2040 LRTP Tech Memo #1: Public Involvement

Technical Memorandum #1 Public Involvement Plan

February 12, 2015

Path Forward 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The public involvement process used in developing of the plan provided significant input into the needs to be addressed, concerns with specific projects that would result in community impacts and the strategies used in the LRTP.

Multiple outreach and data gather activities were used to engage the public as part of the process:

Public perceptions telephone survey Interactive project web site On-line asset allocation game Social media Community forum engagement Overview video Contact list Newsletters Overview brochure Youth outreach Visualization techniques Agency meetings Public workshops Public hearing

A significant effort was made to engage minority and underserved populations in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil Rights. Strategies and tactics used to engage minorities and underserved included identifying the population locations, target outreach to organizations serving these populations, scheduling public workshops in areas with clusters of these populations. Analysis of the investments related to these populations was performed to ensure the investments resulted in equity and the projects implemented would not result in disproportionate impacts.

The stakeholders involved represented a wide range of community organizations and populations.

Future decision-makers (middle and high school students) were engaged through the Transportation Tomorrow program which resulted in 120 student participants.

Users of public transportation were engaged through the telephone survey and public workshops.

Representatives of public transportation employees were engaged as part of our steering committee and the North Florida TPO’s committees and boards.

Freight shippers and freight transportation providers were solicited for participation as part of the outreach process. A presentation was made to the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce’s Logistics and Advisory Group which involved approximately 40 representatives of beneficial cargo operators, over-the-road truckers, shipping companies and railroads, third party logistics providers, etc.

In addition to attending the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce’s Logistics and Advisory Group meetings, Norfolk Southern and CSX participated in one steering committee. JAXPORT, the Nassau County Ocean Highway Port Authority, Jacksonville Aviation Authority and St. Augustine Airport also participated through the North Florida TPO Board and committees.

The Jacksonville Transportation Authority participated in the agency meetings and the Sunshine Bus Company participated through their involvement in the Regional Transportation Commission.

Military freight transportation providers were represented by the U.S Navy Air Station Jacksonville on the steering committee and the North Florida TPO Board.

Representatives of pedestrian and bicyclist organizations participated such as the North Florida Bicycle Club and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator for the City of Jacksonville participated in steering committee and public workshops. Significant discussion and focus on investments in active transportation solutions were adopted as part of the plan.

Representatives of the disabled participated through the North Florida TPO Board and committees. Several members of the disabled community attended the Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan meetings in the urban core.

Neighborhood associations and community groups were solicited through our contact list mailings.

Business and professional groups were engaged through presentations to local community organizations such as rotary clubs, the Jacksonville Chamber and public workshops.

Elected officials and agency representatives were engaged through the North Florida TPO Board and committees, community planning groups and briefings to commissions on the planning process.

i


A total of 109 community meetings, public workshops and the public hearing were conducted as part of the project.

The size of the contact database increased by 53 percent from 653 to 1,000 contacts compared to the 2035 LRTP. The contact database included geographically and demographically diverse organizations. Meeting advertising increased from seven to eight print publications. Radio spots increased and television advertising was used for the first time.

Facebook advertising was again used to drive traffic resulting in 651 clicks and 136,967 impressions. Facebook and Twitter posts were used in LRTP outreach for the first time with 72 tweets and 100 Facebook updates generating 7,110 impressions. Finally, 60 pins on Pinterest generated over 83,864 impressions in ten months.

In comparison to the 2035 LRTP, meeting attendance improved with an average of 15 per meeting to 16 per meeting.

The number of comments submitted increased over 500 percent from 83 for the 2035 LRTP to 500 for this update.

The major themes of the public involvement process were that transit should be a major priority for future investments within the region. Depending on the type of participation (through the allocation game on-line, the allocation game in workshops or comments received

during the meetings or in correspondence), road investment and investment in bicycles and pedestrians also remain a high priority. Figure E-1 summarizes the priorities resulting from the public involvement.

These priorities were reflected in developing of the Cost Feasible Plan by allocating funding through which the North Florida TPO has the primary decision-making authority. When the allocation funds to the types of improvements were analyzed, bicycles and pedestrians are funded with a significantly higher percent of the needs identified than for road capacity projects. The results of the planning process resulted in fair and equitable distribution by mode. Figure E-2 shows the percent of need met in each of the priority areas.

An analysis of the investments for major projects in minority or underserved populations was also performed and the major investments in these areas consisted of transit improvements for enhanced bus service, bus rapid transit, commuter rail and streetcars. In addition, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority plans to implement transit mobility and enhancement projects that will serve many of these areas to provide greater mobility and access to transit.

The result of the public involvement process reflected the needs of the community balanced with the regional needs identified in the planning process.

ii


Figure E-1. Summary of Funding Allocation Compared to Public Priority

Figure E-2. Percent of Need Met by Mode

63%

17%

0% 2%

18%

33% 39%

12% 11% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Road Transit TSM&O Bicycles andPedestrians

Freight

Allocation Public Perception

26%

58%

5%

65%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Road Transit TSM&O Bicycle and Pedestrian Freight

Percent

iii


STUDY PARTICIPANTS

NORTH FLORIDA TPO BOARD

CHAIRMAN Nancy Sikes-Kline, City of St. Augustine Commission

VICE CHAIRMAN

Doyle Carter, Jacksonville City Council

TREASURER Diane Hutchings, Clay County Commission

Brian Reaves, Nassau County Ocean, Highway and

Port Authority Charlie Latham, Mayor, City of Jacksonville Beach

Alvin Brown, Mayor, City of Jacksonville Reginald Brown, Jacksonville City Council

Danny Leeper, Nassau County Commission Rachael Bennett, St. Johns County Commission

Ed Fleming, JAXPORT Donna Harper, Jacksonville Transportation Authority

Teresa Davlantes, Jacksonville Aviation Authority William Bishop, Jacksonville City Council Doug Conkey, Clay County Commission

Carl Youman, St. Augustine/St. Johns Airport Authority

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS James Croft, Baker County Chip Laibl, Putnam County

Capt. Roy Undersander, U.S. Navy

NON-VOTING ADVISER: Gregory Evans, P.E., FDOT District 2 Secretary

iv


NORTH FLORIDA TPO TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN Jeff Beck, Clay County Engineering Department

VICE CHAIRMAN Calvin Burney, City of Jacksonville Planning Department

Neil Shinkre, St. Johns County Public Works Scott Herring, Nassau County Engineering Starling Kramer, Clay County Public Works

Alaina Ray, Town of Orange Park Tom Morris, Clay County Utility Authority Phong Nguyen, St. Johns County Planning

Steve Lindorff, Jacksonville Beach Planning Rick Carper, Atlantic Beach Public Works

David Kaufman, JAXPORT Jim Robinson, City of Jacksonville Public Works

Asst. Chief Dale Allen, Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office Mike Null, Green Cove Springs Planning Department

David Buchanan, Town of Hilliard Martha Graham, St. Augustine Public Works Department

Gary Larson, City of St. Augustine Beach Mayor Stan Totman, Town of Baldwin

Bryan Spell, JEA Systems Planning Joseph Napoli, City of Jacksonville Environmental Quality Division

Kevin Harvey, St. Augustine Airport Authority Karen Taulbee, Florida Department of Transportation

Vincent Clark, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Todd Lindner, Jacksonville Aviation Authority

Ed Lehman, Northeast Florida Regional Council Donald Jacobovitz, Putnam County

Barbara Goodman, National Park Service Neil Nance, Jacksonville Transportation Authority Engineering Division Suraya Teeple, Jacksonville Transportation Authority Transit Division

Shelby Jack, Town of Hastings Lisa Parlapiano, WorkSource

Ron Braddock, Nassau County Ocean Highway and Port Authority Matt Schellhorn, U.S. Navy

Peter King, Nassau County Planning Terry Suggs, City of Keystone Heights

v


NORTH FLORIDA TPO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN Bernie O’Connor, Duval County (at large)

VICE CHAIRMAN

Frank Riner, Town of Orange Park

Richard Darby, Clay County (at large) James M. Lucas, Duval County (Beaches)

Richard Berry, Duval County (North Citizens Planning Advisory Committee) Celia Miller, Duval County (Urban Core Citizens Planning Advisory Committee)

Lin White, Duval County (at large) Larry Solomon, Duval County (Northwest Citizens Planning Advisory Committee)

Lesley Davidson, Duval County (at large) Warren Butler, St. Johns County (at large) Barney Roberts, Duval County (at large)

Terry Tillman, City of Baldwin Anita Warming, Duval County (at large)

