Polk County Transportation Vision Plan CAC Meeting May 19, 2009
Agenda • • • • • • • •
Introduction Project Objectives Review of Forecast Core Transit Corridors Modes for Consideration Corridor Evaluation Policy Recommendations & Application Endorsement
Today’s Objective • Endorsement of the following: – Core Transit Corridors (Concept & Location) – Key and Supporting Policies and Strategies
Center Forecast • • •
Concept Center Types Center Locations
Center Forecast
Center Types • • • • • • • •
Urban Center Historic Town Center Community Mixed-Use (Regional) Community Mixed-Use (Local) Professional (Regional) Commercial (Regional) Business Commerce ILC
Urban Center
Tampa, FL
Lakeland, FL
Land Use Dwelling Units Per Acre Employees Per Acre FAR
Minimum 9 27 1.0
Maximum 44 139 5.0
Assumed 22 69 2.5
Service
Dwellings
40%
30%
Commercial 30%
Historic Town Center
Downtown Winter Park, FL
Land Use Dwelling Units Per Acre Employees Per Acre FAR
Bartow, FL
Minimum 4 14 0.5
Maximum 22 73 2.5
Assumed 9 29 1.0
Service
Dwellings
40%
30%
Commercial 30%
Community Mixed Use (Local)
Celebration, FL
Village of South Walton, FL
Service 10% Land Use Dwelling Units Per Acre Employees Per Acre FAR
Minimum 6 7 0.5
Maximum 16 18 1.3
Assumed 6 7 0.5
Commercial 30%
Dwellings 60%
Community Mixed Use (Regional)
Lakeside Village, Lakeland, FL
Addison, TX
Service Land Use Dwelling Units Per Acre Employees Per Acre FAR
Minimum 14 15 1.2
Maximum 38 41 3.2
Assumed 24 26 2.0
20%
Dwellings 60%
Commercial 20%
Professional (Regional)
Lakeland, FL
Bartow, FL
Land Use Dwelling Units Per Acre Employees Per Acre FAR
Minimum 5 28 0.9
Maximum 21 112 3.6
Assumed 9 47 1.5
Service
Dwellings
50%
30%
Commercial 20%
Professional - Educational
Commercial (Regional)
International Plaza, Tampa, FL
Mashpee Commons, MA
Service Land Use Dwelling Units Per Acre Employees Per Acre FAR
Minimum 3 9 0.5
Maximum 17 48 2.3
Assumed
Dwellings
15%
35%
10 29 1.4
Commercial 50%
Business Commercial
Lakeland, FL
Lakeland, FL
Service Land Use Dwelling Units Per Acre Employees Per Acre FAR
Minimum 1 7 0.3
Maximum 3 14 0.5
Assumed 3 14 0.5
15%
Dwellings 30%
Commercial 20% Industrial 35%
Intermodal Center
Tampa, FL
Tampa, FL
Service 20%
Industrial 80%
Center Locations and Types
Center Locations and Types
Centers Person Trips • Centers evaluated by number of peak season daily person trips from and to other centers Center Center
Center
Center
Center
Center
Center Center Center
Summary of Center Performance 90,000
Lakeland: 81,779 Trips
80,000
Peak Season Daily Person Trips
70,000
60,000
Key Externals Other Centers
50,000
40,000
Frostproof: 1,782 Trips
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 Center
60,000
Key Externals Other Centers 50,000
40,000
30,000 Number of Person Trips
Summary of Center Performance: Top Third 90,000
80,000
70,000
20,000
10,000
0
ns rde Ga ss pre Cy r ate r ew dg nte Ce B ri ee nd Du ut h C x So n IL pl e a ve om rH tC ov' nt e Wi us ty G un mp Ca Co ew 540 ic N SR hn t ec r oly nte FP Ce y US C it rk es Pa ain es s st H si n Ea Bu o ad i tal dR o sp l lar aH Po rid Flo of ar t He i ty sC i ne Ha t por ve n Da n a ve rH nt e CC Wi rP nte Ce al l 98 eM US uar Sq nd el a l l RI L ak Ma eD ge idg R id kb r gl e / Oa Ea age Vi ll de esi nd el a
Lak
L ak
Key Centers: Lakeland
2060 Forecast Population: 12,804 Employment: 21,457
Key Centers:
Lakeside Village/Oakbridge DRI 2060 Forecast Population: 24,579 Employment: 11,172
Key Centers:
Eagle Ridge Mall 2060 Forecast Population: 31,370 Employment: 16,640
Core Transit Corridors Introduction • Key Elements • Premium Transportation Modes • Anticipated Corridors
Core Transit Corridors Key Elements • Key Elements – Connects to a Major Center – Premium Public Transportation Service • High Frequency or High Speed
– High Mobility Level Provided by Public Transportation – Has Supportive Land Uses, Infrastructure, and Policies
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Introduction • • • • •
Local Bus Express Bus Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail Commuter Rail
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Local Bus Service • • • • •
Traditional all-stop bus service High level of accessibility Mixed-traffic operation Conventional vehicle On-board fare payment
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Local Bus Service
