MPO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

Rich Szpyrka, IRC Public Works Noah Powers, Town of Orchid Michael Smykowski, IRC Office of Management and Budget Lt. Lew Beckerdite, IRC Sheriff's Office Karen Deigl, Senior Resource Association Jennifer ldlette, IRC School Board Sgt. Kip Benham, Town of Indian River Shores Mayur Patel, District 4 (non-voting member)

Tim McGarry, City of Vero Beach Planning Monte Falls, City of Vero Beach Engineering Eric Menger, Vero Beach Regional Airport Joe Griffin, City of Sebastian Engineering Scott Baker, City of Sebastian Airport Lisa Frazier, City of Sebastian Planning Stan Boling, Community Development Director Vacant, IRC Traffic Engineer

Jason Nunemaker, City of Fellsmere- Chairman

AGENDA

The MPO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) will meet at 10:00 AM on Friday, January 26, 2018 in CONFERENCE ROOM 81-501, County Administration Building B, 1800 27th Street, Vero Beach, FL.

1. Call to Order

2. Election of Officers

3. Approval of Minutes December 1, 2017 Action Required

4. Consideration of the Public Participation Plan Action Required

5. Adoption of MPO Performance Measure Safety Targets Action Required

6. 2018 Transit Development Plan (TOP) Major Update Presentation No Action Required

7. Consideration of Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendments No Action Required

1

8. Status Report of MPO Advisory Committees No Action Required

9. Other Business

10. Comments from the Public

11. Adjournment

Next Meeting: TAC- March 23, 2018- 10:00 AM, Conference Room 81-501.

If you have any questions concerning the items on this agenda, please contact MPO staff at (772) 226-1455. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding Is made, \'lhich includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 772 226-1223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.

For complaints, questions or concerns about civil rights or nondiscrimination; or for special requests under the American w ith Disabilities Act, please contact: Phil Matson, Title VI Coordinator at (772) 226-1455 or pmatson@ircgov.com.

Except for those matters specifically exempted under State Statute and Local Ordinance, the Committee shall provide an opportunity for public comment prior to the undertaking by the Committee of any action on the agenda. Public comment shall also be heard on any proposition which the Committee Is to take action which was either not on the agenda or distributed to the public prior to the commencement of the meeting. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact Phil Matson at {772) 226-1455 o r pmatson@ircgov.com at least seven days prior to the meeting.

To view the TAC Agenda packet on-line please go to the following link:

http:/ jwww.irqwv.com/ bc:mJsf ta r./ 2.018/agr.ndas/1'AC01261SA.pdf

2

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee (MPOTAC) was held at 10:00 AM on Friday, December 1, 2017, 2017 in Conference Room B1-501, Building B, ofthe County Administration Complex, 1800 27th Street, Vera Beach, Florida.

Note: Audio and video recordings of the meeting can be found at IJtto:Uwww.ircczov.com/BofJrds/TAC/2017.h~m

MPOTAC members present were: Chairman Jason Nunemaker, City Manager, City of Fellsmere; Eric Menger, City of Vera Beach Airport Director; Chris Stephenson (alternate), Senior Resource Association, Monte Falls, City of Vera Beach Public Works Director; Tim McGarry, City of Vera Beach, Planning Department; Scott Baker, City of Sebastian Airport Director; Lisa Frazier, City of Sebastian Community Development Director; Rich Szpyrka, IRC Public Works; Stan Boling, IRC Community Development Director; Deputy Douglas MacKenzie, (alternate) IRC Sheriffs Office; and Yanique Kelley, FOOT (non-voting advisor).

MPOTAC members absent were: Michael Smykowski, IRC Budget; Joe Griffin, City of Sebastian Engineering; Karen Deigl, Senior Resource Association; Noah Powers, Town of Orchid Town Manager; Jennifer ldlette, IRC School Board Transportation Director; Sgt. Kip Benham, Town of Indian River Shores; Lt. Lew Beckerdite, IRC Sheriff's Office.

Also present were IRC Staff: Phil Matson, MPO Staff Director; Sharon Schalm, MPO Staff Assistant and Recording Secretary.

Others Present included: Min-Tang Li, FOOT; Barbara Drndak, Vera Beach Airport Commission; Gus Schmidt, Eric Penfield, RS&H Consulting.

Call to Order

Chairman Nunemaker called the meeting to order at 10:04 AM at which time it was noted that a quorum was present.

Approval of Minutes of the MPOTAC Meeting of September 29,2017.

Chairman Nunemaker asked if there were any additions or corrections to the MPOTAC minutes of September 29, 2017. There were none.

ON MOTION by Mr. Falls, SECONDED by Mr. Boling, the TAC ~embers voted (9-0) to approve the minutes of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee of September 29,2017.

Unapproved December 1, 2017 F :\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MEETING RECORDS\M IN UTES\ TAG Minutes\2017\MPOTAC 12-1-17 Unapproved.doc

Mr. Szpyrka arrived at 10:10 AM.

Presentation of FOOT 1-95 Master Plan No Action Required

Mr. Matson, MPO Staff Director, gave a brief description of the 1-95 Master Plan and noted that the Objectives of the Master Plan are to estimate future demand from a regional, 3-county perspective; to define and analyze conceptual design alternatives; and to present recommendations to the Indian River, St. lucie, and Martin T/MPOs as well as other stakeholders like the Freight community. He then introduced Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Penfield, of RS&H. Mr. Penfield gave a power point presentation of the FDOT 1-95 Master Plan, a copy of which is on file in the MPO office. Mr. Penfield noted the objectives of the SR/1-95 project and was requesting feedback from local governments to include in the regional Master Plan. He noted that the 1-95 Master Plan included 75 miles of highway with 15 interchanges. He noted that the Master Plan would be very diverse as the participating counties are diverse and have unique issues Mr. Penfield explained the process, implementation and project schedule.

Discussion ensued concerning autonomous vehicles, crowd sourcing and data sharing. Mr. Matson noted that the St. John's Heritage Parkway would help with traffic on 1-95 and requested traffic counts. Min Tang Li of FDOT requested suggestions and offered the support of FDOT.

Presentation of FHWA Performance Measures and Target Setting No Action Required

Mr. Matson, MPO Staff Director, gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the MPO office. He explained that FDOT required Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to implement performance and outcome-based planning practices. Mr. Matson explained that, according to that legislation, States and MPOs are to invest resources in projects to achieve individual targets in strategic areas that collectively will make progress toward national goals.

He noted that the Indian River County MPO has long been a leader in performance monitoring and therefore, performance monitoring and compliance was not expected to be a major issue for the MPO. He explained that FDOT had also pledged to collect the data needed for MPO's to comply with performance monitoring.

He noted that new federal rules required MPOs to integrate performance measures into the long Range Plan and TIP, which may require the MPO to make some changes to those documents. He also noted that at the present time, there is no financial incentive to meet or exceed performance targets and the consequences for not meeting them are limited and mostly apply to state investment policy.

Unapproved December 1, 2017 F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MEETING RECORDS\MINUTES\T AC Minutes\2017\MPOTAC 12-1-17 Unapproved .doc

Discussion of Aviation Boulevard and Other Access Improvements in the Vicinity of the 37th Street Corridor No Action Required

Mr. Matson gave a power point presentation, a copy of which is located in the MPO office. He noted that 37th Street was a vital corridor in Indian River County, as it was the primary point of access to the Indian River Medical Center (IRMC) and to a large number of medical-related facilities and businesses. He explained that 3]!h Street was approaching capacity and when vested trips are considered, together with existing traffic volumes, 37th Street was at approximately 90% of its adopted level of service.

He explained that the widening of 37th Street to five lanes presents a number of challenges because, although it was only 1.2 miles long, there were over 27 separate driveways, cross streets, and access points in the corridor. He also explained that there was no way to expand the grid where the hospital was located.

Mr. Matson noted that one alternative which had been considered by County and City public works and planning staff was to develop a new 2-lane alternative roadway serving the Medical Center to relieve the demand on 37th Street and in so doing, the County's objective was to both improve access to the area and maintain level of service on 37th Street at the same time.

Discussion ensued concerning conceptual alignments, ROW, construction costs, and willingness on the part of local land owners. Mr. Falls requested that Mr. Matson appear before the Vero Beach City Council to further explain the development of the Aviation Boulevard Extension concept and Mr. Matson agreed to do so.

Status Report of Other MPO Advisory Committees

Mr. Matson reviewed his memorandum, dated November 15, 2017, included in the agenda packet and on file in the MPO Office.

Other Business

Mr. Falls noted that new Sharrow signs had been posted along Old Dixie in Vero Beach and law enforcement had not been informed on how to disseminate these changes. Mr. Matson noted that he would discuss this issue with Carmen Pullins of FOOT and put it on the upcoming agenda of the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) meeting.

Unapproved December 1, 2017 F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MEETING RECORDS\MINUTES\TAC Minutes\2017\MPOTAC 12-1-17 Unapproved.doc

Comments from the Public

There were none.

Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:12 AM.

Unapproved December 1, 2017 F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MEETING RECORDS\MINUTES\TAC Minutes\2017\MPOTAC 12-1-17 Unapproved.doc

TO:

THROUGH:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

Members of the Indian River County MPO Technical Advisory Committee {TAC)

Stan Bolin&cP Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson, AI~ MPO Staff Director (j" .711

January 19, 2017

Consideration of the Public Participation Plan (PPP) Update

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River County MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC} at its meeting of January 261 2018.

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS

In 1995, the MPO adopted its first-ever Public Involvement Plan (later renamed the MPO Public Participation Plan). Regular updates to the plan have been made by the MPO, incorporating changes in technology, federal and state requirements, and local policies as appropriate. Perhaps most notable has been the MPO's outreach to traditionally underserved and under­represented populations, such as minorities and seniors. The MPO has accomplished this by holding in-community workshops and meetings; by participating in local initiatives like the Gifford and Wabasso Neighborhood Plan updates; and through a number of other proactive techniques.

In the Spring of 2017, the MPO began a formal plan update to reflect the newest activities, latest guidance, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of existing public involvement practices. As part of that update, the MPO also revised its website to make it a more effective public involvement tool. The Draft Plan Update was advertised and discussed at an MPO-Citizens Advisory Committee workshop held in April. The CAC1 which is responsible for citizen outreach and oversight of the MPO, also has members of traditionally underrepresented communities and persons with business and marketing backgrounds.

The comments ofthe CAC were incorporated into a final draft (Attachment 1), which was loaded on the MPO website in November and advertised a number of ways1 including newspaper ads, MPO newsletter features, and direct mailouts to interested parties.

1

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\2018\1-26-18\PPP Update.docx

At its February 14, 2018 meeting, the MPO will be asked to adopt the Update.

ANALYSIS

Indian River County is known as an engaged, active community and, traditionally, the MPO has had tremendous levels of public involvement, far disproportionate to its small population. To ensure continued success, and to keep abreast of the most recent guidance and techniques, a number of changes were made to the existing Public Participation Plan through this update.

