622 0 3295 4 52 243 299 683 3296 7 377 12324 12708 0 3297 17 546 664 1227 0 3298 60 351 191 602 20 3299 50 949 212 1211 31 3300 17 1796 839 2652 28 3301 15 91 306 412 0 3302 83 325 547 955 0 3303 23 136 873 1032 63 3304 339 664 1986 2989 0 3305 102 207 661 970 0 3306 10 399 5 414 0 3307 0 38 3 41 0 3308 40 83 128 251 0 3309 127 767 424 1318 44 3310 46 701 763 1510 149 3311 143 719 279 1141 97 3312 42 106 315 463 0 3313 33 89 610 732 0 3314 10 0 21 31 36 3315 9 11 119 139 0 3316 85 121 234 440 0 3317 24 0 96 120 124 3318 25 13 498 536 992 3319 32 0 37 69 0 3320 14 10 217 241 183
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 315 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3321 1 66 859 926 0 3322 6 12 248 266 129 3323 2 51 427 480 256 3324 243 46 137 426 0 3325 7 9 10 26 0 3326 3 0 144 147 0 3327 4 202 115 321 0 3328 0 26 487 513 0 3329 4 5 88 97 0 3330 0 0 0 0 0 3331 0 4 133 137 26 3332 0 6 26 32 0 3333 66 218 627 911 0 3334 5 19 312 336 643 3335 521 45 10 576 0 3336 40 14 38 92 0 3337 0 0 0 0 0 3338 0 0 0 0 0 3339 5 1 26 32 0 3340 52 3 3 58 0 3341 4 874 67 945 0 3342 0 44 7 51 0 3343 3 953 64 1020 0 3344 102 309 855 1266 41 3345 3170 29 134 3333 0 3346 264 142 376 782 0 3347 21 17 59 97 0 3348 6 4 34 44 0 3349 6 25 33 64 0 3350 10 12 156 178 342 3351 5 82 48 135 0 3352 2 206 85 293 0 3353 53 144 182 379 0 3354 93 610 483 1186 0 3355 22 41 194 257 0
316 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3356 23 285 1173 1481 281 3357 1 29 12 42 0 3358 38 31 80 149 213 3359 4 41 154 199 0 3360 36 18 41 95 0 3361 10 10 57 77 0 3362 5 213 351 569 0 3363 11 323 215 549 0 3364 5 115 580 700 0 3365 2 14 21 37 0 3366 0 0 34 34 0 3367 3 54 87 144 0 3368 0 0 0 0 0 3369 5 3 12 20 0 3370 145 16 239 400 0 3371 13 3 53 69 0 3372 11 25 251 287 264 3373 0 9 2 11 0 3374 5 9 25 39 0 3375 2 24 47 73 0 3376 9 543 337 889 0 3377 193 79 245 517 0 3378 14 31 900 945 229 3379 37 51 153 241 0 3380 0 0 0 0 0 3381 0 0 0 0 0 3382 0 72 156 228 0 3383 74 8 321 403 254 3384 1 3 8 12 0 3385 3 219 120 342 0 3386 6 3 9 18 0 3387 0 11 664 675 0 3388 25 20 361 406 580 3389 7 179 187 373 0 3390 0 300 0 300 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 317 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3391 39 69 266 374 0 3392 323 289 372 984 0 3393 8 9 91 108 0 3394 1 20 21 42 0 3395 254 26 90 370 0 3396 14 0 1 15 0 3397 3 2 13 18 0 3398 0 8 5 13 0 3399 8 1 84 93 0 3400 5 74 150 229 0 3401 272 64 152 488 0 3402 78 3 240 321 0 3403 227 0 415 642 0 3404 7 0 17 24 0 3405 5 0 4 9 0 3406 1 0 4 5 0 3407 18 4 6 28 0 3408 17 271 114 402 194 3409 5 3 10 18 0 3410 45 21 45 111 75 3411 15 0 0 15 0 3412 75 57 137 269 75 3413 7 17 0 24 0 3414 11 0 8 19 0 3415 17 3 209 229 0 3416 0 3 37 40 0 3417 0 0 2 2 0 3418 8 2 18 28 0 3419 8 1 17 26 0 3420 9 5 123 137 0 3421 0 0 310 310 933 3422 7 35 151 193 0 3423 7 0 2 9 0 3424 2 0 0 2 0 3425 15 18 59 92 0
318 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3566 1 20 100 121 211 3567 0 0 0 0 0 3568 0 2 3 5 0 3569 0 0 0 0 0 3570 264 63 562 889 0 3571 0 0 0 0 0 3572 442 36 1004 1482 0 3573 12 11 0 23 0 3574 8 0 63 71 0 3575 0 0 0 0 0 3576 3 0 191 194 0 3577 2 31 52 85 0 3578 5 320 656 981 0 3579 6 0 79 85 0 3580 2 0 3 5 0 3581 2 3 4 9 0 3582 8 128 222 358 0 3583 0 12 21 33 0 3584 1 0 0 1 0 3585 7 1 8 16 0 3586 1 0 0 1 0 3587 0 1 0 1 0 3588 0 0 7 7 0 3589 0 3 0 3 0 3590 6 0 0 6 0 3591 2 0 9 11 0 3592 106 236 0 342 0 3593 0 0 0 0 0 3594 3 0 0 3 0 3595 390 127 0 517 0 3596 0 590 302 892 0 3597 0 177 0 177 0 3598 8 0 186 194 0 3599 0 0 0 0 0 3600 234 886 0 1120 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 319 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3426 80 16 29 125 0 3427 18 3 8 29 20 3428 8 3 8 19 0 3429 26 13 32 71 0 3430 0 3 12 15 0 3431 7 30 5 42 0 3432 14 8 14 36 0 3433 0 472 0 472 0 3434 90 295 3 388 0 3435 1 611 838 1450 257 3436 8 738 6 752 0 3437 0 349 0 349 0 3438 29 51 60 140 0 3439 3 0 7 10 0 3440 313 590 0 903 0 3441 0 0 0 0 0 3442 0 0 0 0 0 3443 8 107 275 390 0 3444 0 0 50 50 0 3445 0 0 0 0 0 3446 68 58 107 233 0 3447 7 1 210 218 0 3448 18 20 44 82 73 3449 108 41 33 182 0 3450 64 18 26 108 0 3451 66 23 57 146 0 3452 0 0 0 0 0 3453 0 0 0 0 0 3454 7 1 50 58 0 3455 22 28 98 148 0 3456 0 4 146 150 0 3457 6 16 1628 1650 0 3458 2 5 474 481 0 3459 2 35 77 114 0 3460 0 82 80 162 0
320 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3461 35 37 152 224 109 3462 134 12 18 164 0 3463 43 3 76 122 15 3464 36 307 381 724 770 3465 48 141 323 512 0 3466 104 90 387 581 0 3467 196 109 188 493 0 3468 26 102 202 330 139 3469 33 64 204 301 0 3470 108 177 365 650 0 3471 35 25 289 349 0 3472 1 257 527 785 193 3473 109 667 497 1273 0 3474 52 3 23 78 0 3475 11 851 308 1170 0 3476 9 26 318 353 99 3477 24 127 199 350 0 3478 0 0 19 19 0 3479 23 73 98 194 0 3480 2 19 95 116 0 3481 30 151 342 523 440 3482 61 166 440 667 0 3483 85 344 513 942 0 3484 27 50 174 251 0 3485 35 100 131 266 0 3486 6 26 237 269 213 3487 27 14 113 154 0 3488 22 213 116 351 0 3489 55 83 146 284 0 3490 14 23 137 174 0 3491 0 4 72 76 0 3492 0 0 0 0 0 3493 0 0 0 0 0 3494 0 0 0 0 0 3495 0 0 0 0 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 321 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3496 0 0 0 0 0 3497 0 0 0 0 0 3498 25 5 27 57 0 3499 0 0 0 0 0 3500 3 0 2 5 0 3501 178 86 104 368 0 3502 115 30 34 179 0 3503 4 103 22 129 0 3504 59 313 283 655 0 3505 177 14 179 370 0 3506 942 137 1280 2359 0 3507 0 0 0 0 0 3508 0 0 0 0 0 3509 1 8 2 11 0 3510 11 3 144 158 251 3511 9 14 33 56 0 3512 6 0 0 6 0 3513 20 8 51 79 0 3514 25 29 68 122 0 3515 4 0 108 112 0 3516 6500 0 7 6507 0 3517 0 0 0 0 0 3518 4 7 0 11 0 3519 4 100 72 176 2 3520 5 9 142 156 0 3521 0 0 0 0 0 3522 9 12 115 136 224 3523 338 338 590 1266 173 3524 5 26 12 43 0 3525 4 0 0 4 0 3526 0 0 6 6 0 3527 15 3 5 23 0 3528 0 0 4 4 0 3529 0 0 4 4 0 3530 7 30 33 70 0
322 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX B APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Industrial Commercial Service Total School TAZ Employment Employment Employment Employment Enrollment 3531 42 45 65 152 0 3532 2 0 3 5 0 3533 17 5 29 51 0 3534 10 8 23 41 0 3535 0 0 2 2 0 3536 0 0 0 0 0 3537 4 10 16 30 8 3538 10 4 15 29 0 3539 10 28 65 103 0 3540 7 9 90 106 0 3541 0 4 7 11 0 3542 1 2 9 12 0 3543 16 2 11 29 0 3544 0 0 3 3 0 3545 14 116 66 196 0 3546 34 438 124 596 0 3547 1 0 14 15 11 3548 1 0 0 1 0 3549 4 16 17 37 0 3550 3 0 2 5 0 3551 7 2 12 21 0 3552 0 0 0 0 0 3553 0 0 0 0 0 3554 3 7 25 35 0 3555 4 37 151 192 0 3556 3 7 10 20 0 3557 6 666 162 834 0 3558 0 33 233 266 0 3559 12 0 5 17 0 3560 65 102 326 493 0 3561 226 1 453 680 0 3562 22 2 41 65 0 3563 2 0 13 15 0 3564 11 2 15 28 0 3565 8 1 27 36 0
APPENDIX B | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 323 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE - MARCH 8, 2018 Prior to the required 5-year update cycle, there are times when the TPO may find it necessary to amend the LRTP. An amendment is a major revision that may include adding or deleting a project from the plan. It includes also major changes to project costs, initiation dates, or design concepts and scopes for existing projects. A major amendment resulting in a change in the cost feasibility of the adopted LRTP cost feasible plan requires financial analysis reaffirming the cost feasibility of the amended plan. An amendment requires public review and comment in accordance with the Public Involvement Process for LRTP Amendments, and re-demonstrating fiscal constraint. Florida Statute requires that the TPO Board adopt any amendments to the LRTP by a recorded roll call vote of the majority of the membership present.
This amendment addresses 2 areas; Limit Changes and Regionally Significant Cost Feasible Plan Additions.
LIMIT CHANGES In order to maintain Federal compliance project information and descriptions must be consistent in the LRTP, TIP, STIP, and environmental documents. Planning consistency must be met before final environmental document decisions can be approved by FHWA.
All of the projects in the table below have either already began the PD&E process or they are going to be soon. The project limits are being updated to reflect the study limits of the PD&Es in order to maintain planning consistency. These are limit changes only and do not effect cost feasibility. The Cost Feasible tables 7.13 (A) and 7.13 (B) on page 168 will be updated to reflect these changes.
LIMIT CHANGES
PROJECT FROM/TO WORK TYPE CHANGE/STATUS LIMIT CHANGE: SR 520 SR 528 (Beachline) I-95 to SR 524 Widen Road (4 to 6 lanes) (Orange County) to East of Industry Road (study limits)
LIMIT CHANGE: South Friday Road SR 524 I-95 Interchange to Industry Rd Widen Road (2 to 4 lanes) to Industry Road (study limits)
LIMIT CHANGE: 2100 feet south St. Johns Heritage Pkwy Babcock Street Widen Road (2 to 4 lanes) of Micco Road/Deer Run Road to Malabar Road to Malabar Road (study limits)
324 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT COST FEASIBLE PLAN ADDITIONS Projects in the Cost Feasible Plan are based on reasonably available funding. In other words, the region expects to complete these projects through funding mechanisms currently in place, already allowed by the state legislature, or needing additional action by the state legislature.
The table below identifies two new regionally significant projects that several modal partners have requested to be added to the 2040 Cost Feasible Plan. The funding sources for these projects are not currently under the TPO’s revenue forecast or programming authority but are now being included in the Cost Feasible Plan due to their regional significance and funding availability.