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Express Bus Service • Primarily serves commuters during rush hours • Limited-stop service with access to major activity centers • Higher operating speeds than local bus • Operate in mixed-traffic or dedicated lanes • Conventional or “coach-style” vehicle • On-board fare payment
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Express Bus Service
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Bus Rapid Transit • • •
• • •
Premium rail-like bus service Higher operating speeds than local bus Operate in – mixed-traffic, – dedicated lanes, or – exclusive busways Stylized standard or articulated vehicles On-board or off-board fare payment Signal priority
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Bus Rapid Transit
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Bus Rapid Transit
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Light Rail Transit • • • • •
Short multi-car rail transit Uses fixed-guideways in exclusive right-of-way Light-weight passenger rail cars Off-board fare payment Signal priority
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Light Rail Transit
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Commuter Rail • • • •
Primarily serves commuters during rush hours Connect one or more CBDs and suburbs High operating speeds Operate on fixed rail ways, sometimes shared by freight or passenger trains • Multi-car high-capacity trains • Off-board fare payment
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Commuter Rail
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Peak Hour Vehicle Costs Peak Hour Capital Costs Over 30 Years Peak-Hour Occupancy (100 Persons)
Transit Mode
Local Fixed Rout e Bus
Vehicle Life Cycle (Year)
Vehicle Cost ($1 Million)
1
50
Total Vehicle Cost ($1 Million)
1
Mil lio n
Mil
$380,000
10
1 lio n
Mil
lio n
$1,140,000
Bus
Bus Rapid Transit
1
52
15
170
30
1 Mil lio n
1
Mil lio n
Mil lio n
$525,000
$1,050,000
BusRapidTransit (BRT)
1
Light Rail
1
Mil lio n
Mil
1 lio n
1
Mil lio n
Mil
1 lio n
Mil
1 lio n
Mil
1 lio n
Mil
1 lio n
Mil
lio n
$3,500,000
$3,500,000
Light Rail
1
Commuter Rail
388 Commuter Rail
30
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
$6,900,000
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
1
Mill ion
Mill ion
$6,900,000
Core Transit Corridors Premium Modes: Peak Hour Capital Costs Peak Hour Capital Costs (Continued) Total Vehicle Cost per Revenue Mile ($100,000)
Transit Mode
$1 00 ,0 00
Local Fixed Rout e Bus
Fixed Assets per Mile (10c)
Total Capital Expense per Revenue Mile (10c)
30 Year Capital Cost per Passenger Mile ($1,000)
Passenger Miles per Hour (1,000 Miles)
$87,692
$0.11
$0.11
650
$70,000
$0.13
$0.13
780
1T ho us an d
$135
Bus
Bus Rapid Transit
$1 00 ,0 00
1T ho us an d
$552
BusRapidTransit (BRT)
1 Th ou san d
$1 00 ,0 00
Light Rail
$1 00 ,0 00
$233,333
$0.08
$0.08
2,550
$1 00 ,0 00
Commuter Rail
1 Th ou san d
1 Th ou san d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
Light Rail
Commuter Rail
1 Th 1 Th ou san ou san d d
$1 00 ,0 00
$230,000
$0.04
$0.04
11,640
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1T ho us an d
1 Th ou san d
1 Th ou san d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1
1 Th ou san d
Tho 1 Th usa ousnd an d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1T ho us an d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ou san d d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1 Th ou san d
1 Th ou san d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1 Th ou san d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1 Th 1 Th ou san ous d an d
1T ho us an d
1 Th ou san d
1 Th ou san d
$26,170 1 Th 1 Th ou san ou san d d
1T ho us an d
$3,723
Core Transit Corridors Locations
Key Corridors: US 27/SR 17
• Highland Park to Four Corners • Serves 15 centers
Key Corridors: US 27/SR 17
Recommendations • Detailed Corridor Study • Possible Options – – –
Alternative Routes Managed Lanes Rail Corridor
Key Corridors: US 98
• Bartow/Clear Springs to Lakeland Square Mall • Serves 7 centers
Key Corridors: US 98
Recommendations • Bus Rapid Transit • Possible Light Rail • Phased Service Development • US 98 Access Management between Parkway & North of Bartow • Address Highland City Conflicts • Increased Residential Densities along Corridor
Key Corridors: Polk Parkway
• Loop around Lakeland • Serves 10 centers
Key Corridors: Polk Parkway
