Meeting of the Livable Roadways Committee Hillsborough County MPO Chairman Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 9:00 AM

Home , Share taxi

Commissioner Lesley “Les” Miller, Jr. Meeting of the Livable Roadways Committee Hillsborough County MPO Chairman Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 9:00 AM

Councilman Harry Cohen City of Tampa MPO Vice Chairman I. Call to Order

Paul Anderson Tampa Port Authority II. Public Comment - 3 minutes per speaker, please

Wallace Bowers HART III. Approval of Minutes – March 22, 2017

Trent Green IV. Action Items Planning Commission

Commissioner Ken Hagan A. Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Update Hillsborough County th Commissioner Pat Kemp B. TIP Amendments (34 St., SR 674) Hillsborough County V. Status Reports Mayor Kim Leinbach Temple Terrace A. “Getting to School” Survey Results (Patti Simmons, SDHC) Joe Lopano Hillsborough County B. City of Tampa Livable Projects– Downtown Curb Extension Project, Aviation Authority

Mayor Rick A Lott Laurel Sreet & Doyle Carlton Drive Intersection and Bayshore Blvd City of Plant City

Councilman Buffered Bike Lanes and Traffic Calming (Cal Hardie, City of Tampa staff) Guido Maniscalco City of Tampa C. Plant City Walk-Bike Plan Update (Wade Reynolds, MPO staff)

Commissioner Sandra Murman VI. Old Business & New Business Hillsborough County

Cindy Stuart A. MPO Regional Coordination Structure Research & Best Practices Study Hillsborough County School Board (Beth Alden, MPO Executive Director)

Councilman Luis Viera City of Tampa B. Hillsborough County has opened up a comment period for several of their

Joseph Waggoner Public Works and Public Utilities Technical Manuals until May 31. Link Expressway Authority

Commissioner HCFLGov.net/en/businesses/land-development/technical-publications Stacy R. White Hillsborough County VII. Adjournment Beth Alden, AICP Executive Director VIII. Addendum A. MPO Committee Report B. Regional Transportation Planning Best Practices Study Kick-off Workshop May 12, 2017 10AM-2PM St Pete College, Clearwater, FL C. Wesley Chapel Road Connections Study Public Meeting D. Cross-Bay Ferry Pilot Project Early Progress Report by St. Petersburg E. Kennedy Blvd. Resurfacing Fact Sheet

The full agenda packet is available on the MPO’s website, www.planhillsborough.org, Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org or by calling (813) 272-5940. [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th Floor Tampa, FL, 33602

The MPO does not discriminate in any of its programs or services. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Learn more about our commitment to non-discrimination

Persons needing interpreter services or accommodations for a disability in order to participate in this meeting, free of charge, are encouraged to contact Michele Ogilvie, 813-273-3774 x317 or [email protected], three business days in advance of the meeting. Also, if you are only able to speak Spanish, please call the Spanish help line at (813) 273-3774, ext. 211.

Si necesita servicios de traducción, el MPO ofrece por gratis. Para registrarse por estos servicios, por favor llame a Michele Ogilvie directamente al (813) 273-3774, ext. 317 con tres días antes, o [email protected] de cerro electronico. También, si sólo se puede hablar en español, por favor llame a la línea de ayuda en español al (813) 273-3774, ext. 211.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, materials attached are for research and educational purposes, and are distributed without profit to MPO Board members, MPO staff, or related committees or subcommittees the MPO supports. The MPO has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of attached articles nor is the MPO endorsed or sponsored by the originator. Persons wishing to use copyrighted material for purposes of their own that go beyond ‘fair use’ must first obtain permission from the copyright owner.

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION LIVABLE ROADWAYS COMMITTEE (LRC) MEETING OF MARCH 22, 2017

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Trent Green, called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. and the Pledge of Allegiance took place. The meeting was held in the Plan Hillsborough Committee room on the 18th Floor of the County Center Building.

Members Present: Trent Green, Lea DelTosto, Arizona Jenkins, Chris Thompson, Chris Weber, Jason Jackman, Kris Milster, Catherine Coyle, Charles White, Nina Mabilleau, June Farrell, Hamza Bouloudene, Karen Kress, Grayson Silver, Sara Hendricks, Anna Quiñones, and Mike Williams.

Members Excused: Mark Hudson, David Hey, and David Horwitz

Others Present: Lisa Silva, Allison Yeh, Wanda West, Beth Alden, MPO staff; Brandon Berry (MPO Intern); Sharon Snyder, Planning Commission Staff; Roger Roscoe, FDOT; Danielle Joyce, Greenman‐Pedersen (MPO Consultant); Allen Howell, Public Works; Chris Keller, Tindale Oliver; Ken Sides, Sam Schwartz Engineering.

PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no public comments.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES (February 22, 2017)

There was not a quorum at the beginning of the meeting. A quorum was established at 9:12 a.m.

Ms. Catherine Coyle made a motion to approve the February 22, 2017 LRC minutes. The motion was seconded Mr. Charles White and carried unanimously.

STATUS REPORTS

A. Dale Mabry Ped Crossing Study

Ms. Danielle Joyce, Greenman‐Pedersen Inc. (MPO Consultant) introduced information on the effort between Tindale Oliver, Greenman‐Pederson, and the MPO. The two‐part study consists of (1) feasibility of alternatives for a pedestrian overpass across Dale Mabry Hwy, near I‐275, and (2) walk/bike improvements along Spruce Street between Dale Mabry Hwy and Rome Avenue. Chris Keller with Tindale Oliver gave the overview for the Spruce Street walk‐bike enhancements.

