us 1 corridor improvement program: phase ii

Click here to load reader

Post on 24-Jan-2022

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

Microsoft PowerPoint - draft US 1 summary presentation for BPAC_081114.pptxR2CTPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Meeting – August 13, 2014
Overview of Study Process & Activities Overview of Study Process & Activities
85
30
Phase I Summary and Outcome
• Outcome of Phase I: Shared desire of US 1 as a complete street, with improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit mobility
Key Product of Phase I - GIS Database of ProjectsKey Product of Phase I - GIS Database of Projects
• Ormond Beach • Holly Hill • Daytona Beach • South Daytona • Port Orange • New Smyrna Beach • Edgewater • Oak Hill • Volusia County • River to Sea TPO • Votran • VCARD • FDOT • State Parks • National Wildlife Refuge
StakeholdersStakeholders
Goals of Phase II Study Goals of Phase II Study
Understand the current and future anticipated travel patterns along US 1
Identify the vision for the corridor and how it supports desired local and regional mobility, local community livability and economic development goals and needs
Identify specific action items (program, policy, and/or infrastructure), that could support the vision for the corridor
Phase II Study Process and ActivitiesPhase II Study Process and Activities
Key Findings Key Findings
Income and Car Ownership
Income and Car Ownership
• Concentration of 0-Car Households in Northern Portion of the Study area
Vehicular Traffic Volumes and
• More growth occurs along Nova Road
Traffic DistributionTraffic Distribution
• Trips along US 1 and Nova Road drop off at Holly Hill/Daytona Beach area
• Neither US 1 nor Nova Road are being used for regional trips
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
• Concentrations of crashes and fatalities in Daytona Beach area
Parks and TrailsParks and Trails
• Existing and Planned Parks and Trails are Corridor-wide
Corridor Character
Districts
Traditional
• Character Districts were developed based on existing & future land use plans and intended transportation function of US 1
• Character Districts were developed with the Working Group
Corridor Character
Corridor Needs Corridor Needs
PRINCIPLE ONE – Enhance Mobility
Enhance local multi- modal mobility to connect activity areas along the corridor.
PRINCIPLE TWO – Increase Connectivity
PRINCIPLE THREE – Leverage Investments
Maximize efficiency by leveraging local and state public investments to catalyze private economic development.
PRINCIPLE FOUR – Preserve & Enhance
Preserve and enhance existing environmental and recreational assets within the Corridor.
What potential strategies can address the corridor principles/needs?
What potential strategies can address the corridor principles/needs?
Potential Strategies (short- and long-term)Potential Strategies (short- and long-term)
Implement Strategic Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Implement Policy and Regulatory Mechanisms to Advance Land Use/Economic Development Initiatives Along US 1
Implement Changes to US 1 Cross Sections Based on Character Districts (coinciding with land use/development changes) and Develop Potential Gateways
Implement Transit Improvements, Including Transit Signal Priority (TSP)
Develop/Implement Educational and Marketing Campaign for US 1 (Market the Environment, Recreational and Cultural Assets of the Region)
Pedestrian/Bike Gaps/Project OpportunitiesPedestrian/Bike Gaps/Project Opportunities
Pedestrian/Bike Gaps/Project OpportunitiesPedestrian/Bike Gaps/Project Opportunities
Pedestrian/Bike Gaps/Project OpportunitiesPedestrian/Bike Gaps/Project Opportunities
Pedestrian/Bike Gaps/Project OpportunitiesPedestrian/Bike Gaps/Project Opportunities
Implement Policy and Regulatory Changes to Advance Land Use/Economic Development Initiatives Along US 1
Implement Changes to US 1 Cross
Sections based on Character Districts
and Develop Potential Gateways
ROW Varies (100’ +/- 5’)
ROW = 100’ (with exception of Oak Hill where ROW = 160’)
Urban Village Center Section Option 2
Urban Village Center Section Option 2
ROW = 100’ (with exception of Oak Hill where ROW = 160’)
Traditional SectionTraditional Section
Eco Byway SectionEco Byway Section
ROW varies (>130’) to adjust to existing ROW
Summary of Potential Section AlternativesSummary of Potential Section Alternatives
Cross Section
High – high cost (move curbline), left-turn challenges
Urban Village Center Option 2
High Low High High Yes
Medium – mixed bike/auto traffic or identify parallel bicycle route
Traditional Medium High Medium Medium Yes
Low – keep existing cross section, restripe in some sections
Eco Byway Medium to High High Medium Low N/A
Low to medium - add shared-use path (some areas require bridge modifications)
Public InputPublic Input
General Preferences for Urban Village Center: Option 2 and Traditional
Lower Cost Options That Do Not Require Moving Curb Line
Implement Transit Improvements -
Recreational and Cultural Assets of the
Region)
Recreational and Cultural Assets of the
Region)
Loop
Refuge