Sarasota Mobility Plan Update by Benesch

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

Roadways Workplaces can help ease rush‐hour traffic by offering flexible work schedules and by allowing workers to telecommute; however, flexing work hours may tend to extend the “duration‐of‐congestion” so that the morning and afternoon rush‐hour may actually extend for several hours. This can reduce quality of life and may result in visitors and shoppers avoiding parts of the City.

KEY ISSUES

The City of Sarasota’s major road network is not complicated. There are five primary corridors that converge on the downtown area and three or four additional major roadways that provide supplementary or alternative corridors. Projected growth in the urban core, and continued growth in the region reinforces current travel patterns—increasing demands on the primary corridors by a projected thirty percent. However, current transportation plans call for the Finding alternative routes can mean taking advantage of capacity of the primary roadway corridors to be planned improvements to Interstate 75 or other regional roads to bypass the urban core, but it can also mean increased by only two ‐ three percent. using smaller “collector” roadways instead of established Any additional roadway capacity may be cost‐prohibitive “arterials.” When traffic leaves the major road network due to the limited availability/high cost of right‐of‐way. and “cuts‐through” neighborhoods to avoid congestion, Also, widening of roads through the urban core may the neighborhoods suffer—especially if increased volume create unacceptable impacts on neighborhoods and is accompanied by high travel speeds. reduce the viability of walking and biking as alternative On April 9th, tell us what you think by ranking our list of travel modes. congested locations from worst to best. Tell us if they What are the impacts of downtown and regional have crossed a threshold of un‐acceptability, or if there development without roadway widening? Generally is still room for more traffic. drivers deal with congestion by varying the time when they travel or by using alternative routes.

CURRENT DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME

CURRENT ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE High Volume/ Congestion

Low Volume/ Congestion

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

GROWTH

ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION

2007 Trip Generation

Trips per Acre

The recently adopted MPO transportation plan esti‐ mates a 40% increase in travel, but only a 2‐3% in‐ crease in road capacity, and greater emphasis on im‐ provements to promote transit, cycling, and walking .

2035 Trip Generation

Most of the growth in trip generation through 2035 is expected in the downtown area.

Few road widening projects are planned and increased use of key corridors is expected.

DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN

RIGHT DIRECTION

Are current provide for the City’s mo‐ bility needs, economic vitality, and neighborhood quality of life? The Downtown Master Plan identifies an “A” Street and “B” Street circulation concept, with roundabouts at selected locations. C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MOBILITY Balancing the travel needs of different users is critical to an vibrant and healthy community. Often, one of the biggest challenges in a city is how to manage the conflicts between regional traffic (high speeds and volumes) and the mobility needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. When this balance is achieved, regional traffic will have a reasonable travel time expectation, while bicyclists and pedestrians can safely navigate the street system. While progress has been made, Sarasota still has challenges to resolve.

Bicycle lanes are preferred on roadways with higher travel volumes. Other treatments, such as shared lane arrows (sharrow) pavement markings show where bicyclists should ride with traffic on lower speed roads. Providing a location along the roadway to walk or ride is only part of the solution; addressing the crossing needs of pedestrians and bicyclists is also critical.

Because signalized intersections are often more than one quarter mile apart, many pedestrians will choose to cross at un‐signalized locations. Installation of By county, Sarasota County has the 10th highest median refuge islands or mid‐block crosswalks (with number of reported bicycle crashes and 17th highest appropriate warning for drivers) can improve number of pedestrian crashes in Florida. Crashes in pedestrian safety and mobility. At signalized Sarasota represent 37% of the countywide bicycle intersections, improvements to roadway signing, crashes and 43% percent of the pedestrian crashes. As pavement markings, and the operations of the signal the maps on this page illustrate, bicycle and pedestrian itself, can increase pedestrians’ comfort and safety. crashes are a problem throughout Sarasota. We will work together at the workshop to identify There are solutions to these mobility challenges. and address pedestrian and bicycle mobility issues in Sidewalks and trails provide a safe location for Sarasota. pedestrians and some bicyclists to travel.

CITY OF SARASOTA BICYCLE CRASHES (2006‐2010) CITY OF SARASOTA PEDESTRIAN CRASHES (2006‐2010)

*Sources: Sarasota County Crash Data Management System, U.S. Census Bureau, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

BICYCLE FACILITIES A 5‐foot standard sidewalk is a basic facility that will accommodate pedestrian mobility.

Multi‐use trails serve bicyclists and pedestrians. They are located off of the roadway and are generally desired by a broad mix of users.