Consistency with FOOT Public Involvement Handbook

The MPO reviewed the FDOT Public Involvement Handbook and identified areas of consistency with the Handbook and also incorporated changes to the PPP based on practices and policies in the Handbook. References are summarized on Appendix 2 of Attachment 1.

Evaluation of Public Involvement Performance Measures

The 2016 evaluation identified 8,600 persons participating in MPO programs and activities and over 715,000 website hits. Nearly 3,500 minority and traditionally underserved persons participated. These numbers easily exceeded MPO targets for participation and are summarized in Appendix 3 of Attachment 1.

Use of Social Media

Following a change in County policy, the MPO in 2017 established permanent Twitter and Facebook pages and uses these outlets in conjunction with the website and email to expand its reach and digital footprint for expanded public participation.

Other Changes

Minor changes have been made to the areas of considering and incorporating public comments, work with non-profit public groups, and referencing FDOT Public Information Office, to name a few. These appear throughout the document.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the TAC review the Draft Final Public Participation Plan Update, make any changes necessary to the plan, and recommend that the MPO adopt the PPP update.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Final Public Participation Plan Update

2

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\2018\1-26-18\PPP Update.docx

2017/18

MPO Public Participat·on Plan Update

Indian River County MPO

Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disabilit y or family status. Persons with q uestions or concerns about nondiscrimination, or who require special accommodations under the American with l:>isabilitles Act or language translation services {f ree of charge) should contact Phil Matson at (772) 226-1455 or pmatson@ircgov.com.

1

2017/18 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PIAN UPDATE

Table of Contents

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN ................................................................................... 3

A. INTRODUCTION AND VISION .............................................................................. 3

B. STRATEGIES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................... .4

C. CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ....................................... 12

D. PLAN EVALUATION ................ .. .... ............................................ ...... ................... 13

APPENDICES ...................................................................................... ....................... 15

Appendix 1 - FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS CONCERNING MPO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

APPENDIX 2 - Incorporation of FOOT Public Involvement Handbook references into the MPO Public Participation Plan

APPENDIX 3- MPO Participation and Objective Achievement

2

A. Introduction & Vision

To ensure that transportation systems meet the needs of those that use them, it is vital that the public participates in transportation planning. In developing its plans and programs, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) provides numerous opportunities for public input. The M PO's Public Participation Plan serves as a guide to further guarantee the active participation of citizens and those affected by MPO decisions.

Federal and state regulations require that all MPOs develop a public participation process through which public participation in transportation decision-making is actively solicited. Some of the specific regulations that apply to MPO public participation are listed below.

o 23 CFR 450, Section 316 (b)(l) contains requirements such as providing the public with timely information about transportation issues, plans, and programs; providing adequate public notice and time for public review of transportation activities; and granting explicit consideration and response to public input received.

• Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, mandates non-discrimination by race, color or national origin in connection with programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

• Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice (1994) requires measures to avoid disproportionately high adverse environmental effects of federal programs through full and fair participation of low-income and minority communities.

• Chapter 286, Florida Statutes (a.k.a. Florida Sunshine Law) requires 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.

• FOOT Public Involvement Handbook identifies required public hearings for projects and also best practices for public outreach.

In addition, the Public Participation Plan has been developed in consideration of FOOT' s Community Impact Assessment process, a five-step methodology advocated by FOOT to identify community needs, analyze impacts and identify solutions.

It is the intent of the Indian River County MPO to comply with and, wherever possible, exceed minimum federal and state standards for public participation. To this end, the MPO's Public Participation Plan provides a process that is applicable to all MPO functions and activities.

Vision

A vision statement is a brief description of what the community hopes to achieve through planning. The MPO will maintain and distribute information and provide public participation opportunities as necessary in order to achieve the following:

A well-informed public that feels it has opportunities to contribute meaningful input to decisions concerning the area's transportation system.

3

B. Strategies for Public Participation

The MPO's strategies for public participation appear in the following sections and follow a brief description of the section heading. Those strategies also identified by the Federal Highway Administration and Florida Department of Transportation as methods used in best practice organizations are denoted with this symbol (~).

1) The MPO and Its Committees

The Indian River County MPO is the primary agency responsible for transportation planning in the urbanized area of Indian River County. Consisting of 12 voting members representing the local governments within the county, the M PO is a legislative authority with the power to develop and adopt plans, and to set priorities for the programming of improvements to the transportation system.

To help make decisions, the MPO uses recommendations from advisory committees. These committees offer input from citizens, bicycle/pedestrian interests, and local technical experts.

Technical Advisory Committee

The MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is composed oftechnically qualified representatives of agencies responsible for the transportation system in the Vero Beach Urbanized Area. The TAC has a total of 19 voting members. Committee duties include the coordination oftransportation planning and programming activities, review of all transportation technical studies and reports, and review of work programs and transportation improvement programs. The principal responsibility of the TAC is to provide technical recommendations to the MPO on transportation matters.

Citizens Advisory Committee

The MPO Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) consists of 14 members appointed by the MPO governing board. The committee is responsible for providing the MPO with citizen input regarding transportation­related matters. The composition of CAC membership corresponds to the MPO governing Board membership and includes two at-large members representing the Transportation Disadvantaged and Minority communities.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee

The Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BAC) is composed of bicycling and pedestrian advocates and enthusiasts. While the SAC's major task is the update of the county's bicycle/pedestrian plan, the BAC also provides the MPO with input on enhancement projects and MPO planning activities.

Bike Walk Indian River County

Bike Walk Indian River County is non-profit group whose members advocate for safer local walking and bicycling conditions. Although not an official MPO committee, BWIRC members work closely with M PO

4

staff to identify and address safety issues. During BWIRC monthly meetings, members of the public often attend and discuss safety issues. BWIRC members relay public safety concerns to MPO staff for further investigation.

Conduct of Public Meetings

Wherever possible, the MPO and all public meetings will be conducted consistent with the principles contained in Chapter 6 of the FDOT Public Involvement Handbook. Those principles include selecting an appropriate venue, time, and format for the meeting; using innovative communication and data gathering techniques; communicating effectively; and recording the meeting.

MPO and Committee Public Participation Objectives

It is the intent of the MPO to achieve the following public participation objectives with respect to the MPO and Its Committees. For each objective, measures of effectiveness are included. These measures provide the basis for assessment of the objectives. The assessment process is discussed in Section 5, Plan Evaluation.

Objective 1.1: Attendance at MPO and Advisory Committee meetings by non-staff and non-committee members will exceed 100 people.

Measure of Effectiveness: Number of non-staff, non-committee member individuals attending MPO and advisory committee meetings during the entire fiscal year.

Objective 1.2: The number of comments received at MPO and Advisory Committee meetings will exceed 20 comments.

Measure of Effectiveness: The number of comments received at MPO and Advisory Committee meetings during the entire fiscal year.

Strategies for public participation in this area

MPO and advisory committee meetings are public forums affording citizens an adequate opportunity to participate in the planning process. To enhance these opportunities, the MPO will implement the following strategies:

• The MPO will appoint members to the Citizens Advisory Committee who adequately reflect the geographic, cultural, and social composition of the MPO area, and will involve those that have been traditionally under-represented in planning such as the senior and low-income communities. The MPO will invite the public to all MPO and advisory committee meetings, and will encourage public discussion and input prior to making decisions at those meetings, with a special emphasis on feedback from the traditionally under-represented.

• To encourage the open exchange of opinions, the MPO will seek, but not require, a consensus on issues.

• TheM PO will establish a standing agenda item that will invite public comment and participation at all public meetings.

5

• All MPO and advisory committee meetings will be conducted in ADA-compliant facilities accessible by public transportation.

• Information will be collected and feedback will be solicited at public meetings via detailed sign-in sheets (Attachment lL comment cards, and informational displays.

• The respective chairpersons of the MPO, CAC, TAC, and BAC will meet periodically with MPO staff to discuss upcoming issues.

• The MPO will prepare and distribute at all MPO meetings a committee status report listing the activities of the committees, the outcomes of any meetings, and minutes of meetings. The MPO will prepare and distribute at all committee meetings an MPO status report listing the actions of the MPO with regard to committee recommendations.

• MPO staff reports written for MPO and committee review will be concise and easy to understand.

• MPO staff and consultants will employ the use of electronic presentations, computer imaging, visualization techniques and other media at public meetings.

c At the beginning of the calendar year, MPO staff will provide the local media with an annual calendar of scheduled MPO and advisory committee meetings.

• One week prior to each MPO meeting, MPO staff will provide the local media with a complete agenda package.

& MPO staff will distribute the minutes of MPO and advisory committee meetings for public review at local libraries, local government offices, and other public locations. This will allow those unable to attend meetings the opportunity to monitor MPO activities.