Recommendations • Bus Rapid Transit • Develop Key Transfer Stations with Other Service • Focus on Station Locations within Centers
Key Corridors:
US 92/CSX Rail Corridor
• Hillsborough County to Osceola County • Serves 7 centers • Major regional corridor
Key Corridors:
US 92/CSX Rail Corridor Recommendations • Phased Service Implementation – – –
Local Service Express Bus Bus Rapid Transit
• Commuter Rail (MultiRegion) • Need to Increase Residential Densities • Access Management
Key Corridors: US 17
• Bartow to Lake Alfred • Serves 4 centers
Key Corridors: US 17
Recommendations • Bus Rapid Transit • Need to Develop Busway Corridor in Winter Haven • Increased Residential Densities between Bartow and Winter Haven
Key Corridors: SR 37
• Mulberry to Lakeland Square Mall • Serves 5 centers
Key Corridors: SR 37
Recommendations • Phased Service Expansion • Bus Rapid Transit in Lakeland (Mall to Pipkin) • Mix of Mixed Traffic with Queue Jump & Busway • Strong Infill, Intensification, & Redevelopment Policies
Key Corridors: Interstate 4
• Hillsborough County to Osceola County • Serves 9 centers • Major regional corridor
Key Corridors: Interstate 4
Recommendations • Multi Regional Roadway… Part of Multi Regional Approach – Express Bus – High Speed Rail
• Integrate with Parkway BRT Service
Core Transit Corridors Policies and Strategies • Policies and Strategies – Key Policies & Strategies – Other Supportive Policies & Strategies – Urban Form Elements (Design)
Core Transit Corridors Key Policies & Strategies • Transit Oriented Design Ordinances/Zoning • Transit Overlays for Premium Corridors • Alternative Concurrency Provisions and Funding Strategies • Form-Based Codes • Transportation Corridor Preservation • Mixed Use Development and Mixed Housing Types • Access Management • Design Streets to Accommodate All Appropriate Modes of Travel • Transferable Development Rights
Core Transit Corridors Key Policies & Strategies • Transit Oriented Design Ordinances & Zoning Secondary Area Residential
Public/Open Space 200 0 F
eet
Transit Stop Core Commercial
Office Employment Arterial
Core Transit Corridors Key Policies & Strategies Transit Overlays for Premium Corridors
Core Transit Corridors Key Policies & Strategies Alternative Concurrency Provisions and Funding Strategies Level of Service
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Bus
A/B >4 buses/hour
C/D 2 to 4 buses/hour
E/F < 1 bus/hour
Core Transit Corridors Key Policies & Strategies
Form-Based Codes
Core Transit Corridors Key Policies & Strategies Transportation Corridor Preservation
EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING ROW
FUTURE CORRIDOR
Core Transit Corridors Key Policies & Strategies Mixed Use Development & Mixed Housing Types
Core Transit Corridors Key Policies & Strategies Access Management
Core Transit Corridors Key Policies & Strategies Design Streets to Accommodate All Appropriate Modes of Travel
Core Transit Corridors Key Policies & Strategies Transferable Development Rights
Core Transit Corridors Other Supportive Policies & Strategies • • • • • • • •
Higher Densities and Non-Residential Intensities Support of Local Public Transportation System Transit Station Design Phased Service Development on Core Transit Corridors Discourage Auto Dependent Land Use Forms Pedestrian Friendly Design & System Development Design Standards within Land Use Overlay Intermodal Access
Core Transit Corridors Other Supportive Policies & Strategies • Infill and Redevelopment • Retrofit Existing Uses and Infrastructure for Pedestrian Friendliness • Bonus Densities • Promote Location of Public Facilities within Centers or Transit Hubs • Provide Open Spaces • Parking Supply Requirements • Allow Lower Densities to Preserve Community Character • Rural Villages
Core Transit Corridors Urban Form Policies & Strategies • Sidewalk Access to Transit Stops • Promote Land Uses that Attract/Generate Pedestrian Activity • Streetscaping • Parking in Rear of Building or Structures with Ground Level Uses • Orient Buildings to Public Streets or Open Spaces • Bicycle Parking • Wide Sidewalks with Buffers • Articulated Facades
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98) Mixed Use Development
Oriented MallTransit (1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) Design
Major Arterial
Expressway
Lakeland Transit Oriented Design
Mixed Use Development
Mall (1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s)