Bicycle lanes provide dedicated right‐of‐way for cyclists and remove bicycle traffic from automobile lanes.

A “sharrow” is used where the roadway is not wide enough for bike lanes. It identifies where the cyclist should ride on the roadway.

A marked bike lane is the preferred on‐street bicycle facility.

MID‐BLOCK CROSSING DESIGN

RIGHT‐TURN CHANNELIZATION

A busy major roadway can create challenging crossing conditions for pedestrians.

Refuge areas reduce the number of lanes pedestrians must cross, and flashing beacons alert motorists and remind them to yield.

Properly designed right‐turn islands preserves the flow of traffic and offers refuge areas to pedestrian and bicyclists. Clearly identified bicycle markings at right ‐turn locations benefit bicyclists.

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

TRANSIT While automobiles will continue to be an important mode of transportation in Sarasota, most major roadways are surrounded by built‐up development, and widening roads is generally not a cost‐feasible option to provide for future mobility needs. Going forward, walking, biking, and public transit are expected to play a more prominent role in the City’s bundle of transportation options. While walking and biking are effective travel modes for shorter trips (generally one mile and less for walking and three miles or less for biking), transit service can provide mobility over longer distances and in bad weather.

The map below shows existing bus transit routes and planned improvements identified in the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) 10‐year Transit Development Plan (TDP). These enhancements to the existing bus system include new bus routes and improved frequency on existing routes (more buses per hour), as well as service span enhancements (buses start earlier, stop later).

Over the long term, SCAT is developing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project that combines elements of traditional bus transit and light rail transit to provide a higher‐speed, more efficient mode of travel for transit patrons. Other options such as express bus service for long‐haul commute trips and rubber tire or rail streetcar services for downtown circulation also can enhance transit service in the City. On April 9th please be prepared to share your ideas about the role of transit in the City’s overall mobility picture.

Legend New Service Frequency Improvements 15 - 20 minute headways (6am - 7pm) Other Improvements Sarasota City Limits

As shown in the map to the right, SCAT’s 10‐year plan provides service enhance‐ ments within and adjacent to the City of Sarasota. Sev‐ eral routes will improve to provide three or four buses per hour during the busi‐ ness day. This frequency is adequate to attract some commuters who might oth‐ erwise drive.

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) AND “PREMIUM” TRANSIT CONCEPTS

BRT often uses special vehicles that provide for “branding” of the service, offer more capacity, use alternative/hybrid propul‐ sion, and have larger doors and lower floors to speed boarding and alighting.

Ideally, BRT operates along dedi‐ cated busways separate from congested streets. However, BRT can function on bus lanes and high‐occupant vehicle lanes along existing major roads or in mixed traffic where necessary.

“Queue Jump” lanes allow tran‐ sit vehicles to move to the head of the line at congested intersec‐ tions. They provide for travel time advantages without the right‐of‐way costs of dedicated bus lanes.

BRT service relies on enhanced “station areas” to provide more comfort and convenience for patrons than typical bus stops. Use of kiosks to pay fares in ad‐ vance reduces time spent board‐ ing the bus, increasing efficiency.

Transit circulators, whether rub‐ ber‐tired or tracked can be an effective way of moving people within activity centers such as Sarasota’s Downtown.

Express bus services can provide comfortable and efficient travel for longer commuter trips. Often these use “park‐and‐ride” facili‐ ties at the outer stations.

PLANNED BUS RAPID TRANSIT ROUTE ALIGNMENT

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

COMPLETE STREETS The streets of our cities and towns are an important part of our communities. They allow children to get to school and parents to get to work. They bring together neighbors and provide access to neighborhood stores. These streets ought to be designed for everyone – whether young or old, on foot or on bicycle, in a car or in a bus – but frequently they are designed with the sole intention of safely moving cars. Now, in communities across the country, a movement is growing to “complete” the streets. States, cities, and towns are asking their planners and engineers to build roads that are safer, more accessible, and easier for everyone. In the process, they are creating more well‐rounded communities for people to live, play, work, and shop. The April 9 workshop will identify where “Complete Street” policies are being implemented, discuss their potential effectiveness in Sarasota, and consider how this process can be implemented. What are “Complete Streets”? Complete Streets are streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transportation users of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets make it easier to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. They allow buses to run on time and make it safer for people to walk throughout the city. What do Complete Streets policies do? By adopting a Complete Streets policy, communities direct their transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right‐of‐way to enable safe access for all users. This means that every transportation project will make the street network better and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists – improving your city with more realistic mobility options. Are there many types of Complete Streets? There is no singular design prescription for Complete Streets; each one is unique and responds to its community context. The concepts to the right show a variety of options in creating Compete Streets. Why would Complete Streets be considered? Making travel choices more convenient, attractive, and safe means that people do not need to rely solely on automobiles. Coordinated with effective land use policy, Complete Streets can replace congestion‐ clogged trips in their cars with alternate forms of transportation. Getting more productivity and efficiency from the existing road and public transportation system is vital to reducing congestion. Some reasons for considering Complete Streets include:

• Desire to provide more options for urban mobility. • Improving the efficiency of the multi‐modal transportation system. • Need to optimize existing right‐of‐way within constrained corridors.

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

COMPLETE STREETS CONCEPTS

Signalized intersections manage conflicts by assigning right‐ Modern roundabouts can simultaneously provide traffic control of‐way to separate traffic movements. However, most while calming traffic. Properly‐designed round‐abouts also signalized intersections also permit right‐turn‐on‐red, and tend to reduce the severity of intersection crashes for all many permit left turns to occur as long as left turning drivers roadway users and can decrease delay, compared with traffic yield to opposing traffic. When drivers execute poor signals, when traffic volumes are not heavy. This improves judgment, the resulting crashes often are severe. The mobility for drivers and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. complexity and size of some signalized intersections However, roundabouts sometimes require more right‐of‐way negatively impacts the safety and mobility of bicyclists and than traditional intersections and are less familiar to Florida pedestrians. Also, signalized intersections result in drivers than typical signalized intersections. unnecessary delay during periods of the day when traffic volumes are light.

Conventional wisdom suggests that four travel lanes are better than two, but implementing “road diets” can improve facilities for buses, bikes, and pedestrians while reducing sideswipe, rear‐end, right‐angle, and left‐turn crashes. Depending on adjacent land uses and traffic characteristics, a 2‐lane road with a median turn lane may operate more efficiently than a 4‐lane road without a center turn lane.

These photos show the space consumed by the same number of people traveling by car (frames 1 & 2) , bus (frame 3), and walking and biking (frame 4). Reallocating roadway assets to provide for alternatives to single‐occupant vehicles can increase the efficient use of space in urban centers and support lifestyle choices that promote individual health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions/oil consumption.

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

LAND USE Land use changes and development patterns can be relatively simple when a community has ample room to develop without constraints. This is not the case in Sarasota where little vacant land is available and the City is surrounded on three sides by existing development and some really great waterfront on the fourth. The challenge for the City is to identify the right mix of development versus redevelopment, residential versus employment growth, and lower density development versus higher density development. Well‐managed growth allows a city to maintain its ability to provide desired public services without undue tax burdens. Cities that are not growing usually are declining. There simply are no simple answers!

However, there are some basic principles. As the density and intensity of development increases, more growth can be accommodated in a smaller area, which is also more supportive of other mobility options such as walking, bicycling, and public transportation. This allows the City to continue to provide services and to protect existing lower density residential areas. New medium‐ and higher‐density development also can open up the community to a wider mix of residents. As our population continues to age, successful communities will need to address the challenges of larger aging populations and the mobility and public services they require. Doing so helps to ensure that grandparent and grandchild can live in the same community.

Non‐residential development is critical to the economic success of a community. Mixed‐use development with residential uses allows for higher intensities and more walkable trips. These areas also are more resilient to changes in the economy, providing a more diverse/stable tax base over time, and it is more feasible to build these structures to survive hurricanes. History tells us that the economy will change structurally over time, requiring different types of non‐residential development, and the City needs its future share of economic prosperity. When considering non‐residential development, think about these questions: How far would a potential customer be willing drive to a strip commercial development versus St. Armands Circle? If you wanted to expand or relocate your business, what would you be looking for? What makes the business community and supporting development the most successful in the region? If you visited the city, why would you want to come back?

In March, a local radio program included the comments of a father in Japan whose city was utterly destroyed by the recent earthquake and tsunami. He lamented that he hoped that his city would return to normal within his 30‐ year‐old son's lifetime. He was optimistic that his city would be prosperous again in his grandson's lifetime.

Little to No Growth Medium-Low Growth Medium Growth Medium-High Growth High Growth

We have a prosperous community today; how will our decisions today ensure prosperity for generations to come? Join us at the workshop and together we can discuss what we want our community to be in the future.

