The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017 - North County Transit Hub Site Assessmentr.,., m,.,.•, t•,, —to r r Site Assessment of North County Transit Hub getting you therc February 2017 Existing Facilities • North County Transit Hub COUNT•Y•ROAD 512-�.----- COUNT-Y,ROA17512 s:a: %Li l I` "DI k" A!', FF, C O11 -'i 2300000500000003.0 512 IAN BLVD (COUNTY ROAD SEBAST5121r Objective • Challenge with existing facility • Complaints from local residents and homeowners • Safety concerns (loitering, littering, noise) • Operational Challenges • GOAL: Relocate transit hub to continue bus operations Policy Objectives of Bus Transfer Centers .•_ Provide vehicle operators with a rest area. Provide weather protection and a secure • Enhance the image of public transportation. waiting area for passengers. Provide a civic facility of which the community Reduce the potential for accidents between can be proud. buses, pedestrians, and other vehicles. Aid immediate locality's development and Passenger convenience. revitalization. Improve (and/orsustain) transit ridership. e�'r,fLs 171L. Y 0 7.r,f61.. Zl.r r C,r.r .Yy Site Alternatives Evaluation —Tier I • Tier I Evaluation (8 sites) • Size (Weight = 30%) • Expected Infrastructure Compatibility (15%) • Future Expansion Capability (15%) N1. xs\ OSY/•s L61nm x90.iy.nn Fu�MlMmun�l.x5•v) L.rl Rau,lrrx4r. r. IS"[. n.•rMm. n bunl.rn to Ir..u.M 1[r E luunn[w,rnxx,mwuiry wA Vwv/Rwv. o [.uwl u Lo-ueln 111 IWUM/w•Anna/S[fny )sx SW nrxf aHSAslo Ma3Cw4 onsR sl: on SR ilx Ivrlrx [rr�T........... s eRIYr C S, r1Y R.M 5[w. R.nY Ynn P.nf �• R 41e V1 TMrl[v.bMlm E LnlrJl W.fMlNmunr�l.xSmnl lSM IiU.n.r )[1l.[m IAYnn. f [rxux A Rn+lr C+InrIY urHlm 1 r I.0 10 Y Y a x pawlHen. 0 fi Irmrn i 1 • 4raefwmbrrfw=oEN 1P. nHarm to vHY r.m x K vSllm. n IOYINY t•[tlbn/In•Rnwf/LI.IY )Sx fwrm.MCR 51R.nO CR SIx OIIM CR 510 (ernere1 CR 510 anG CR 511 Mrlpn A11-1.111wlr,rnllMw. 15. R.r' R �I o mr. MM f ibrl Evlu•[bn r afw.xwel w.�MlNmum. us.[ml. Ssx sz.?I.n., xl).Yn c m.,rn�r • 1a R fulrun fqun m[a0,Mr1V IIIY. rrzHlenl 1r1 rlvn,Rr/MreMNAe ul3 H Mr1 Or.N fryllpn/51YMtry•/Lbly CamnolSIO.MOI SIE [R OH RIfR SIi A I[vu11ry11r.ur,4 Mlvxr� 11 IS'r 1 n.4wm w frv.++q�/4aelnul4. e Imlracl wr mre.a ua.u. VmYtaJ 9 u.wl C Sa1xrY 1UF [drl R G tilevnNYly 11Y4 F.[HHR 10 Very�l rwrl f I,rx111r [rmrPalidGlY SO% Av..uR.•/a.eNnM' . xunvl r 1n lvMlrry lmvebMlle 11 IVT YtrYw•xl Yery 4 [mvrxurx rrull„urtllmyr.l. Ir➢t Avnryle/ArrMal .1 �nrrrl Eoul w. x>. Iam3 m 11er10vw.o w•R.MIry x E xr...-.� ..w Site Alternatives Evaluation — Tier • Tier I Evaluation • Location/Site Access/Safety (Weight = 70%) • Impact on Existing Transit Service Levels (10%) • Impact on Access Roads (10%) • Safety/Security (10%) • Site Visibility (10%) • Land Use Compatibility (10%) Site Ranking/Scoring Criteria • Connection to Existing Development (10%) Excellent • Environmental Issues/Impacts (10%) Very Good Good Average/Acceptable Below Average Poor/None 10 s 6 4 2 0 Tier I Evaluation Summary • Top 4 Sites rated highly due to: • Sites offered the greatest potential to handle future growth and multiple uses. • Site conditions were conducive to development. Bus and pedestrian access were convenient with transit use. Impacts on the existing routes and schedules were minimal. All sites can be accessed via SR 512/Sebastian Boulevard. Sites: C, D, E & G ® MPO Board preferred D & G Wk Alternative Hub Locations Pros: • No route impacts • Highly visible from busy intersection • Opportunity to improve public access to greenway