3 ContextLocal 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 featuresLane elimination projects typically proposed to:Create more livable environmentsContribute to economic development and vitality
4 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale Florida lane elimination examplePhoto source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
5 Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach Florida lane elimination examplePhoto source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
6 Edgewater Drive, Orlando Florida lane elimination examplePhoto source: Project for Public Spaces
7 Purpose of GuideSupport District development of a process for reviewing lane elimination requestsProvide an example processServe as an informational resourceProvide foundation for adoption of statewide lane elimination review process
8 Scope of GuideSupports evaluation of lane elimination requests proposed for:Creation of space for pedestrian and bicycle facilitiesCreation of space for landscaping buffers or mediansAddition of on-street parkingTraffic calmingLane elimination to support dedicated transit facilities is not explicitly addressed but Guide is a relevant informational resource
9 Usage of Guide Two main sections Appendices Example lane elimination review processProfiles of issues and concerns associated with lane elimination projectsAppendicesLane elimination projects in FloridaLane elimination impacts (literature review)Existing lane elimination processes nationwide
10 AcknowledgmentsGuide relies on significant input and direction from Central Office and District staffAdditional information provided by Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in Lansing, MI
12 Desired Example Process Characteristics Consistent, predictable, and repeatable but also flexibleRequires consistency with adopted plans and programsDiscusses appropriate analysis yearsApplicable to range of roadway types and cross sectionsIncludes a review checklist or review formIncludes specific, detailed review criteriaExtensible to development of statewide policy or procedureSupports FDOT’s Statutory mandates and Districts’ prioritiesAddresses diversion and impacts on diversion routesMultidisciplinaryRequires public involvementConsiders freight routes and freight activityMultimodalRequires a funding assessmentConsiders evacuation and emergency response needsIdentifies who has authority to approve requestRequires commitment of applicant and partnersSuitable for different time frames and implementation schedulesIncludes coordination with FDOT Central OfficeIncludes a review schedule or timelineReadily understandable by staff and applicants
13 RolesApplicant: the city, county, MPO, TPO, and/or private entity proposing the lane elimination projectDistrict Contact: coordinates District’s review activities and serves as point of contact for ApplicantDistrict Review Team: formally reviews information, analyses, and design concepts provided by ApplicantCentral Office Contact: coordinates with District Contact and tracks Central Office’s participation in lane elimination request review
14 STAGE 1 Applicant contacts District to schedule meeting. 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 STAGE 2 Applicant and District Contact schedule Interim Meeting. 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 STAGE 3 END Denial Approval Applicant submits formal Application Package to District.District assessescompleteness and acceptability of Application Package.District issuesapproval or denialletter to applicant.Central Office is notified.Applicant addressesreview comments inFinal Concept Report.District internallyapproves or denieslane elimination request.STAGE 3Applicant revises and resubmits formalApplication Packageto District.DenialApprovalEND
18 Options for Streamlining Reviews District Review Team might opt to streamline review process under circumstances such as:Low traffic volumesNo jurisdictional transfer, functional class change, access management class change, or speed limit changeProject is consistent with adopted plans and programsNo design variation or design exception neededNo 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 ProfilesCover topics and concerns that may be associated with lane elimination projectsProvide background information and links to other information sourcesGet more information about selected topicsAdapt the example review processCreate an alternative review processThere 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 impacts Design variances and exceptions Freight routes/accessTraffic operations impactsConsistency with plans and programsExtra-jurisdictional impactsPedestrian and bicyclist activityFunctional classificationStructure/utility impactsImpacts to transit routing/stops and ridershipSystem designationCosts and funding sourcesImpacts on parking supply and activityAccess managementCommunity supportSales tax revenue and property value impactsEmergency evacuation and responseOther issuesEnvironmental issuesJurisdictional transfers
23 Appendix AA snapshot of existing and proposed lane elimination projects in FloridaProject information includes:StatusLocationPurposeFeatures and extentReported successes and shortcomingsLevel of District involvement
24 Appendix A (cont.) Themes and trends Many conversions of 4-lane streets to 3-lane streetsMost intended to improve pedestrian/bicycle travelMany with placemaking, livability, and/or economic development goalsAfter studies identified few shortcomingsFDOT involved through review of studies and designs, jurisdictional transfers, and fundingSome projects first implemented as pilot/temporary projects
25 Appendix BImpacts of Lane Elimination Projects (Literature Review)
26 Appendix BSummarizes previous studies of lane elimination project impactsProvides brief critiques of previous studies where warrantedInformation used to create example process and issue profiles
27 Appendix CExisting Processes for Reviewing Lane Elimination Requests
28 Appendix CDescribes five existing formal processes for reviewing lane elimination requestsKey findingsAll processes concerned with project funding, community support, and impacts on traffic operationsMost are concerned with environmental impacts, safety impacts, consistency with planned and programmed projects, and needs of pedestrians and bicyclistsAll suggest features for inclusion in statewide example process
29 FOR MORE INFORMATION Dana Knox FDOT Transportation Statistics Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS-27Tallahassee, FL