Heather Neville, City of St. Augustine Gene Brisach, Nassau County (at large)

Vickie Breedlove, Duval County (at large) Jim Hill, Duval County (Southeast Citizens Planning Advisory Committee)

Roger Sharp, Duval County (Arlington/Beaches Citizens Planning Advisory Committee) Martha Moore, Duval County (at large)

Ken Amaro, Duval County (at large) Brian Alley, St. Johns County (at large)

Bradley Gordon, St. Johns County Melinda Luedtke, Amelia Island

Branch Davis, Duval County (at large) Ron Hick, Nassau County (at large) Mike Kloehn, Clay County (at large)

vi


LRTP STEERING COMMITTEE

Dale Allen, Jacksonville Sherriff’s Office Jeff Beck, Clay County Public Works

Bill Ball, City of Jacksonville Public Works Bill Bishop, Council Member, City of Jacksonville

Dan Buckman, Nassau County Public Schools Calvin Burney, City of Jacksonville Planning

Vincent Clark, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Enis Davis, MetroJacksonville

Dawn Emerick, Health Planning Council of North East Florida Janis Fleet, City of Green Cove Springs

Barbara Goodman, National Park Service James Green, Florida Department of Transportation

Kimberly Hair, Jacksonville Aviation Authority Scott Herring, Nassau County Planning

Don Jacobovitz, Putnam County Public Works Dorren Joyner Howard, Florida Department of Transportation

David Kauffman, JAXPORT Peter King, Nassau County

Mark Knight, City of St. Augustine Planning Starling Kramer, Clay County Planning

Gary Larson , City of Atlantic Beach Ed Lehman, Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council

Michelle Leak, Mayo Clinic Todd Linder, Jacksonville Aviation Authority

Steve Lindorff, City of Jacksonville Beach Planning Dan Locklear, St. Johns County Public Works

Carolyn Morgan, Clay County Planning Joe Napoli, City of Jacksonville Environmental Quality

Phong Nguyen, St. Johns County Planning Mike Null, City of Green Cove Springs

Bernie O’Conner, Citizen Lisa Parlapiano, Career Source Northeast Florida

Ed Preston, Baker County Public Works Alaina Ray, Town of Orange Park

Matt Schellhorm, U.S. Navy Brian Spell, JEA

Joe Stephenson, Regional Planning Commission David Stubbs, JAXPORT

Karen Taulbee, Florida Department of Transportation Suraya Teeple, Jacksonville Transportation Authority Brad Thoburn, Jacksonville Transportation Authority

Steve Tocknell, Citizen Kim Weisnburger, U.S. Marine Corps

vii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ i Study Participants ......................................................................................................................................................... iv

Public Perceptions Survey .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Electronic Media ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Community Forum ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Overview Video ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Calendar ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Contact List .................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Newsletter ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Overview Brochure ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Transportation Tomorrow Youth Outreach ................................................................................................................. 13 Visualization Techniques ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Agency Meetings ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Needs Plan Workshops ................................................................................................................................................ 17 Cost Feasible Plan Workshops ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Using of Public Input in the Planning Process .............................................................................................................. 25 Public Hearing .............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Environmental Justice and Title VI ............................................................................................................................... 28 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................................... 32 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 32

LIST OF APPENDICES (available upon request) Appendix A Public Perception Survey Results Appendix B Website and Social Media Appendix C Asset Allocation Game Appendix D Overview Video Appendix E Contact List Appendix F Overview Brochure Appendix G Transportation Tomorrow Appendix H Agency Meeting Summaries Appendix I Needs Plan Advertising, Materials and Comments Appendix J Cost Feasible Advertising, Materials and Comments Appendix K Public Hearing Appendix L Environmental Justice Census Maps Appendix M Other Key Correspondence

viii


LIST OF FIGURES Figure E-1. Summary of Funding Allocation Compared to Public Priority .................................................................... iii Figure E-2. Percent of Need Met by Mode ................................................................................................................... iii Figure 1. Interactive Priority Map .................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2. Visits and Use of Allocation Game .................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3. Reported Priorities in Asset Allocation Game ................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Summary of Budget Allocation ....................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5. Summary Brochure ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6. Example of Future City Competition Physical Model .................................................................................... 13 Figure 7. Safety Hot Spots ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 8. Congestion Hot Spots.................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 9. Comparison of Priorities from Multiple Sources .......................................................................................... 23 Figure 10. Summary of Funding Allocation Compared to Public Priority .................................................................... 27 Figure 11. Percent of Need Met by Mode ................................................................................................................... 27

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. On-line Asset Allocation Game......................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2. Interactive Priority Map Legend ...................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3. Summary of Priority Strategies from On-line Allocation Game ....................................................................... 8 Table 4. Budget Allocation from On-line Allocation Game ............................................................................................ 9 Table 5. Summary of Strategies from On-line Allocation Game .................................................................................. 10 Table 6. Summary of Demographic Information from On-line Allocation Game ........................................................ 11 Table 7. Meeting Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 8. Summary of Meeting Advertisements ........................................................................................................... 20 Table 9. Needs Plan Workshops Attendance ............................................................................................................... 21 Table 10. Summary of Needs Plan Public Workshop Allocation Game ....................................................................... 21 Table 11. Summary of Needs Plan Public Workshop Comments................................................................................. 22 Table 12. Summary of Input by Percent Respondents ................................................................................................ 23 Table 13. Summary of Attendance at the Cost Feasible Plan Workshops ................................................................... 24 Table 14. Summary of Comments During Cost Feasible Plan Workshops ................................................................... 24 Table 15. Summary of Finding Programs and Allocation by Mode .............................................................................. 26 Table 16. Organizations Serving Minority and Underserved Populations ................................................................... 29 Table 17. Major Improvements in Minority and Underserved Communities .............................................................. 31

ix


x


PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT THE INFORMATION GATHERED IN THE EARLY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE LRTP. WHEN COMBINED WITH PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DATA, IT SETS THE DIRECTION FOR THE PLAN'S DEVELOPMENT. IT WILL TELL THE NORTH FLORIDA TPO WHAT THE RESIDENTS OF NORTH FLORIDA CONSIDER IMPORTANT AND PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN ESTABLISHING THE TRANSPORTATION GOALS.

This report summarizes public involvement program facilitated as part of the planning process. The activities carried out were to inform and solicit ideas from the public about transportation needs, alternatives and priorities. The program elements are described further in the following sections.

The Path Forward 2040 Public Involvement Plan contained a structured process to inform the public and interested parties and solicit input in identifying transportation needs and prioritizing projects. Multiple methods were used to engage and solicit input from the public as part of the planning process.

In addition to the narrative provided herein, the following appendices document the public involvement process:

Appendix A Public Perception Survey Results Appendix B Website and Social Media Appendix C Asset Allocation Game Appendix D Overview Video Appendix E Contact List Appendix F Overview Brochure Appendix G Transportation Tomorrow Appendix H Agency Meeting Summaries


Appendix I Needs Plan Advertising, Materials and Comments

Appendix J Cost Feasible Advertising, Materials and Comments

Appendix K Public Hearing Appendix L Environmental Justice Census Maps Appendix M Other Key Correspondence

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS SURVEY A survey was conducted online, by landline telephone and by mobile phone among residents of Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, Putnam, and St. Johns counties to identify opinions on transportation issues and needs. A total of 759 respondents participated in the survey. The key findings are listed below:

Of the respondents who work outside the home, 92 percent traveled to their jobs by private car, while three percent rode the bus, two percent participated in a car pool, and the remainder went by bicycle (one percent), airplane (one percent), walking (0.5 percent), or were always on the road, such professional truckers (one percent).

About seven percent of the commuters said that the traffic on their primary road to work was “always backed up far below the speed limit,” and 21 percent said their road was “usually below the speed limit unless there’s bad weather or an accident.” Interstate 10 was most often cited as “always backed up,” by 25 percent of the people who used it.

The mean commuting time to work was 24 minutes, and the median commute was 20 minutes. These findings were unchanged from the 2008 transportation survey.

About 86 percent of the commuters reported that their current commuting time was acceptable to them, while 14 percent found it “unacceptable.” 97 percent said they would be willing to accept a commute up to 30 minutes to work.

About 17 percent of the respondents reported that they had used public transit in North Florida during the past year. Public transit use was highest among respondents age 18 to 24, at 36 percent, and also among those with household incomes under $25,000, at 28 percent.

Among those who used public transportation, 61 percent used the bus, 27 percent used a trolley, 26 percent used the Skyway, and 23 percent used a van or shuttle service.