The design phase of the SR 401 Bridges and the construction phases of these projects are currently on the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Needs Plan and may move onto the SIS Cost Feasible Plan in the future. In an effort to advance these projects, Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grants or other state or federal grants will be pursued to fund design for the SR 401 Bridges and construction of both of these regionally significant bridge projects.
REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT COST FEASIBLE PLAN ADDITIONS 2016-2020 Needs (2021-2025)
FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT SOURCE PD&E PE ROW CST Construction funding will East No ROW is be pursued NASA Causeway West Roadway Bridge NASA Roadway $3.3 $1.5 needed for through INFRA Bridges Approach Replacement Funded Approach this project grant or other federal or state grant program Design (PE) funding will Construction be pursued funding will Cape through No ROW is be pursued SR 401 Bridges SR 401/SR 528 Canaveral Bridge INFRA SIS $5.0 needed for through INFRA (3 Bascule) Interchange Air Force Replacement grant or this project grant or other Station other federal or state federal or grant program state grant program Costs are shown in $0,000,000
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 325 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO - FEBRUARY, 2019 Prior to the required 5-year update cycle, there are times when the TPO may find it necessary to amend the LRTP. An amendment is a major revision that may include adding or deleting a project from the plan. It includes also major changes to project costs, initiation dates, or design concepts and scopes for existing projects. A major amendment resulting in a change in the cost feasibility of the adopted LRTP cost feasible plan requires financial analysis reaffirming the cost feasibility of the amended plan. An amendment requires public review and comment in accordance with the Public Involvement Process for LRTP Amendments, and re-demonstrating fiscal constraint. Florida Statute requires that the TPO Board adopt any amendments to the LRTP by a recorded roll call vote of the majority of the membership present.
This amendment addresses 2 areas; Addressing a Federal Highway Administration corrective action and Federal Planning Rules.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) CORRECTIVE ACTION Every four years all TPO/MPOs go through a certification process by FHWA to ensure that they are operating in compliance with standards, policies and procedures. In the certification review conducted on the Space Coast TPO in June 2018 the following LRTP corrective action was issued. “Long Range Transportation Plan - Fiscal Constraint - While a comparison of the plan revenue sources and Cost Feasible Plan was included to demonstrate the fiscal constraint of the Plan (Table 7.12), the LRTP did not include the first five years of the Plan and therefore, does not demonstrate full fiscal constraint of the Plan. In accordance with 23 CFR 450.322(a), and discussed in the November 2012 FHWA/FTA LRTP Expectations Letter, the LRTP must show projects and funding for the entire time period covered by the LRTP, from the base year to the horizon year. Because this information is missing from the financial infographics and tables, fiscal constraint of the full plan could not be determined. Revisions to the 2040 LRTP must be made to clearly demonstrate fiscal constraint for the entire Plan by February 28, 2019.”
RESOLUTION TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) CORRECTIVE ACTION Long Range Transportation Plans become active on their adoption date. This plan was originally adopted on October 8, 2015. In order to demonstrate fiscal constraint, the tables on pages 171-174 to include the projects, their costs, and funded phases for fiscal year 2015/2016 through fiscal year 2019/2020 that cover the first five years of this adopted LRTP. By inclusion of these projects fiscal constraint can clearly be demonstrated for the entire period covered by the LRTP.
On the following pages,text in the body of this document has been updated reflect het inclusion of the first 5 years of projects:
On page 141 the text in bold in the second paragraph was updated to reference this appendix. It reads: “The prioritization of long term improvements is complemented in the cost feasible plan by parallel efforts to prioritize and implement specific types of improvements, including capacity, safety and congestion management projects, some of which are affordable in the short term, between 2016 and 2020. These funded projects are listed in the Cost Feasible Tables beginning on Pages 171-174.” On page 155 halfway through the first paragraph the following text in bold was added: “The first five years of the plan period are already funded and are not included in the projections since the revenue for that period is encumbered by projects included in the TPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (Page 338). Text was also added to the Cost Feasible Map on page 170, to refer to pages 171-174 for the first five years of projects in the LRTP.
Additionally, the new planning factors were introduced on page xxii and were added to the table on page 91. All of the new planning requirements were added to Appendix C as part of this amendment Pages 327-336.
These corrections address the FHWA comments received on January 11, 2019.
326 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
FEDERAL PLANNING RULES The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) Act enacted in 2012 and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) enacted in 2015 require that the Florida Department of Transportation and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO/TPOs) must apply a transportation performance-based planning approach to transportation decision-making.
Transportation Performance-based planning is a strategic approach to connect investment and policy decisions to help achieve performance goals. Performance measures are quantitative criteria used to evaluate progress. Performance measure targets are the benchmarks against which collected data is gauged. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requires State DOTs and TPOs to conduct performance-based planning by tracking performance measures and setting data-driven targets to improve those measures. Performance-based planning ensures the most efficient investment of federal transportation funds by increasing accountability, transparency, and providing for better investment decisions that focus on key outcomes related to seven national goals:
• Improving Safety;
• Maintaining Infrastructure Condition;
• Reducing Traffic Congestion;
• Improving the Efficiency of the System and Freight Movement;
• Protecting the Environment; and,
• Reducing Delays in Project Delivery
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act supplements the MAP 21 legislation by establishing timelines for State DOTs and TPOs to comply with the requirements of MAP-21. State DOTs are required to establish statewide targets and TPOs have the option to support the statewide targets or adopt their own. The following is being included in this LRTP amendment to meet the performance measurements required in Long Range Transportation Plans.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE (PM1) - SAFETY Safety is the first national goal identified in the FAST Act. In March of 2016, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Safety Performance Management Measures Rule (Safety PM Rule) was finalized and published in the Federal Register. The rule requires TPOs to set targets for the following safety-related performance measures and report progress to the State DOT:
Number and Rate of Fatalities per 100M Vehicle Miles Traveled
Number and Rate of Serious Injuries per 100M Vehicle Miles Traveled
Rate of Fatalities per 100M Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); and
Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Non-Motorized Serious Injuries.
The 2016 Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is the statewide plan focusing on how to accomplish the vision of eliminating fatalities and reducing serious injuries on all public roads. The SHSP was developed in coordination with Florida’s 27 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) through Florida’s Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC). The SHSP development process included review of safety-related goals, objectives, and strategies in MPO/TPO Plans. The SHSP guides FDOT, TPOs, and other safety partners in addressing safety and defines a framework for implementation activities to be carried out throughout the State.
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 327 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
The Florida SHSP and the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) both highlight the commitment to a vision of zero deaths. The FDOT Florida Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) annual report documents the statewide performance measures toward that zero deaths vision. In February 2018, the Space Coast TPO approved Resolution 18-13 to adopt the FDOT state- wide HSIP safety performance measures and FDOT’s 2018 safety targets, which set the target at “0” for each performance measure to reflect the Department’s goal of zero deaths. For calendar year 2019, FDOT continued its Vision Zero targets for all five safety performance measures. On October 11, 2018, the Space Coast TPO approved Resolution 19-07 to adopt the FDOT Vision Zero targets and will continue to work with the State and safety stakeholders to address areas of concern for fatalities or serious injuries within the planning area.
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PRIORITIES - SAFETY The Space Coast TPO 2040 LRTP emphasizes the commitment to safety through the goals identified in the plan. One of the LRTP’s objectives is to improve the safety of county and state infrastructure for motorized and non-motorized users. Improving the safety of the transportation system in Brevard County is an integral piece of the transportation planning puzzle, one that plays a major role in any and all infrastructure improvements, across modes and across improvement types. The TIP reflects these investment priorities established by the Space Coast TPO in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
For the Space Coast TPO this includes safety programs such as:
Annual Countywide Safety Report (consistent with the Florida SHSP) – The analysis of prioritized intersections and segments and the safety data utilized in it was instrumental in the prioritization process of needs projects for inclusion in the cost feasible plan of the LRTP. A combination of crash severity and frequency data were analyzed to identify those facilities with the greatest need for safety improvements. In addition, facilities in need of multimodal infrastructure improvements were recognized in this analysis as crucial to the safety and vulnerable road users.
Road Safety Audit Program – a look at high crash sections as well as pedestrian and bicycle safety reviews with a focus on crash frequency and severity reduction and both short-and long-term solutions to identified safety issues on roadways. TPO Staff is working with the District Five Safety Office and local municipalities to determine specific safety funding for each section identified.
State of the System Report – Annually evaluate the state of the transportation system in Brevard to look at current conditions and trends to determine if the programs and priorities are effective at targeting facilities needing attention and if these programs are aligned with the goals and objectives of the Space Coast TPO. This is an integral part of the TPO’s project priority and congestion management process.
These programs at times include input from the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) and the Transportation Subcommittee to address infrastructure or behavior safety.
The TIP includes various safety infrastructure improvements such as: pedestrian lighting, intersection improvements, pedestrian refuges / traffic calming, sidewalk projects, traffic signals, ITS communications system, mid-block crossings with rectangular rapid flashing beacons, complete street projects and design of a Brevard County Traffic Management Center.
The Space Coast TPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan also serve as the non-motorized transportation element of the 2040 LRTP. The bicycle/pedestrian network is a component of the overall transportation system. FDOT evaluates bicycle and pedestrian improvements in conjunction with capacity and resurfacing projects. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are also implemented by local agencies, who oversee construction and management. In addition, some projects are federally funded Transportation
328 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Alternatives Program (TAP) or the state funded Shared Use Non-motorized (SUN) Trail Program.
The TPO also conducts a Bicycle/Pedestrian Education program focused on educating both non- motorized and motorized users on traffic laws and safe transportation practices. Through partnership with Brevard County Schools, TPO staff has worked on many programs, including the Walking School Bus Program, and Walk to School and Bike to School Day Events. Other safety education include: bicycle rodeos, safety fairs, and bicycle helmet program. The education element of the TPO’s safety activities are a crucial part of advancing safety for users of multimodal and roadway infrastructure. Effectiveness of these programs is maximized by the breadth of participants involved.
The TIP includes specific investment priorities that support all of the Space Coast TPO’s goals including safety, using a prioritization and project selection process established in the LRTP. This process evaluates projects that have an anticipated effect of reducing both fatal and injury crashes. The TPO’s goal of reducing fatal and serious injury crashes is linked to this investment plan and the process used in prioritizing the projects is consistent with federal requirements. The Space Coast TPO will continue to coordinate with FDOT and transit providers to take action on the additional targets and other requirements of the federal performance management process.
TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN MAP-21 and the FAST Act require FDOT develop a risk-based Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) for all pavement and bridges on the National Highway System. The TAMP must include investment strategies leading to a program of projects that would make progress toward achievement of the State DOT targets for asset condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS). It focuses on business, economics, and engineering practices for resource allocation, project selection and utilization, with the objective of informing decision making based upon quality information and well-defined objectives. The TAMP will serve as the basis for establishing in future TIPs the targets for the pavement and bridge condition performance measures identified in the TIP/LRTP System Performance Report.
In January 2017, USDOT published the Pavement and Bridge Condition Performance Measures Final Rule, which is also referred to as the PM2 rule. This rule establishes the following six performance measures:
• Percent of Interstate pavements in good condition;
• Percent of Interstate pavements in poor condition;
• Percent of non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS) pavements in good condition;
• Percent of NHS bridges by deck area classified as in good condition; and
• Percent of NHS bridges by deck area classified as in poor condition.
For the pavement measures, five pavement metrics are used to assess condition: International Roughness Index (IRI); Cracking Percent; Rutting; Faulting; and a Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) for lower speed roads. The bridge measure assesses the condition of a bridge’s deck, superstructure, substructure, and culverts. Good condition suggests that no major investment is needed, and poor condition suggest major reconstruction investment is needed.
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 329 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
PERFORMANCE MEASURE (PM2) - BRIDGE AND PAVEMENT Federal rules require state DOTs and TPOs to set bridge and pavement performance targets and monitor progress towards achieving the targets. States must set four-year statewide targets for the percent of interstate pavements in good and poor condition; two-year and four-year targets for the percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in good and poor condition; and two-year and four-year targets for the percent of NHS bridges by deck area in good and poor condition.