. ...-- ~-" - =- ~--:-=-:--~~

~· ~

··.·~QB.~l~ INV~l:V:l;f~l_Er~T J~. ~'C:noN I -~

1 I : I

~~~~ft'.~:~r~;~~~We~q-~(,i'q~~~~fi.~:.~r~~'J~rp1~l~~~ .. -l'l,.'~~y_~IJQ,:· ~!JI?(~tl.Y~·Q.f_~~I I~~Q~~r~~~~~-;.R.I~gM~.,~~ ~ ~~~~.Y ~.0-llf:lit_tS; P-alti_cvla.I'Lv::.at~lnigh't ;-w.hen·~ 1 ~~)s~~-r~i<g:~d_g_~n19:~n:·y~~~ftt= roi~~-C1:~i~-~~:-~pi~~~- ~1 1 ::o~o.tp.r:f!e8 .~r?Jf(~-. _ ..r~:·~.~{l~.i~~. ~~h~~ m:~_J~_f 1 1, .''J?roblern as one :of Vl ~l bllt_ty; members_: of 1

I ···(h~.- .·<;Ac Jg91< · .. it . up-on . t·,.,ems'elves ·.to~- 1i

. c;)i,ga:nl~!:i --~ bike . light lh51~i'litltTannbtke~ 11

~i~~~~;!6~ir~~:J~~~y~~~:~~~~~!;,1.~::~ :1 VtlnV"lown,took.advantage.~ - 1.r

... : l~-~-- - ... : -=-~-- =----- --- _=-..:...__.-~,., ... ~

• MPO and advisory committee meeting announcements will be sent via e-mail to a database of interested persons and stakeholders.

• MPO and advisory committee meeting announcements, minutes, and agendas will be posted to the MPO Web Site.

o MPO and advisory committee meeting announcements will be published in the proposed MPO quarterly newsletter.

• Staff will make extensive use of simulators and other visualization techniques to help engage the public.

• The MPO will maintain its A+ rating for transparency by posting all meeting records, documents, and audio/video recordings.

6

2. MPO Projects and Activities

On an annual basis, the MPO develops a number of work products in fulfillment of its statutory obligations. Major MPO projects (which include the Long Range Transportation Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and Transit Development Plan Major Update) involve collecting and analyzing background data, procuring consultant services, and performing extensive public outreach efforts. On an annual basis, the MPO also completes a number of activities in preparation of various MPO work products like the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). These activities greatly benefit from public participation but may afford fewer public participation opportunities than major projects due to their scale and relatively short t imeframes for completion.

Long Range Transportation Plan (and other major MPO projects)

The Long Range Transportat ion Plan (LRTP) is developed by the MPO approximately every five years pursuant to state and federal regulations. The plan provides cost-feasible solutions for the mobility of all residents ofthe MPO area across a 20-year horizon.

Adoption of the Plan and all amendments will be as specified in the MPO Handbook and will include at a minimum 30 days of advertising via web and newspaper, a public hearing and a roll-call vote.

Because of the comprehensive nature of the LRTP, the MPO can engage in a wide variety of specialized public participation activities in addition to the general strategies for public participation applicable to all MPO projects.

For example, in accordance with FOOT's Community Impact Assessment (CIA) methodology, major MPO projects will incorporate a review of community profiles early on to ensure plan alternatives address community concerns. Community Impact Assessments are comprehensive inventories of communities, their values and characteristics.

For the Long Range Transportation Plan and other major MPO projects, the MPO requires the consultant working on the project to create a Public Participation Component as one ofthe first tasks in the scope of work. The Public Participation Component establishes procedures for public participation specific to the project and ensures that adequate public participation will be performed throughout the project. Public participation activities in the Public Participation Component may include, but are not limited to, strategies described in Section (c), MPO Communications. Innovative techniques will be encouraged in order to directly notify the public of upcoming projects, distribute interim and final reports, and solicit feedback on projects. Final reports for major projects will include a section documenting the participation of the public in developing the project. This section will

During the Long Range Transportation Plan Update (2015), over 200 individuals from all segments of the eommunity attended MPO

of thtl -cam Co ned' • 'L • ' • • ••.••

:,,.;- · _ ........ ,· ·~'T·-,-'' '!.~~- .,.~- .. ~ .~,,.---.-,,_.;:-

• W'Ii ............ wtdlulll r,. .. ~II!I'CA T-. ......... li'C%W•) • • rto.l8A _.,.,.o,........- ....... • r.IIIVIWII ~~- ...., ...... Wllnlril ~.~ .. ,... ..... ~--} ..... .,., .... ,... IDitW nat~•lc L..._ ·~·.WII'If~fiM! • • lUIJIIIIII"Jll~ ............... I'IU:Jifl. .....,. ..... _ .. J ··- --~illl.ll·~t( fiCI~ ......... - - l'W .thllft~UW!r

...... ,.,.,. ... Mt.t ...... - llltllll,.-•nuw ..... 'UI.Ir'IWC.(.:.IP III

7

list the proposed opportunities for public input, describe any substantive comments received, and report how substantive comments were handled and considered in the final report.

Transportation Improvement Program

The Transportation Improvement Program {TIP) is a five-year list of improvement projects that will be undertaken within theM PO area. The projects in the TIP are the direct result of Long Range Plan efforts and the extensive analysis and public outreach that was done therein. The MPO's role with respect to the TIP is focused on the timing of implementing various LRTP alternatives.

Throughout the TIP development process, the MPO will seek public input. This input will begin with the development of a list of priority projects (usually in August/September) that the MPO wants the FOOT to fund in its upcoming Work Program. At public meetings, the MPO advisory committees will develop the priority list. The M PO will then review the list, make any necessary changes based on additional public input, and approve the list for submittal to FOOT. Because of the significance of Prioritization in the process, the MPO will take additional measures to obtain input, such as social media outreach. Since many ideas generated by the publ ic during the course of the year are appropriate for inclusion on a priority list, project candidate identification is treated as an ongoing (vs once a year) process.

Further public input in TIP development will occur when FOOT presents its Draft Tentative Work Program (usually in November/December) for review and approval by the MPO. The public and the MPO will review the Work Program to ensure that the projects listed conform to the needs of the community.

Finally, the MPO and its advisory committees will hold another series of public meetings to consider adoption of the TIP. Copies of the draft TIP will be made available on the website and at a number of public outlets prior to the meetings. The public and the MPO will review the TIP for consistency with the Tentative Work Program and community priorities (April/May). Final TIP adoption and publication is done in a manner consistent with FDOT annual obligations reporting and FTA program of projects reporting.

If significant changes to the MPo•s adopted TIP are proposed, an opportunity for public comment will be provided. Notice of the discussion of such amendments will be given to the media prior to committee meetings.

Unified Planning Work Program

The Unified Planning Work Program {UPWP) is the MPo•s annual summary of upcoming planning activities. Every two years, the MPO must submit a UPWP for approval by the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. The UPWP is developed at public meetings of the MPO advisory committees and the MPO. Prior to these meetings, copies of the draft UPWP are made available for public review and comment.

In reviewing the proposed draft UPWP, the public and the advisory committees will provide comments to MPO staff about whether or not the UPWP reflects appropriate work activities for the MPO to undertake in light of local needs and state and federal regulations.

8

All amendments and modifications will be advertised to the public and adopted at a public meeting as specified in FOOT requirements.

Congestion Management Process

The MPO's Congestion Management Process (CMP) is a process designed to consider alternatives to traditional approaches to solving traffic congestion problems. The MPO uses locally-developed performance measures and current transportation data to identify the most congested links on the County highway system. These links are then evaluated on an individual basis to determine if lower-cost treatments of the congested segment could be employed to eliminate or forestall the need for a more costly highway improvement.

The MPO will obtain public input into prioritizing of CMP corridors and strategies for addressing congestion. In fact, many ofthe more effective CMP strategies implemented were identified by system users. Public participation will be adequately addressed through the MPO's public meetings and communications strategies. Annual CMP updates also present an opportunity to inform the public of current transportation conditions in Indian River County.

Public participation activities associated with CMP development will be coordinated with other MPO public participation programs to enhance public awareness and efficiently distribute information.

Transit Development Plan (TOP) Updates (and other non-motorized activities)

By state law, major updates of the TOP must be developed every five years in order for the County to remain eligible for state grant funding. On an annual basis, TOP minor updates are prepared and serve as evaluation tools to monitor progress toward major update implementation. For TOP Updates and other recurring activities, public participation is accommodated at public committee meetings with distribution of meeting agendas and/or work products to be completed through the MPO's communication strategies. Given the high sensitivity of the transportation disadvantaged public which relies on public transportation, the MPO makes a special emphasis to reach these hard-to-reach segments of the public, such as presenting as part of a Community meeting agenda or event.

FOOT Projects

Chapter 2 of the FOOT Public involvement Handbook states that "FOOT promotes public involvement through all phases of transportation project development." Several manuals and handbooks are available that provide guidance on developing public involvement programs and activities that comply with both state and federal legislation.

The PD&E Manual establishes the Department's procedures for complying with state and federal laws for public involvement. The Districts are responsible for conducting public involvement activities for plans (such as the District Work Program) and projects following the procedures and processes established in the PD&E Manual. In addition to District plans and projects, each district planning office has staff that serves as liaisons with their local MPOs.

The MPO Program Management Handbook provides guidance to M POs on their role; how MPO areas are designated, formed, and modified; and on federal and state transportation planning requirements. The MPO cooperates fully with all requirements of the FOOT Public Involvement Process and assists

9

FOOT in securing venues and promoting its public meetings, provides information and contacts, and supports FOOT as needed.

Objectives

The MPO seeks to achieve the following public participation objectives with respect to MPO Projects and Activities. Measures of effectiveness are included to determine achievement of the objective.

Objective 2.1: The number of participants at public workshops from traditionally under-served communities (which includes minorities, low income persons, the elderly, disabled persons, geographically dispersed/transient persons, women, children, and under-educated persons) will exceed 30.

Measure Of Effectiveness: Number of participants from traditionally under-served communities during the entire fiscal year.

Objective 2.2 : The number of comments received from all sources relating to MPO projects or activities will exceed 250 comments.

Measure of Effectiveness: Number of comments received from all sources relating to an MPO project or activity.

Strategies for public participation in this area