During the presentation, Karen Kress inquired about the Advisory Shoulder Treatment for the Spruce Street. Following the presentation, Mr. Jackman wanted to know if there was a timeline for the study. Completion is anticipated for May or June. Arizona asked about the sidewalks at McFarland Park. In most cases, the sidewalks will be widened versus narrowed, unless they have to be. Kris Milster inquired about opportunity for bicyclist. There were inquiries about ADA access for the potential pedestrian overpass South of I‐275. There was a suggestion from an audience participant comparing the spiral ramps in Kissimmee to parts of the Dale Mabry analysis. Trent Green wanted to know if there will be any type of exit, or will users have to go the entire distance of the trail. The trail will be heavily signed so users are aware of their options. The Evaluation Matrix will be presented in the final report. When the consultant offered the idea of a Tampa Gateway Ms. Silva cautioned that wording etc. on overpasses is now regulated by FDOT Community Aesthetics Features Application. Nina Mabilleau expressed concerns regarding maintenance of the trail.

B. Transportation Disadvantaged Return on Investment

Brandon Berry, MPO Intern presented information on the return on investment generated by funds invested by the state of Florida and Hillsborough County in the local transportation disadvantaged program.

C. Tampa Bike Update

Ms. Karen Kress from Tampa’s Downtown Partnership presented information on a “Recipe for a Thriving Bike Scene.” Ms. Kress announced information about the celebration of the five‐year anniversary of the City of Tampa’s Invision Center and the city’s proclamation in honor of Florida Bike Month. The Tampa Bike Map was recently updated. Tampa was listed as one of the “50 Best Biking Cities” in Biking Magazine.

Ms. Kress informed the group of new event bike parking/bike valet and Coast Bike’s expansion into St. Petersburg.

Following the presentation, Sara Hendricks wanted to know who owned the Coast Bike Program’s bicycle. Cycle Hop was awarded the program by the City and they own the bikes.

D. Code Requirements for Replanting of Trees Removed During Site Development

Ms. Cathy Coyle, City of Tampa Land Development provided the update. Tree equivalency information is available on the City’s website. If all trees are not replaced, money must be paid into the citywide fund. To clear cut in the city, one would have to attend a hearing. The City attempts to penalize for violations. Ms. Coyle will send the Tampa Tree map information to Lisa Silva for distribution to the committee. The County has a program and Charles White suggested contacting Joe Gross from Environmental and Natural Resources Department. Not all trees are protected in the County.

OLD BUSINESS & NEW BUSINESS

There was no old or new business.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:16 a.m.

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Update Presenter Allison Yeh, MPO Staff Summary The MPO’s transportation planning functions are supported primarily by federal and state grants. These functions must be identified in advance for two fiscal years (FY) and encompass the surface transportation planning efforts to be undertaken by HART, FDOT and other agencies with state and federal funds. These activities, products and budgeted funds are documented in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).

The current FY16/17 ends in June and the second FY17/18 begins on July 1, 2017. Prior to the start of the FY17/18, budget figures are being updated to close out work in year one and reflect new funding allocations, rollover funds, and projects for year two.

Required annual administrative updates will also be made to federal and state forms including FTA 5303/5305 Grants, Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged and other required documentation located the Appendices of the currently adopted FY16/17 & 17/18 UPWP.

The FY 17 UPWP update will be presented to MPO committees in March and April and is anticipated to be adopted by the by the MPO on May 2, 2017.

Recommended Action Recommend forwarding to MPO for approval Prepared By Allison Yeh, AICP, LEED GA Attachments

Updated UPWP Budget Tables Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

1 | Page

Task 1. Transportation Planning Management

Task 1 Transportation Planning Management Year 1 – FY 2016/17 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies Total (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 245,500 $ 140,101 $ 17,513 $ 17,513 $ 420,626 Consultant $ 7,131 $ (0) $ 7,131 Other Agency Total Cost to $ 252,631 $ (0) $ 140,101 $ 17,513 $ 17,513 $ 427,757 MPO Year 2 – FY 2017/18 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies Total (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 273,624 $ 108,195 $ 13,524 $ 13,524 $ 408,868 Consultant Other Agency

Total Cost to $ 273,624 $ 108,195 $ 13,524 $ 13,524 $ 408,868 MPO

Page 1 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

2 | Page

Task 1 Transportation Planning Management Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2016/17 FHWA FHWA FTA Budget Budget FTA State FTA Local Trans. Category Total Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services $ 162,412 $107,078 $ 13,385 $ 13,385 $ 296,260 Subtotal: $ 162,412 $107,078 $ 13,385 $ 13,385 $ 296,260 B. Consultant Services $ 7,131 $ (0) $ 7,131 Subtotal: $ 7,131 $ (0) $ 7,131 C. Travel $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Subtotal: $ 10,000 $ 10,000 D. Other Direct Expenses Legal Services $ 8,000 $ 8,000 computers, software, related equipment & $ 15,000 $ 15,000 furniture Subtotal: $ 23,000 $ 23,000 E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3084) $ 50,088 $ 33,023 $4,127.86 $ 4,127.86 $ 91,366 Subtotal: $ 50,088 $ 33,023 $ 4,128 $ 4,128 $ 91,366 Total: $ 252,631 $ (0) $140,101 $ 17,513 $ 17,513 $ 427,757

Page 2 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

3 | Page

Task 1 Transportation Planning Management Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2017/18 Budget Budget FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Trans. Category Total Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match Disad. Description A. Personnel Services $ 184,982 $ 83,176 $ 10,397 $ 10,397 $ 288,951 Subtotal: $ 184,982 $ 83,176 $ 10,397 $ 10,397 $ 288,951

B. Consultant Services

Subtotal:

C. Travel $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Subtotal: $ 10,000 $ 10,000

D. Other Direct Expenses Legal Services $ 8,000 $ 8,000 computers, software, related $ 15,000 $ 15,000 equipment & furniture Subtotal: $ 23,000 $ 23,000 E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3008) $ 55,642 $ 25,019 $ 3,127.41 $ 3,127.41 $ 86,917 Subtotal: $ 55,642 $ 25,019 $ 3,127 $ 3,127 $ 86,917 Total: $ 273,624 $ 108,195 $ 13,524 $ 13,524 $ 408,868