TPOs must set four-year targets for all six measures. TPOs can either agree to program projects that will support the statewide targets, or set their own quantifiable targets for the TPO’s planning area. FDOT set the following statewide targets on May 18, 2018:
2-year State- 4-year Statewide wide Target Target Performance Measure (Jan. 1, 2018 to (Jan. 1, 2018 to Dec. 31, 2019) Dec. 31, 2021) Percent of Interstate pavements in good condition Not required 60% Percent of Interstate pavements in poor condition Not required 5% Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in good 40% 40% condition Percent of non-Interstate NHS pavements in poor 5% 5% condition Percent of NHS bridges by deck area in good condi- 50% 50% tion Percent of NHS bridges by deck area in poor condi- 10% 10% tion In setting the statewide targets, FDOT considered several factors. The key considerations included:
FDOT currently has the following conditions:
• 66% of the Interstate pavements in good condition and 0.1% in poor condition;
• 45% of the non-Interstate NHS pavements in good condition and 0.4% in poor condition;
• 72% of NHS bridges by deck area in good condition and 1% in poor condition
FDOT seeks to be conservative in its targets, while at the same time meeting the minimum condition requirements (no more than 5% of the Interstate System in poor condition and no more than 10% of NHS bridges by deck area in poor condition). On October 11, 2018, the Space Coast TPO approved Resolution 19-07 and agreed to sup- port FDOT’s statewide pavement and bridge performance targets, thus agreeing to plan and program projects in the TIP that will, once implemented, make progress toward achieving the statewide targets.
330 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
The Space Coast TPO TIP was developed and is managed in cooperation with FDOT and Space Coast Area Transit. It reflects the investment priorities established in the 2040 LRTP.The focus of the Space Coast TPO’s investments that bridge and pavement condition include the following:
• Resurfacing / Bridge Repair and Rehabilitation
• Construction for three new Interchanges at I-95 / St. Johns Heritage Parkway (Palm Bay), I-95 / Viera Blvd and I-95 / Ellis Road
• I-95 Ramp improvements at I-95 and Wickham, Eau Gallie and Fiske
• I-95 / Grant Road Bridge Rehabilitation
• Resurfacing and Design of SR 528 (Beachline) Widening from SR 520 to SR 401 Interchange (Port)
• SR 405 Spaceport Connectors Resurfacing (Titusville)
The Space Coast TPO TIP has been evaluated and the anticipated effect of the overall program is that, once implemented, progress will be made towards achieving the statewide pavement and bridge performance targets.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE (PM3) - SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, FREIGHT, CONGESTION MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (CMAQ) PROGRAM In January 2017, USDOT published the System Performance/Freight/CMAQ Performance Measures Final Rule to establish measures to assess passenger and freight performance on the Interstate and non-In- terstate National Highway System (NHS), and traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions in areas that do not meet federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The rule, which is referred to as the PM3 rule, requires MPOs to set targets for the following six performance measures:
• Percent of person-miles on the Interstate system that are reliable, also referred to as Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR);
• Percent of person-miles on the non-Interstate NHS that are reliable (LOTTR);
• Truck Travel Time Reliability index (TTTR);
• Annual hours of peak hour excessive delay per capita;
• Percent of non-single occupant vehicle travel (Non-SOV); and
• Total emissions reduction of on-road mobile source emissions.
In Florida, only the two LOTTR performance measures and the TTTR performance measure apply. Be- cause all areas in Florida meet current NAAQS, the remaining three measures do not currently apply in Florida. A description of the applicable measures follows.
LOTTR Measures - The LOTTR performance measures assesses the percent of person-miles traveled on the Interstate or the non-Interstate NHS that are reliable. LOTTR is defined as the ratio of longer travel times (80th percentile) to a normal travel time (50th percentile) over of all applicable roads, between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. each day. The measures are expressed as the percent of person-miles traveled on the Interstate or Non-Interstate NHS system that are reliable. Person-miles take into account the num- ber of people traveling in buses, cars, and trucks over these roadway segments.
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 331 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
TTTR Measure - The TTTR performance measure assesses the reliability index for trucks traveling on the interstate. A TTTR ratio is generated by dividing the 95th percentile truck travel time by a normal travel time (50th percentile) for each segment of the Interstate system over specific time periods throughout weekdays and weekends. This is averaged across the length of all Interstate segments in the state or MPO planning area to determine the TTTR index. System Performance and Freight Targets - Federal rules require TPOs to establish four-year perfor- mance targets for the LOTTR and TTTR performance measures, within 180 days of FDOT setting state- wide targets. MPOs can either agree to program projects that will support the statewide targets, or set their own quantifiable targets for the MPO’s planning area. FDOT set the following statewide targets on May 18, 2018: 2-year State- 4-year Statewide wide Target Target Performance Measure (Jan. 1, 2018 (Jan. 1, 2018 to to Dec. 31, 2021) Dec. 31, 2019) Percent of person-miles on the Interstate system 75% 70% that are reliable (Interstate LOTTR) Percent of person-miles on the non-Interstate NHS Not Required 50% that are reliable (Non-Interstate NHS LOTTR Truck travel time reliability (TTTR) 1.75 2.00 In setting the statewide targets, FDOT considered several factors. The key considerations included:
FDOT currently has the following conditions:
• 82% of person-miles traveled on the Interstate that are reliable;
• 84% of person-miles traveled on the non-Interstate that are reliable;
• 1.43 truck travel time reliability index
FDOT reviewed external and internal factors that may affect reliability, conducted a trend analysis for the performance measures, and developed a sensitivity analysis indicating the level of risk for road segments to become unreliable. One key conclusion from this effort is that there is a degree of uncertainty with the future performance of reliability.
FDOT sought to be conservative in its targets and closely monitor its PM3 performance in the coming years. On October 11, 2018, the Space Coast TPO approved Resolution 19-07 and agreed to sup- port FDOT’s statewide system performance targets, thus agreeing to plan and program proj- ects in the TIP that will, once implemented, make progress toward achieving the statewide targets.
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PRIORITIES – SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND FREIGHT The Space Coast TPO TIP was developed and is managed in cooperation with FDOT and Space Coast Area Transit. It reflects the investment priorities established in the 2040 LRTP. Improving mobility for people and freight on the regional transportation system and employing operational strategies to
332 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS optimize the performance of the County’s transportation infrastructure are objectives of the LRTP.
The strategies to address these objectives include capital investments in the county’s arterial and limited access roadways providing access to major economic generators like ports, downtown areas, and other emerging employment centers as well as incremental improvements in the county’s Intelligent Transportation System through the TPO’s ITS Master Plan.
Our State of the System report includes an evaluation of freight traffic reported in terms of total truck average annual daily traffic. There are several important projects included in the Long Range Transportation Plan that link investment priorities to those performance targets that improve major freight corridors and improve access to the airports and seaport in Brevard County. These improvements represent a central LRTP goal to focus on economic development and improved access to intermodal centers, as well as employment centers.
The focus of Space Coast TPO’s investments that address system performance and reliability include the following:
The amount of truck traffic on I-95 and SR 528 and the surrounding roadway network serves as one indicator of freight and goods movement through the County, as those roads carry large volumes of trucks due to the activity at Port Canaveral and Orlando-Melbourne International Airport. Those facilities that form the backbone of the County’s economy with primary emphasis on the FDOT Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), which includes the widening of SR 528 (Beachline), I-95 / St. Johns Heritage Parkway North Interchange at Ellis Road, Ellis Road widening, and the intermodal port/airport hubs and connecting facilities. Other improvements include the intersection improvements on US 192 and Hollywood Boulevard and US 192 and Wickham Road.
The NASA Causeway movable bridge over the Indian River is a critical connector serving the Cape Canaveral Spaceport (CCS). The route serves as a critical access point to the CCS for the billions of dollars in military and commercial space freight, as well as the thousands of military personnel and workforce at the CCS, as well as the millions of visitors annually to the Kennedy Space Center and surrounding region. Due to the age and de-rating of the structure, it requires replacement by FY 2021. The potential loss of the use of this structure for the transport of the billions of dollars of space freight will put an excessive burden on the federal and commercial sector as well as potentially reroute hazardous materials to alternate, less secure routes within the surrounding community.
The SR 401 corridor and the bascule bridge over the Canaveral Barge Canaveral are critical to the economic prosperity of the Central Florida Region. Multiple facilities, military and civilian, depend on the reliability of this corridor including, Port Canaveral, Space Florida, Kennedy Space Center, Seaport Canaveral, port assets of the US Navy and US Army and the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The volume of freight and cargo movement is drivers that impact the performance and reliability of the bascule bridges. In order to meet the future demand of the freight and passenger vehicle traffic, a widening of SR 401 and bridge replacement is needed.
The Space Coast TPO TIP has been evaluated and the anticipated effect of the overall program is that, once implemented, progress will be made towards achieving the statewide LOTTR and TTTR performance targets. APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 333 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT MEASURES Transit Asset Performance MAP-21 and the FAST Act require transit providers to adopt performance targets for transit asset management, also known as “State of Good Repair” targets, in cooperation with the TPOs. The purpose of Transit Asset Management (TAM) is to help achieve and maintain a state of good repair for the nation’s public transportation assets. The TAM rule develops a framework for transit agencies to monitor and manage public transportation assets, improve safety, increase reliability and performance and establish performance measures.
On July 26, 2016, FTA published the final Transit Asset Management rule. This rule applies to all recipients and subrecipients of Federal transit funding that own, operate, or manage public transportation capital assets. The rule defines the term “state of good repair,” requires that public transportation providers develop and implement transit asset management (TAM) plans, and establishes state of good repair standards and performance measures for four asset categories: rolling stock, equipment, transit infrastructure, and facilities. The rule became effective on October 1, 2018.
The table below identifies performance measures outlined in the final rule for transit asset management.
Asset Category Performance Measure and Asset Class Percentage of non-revenue, support-service and maintenance Equipment vehicles that have met or exceeded their useful life benchmark Percentage of revenue vehicles within a particular asset class Rolling Stock that have either met or exceeded their useful life benchmark Infrastructure Percentage of track segments with performance restrictions Percentage of facilities within an asset class rated below condi- Facilities tion 3 on the TERM scale Transit Asset Management Performance Targets Public transportation agencies are required to set and report transit targets annually. Public transit providers or their sponsors must share their targets with each TPO in which the transit provider’s projects and services are programmed in the TPO’s TIP. Subsequent TPO TAM targets must be set when updating the LRTP. TPOs can either agree to program projects that will support the TAM targets, or set their own separate regional TAM targets for the TPO’s planning area. Regional TAM targets may differ from agency TAM targets, especially if there are multiple transit agencies in the TPO’s planning area, or in the event that one or more transit agencies have e not provided TAM targets to the TPO.
334 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast Area Transit set the following transit asset targets on October 1, 2018:
Asset Class SCAT Asset Category - Performance Measure Useful Life 2022 Target Benchmark Rolling Stock Bus (BU) Fixed Route 9-12 Years 350,000 – 650,000 0% Miles Cutaway Bus (CU) Para- 6-7 Years transit 160,000 – 175,000 0% Age - % of revenue vehicles within a particular Miles asset class that have met or exceeded their Use- Van (VN) Paratransit 4-5 Years ful Life Benchmark (ULB) 0% 100,000 Miles Agency Paratransit Van- 4-7 Years pool Vans 0% 100,000 Miles Commuter Vanpool Vans 4-6 Years 0% 100,000 Miles Equipment Age - % of non-revenue vehicles within a par- Non-Revenue/Service 9 Years Automobile 0% ticular asset class that have met or exceeded their 125,000 Miles Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) Misc. Equipment Under TERM 3.0 0% Infrastructure % of track segments with performance restric- Rail fixed guideway track N/A N/A tions Facilities Facilities Under TERM 3.0 0% Maintenance Under TERM 3.0 0% Condition - % of facilities with a condition Parking Structures Under TERM 3.0 0% rating below 3.0 on the FTA Transit Economic Passenger Facilities Under TERM 3.0 0% Requirements Model (TERM) Scale Shelter Under TERM 3.0 0% Storage Under TERM 3.0 0% Etc. Under TERM 3.0 0% On December 13, 2018, the Space Coast TPO agreed to support Space Coast Area Transit’s asset targets, thus agreeing to plan and program projects in the TIP that will, once imple- mented, make progress toward achieving the transit provider targets.
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 335 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
The Space Coast TPO TIP was developed and is managed in cooperation with Space Coast Area Transit. It reflects the investment priorities established in the 2040 LRTP. Key components of the plan development process included identifying anticipated Year 2040 system capacity, system needs, cost estimates for the identified needs, and the projection of financial resources and revenues anticipated to be available by the Year of Expenditure (YOE). The resulting 2040 Cost Feasible Plan reflects an array of projects and goods in a cost-efficient manner. Key projects within the Cost Feasible Plan (CFP) include a select number of criti- cal highway expansion projects, such as additional lanes along major corridors, supported by an array of multimodal strategies to improve traffic and transit operations, including roadway connectivity, and pedes- trian/bicycle route development. However, the CFP does not address any transit needs.