~ Staff will present proposed scopes of work at public committee meetings. • The MPO will use public committee meetings to allow the public to review and comment on

interim and final work products. • MPO staff and consultants may employ the use of electronic presentations, computer

simulation, and other media at public meetings. o The MPO will establish special consensus-building workshops, charrettes, discussion groups, or

other public meetings during the course of project development. These meetings may be held at various locations throughout the county as appropriate.

• The MPO will include a public participation section documenting the solicitation and incorportation of public comments as as a component of final project reports.

• To provide information in a concise and understandable format, the MPO will produce an Executive Summary of major improvements for major projects.

• MPO staff will inform the media of upcoming projects so that interested citizens and officials may have the opportunity to become involved as early as possible.

• The MPO will make available draft scopes of work and draft work products for public review at M PO offices.

• MPO staff will seek out innovative methods to inform the public of project activities and allow the public to review and comment on project reports. This may include postings to the MPO Web Site, publication in the proposed MPO newsletter, and the preparation of periodic special edition newsletters, reports or flyers pertaining to the project.

• In developing major projects, the MPO will abide by FOOT's Community Impact Assessment methodology and its stated principles of informing, educating and including the public in the decision making process.

10

o MPO staff will consider all public feedback obtained during t he course of its major projects when undertaking related recurring activities.

c) MPO Communications

The MPO develops and maintains transportation plans and information that are of interest to and requested by the general public. At the same time, the MPO relies on comments from the public to make sure its plans and activities reflect the values ofthe community. To fulfill its vision for a well-informed public, the MPO will use a variety of techniques to distribute MPO information and publicize MPO activities. Wherever possible, the MPO will use interactive techniques to obtain valuable feedback from the community in the process of distributing information.

Communications strategies cited in this section resulted from evaluating previous plan strategies, identifying best practices of other MPOs, applying new technology, or considering strategies obtained from the public in the development of this plan.

Objectives

It is the intent of the MPO to achieve the following public participation objectives with respect to MPO Communications. For each objective, measures of effectiveness are included. These measures provide the basis for assessment of the objectives. The assessment process is discussed in Section 5, Plan Evaluation.

(~~·8r1~ IN~~~~E~~Nt~-Ati~;~~~

~P~''iJrJ r/,e cR·-5:1iJ 'iPti&E.·- process; . f:fio.fsraif~.

il~~·t:~~~~~r;:¥t:J;~~~t. !$~f::t;..};~:1i,..~~~. : ~~ 1

t~;nl/er5 ·on: . over ··o. :dozcm. occas•on$: ,and_. ~ . ~

1 . !~itliJ~{~:tf:.~tr.~)~(t?.{¥] /~'~~ ·.~.fY,fJY_q['e~s. ~~~:. ~n_;~v[jO.rim?ii((O M~~~ .~t~f, rmp.d.r:r ·~\tl!fl.eJt ·:.tJ .. 1

... t!IJfilr~i•t · ·oP.praa(tuoriH~I) 1iuw -~..c(m~~etiti.Sm# . __ . f ··:~'~iJ~n.i(io·: W.d,-~fd 'IW ~iip~(t!i!J ]J'-~ ri.~~uir·: ~~~:~~~ 1 : '~)'l;q,J~: P.rofe."4, t(,ti.t ~~e~ rlt~ · F¢tldr.~.~t UJ~ .1j

rrovelmg publtc:. IJfOVJdas.-o.lter.r•uf.(vet [Qr Jl!a•­~artw ·ro ,;~;pulntidr;s; and · ·pre-senr~s c~JC :

1 n~a(u,al · eit'vitO~tlteiJi •. ·it· lV/1/ fctJtUf(f''rh~. j{(:;f ·~ A iou.ndabout ~~'- ·tl!e·Nor,theu• ;tn~l~sur:l':;ciJasti · · . ·'

========== - - =- ;:::: - ~

Objective 3.1: At least 20% of the County's overall population will recognize the MPO or one of its projects or activities.

Measure Of Effectiveness: Percentage of the county's overall population that recogn izes the MPO, its projects or activities.

Objective 3.2: At least 5% of the County's overall population will have been made aware of or actually participated in one of the MPO's public participation activities.

Measure Of Effectiveness: Percentage of the county's overall population that has been made aware of or participated in a public participation activity.

Objective 3.3: At least 30% of the County's traditionally underserved, which includes transportation disadvantaged and minority populations, will recognize the MPO or one of its projects or activities.

ll

Measure of Effectiveness: Percentage of the county's traditionally underserved population that recognizes the MPO, its projects or activities.

Strategies for public participation in this area

• The Indian River County MPO will produce an MPO newsletter on at least a biannual basis. The newsletter will be produced under the guidance of the Citizens Advisory Committee and include major staff activity and milestones.

(II MPO staff will seek innovative ways to distribute information to the public, including the expanded use of the Indian River County Web Site, Social Media, and links to local traffic information sites.

• MPO staff will seek innovative techniques for soliciting public comment and response to MPO activities.

o Staff will explore technologies making MPO and County Web Sites compliant with software standards for impaired users.

• Where feasible, the MPO will coordinate its public participation activities with those of the Public Information Office of the Florida Department of Transportation . These coordination activities may include advertising, mailing notices, and holding public hearings. For construction projects, the MPO will coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation to ensure that the public is adequately involved in the review of Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Studies.

a The MPO will prepare a "State of the System Report" to be distributed in a special newsletter edition.

• Through the media, the MPO will distribute information and notify the public that information is available from the MPO. The MPO will contribute regularly to a periodic traffic update section of the local newspaper. MPO staff will request that the media publish announcements for MPO meetings and MPO committee meetings.

0 The MPO will explore additional media outlets, such as regional television networks and public radio stations, to announce major projects and activities via Public Service Announcements (PSA's).

• The MPO will distribute information at local libraries and other public outlets, such as schools and community centers. The MPO will seek out distribution locations in close proximity to those traditionally under-served in the planning process.

G The M PO will keep environmental agencies and organizations informed of upcoming studies and construction projects.

• Staff will respond to requests for information as promptly as possible.

• The MPO will create a presentation display to be posted in public locations and deployed at major community events. The display will include information on major proposed plans, staff contact information, and upcoming opportunities for public participation.

• The MPO will sponsor or participate in one or more annual transportation seminars in conjunction with state and regional agencies.

C. Consideration of Public Comments Received

Processing Public Comments

The primary objective of any public participation activity is to inform the public and solicit their comments as they relate to transportation improvements. The most common wayforthe public to relay

12

their ideas and input is through submitting verbal or written comments. The information gleaned from them, if correctly synthesized and catalogued, will serve as an excellent record for future project phases. The amount and types of comments received will help in evaluating the success of the individual public participation activities. A protocol is needed to handle these comments. The following are the MPO procedures for handling public comments:

1. Collection and Documentation: • All comments received will be logged and entered into the Public Participation file for the

appropriate project or activity. Comments of a highly generalized nature or involving multiple projects will be maintained in the MPO Public Participation file.

2. Acknowledgement and Response •· If a response is requested, the MPO will indicate that the comment will be considered during

an upcoming project or activity cycle.

3. Analysis, Distribution and Incorporation o Comments will be acknowledged through a polite and simple email or letter, as appropriate. • The MPO will evaluate the comments received as the appropriate project is Initiated. , Staff will summarize comments received and incorporate these into consultant presentations

or committee reports to the MPO as appropriate. o The MPO will evaluate draft and final work products with respect to consideration of public

comments received. • If requested, the M PO will respond with respect to the final disposition of the issue. 6 Staff will perform a preliminary evaluation ofthe comment. lfthe comment does not require

future MPO action, it will be responded to by staff or routed to the appropriate implementing agency.

D. Plan Evaluation

Procedure

Each year, an evaluation will be performed to determine to what extent objectives for public participation have been met by the MPO. The annual evaluation will be data-driven to the extent possible and will include data collection, data analysis, and a determination of whether or not plan objectives have been met.

The MPO and its Committees - · Recommended period of evaluation: Annual Quantitative measures: Number of non-staff and non-committee

members at MPO and Advisory Committee meetings. Number of comments received at MPO and Advisory Committee meetings.

13

MPO Projects and Activities f-·

Recommended period of evaluation: At major project or activity milestones; and at project or activity completion.

Quantitative measures: Number of participants from traditionally underserved communities, including transportation disadvantaged or minority communities, at MPO project or activity workshops. Number of comments received from all

-· - sources relating to an MPO project or activity. -

MPO Communications ··-·· Recommended period of evaluation: Annual. Quantitative Measures: Percentage ofthe county's overall population

that recognizes the MPO, its projects or activities. Percentage of the county's overall population that has been made aware of or participated in a public participation activity. Percentage of the county's transportation disadvantaged population that recognizes the MPO, its projects or activities.

Public Participation Plan Review and Update

Where it is determined that the MPO's public outreach efforts have not resulted in meeting its objectives, the MPO will review its strategies individually using the data collected for each strategy. The MPO will assess the relative contribution of each strategy toward meeting the objective. New strategies may be necessary in order to meet the objective. To obtain new strategies, the MPO will continuously review best practices, suggestions from the public, the FOOT Public Involvement Handbook, and the latest technology.

On an annual basis, the MPO will also review its Public Participation Objectives. Where objectives were not met, the MPO will determine whether its objectives were appropriate and contributed to the vision for public participation. Objectives may also be added as a result of updated federal or state guidance or a change in local priorities.

Socio-Cultural Effects Evaluation

According to Chapter 4 of the FOOT Public Involvement Handbook, The Sociocultural Effects (SCE) Evaluation is the Department's process for identifying and addressing potential effects oftransportation projects on people, communities, and community resources. The MPO is the Statewide Leader in Socio­Cultural Effects data development and evaluation, having published the first-ever MPO Socio-Cultural Effects report in 2003. This tool, known as the Community Profile Report, identifies various geographies and communities within the County and assesses their socioeconomic and demographic profiles. Included in this is an assessment of Transportation Disadvantaged populations and key community contacts. It is frequently updated with Census (American Community Survey) data, with the most recent update occurring in 2016.