Page 3 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

4 | Page

Task 2. System and Corridor Planning

Task 2 System and Corridor Planning Year 1 – FY 2016/17 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies TD APHA (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 103,000 $ 208,181 $ 26,023 $ 26,023 $ 46,431 Consultant $ 244,397 $ 705,221 Other Agency $ 1,000 Total Cost to $ 347,397 $ 705,221 $ 208,181 $ 26,023 $ 26,023 $ 46,431 $ 1,000 MPO Year 2 – FY 2017/18 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 237,934 $ 94,083 $ 11,760 $ 11,760 $ 43,431 Consultant $ 315,904 $ 309,372 Other Agency

Total Cost to $ 553,838 $ 309,372 $ 94,083 $ 11,760 $ 11,760 $ 43,431 MPO

Page 4 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

5 | Page

Task 2 System and Corridor Planning Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2016/17 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget Trans. Category FTA State Match FTA Local Match APHA Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services $ 78,722 $ 159,111 $ 19,889 $ 19,889 $ 35,487 Subtotal: $ 78,722 $ 159,111 $ 19,889 $ 19,889 $ 35,487

B. Consultant Services $244,397 $ 705,221 Subtotal: $244,397 $ 705,221

C. Travel

Subtotal:

D. Other Direct Expenses $ 1,000

Subtotal: $ 1,000 E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3084) $ 24,278 $ 49,070 $ 6,134 $ 6,134 $ 10,944 Subtotal: $ 24,278 $ 49,070 $ 6,134 $ 6,134 $ 10,944 Total: $347,397 $ 705,221 $ 208,181 $ 26,023 $ 26,023 $ 46,431 $ 1,000

Page 5 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

6 | Page

Task 2 System and Corridor Planning Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2017/18 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget Trans. Category FTA State Match FTA Local Match APHA Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services $182,914 $ 72,327 $ 9,041 $ 9,041 $ 33,194 Subtotal: $182,914 $ 72,327 $ 9,041 $ 9,041 $ 33,194

B. Consultant Services $315,904 $ 309,372 Subtotal: $315,904 $ 309,372

C. Travel

Subtotal:

D. Other Direct Expenses $ 9,000

Subtotal: $ 9,000 E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3008) $ 55,020 $ 21,756 $ 2,720 $ 2,720 $ 10,237 Subtotal: $ 55,020 $ 21,756 $ 2,720 $ 2,720 $ 10,237 Total: $553,838 $ 309,372 $ 94,083 $ 11,760 $ 11,760 $ 43,431 $ 9,000

Page 6 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

7 | Page

Task 3. Long Range Transportation Planning and Data

Task 3 Long Range Transportation Planning and Data Year 1 – FY 2016/17 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies Total (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 141,500 $ 33,214 $ 4,152 $ 4,152 $ 183,017 Consultant $ 103,532 $ 136,097 $ 239,629 Other Agency Total Cost to $ 245,032 $ 136,097 $ 33,214 $ 4,152 $ 4,152 $ 422,646 MPO Year 2 – FY 2017/18 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies Total (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 118,967 $ 47,042 $ 5,880 $ 5,880 $ 177,769 Consultant $ 301,539 $ 241,474 $ 543,013 Other Agency

Total Cost to $ 420,506 $ 241,474 $ 47,042 $ 5,880 $ 5,880 $ 720,782 MPO

Page 7 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

8 | Page

Task 3 Long Range Transportation Planning and Data Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2016/17 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget Trans. Category FTA State Match FTA Local Match Total Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services $108,147 $ 25,385 $ 3,173 $ 3,173 $ 139,878 Subtotal: $108,147 $ 25,385 $ 3,173 $ 3,173 $ 139,878

B. Consultant Services $103,532 $136,097 $ 239,629 Subtotal: $103,532 $136,097 $ 239,629

C. Travel

Subtotal:

D. Other Direct Expenses

Subtotal: E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3084) $ 33,353 $ 7,829 $ 978.59 $ 978.59 $ 43,139 Subtotal: $ 33,353 $ 7,829 $ 979 $ 979 $ 43,139 Total: $245,032 $136,097 $ 33,214 $ 4,152 $ 4,152 $ 422,646

Page 8 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

9 | Page

Task 3 Long Range Transportation Planning and Data Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2017/18 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget Trans. Category FTA State Match FTA Local Match Total Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services $ 91,457 $ 36,164 $ 4,520 $ 4,520 $ 136,661 Subtotal: $ 91,457 $ 36,164 $ 4,520 $ 4,520 $ 136,661

B. Consultant Services $301,539 $241,474 $ 543,013 Subtotal: $301,539 $241,474 $ 543,013

C. Travel

Subtotal:

D. Other Direct Expenses

Subtotal: E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3008) $ 27,510 $ 10,878 $ 1,359.75 $ 1,359.75 $ 41,108 Subtotal: $ 27,510 $ 10,878 $ 1,360 $ 1,360 $ 41,108 Total: $420,506 $241,474 $ 47,042 $ 5,880 $ 5,880 $ 720,782

Page 9 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

10 | Page

Task 4. Transportation Improvement Planning

Task 4 Transportation Improvement Planning Year 1 – FY 2016/17 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies Total (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 62,500 $ 28,000 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 97,500 Consultant Other Agency Total Cost to $ 62,500 $ 28,000 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 97,500 MPO Year 2 – FY 2017/18 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies Total (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 83,277 $ 32,929 $ 4,116 $ 4,116 $ 124,438 Consultant Other Agency

Total Cost to $ 83,277 $ 32,929 $ 4,116 $ 4,116 $ 124,438 MPO

Page 10 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

11 | Page

Task 4 Transportation Improvement Planning Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2016/17 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget Category FTA State Match FTA Local Match Trans. Disad. Total Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Description