Funding restraints do not allow for the expansion of transit in the near future. The portion of state Transpor- tation funding is supplemented with other State/Federal/Local funding reflected in SCAT Transit Develop- ment Plan to sustain current transit services. The plan development process afforded an opportunity for the TPO, SCAT, and local governments to work together to identify needs and desired outcomes and establish policy and planning directives that many of the local governments have adopted into their comprehensive plans. The Local Government Comprehensive Plans support and, in some instances, reiterate the value and benefit in coordinating land use development activities with transportation planning efforts in order to optimize existing public transportation infrastructure and promote and encourage developments.
The focus of Space Coast TPO’s investments that address transit state of good repair include the following:
• ADA Bus Stop Assessment – improvement to amenities at bus stop, benches, and shelters
• Bus Replacements, Capital and Operating for fixed route, transit service demonstration
The Space Coast TPO TIP has been evaluated and the anticipated effect of the overall program is that, once implemented, progress will be made towards achieving the Space Coast Area Transit asset perfor- mance targets.
336 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 337 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
SPACE COAST TPO Transportation Improvement Program FY 2016 - 2020
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015
338 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
5-Year Summary of Funding Source SPACE COAST TPO Transportation Improvement Program FY 2016 - 2020 Funding Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Federal 59,981,638 68,476,056 19,504,626 7,175,595 17,060,347 172,198,262
Local 31,308,041 7,528,580 1,642,302 1,695,934 8,646,336 50,821,193
State 81,219,802 39,495,343 18,228,209 28,776,413 22,040,755 189,760,522
Total 172,509,481 115,499,979 39,375,137 37,647,942 47,747,438 412,779,977
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 339 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Section A - Highway Capacity and Bridge Replacement
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 340 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 2375922 SR 5 (US 1) FROM N OF PINE STREET TO N OF CIDCO ROAD Length: 3.842 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT LRTP#: Page 33, Map 7 CST DS 0 150,000 0 0 0 150,000 Total 0 150,000 0 0 0 150,000
Prior Years Cost 38,738,585 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 38,888,585
Proj# 2376506 SR 507 BABCOCK ST FROM MALABAR RD TO PALM BAY RD Length: 2.490 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: PRELIM ENG FOR FUTURE CAPACITY LRTP#: Page 61, Table 17 ROW DIH 0 0 400,000 400,000 312,000 1,112,000 ROW DDR 0 0 7,100,000 11,300,000 8,000,000 26,400,000 Total 0 0 7,500,000 11,700,000 8,312,000 27,512,000
Prior Years Cost 3,451,544 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 30,963,544
Proj# 2412411 APOLLO BLVD FROM SARNO RD TO EAU GALLIE BLVD Length: .865 MI *SIS* Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT LRTP#: Page 33, Map 7 CST SU 0 55,330 0 0 0 55,330 Total 0 55,330 0 0 0 55,330
Prior Years Cost 28,468,984 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 28,524,314
Proj# 4068693 I-95 (SR 9) FROM SR 406 TO SR 46 Length: 4.538 MI *SIS* Type of Work: ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT LRTP#: Page 11 Description: Goes With Project No. 406869-2 (PD&E phase)
CST ACNP 0 0 211,000 0 0 211,000 Total 0 0 211,000 0 0 211,000
Prior Years Cost 9,339,577 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 9,550,577
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 A-15 Highway Capacity and Bridge Replacement APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 341 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4068695 I-95 FROM 0.5 MILE N OF SR 46 TO VOLUSIA CO LINE Length: 8.244 MI *SIS* Type of Work: ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT LRTP#: Page 11 Description: Goes With Project No. 406869-2 (PD&E Phase)
CST ACNP 0 0 569,000 0 0 569,000 Total 0 0 569,000 0 0 569,000
Prior Years Cost 13,844,145 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 14,413,145
Proj# 4074023 SR 528 FROM E OF SR524(INDUSTRY) TO EAST OF SR 3 Length: 3.719 MI *SIS* Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT LRTP#: PAGE 11 Description: Goes with Project No. 4074021 (PD&E Phase) & 4074024 (Design Phase)
PE DIH 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 PE DI 5,800,000 0 0 0 0 5,800,000 ENV DDR 0 1,705,000 0 0 0 1,705,000 Total 6,000,000 1,705,000 0 0 0 7,705,000
Prior Years Cost 2,074,772 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 9,779,772
Proj# 4074024 SR 528 FROM EAST OF SR 3 TO PORT CANAVERAL INTERCHANGE Length: 5.091 MI *SIS* Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT LRTP#: PAGE 11 Description: Goes with Project No. 4074021 (PD&E Phase) & 4074023 (Design Phase)
PE DIH 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 PE DI 5,400,000 0 0 0 0 5,400,000 ENV DDR 0 1,400,000 0 0 0 1,400,000 Total 5,600,000 1,400,000 0 0 0 7,000,000
Prior Years Cost 2,074,772 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 9,074,772
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 A-16 Highway Capacity and Bridge Replacement 342 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4068695 I-95 FROM 0.5 MILE N OF SR 46 TO VOLUSIA CO LINE Length: 8.244 MI *SIS* Proj# 4269043 I-95 INT @ ST JOHNS HERITAGE PKWY/PALM BAY PK WY N OF MICCO RD Length: 1.117 MI *SIS* Type of Work: ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT Type of Work: INTERCHANGE (NEW) LRTP#: Page 11 LRTP#: Page 12 Description: Goes With Project No. 406869-2 (PD&E Phase) Description: Goes with Project No. 4269041 (PD&E Study) / Goes with Project L-PALMBAY01 and PALMBAY02 for Palm Bay Local Access Roads
CST ACNP 0 0 569,000 0 0 569,000 ROW LF 14,838,000 0 0 0 0 14,838,000 Total 0 0 569,000 0 0 569,000 PE S129 375,000 0 0 0 0 375,000 CST ACNP 34,447,107 0 0 0 0 34,447,107 Prior Years Cost 13,844,145 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 14,413,145 CST DDR 0 0 48,083 0 0 48,083 Total 49,660,107 0 48,083 0 0 49,708,190 Proj# 4074023 SR 528 FROM E OF SR524(INDUSTRY) TO EAST OF SR 3 Length: 3.719 MI *SIS* Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Prior Years Cost 1,633,235 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 51,341,425 LRTP#: PAGE 11 Description: Goes with Project No. 4074021 (PD&E Phase) & 4074024 (Design Phase) Proj# 4269053 I-95 INT @ ELLIS RD /ST JOHNS HERITAGE PKWY Length: 1.010 MI *SIS* Type of Work: INTERCHANGE (NEW) PE DIH 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 LRTP#: PAGE 12 PE DI 5,800,000 0 0 0 0 5,800,000 Description: Goes with Project Nos. 4269051 (PD&E phase) and 4269054 (Ellis Road) ENV DDR 0 1,705,000 0 0 0 1,705,000 Total 6,000,000 1,705,000 0 0 0 7,705,000 PE DIH 7,751 0 0 0 0 7,751 PE TCSP 115,326 0 0 0 0 115,326 Prior Years Cost 2,074,772 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 9,779,772 ROW DDR 3,025,000 3,198,600 2,194,300 1,905,700 0 10,323,600 ENV DDR 2,275,000 0 0 0 0 2,275,000 Proj# 4074024 SR 528 FROM EAST OF SR 3 TO PORT CANAVERAL INTERCHANGE Length: 5.091 MI *SIS* ROW DIH 40,000 40,000 0 0 0 80,000 Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT PE ACSA 40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000 LRTP#: PAGE 11 ENV DI 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 Description: Goes with Project No. 4074021 (PD&E Phase) & 4074023 (Design Phase) CST DS 0 1,554,090 0 0 0 1,554,090 CST ACNP 0 42,864,114 0 0 50,000 42,914,114 PE DIH 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 Total 6,703,077 47,656,804 2,194,300 1,905,700 50,000 58,509,881 PE DI 5,400,000 0 0 0 0 5,400,000 ENV DDR 0 1,400,000 0 0 0 1,400,000 Prior Years Cost 4,649,811 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 63,159,692 Total 5,600,000 1,400,000 0 0 0 7,000,000 Proj# 4269054 ST JOHNS HERITAGE PKWY/ELLIS RD FROM JOHN RHODES BLVD TO W OF WICKHAM Length: .044 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Prior Years Cost 2,074,772 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 9,074,772 Type of Work: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING LRTP#: PAGE 12 Description: Goes with Project Nos 426905-2 (Brevard County LAP Project); Goes with Project Nos. 4269051 (PD&E Phase) and 4269053 (New Interchange)
ROW SA 614,000 0 0 0 5,000,000 5,614,000 Total 614,000 0 0 0 5,000,000 5,614,000
Prior Years Cost 2,526,156 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 8,140,156
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 A-16 Highway Capacity and Bridge Replacement ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 A-17 Highway Capacity and Bridge Replacement APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 343 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4282381 I-95 INTERCHANGE AT VIERA BLVD Length: .535 MI *SIS* Type of Work: INTERCHANGE (NEW) LRTP#: Page 13 Description: New I-95 Interchange; Right of Way needed to construct interchange will be donated by the Viera Company. Goes with Project L-VIERA-01
PE DIH 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 PE DDR 1,800,000 0 0 0 0 1,800,000 ROW PVT 12,600,000 0 0 0 0 12,600,000 CST DS 0 7,323,382 0 0 0 7,323,382 Total 14,410,000 7,323,382 0 0 0 21,733,382
Prior Years Cost 1,247,246 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 22,980,628
Proj# 4283464 ST JOHNS HERITAGE PKWY FROM US 192 TO ELLIS RD INTERCHANGE Length: 2.16 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION LRTP#: PAGE 12 CST LF 0 3,116,011 0 0 0 3,116,011 CST CIGP 0 3,116,011 0 0 0 3,116,011 Total 0 6,232,022 0 0 0 6,232,022
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 6,232,022
Proj# 4301361 SR 514 (MALABAR RD) FROM BABCOCK ST TO US 1 Length: 3.698 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: PD&E/EMO STUDY LRTP#: Page 59, Table 15 PE DS 0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 PE DIH 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 PE DDR 0 0 0 3,500,000 0 3,500,000 Total 0 0 500,000 3,505,000 0 4,005,000
Prior Years Cost 1,225,984 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,230,984
Proj# 4336041 US 1 SR 404/PINEDA CAUSEWAY TO PARK AVENUE Length: 8.845 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: PD&E/EMO STUDY LRTP#: Page 59 PD&E DIH 0 0 0 25,000 0 25,000 PD&E DDR 0 0 0 1,738,000 0 1,738,000 Total 0 0 0 1,763,000 0 1,763,000
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,763,000
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 A-18 Highway Capacity and Bridge Replacement 344 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4282381 I-95 INTERCHANGE AT VIERA BLVD Length: .535 MI *SIS* Proj# 4336051 SR 501 FROM MICHIGAN AVENUE TO INDUSTRY ROAD Length: 1.123 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: INTERCHANGE (NEW) Type of Work: PD&E/EMO STUDY LRTP#: Page 13 LRTP#: Page 13 Description: New I-95 Interchange; Right of Way needed to construct interchange will be donated by the Viera Company. Goes with Project L-VIERA-01 Description: STATE FUNDED ONLY
PE DIH 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 PE DS 0 0 150,000 0 0 150,000 PE DDR 1,800,000 0 0 0 0 1,800,000 PE DIH 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 ROW PVT 12,600,000 0 0 0 0 12,600,000 PE DDR 0 0 0 2,398,825 0 2,398,825 CST DS 0 7,323,382 0 0 0 7,323,382 Total 0 0 150,000 2,403,825 0 2,553,825 Total 14,410,000 7,323,382 0 0 0 21,733,382 Prior Years Cost 1,196,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,749,825 Prior Years Cost 1,247,246 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 22,980,628 Proj# 4336541 SR 500/US 192 AT WICKHAM RD Length: .020 MI *SIS* Proj# 4283464 ST JOHNS HERITAGE PKWY FROM US 192 TO ELLIS RD INTERCHANGE Length: 2.16 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: ADD TURN LANE(S) Type of Work: NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION LRTP#: page 76 LRTP#: PAGE 12 PE SU 187,010 0 0 0 0 187,010 CST LF 0 3,116,011 0 0 0 3,116,011 PE ACSU 304,990 0 0 0 0 304,990 CST CIGP 0 3,116,011 0 0 0 3,116,011 Total 492,000 0 0 0 0 492,000 Total 0 6,232,022 0 0 0 6,232,022 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 492,000 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 6,232,022 Proj# 4336551 SR 500/US 192 AT HOLLYWOOD BLVD Length: .002 MI *SIS* Proj# 4301361 SR 514 (MALABAR RD) FROM BABCOCK ST TO US 1 Length: 3.698 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: ADD TURN LANE(S) Type of Work: PD&E/EMO STUDY LRTP#: page 76 LRTP#: Page 59, Table 15 PE SU 575,000 0 0 0 0 575,000 PE DS 0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 ROW DIH 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 PE DIH 0 0 0 5,000 0 5,000 ROW DDR 0 0 0 0 4,728,500 4,728,500 PE DDR 0 0 0 3,500,000 0 3,500,000 Total 575,000 0 0 0 4,778,500 5,353,500 Total 0 0 500,000 3,505,000 0 4,005,000 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,353,500 Prior Years Cost 1,225,984 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,230,984 Proj# 4361231 SR 405 AT SISSON RD SPACEPORT CONNECTOR SIS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Length: .384 MI *SIS* Proj# 4336041 US 1 SR 404/PINEDA CAUSEWAY TO PARK AVENUE Length: 8.845 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: ADD LEFT TURN LANE(S) Type of Work: PD&E/EMO STUDY LRTP#: PAGE 76 LRTP#: Page 59 ROW ACNP 0 940,000 0 0 0 940,000 PD&E DIH 0 0 0 25,000 0 25,000 CST ACNP 0 0 0 0 646,287 646,287 PD&E DDR 0 0 0 1,738,000 0 1,738,000 Total 0 940,000 0 0 646,287 1,586,287 Total 0 0 0 1,763,000 0 1,763,000 Prior Years Cost 410,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,996,287 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,763,000
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 A-18 Highway Capacity and Bridge Replacement ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 A-19 Highway Capacity and Bridge Replacement APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 345 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4363701 SJHP WASHINGTONIA EXTENSION FROM ELLIS ROAD TO PINEDA Length: 5.0 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: CORRIDOR/SUBAREA PLANNING LRTP#: Page 13 PD&E SA 0 0 0 0 2,010,000 2,010,000 PD&E LF 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 Total 0 0 0 0 3,510,000 3,510,000
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,510,000
Proj# 4372031 HOLLYWOOD ST WIDENING FROM PALM BAY RD TO US 192 Length: 3.111 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: WIDEN/RESURFACE EXIST LANES LRTP#: Page 13 Description: Right of Way Funded with Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) Funds w/ 50% local match.