14

23 CFR

APPENDIX!

FEDERAl AND STATE REGULATIONS CONCERNING

MPO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

450.316 Metropolitan transportation planning process: Elements. (b) In addition, the metropolitan transportation planning process shall: (1) Include a proactive public participation process that provides complete information, timely

public notice, full public access to key decisions, and supports early and continuing participation of the public in developing plans and TIPs and meets the requirements and criteria specified as follows:

(i) Require a minimum public comment period of 45 days before the public participation process is initially adopted or revised;

(ii) Provide timely information about transportation issues and processes to citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, other interested parties and segments of the community affected by transportation plans, programs and projects (including but not limited to central city and other local jurisdiction concerns);

(iii) Provide reasonable public access to technical and policy information used in the development of plans and TIPs and open public meetings where matters related to the Federal-aid highway and transit programs are being considered;

(iv) Require adequate public notice of public participation activities and time for public review and comment at key decision points, including, but not limited to, approval of plans and TIPs (in non attainment areas, classified as serious and above, the comment period shall be at least 30 days for the plan, TIP and major amendment(s));

(v) Demonstrate explicit consideration and response to public input received during the planning and program development processes;

(vi) Seek out and consider the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, including but not limited to low-income and minority households;

(vii) When significant written and oral comments are received on the draft transportation plan or TIP (including the financial plan) as a result of the public participation process or the interagency consultation process required under the U.S. EPA1s conformity regulations, a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of comments shall be made part of the final plan and TIP;

(viii) If the final transportation plan or TIP differs significantly from the one which was made available for public comment by the M PO and raises new material issues which interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen from the public participation efforts, an additional opportunity for public comment on the revised plan or TIP shall be made available;

(ix) Participation processes shall be periodically reviewed by the MPO in terms of their effectiveness in assuring that the process provides full and open access to all;

(x) These procedures will be reviewed by the FHWA and the FTA during certification reviews for TMAs, and as otherwise necessary for all MPOs, to assure that full and open access is provided to MPO decision making processes;

(xi) Metropolitan public participation processes shall be coordinated with statewide public participation processes wherever possible to enhance public consideration of the issues, plans, and programs and reduce redundancies and costs;

15

{2) Be consistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Title VI assurance executed by each State under 23 U.S.C. 324 and 29 U.S.C. 794, which ensure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, or physical handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program receiving Federal assistance from the United States Department of Transportation;

(3) Identify actions necessary to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, as amended) and U.S. DOT regulations "Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities" (49 CFR Parts 27, 37, and 38);

(4} Provide for the involvement of traffic, ridesharing, parking, transportation safety and enforcement agencies; commuter rail operators; airport and port authorities; toll authorities; appropriate private transportation providers, and where appropriate city officials; and

(5) Provide for the involvement of local, State, and Federal environmental, resource and permit agencies as appropriate.

(c) In attainment areas not designated as TMAs simplified procedures for the development of plans and programs, if considered appropriate, shall be proposed by the MPO in cooperation with the State and transit operator, and submitted by the State for approval by the FHWA and the FTA. In developing proposed simplified planning procedures, consideration shall be given to the transportation problems in the area and their complexity, the growth rate ofthe area (e.g., fast, moderate or slow), the appropriateness oft he factors specified for consideration in this subpart including air quality, and the desirability of continuing any planning process that has already been established. Areas experiencing fast growth should give consideration to a planning process that addresses all of the general requirements specified in this subpart. As a minimum, all areas employing a simplified planning process will need to develop a transportation plan to be approved by the MPO and a TIP to be approved by the MPO and the Governor.

(d) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall include preparation of technical and other reports to assure documentation of the development, refinement, and update of the transportation plan. The reports shall be reasonably available to interested parties, consistent with 111 450.316(b)(1}.

Executive Order 12898

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

February 11, 1994

Section 1-1.1mplementation

1-101. Agency Responsibilities To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by Jaw, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environ menta I effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands.

16

Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964

Sec. 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

{Pub. L. 88-352, title VI, Sec. 601, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 252.)

286.011 F.S.

Public meetings and records; public inspection; criminal and civil penalties.--(1) All meetings of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, and no resolution, rule, or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting. The board or commission must provide reasonable notice of all such meetings. (2) The minutes of a meeting of any such board or commission of any such state agency or authority shall be promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection. The circuit courts of this state shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the purposes of this section upon application by any citizen of this state. (3)(a) Any public officer who violates any provision ofthis section is guilty of a noncriminal infraction, punishable by fine not exceeding $500. (b) Any person who is a member of a board or commission or of any state agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision who knowingly violates the provisions of this section by attending a meeting not held in accordance with the provisions hereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (c) Conduct which occurs outside the state which would constitute a knowing violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (4) Whenever an action has been filed against any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision to enforce the provisions ofthis section or to invalidate the actions of any such board, commission, agency, or authority, which action was taken in violation of this section, and the court determines that the defendant or defendants to such action acted in violation of this section, the court shall assess a reasonable attorney's fee against such agency, and may assess a reasonable attorney's fee against the individual filing such an action if the court finds it was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. Any fees so assessed may be assessed against the individual member or members of such board or commission; provided, that in any case where the board or commission seeks the advice of its attorney and such advice is followed, no such fees shall be assessed against the individual member or members of the board or commission. However, this subsection shall not apply to a state attorney or his or her duly authorized assistants or any officer charged with enforcing the provisions of this section.

17

(5) Whenever any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision appeals any court order which has found said board, commission, agency, or authority to have violated this section, and such order is affirmed, the court shall assess a reasonable attorney's fee for the appeal against such board, commission, agency, or authority. Any fees so assessed may be assessed against the individual member or members of such board or commission; provided, that in any case where the board or commission seeks the advice of its attorney and such advice is followed, no such fees shall be assessed against the individual member or members of the board or commission. (6) All persons subject to subsection (1) are prohibited from holding meetings at any facility or location which discriminates on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, color, origin, or economic status or which operates in such a manner as to unreasonably restrict public access to such a facility. (7) Whenever any member of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision is charged with a violation of this section and is subsequently acquitted, the board or commission is authorized to reimburse said member for any portion of his or her reasonable attorney's fees. {8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, and the chief administrative or executive officer of the governmental entity, may meet in private with the entity's attorney to discuss pending litigation to which the entity is presently a party before a court or administrative agency, provided that the following conditions are met: (a) The entity's attorney shall advise the entity at a public meeting that he or she desires advice concerning the litigation. (b) The subject matter of the meeting shall be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures. (c) The entire session shall be recorded by a certified court reporter. The reporter shall record the times of commencement and termination of the session, all discussion and proceedings, the names of all persons present at any time, and the names of all persons speaking. No portion of the session shall be off the record. The court reporter's notes shall be fully transcribed and filed with the entity's clerk within a reasonable time after the meeting. (d) The entity shall give reasonable public notice of the time and date of the attorney-client session and the names of persons who will be attending the session. The session shall commence at an open meeting at which the persons chairing the meeting shall announce the commencement and estimated length of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons attending. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the meeting shall be reopened, and the person chairing the meeting shall announce the termination of the session. (e) The transcript shall be made part ofthe public record upon conclusion of the litigation.

18

APPENDIX 2.

Incorporation of FOOT Public Involvement Handbook references into the MPO Public Participation Plan

·--------·- ·--I MPO Public Participation Plan FOOT

Public Involvement Handbook Page Number Objec~ives