Most residents of North Florida have used public transit in another city: 67 percent said they had used

public transit while traveling in another city. In this case, the rate of usage increased with household income, rising from a low of 43 percent among those with household incomes below $25,000 to 81 percent among those with household incomes of $150,000 and over.

Those who had used public transit in another city had most often used a bus (68 percent), subway (62 percent), commuter rail (35 percent) or light rail (28 percent).

The “need for better mass transit” was identified by 22 percent of the respondents as the most important transportation issue in North Florida. Fifteen percent specifically mentioned the need for an expanded bus system, while 13 percent called for an expanded road system and 12 percent mentioned the need to alleviate traffic congestion in general.

Only one of eight ideas for transportation was deemed a “high priority” by a majority of the respondents. “Providing smooth-flowing traffic on local highways” is a high priority for 72 percent of the respondents, 47 percent placed a high priority of “Providing convenient public transit alternatives,” and 37 percent placed a high priority on “Promoting the use of alternative fuels and vehicles.”

Of the respondents, 28 percent felt that public transit services in North Florida are adequate, while 52 percent said they are not adequate and 20 percent were “not sure.” Those who said public transit is not adequate were invited to suggest what the region should do to improve it. 36 percent called for “more buses” or “more bus routes.” 18 percent suggested using light rail, and 13 percent proposed expanding all of the public transit options for greater accessibility.

Public opinion was divided on the best long-term solution to reducing traffic in their area. “Improving public transit,” was supported by 37 percent. About 26 percent favored “developing communities where people don’t have to drive so much” and 24 percent advocated “building new roads.”

A copy of the survey report is provided in Appendix A.

ELECTRONIC MEDIA The public information campaign used multiple forms of electronic media to inform and solicit public input.

Interactive project web site Asset allocation game

2


Social media Community forum engagement

A summary of these media are provided in Appendix B.

PROJECT WEB SITE The pathforward2040.com website is included:

Home page with news, events and social media feed, overview video and link to asset allocation game

Plan development overview with news and frequently asked questions

Project lists, maps and documents Public involvement opportunities including the asset

allocation game, online survey and social media Project team contact information

From September 2013 to December 2014 the site had 4,527 users, 5,586 sessions and 9,652 page-views. The most popular page was “Get Involved” which detailed public involvement opportunities including a survey, asset allocation game, meetings and events. The second most popular page was “Resources” which included project lists, maps and study documents.

ASSET ALLOCATION GAME The Path Forward 2040 website included a link to an “asset allocation game” where visitors could provide input. There were five screens that are summarized in Table 1 summarizes the game. The project resulted in 1,400 visitors and 257 persons provided data.F

1

Figure 1 is a map of the locations where users identified priority locations. Table 2 is a legend for the map indicating the priority of the map input by color.

The input received for users peaked around placements in MetroJacksonville.com an online community forum on transportation. Figure 2 summarizes the number of visitors use of the allocation game by period.

1 Map Data on Google Drive https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1m6MDLQVmM8JACZ1J9n4hYH32Irs_v2Ie-TSFvo2O Map on Google Maps https://www.google.com/fusiontables/embedviz?q=select+col2+from+1m6MDLQVmM8JACZ1J9n4hYH32Irs_v2Ie-TSFvo2O&viz=MAP&h=false&lat=30.256694798509937&lng=-81.79939270020623&t=1&z=9&l=col2&y=2&tmplt=2&hml=TWO_COL_LAT_LNG

The following summarizes the geographic clusters of comments:

In the urban core, transit was identified as the highest priority in the comments (29 comments). This is the consistent with comments received through other sources (public perception survey, public meetings, etc.).

The next highest comment was related to freight and port-related investments (8 comments).

Table 3 summarizes the priority strategies and rankings of the participants. Figure 3 summarize the reported priorities. Similar to other sources of input, transit and bicycle and pedestrian improvements were the highest ranked priorities followed by maintaining our roadways and improving traffic flow.

In Table 4 and Figure 4, when the budget was allocated, enhancing safety and widening roadways were budgeted higher than transit or bicycles and pedestrians.

A total of 1,714 data points were input on the strategies recommended within each priority area More males than females responded. The household income was distributed to higher income brackets than exist within the region with a weighted average of $82,500 versus a median wage for the region of $42,400. Ten responders were in the low income bracket with a household income of less than $10,000 per year.

Table 5 summarizes the strategies recommended in the on-line allocation game. Table 6 is a summary of the demographics of the participants.

A report summarizing the input from the allocation game is provided in Appendix C.

3

https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1m6MDLQVmM8JACZ1J9n4hYH32Irs_v2Ie-TSFvo2O

https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1m6MDLQVmM8JACZ1J9n4hYH32Irs_v2Ie-TSFvo2O

https://www.google.com/fusiontables/embedviz?q=select+col2+from+1m6MDLQVmM8JACZ1J9n4hYH32Irs_v2Ie-TSFvo2O&viz=MAP&h=false&lat=30.256694798509937&lng=-81.79939270020623&t=1&z=9&l=col2&y=2&tmplt=2&hml=TWO_COL_LAT_LNG






Table 1. On-line Asset Allocation Game Screen Screen Image Screen 1 – Welcome The first screen provides a brief introduction to the project.

Screen 2 – Priority Ranking The second screen asked visitors to prioritize a list of priorities by moving their top three priorities. Ten preset priorities were provided with an option to suggest another priority. Invest in ports Enhance safety Expand transit Serve elderly or disabled Serve trucking Alternative fuel infrastructure Maintain roads and bridges Enhance traffic flow Serve bicycles and pedestrians Widen roads The opportunity to comment about the priorities was also provided and a link to an interactive map provided for users to identify specific locations where projects are needed.

Screen 3 – Budget Allocation The third screen asked visitors to allocate budget amounts in ten categories. Each category contained existing budget amounts that reflect federal and state limitations of the flexibility of funding programs within the plan. For example, the Strategic Intermodal Systems road capacity funding category investments are selected by the state and provided to the North Florida TPO for concurrency. The visitors’ task was to allocate the portion of the budget that was not already allocated.

4


Table 1. On-line Asset Allocation Game Screen 4 – Additional Questions The fourth screen asked visitors to provide more detailed input on the type of alternative strategies the respondent would recommend in each of the ten priority areas. This was accomplished by having visitors rank a set of alternatives for each category. Users could also add comments within each priority area describing each alternative.

Screen 5 – Stay Involved The last screen was used to gather demographic data about visitors and provide additional project information for those who wished to provide information.

Table 2. Interactive Priority Map Legend Priority Icon Color Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Green Enhance Safety Purple Expand Transit White Invest in Ports Turquoise Maintain Roads/Bridges Grey Serve Bikes and Pedestrians Blue Serve Elderly/Disabled Red Widen Roads Yellow

5


Figure 1. Interactive Priority Map

6


Figure 2. Visits and Use of Asset Allocation Game

7


Table 3. Summary of Priority Strategies On-line Allocation Game Ranking Priority Times Ranked Average Rank Alternative Fuel Infrastructure 27 2.15 Enhance Safety 47 2.04 Expand Transit 108 1.74 Invest in Ports 38 2.13 Maintain Roads/Bridges 64 2.17 Serve Bikes and Pedestrians 99 1.99 Serve Elderly/Disabled 19 2.37 Serve Trucking 5 2.20 Traffic Flow 55 1.96 Widen Roads 20 1.60

Figure 3. Reported Priorities in Asset Allocation Game

8


Table 4. Budget Allocation from On-line Allocation Game Budget Item Dollars Allocated Average Dollars Enhance Safety 399 2.79 Widen Roads 166 1.15 Expand Transit 1024 7.11 Serve Bikes & Pedestrians 847 5.88 Serve Elderly/Disabled 217 1.52 Maintain Roads & Bridges 548 3.81 Invest in Ports 287 1.99 Serve Trucking 44 0.31 Traffic Flow 412 2.86 Alternative Fuel Infrastructure 187 1.30

Figure 4. Summary of Budget Allocation

9


Table 5. Summary of Strategies from On-line Allocation Game Strategy Inputs Relative