ROW LF 0 0 0 0 3,365,783 3,365,783 ROW TRIP 0 0 0 0 3,365,783 3,365,783 Total 0 0 0 0 6,731,566 6,731,566
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 6,731,566
Proj# 4372041 BABCOCK ST FROM PALM BAY PARKWAY TO MALABAR ROAD Length: 7.000 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT LRTP#: Page 12 PE TRIP 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 PE LF 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 Total 0 0 0 0 3,000,000 3,000,000
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,000,000
Proj# 4372101 MALABAR RD FROM PALM BAY PARKWAY TO MINTON RD Length: 3.970 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: PD&E/EMO STUDY Lead Agency: CITY OF PALM BAY LRTP#: Page 12 PD&E TRIP 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 PD&E LF 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 Total 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,000,000
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 A-20 Highway Capacity and Bridge Replacement 346 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4380301 SR 528 BEACHLINE EAST WIDENING PD&E STUDY FROM SR 520 TO SR 524 (Industry Road) Length: 9.7 MI *SIS* Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Lead Agency: Turnpike Enterprise LRTP#: PAGE 11 Description: A Project Development and Environment phase is required to investigate the feasibility of the addition of express lanes and a service plaza.
PD&E PKYI 4,504 0 0 0 0 4,504 PD&E DI 5,300,000 0 0 0 0 5,300,000 Total 5,304,504 0 0 0 0 5,304,504
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,304,504
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 A-21 Highway Capacity and Bridge Replacement APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 347 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Section B - Maintenance and Safety Projects
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 348 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Section B - Maintenance and Safety Projects Proj# 2433401 COCOA OPERATIONS COMPLEX PHASE 1 *Non-SIS* Type of Work: FIXED CAPITAL OUTLAY
PE DIH 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 Total 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,000
Proj# 4130191 BREVARD TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONTRACTS Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNALS LRTP#: Page 76 OPS DITS 403,643 0 0 0 0 403,643 OPS DDR 556,942 726,279 740,983 655,491 655,491 3,335,186 Total 960,585 726,279 740,983 655,491 655,491 3,738,829
Prior Years Cost 4,902,376 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 8,641,205
Proj# 4137611 SR 514 FROM WEBER RD TO COREY ROAD Length: 1.359 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: ADD LEFT TURN LANE(S) LRTP#: Page 76 ENV DDR 112,000 0 0 0 0 112,000 ROW DS 0 0 260,000 130,000 65,000 455,000 ROW DIH 0 0 50,000 48,345 0 98,345 CST DS 0 0 0 1,884,559 0 1,884,559 CST DIH 0 0 0 335,409 0 335,409 Total 112,000 0 310,000 2,398,313 65,000 2,885,313
Prior Years Cost 778,009 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,663,322
Proj# 4169652 SR 500 (US 192) FROM DIKE ROAD TO MEADOW LANE Length: 1.997 MI *SIS* Type of Work: LIGHTING LRTP#: Page 71 CST DS 350,000 0 0 0 0 350,000 Total 350,000 0 0 0 0 350,000
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 350,000
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-23 Maintenance and Safety Projects APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 349 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4169653 SR 500 (US 192) FROM MEADOW LANE TO DAIRY ROAD Length: 2.011 MI *SIS* Type of Work: LIGHTING LRTP#: Page 71 Description: Goes with Project No. 4169652
CST DS 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000 Total 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000
Prior Years Cost 166,550 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 566,550
Proj# 4240141 COCOA OPERATIONS COMPLEX MAJOR PHASE I & PHASE II CONSTRUCTION Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: FIXED CAPITAL OUTLAY
CST FCO 12,000,000 4,000,000 0 0 0 16,000,000 Total 12,000,000 4,000,000 0 0 0 16,000,000
Prior Years Cost 2,000,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 18,000,000
Proj# 4256781 PAVEMENT MARKINGS/RPM'S VARIOUS LOCATIONS *Non-SIS* Type of Work: ROUTINE MAINTENANCE LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 MNT D 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000 Total 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000
Prior Years Cost 1,486,765 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,886,765
Proj# 4287531 SRA1A (ATLANTIC AVE) FROM N OF SR500 US 192 TO S OF SR 404 Length: 8.487 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST LF 120,862 0 0 0 0 120,862 CST SA 249,510 0 0 0 0 249,510 CST DDR 7,925,332 0 0 0 0 7,925,332 CST NHRE 3,582,206 0 0 0 0 3,582,206 Total 11,877,910 0 0 0 0 11,877,910
Prior Years Cost 839,510 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 12,717,420
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-24 Maintenance and Safety Projects 350 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4169653 SR 500 (US 192) FROM MEADOW LANE TO DAIRY ROAD Length: 2.011 MI *SIS* Proj# 4288761 US 1 (SR 5) FROM N OF CIDCO RD TO N OF GOLDEN KNIGHTS BLVD Length: 7.196 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: LIGHTING Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 71 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Description: Goes with Project No. 4169652 PE DIH 4,440 0 0 0 0 4,440 CST DIH 94,159 0 0 0 0 94,159 CST DS 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000 CST NHRE 25,794 0 0 0 0 25,794 Total 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000 Total 124,393 0 0 0 0 124,393
Prior Years Cost 166,550 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 566,550 Prior Years Cost 224,637 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 349,030
Proj# 4240141 COCOA OPERATIONS COMPLEX MAJOR PHASE I & PHASE II CONSTRUCTION Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Proj# 4289301 BREVARD COUNTY ITS OPERATIONAL SUPPORT Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: FIXED CAPITAL OUTLAY Type of Work: ITS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM LRTP#: Page 76 CST FCO 12,000,000 4,000,000 0 0 0 16,000,000 OPS SU 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 1,125,000 Total 12,000,000 4,000,000 0 0 0 16,000,000 Total 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 1,125,000
Prior Years Cost 2,000,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 18,000,000 Prior Years Cost 1,065,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,190,000
Proj# 4256781 PAVEMENT MARKINGS/RPM'S VARIOUS LOCATIONS *Non-SIS* Proj# 4292761 DRAINAGE REPAIRS Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: ROUTINE MAINTENANCE Type of Work: ROUTINE MAINTENANCE LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 MNT D 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000 MNT D 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 Total 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000 Total 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 1,500,000
Prior Years Cost 1,486,765 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,886,765 Prior Years Cost 3,665,280 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,165,280
Proj# 4287531 SRA1A (ATLANTIC AVE) FROM N OF SR500 US 192 TO S OF SR 404 Length: 8.487 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Proj# 4306571 SR5 (US1) FROM LAW ST TO POST RD Length: 2.841 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: RESURFACING Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST LF 120,862 0 0 0 0 120,862 CST DS 0 528,200 0 0 0 528,200 CST SA 249,510 0 0 0 0 249,510 CST DIH 0 398,403 0 0 0 398,403 CST DDR 7,925,332 0 0 0 0 7,925,332 CST SA 0 3,989,806 0 0 0 3,989,806 CST NHRE 3,582,206 0 0 0 0 3,582,206 Total 0 4,916,409 0 0 0 4,916,409 Total 11,877,910 0 0 0 0 11,877,910 Prior Years Cost 408,085 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,324,494 Prior Years Cost 839,510 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 12,717,420
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-24 Maintenance and Safety Projects ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-25 Maintenance and Safety Projects APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 351 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4306581 SR 508 FROM EDDIE ALLEN RD TO SR 5 (US1) Length: 1.335 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Description: MILL AND REPAVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT
PE DIH 11,467 0 0 0 0 11,467 CST DIH 70,661 0 0 0 0 70,661 CST DDR 186,246 0 0 0 0 186,246 Total 268,374 0 0 0 0 268,374
Prior Years Cost 2,024,828 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,293,202
Proj# 4306661 SR 500 (US 192) BABCOCK ST TO BEGINNING OF THE MELBOURNE CAUSEWAY Length: 1.644 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 RRU DDR 12,000 0 0 0 0 12,000 CST DS 1,538,115 0 0 0 0 1,538,115 CST SA 1,672,029 0 0 0 0 1,672,029 CST DDR 10,270 0 0 0 0 10,270 CST NHRE 159,943 0 0 0 0 159,943 Total 3,392,357 0 0 0 0 3,392,357
Prior Years Cost 313,297 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,705,654
Proj# 4306671 SR A1A S OF SHERRY LEE LANE TO NORTH OF SUNFLOWER ST Length: 3.871 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DS 531,491 0 0 0 0 531,491 CST DS 2,022,536 0 0 0 0 2,022,536 CST DIH 42,342 0 0 0 0 42,342 CST SU 325,565 0 0 0 0 325,565 CST SA 24,927 0 0 0 0 24,927 Total 2,946,861 0 0 0 0 2,946,861
Prior Years Cost 621,799 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,568,660
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-26 Maintenance and Safety Projects 352 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4306581 SR 508 FROM EDDIE ALLEN RD TO SR 5 (US1) Length: 1.335 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Proj# 4306672 SR A1A SB ONE WAY PAIR TO ATLANTIC AVE Length: 2.975 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Description: MILL AND REPAVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT PE DS 699,955 0 0 0 0 699,955 CST DS 1,674,484 0 0 0 0 1,674,484 PE DIH 11,467 0 0 0 0 11,467 CST DIH 149,012 0 0 0 0 149,012 CST DIH 70,661 0 0 0 0 70,661 CST SU 325,565 0 0 0 0 325,565 CST DDR 186,246 0 0 0 0 186,246 Total 2,849,016 0 0 0 0 2,849,016 Total 268,374 0 0 0 0 268,374 Prior Years Cost 510,873 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,359,889 Prior Years Cost 2,024,828 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,293,202 Proj# 4311641 SR 520 AT RIVEREDGE BLVD Length: .020 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Proj# 4306661 SR 500 (US 192) BABCOCK ST TO BEGINNING OF THE MELBOURNE CAUSEWAY Length: 1.644 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNALS Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DS 10,270 0 0 0 0 10,270 RRU DDR 12,000 0 0 0 0 12,000 CST DIH 264,966 0 0 0 0 264,966 CST DS 1,538,115 0 0 0 0 1,538,115 CST DDR 204,487 0 0 0 0 204,487 CST SA 1,672,029 0 0 0 0 1,672,029 Total 479,723 0 0 0 0 479,723 CST DDR 10,270 0 0 0 0 10,270 CST NHRE 159,943 0 0 0 0 159,943 Prior Years Cost 269,505 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 749,228 Total 3,392,357 0 0 0 0 3,392,357 Proj# 4319231 WICKAM RD INTERSECTION AT POST Length: .002 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Prior Years Cost 313,297 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,705,654 Type of Work: TRAFFIC OPS IMPROVEMENT Lead Agency: CITY OF MELBOURNE LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Proj# 4306671 SR A1A S OF SHERRY LEE LANE TO NORTH OF SUNFLOWER ST Length: 3.871 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* ROW LF 0 225,000 0 0 0 225,000 Type of Work: RESURFACING ROW CIGP 0 225,000 0 0 0 225,000 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Total 0 450,000 0 0 0 450,000 PE DS 531,491 0 0 0 0 531,491 CST DS 2,022,536 0 0 0 0 2,022,536 Prior Years Cost 70,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 520,000 CST DIH 42,342 0 0 0 0 42,342 CST SU 325,565 0 0 0 0 325,565 Proj# 4319241 WICKHAM RD EAU GALLIE INTERSECTION SOUTH BOUND RIGHT Length: .055 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* CST SA 24,927 0 0 0 0 24,927 Type of Work: TRAFFIC OPS IMPROVEMENT Lead Agency: CITY OF MELBOURNE Total 2,946,861 0 0 0 0 2,946,861 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 ROW LF 0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 Prior Years Cost 621,799 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,568,660 ROW CIGP 0 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 Total 0 500,000 0 0 0 500,000