-· 1--- - . -- ----·------ -- ·---------Early and continuous public participation 28 lnclusionary practices in activities and notification 5, 8, 11, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30 Consideration of the needs of the traditionally 22,26, 27 underserved and transportation disadvantaged Collaboration w ith other agencies, local 5, 11, 12, 28, 29, governments, private sector transportation entities, and non-MPO officials Convenient meeting times and locations 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, 17, 28, 30, 31 Reasonable access to information 11, 12, 13, 21, 23, 28 Timely notice of public participation activities, 5, 8, 9, 10, 19, 21, 28, including appropriate review and comment periods Acknowledgement and consideration of public 20, 21, 24, 25, comments

19

Appendix 3. MPO Public Participation and Objective Achievement 2016

Total Minority Community Community Participation Participation

MPO and its Committees

MPO and Advisory Committee Meetings 34 12 MPO and Advisory Committee Meeting Comments 25 5 Community Traffic Safety Team 48 14 Bike Walk Indian River County Meetings 100 10 Total Participation 207 41 Objectives Achieved? y

MPO Projects Martin Luther King Trail Opening Ceremony 75 52 Wabasso Neighborhood Meetings 45 41 LRTP Survey 285 N/A LRTP Workshops 170 48 Fellsmere Property Owners Association Meeting 37 2 Total Participation 612 143 Objectives Achieved? y

MPO Activities

Bike Rodeos (School) 2915 1399 Bike Rodeos (Public) 450 216 Bike Safety Pre-K 3225 1548 Walk to School/Bike To School Days 200 96 Total Participation 6790 3259 Objectives Achieved? y

Total Participation, Meetings, Projects, and Activities 7609 3443

Other Outreach Efforts

Radio programs, newspaper coverage 5 MPO Correspondence Received 420 MPO Newsletters Distributed 500 --MPO Website Hits 715,274 ·-Total Contacts 723,808

20

TO:

THROUGH:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

Members of the Indian River County Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

/)(C) Stan Boling, AICP Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson, AIC~ MPO Staff Director v' ·

January 16, 2018

Adoption of MPO Safety Performance Targets

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River County MPO TAC at the meeting of January 26, 2018.

DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

The Federal Transportation Bill signed by the President in December of 2015, the "Fixing Americas Surface Transportation" (FAST) Act, requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to implement performance and outcome-based planning practices. According to that legislation, States and MPOs are to invest resources in projects to achieve individual targets in strategic areas that collectively will make progress toward national goals.

The performance target for one strategic area, Safety, must be adopted by the MPO Board by February 27, 2018. Targets for the remaining performance measures must be adopted in November of 2018. For each of the listed performance measures, the MPO will have the option of adopting the State's performance target or developing its own.

ANALYSIS

As previously discussed, FOOT has pledged to collect the data needed for MPO' s to comply with performance monitoring. FOOT has collected safety data for each of the adopted performance measures and distributed it to the MPOs (Attachment 1).

As can be observed from the t able, there is one substantial limitation to the data. FOOT collects data on crashes and miles traveled Countywide. Therefore, for Indian River County as well as other counties with relatively small urban areas, there may be a discrepancy between Countywide crash rates and MPO area (Urbanized and Transitioning) crash rates. In

F: .Community De,elopment\Users\MPO\!.Jeetings.T AC-.2018\1-26-18\Rcview and Update1_Petformance ~leasures. doc

fact, we suspect this to be the case, as SR 60 between CR 512 and Yeehaw Junction, for example, has a substantial safety problem. FDOT has promised to address this situation for the affected MPOs.

Adoption of Safety Targets

According to statute, the MPO must select Safety Targets for each of the adopted Performance Measures. Those Measures, which are included in Attachment 2, are: 1. Average Annual Fatalities; 2. Average Annual Serious Injuries; 3. Average Annual Fatality Rate; 4. Average Annual Serious Injury Rate; and 5. Average Annual Pedestrian and Bicycle Serious Injuries.

There are a number of important caveats with respect to the data. First, in a County like Indian River, there are so few fatalities and serious injuries that a single major incident could bias crash numbers and crash rates. To mitigate this, FOOT has supplied 5-year moving average data.

Another consideration is the basis upon which the rate is calculated. The "denominator" in the Safety Rate is Millions of Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT. Since there is no way to accurately count all of the miles traveled, FDOT uses a statistical formula. There appear to be discrepancies with the collection of the data that could affect the rates. As seen on Attachment 1, Indian River has approximately 50% less VMT (16.6 million) than Charlotte and Martin Counties and the Heartland TPO (Sebring/Okeechobee areasL despite having comparable populations.

Target Options

The MPO has two options with respect to adoption of Safety Targets: Adopt FDOT safety targets; or develop its own targets. With respect to each of the 5 Performance Measurement Categories, FOOT has adopted an aspirational target of zero crashes, fatalities, and injuries (Attachment 1). The selection of zero as a target is consistent with the Governor's Policy and a broad national "Vision Zero" movement which has set out to eliminate all unnecessary highway injuries and fatalities. As of January, 7 MPOs have formally adopted Vision Zero as their target.

Alternatively, 3 MPOs adopted targets based on actual safety trend lines. In each case, these MPOs aspired to reduced crashes and/or crash rates. While perhaps a more realistic approach, it is difficult for small MPOs to achieve consistency from year to year since the number of crashes, particularly those with fatalities, are very small. In fact, Indian River County has had 0 bicycle fatalities in 3 ofthe past 5 years.

Adopting the state's aspirational targets demonstrates consistency with the majority of MPO's (including those in our area) and with FOOT and MPO Safety Plans. Therefore, staff is recommending adoption ofthe State's performance target.

F: ,Communitv Development\User:, WO'Meeting; .r AC\2018\1-26-18\Review &nd Update "2Perfonnance Measures. doc

It should be noted that there is no financial incentive to meet or exceed performance targets, and the consequences for not meeting them are limited and mostly apply to state investment policy. In the future, meeting performance targets could be integrated into the funding process, but the MPO and FOOT will have many opportunities to revisit targets. The MPO can and will monitor performance closely irrespective of the target chosen.

RECOMMENDATION

The MPO recommends adopting the State's Safety Performance Targets as identified on Attachment 2.

ATIACHMENT

1. Florida Safety Data Spreadsheet 2. FOOT Safety Performance Targets

F:·.communit;• Developmcnt\Users'MPO\Meetingi,TAC\2018\1-26-18\Review and Update OS Performance Ue&BUres.doc

~ :x;f C"":)

::::J: :s: ·~.,

~ ~'

MPO/TPO

Space Coast TPO Siosle County

Ch .. rlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO' ~l.tgle Count-,·

BrowardMPO Siptle County

Hernando/Citrus MPO ~~b!'lltt<.:c:Kihik.'

Hillsborough County MPO SiAKie County

North Florida MPO MultlpleCountiM

PolkTPO .!W.udefC"Lifla.·,

lee County MPO Sinale County

Mart1nMPO S!QCI'" (C,LUH."t

Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO Single County

Colhl'r County MPO Sm:31..:.r.oun~,1

Ocala/Marion County TPO Sincte<::ounty

METROPlAN Orlaoldo ,,1ul.xp&...:ot•nt.e.i

Bay County TPO Single County

Pasco r.ounty MPC' ~Jn6.1~~~

Pinellas Co•Jnty MPO So"4!•CW..<

Sarasota/Manatee MPO Multiple Counties

StlUCleTPO s.,l'-'•~

Capital Region TPA Multiple Counties

Palm Beach MPO Sin&le Count'j

Lake-SUIIlterMPO ~-tul..:ltJie ... ou.,bll!li

Heartland Regional TPO Multiple Coum:les

FOOT

Lcn!nt¥

""·-County Name MPO/TPO

26 Alachua Gainesville MTPO .t Esr.arllbl<: Armri~-AI~bama TPO s~ $aoltil :1..;:15<1 I ::tor ida-Alabama rr-o

t- ---- ··~ -----~------- ~-~--57 Okaloosa Okaloosa-Walton TPO 60 Walton Okaloosa-Walton TPO n Flagler Ro.,~r to ~ea TPQ ,. IIOhJSICI ~P~t tc Sei:i T~O .. Indian River Indian River County MPO

FHWAPerfMeasperMPO

Average Annual Average Annual Serious Average Annual Fatality

Fata lities1 lnjurit!s2 Rates3

:!OU-15 ZD 1.2-16 21111-15 20~2-16 2011-15 Zl\12-16

Aveoa114: O.:t. Average S.1 AYeral;'d %!\. Aoleo3ge ':\:4 Average .,.!1. AVE'fage %t. 69.6 5.1% 74.8 7.5% 601.4 -1.0% 630.8 4,9% 1.159 5.1% 1.218 7.5%

a$. ,.9'!;1 1'Z = 56% :tl:::.f' -~ &~' .1.7:"0 -~ 5'1: f,~&;J l!'l< 0:19! ~ 6!1;1

183.0 4.6% 199.6 9.1% 1,888.8 -5.7"-' 1,776.0 -6.0% 1.109 4.6% 1.205 9.1%

~9:". ~7"< -~9 e 12~-1 t.-~S\l ~~; ~O:t ~ ,::r.'( ~~,l -li'1i l ~.&! 1';.lo;

168.4 4.6% 183.8 9.1% 1,752.0 -8.8% 1,618.0 -7.6% 1308 4.6% 1.400 9.1%

183.4 6.1% 201.4 9.8% 1,341A 3.2% 1,371.0 2.~ 1.188 6.1% 1.272 9.8%

9?~ ~"' 11)1'€ 88". ~S96 _-, -~" ~~Ja -3 .... 1.5'i"9 ~ 9'11 1 ')."'~ '; ~·~

81.0 7.1% 87.0 7.4% 460.4 05% 499.0 BA% 1.187 7.1% 1.229 7A%

L1 "! 2 S•• '.5 ~ ~00~ 1J17 ~ -~'"I 10~0 -?1% il~ ~~' l 2~£ ~ lfo'(

265.0 75% 273.8 3.3% 1,992.2 0.0%1 1,894.4 -4.9% 1.378 75% 1.417 3.3%

~<'8 ,. 3"<1 3br. -"!!'!. 17.!: .l u~l J..n"l. d'l: liB "~ 1ns _, 1•· 60.0 -1.0% 61.6 2.7% 326.8 ·9.1% 327.8 0.3% 1.475 ~1.0% 1A78 2.7%

?!B 1 3r, l~6(· "5"<: 1:1~6 ·,~ ~-, z.,·~o 1' 9~ 1 r-:. ~· 71;. • 0119 :: ~ ... ~ 27.2 115% 30.0 10.3% 255.2 1.9% 234.6 -8.1% 1.476 11.5% 1.596 10.3%

51'8 -1 1)6; il't 6~~·1 ~33~ 71"- 1.0~~ h ll•/% 1 59;.. -15:; u;,;r 6!1"..;

10:~ 1~ JO!' p :~ 1,.194; l' -~-~ •.1752 -16"!: 1 Z:l~ 1 ""( 10:111 Z~'t~ 87A 7.1% 99.8 14.2% 907.0 16.6% 1,131.2 24.7% 1.160 7.1% 1.289 14.~

310 '' l'S ~!:J:; fa .1,,. 16bb ·•3'ie:l 1650 -.L{~ ~.l'l5 -411'-t lllt4 t~ ..

51.4 -3.0% 55.6 8.2% 278.6 -11.~ 266.0 -4.5% 1.208 -3.0% 1.279 8.~

139.8 10.1% 153A 9.7% 1,026.2 ·1.3% 1,054.2 2.7% 1.100 10.1% 1.185 9.7%

64~ !: l~. t"fi •l :.'1~ 31~4 -?:·~~ .:)64 0 ,_.-~~ .. l ijlG " ~.1 1 ';U ~·" 57 A 2.9% 60.8 5.9% 299.8 -3.4% 342.0 14.1% 2.025 2.9% 2.105 5.9%

Average Annual Average Annual Serious Average Annual Fatality

Fatalities1 lnjuries2 Rates3

!OU-15 2012-1,'; 2(111-15 ZDll-16 11111-15 2012-16

Ave,.,.!" ),;-\ A~ '"~ Averate "j; • .l. Average ·M Avei'Pgo! .. ~ Averoge •loll 32.8 7.2% 36.6 11.6% 265.6 -3.7% 264.0 -0.6% 1.137 6.0% 1.242 9.2%

441 63% ¥.- ~ ('I~~ H14 _,,..,gc-:; <816 -1~4°io 1 ,,~ ~I% 1:~3 -(1 ;-o-'1 ~lC! -1<'111 !00 -s,·" il~O -6-.% 1&~6 -EdJ;<, 1 0~! -i.:~ 097'! -915!. --- ·-·- .. -·-· 27.0 125% 26.6 -1.5% 202.4 -4.7% 184.0 -9.1% 1.284 11.4% 1.247 -2.9%

14.2 -22.0% 14.2 0.0% 137.8 -0.3% 121.0 -12.2% 1.198 -23.3% 1.160 -3.2%

lif -no~ 1! 1 3 ~" u~; s -1:9% .·.~9 ~ -~34~ .• .. 'i~?: -1•!% 1 SO t -25%

a92 -41~-.r. 9fi.,_ n,. f:dtl ~ .• ~" 63~ ~ 13" 10.2~ -15":11 171~ 56'1o

19.4 ·2.0%1 20.6 6.2% 115.8 -2.7% 127.2 9.8% 1.262 ~3.8% 1.322 4.8% . ~-

2016_FHWA_PeoformanceMeasuresper_MPO_including2009-2016_Updated2017-12-29.~1s~

Average Annual Average Annual Serious Pedestrian and Bicyclist

Injury Rates4 Fataliti£-s and Serious

lnluriesS 2011-15 2012-16 I 201:0:-15 201::-16

Averaet:l M ~.verage ~II. Awoage %-1 A""rage ~ 1o.o33 1 -0.6% 10.363 3.3% 86.6 5.4% 90,2 4.2%

6 1~-.. 1 -:•!J i% ~ t,;.•t -i 40,: 'Hi -;~ ll)-1 -4 7'01

11.4471 -6.8% 10.797 -5.7% 341A -2.6% 352.2 3.~

t.!:d-!9 3"1..0 1~~"" I 11, ~10 1..::~~ -'!'~ .., l'._ 13.650 -9.6% 12.430 ·8.9% 246.0 -1.4% 242.6 -lA%

8.717 2.0% 8.727 0.1% 191.8 5.5% 196.2 2.3%

.,9s!=ll -1u~ 7 39'! ~71'' oc -~ s•• s-,~ 6~

6.786 -2.0% 7.101 4.6% 84.0 5.0% 91.0 8.3%

~ '.69 ..Or.!. ~ 117 -i. ~· 1£.1 -69'! " 1.i'·J ~13~

10.386 0.0% 9.854 -5.1% 446.0 4.7% 436.0 -2.~

5 3310 ·10'!0 5 '!5~ .:, 5% 31€ ·Z'l'Oi !Ill~ 6Jitlti

8.069 -9.91' 7.894 -2.2% 38.0 -2.6% 41.2 8.4%

11309 "!1)~ .. 11€17 117':· .31, ~ 1!!"" 375 e ~'I:~

13.897 1.0% 12.559 ·9.6% ~4.4 17.0% 37.6 9.3%

;u on 30-.... ::3.SO~ ,5'&1 10JO -<JS'Ib l15ti 61"b

1-5 0~~ -12'1,'. HS~~ .; 1'~~~ U71 1&>; ~l!O ).7·~