Forecasted 2005 to 2035 Growth 12

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (DWELLINGS)

5 DU/Acre

3 DU/Acre

12 DU/Acre

50 DU/Acre

24 DU/Acre

NON‐RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (EMPLOYMENT)

Strip Commercial Development

Light Industrial/Office

Community Mixed Use Most planning documents talk about land use density and intensity—the number of people or employees per acre. Measures of density and intensity, by themselves, do not provide a clear sense of what the community will look like or how it will function. Studies show that urban design, including provision of a good street grid, the presence of “destination” land uses, and diversity of land uses within an area are better predictors of whether people will be able to walk, bike, and use transit. C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

Regional Mixed Use

Urban Center Multimodal Potential: Little or no multimodal potential Moderate—local bus service Good—premium bus service Excellent—premium bus, possibly rail transit Superior—consider rail transit 13

Transportation Funding More than ever, funding of public facilities and services must reflect the values of the community and make prudent use of scarce resources. Although the City of Sarasota is responsible for maintaining many of the streets within the City, partners such as the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Sarasota County, and Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) provide much of the City’s transportation system capacity and maintenance resources. The Sarasota‐Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) helps make decisions about how federal funds are used to build and maintain the transportation system. As with many Florida Communities, developer “impact” fees and dedications are part of the transportation funding equation.

In order to make informed choices about future transportation investments, it is helpful to understand how transportation capacity, operations, and maintenance are currently funded by the City and its transportation partner agencies. Likewise, it is important to discuss how transportation fits within the City’s overall budget and revenue picture and how mobility investments can contribute to the livability and economic vitality of the City. As part of the April 9th workshop, funding issues will be explored and the project team will seek input on whether current funding levels are appropriate and being directed towards the right investments. Other Taxes (Gas Tax) 1%

Intergovernmental 8%

Intergovernmental (Sales Tax, CIT) 5%

Property Tax 15%

Infrastructure (Non-Transportation) 23%

Charges for Service 49%

Transportation 5% Interfund Transfers 5% General Government 22%

Public Safety (Police & Fire) 20%

REVENUES: The top contributors to City revenues are Charges for Services (including utilities) Property Tax, and Other Taxes (including franchise and utility excise taxes. Gas Tax revenues have ranged from $4.6 million to $2.5 million over the last five years and, as shown in the graph above, are currently less than two percent of the overall City revenues.

Community Re/Development 5%

Debt Service 11%

Other Taxes 11%

Miscellaneous 11%

Culture and Recreation 9%

EXPENDITURES: Public Safety (police and fire), provision of non‐transportation infrastructure (water/ sewer/solid waste), and general government operations account for 65 percent of the City’s budget, “Transportation” accounts for under 5% of the City’s overall budget. In addition to gas tax revenues, transportation is funded by components of the 1‐penny local option sales tax. Most of the City’s transportation budget is directed to operations and maintenance.

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N

Multimodal Capital Improvements in City of Sarasota 5%

Regional Roadway Projects 43%

Strategic Intermodal System Projects (Primarily I‐75 Enhancements) 52%

LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (LRTP): The Sarasota‐ Manatee MPO 2035 LRTP identifies approximately $1.5 billion in financially feasible transportation capital projects. Just over half of these dollars are directed toward capacity improvements to the State’s Strategic Intermodal System—principally Interstate 75 widening and interchange upgrades. Although these improvements, and significant investments in regional roadways benefit the City too, relatively little money is programmed for transportation capital projects within the City limits.

Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Bus Routes

TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (TDP): Over the next 10 years, total capital and operating expenses for transit are anticipated to be approximately $435 million. As shown in the graphic above, the majority of existing transit routes (and planned services such as the Bus Rapid Transit corridor) are focused within or near the City of Sarasota. When transit funding and roadway capital funding are considered together, the geographic investment is more equitable.

Property Values Per Acre Note: Some properties shown to on the map are tax‐exempt. Only prop‐ erty values within the City limits are shown on this map.

Although Property Tax revenue is only 15 percent of the City’s overall budget these “General Fund” revenues are more flexible than other revenue streams. Cities rely on Property Tax to fund the ongoing provision of municipal services including public safety functions, operation of parks and recreational facilities, and other municipal functions. To the extent that mobility investment decisions consider goals to strengthen the municipal tax base, these decisions can impact the ability of the City to support and enhance levels of service for a broad set of public services.

C I T Y O F S A R A S O T A — M O B I L I T Y P L A N