Prior Years Cost 82,900 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 582,900
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-26 Maintenance and Safety Projects ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-27 Maintenance and Safety Projects APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 353 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4319242 WICKHAM RD EAU GALLIE INTERSECTION NORTH BOUND Length: .107 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: TRAFFIC OPS IMPROVEMENT Lead Agency: CITY OF MELBOURNE LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST LF 0 150,000 0 0 0 150,000 CST CIGP 0 150,000 0 0 0 150,000 Total 0 300,000 0 0 0 300,000
Prior Years Cost 82,900 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 382,900
Proj# 4323421 SR 518 WEST OF EAU GALLIE CANAL TO PINEAPPLE Length: 1.700 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 RRU DS 12,000 0 0 0 0 12,000 CST DS 1,194,328 0 0 0 0 1,194,328 CST DIH 63,349 0 0 0 0 63,349 Total 1,269,677 0 0 0 0 1,269,677
Prior Years Cost 541,968 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,811,645
Proj# 4323981 SR 46 FROM W OF PALM AVE TO SR 5 (US1) Length: 1.162 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 22,000 0 0 0 0 22,000 PE DS 410,000 0 0 0 0 410,000 CST DS 0 0 174,334 0 0 174,334 CST DIH 0 0 136,465 0 0 136,465 CST SA 0 0 1,038,791 0 0 1,038,791 Total 432,000 0 1,349,590 0 0 1,781,590
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,781,590
Proj# 4323991 SR 406 FROM E OF PETTY CIRCLE TO WASHINGTON AVE (SR5 NORTH) Length: .864 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 22,000 0 0 0 0 22,000 PE DS 315,000 0 0 0 0 315,000 CST DIH 0 0 131,390 0 0 131,390 CST SA 0 0 1,168,407 0 0 1,168,407 Total 337,000 0 1,299,797 0 0 1,636,797
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,636,797
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-28 Maintenance and Safety Projects 354 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4319242 WICKHAM RD EAU GALLIE INTERSECTION NORTH BOUND Length: .107 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Proj# 4324121 SR 406 W OF SINGLETON AVE TO E OF SINGLETON AVE Length: .216 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: TRAFFIC OPS IMPROVEMENT Lead Agency: CITY OF MELBOURNE Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 LRTP#: Page 76 CST LF 0 150,000 0 0 0 150,000 CST DS 354,365 0 0 0 0 354,365 CST CIGP 0 150,000 0 0 0 150,000 CST SA 51,826 0 0 0 0 51,826 Total 0 300,000 0 0 0 300,000 CST HSP 397,764 0 0 0 0 397,764 Total 803,955 0 0 0 0 803,955 Prior Years Cost 82,900 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 382,900 Prior Years Cost 521,085 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,325,040 Proj# 4323421 SR 518 WEST OF EAU GALLIE CANAL TO PINEAPPLE Length: 1.700 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING Proj# 4324371 SR 5 (US1) E OF GOLDEN KNIGHTS TO W OF SR50(OLD CHENEY HWY) Length: 3.008 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Type of Work: RESURFACING RRU DS 12,000 0 0 0 0 12,000 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DS 1,194,328 0 0 0 0 1,194,328 CST DS 0 498,133 0 0 0 498,133 CST DIH 63,349 0 0 0 0 63,349 CST DIH 0 400,575 0 0 0 400,575 Total 1,269,677 0 0 0 0 1,269,677 CST SA 0 1,105,367 0 0 0 1,105,367 CST NHRE 0 2,764,893 0 0 0 2,764,893 Prior Years Cost 541,968 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,811,645 Total 0 4,768,968 0 0 0 4,768,968
Proj# 4323981 SR 46 FROM W OF PALM AVE TO SR 5 (US1) Length: 1.162 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Prior Years Cost 525,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,293,968 Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Proj# 4324431 SR 520 FROM TUCKER LANE TO AURORA ROAD Length: 3.046 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* PE DIH 22,000 0 0 0 0 22,000 Type of Work: RESURFACING PE DS 410,000 0 0 0 0 410,000 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DS 0 0 174,334 0 0 174,334 Description: Goes With Project No. 4325921 CST DIH 0 0 136,465 0 0 136,465 CST SA 0 0 1,038,791 0 0 1,038,791 CST DS 0 469,816 0 0 0 469,816 Total 432,000 0 1,349,590 0 0 1,781,590 CST DIH 0 392,885 0 0 0 392,885 CST DDR 0 3,807,026 0 0 0 3,807,026 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,781,590 Total 0 4,669,727 0 0 0 4,669,727
Proj# 4323991 SR 406 FROM E OF PETTY CIRCLE TO WASHINGTON AVE (SR5 NORTH) Length: .864 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Prior Years Cost 601,263 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,270,990 Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 22,000 0 0 0 0 22,000 PE DS 315,000 0 0 0 0 315,000 CST DIH 0 0 131,390 0 0 131,390 CST SA 0 0 1,168,407 0 0 1,168,407 Total 337,000 0 1,299,797 0 0 1,636,797
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,636,797
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-28 Maintenance and Safety Projects ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-29 Maintenance and Safety Projects APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 355 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4332691 SR 404 OVER INDIAN RIVER Length: .432 MI MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION LRTP#: PAGE 18, BULLET 8 Description: REPAIR SUBSTRUCTURE
PE DIH 2,366 0 0 0 0 2,366 CST DIH 115,289 0 0 0 0 115,289 CST BRRP 894,653 0 0 0 0 894,653 Total 1,012,308 0 0 0 0 1,012,308
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,012,308
Proj# 4344041 SR 5 (US 1) FROM LAGRANGE RD TO NORTH OF PARKER ST Length: 1.900 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 22,000 0 0 0 0 22,000 PE DS 280,000 0 0 0 0 280,000 CST DIH 0 0 220,562 0 0 220,562 CST SA 0 0 10,790 0 0 10,790 CST NHRE 0 0 1,943,274 0 0 1,943,274 Total 302,000 0 2,174,626 0 0 2,476,626
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,476,626
Proj# 4344171 SR A1A (ASTRONAUT BL VD) FROM OVER GEORGE KING BLVD TO SR 401 Length: 1.006 MI *SIS* Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Description: Goes With Project No. 4344172
CST DS 0 5,265 0 0 0 5,265 CST DIH 0 190,394 0 0 0 190,394 CST NHRE 0 2,563,609 0 0 0 2,563,609 Total 0 2,759,268 0 0 0 2,759,268
Prior Years Cost 315,797 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,075,065
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-30 Maintenance and Safety Projects 356 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4332691 SR 404 OVER INDIAN RIVER Length: .432 MI MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Proj# 4344172 SR 520 FROM WEST OF BANANA RIVER BRIDGE TO SR A1A Length: .583 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: PAGE 18, BULLET 8 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Description: REPAIR SUBSTRUCTURE Description: Goes with Project No. 4344171
PE DIH 2,366 0 0 0 0 2,366 CST DS 0 776,696 0 0 0 776,696 CST DIH 115,289 0 0 0 0 115,289 CST DIH 0 113,661 0 0 0 113,661 CST BRRP 894,653 0 0 0 0 894,653 CST DDR 0 119,890 0 0 0 119,890 Total 1,012,308 0 0 0 0 1,012,308 Total 0 1,010,247 0 0 0 1,010,247
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,012,308 Prior Years Cost 288,792 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,299,039
Proj# 4344041 SR 5 (US 1) FROM LAGRANGE RD TO NORTH OF PARKER ST Length: 1.900 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Proj# 4344231 WICKHAM ROAD AT STADIUM PARKWAY Length: .020 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNALS LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 22,000 0 0 0 0 22,000 CST SA 552,626 0 0 0 0 552,626 PE DS 280,000 0 0 0 0 280,000 Total 552,626 0 0 0 0 552,626 CST DIH 0 0 220,562 0 0 220,562 CST SA 0 0 10,790 0 0 10,790 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 552,626 CST NHRE 0 0 1,943,274 0 0 1,943,274 Total 302,000 0 2,174,626 0 0 2,476,626 Proj# 4346591 SR 46 FROM ROWLAND CT TO W OF CAMBRIDGE DR Length: .356 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,476,626 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 1,914 0 0 0 0 1,914 Proj# 4344171 SR A1A (ASTRONAUT BL VD) FROM OVER GEORGE KING BLVD TO SR 401 Length: 1.006 MI *SIS* CST DIH 14,463 0 0 0 0 14,463 Type of Work: RESURFACING CST DDR 252,033 0 0 0 0 252,033 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Total 268,410 0 0 0 0 268,410 Description: Goes With Project No. 4344172 Prior Years Cost 220,111 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 488,521 CST DS 0 5,265 0 0 0 5,265 CST DIH 0 190,394 0 0 0 190,394 Proj# 4347411 SR 5 (US 1) FROM N OF OTTER CREEK LN TO N OF OYSTER PLACE Length: 4.261 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* CST NHRE 0 2,563,609 0 0 0 2,563,609 Type of Work: RESURFACING Total 0 2,759,268 0 0 0 2,759,268 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Description: Southbound Lanes Only Prior Years Cost 315,797 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,075,065 PE DIH 107,114 0 0 0 0 107,114 CST DS 2,619,728 0 0 0 0 2,619,728 CST DIH 200,162 0 0 0 0 200,162 Total 2,927,004 0 0 0 0 2,927,004
Prior Years Cost 150,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,077,004
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-30 Maintenance and Safety Projects ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-31 Maintenance and Safety Projects APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 357 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4347421 SR 5 (US 1) FROM N OF BONEVENTURE DR TO S OF PARK AVE Length: 2.197 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: RESURFACING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DS 0 5,265 0 0 0 5,265 CST DIH 0 198,710 0 0 0 198,710 CST DDR 0 1,884,418 0 0 0 1,884,418 Total 0 2,088,393 0 0 0 2,088,393
Prior Years Cost 282,182 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,370,575
Proj# 4350541 I-95 (SR 9) AT WICKHAM ROAD, SR 520 & SR 524 Length: 12.838 MI *SIS* Type of Work: LIGHTING LRTP#: Page 71 PE DIH 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 PE DDR 340,000 0 0 0 0 340,000 PE DS 194,000 0 0 0 0 194,000 CST DI 0 1,391,189 0 0 0 1,391,189 CST DIH 0 108,109 0 0 0 108,109 CST HSP 0 2,966,989 0 0 0 2,966,989 Total 544,000 4,466,287 0 0 0 5,010,287
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,010,287