11.986 14.~ 14.504 21.0% 142.8 6A% 160.0 12.0%

5 flf. -S ~":-' 51:·~ -{,~ ~fi ~ -~~ liO -:I.Q ..... ';,;

6.539 ·11.2% 6.143 -6.1% 42.4 2A% 44.0 3.8%

8.105 -3.1% 8.195 1.1% 200.6 3.7% 203.2 1.3%

7 .. 15 -~h~ i7•tl 413~ 3,ij .·,~ .!de\ ~!';\

10.577 -4.6% 11.750 11.1% 33.2 -5.1% 32,6 -1.8%

••-• WI)~ ~""w-•

Average Annual Serious Pedestrian and Bicyclist

Injury Rates4 Fatalities and Serious .. . ·" 20U-15 2012-16 ZQU-15 20J.:<-16

A•erage %~ Ave.rag" '16~ AVPI"ol§e ~ AW!Ja~e ~6.

9.217 -4.8% 8.959 -2.8% 37.0 -3.1% 37.8 2.2%

34SC -1~ ~ ... 8 .L8...-: ~!.34% 5!:4 .p 00. 5!.-~ -lP'!>

109.21 -ij:r,o; ~'ltt; I -U~ 1~ 0 -1:!% 1.!:8 1j:_:t~

9.681 -5.3% 8.675 -lOA% 30.8 6.2% 28.6 -7.1%

11.609 -2.0% 9.954 -14.3% 9A 4.4% 8.6 -8.5%

12 .:39 -171?6 HJ~7i -lS t% .s 8 113% lSb -1~

,,:• ... J! -1"'!! .1.1:117 -03~ ij~ U i -4lll- 8!.! -0 ?'~

7.568 -4.0% 8.194 8.3% 16.21 11.0% 17.6 8.6%

FHWAPerfMeasperMPO

100 MVMT annually pe• Flc·n'.l~ Oe,part.mmt ot Transpo.-~~t•on Ofhr.e c..f

MPO/TPO Trans.,ori:atlon D;;ta aold Aol:.ly(IC;; P.~port;; of H1gh•ovy MiiE'al!P. 3nd

"frF.vel (OVMT! hti:~ /hiW"'' f,!c;t '!,O',"/ ·lho'nlilflg/~~tl:i

2015 2016

Space Coast TPO 61.4551679 65.6673691

Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO '23 3980126 ~4 J.l193503

Broward MPO 166.9024306 173.5313859

Hernando/Citrus MPO 34 a4".!5795 3;5 3607703

Hillsborough County MPO 133.9419918 139.5862540

North Florida MPO 162.9394837 169.8187099

Polk TPO 70 4824763 73 5~20564

Lee County MPO 73.4605836 76.3918755

Martin MPO 2~.194460:! ~2 3Se9t73

Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO 195.3322710 199.9572680

Collier County MPO J5 6256775 37 2433963

Ocala/Marion County TPO 42.4959020 44.6672492

METROPLAN Orlando :!12 6036;)51 215 .:!.285!58

Bay County TPO 19.2580101 19.5650006

Pasco County MPO 44 245'22!B 45,6978006

Pinellas County MPO no,.S4061 841336410

Sarasota/Manatee MPO 79.2540536 81.7743031

St Lucie TPO 32 .1.319')74 3328S5760

Capital Region TPA 44.3689142 45.5404039

Palm Beach MPO 133.0681067 138.6731715

Lake-Sumter MPO 4~ 3614868 521561969

Heartland Regional TPO 30.1160191 31.2070263

100 MVMT annually per Flt'rlci<' Depa1 (ment of To'llnsportaMn O'if1;;:.: of

County Name T1 dn~piJotatl':lolliata and An3l','tiC3 R':'iJO~ of :i1ghv.•y M1le~3e ao1d

Tril\i!:!l (D\.'MT)

::!015 2016

Alachua 30.1176460 31.1408361

Escamb1i:'l 34 7030748 35 6:mml7

Santa RrJsa 20 8•J~~OS31 2l 34f:l121

Okaloosa 21.5839648 22.3419337

Walton 12.8608789 12.9795784

Flagler 13 43Ct8l6£ B 7eS";;029

Vol usia 57.2630717 5~ 5853199

Indian River 15.8210384 16.6065394

2016_FHWA_PerformanceMeasuresper_MPO_including2009-2016_Updated2017-12-29.xlsx

2017 Florida Highway Safety Improvement Program

34. Safety Performance Targets

Calendar Year 2018 Targets*

Numhl'r uf h1t.di1in

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

Based on statistical forecasting. the five year rolling average for total fatalities on Florida's roads is forecast to be between 2. 716 and 3,052 in 2018. This forecast was made by combining F ARS data with current state data from 2009 to 2016 to predict probable outcomes for 2017 and 2018. Florida's target for fatalities is zero in 2018. While the data forecast indicates Florida's five year rolling average for fatalities could continue to trend upward in 2017 and 2018, the FOOT State Safety Office expects the projects chosen for funding will mitigate the data forecast and ultimately reduce the number of traffic fatalities. An interim performance measure is required by our federal funding agencies in order to receive federal funding. We firmly believe that every life counts and although our target for fatalities is zero in 2018, Florida has forecast an interim performance measure of3,052 in order to satisfy the federal requirement.

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SHSP goals.

Based on statistical forecasting, the five year rolling average for total serious injuries on Florida's roads is forecast to be between 18,831 and 20,861 in 2018. This forecast: was made by combining PARS data with current state data from 2009 to 2016 to predict probable outcomes for 2017 and 2018. Florida's target for serious injuries is zero in 2018. The data forecast indicates Florida's five year rolling average for serious injuries could continue to trend downward in 2017 and 2018. The FDOT State Safety Office expects the projects chosen for funding will enhance this downward 1rend in the number of serious injuries on Florida's roads. An interim performance measure is required by our federal funding agencies in order to receive federal funding. We firmly believe that every life counts and although our target for serious injuries is zero in 2018, Florida has forecast an interim performance measure of20,861 in order to satisfy the federal requirement.

11 . 11111

Describe the basis for established target, including how it supports SBSP goals.

Based on statistical forecasting, the five year rolling average for fatality rate per 100 million VMf on Florida's roads is forecast to be between 1.06 and 1.65 in 2018. This forecast was made by combining FARS data with current state data from 2009 to 2016 to predict probable outcomes for 2017 and 2018. Florida's target for fatality rate per 100 million VMT is zero in 2018. While the data forecast indicates Florida's five year rolling average for fatality rate per 100 million VMT could continue to trend upward in 2017 and 2018, the FDOT State Safety Office expects the projects chosen for funding will mitigate the data forecast and ultimately reduce the number of traffic fatalities. An interim performance measure is required by our federal funding agencies in order to receive federal funding. We finnly believe that every life counts and although our target for fatality rate per 1 00 million VMT is zero in 20 18, Florida has forecast an interim perfonnance measure of 1.65 in order to satisfy the federal requirement.

ATTACHMENT ~

2017 Florida Highway Safety Improvement Program

Describe the basis fo:; established target, including how it supports SHSP goaJs.

Based on statistical forecasting, the five year rolling average for serious injury rate per 100 million VMT on Florida's roads is forecast to be between 7.57 and 11.06 in 2018. lhis forecast was made by combining FARS data with current state data from 2009 to 2016 to predict probable outcomes for 2017 and 2018. Florida's target for selions injury rate per 100 miJlion 'v'MT is zero in 2018. The data forecast indicates Florida's five yea1· rolling average for serious injury rate per 100 mil1ion VMT could continue to trend downward in 2017 and 2018. The FDOT State Safety Office expects the projects chosen for funding wiiJ enhance this downward trend in the serious injury rate per 100 million VMT. An interim p~1formance measure is required by our federal funding agencies in order to receive federal funding. We firmly believe that every life counts and although our target for serious injury rate per 100 million VMT is zero in 20 18, :Florida has forecast an interim performance measure of 11.06 in order to satisfy the federal requirement.

lut:d ~lllllh'-:r cd ~on-~\l olo~·t~l·d , ll. l l ·at;.dtttt·~ .tlld "'''l'lllll\ ·fllflll'll',"

Describe the bes!s for established target, including how it supports SHSP goalo.

Based on statistical forecasting, the five year rolling average for non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries on. Florida's roads is forecast to be between .3,066 and 3.447 in 2018. This forecast was made by combining PARS data with current state data from 2009 to 201fi to predkt probable outcomes for 2017 and 2018. Florida's target for non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries is zero in 2018. 1he data forecast indicates Florida's five year rolling average for non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries could continue to trend downward in 2017 and 2018. The FDOT State Safety Office expects the projects chosen for funding will enhance this downward trend in non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. An interim performance measure is required by OU{ federal funding agencies in order to receive federal funding. We fumly believe that every life counts and although our target for non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries is zero in 2018, Florida has forecast an interim performance measure of 3,447 in order to satisfy the federal requirement.

Entel· ~dd:tio;aal comments he.-e to cla~fy your response fo1· this question or add sc.pportiug information.

Florida shares the national traffic safety vision, "Toward Zero Deaths," and formally adopted our own version of the national vision, ''Driving Down Fatalities," in 2012. FDOT and its traffi.c safety partners are committed to eliminating fatalities and reducing serious injuries with the understanmng that the death of any person is unacceptable and based on that, zero deaths is our safety performance target. This target is consistent throughout our Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Highway Safety Improvement Program and Highway Safety Plan.

Florida's data forecasts have been established using an ARlMA Hybrid Regression Model (0, 1,1)(2,0,0)(12) with VMT. Nine independent variables were tested to assess correlations; only Vehicle Miles ofTravel (VMT) and gas conswnption have relatively high correlations with fatalities and serious injuries and of these two variables only VMT was useful in predicting future fatalities and serious injuries. The first three performance measures (number of fatalities, number of serious injuries, and fatality rate per 1OOM VMn have been forecasted based on a five year rolling average and the remaining performance measures will be forecasted annually. The forecasts for 2017 and 2018 are based on monthly data from 2005 through 2016 using statistical forecasting methodologies.

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Indian River County MPO- Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

THROUGH:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

~ Stan Boling, AICP Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson, AICI(C7~ MPO Staff Director

Brian Freeman, AICP f3F Senior Transportation Planner

January 17, 2018

Z018 Transit Development Plan (TOP) Major Update Presentation

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Metropolitan Planning Organization TAC at its meeting of January 26, 2018.

SUMMARY

According to state and federal regulations, the Indian River County MPO must prepare and adopt a Major Update of its Transit Development Plan (TOP) by September 30, 2018. In 2017, the MPO issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to its general planning consultant, lindale-Oliver and Associates, to initiate the TDP major update. Since then, the consultants have met regularly with MPO and Senior Resource Association {SRA) staff and have provided staff with a number of draft work products. Staff recommends that the TAC consider the presentation at the January 26, 2018 meeting and provide comments to staff.

DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS, & ANALYSIS

According to state and federal regulations, the Indian River County MPO must prepare and adopt a Major Update of its Transit Development Plan (TDP) by September 30, 2018. Adoption of a TOP is required in order to receive grant funding under the Public Transportation Block Grant (PTBG) program. That program provides approximately $500,000 annually in operating assistance.

In 2012, the MPO issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to its general planning consultant, lindale­Oliver and Associates, to initiate the TOP major update. Since then, the county's TOP consultants have undertaken some preliminary TOP development activities. Those activities include drafting a

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\2018\1-26-18\TDP staff report.docx 1

public outreach plan, analyzing demographic trends within the community, and conducting a peer trend analysis of the county's fixed route (Goline) and demand response (Community Coach) transit systems.