A. Personnel Services $ 47,768 $ 21,400 $ 2,675 $ 2,675 $ 74,518 Subtotal: $ 47,768 $ 21,400 $ 2,675 $ 2,675 $ 74,518

B. Consultant Services

Subtotal:

C. Travel

Subtotal:

D. Other Direct Expenses

Subtotal: E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3084) $ 14,732 $ 6,600 $ 824.98 $ 824.98 $ 22,982 Subtotal: $ 14,732 $ 6,600 $ 825 $ 825 $ 22,982 Total: $ 62,500 $ 28,000 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 97,500

Page 11 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

12 | Page

Task 4 Transportation Improvement Planning Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2017/18 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget FTA State FTA Local Trans. Category Total Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services $ 64,020 $ 25,314 $ 3,164 $ 3,164 $ 95,663 Subtotal: $ 64,020 $ 25,314 $ 3,164 $ 3,164 $ 95,663

B. Consultant Services

Subtotal:

C. Travel

Subtotal:

D. Other Direct Expenses

Subtotal: E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3008) $ 19,257 $ 7,615 $ 951.82 $ 951.82 $ 28,775 Subtotal: $ 19,257 $ 7,615 $ 952 $ 952 $ 28,775 Total: $ 83,277 $ 32,929 $ 4,116 $ 4,116 $124,438

Page 12 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

13 | Page

Task 5. Public Participation & Stakeholder Engagement

Task 5 Public Participation & Stakeholder Engagement Year 1 – FY 2016/17 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies Total (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 387,000 $ 95,695 $ 11,962 $ 11,962 $ 506,619 Consultant $ 8,557 $ 40,443 $ 49,000 Other Agency Total Cost to $ 395,557 $ 40,443 $ 95,695 $ 11,962 $ 11,962 $ 555,619 MPO Year 2 – FY 2017/18 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies Total (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 380,695 $ 150,533 $ 18,817 $ 18,817 $ 568,861 Consultant $ 5,000 $ 35,000 $ 40,000 Other Agency

Total Cost to $ 385,695 $ 35,000 $ 150,533 $ 18,817 $ 18,817 $ 608,861 MPO

Page 13 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

14 | Page

Task 5 Public Participation & Stakeholder Engagement Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2016/17 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget Trans. Category FTA State Match FTA Local Match Total Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services $ 279,731 $ 73,139 $ 9,142 $ 9,142 $ 371,155 Subtotal: $ 279,731 $ 73,139 $ 9,142 $ 9,142 $ 371,155

B. Consultant Services $ 8,557 $ 40,443 $ 49,000 Subtotal: $ 8,557 $ 40,443 $ 49,000

C. Travel

Subtotal:

D. Other Direct Expenses MPO Admin Cost: (minutes, legal $ 16,000 $ 16,000 advertising, etc.) Television Coverage of $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Meetings Subtotal: $ 21,000 $ 21,000 E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3084) $ 86,269 $ 22,556 $ 2,820 $ 2,820 $ 114,464 Subtotal: $ 86,269 $ 22,556 $ 2,820 $ 2,820 $ 114,464 Total: $ 395,557 $ 40,443 $ 95,695 $ 11,962 $ 11,962 $ 555,619

Page 14 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

15 | Page

Task 5 Public Participation & Stakeholder Engagement Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2017/18 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget FTA State FTA Local Trans. Category Total Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services $ 276,518 $115,723 $ 14,465 $ 14,465 $ 421,172 Subtotal: $ 276,518 $115,723 $ 14,465 $ 14,465 $ 421,172

B. Consultant Services $ 5,000 $ 35,000 $ 40,000 Subtotal: $ 5,000 $ 35,000 $ 40,000

C. Travel

Subtotal: D. Other Direct Expenses MPO Admin Cost: (minutes, legal $ 16,000 $ 16,000 advertising, etc.) Television Coverage of $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Meetings Subtotal: $ 21,000 $ 21,000 E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3008) $ 83,177 $ 34,810 $ 4,351 $ 4,351 $ 126,689 Subtotal: $ 83,177 $ 34,810 $ 4,351 $ 4,351 $ 126,689 Total: $ 385,695 $ 35,000 $150,533 $ 18,817 $ 18,817 $ 608,861

Page 15 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

16 | Page

Task 6. Coordination & Regional Planning

Task 6. Local & Regional Coordination and Planning Year 1 – FY 2016/17 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies Total (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 35,500 $ 74,512 $ 9,314 $ 9,314 $ 128,640 Consultant $ 54,803 $ 98,899 $ 153,702 Other Agency Total Cost to $ 90,303 $ 98,899 $ 74,512 $ 9,314 $ 9,314 $ 282,342 MPO Year 2 – FY 2017/18 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA Local Agencies Total (PL) (SU) 5303 Match Match MPO $ 95,174 $ 61,634 $ 7,704 $ 7,704 $ 172,216 Consultant $ 26,400 $ 60,000 $ 86,400 Other Agency

Total Cost to $ 121,574 $ 60,000 $ 61,634 $ 7,704 $ 7,704 $ 258,616 MPO

Page 16 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

17 | Page

Task 6. Local & Regional Coordination and Planning Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2016/17 FHWA FHWA FTA Budget Budget Category Trans. FTA State Match FTA Local Match Total Category Description (PL) (SU) 5303 Disad.