Expressway
Major Arterial
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98)
Major Arterial Mall (1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s)
Expressway
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98) Mixed Use Development
Transit Oriented Design
Sample Transition
Sample Transition
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98) â&#x20AC;&#x153;One trend that is helping, Mr. Loventhal said, involves providing malls with attached or adjacent commercial and office space. Tenant turnover is usually less rapid in offices than in retail centers, he said, and nearby stores and restaurants are considered a desirable amenity for office workers, thus raising lease values for both classes of property.â&#x20AC;? NYT November 12, 2008
Lakeland: Lakeside Village Multi-Family Higher Density
Hotel
Mixed Use Development (Office & Retail)
International Plaza Tampa …food sales at International Plaza were $70 million a year. “Food has been an enormous draw for us at the center,” he said. “It’s an important anchor.” Shopping centers used to rely mostly on department stores to serve as anchor tenants, but many have now turned to restaurants, and particularly clusters of restaurants, combined with bookstores and movie theaters to attract shoppers. NYT August 2, 2006
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98)
Transit Overlay Shopping Center
Lakeland Shopping Center
Transit Overlay
Major Arterial
Major Collector
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98) Transit Overlay
Shopping Center
Major Arterial
Major Collector
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98) Streets to Accommodate All Users
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98)
In-Fill Development
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98)
Mixed Use Development
In-Fill Development
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98)
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98)
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98) In-Fill Development
Form Based Code
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98) Alternative Concurrency
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98)
Higher Density Mixed Use
Lower Density to Protect Character
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98) Higher Density Mixed Use
Form Based Code
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98)
Transit Oriented Development
Corridor Preservation
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98) Mixed Use Development
Form Based Code
Corridor Preservation
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98)
Corridor Preservation
Form Based Code
Transit Oriented Development
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98) Corridor Preservation
Phased Service Development
Lower Density to Protect Character
Core Transit Corridors Policy Application Example (US 98)
Core Transit Corridors Other Issues • Premium Public Transportation – First: Support Major/Key Centers – Second: Connect Other Centers Together
Core Transit Corridors Other Issues • Intensification Along Corridors – Need to Intensify Nodes/Stops Not Just Centers – Mostly Residential – Supportive Neighborhood Mixed Use
Core Transit Corridors Other Issues • Community Differences & Service Levels – Larger Centers will be more supportive Higher Level Premium Service – Need Density – Need Supportive Policies In-Place & Working
Core Transit Corridors Other Issues • Address Corridor Access Management – Major Regional Corridors Need Higher Level of Access Management • Supporting Roadway Network for Land Access • Grade Separation Considerations
– Options for Bus Rapid Transit • Protect Corridor Mobility & Speeds • Build Managed Lanes • Signal Priority & Queue Jump Applications
Core Transit Corridors Other Issues • Resolving Corridor Constraints (Examples US 27 & US 17) – Options • • • • •
Bypasses to Redirect Regional Traffic Convert Existing Lanes New Regional Roadways Live with Poor Performance Establish Busways or Rail Corridors
Today’s Objective • Endorsement of the following: – Core Transit Corridors (Concept & Location) – Key and Supporting Policies and Strategies
Wrap Up / Next Steps • Follow Up Action Items – Finalize Analysis & Recommendations – Report Documentation
• Presentations: – May 19, 2009 – CAC – May 21, 2009 – TAC – June 18, 2009 – TPO Board
Questions?