One essential component of the TOP major update is public outreach. As one of the first TOP activities, the consultants drafted a public outreach plan for the project. That outreach plan calls for surveying transit users and operators, conducting public workshops throughout the county, and reaching out to non-users at public locations. Late last year, transit system users were surveyed by the consultant. As part of that effort, onboard questionnaires were administered to Goline passengers, while surveys were sent by mail to Community Coach passengers with a postage-paid return envelope. On November 9, 2017, the consultant conducted two public listening sessions at the Main Transit Hub and at the UP Harvest Grocery Center. Future activities include public workshops that will be conducted this spring.

Besides the public outreach efforts discussed above, the consultants have conducted a demographic assessment of the county and a peer trend analysis of the Goline and Community Coach systems. A peer trend analysis is an efficiency review of those services in comparison to other similar systems. Those efforts culminated in two draft reports that were recently submitted to MPO staff. At this time, those reports are being reviewed by MPO staff. Upon completion of that review, those reports will be incorporated into the TDP document and submitted to the TAC for review and approval.

At the January 26, 2018 meeting, the TAC will receive a presentation by the Consultant regarding the TOP activities conducted thus far and the future steps ahead.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the TAC consider the presentation at the January 26, 2018 meeting and provide comments to staff.

F :\Community Develo pment\Users\M PO\Meeti ngs\ TAC\20 18\1·26-18\ TOP staff report.d ocx 2

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members ofthe Indian River County MPO Technical Advisory Committee

-1'(1 THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson, AI% MPO Staff Director(_, I""""\

January 18, 2018

Consideration of Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendments

It is requested that the information herein presented by given formal consideration by the Indian River County MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) at its January 26, 2018 meeting.

DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

At the request of FOOT, an amendment to the adopted Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was approved by the MPO staff director. That amendment (Attachment 1) enables FOOT District staff to add an additional Environmental funding phase to the CR 510 widening project (CR 512- US 1).

Staff approval of minor amendments to MPO plans is allowed pursuant to MPO resolution No. 99-02, adopted on July 14, 1999. That resolution allows such administrative amendments with the requirement that the MPO Staff Director provide a status report of any such amendment to the MPO, TAC, and CAC at their next regularly scheduled meetings. This Is the required staff report.

RECOMMENDATION

Attachment 1 is provided for information only.

ATIACHMENTS

1. FOOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendments for FY 2017/18 2. MPO Resolution No. 99-02

F:\Community Deveiopment\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\2018\1-26-18\TIP Amendments.docx

RICK SCOTT GOVERNOR

l :;rlorida Depu ·t1tte111 of .Tran~portalion

Mr. Philip Matson, Exe~utive Director ~ndian River MPO 1801 27th 8treet Vero Beach, FL 32960

SUBJECT: Indiau lliver MPO

3400 West Co!nmercial Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

Dec.ambe1 2 I, 2017

TJ.P A.mendment Request FY 2017/:lS- 2021/22 FM No. ·~ 05606-2-C2-10

Dear Mr. Mats.:·n:

JlMBOXOLD SECRETARY

Pursuant to Title 23 anci Title 49, the ;.'lorida Department c.fTransportatlun requests )'OUr proces8ing and approval of the attached amendment to the FY 201/r 18 -2021/22 Transporta.tion Impr~YementProgram. This amendment is required because the project manager has added Phase C2 for Environmental ~en•tces in the amount of $125,406.UO in FY 2018 of STP funds. This Transportation lmprcvement Program Amendment is consh:.tent with the Adopted Long Range Transportatlvn Plan and th(-adopted TIP ren1ains financially constrained.

Please contact me at (954) 777-4365 if you have any questions or need addttional information.

Sincetely,

Myroslava (Mira) Skoroden Planning Specialist District Four

----- ·----·~-:==================================================--==·

The abcvc TIP amendment was authorized to be included in the FY 2017 I 18 - 2021 122 Transportation lrnprowment Program.

~r. Philip Matson Director

www.dot.~tate fl. us

NTACHMENT 1

Indian River MPO Transportation Improvement Program- FY 2017/18-2021122 Roadway Capacity Projects

CR 510 Widening

\ .:.. . ~~·~;

1

Prior Cost< 2017/18:

Future Cost> 2020/21:

Total Project Cost:

Project Description:

'\

0

0 8,216,958

I•

·-·.1- ·-' . ~~· ·· I -

I

Work Summary:

Lead Agency:

County:

Fund Phase Source

ENV SA (STP)

Total

4056062

PD&EIEMO STUDY

FOOT

Indian River

2017/18 2018/19

125,406 0

125,406 0

Non-SIS

From: CR 512

To: 58th Avenue

Length: 5.27 miles

LRTP #: Table 7-1

2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Total

0 0 0 125,406

0 0 0 125,406

Widen CR 510 (85th Street) from 21anes to 41anes between CR 512 and 58th Avenue. Project length is 5.27 miles. Preliminary engineering programmed for FY 201 7/18 and ROW acquisition programmed for FY 2019/20 through 2020/21 . Environmental C2 Phase to project, 125,406 additional funding .

Adopted June 14, 2017 - Amended December 27, 2017 A-16

L.___s_u_b_rn_tt_-..J! I Pnnt form AMENDMENT NO: :.&: ',~-1 :.:

MPO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM (BETA VERSION)

The purpose of this form is to improve communication between FDOT District 4 and the regional MPOs when requesting amendments or modifications to the STIP /TIP.

A recent change to your project in the work program has triggered the need for a possible STIP/TIP Amendment. Please review the information below and complete this form in its entirety within 7 days of receipt. Click the submit button to submit via e-mc'f, incomplete forms will not be accepted.

FM#: 405606-2 Project Name: CR-51 0/SSTH STREET FROM CR-512 TO 58TH AVE --- -

FUND PHASE fY 2017 FY 2018 J FY 2019 fY 2020 TOTAL

STP C2 125,406 125.406

This change: adds a new individual project to the TIP

Project Manager: Maria Formoso Email: Maria.Formoso@dot.state.fl.us

Project manager. please provide the following project Information:

A. Project description (i.e., scope):

The Project Development and Environmental Study for the 4-laning roadway of County Road 510, from the intersection of County Road 512 to 58th Ave. The project is 5.27 miles in length and encompasses the replacement of 3 bridges; four signalized intersections and a round-about. The proposed typical sections are an urban typical section and a suburban typical section. The drainage sheetflows and will be collected by pipes and conveyed to off site ponds. Bicycle and sidewalks are proposed throughout the project limits.

B. Reason for the adjustment to the Five-Year Work Program:

An additional $125,406 is being requested to conduct contamination survey.

C. If funds are not authorized as scheduled, would it impact the project production sch edule? I._Y_e_s -----------'

D. Additional comments:

If a STJP/TIP amendment is needed and not processed by the MPO, it could result in a delay in the authorization of funds. 1f you have questions, or need additional information regarding this form. please contact Arlene Tanis, Intergovernmental Coordinator, via (954) 777-4651 or Arlene.Tanis@dot.staw~

Entffl'd ln·t~<is

...

.,......::-· .

~IPO USOLl. iJON SO.~

A R.tSOLL'TlON d.t T·RE ~"DlA.'\ RJ'\o'U. COL~n· ~TROPOLJT A.~· PLA.~~O ORCA."ill.AT10N Al.THO~Ci THE ~{PO STAFf OUUCTORTO PEJU'OR.'f ~!L'\OR ~\1SIOSS A.''D ·'-'IE~"DME.NTS TO PUNS, lt.itORTSt A.'m ooct:m:.m APPRO\ 'tP B'c' THZ ~. '1\'H.t.N Sl.'CB Actio~ns NE£OED TO OBVJ~ ro'.U. STAT£ A.''O riDEIUl AJPROVAJ.. OF SUCB !Tt~fS A.""D IS ~tCtSS.J,.RY Ol."'E TO n'tt Ok .OTHER CONSTJUJ."'ffS.

'll.'R!RLAS, l.bc Llldia.o R.ivc: CoWlty ~ieuopoti!.lll PliMUlg OrtUliudon OOO).is ;.~ desiJNted ud con$til\lted body rt$pOC.Siblt roc the utbar. ::-u-.rporution plll'ltl.iJolg .and pro~ prtUS.S for tbc Vtro B'"b Urtanucd Area; mci

'W".

WHEREAS, !be MJIO is te:s"pO_usiblc. (or fltqlatulJ Vld appro"-\~~ g se\·eT1J. irap.:~r.~ ~r.a.tioo plw, r;poN, md docwi:l~li; a.nd · · . . . .

WBE1U:.Ut tile F1oridi Departmeol of Trmrpor-.1tio~ {FOOT), the-US. Oepanmeot c: TI"UI.SpONtioa (USDOT), or other rule or fedenJ ageocics'ID&Y requin tzWlClr re'irio!U lo sue! tnrupo!'l.ltion plans., reporu, and doeumenu as a conditioc of final atJ~rovaJ: and

\\liER.t . ..S, aililor ~visioc:s ue &ene:nlly defined u small·~a.le tcxn.aJ elarilie.ations LC·

~ rt;:"Oru.. plans., van ~pli~os. ~nrulu.ct secpes oi servict-S, and other similar docume1ns: minor changes 10 pr6jteu wi·llilil \he ~·s ~v~.Tr1.·.sporution Lr:lp"'verncot Pro~ rTl? ;:JCJudu:g ;:>rojo:t &dvUlCCDoe('~ si .. ut·fede-i· ;:~~:«t f.:.: . .::.:.-., .:ha:·~scs; we: cr-Unor eh~ges ,0 :.\: adopted L"ni:icd ?lanni.De Wori: r.o~ (1...?'.l."'? \ ~we.:' ·-·- ~ :>"Jd~cl !l:.e i:~:;: re,·:sion.s. and

YI'Hl:REAs, sueb m4Dor i'Msi'Oru or l.!Dmdme::!.S ol\m need to ~ compl¢t~ in sbqn timcfnm~ ~~of~ ·i.ssocliled Wrtb such ~rw:ion plans., reports, llld doeumcnu.

~·ow. THERLFQR.£, BE IT R.E.SOL\1:0 BY THE 1:"\Dl.J,."i Rl\'ER COL;\n· :'>IETROPOLIT A.'i PLA.'i~1:'\G ORG.A...,lZ.l. Tl0:-1:

I.

3.

Thal the ln<lian R.hc:r Cou.oty ~etropoi.Ju.o Plu.:-o~."":g Or~aniulion (~i:PO) wlhonzes \he ~?0 St.a.ff DireeLOr to perform minor ~'isio.-..s l.i'!le:l.i"TienlS :.0 pl1ns., ~ru, I..O<i joeu..-ocnu ~.pproved by the MJ>O, -...~ such ac~.:-n is r.ceded \o obUjn fin.a.J tlalc o.n0 [eden! approvll of such hem.5, md is oe: ~· c~: :o l!mc or oth~· c.onsln.i.nts.

Thai the ~ swr Director stwl obuin cooc~~ ::-om lhe M1"' G..tinnU~ i.n the cour~ or pcrionnice rueb mi.oor r~ision.s.'amendmenu.

Thoat t.be MJ>O Stllf DineLOr s!all P.J'1)vide a su:-~ ;cpon lo \he MPO, T AC, Uld C.\C involvinl the nalllt'C o( SUCh minor m'll'IO!l$. ur,e.,!::ltOU 11 the OCXI teguJatly sched1.1lcd MPQ, T AC, a.nd CAC me-eting a!\er !he completion cf such minor ~"ilions:ilnend•·ncnu bv lhe MPO Su.lf Director. . .

TIUS IU:SOLlilO~ ..,.a.s rno"ed (or wpuon b~ Carp line .&!M , Uld the motioa .... as sec.ooded by. rr 1ft Ad liS anci upoD' Mini put \D a VOtc,'lhe VOlt •us u fotlo'lt's: ·

Clalnnao Johtl W. Tippil Commissioner Ft111 B: A~. Co~mcil'tlr·ocnan Sandn Bo\\ dcu Commissioner Caroti.oe Ciilln CommiMioaer Kamec.b Ma.:bt Co~ Jobs! McCIDIS Colmcilme Cb.via N~er ColmcilmiD C#l Pcut

CoYtct \aan Cb&rles v.· .:.-=stcdt

~ .

· 'i'fle Cb.a.irmllllh~ :~h.red ~~( moiurio11 d.lllY pwcd a.nd ldopled \hi, 1J..tA.. ~~~·or t!Jh . ..1999-.

APPROVED .4..5 TO FOR.'rl . .&...YO L£GAL s.t:mcrr:-<CY

~[L, CH...lR.I..ES P. \1 Tl.JNA C ,\IPO A ITORXEY

1~1) tA. ~ fU\ 'l P. c 0 t. ""!'fn' ~ttTROPOUl~~PL~\~~CORC~~Lt~no~

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members ofthe Indian River County MPO- Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson, AICP MPO Staff Director

January 18, 2018

Status Report of MPO Advisory Committees

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee at its meeting of January 26, 2018.

CAC MEETING

The CAC met on December 3, 2017 and considered presentations on FOOT's 1-95 Master Plan, Performance Measures, and Aviation Boulevard Options. There were no actions taken with respect to these items.

MPO MEETING

The MPO met on December 11, 2017 and considered the same items. The MPO also considered a presentation by a neighborhood group on possible closure options for Jungle Trail to vehicular traffic. The MPO expressed a consensus to leave Jungle Trail open for all users.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

The MPO and its advisory committees will next meet as follows:

CAC Meeting: February 6, 2018- 2:00 pm MPO Meeting: February 14, 2018- 10:00 am TAC Meeting: March 23, 2018-10:00 am BAC Meeting: April 24, 2018- 2:00 pm

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\2018\1-26-18\Status Other Committees.docx