260 likes | 376 Views
Polk Transportation Planning Organization 2035 Mobility Vision Plan. July 2010. Polk Transportation Planning Organization. Topics Project Prioritization Transit Highways Non-Motorized Facilities Financial Resources Public Outreach Schedule. Transit Prioritization.
E N D
Polk Transportation Planning Organization 2035 Mobility Vision Plan July 2010 Polk Transportation Planning Organization
Topics • Project Prioritization • Transit • Highways • Non-Motorized Facilities • Financial Resources • Public Outreach • Schedule
Eight Scoring Criteria address: • Previous Planning Efforts (2060 TVP, PTA Expansion Plan) • Regional Connectivity and Accessibility (Transit Centers/Park and Ride Lots) • Demographic and Socio-Economic Indicators (Transit Potential Areas) • Urban Form and Planned Growth (TSDA, TCCO) • Public Input Transit Evaluation Criteria & Scoring
Additional Considerations • PTA Plan represents first five years of cost affordable transit improvements • Subsequent phasing will be based on project ranking with the following considerations emphasized: • Anticipated route productivity (ridership) • Available projected revenues • Public input • Timing of growth – implement improvements in growth areas concurrent with anticipated development
State Intermodal System (SIS) Cost-Feasible Projects in Polk County Source: SIS Long Range Capacity Plan (Approved 2009)
Highway Project Prioritization – Non-SIS Roads • Based on Approved 2035 Goals & Objectives • Multi-Modal System Development • Environmental Sustainability • Regional Support • Freight & Goods Movement • Efficiency & Interconnectivity • Safety & Security • Public Input
Non-SIS Road Project Prioritization (cont’d) • Candidate projects evaluated by whether they would: • Complete or fill gap(s) in system • Connect directly to desired destinations or facilities • Be within specific designated areas • Address problems or enhance designated facilities • Satisfy need(s) expressed by public to date
Non-SIS Project Evaluation Criteria & Scoring Methodology (Cont’d.) • Environmental Screening GIS Tool Used to Evaluate Potential Degree of Effect on Natural & Man-Made Environment • Analyzed project impact within 500’ buffer • Scores based on # of features found or % of buffer area falling within: Wetland Areas Recreational Areas Wildlife & Habitat Areas Prime Farmlands Flood Hazard Areas Historic/Arch. Sites Special Areas (e.g. Green Swamp Contaminated Sites
Non-SIS Road Project Prioritization (cont’d) • Relative Weight (%) assigned to each category divided by maximum points for that category to arrive at weighted scores • Ranking based on weighted scores • Ranked project list divided into Tiers I, II and III
Total Funding = $1,668 M Total Project Cost Est. = $6,946 M Difference = ($5,278 M) DRAFT
Total Funding = $892 M Total Capital Cost Est. = $2,004 M Total Operating Cost Est.* = $998 M Difference = ($2,110 M) DRAFT * Assumes constant rate of growth in service & rail service starting in 2035
Next Steps: • Finalize project evaluation & rankings (still draft at this point) • Assign funding sources to candidate projects to determine cost feasibility • Break large projects into smaller segments • Confirm funding assumptions • Obtain and consider public input on project priorities
Public Involvement – Outreach • Website -www.2035mobilityvisionplan.org • Public Workshops • August/September • West, Central and East/Ridge • Updated Newsletter • Specific input on projects in the Plan
Project Schedule July 2010
Questions / Comments • Review & Concur with Project Prioritization