Rank Alternative Fuels 224 1.81 I would not invest in alternative fuels 26 2.19 Incentives for alternative fuel purchases 72 1.71 Incentives for compressed natural gas stations 53 1.92 Incentives for electronic vehicle stations 73 1.68 Enhance Safety 233 1.69 Access management (reducing driveways and closing medians) 68 1.93 Improving traffic signals (removing "permitted left turn phases, etc.) 64 2.13 Intersection improvements (adding turn lanes, etc.) 101 1.26 Expand Transit 306 2.09 Commuter rail 97 1.62 Enhancing bus service 68 2.10 Expanding bus services 70 2.54 Trolley services 71 2.28 Invest in Ports 214 1.76 I would not invest in ports 23 2.26 Improve rail access to ports 81 1.63 Improve water access to ports (dredging) 44 2.30 Serve Bicyclists and Pedestrians 66 1.39 Construct bicycle lanes 263 1.77 Construct paths separate from the roadway 78 1.90 Construct sidewalks 103 1.55 Traffic Flow 82 1.91 Road rangers 209 2.18 Roadway message signs 51 1.93 Traffic signal coordination 55 1.84 Widen Roads 103 2.03 Build new roads 263 2.82 Construct or improve intersections and interchanges 49 1.52 Widen existing roadways 96 2.13 Widen roadways with express lanes 58 2.07 Total 1,712 1.84

10


Table 6. Summary of Demographic Information from On-line Allocation Game Survey item Number of Responses Gender 117 Female 43 Male 74 Household Income 105 Less than $25,000 10 $25,000 but less than $50,000 16 $50,000 but less than $100,000 44 $100,000 but less than $150,000 25 $150,000 and over 10 Residents in Household 106 1 21 2 47 3 15 4 18 5 4 More than 5 1 Number of Drivers in Household 109 1 22 2 70 3 11 4 5 5 1 Number of Vehicles in Household 107 1 25 2 60 3 14 4 7 5 1 Work Trip Travel Modes 106 Bike 3 Bus 2 Drive 86 Mix of modes 15 Commute Durations 101 Less than 10 minutes 24 Between 10 and 30 minutes 54 Between 30 and 60 minutes 20 More than 1 hour 3

11


SOCIAL MEDIA The North Florida TPO’s Facebook page and Twitter account were used to post study updates, meetings, events and information. The public involvement team posted 72 tweets and 100 Facebook status updates generating 7,110 impressions. Facebook advertising was used to generate traffic to the asset allocation game December 2013 to February 2014 resulting in 136,967 impressions and 651 clicks to the site.

Two Pinterest boards were developed to encourage input – “What’s Your Vision?” and “Transportation Flashback.” Sixty pins were placed generating over 8,000 impressions per month. The most popular pin, “More bike paths, please!” showed the Cherry Creek bike path in Denver and was re-pinned over 50 times.

COMMUNITY FORUM The Metrojacksonville.com is an online news publication and community forum was used to share articles about the update, promote discussion and obtain comments. Each round of public meetings was promoted on the site through editorial articles and banner advertising that linked to the pathforward2040.com site.

OVERVIEW VIDEO An overview video was created to explain the LRTP process. The video was posted on the website and used for presentations, meetings and workshops. The video can be viewed at www.pathforward2040.com.

CALENDAR A public involvement calendar was developed to schedule and document presentations, group meetings, public workshops and outreach events throughout the study.

CONTACT LIST A contact list of stakeholders was developed to include elected officials, agency partners, transportation-related organizations, business and civic groups, neighborhood associations, environmental groups, organizations serving the elderly, disabled, minority and low-income populations, meeting attendees and interested parties

who sign up via the website. The contact list is provided in Appendix E.

NEWSLETTERS Newsletters announcing meetings and study updates were distributed to the contact list at the beginning of the study, prior to each round of public meetings.

OVERVIEW BROCHURE An overview brochure was created to introduce the LRTP update process and participation opportunities. The complete brochure was distributed at meetings and events throughout the course of the project. The brochure cover is shown in Figure 5. The brochure is provided in Appendix F.

Figure 5. Summary Brochure 12


TRANSPORTATION TOMORROW YOUTH OUTREACH As part of the 2014 National Engineer’s Week Future City Competition, 120 students in elementary, middle and high school throughout North Florida imagined their “city of the future”. The competition engages teams of students, educators and mentors to prepare vision statements, write research essays, use the SimCity™ software, build scale models with recycled materials, and present their ideas for cities of the future in the year 2050. A summary of their activities is provided in Appendix G. The participating schools included:

Clay County - Argyle Elementary Duval County - Lee High School Duval County - Westview K-8 Nassau County - Yulee Middle School St. Johns County - Florida School for the Deaf and

Blind

Individuals from transportation agencies and consulting firms volunteered as mentors. The result of the program was education on the role of transportation in regional development. The participants identified a wide range of future technologies for transit that included trains, hyperloops, gondola and bus rapid transit. Livability was also emphasized as part of several models. Figure 6 is an example of the one of the physical models developed by Yulee Middle School.

VISUALIZATION TECHNIQUES Visualization techniques are required to communicate the planning process to the public. The visualization techniques employed included:

Allocation games – on-line and interactive meeting games were used to engage the public in the virtual or physical allocation of resources.

Interactive map for needs – as part of the on-line allocation game, participants could locate specific project needs and add comments explaining their needs.

Temperature charts – as part of the Needs Plan public workshops temperature charts were used to explain intensity and extent of congestion and safety challenges.

Maps, charts and graphs – presentations were used as part of the public workshops to explain the purpose, intent and process used in the development of the plan.

Video – a project video was prepared explaining the context and planning process used.

AGENCY MEETINGS A total of 109 community small group, steering committee, North Florida TPO Board or committees, or community organization briefings were conducted during the planning process. Table 7 summarizes these meetings by organization and if the meeting was a technical meeting, citizens meeting, and if the meeting engaged or invited minorities, underserved populations or businesses. Summaries of the key meetings are provided in Appendix H.

STEERING COMMITTEE The Steering Committee was formed with representatives from the TPO Technical Coordinating Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee, Board, agencies, environmental, business and community groups. The members of the Steering Committee are shown in the forward to this report and included representatives from:

Career Source Citizens Community forum (Metro Jacksonville) Elected officials Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDOT Health Planning Council of Northeast Florida Jacksonville Aviation Authority

Figure 6. Example Future City Physical Model

13


Table 7. Meeting Summary Date Event County Technical Citizen Minority or

Underserved Business

22-Feb-13 Agency Kickoff Meeting Region 26-Jun-13 Steering Committee Meeting #1 Region

9-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Baker County Baker 10-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – Town of Orange Park Clay 11-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Clay County Clay 13-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Nassau County Nassau 15-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – City of St. Augustine St. Johns 16-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Fernandina Beach Nassau 16-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - St. Johns County St. Johns 18-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Putnam County Putnam 22-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – City of Hastings St. Johns 22-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Marineland St. Johns 23-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Green Cove Springs Clay 30-Jul-13 Jax2035 Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee of the Florida Bicycle Association Regional 31-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Callahan City Hall Nassau 31-Jul-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – City of Jacksonville Duval 2-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Macclenney Baker 5-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Penney Farms Clay 6-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - St. Augustine Beach St. Johns 9-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Atlantic Beach Duval 9-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Jacksonville Beach Duval 9-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Neptune Beach Duval

12-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Pomona Park Putnam 12-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Welaka Putnam 13-Aug-13 Jax2035 Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee of the Florida Bicycle Association Regional 16-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Crescent City Putnam 16-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Interlachen Putnam 16-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – City of Palatka Putnam 25-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Penney Farms Clay 28-Aug-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion – City of Yulee Nassau

5-Sep-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Baldwin Duval 5-Sep-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Keystone Heights Clay 9-Sep-13 Travel Demand Model Government Staff Discussion - Town of Glen St. Mary Baker

24-Sep-13 Jax2035 Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee of the Florida Bicycle Association Regional 1-Oct-13 Jax2035 Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee of the Florida Bicycle Association Regional 6-Dec-13 Regional Transportation Commission Region

17-Dec-13 Jax2035 Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee of the Florida Bicycle Association Regional 10-Jan-14 Data Forecasts and Needs Teleconference - Putnam County Putnam 14-Jan-14 Data Forecasts and Needs Teleconference - Clay County Clay 14-Jan-14 Data Forecasts and Needs Teleconference - Nassau County Nassau

14




14-Jan-14 Data Forecasts and Needs Teleconference - St. Johns County St. Johns 16-Jan-14 Regional Transportation Commission Region 26-Feb-14 Amelia Island-Fernandina Beach-Yulee Chamber Government Affairs Committee Nassau 26-Feb-14 Regional Transportation Commission Region 1-Mar-14 Northewest Jacksonville Sherriff ShAdCo Safety Fair Duval

12-Mar-14 City of Jacksonville North Citizens Planning Advisory Committee Duval 13-Mar-14 North Florida TPO Board Briefing Region 24-Mar-14 Emmanuel United Methodist Church -Palatka Putnam 27-Mar-14 Steering Committee Meeting #2 Region

