3 Context Local governments and agencies typically request elimination of through lanes on State roads so that recovered right-of-way can be used to create space for multimodal facilities or other features Lane elimination projects typically proposed to: Create more livable environments Contribute to economic development and vitality
4 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale Photo source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
6 Edgewater Drive, Orlando Photo source: Project for Public Spaces
7 Purpose of Guide Support District development of a process for reviewing lane elimination requests Provide an example process Serve as an informational resource Provide foundation for adoption of statewide lane elimination review process
8 Scope of Guide Supports evaluation of lane elimination requests proposed for: Creation of space for pedestrian and bicycle facilities Creation of space for landscaping buffers or medians Addition of on-street parking Traffic calming Lane elimination to support dedicated transit facilities is not explicitly addressed but Guide is a relevant informational resource
9 Usage of Guide Two main sections Example lane elimination review process Profiles of issues and concerns associated with lane elimination projects Appendices Lane elimination projects in Florida Lane elimination impacts (literature review) Existing lane elimination processes nationwide
10 Acknowledgments Guide relies on significant input and direction from Central Office and District staff Additional information provided by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in Lansing, MI
12 Desired Example Process Characteristics Consistent, predictable, and repeatable but also flexible Requires consistency with adopted plans and programs Discusses appropriate analysis years Applicable to range of roadway types and cross sections Includes a review checklist or review form Includes specific, detailed review criteria Extensible to development of statewide policy or procedure Supports FDOT’s Statutory mandates and Districts’ priorities Addresses diversion and impacts on diversion routes MultidisciplinaryRequires public involvementConsiders freight routes and freight activity MultimodalRequires a funding assessmentConsiders evacuation and emergency response needs Identifies who has authority to approve request Requires commitment of applicant and partners Suitable for different time frames and implementation schedules Includes coordination with FDOT Central Office Includes a review schedule or timeline Readily understandable by staff and applicants
13 Roles Applicant: the city, county, MPO, TPO, and/or private entity proposing the lane elimination project District Contact: coordinates District’s review activities and serves as point of contact for Applicant District Review Team: formally reviews information, analyses, and design concepts provided by Applicant Central Office Contact: coordinates with District Contact and tracks Central Office’s participation in lane elimination request review
14 Applicant contacts District to schedule meeting. STAGE 1 District provides Lane Elimination Guide to Applicant. District Contact forms District Review Team. Applicant provides preliminary project information >2 weeks before Initial Meeting. District Contact provides project information to District Review Team. Initial Meeting held. District Review Team determines review process and methodology for Concept Report. Applicant prepares meeting notes. Central Office is notified.
15 Applicant and District Contact schedule Interim Meeting. STAGE 2 Applicant provides Draft Concept Report >30 days before Interim Meeting. District Contact provides consolidated review comments to Applicant >1 week before Interim Meeting. District Contact provides Draft Concept Report to District Review Team. Initial Meeting held. Applicant prepares meeting notes. Central Office is notified.
16 Applicant submits formal Application Package to District. District assesses completeness and acceptability of Application Package. District issues approval or denial letter to applicant. Central Office is notified. Applicant addresses review comments in Final Concept Report. District internally approves or denies lane elimination request. STAGE 3 Applicant revises and resubmits formal Application Package to District. Denial Approval END
17 Communications Materials Initial meeting checklist Methodology checklist Application checklist Content for: Central Office notices Review comments letter Approval/denial letter Copy-able text
18 Options for Streamlining Reviews District Review Team might opt to streamline review process under circumstances such as: Low traffic volumes No jurisdictional transfer, functional class change, access management class change, or speed limit change Project is consistent with adopted plans and programs No design variation or design exception needed No impact to SIS, US highway, evacuation route, etc. Applicant to provide information in Stage 1 to allow District Review Team to select appropriate process
20 Issue Profiles Cover topics and concerns that may be associated with lane elimination projects Provide background information and links to other information sources Get more information about selected topics Adapt the example review process Create an alternative review process There are trade-offs in addressing all of these issues. Some issues are interrelated. Successfully addressing some issues will require significant lead time.
21 Issue Profiles Safety impactsDesign variances and exceptionsFreight routes/access Traffic operations impactsConsistency with plans and programs Extra-jurisdictional impacts Pedestrian and bicyclist activityFunctional classificationStructure/utility impacts Impacts to transit routing/stops and ridership System designationCosts and funding sources Impacts on parking supply and activity Access managementCommunity support Sales tax revenue and property value impacts Emergency evacuation and response Other issues Environmental issuesJurisdictional transfers
APPENDIX A Lane Elimination Projects in Florida
23 Appendix A A snapshot of existing and proposed lane elimination projects in Florida Project information includes: Status Location Purpose Features and extent Reported successes and shortcomings Level of District involvement
24 Appendix A (cont.) Themes and trends Many conversions of 4-lane streets to 3-lane streets Most intended to improve pedestrian/bicycle travel Many with placemaking, livability, and/or economic development goals After studies identified few shortcomings FDOT involved through review of studies and designs, jurisdictional transfers, and funding Some projects first implemented as pilot/temporary projects
APPENDIX B Impacts of Lane Elimination Projects (Literature Review)
26 Appendix B Summarizes previous studies of lane elimination project impacts Provides brief critiques of previous studies where warranted Information used to create example process and issue profiles
APPENDIX C Existing Processes for Reviewing Lane Elimination Requests
28 Appendix C Describes five existing formal processes for reviewing lane elimination requests Key findings All processes concerned with project funding, community support, and impacts on traffic operations Most are concerned with environmental impacts, safety impacts, consistency with planned and programmed projects, and needs of pedestrians and bicyclists All suggest features for inclusion in statewide example process
FOR MORE INFORMATION Dana Knox FDOT Transportation Statistics Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS-27 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 850.414.4728 Dana.Knox@dot.state.fl.us