Proj# 4350551 I-95 (SR 9) AT PINEDA CAUSEWAY & FISKE BLVD Length: 8.777 MI *SIS* Type of Work: LIGHTING LRTP#: Page 71 CST DI 2,836,770 0 0 0 0 2,836,770 CST DS 20,540 0 0 0 0 20,540 CST DIH 70,293 0 0 0 0 70,293 CST DDR 127,662 0 0 0 0 127,662 Total 3,055,265 0 0 0 0 3,055,265
Prior Years Cost 366,697 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,421,962
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-32 Maintenance and Safety Projects 358 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4347421 SR 5 (US 1) FROM N OF BONEVENTURE DR TO S OF PARK AVE Length: 2.197 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Proj# 4350581 I-95 (SR 9) AT PORT ST.JOHN, SR 407 & SR 50 Length: 8.351 MI *SIS* Type of Work: RESURFACING Type of Work: LIGHTING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 LRTP#: Page 71 CST DS 0 5,265 0 0 0 5,265 PE DIH 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 CST DIH 0 198,710 0 0 0 198,710 PE DDR 0 260,000 0 0 0 260,000 CST DDR 0 1,884,418 0 0 0 1,884,418 CST ACNP 0 0 3,443,172 0 0 3,443,172 Total 0 2,088,393 0 0 0 2,088,393 Total 0 270,000 3,443,172 0 0 3,713,172
Prior Years Cost 282,182 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,370,575 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,713,172
Proj# 4350541 I-95 (SR 9) AT WICKHAM ROAD, SR 520 & SR 524 Length: 12.838 MI *SIS* Proj# 4354331 SR 404 OVER INDIAN RIVER BRIDGES 700077 & 700143 Length: .432 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: LIGHTING Type of Work: BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION LRTP#: Page 71 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 CST DIH 2,054 0 0 0 0 2,054 PE DDR 340,000 0 0 0 0 340,000 CST BRRP 5,462,766 0 0 0 0 5,462,766 PE DS 194,000 0 0 0 0 194,000 Total 5,464,820 0 0 0 0 5,464,820 CST DI 0 1,391,189 0 0 0 1,391,189 CST DIH 0 108,109 0 0 0 108,109 Prior Years Cost 82,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,546,820 CST HSP 0 2,966,989 0 0 0 2,966,989 Total 544,000 4,466,287 0 0 0 5,010,287 Proj# 4356471 SR A1A/ASTRONAUT BLVD FROM MCKINLEY/HOLMAN TO ATLANTIC AVE Length: .978 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNALS Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,010,287 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 0 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 Proj# 4350551 I-95 (SR 9) AT PINEDA CAUSEWAY & FISKE BLVD Length: 8.777 MI *SIS* PE DDR 0 575,000 0 0 0 575,000 Type of Work: LIGHTING CST DS 0 0 746,668 0 0 746,668 LRTP#: Page 71 CST DIH 0 0 110,225 0 0 110,225 CST DI 2,836,770 0 0 0 0 2,836,770 Total 0 580,000 856,893 0 0 1,436,893 CST DS 20,540 0 0 0 0 20,540 CST DIH 70,293 0 0 0 0 70,293 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,436,893 CST DDR 127,662 0 0 0 0 127,662 Total 3,055,265 0 0 0 0 3,055,265 Proj# 4356481 SR A1A/ASTRONAUT BLV D FR S OF BUCHANAN AVE TO N OF BUCHANAN AVE Length: .038 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Prior Years Cost 366,697 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,421,962 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 PE DDR 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 Total 180,000 0 0 0 0 180,000
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 180,000
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-32 Maintenance and Safety Projects ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-33 Maintenance and Safety Projects APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 359 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4356491 SR A1A/ASTRONAUT BLVD AT MCKINLEY AVE/HOLMAN AVE Length: .038 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 PE DDR 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 Total 205,000 0 0 0 0 205,000
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 205,000
Proj# 4356511 SR 5/US 1 FROM SR 508 (NASA) TO CHERRY ST Length: .447 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNALS LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 0 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 PE DDR 0 320,000 0 0 0 320,000 CST DS 0 0 382,060 0 0 382,060 CST DIH 0 0 100,556 0 0 100,556 Total 0 325,000 482,616 0 0 807,616
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 807,616
Proj# 4356521 SR 5/US 1 AT HIBISCUS BALLARD AND US 192 INTERSECTIONS Length: 2.800 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 2,366 0 0 0 0 2,366 PE DS 54,016 0 0 0 0 54,016 ROW DS 0 335,000 230,000 240,000 99,000 904,000 ROW DIH 0 32,000 32,000 26,000 0 90,000 CST DS 0 0 0 836,636 0 836,636 CST DIH 0 0 0 0 112,374 112,374 Total 56,382 367,000 262,000 1,102,636 211,374 1,999,392
Prior Years Cost 500,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,499,392
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-34 Maintenance and Safety Projects 360 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4356491 SR A1A/ASTRONAUT BLVD AT MCKINLEY AVE/HOLMAN AVE Length: .038 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Proj# 4356551 SR 5/US 1 FROM PROSPECT AVE TO NEW HAVEN AVE Length: .038 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNALS LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 Description: Two Intersections: US 1 at Prospect and US 1 at New Haven PE DDR 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 Total 205,000 0 0 0 0 205,000 PE DIH 723 0 0 0 0 723 PE DS 208,171 0 0 0 0 208,171 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 205,000 CST DS 0 0 479,832 0 0 479,832 CST DIH 0 0 74,278 0 0 74,278 Proj# 4356511 SR 5/US 1 FROM SR 508 (NASA) TO CHERRY ST Length: .447 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Total 208,894 0 554,110 0 0 763,004 Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNALS LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Prior Years Cost 505,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,268,004 PE DIH 0 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 PE DDR 0 320,000 0 0 0 320,000 Proj# 4356581 SR 46 (W MAIN STREET) FROM VOLUSIA CO LINE TO WEST OF CARPENTER RD Length: 5.592 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* CST DS 0 0 382,060 0 0 382,060 Type of Work: RESURFACING CST DIH 0 0 100,556 0 0 100,556 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Total 0 325,000 482,616 0 0 807,616 PE DIH 22,000 0 0 0 0 22,000 PE DS 420,000 0 0 0 0 420,000 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 807,616 CST DIH 0 0 303,966 0 0 303,966 CST SA 0 0 2,956,197 0 0 2,956,197 Proj# 4356521 SR 5/US 1 AT HIBISCUS BALLARD AND US 192 INTERSECTIONS Length: 2.800 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Total 442,000 0 3,260,163 0 0 3,702,163 Type of Work: TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,702,163 PE DIH 2,366 0 0 0 0 2,366 PE DS 54,016 0 0 0 0 54,016 Proj# 4362361 I-95 @ SR/CR 519 RAMPS 066/067 Length: .239 MI *SIS* ROW DS 0 335,000 230,000 240,000 99,000 904,000 Type of Work: SKID HAZARD OVERLAY ROW DIH 0 32,000 32,000 26,000 0 90,000 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DS 0 0 0 836,636 0 836,636 PE DIH 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 CST DIH 0 0 0 0 112,374 112,374 PE HSP 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Total 56,382 367,000 262,000 1,102,636 211,374 1,999,392 CST HSP 0 0 130,937 0 0 130,937 Total 105,000 0 130,937 0 0 235,937 Prior Years Cost 500,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,499,392 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 235,937
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-34 Maintenance and Safety Projects ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-35 Maintenance and Safety Projects APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 361 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4362371 SR 5 (US 1) @ SUNTREE BOULEVARD Length: .001 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: INTERSECTION (MODIFY) LRTP#: PAGE 76 PE DIH 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 PE HSP 600,000 0 0 0 0 600,000 CST HSP 0 0 856,797 0 0 856,797 Total 605,000 0 856,797 0 0 1,461,797
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,461,797
Proj# 4369341 US 192 OVER INDIAN RIVER IWW BRIDGES 700174 & 700181 Length: .491 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DS 10,270 0 0 0 0 10,270 CST DIH 2,054 0 0 0 0 2,054 CST BRRP 1,109,372 0 0 0 0 1,109,372 Total 1,121,696 0 0 0 0 1,121,696
Prior Years Cost 33,623 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,155,319
Proj# 4369361 SR 520 OVER INDIAN RIVER HUBERT HUMPHREY BRIDGES 700061 & 700137 Length: .862 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DIH 2,054 0 0 0 0 2,054 CST BRRP 2,522,608 0 0 0 0 2,522,608 Total 2,524,662 0 0 0 0 2,524,662
Prior Years Cost 17,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,541,662
Proj# 4370571 SR 5 (US1) FROM BUSTON INC POST RD TO OTTER CREEK LANE Length: 2.678 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DS 1,351,566 0 0 0 0 1,351,566 CST DIH 153,403 0 0 0 0 153,403 Total 1,504,969 0 0 0 0 1,504,969
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,504,969
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-36 Maintenance and Safety Projects 362 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4362371 SR 5 (US 1) @ SUNTREE BOULEVARD Length: .001 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Proj# 4370921 BREVARD COUNTYWIDE DECK REHABILITATION AND SEALING *Non-SIS* Type of Work: INTERSECTION (MODIFY) Type of Work: BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION LRTP#: PAGE 76 LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 PE DIH 5,000 0 0 0 0 5,000 PE DIH 2,000 0 0 0 0 2,000 PE HSP 600,000 0 0 0 0 600,000 PE DS 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 CST HSP 0 0 856,797 0 0 856,797 Total 12,000 0 0 0 0 12,000 Total 605,000 0 856,797 0 0 1,461,797 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 12,000 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,461,797
Proj# 4369341 US 192 OVER INDIAN RIVER IWW BRIDGES 700174 & 700181 Length: .491 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DS 10,270 0 0 0 0 10,270 CST DIH 2,054 0 0 0 0 2,054 CST BRRP 1,109,372 0 0 0 0 1,109,372 Total 1,121,696 0 0 0 0 1,121,696
Prior Years Cost 33,623 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,155,319
Proj# 4369361 SR 520 OVER INDIAN RIVER HUBERT HUMPHREY BRIDGES 700061 & 700137 Length: .862 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DIH 2,054 0 0 0 0 2,054 CST BRRP 2,522,608 0 0 0 0 2,522,608 Total 2,524,662 0 0 0 0 2,524,662
Prior Years Cost 17,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,541,662
Proj# 4370571 SR 5 (US1) FROM BUSTON INC POST RD TO OTTER CREEK LANE Length: 2.678 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 CST DS 1,351,566 0 0 0 0 1,351,566 CST DIH 153,403 0 0 0 0 153,403 Total 1,504,969 0 0 0 0 1,504,969
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,504,969
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-36 Maintenance and Safety Projects ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 B-37 Maintenance and Safety Projects APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 363 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Section D - Complete Streets
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 364 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Section D - Complete Streets Proj# 4302061 BREVARD COUNTYWIDE COMPLETE STREETS FEASIBILITY STUDY RESERVE Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: CORRIDOR/SUBAREA PLANNING
Description: RESERVE BOX FOR PROJECTS IN COMPLETE STREETS CONCEPT THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED.