2-Apr-14 North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing Region 2-Apr-14 North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing Region 3-Apr-14 Regional Transportation Commission Region

10-Apr-14 North Florida TPO Board Briefing Region 14-Apr-14 City of Jacksonville TEU Committee Briefing Duval

14-Apr-14 St. Augustine City Commission St. Johns 14-Apr-14 West Augustine Community Redevelopment Association St. Johns 15-Apr-14 Needs Plan Public Workshop – St. Augustine City Commission Chambers St. Johns 17-Apr-14 Needs Plan Public Workshop – Clay County Thrasher-Horne Center Clay 22-Apr-14 Baker County Commission Briefing Baker 22-Apr-14 Clay County Commission Briefing Clay 22-Apr-14 Needs Plan Public Workshop – Baker County Commission Chambers Baker 23-Apr-14 Nassau County Commission Briefing Nassau 23-Apr-14 Needs Plan Public Workshop – Nassau County Commission Chambers Nassau 24-Apr-14 Needs Plan Public Workshop – Duval County Florida State College Deerwood Duval 28-Apr-14 Needs Plan Public Workshop – Putnam County Commission Chambers Putnam 4-May-14 Trinity United Methodist Church - Fernandina Shrimp Festival Nassau 6-May-14 St. Johns County Commission Briefing St. Johns 7-May-14 Steering Committee Meeting #3 Region 7-May-14 North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing Region 7-May-14 North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing Region

10-May-14 National Train Day Duval 12-May-14 Healthy Baker - Baker County Health Department Baker

15-May-14 Springfield Community Meeting with Congresswoman Brown Duval 28-May-14 Regional Transportation Commission Region

4-Jun-14 North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing Region 4-Jun-14 North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing Region 5-Jun-14 Rotary Club of Arlington Duval

12-Jun-14 Lincolnville Neighborhood Association St. Johns 12-Jun-14 City of Jacksonville Northwest Citizens Planning Advisory Committee Duval

15




18-Jun-14 River Region Human Services Community Review Panel Duval 18-Jun-14 SouthPoint Rotary Duval 26-Jun-14 Steering Committee Meeting #4 Region 6-Aug-14 Steering Committee Meeting #5 Region 6-Aug-14 North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing Region 6-Aug-14 North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing Region

14-Aug-14 North Florida TPO Board Briefing Region 27-Aug-14 Southside Businessmen's Club Duval 11-Sep-14 North Florida TPO Board Briefing Region 16-Sep-14 Associated Builders and Contractors Women's Council Duval 16-Sep-14 Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop - Jacksonville Main Library Duval 17-Sep-14 Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop - Fleming Island High School Clay 18-Sep-14 Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop - American Beach Community Center Nassau 22-Sep-14 Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop - Bartram Trail Library St. Johns 23-Sep-14 Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop - Jacksonville Beach City Hall Duval 24-Sep-14 Regional Transportation Commission Region

1-Oct-14 Steering Committee Meeting #6 Region 1-Oct-14 North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing Region 1-Oct-14 North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing Region 4-Oct-14 Clay Soul Food Festival Clay 9-Oct-14 North Florida TPO Board Briefing Region

14-Oct-14 Logistics Advisory Group Region 22-Oct-14 Regional Transportation Commission Region 28-Oct-14 Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshop – North Florida TPO Board Room Duval 5-Nov-14 North Florida TPO Citizens Advisory Committee Briefing Region 5-Nov-14 North Florida TPO Technical Coordinating Committee Briefing Region

13-Nov-14 Public Hearing – North Florida TPO Board Room Region 13-Nov-14 North Florida TPO Board Briefing Region 17-Nov-14 Lakeshore Area Preservation Society Duval

3-Dec-14 Regional Transportation Commission Region

16


Jacksonville Sherriff Office Jacksonville Transportation Authority JAXPORT Local governments Mayo Clinic (healthcare) National Park Service Regional Planning Commission Regional Transportation Commission U.S. Marine Corps U.S. Navy WorkSource

The steering committee met six times - in June of 2013, and March, May, June, August and October of 2014.

TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE The members of the Technical Coordinating Committee are summarized in the Forward of this report and include representatives from:

FDOT Jacksonville Aviation Authority Jacksonville Sherriff Office JAXPORT Local governments National Park Service Ocean Highway and Port Authority Regional Planning Commission Regional Transportation Commission St. Augustine Airport Authority U.S. Navy Utilities (JEA and Clay County) WorkSource

Briefings and workshops were provided to the Technical Coordinating Committee in April, May, June, August, October and November of 2014. These meetings are publically noticed in accordance with the North Florida TPO policies.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The members of the Citizens Advisory Committee are summarized in the Forward of this report. Briefings and workshops were provided to the Citizens Advisory Committee in April, May, June, August, October and November of 2014. These meetings are publically noticed in accordance with the North Florida TPO policies.

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION In 2013, the Florida Legislature established a Regional Transportation Commission for the six county area of Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, Putnam and St. Johns Counties. The commission is charged with developing a regional multimodal corridors plan and identifying funding to support deployments of regional nature. As part of the planning process, briefings were provided throughout the planning process in December of 2013, January, February, March, April, May, September and October of 2014. At the December 3, 2014 meeting, the commission endorsed of the plan.

NEEDS PLAN PUBLIC WORKSHOPS MEETING FORMAT Six Needs Plan public workshops were conducted in April 2014. One workshop was conducted in each of the six counties participating in the Needs Plan. A presentation was provided during the workshops that provided:

Overview of the planning process Goals and objectives Summary of trends and conditions related to

population growth Increases in congestion Growth in transit ridership Crashes Maps were used to provide visualizations of the hot

spots for congestion and safety Opportunities for public input through the web page

and allocation game, comment cards during the workshop and contact information for the North Florida TPO.

Examples of the visualization techniques used are shown in Figure 7 for safety hot spots and Figure 8 for congestion hot spots. The meeting materials are provided in Appendix I.

Table 8 summarizes the public notifications for the Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan public workshops and the Cost Feasible Plan Public Hearing.

PARTICIPATION A summary of the attendees at each of the Needs Plan public workshops are summarized in Table 9.