A. Personnel Services $ 27,132 $ 56,949 $ 7,119 $ 7,119 $ 98,319 Subtotal: $ 27,132 $ 56,949 $ 7,119 $ 7,119 $ 98,319

B. Consultant Services $ 54,803 $ 98,899 $ 153,702 Subtotal: $ 54,803 $ 98,899 $ 153,702

C. Travel

Subtotal:

D. Other Direct Expenses

Subtotal: E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3084) $ 8,368 $ 17,563 $ 2,195 $ 2,195 $ 30,321 Subtotal: $ 8,368 $ 17,563 $ 2,195 $ 2,195 $ 30,321 Total: $ 90,303 $ 98,899 $ 74,512 $ 9,314 $ 9,314 $ 282,342

Page 17 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

18 | Page

Task 6. Local & Regional Coordination and Planning Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2017/18 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget Trans. Category FTA State Match FTA Local Match Total Category (PL) (SU) 5303 Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services $ 73,166 $ 47,381 $ 5,923 $ 5,923 $ 132,392 Subtotal: $ 73,166 $ 47,381 $ 5,923 $ 5,923 $ 132,392

B. Consultant Services $ 26,400 $ 60,000 $ 86,400 Subtotal: $ 26,400 $ 60,000 $ 86,400

C. Travel

Subtotal:

D. Other Direct Expenses

Subtotal: E. Indirect Rate (Indirect Rate =.3008) $ 22,008 $ 14,252 $ 1,782 $ 1,782 $ 39,824 Subtotal: $ 22,008 $ 14,252 $ 1,782 $ 1,782 $ 39,824 Total: $121,574 $ 60,000 $ 61,634 $ 7,704 $ 7,704 $ 258,616

Page 18 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

19 | Page

Task 7. HART Planning Program

Task 7 HART Planning Program Year 1 – FY 2016/17 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA State FTA Local Agencies of Good Total (PL) (SU) 5307 Match Match Repair MPO Other Agency $ 630,000 $ 158,000 $ 88,253 $ 876,253 Total Cost to $ 630,000 $ 158,000 $ 88,253 $ 876,253 MPO Year 2 – FY 2017/18 Funding Sources Responsible FHWA FHWA FTA FTA State FTA State FTA Local Agencies of Good Total (PL) (SU) 5307 Match Match Repair MPO Other Agency

Total Cost to

MPO

Page 19 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

20 | Page

Task 7 HART Planning Program Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2016/17 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget FTA State FTA Local FTA State of Trans. Category Total Category (PL) (SU) 5307 Match Match Good Repair Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services

Subtotal:

B. Other Agency $630,000 $158,000 $ 88,253 $ 876,253 Subtotal: $630,000 $158,000 $ 88,253 $ 876,253

C. Travel

Subtotal: D. Other Direct Expenses

Subtotal: E. Indirect Rate

Subtotal: Total: $630,000 $158,000 $ 88,253 $ 876,253

Page 20 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

21 | Page

Task 7 HART Planning Program Estimated Budget Detail for FY 2017/18 Budget FHWA FHWA FTA Budget FTA State FTA Local FTA State of Trans. Category Total Category (PL) (SU) 5307 Match Match Good Repair Disad. Description

A. Personnel Services

Subtotal:

B. Other Agency

Subtotal:

C. Travel

Subtotal:

D. Other Direct Expenses

Subtotal: E. Indirect Rate

Subtotal: Total:

Page 21 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

22 | Page

Table 1a FY 2016/17

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MPO STAFF & CONTRACT TASKS WITH PRIOR YEAR FUNDS UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM - FY 16/17 (Year 1)- Modified December 6, 2016

FHWA PL FTA 5303 TD TOTAL TOTAL Prior Year Funds for Funds for FTA Funds MPO Contracts PL Available FTA Grant Surface American Available Available PL MPO Contract for Staff Staff Transportation Public Health in Current in Current Task No. TASK Budget Budget Budget Budget Staff Budget Program Associa tion Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Task Total Transportation Planning 1 Management $ 245,500 $ 7,131 $ 50,000 $ 125,126 $ (0) $ 420,626 $ 7,131 $ 427,757

2 System & Corridor Planning $ 103,000 $ 244,397 $ 82,304 $ 177,922 $ 46,431 $ 705,221 $ 1,000 $ 410,657 $ 949,618 $ 1,360,275 Long Range Transportation 3 Planning and Data $ 141,500 103,532$ $ 11,665 29,852$ $ 136,097 $ 183,017 $ 239,629 $ 422,646 Transportation Improvement 4 Planning $ 62,500 35,000$ $ 97,500 $ 97,500 Public Participation & 5 Stakeholder Engagement $ 387,000 $ 8,557 $ 119,619 $ 40,443 $ 506,619 $ 49,000 $ 555,619 Local & Regional 6 Coordination and Planning $ 35,500 $ 54,803 $ 22,640 $ 70,500 $ 98,899 $ 128,640 $ 153,702 $ 282,342 7 HART Planning Program TOTAL $ 975,0 00 $ 418,421 $ 166,609 $ 558,019 $ 46,431 $ 980,659 $ 1,000 1,747,059$ 1,399,080$ $ 3,146,139 Funding Source Total $ 1,393,421 $ 724,628 $ 46,431 $ 980,659 $ 3,146,139 Amendment Legend: red = decrease; green = increase

Page 22 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

23 | Page

Table 1b FY 2017/18

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MPO STAFF & CONTRACT TASKS WITH PRIOR YEAR FUNDS UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM - FY 17/18 (Year 2)

FHWA PL FTA 5303 TD Funds for Funds for Prior Year MPO Contracts FTA Funds Surface American Available inAvailable in PL MPO PL Contract Available forFTA Grant Staff TransportationPublic Health Current Current Task No. TASK Budget Budget Staff BudgetStaff Budget Budget Program Associa tionFiscal YearFiscal Year