CST SU 978,508 0 0 0 0 978,508 Total 978,508 0 0 0 0 978,508
Prior Years Cost 374,055 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,352,563
Proj# 4354241 FLORIDA AVENUE FROM KING STREET TO 400' SOUTH OF ROSA L JONES Length: .457 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION Lead Agency: CITY OF COCOA LRTP#: page 76 CST LF 163,800 0 0 0 0 163,800 CST SU 918,000 0 0 0 0 918,000 Total 1,081,800 0 0 0 0 1,081,800
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,081,800
Proj# 4354291 HICKORY STREET FROM NEW HAVEN AVENUE TO NASA BLVD Length: .961 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION Lead Agency: CITY OF MELBOURNE LRTP#: page 76 CST LF 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000 CST SU 2,490,000 0 0 0 0 2,490,000 Total 2,890,000 0 0 0 0 2,890,000
Prior Years Cost 905,000 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,795,000
Proj# 4354301 HOPKINS STREET FROM SR 50 TO Grace Street Length: 3.131 MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION Lead Agency: CITY OF TITUSVILLE LRTP#: PAGE 76 PE SU 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 CST LF 0 770,304 0 0 0 770,304 CST SU 0 5,530,520 0 0 0 5,530,520 CST SA 0 116,676 0 0 0 116,676 Total 1,000,000 6,417,500 0 0 0 7,417,500
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 7,417,500
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 D-39 Complete Streets ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 365 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Section E - Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trail Projects
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015
366 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Section E - Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trail Projects Proj# 4240404 ECF RAIL TRAIL FROM KINGMAN ROAD TO VOLUSIA COUNTY LINE *Non-SIS* Type of Work: BIKE PATH/TRAIL LRTP#: PAGE 93, MAP 24 Description: Project Development and Environmental Phase on FM No. 424040-1 Design Build PE DIH 4,590 0 0 0 0 4,590 CST ACTU 73,268 0 0 0 0 73,268 CST RED 8,266 0 0 0 0 8,266 CST TALU 62,316 0 0 0 0 62,316 Total 148,440 0 0 0 0 148,440
Prior Years Cost 7,883,490 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 8,031,930
Proj# 4269044 I-95 (SR 9) S OF ST JOHNS HERITAGE PKWY TO PALM BAY PKWY Length: 1.117 MI *SIS* Type of Work: LANDSCAPING LRTP#: Page 18, Bullet 8 Description: Goes with Project No. 4269043 (Interchange New)
CST DS 0 0 377,650 0 0 377,650 CST DIH 0 0 37,765 0 0 37,765 Total 0 0 415,415 0 0 415,415
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 415,415
Proj# 4319251 ZOO TRAIL FROM CELL TOWER N OF PINEDA TO TURTLE MOUND RD Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: BIKE PATH/TRAIL LRTP#: PAGE 93, MAP 24 CST TALT 0 2,224,699 0 0 0 2,224,699 CST TALU 0 570,213 0 0 0 570,213 CST SA 0 382,498 0 0 0 382,498 Total 0 3,177,410 0 0 0 3,177,410
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,177,410
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 E-41 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trail Projects
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 367 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4325921 SR 520 FROM TUCKER LANE TO E OF AURORA RD Length: 3.085 MI MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: SIDEWALK LRTP#: PAGE 93, MAP 25 Description: Goes With Project No. FM 4324431
CST SA 177,160 0 0 0 0 177,160 CST HSP 1,735,664 0 0 0 0 1,735,664 Total 1,912,824 0 0 0 0 1,912,824
Prior Years Cost 305,321 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,218,145
Proj# 4329521 SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY SIDEWALK FROM WARWICK RD TO POST RD Length: .460 MI MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: SIDEWALK LRTP#: PAGE 93, MAP 25 CST HSP 215,928 0 0 0 0 215,928 Total 215,928 0 0 0 0 215,928
Prior Years Cost 27,301 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 243,229
Proj# 4361871 GARDEN STREET (SR406) FROM SINGLETON AVENUE TO US1 (NORTH BOUND LANE) Length: 1.954 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: BIKE PATH/TRAIL LRTP#: PAGE 93, MAP 24 PDE DDR 0 450,000 0 0 0 450,000 PDE DIH 0 4,500 0 0 0 4,500 PE DIH 0 0 0 8,000 0 8,000 PE DDR 0 0 0 800,000 0 800,000 Total 0 454,500 0 808,000 0 1,262,500
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,262,500
Proj# 4370931 SPACE COAST TRAIL FROM MAX BREWER CAUSEWAY TO ATLANTIC OCEAN Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: BIKE PATH/TRAIL LRTP#: PAGE 93, MAP 24 PDE TALT 430,000 0 0 0 0 430,000 PE DIH 0 0 8,000 0 0 8,000 PE DS 0 0 802,660 0 0 802,660 Total 430,000 0 810,660 0 0 1,240,660
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,240,660
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 E-42 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trail Projects
368 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Section F - Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged Projects Proj# 4325921 SR 520 FROM TUCKER LANE TO E OF AURORA RD Length: 3.085 MI MI *Non-SIS* *RSP* Type of Work: SIDEWALK LRTP#: PAGE 93, MAP 25 Description: Goes With Project No. FM 4324431
CST SA 177,160 0 0 0 0 177,160 CST HSP 1,735,664 0 0 0 0 1,735,664 Total 1,912,824 0 0 0 0 1,912,824
Prior Years Cost 305,321 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,218,145
Proj# 4329521 SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY SIDEWALK FROM WARWICK RD TO POST RD Length: .460 MI MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: SIDEWALK LRTP#: PAGE 93, MAP 25 CST HSP 215,928 0 0 0 0 215,928 Total 215,928 0 0 0 0 215,928
Prior Years Cost 27,301 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 243,229
Proj# 4361871 GARDEN STREET (SR406) FROM SINGLETON AVENUE TO US1 (NORTH BOUND LANE) Length: 1.954 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: BIKE PATH/TRAIL LRTP#: PAGE 93, MAP 24 PDE DDR 0 450,000 0 0 0 450,000 PDE DIH 0 4,500 0 0 0 4,500 PE DIH 0 0 0 8,000 0 8,000 PE DDR 0 0 0 800,000 0 800,000 Total 0 454,500 0 808,000 0 1,262,500
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,262,500
Proj# 4370931 SPACE COAST TRAIL FROM MAX BREWER CAUSEWAY TO ATLANTIC OCEAN Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: BIKE PATH/TRAIL LRTP#: PAGE 93, MAP 24 PDE TALT 430,000 0 0 0 0 430,000 PE DIH 0 0 8,000 0 0 8,000 PE DS 0 0 802,660 0 0 802,660 Total 430,000 0 810,660 0 0 1,240,660
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,240,660
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 E-42 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trail Projects ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 369 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4206421 BREVARD-SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT SCAT BUS SERVICE SR 520 Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: TRANSIT SERVICE DEMONSTRATION Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit LRTP#: PAGE 85, MAP 21 OPS DPTO 385,500 385,500 397,065 419,257 436,027 2,023,349 Total 385,500 385,500 397,065 419,257 436,027 2,023,349
Prior Years Cost 3,616,556 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,639,905
Proj# 4206431 BREVARD-SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT SCAT A1A BEACH TROLLEY Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: TRANSIT SERVICE DEMONSTRATION Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit LRTP#: PAGE 85, MAP 21 OPS DPTO 385,500 385,500 397,065 419,257 436,027 2,023,349 Total 385,500 385,500 397,065 419,257 436,027 2,023,349
Prior Years Cost 3,616,555 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,639,904
Proj# 4241241 BREVARD-SCAT / BLOCK GRANT-FIXED RTE OPER COST FTA SECTION #5307 Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: OPERATING FOR FIXED ROUTE Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit LRTP#: PAGE 81 OPS DPTO 1,584,308 1,583,581 0 0 0 3,167,889 OPS LF 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 6,000,000 OPS FTA 330,000 330,000 0 0 0 660,000 Total 4,914,308 4,913,581 0 0 0 9,827,889
Prior Years Cost 14,590,032 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 24,417,921
Proj# 4314021 BREVARD-SECTION 5303 SPACE COAST TPO PLANNING STUD IES Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: PTO STUDIES Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit LRTP#: Page 81 PLN DU 0 138,121 142,264 142,264 146,532 569,181 PLN DPTO 0 17,265 17,783 17,783 18,495 71,326 PLN LF 0 17,265 17,783 17,783 18,495 71,326 Total 0 172,651 177,830 177,830 183,522 711,833
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 711,833
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 F-44 Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged Projects
370 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Proj# 4206421 BREVARD-SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT SCAT BUS SERVICE SR 520 Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Proj# 4333031 BREVARD-BLOCK GRANT OPERATING ASSISTANCE FOR FIXED ROUTE SEC 5307 Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: TRANSIT SERVICE DEMONSTRATION Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit Type of Work: OPERATING FOR FIXED ROUTE Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit LRTP#: PAGE 85, MAP 21 LRTP#: PAGE 81 OPS DPTO 385,500 385,500 397,065 419,257 436,027 2,023,349 OPS DPTO 0 0 1,624,519 1,678,151 1,762,058 5,064,728 Total 385,500 385,500 397,065 419,257 436,027 2,023,349 OPS LF 0 0 1,624,519 1,678,151 1,762,058 5,064,728 Total 0 0 3,249,038 3,356,302 3,524,116 10,129,456 Prior Years Cost 3,616,556 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,639,905 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 10,129,456 Proj# 4206431 BREVARD-SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT SCAT A1A BEACH TROLLEY Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: TRANSIT SERVICE DEMONSTRATION Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit Proj# 4351771 BREVARD-SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT *Non-SIS* LRTP#: PAGE 85, MAP 21 Type of Work: TRANSIT SERVICE DEMONSTRATION Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit OPS DPTO 385,500 385,500 397,065 419,257 436,027 2,023,349 LRTP#: PAGE 81 Total 385,500 385,500 397,065 419,257 436,027 2,023,349 Description: SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM / NEW FIXED ROUTE BETWEEN TITUSVILLE AND ORLANDO
Prior Years Cost 3,616,555 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,639,904 OPS DDR 168,114 0 0 0 0 168,114 OPS LF 168,114 0 0 0 0 168,114 Proj# 4241241 BREVARD-SCAT / BLOCK GRANT-FIXED RTE OPER COST FTA SECTION #5307 Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Total 336,228 0 0 0 0 336,228 Type of Work: OPERATING FOR FIXED ROUTE Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit LRTP#: PAGE 81 Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 336,228 OPS DPTO 1,584,308 1,583,581 0 0 0 3,167,889 OPS LF 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 6,000,000 OPS FTA 330,000 330,000 0 0 0 660,000 Total 4,914,308 4,913,581 0 0 0 9,827,889
Prior Years Cost 14,590,032 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 24,417,921
Proj# 4314021 BREVARD-SECTION 5303 SPACE COAST TPO PLANNING STUD IES Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: PTO STUDIES Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit LRTP#: Page 81 PLN DU 0 138,121 142,264 142,264 146,532 569,181 PLN DPTO 0 17,265 17,783 17,783 18,495 71,326 PLN LF 0 17,265 17,783 17,783 18,495 71,326 Total 0 172,651 177,830 177,830 183,522 711,833
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 711,833
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 F-44 Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged Projects ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 F-45 Transit and Transportation Disadvantaged Projects
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 371 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Section H - Seaport, Spaceport, Rail and Freight Projects
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015
372 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Section H - Seaport, Spaceport, Rail and Freight Projects Proj# 4361221 SR 405 SPACEPORT CONNECTOR SIS INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Length: 2.712 MI *SIS* Type of Work: ADD LEFT TURN LANE(S) LRTP#: Page 125 PE ACNP 0 1,055,000 0 0 0 1,055,000 CST ACNP 0 0 0 0 2,174,764 2,174,764 Total 0 1,055,000 0 0 2,174,764 3,229,764
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 3,229,764
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 H-47 Seaport, Spaceport, Rail and Freight Projects
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 373 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Section I - Transportation Planning
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015
374 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Section I - Transportation Planning Proj# 4179581 BREVARD URBAN AREA UPWP Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
PLN PL 644,661 644,661 644,661 644,661 644,661 3,223,305 Total 644,661 644,661 644,661 644,661 644,661 3,223,305
Prior Years Cost 5,186,389 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 8,409,694
Proj# 4224381 BREVARD-BREVARD MPO SECTION 5303 PLANNING STUDIES/SUPPORT Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: PTO STUDIES Lead Agency: Space Coast Area Transit LRTP#: Page 81 PLN DU 138,121 0 0 0 0 138,121 PLN DPTO 17,265 0 0 0 0 17,265 PLN LF 17,265 0 0 0 0 17,265 Total 172,651 0 0 0 0 172,651
Prior Years Cost 864,043 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 1,036,694
Proj# 4333821 BREVARD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATES BIKE/PED & TRAIL PROJECTS Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: BIKE PATH/TRAIL LRTP#: page 91 PE TALU 578,558 8,560 578,747 578,686 578,635 2,323,186 Total 578,558 8,560 578,747 578,686 578,635 2,323,186
Prior Years Cost 154,679 Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 2,477,865
Proj# 4333831 BREVARD COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATE CAPACITY PROJECTS Length: .000 MI *Non-SIS* Type of Work: CORRIDOR/SUBAREA PLANNING
PDE SU 0 0 5,585,589 5,584,984 5,584,468 16,755,041 Total 0 0 5,585,589 5,584,984 5,584,468 16,755,041
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 16,755,041
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 I-49 Transportation Planning
APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 375 APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Section J - Federal Lands Highway Program
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 376 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: AMENDMENTS
Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020 Space Coast TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2016 - 2020
Fund Phase Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Section J - Federal Lands Highway Program Proj# FW MEIS 2014248737 MERRITT ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE *Non-SIS* Type of Work: RESURFACING Lead Agency: US Fish & Wildlife
Description: Rehabilitate Shiloh Marsh Road (Route 133)
CST FLTP 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 Total 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 250,000
Proj# SER PMS FY16(1) Canaveral National Seashore *Non-SIS* Type of Work: RESURFACING Lead Agency: FEDERAL LANDS OFFICE
CST FLTP 5,000,000 0 0 0 0 5,000,000 Total 5,000,000 0 0 0 0 5,000,000
Prior Years Cost Future Years Cost Total Project Cost 5,000,000
ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 ADOPTED JULY 9, 2015 FY 16 - FY 2020, AMENDED 10/8/2015 J-51 Federal Lands Highway Program APPENDIX C | 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 377