17

IJ108

IJ218

IJ214

IJ121

IJ315

IJ13A

IJ117

IJ210

IJ115

IJ209

IJ13

IJ309D

IJ210A

IJ305

IJ16A

IJ220

IJ203

IJ208

IJ217

IJ215

IJ99

IJ115A

IJ1181

IJ119

IJ107

IJ213

IJ220A

IJ352

IJ200A

IJ15A

IJ739

IJ5A

IJ21B

IJ115C

IJ103

IJA1A

IJ121A

IJ1363

IJ315C

IJ1189

IJ1351

IJ1162

IJ101A

IJ211

IJ1333

IJ116

IJ13B

IJ163

IJ105A

IJ739B

IJ21D

IJ1177

IJ110

IJ1359

IJ226

IJ1365

IJ106

IJ1335

IJ209B

IJ1339

IJ0019

IJ1337

IJ2

IJ1353

IJ228

IJ220B

IJ1179

IJ219

IJ1340

IJ0012

IJ105B

IJ1354

IJ1332

IJ107A

IJ21A

IJ109A

IJ1187

IJ312

IJ0016

IJ212

IJ110

IJ110

IJ119

IJ211

IJ115

IJ13A

IJ315

IJ13A

IJ107

IJ108

IJ105A

IJ209

IJ200A

IJ108

IJ16A

IJ209

IJ217

IJ115A

IJ220A

IJ214

IJ209

IJ315

IJ213

IJ209

IJ220 IJ15A

IJ315

IJ15A

IJ105A

§̈¦295

§̈¦95

§̈¦10

ST9

ST5

ST21

ST15

ST A1A

ST13

ST10

ST16

ST228

ST8

ST200

ST115

ST105

ST207

ST202ST134

ST23

ST116

ST111

ST104

ST152

ST10A

ST109ST139

ST103

ST312

ST211

ST100

ST224

ST113

ST128 ST126

ST5A

ST102

ST117

ST101

ST115A

ST243

ST228A

ST129

ST114

STA1A

ST15

ST105

ST115

STA1A

STA1A

ST200

STA1A

ST105

ST228

ST105

ST105

ST A1A

STA1A

ST10

ST200

ST A1A

ST16

ST115

ST228

ST15

ST5

ST15

STA1A

ST113

ST105

ST200

ST16

£¤17

£¤23

£¤1

£¤90

£¤90A

£¤301

£¤1A

£¤17

£¤1

£ ¤90A

£¤90

£¤301

£¤1

£¤301

Crash Severity Hot Spots Figure 7

LEGENDNorth Florida TPO Boundary

Hot Spot Analysis ScaleCold Spot

-

-

-

Neutral

-

-

-

Hot Spot

0 2 41 Miles±

IJ121

IJ108

IJ218

IJ214

IJ315

IJ13

IJ309D

IJ13A

IJ117

IJ210

IJ115

IJ209

IJ210A

IJ305

IJ16A

IJ220

IJ203

IJ208

IJ217

IJ215

IJ119

IJ99

IJ1181

IJ107

IJ213

IJ220A

IJ352

IJ200A

IJ207A

IJ115A

IJ15A

IJ739

IJ5A

IJ21B

IJ115C

IJ103

IJA1A

IJ121A

IJ1363

IJ315C

IJ219

IJ225

IJ1189

IJ1351

IJ1162

IJ101A

IJ211

IJ1333

IJ116

IJ13B

IJ163

IJ105A

IJ216

IJ228

IJ739B

IJ21D

IJ1177

IJ110

IJ1359

IJ226

IJ1365

IJ106

IJ1335

IJ209B

IJ1339

IJ0019

IJ1337

IJ1447

IJ2

IJ20A

IJ1353

IJ220B

IJ1179

IJ0012

IJ105B

IJ1332

IJ107A

IJ21A

IJ21

IJ1342

IJ109A

IJ1187

IJ1338

IJ312

IJ0016

IJ212

IJ13A

IJ110

IJ16A

IJ15A

IJ13A

IJ213

IJ110

IJ108

IJ211

IJ217

IJ115

IJ107

IJ214

IJ105A

IJ209

IJ115A

IJ108

IJ315

IJ209

IJ315

IJ119

IJ214

IJ220A

IJ13

IJ209

IJ200A

IJ209

IJ220

IJ15A

IJ315

IJ309C

IJ228

§̈¦95

§̈¦295

§̈¦10

ST9

ST5

ST21

ST15

ST A1A

ST100

ST13ST10

ST207

ST16

ST8

ST228

ST200

ST115

ST105

ST202ST134

ST23

ST116

ST111

ST104

ST152

ST10A

ST109

ST26

ST139

ST103

ST312

ST211

ST224

ST113

ST128 ST126

ST5A

ST102

ST117

ST101

ST 115A

ST243

ST228A

ST129

ST113

ST105

ST200

STA1A

STA1A

STA1A

ST A1A

ST105

ST115

ST228

STA1A

ST115

STA1A

ST21

ST105

ST200

ST16

STA1A

ST5

ST105

ST5

ST228

ST15

ST200

ST139

ST228

ST16

ST200

ST15

ST105

ST10

STA1A

£¤17

£¤23

£¤1

£¤90

£¤301

£¤ 90A

£¤1A

£¤301

£¤301

£¤301

£¤1

£¤1

£¤17

£ ¤90A

Congestion Hot-Spots Figure 8

LEGEND

North Florida TPO BoundaryPeak Hour Delay

Cold Spot

-

-

Neutral

-

-

Hot Spot

0 2 41 Miles±


Table 8. Summary of Public Meeting Advertisements Needs Plan Workshops Dates Targeted

Minority or Underserved

Needs Plan Workshops: 22-Apr-14, 23-Apr-14, 23-Apr-14, 24-Apr-14, 28-Apr-14 Florida Times-Union 8-Apr-14 St. Augustine Record 8-Apr-14 Baker County Press 10-Apr-14 Clay Today 10-Apr-14 Florida Star 12-Apr-14 Eco Latino 14-Apr-14 Fernandina News Leader 16-Apr-14 Palatka Daily News 22-Apr-14 Radio WJBT 93.3 The Beat (Urban Contemporary) WQIK FM 99.9 (Country) WSOL V1015 FM (Urban Adult Contemporary) WJGH Jack FM (Classic Hits) WNWW Kiss FM (Pop Contemporary) WFXJ Sports Radio AM 930 (Sports)

7-Apr-14 through 23-Apr-14

Metrojacksonville.com banner 13-Apr-14 through 28-Apr-14 Cost Feasible Plan Workshops 18-Sep-14, 2-Sep-14, 17-Sep-14, 23-Sep-14, 16-Sep-14 Florida Times-Union 9-Sep-14 and 16-Sep-14 St. Augustine Record 9-Sep-14 Creekline (Northwest St. Johns County)

Delivered 8-Sep-14 through 11-Sep-14

Southside Newsline (zip code 32256)

Delivered 1-Sep-14 through 4-Sep-14

Beaches Leader 11-Sep-14 Ponte Vedra Beach Leader 11-Sep-14 Fernandina News-Leader 12-Sep-14 Clay Today 11-Sep-14 Florida Star 13-Sep-14 Eco Latino web banner 1-Sep-14 through 30-Sep-14 Metrojacksonville.com banner 4-Sep-14 through 23-Sep-14 Radio - WJCT First Coast Connect 10-Sep-14 Television – First Cost Connect 8-Sep-14 through 22-Sep-14 Cost Feasible Plan Workshop 28-Oct-14 Florida Times-Union 23-Oct-14 Public Hearing 13-Nov-14 Florida Times-Union 24-Cot-14 and 25-Oct-14

20


Table 9. Needs Plan Workshops Attendance Location Attendance Baker County – Commission Chambers 15 Clay County - Thrasher-Horne Center 20 Duval County - FSCJ Deerwood 8 Nassau County – Commission Chambers 9 Putnam County – Commission Chambers 9 St. Johns County - St. Augustine City Commission Chambers 43 Total 104 Average Per Meeting 17.3

During the workshops an allocation game was conducted using tokens for participants to determine how they would invest their resources similar to the interactive project web site. Stations focusing on five categories – bicycle and pedestrian, road capacity, safety and TSM&O, transit and freight were provided. Each station included a map and list of potential projects needed, reference brochures pertaining to previous studies and a tube for that category. As attendees arrived, they were given a handout explaining the workshop and a pouch of ten tokens to place in tubes at each of the five stations based on their preferences.

Table 10 provides a summary of the results of the allocation game that was conducted during the meetings. This table is colored so that the areas that received the greatest interest are coded green and the least are coded brown.

During the public meetings and based on follow-up correspondence (such as emails and phone calls), 155 comments were provided. Table 11 summarizes the comments by topic.

Table 10. Summary of Needs Plan Public Workshop Allocation Game Transit Bicycles and

Pedestrians Road Capacity Freight Safety and

TSM&O Participants26F31F

2

Baker 21% 10% 41% 20% 7% 15 Clay 25% 24% 26% 11% 14% 19 Duval 27% 36% 17% 8% 13% 8 Nassau 26% 23% 9% 15% 26% 6 Putnam 16% 14% 38% 30% 3% 8 St. Johns 40% 31% 15% 6% 8% 43 Overall 30% 25% 23% 12% 10% 99

2 The exact number of participants is not known since not all participants fully allocated ten tokens. The values are estimated by rounding to the next highest factor of ten. For example, if 183 tokens were used, 19 participants were assumed.

21


Table 11. Summary of Needs Plan Public Workshop Comments Topic Number Percent Transit 69 45% Bicycle and Pedestrian 29 19% Road 22 14% Freight 12 8% Safety 12 8% Miscellaneous 3 2% TSM&O 3 2% Context sensitive solutions 2 1% Need for additional funding 2 1% Land use and transportation coordination 1 1% Grand Total 155 100%

Attendees from Baker, Clay and Putnam counties favored road capacity projects as their top priority.

Clay County participants were closely divided among road, transit and bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Duval County attendees selected bicycle and pedestrian projects as their top priority, followed by transit.

St. Johns and Nassau participants prioritized transit first, followed by bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Nassau participants also felt equally strong about safety and TSM&O projects.

Overall, there was a significant increase in support for transit and bicycle and pedestrian projects from previous LRTP updates with the meeting participants.

Following the Needs Plan workshops, the North Florida TPO received correspondence objecting to the construction of the SR 313 in the vicinity of Twelve Mile Swamp. Because of the environmental fatal flaws and potential for public controversy associated with this project it was removed from the Needs Plan. CR 2209 from SR 16 to SR 9B was also removed from the Needs Plan based over environmental concerns.

22


COMPARISON OF PRIORITIES When these results of the telephone survey, on-line allocation game and the public meeting allocation game were considered, the results are shown in Figure 9 and Table 12.

Similar to the public meeting participants, the telephone survey respondents had transit as the highest priority. Road capacity was the second priority with a much higher priority than the public meeting attendees. The telephone survey responders rated bicycle and pedestrian improvements as much lower priorities.