1 Transportation Planning Management $ 273,624 $ 135,244 $ 408,868

2 System & Corridor Planning 237,934$ $ 315,904 $ 117,604 $ 43,431 $ 309,372 $ 9,000 $ 398,969 $ 625,276

3 Long Range Transportation Planning and$ Data 118,967 $ 301,539 $ 58,802 $ 241,474 $ 177,769 $ 543,013

4 Transportation Improvement Planning $ 83,277 $ 41,161 $ 124,438

5 Public Participation & Stakeholder Engagement$ 380,695 $ 5,000 $ 188,166 $ 35,000 $ 568,861 $ 40,000

6 Local & Regional Coordination and Planning$ 95,174 $ 26,400 $ 30,000 $ 47,042 $ 60,000 $ 172,216 $ 86,400

7 HART Planning Program

TOTAL 1,189,671$ $ 648,843 $ 30,000 $ 588,019 $ 43,431 $ 645,846 $ 9,000 $ 1,851,121$ 1,294,689 Funding Source Total $ 1,838,514 $ 618,019 $ 43,431 $ 645,846 $ 9,000 $ 3,145,810

Page 23 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

24 | Page

Table 2a FY 2016/17

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

MPO STAFF & CONTRACT TASKS WITH PRIOR YEAR FUNDS

UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM - FY 16/17ember (Year 6, 2016 1)- Modified Dec

FHWA

FHWLA PL SU FTA 5303 FTA 5307 * TD APHASPR-PL-1 TOTAL - ALL SOURCES

State of

State Local State Local Good Total Total

Task MPO/TPO Name FEDMatch Match FED FEDMatch FED MatchRepair CTD FED Federal TotalLocal State

Transportation Planning$ 252,631 $ $ (0) 140,101 17,513$ 17,513$ $ 392, 17,513$ 732 17,513$ 1 Management

2 System and Corridor Planning$ 347,397 $ 705,221 $ 208,181 26,023$ 26,023$ $ $ 1,000 $ 46,431$ 1,260,799 72,454 26,023$

Long Range Transportation$ 245,032 $ 136,097$ 33,214 4,152$ 4,152$ $ 4,343 41 4,152$ 4,152$ 3 Planning and Data

Transportation Improvement$ 62,500 $ 28,000 3,500$ 3,500$ $ 90,500 3,500$ 3,500$ 4 Planning

Public Participation & Stakeholder$ 395,557 $ 40,443$ 95,695 11,962$ 11,962$ $ 531, 11,962$ 695 11,962$ 5 Engagement

Local & Regional Coordination$ 90,303 and $ 98,899$ 74,512 9,314$ 9,314$ $ 3,714 26 9,314$ 9,314$ 6 Planning

7 HART Planning Program 630,000$ $ $ 158,000 88,253 $ 630,000 $ 158,000

TOTAL $ 1,393,421 980,659$ $ 579,702 72,463$ 72,463$ $ 630,000 $ $88,253 158,000 46,431$ $ 1,000 $ 3,583,782118,894$ $230,463

Page 24 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

25 | Page

Table 2b FY 2017/18

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

MPO STAFF & CONTRACT TASKS WITHUNDS PRIOR YEAR F

UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM - FY 17/18 (Year 2)

FHWA FHWLA PL SU FTA 5303 FTA 5307 TD APHASPR-PL-1 TOTAL - ALLURCES SO

State of State Local StateLocal Good Total Total Total Task MPO/TPO Name FEDMatch FEDMatch FED FEDMatchMatchRepair CTDFederal FED State Local

Transportation Planning$ 273,624 108,195$ 13,524$ $ 13,524 $ 381,819 13,524$ 13,524$ 1 Management

System and Corridor$ 553,838 309,372$ $ 94,083 $ 11,760 $ 11,760 $ $ 9,000 43,431 $ 957,293 55,191$ 11,760$ 2 Planning

Long Range $ 420,506 241,474$ $ 47,042 5,880$ 5,880$ $ 709,022 $ 5,880 5,880$ Transportation Planning 3 and Data

Transportation $ 83,277 4,116$ 32,929$ 4,116$ $ 116,206 $ 4,116 4,116$ 4 Improvement Planning

Public Participation$ & 385,695 35,000$ 150,533$ 18,817$ $ 18,817 $ 571,228 18,817$ 18,817$ 5 Stakeholder Engagement

Local & Regional $ 121,574 60,000$ 61,634$ 7,704$ 7,704$ $ 243,208 $ 7,704 6 Coordination and Planning

7,7 0 4$ 7,704$

7 HART Planning Program

TOTAL $ 1,838,514 645,846$ 494,415$ 61,802$ $ 61,802 $ $ 9,000 43,431 $ 978,775 2, 105,233$ 61,802$

Page 25 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

26 | Page

Figure A1: Year 1 UPWP Funding by Task for MPO Activities Local & Regional Coordination and Planning Transportation 9% Planning Management 14%

Public Participation & Transportation Stakeholder Engagement Improvement 18% Planning 3%

System & Corridor Long Range Planning Transportation 43% Planning and Data 13%

Figure A 2: Year 2 UPWP Funding by Task for MPO Activities Local & Regional Coordination and Planning 8% Public Participation & Transportation Stakeholder Planning Management Engagement 13% 19%

System & Corridor Planning 33% Long Range Transportation Planning and Data Transportation 23% Improvement Planning 4%

Page 26 of 26 3/21/2017 3:13 PM

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment 34th St N from Columbus Dr to US 92/E Hillsborough Ave; FPN 437568-1

Presenter

MPO staff Summary FDOT has requested an amendment to project FPN 437568-1 in the TIP. This project is for a 2-mile segment of 34th St N from Columbus Dr to US 92/E Hillsborough Ave. The project proposes the following improvements:

 Roundabouts at the intersections of 21st Ave, Lake Ave and Osborne Ave;  Flashing beacons and advanced signage at 26th Ave;  Road Diet from Columbus Dr. to 21st Ave (with turn lanes);

 Road Diet from Lake Ave to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd (with Two‐Way Left- Turn Center Lane);  Bicycle Facilities (bike lanes and shared lane arrows) throughout the corridor.

The City of Tampa provides additional project information and documents on their th web site. Please view 34 Street Safety Improvements to learn more.