Cons: • Needs Construction and Amendment to Agreement Site G — Conservation Tract it COLNTY ROOD 512 , -, 4 , .14 ilri 512 ]"Asia -M- WK -7 16 9V —Molt Pros: • No route impacts • Highly visible from busy intersection Cons: • Private property • Increased cost Site D — SW Corner of Intersection fFf ^ �T h�A7Ctm..afi�. . ! _ 3ns:NooEo poEGoag low Pros: • Existing parking lot Cons: • Negative impacts to routes (removal of bus stops would be needed to accommodate extra distance) • Requires left turn for all buses when leaving site • Potential conflicts with special events Site C — North County Pool �p 9 .L.tr^JV Site E — Sebastian River High School Pros: • Opportunity for coordination with school Cons: • Impacts to Sebastian routes • Conflicts with school traffic in mornings and afternoons Note • Public land owned by school district f. Pros • County -owned land Cons • Access requires U-turns entering and/or leaving • Negative impacts to routes from Fellsmere, Vero Lake Estates & Wabasso Stormwater Parka long CR 512 a Shoulder along CR 510 (West Side) Pros: • Near existing hub • No route impacts Cons: • Located along side of roadway • Requires U-turns for buses entering and/or leaving • Impacts from widening of CR 510 next decade -- .---Y(N INTKR(1Gf151J- LT�� • r zscaomo+oom000+o 1 � Pros: • Near existing hub • No route impacts • Visible location Cons: • Private property • Increased costs Vacant 0utparcel next to Space Coast Credit Union rr .48 V Ali .L�.L...� ::..... ('.......y Pros: • Public right-of-way owned by county Cons • Low visibility • Unpaved road • Neighborhood impacts • Negative impacts to Sebastian routes 89tH Street (adjacent to SRHS) ti, I r ` 9 NO ibe :P .fit �a •Y �. :....�:..,......y Site Alternatives —Tier I I Approach • Tier 11 Approach ® Site Development (Total Weight =50%) • Ease of Development (15%) • Impact on Existing Transit Service (15%) • Zoning (10%) • Environmental Considerations/Topography (10%) ..... -Site Alternatives — Tier I I Approach • Tier I I Approach Financial Feasibility Costs and Considerations (Total Weight = 50%) • Availability of Land (10%) • Land Cost/Affordability (15%) • Ownership (10%) • Partnership for Funding Development and Maintenance (15%) • Presentation to TAC & CAC • Conservation tract well received by both committees • Staff exploring next steps • Staff reviewed grant agreement • Consistent with grant management objectives • Bike/ped and public access • Staff coordinated with Public Works about site development requirements • Staff has approached FDOT about grant funding Since Last MPO Meeting... rtXT- ti �':' nvvr00000+�i�o -- ra � IP IXniN �'l RCAO 512 � so . Yl - 4, F N 010 1 � T MOO, Site G — Conservation Tract • Preferred site by TAC & CAC • Opportunity for trail amenity • No impacts to existing routes in North County • Staff is Exploring Amendment to Grant Agreement ,7 , i e • Next steps What's Next ® Coordination with each recommended Tier I property owner • Obtain site layout as appropriate • Conduct public outreach • Determine preliminary cost estimates and other financial considerations • Conduct Tier II evaluation • Present preferred site to TAC/CAC/MPO MPO Prioritization & Work Progra cycle Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jur Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Informal Priorities Meetings - - ^ Follow-up/Coordination on Informal Priorities _ M/TPOs Adopt and Submit LOPP to FDOT 1 -Aug M/TPOs Approve DTWP 30 -Nov � M/TPOs Receive Work Program Data for TIP M/TPOs Approve TIP 15 - Jul N