Table 12. Summary of Input by Percent of Respondents Transit Bicycles and

Pedestrians Road

Capacity Freight Safety

and TSM&O

Public Workshop 30% 25% 23% 12% 10% On-line Allocation Game 25% 23% 32% 10% 11% Telephone Survey 67% 2% 45% 0% 15% All Participants 39% 12% 33% 5% 11% Note: The telephone survey does not total 100 percent because respondents could comment on multiple categories.

Transit Bicycles andPedestrians Road Capacity Freight Safety and

TSM&OTelephone Survey 290 7 195 0 67On-line Allocation Game 108 99 139 43 47Public Workshops 30 25 22 12 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Figure 9. Comparison of Priorities from Multiple Sources

23


The on-line allocation game had a much high allocation to road capacity than the workshop participants. Transit was the second highest priority.

As shown in the summary in input provided in Table 13, 39 percent of respondents prioritized transit improvements and 33 percent of respondents prioritized road improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements compared similarly with safety and TSM&O improvements at 12 percent and 11 percent respectively. Freight investments received the lowest priority.

COST FEASIBLE PLAN WORKSHOPS MEETING FORMAT Five Cost Feasible Plan Public Workshops were held September 16-22 in Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. Johns counties and October 28, 2014 in Duval County. The meetings were advertised via newsletters, website posting, social media and radio public affairs programming. Notifications also included general circulation, local and minority publications, web and television advertising. The notifications are summarized in Table 8. Attendees viewed maps and lists of proposed projects. The consultant gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining the funding and project selection process.

The meeting locations within each county were shifted to reach new geographic and demographic areas. Television advertising was used instead of radio for the second round of meetings, but public relations effort included participation with agency partners on public radio public affairs programming.

The meeting materials are provided in Appendix J

PARTICIPATION A summary of the attendees at each of the Cost Feasible Plan workshops is summarized in Table 13 and the comments by priority area are summarized in Table 14.

Duval County attendees commented that a majority of funding was committed to Strategic Intermodal System projects versus other desired projects focusing on transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

Clay County attendees wanted more investment in roadway infrastructure as part of the Strategic Intermodal System. Additional outreach targeting Clay County minority communities showed a desire for more transit.

St. Johns County attendees had concerns about the SR 23 First Coast Expressway and Shands Bridge.

Nassau County residents focused on the need for bicycle, pedestrian and safety improvements.

Table 13. Summary of Attendance at the Cost Feasible Plan Workshops Location Attendance St. Johns County - Bartram Trail Library 16 Duval County - Jacksonville Main Library 28 Duval County - Jacksonville Beach 6 Clay County - Fleming Island H.S. Teach Center 11 Nassau County American Beach Community Center 32 Duval County - North Florida TPO Board Room 1 Total 94 Average Per Meeting 15.6

24


Table 14. Summary of Comments During Cost Feasible Plan Workshops

Topic Comments Percent Bicycle and Pedestrian 39 43% Transit 23 26% Road 18 20% Funding 12 13% Environment 1 1% Grand Total 90 100%

USE OF PUBLIC INPUT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS During the planning process extensive agency and community outreach was conducted. During both the Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan meetings, significant interest in improving transit and enhanced services for bicycles and pedestrian improvements were provided.

During the prioritization funds, significant consideration to advance funding for transit and bicycle and pedestrian improvements were made.

Table 15 on the next page shows the allocation of the total funding in the plan to various components based on the primary decision-making authority. With the various funding categories, limitations exist as to how the funding can be used.

The FDOT has the primary decision-making authority for other programs with concurrency of the North Florida TPO for 70 percent of the revenue estimated in the plan.

The North Florida TPO has primary decision-making authority with the concurrency of FHWA for 11 percent of the revenue and local government funded projects represent 18 percent of the plan.

25


Table 15. Summary of Finding Programs and Allocation by Mode

Primary Decision- Making Authority

Program Roads Transit Bicycle and Pedestrian3

TSM&O Freight Total

FDOT Strategic Intermodal System $4,057.74 $4,057.74 FDOT Turnpike/Tolls $1,951.22 $1,951.22 FDOT SIS Multimodal $1,377.21 $2,006.10 $3,383.31 FDOT Subtotal $6,008.96 $1,377.21 $0.00 $0.00 $2,006.10 $9,392.27 North Florida TPO Other State Highways $1,297.42 $91.66 $1,389.08 North Florida TPO Transportation Management Area $268.75 $13.44 $34.21 $316.40 North Florida TPO Transportation Alternatives (TALU) $31.20 $31.20 North Florida TPO Transportation Alternatives (TALT) $41.30 $41.30 North Florida TPO Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) $21.23 $1.06 $22.29 North Florida TPO State and Federal Transit $760.00 $760.00 North Florida TPO Subtotal $1,587.40 $760.00 $178.66 $34.21 $0.00 $2.560.27 Local Clay County $236.88 $11.84 $248.73 Local Duval County Road Capacity $860.64 $0.00 $43.03 $59.44 $0.00 $963.11 Local JAXPORT $186.50 $186.50 Local Transit Local Match $253.33 $253.33 Local Duval County Subtotal $860.64 $253.33 $102.47 $0.00 $186.50 $1,402.95 Local Nassau County $39.64 $1.98 $41.63 Local St. Johns County $159.41 $7.97 $167.38 Subtotal Local $1,296.58 $253.33 $124.27 $0.00 $186.50 $1,860.68 Federal Grants FTA Passenger Ferry Grant $6.62 $6.62 Federal Grants Federal Seaport Grant $311.00 $311.00 Federal Grants $0.00 $6.62 $0.00 $311.00 $317.62 Grand Total $8,892.93 $2,397.16 $302.93 $34.21 $2,503.60 $14,130.82

3 These expenditures are based on 5% of road capacity projects on arterials and dedicated revenues for bicycle and pedestrian projects. 26


Within the context of these funding program limitations, Figure 9 summarizes the proportion of funding allocated by mode in relation to the priorities provided through public input.

This chart shows that a greater proportion of the total funding is dedicated to road projects than other modes of investment. However, a much smaller percentage of the total needs for roadways (26 percent) are met than with any other mode as shown in Figure 10.

After coordination with local agencies and deliberations of the plan alternatives, the North Florida TPO believes the plan makes an appropriate allocation of resources considering the public input and the proportion of the needs identified through the planning process.

Additional detail on the needs and prioritization of projects is identified in Part Three of this report.

Figure 9. Summary of Funding Allocation Compared to Public Priority

Figure 10. Percent of Need Met by Mode

63%

17%

0% 2%

18%

33% 39%

12% 11% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Road Transit TSM&O Bicycles andPedestrians

Freight

Allocation Public Perception

26%

58%

5%

65%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Road Transit TSM&O Bicycle and Pedestrian Freight

Percent

27


PUBLIC HEARING The plan was adopted by the North Florida TPO Board as part of the November 13, 2014 regularly scheduled board meeting. A unanimous vote was recorded to approve the plan. The meeting materials are provided in Appendix K.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND TITLE VI Executive Order 12898, signed by President Clinton in February 1994, directed all Federal agencies to make environmental justice a key part of its mission by identifying and addressing the impacts of programs, policies, and activities on both minority and low-income populations.

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a memorandum to all federally-funded transportation agencies, including state DOTs and MPO, and required such agencies to comply with Title VI and environmental justice. Noting that issues of Title VI and environmental justice were raised by concerned citizens primarily during project development phases of projects, the U.S. Department of Transportation urged that compliance be evaluated as early as possible, specifically, in the planning stages of the transportation process.

Throughout the 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. North Florida 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 planning process. The planning process was also conducted in compliance with the following related legislation

23 CFR 450.316, providing interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process.

Chapter 286, Florida Statutes (Florida Sunshine Law) requiring public access to governmental meetings at the state and local level and requires meetings of boards and commissions to be open to the public, adequately noticed, and recorded via minutes.

Strategies and Efforts As part of the planning process, extensive efforts were made to engage minority and underserved populations through a demographic analysis, targeted outreach, using web sites with interactive opportunities to provide information on needs and priorities, social media, telephone surveys and outreach to organizations and elected officials. The process and performance measures deployed are summarized in the following sections.

Identification of Minority and Underserved Populations The location of minority and underserved population communities were identified using 2010 Census data by census tract. Areas with minority or underserved populations of 50 percent or more map and identified as communities for special consideration. The following communities were identified.