Recommended Action

Approve the TIP amendment Prepared By Joseph Price Attachments Project Description and Location Map – City of Tampa STIP amendment page TIP amendment page

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602 Se habla Español. Para obtener mas información, llame al (813) 273-3774, ext. 211, o visite www.planhillsborough.org/mpo-documentos-en-espanol/ FlDOT OWPB - STIP Amendments; Update Amendments Page 1 of 1

The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code.

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Transportation Improvement Program Amendment STIP Amendment Number: FY2016/17 - 2020 /21 ** This STIP is in an MPO Area ** TIP Page Number: Attached On Tuesday, May 02, 2017, the Hillsborough MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization amended the Transportation Improvement Program that was developed and adopted in compliance with Title 23 and Title 49 in a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process as a condition to the receipt of federal assistance. By signature below, the MPO representative certifies that the TIP amendment was adopted by the MPO Board as documented in the supporting attachments. This amendment will be subsequently incorporated into the MPOs TIP for public disclosure.

The amendment does not adversely impact the air quality conformity or financial constraints of the STIP.

The STIP Amendment is consistent with the Adopted Long Range Transportation Plan. (Page Number:TBD) This document has not been approved This document has not been approved Metropolitan Planning Organization Chairman or Designee Hillsborough MPO FDOT District Representative or Designee District 07 This document has not been approved This document has not been approved Federal Aid Management Manager or Designee Federal Authorization STIP amendment criteria: A - The change adds new individual projects to the current STIP

An air conformity determination must be made by the MPO on amended projects within the non-attainment or maintenance areas E - The MPO is not in an air quality non-attainment or maintenance area.

Project Name437648 1 - 34TH ST N FROM COLUMBUS DR TO US 92/E HILLSBO Status ITEM Ver Description Fund Phase < FY 2017 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 > FY 2021 All Years Original STIP 437648 1 AD 34TH ST N FROM COLUMBUS DR TO US 92/E HILLSBOROUGH AVE 4 TO 2 LANES,ADD BIKE LANES,AND ROUNDABOUTS-COMPLETE STREETS MANAGED BY CITY OF TAMPA LF CST 0.00 0.00 0.00 759,700.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 759,700.00 Proposed Project 437648 1 G1 34TH ST N FROM COLUMBUS DR TO US 92/E HILLSBOROUGH AVE 4 TO 2 LANES,ADD BIKE LANES,AND ROUNDABOUTS-COMPLETE STREETS MANAGED BY CITY OF TAMPA LF ROW 0.00 780,973.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 780,973.00 REPE ROW 0.00 1,130,227.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,130,227.00 SA ROW 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00 Funding Source After Change 254479 1 AD INHOUSE CONTINGENCY

MANAGED BY FDOT * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 254544 1 AD RIGHT OF WAY CONTINGENCY FUNDS TO BE SPLIT OUT FOR ESTIMATE CHANGES. MANAGED BY FDOT SA ROW 0.00 0.00 1,016,666.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,016,666.00 Funding Source Balance Before Change 1,912,200.00 -759,700.00 1,152,500.00 Funding Source Balance After Change Net Change to Funding Source -1,912,200.00 759,700.00 -1,152,500.00 Proposed Project Before Change 759,700.00 759,700.00 Proposed Project After Change 1,912,200.00 1,912,200.00 Net Change to Project 1,912,200.00 -759,700.00 1,152,500.00 Net Change to Funding Source -1,912,200.00 759,700.00 -1,152,500.00 Net Change to Proposed Project 1,912,200.00 -759,700.00 1,152,500.00 Net Change to STIP

The development of this application has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The reports generated from this application do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

http://webapp02.dot.state.fl.us/fmsupportapps/stipamendments/update/update.aspx 3/30/2017 FDOT Adopted FY 2016/17 - 2020/21 TIP

Effective Date: FDOT Run: 5 Year TIP Hillsborough County, District 7

HIGHWAYS

Status: Adopted Adopted Date: 6/22/2016 Item Number: 437648 1 Description: 34TH ST N FROM COLUMBUS DR TO US 92/E HILLSBOROUGH AVE LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4376481 Extra Description: 4 TO 2 LANES, ADD BIKE LANES, AND ROUNDABOUTS Project Length: 2.027 *NON-SIS* Type of Work TRAFFIC OPS IMPROVEMENT Fund <2017 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 >2021 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY CITY OF TAMPA Initial LF $0 $0 $0 $759,700 $0 $0 $0 $759,700 Initial HSP $0 $0 $0 $1,076,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,076,000 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $1,835,700 $0 $0 $0 $1,835,700 Item 437648 1 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $1,835,700 $0 $0 $0 $1,835,700

Status: Amended Amendment Date: 5/2/2017 Amendment Number: 32 Item Number: 437648 1 Description: 34TH ST N FROM COLUMBUS DR TO US 92/E HILLSBOROUGH AVE LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4376481 Extra Description: 4 TO 2 LANES, ADD BIKE LANES, AND ROUNDABOUTS Project Length: 2.027 *NON-SIS* Type of Work TRAFFIC OPS IMPROVEMENT Fund <2017 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 >2021 All Years RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY CITY OF TAMPA Added SA $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Added LF $0 $780,973 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $780,973 Added REPE $0 $1,130,227 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,130,227 Totals: $0 $1,912,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,912,200 CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY CITY OF TAMPA Initial LF $0 $0 $0 $759,700 $0 $0 $0 $759,700 Initial HSP $0 $0 $0 $1,076,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,076,000 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $1,835,700 $0 $0 $0 $1,835,700 Item 437648 1 Totals: $0 $1,912,200 $0 $1,835,700 $0 $0 $0 $3,747,900 March 8, 2017

34th St. Safety Improvements (from Columbus Dr to Hillsborough Ave) City Project #TBD; FPN: 437648‐1 Project Description: The 2‐mile segment of 34th St. from Columbus Dr to Hillsborough Ave is primarily a 2‐lane undivided Collector roadway with a posted speed of 30 mph and an average daily traffic volume of 6,000 to 8,000 vehicles per day. 34th Street provides a secondary north/south access between the port area and northeast Tampa with 40th Street being the primary north/south arterial. In a review of city‐wide fatal and incapacitating injury crashes from 2009 to 2011, this section of 34th St. was identified as having a clustering of 14 such crashes; therefore, this segment of roadway was analyzed for countermeasures to improve safety and to submit to FDOT as a candidate for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Off‐System Funds.