1. Low income households making less than $25,000 per year.

2. Populations greater than 65 years old. 3. Black: a person having origins in any of the black

racial groups of Africa. 4. Hispanic or Latino: a person of Mexican, Puerto

Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

5. Asian American: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia or the Indian subcontinent.

6. American Indian and Alaskan Native: a person having origins in any of the original people of North America, South America (including Central America), and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

7. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa or other Pacific Islands.

Regional maps showing the results of this analysis are provided in Appendix L. No significant populations of American Indian or Native Hawaiian were identified through the mapping.

Outreach Efforts and Analysis of Needs Multiple strategies were implemented as part of the public involvement process to engage the underserved and minority populations as summarized in the prior section. The organizations solicited for participation in the planning process related to minority and underserved populations are summarized in Table 16.

28


Table 16. Organizations Serving Minority and Underserved Populations Organization Low Income Elderly Black Hispanic Asian 100 Black Men Ability Housing

Adult Services Division Asian American Chamber of Commerce Baker County Health Department Better Living Community Association Career Source of Northeast Florida City of Jacksonville Citizen’s Planning Advisory Committees Clara White Mission Clay County Council on Aging Clay Soul Food Festival Destined for a Change Duval County Council on Aging Edwards Waters College (Historically Black University) Emmanuel United Methodist Church Habitat for Humanity Health Planning Council of North Florida Jacksonville Housing Authority Knots for Kids Mayo Clinic

Nassau Council on Aging National Council for Negro Women Northeast Florida Community Action Agency Northeast Florida Healthy Start Coalition Northeast Florida Veterans Council Palatka Housing Authority Springfield Community Meeting St. Augustine Council on Aging Summer Haven United Way of Northeast Florida West St. Augustine Community Redevelopment Authority Work Source

29


Analysis of Investments Related to Minority and Underserved Populations The public input received from minority and underserved populations related primarily to the need for more mass transit and active transportation improvements. Significant investments are identified in the Cost Feasible Plan to address these needs and a predominant amount of that investment is occurring in areas where minority and the underserved populations exist. Nearly $2.4 billion of transit investments and $303 million in active transportation investments were adopted. The investments in the Cost Feasible Plan are discussed in greater detail in Part Three.

Equity Considerations Analysis of the investments in transit and highway investments was performed relative to the predominant locations of minority and underserved populations. Table 17 on the next page summarizes these areas, the targeted group and the major projects within that area that are funded.

Language Translation According to the U. S. Census 2013 American Community Survey one-year estimate, only two percent of the households in Clay, Duval and St. Johns counties are deemed “Limited English Speaking Households” with the largest concentration being Spanish speaking households at .8 percent. The public involvement materials were produced in English but translation capability into Spanish or Braille for the visually impaired was available as requested. There were no requests. The public involvement team will continue to monitor demographic trends and anecdotal experience within the TPO service area for language translation as needed.

30


Table 17. Major Improvements in Minority and Underserved Communities

Organization Low Income Elderly Black Hispanic Major Projects

Urban Core (downtown and areas along US 90 Beaver Street east of I-295)

Enhanced bus service Bus rapid transit Commuter rail Streetcar Skyway enhancements Transit mobility and accessibility improvements US 90 Beaver Street widening

Westside Jacksonville and Argyle (area along the I-295 corridor between US 17 Roosevelt Boulevard and I-10)

Enhanced bus service Bus rapid transit Transit mobility and accessibility improvements I-295 express lanes Ricker Road widening SR 21 Blanding Boulevard widening

Arlington and San Souci (north of SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard and east of I-295)

Enhanced bus service Bus rapid transit Transit mobility and accessibility improvements I-295 express lanes SR 115 Southside intersection improvements and context

sensitive solutions

East Arlington (east of I-295 and north of SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard)

Enhanced bus service Bus rapid transit Transit mobility and accessibility improvements I-295 express lanes Kernan Boulevard widening SR 10 Atlantic Boulevard intersection improvements

West St. Augustine (west of US 1 Ponce de Leon Boulevard)

Commuter rail SR 207 widening from I-95 to South Holmes Boulevard

Middleburg and Penny Farms Bus rapid transit SR 21 Blanding Boulevard from SR 16 to CR 215

31


SUMMARY The public involvement process used in developing of the plan provided significant input into the needs to be addressed, concerns with specific projects that would result in community impacts and the strategies used in the LRTP.

Multiple outreach and data gather activities were used to engage the public as part of the process:

Public perceptions telephone survey Interactive project web site On-line asset allocation game Social media Community forum engagement Overview video Contact list Newsletters Overview brochure Youth outreach Visualization techniques Agency meetings Public workshops Public hearing

A significant effort was made to engage minority and underserved populations in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil Rights. Strategies and tactics used to engage minorities and underserved included identifying the population locations, target outreach to organizations serving these populations, scheduling public workshops in areas with clusters of these populations. Analysis of the investments related to these populations was performed to ensure the investments resulted in equity and the projects implemented would not result in disproportionate impacts.

The stakeholders involved represented a wide range of community organizations and populations.

Future decision-makers (middle and high school students) were engaged through the Transportation Tomorrow program which resulted in 120 student participants.

Users of public transportation were engaged through the telephone survey and public workshops.

Representatives of public transportation employees were engaged as part of our steering committee and the North Florida TPO’s committees and boards.

Freight shippers and freight transportation providers were solicited for participation as part of the outreach process. A presentation was made to the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce’s Logistics and Advisory Group which involved approximately 40 representatives of beneficial cargo operators, over-the-road truckers, shipping companies and railroads, third party logistics providers, etc.

In addition to attending the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce’s Logistics and Advisory Group meetings, Norfolk Southern and CSX participated in one steering committee. JAXPORT, the Nassau County Ocean Highway Port Authority, Jacksonville Aviation Authority and St. Augustine Airport also participated through the North Florida TPO Board and committees.

The Jacksonville Transportation Authority participated in the agency meetings and the Sunshine Bus Company participated through their involvement in the Regional Transportation Commission.

Military freight transportation providers were represented by the U.S Navy Air Station Jacksonville on the steering committee and the North Florida TPO Board.

Representatives of pedestrian and bicyclist organizations participated such as the North Florida Bicycle Club and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator for the City of Jacksonville participated in steering committee and public workshops. Significant discussion and focus on investments in active transportation solutions were adopted as part of the plan.

Representatives of the disabled participated through the North Florida TPO Board and committees. Several members of the disabled community attended the Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan meetings in the urban core.

Neighborhood associations and community groups were solicited through our contact list mailings.

Business and professional groups were engaged through presentations to local community organizations such as rotary clubs, the Jacksonville Chamber and public workshops.

Elected officials and agency representatives were engaged through the North Florida TPO Board and committees, community planning groups and briefings to commissions on the planning process.

A total of 109 community meetings, public workshops and the public hearing were conducted as part of the project.

32


The size of the contact database increased by 53 percent from 653 to 1,000 contacts compared to the 2035 LRTP. The contact database included geographically and demographically diverse organizations. Meeting advertising increased from seven to eight print publications. Radio spots increased and television advertising was used for the first time.

Facebook advertising was again used to drive traffic resulting in 651 clicks and 136,967 impressions. Facebook and Twitter posts were used in LRTP outreach for the first time with 72 tweets and 100 Facebook updates generating 7,110 impressions. Finally, 60 pins on Pinterest generated over 83,864 impressions in ten months.

In comparison to the 2035 LRTP, meeting attendance improved with an average of 15 per meeting to 16 per meeting.

The number of comments submitted increased over 500 percent from 83 for the 2035 LRTP to 500 for this update.

The major themes of the public involvement process were that transit should be a major priority for future investments within the region. Depending on the type of participation (through the allocation game on-line, the allocation game in workshops or comments received

during the meetings or in correspondence), road investment and investment in bicycles and pedestrians also remain a high priority.

These priorities were reflected in developing of the Cost Feasible Plan by allocating funding through which the North Florida TPO has the primary decision-making authority. When the allocation funds to the types of improvements were analyzed, bicycles and pedestrians are funded with a significantly higher percent of the needs identified than for road capacity projects. The results of the planning process resulted in fair and equitable distribution by mode. An analysis of the investments for major projects in minority or underserved populations was also performed and the major investments in these areas consisted of transit improvements for enhanced bus service, bus rapid transit, commuter rail and streetcars. In addition, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority plans to implement transit mobility and enhancement projects that will serve many of these areas to provide greater mobility and access to transit.

The result of the public involvement process reflected the needs of the community balanced with the regional needs identified in the planning process.

33

Documents

2040 LRTP Tech Memo #1: Public Involvement