The proposed improvements are summarized as follows:  Roundabouts at the intersections of 21st Ave, Lake Ave and Osborne Ave;  Flashing beacons and advanced signage at 26th Ave;  Road Diet from Columbus Dr. to 21st Ave (with turn lanes);  Road Diet from Lake Ave to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd (with Two‐Way Left‐Turn Center Lane);  Bicycle Facilities (bike lanes and shared lane arrows) throughout the corridor. Location Map:

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment: SR 674 from W of Balm- Wimauma to E of Balm-Wimauma Rd Safety Improvements; FPN 437687-1 Presenter

FDOT staff

Summary FDOT has requested an amendment to add project FPN 437687-1 into the TIP. This amendment adds a safety improvement project to address four fatal crashes along the SR 674 corridor. It was determined that the crashes at the intersection of SR 674 and Balm-Wimauma Rd were due to a super-elevation issue. Central office requested District 7 evaluate and implement project to address curve at the intersection.  Extend the eastbound to northbound left turn lane from SR 674 to Balm- Wimauma Road to 683 feet per Index 301 and PPM Chapter 7 based on the current traffic volumes.  Modification of the southbound to eastbound approach to eliminate the acceleration lane/radius/free flow condition. The current condition puts stopped southbound to westbound vehicles nearly parallel with traffic while trying to merge, making it a more difficult condition to judge oncoming traffic.  Enhance the super-elevation on the curve at Balm-Wimauma Road per the original design task and rebuild the southbound approach to SR 674 to match the new elevation of the high edge of the curve.  Implement oversized chevron signs for the curve in both directions. Implement oversized solar-powered stop ahead sign with flashers for southbound Balm- Wimauma Road and raised rumble striping per standard index 517.

Recommended Action Approve the TIP amendment Prepared By FDOT/MPO staff Attachments Project Description and Location Map

STIP amendment page Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org TIP amendment page [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602 SR 674 / BALM-WIMAUMA RD Intersection Improvements From W of Balm-Wimauma Rd to E of Balm-Wimauma Rd FPN: 437687-1

Project Description:

SR 674 from west of Balm-Wimauma Road to east of Balm-Wimauma Road where this intersection and the curve experienced one fatal and several severe crashes due to super-elevation issue. Central office requested District 7 to evaluate and implement project to address curve at this intersection.

 Extend the eastbound to northbound left turn lane from SR 674 to Balm-Wimauma Road to 683 feet per Index 301 and PPM Chapter 7 based on the current traffic volumes.  Modification of the southbound to eastbound approach to eliminate the acceleration lane/radius/free flow condition. The current condition puts stopped southbound to westbound vehicles nearly parallel with traffic while trying to merge, making it a more difficult condition to judge oncoming traffic.  Enhance the super-elevation on the curve at Balm-Wimauma Road per the original design task and rebuild the southbound approach to SR 674 to match the new elevation of the high edge of the curve.  Implement oversized chevron signs for the curve in both directions. Implement oversized solar- powered stop ahead sign with flashers for southbound Balm-Wimauma Road and raised rumble striping per standard index 517.

Location Map: The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code.

The amendment does not adversely impact the air quality conformity or financial constraints of the STIP.

The STIP Amendment is consistent with the Adopted Long Range Transportation Plan. (Page Number:N/A) This document has not been approved This document has not been approved Metropolitan Planning Organization Chairman or Designee Hillsborough MPO FDOT District Representative or Designee District 07 This document has not been approved This document has not been approved Federal Aid Management Manager or Designee Federal Authorization STIP amendment criteria: A - The change adds new individual projects to the current STIP

An air conformity determination must be made by the MPO on amended projects within the non-attainment or maintenance areas E - The MPO is not in an air quality non-attainment or maintenance area.

Project Name437687-1: SR 674 FROM W OF BALM-WIMAUMA RD TO E OF BALM-WIMAUMA RD Status ITEM Ver Description Fund Phase < FY 2017 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 > FY 2021 All Years Original STIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Proposed Project 437687 1 AM SR 674 FROM W OF BALM-WIMAUMA RD TO E OF BALM-WIMAUMA RD PROVIDE ACCELERATION LANE FROM SB TO WB MOVEMENT MANAGED BY FDOT DDR CST 0.00 52,533.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52,533.00 HSP CST 0.00 1,490,741.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,490,741.00 Funding Source After Change 254488 5 AD STATE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY

MANAGED BY FDOT DDR CST 0.00 557,993.00 525,517.00 1,013,478.00 502,989.00 91,846.00 0.00 2,691,823.00 428276 1 AD SAFETY

MANAGED BY FDOT HSP CST 0.00 7,147,918.00 8,268,391.00 2,213,090.00 5,940,291.00 23,165,256.00 0.00 46,734,946.00 Funding Source Balance Before Change 9,249,185.00 8,793,908.00 3,226,568.00 6,443,280.00 23,257,102.00 50,970,043.00 Funding Source Balance After Change 7,705,911.00 8,793,908.00 3,226,568.00 6,443,280.00 23,257,102.00 49,426,769.00 Net Change to Funding Source -1,543,274.00 -1,543,274.00 Proposed Project Before Change Proposed Project After Change 1,543,274.00 1,543,274.00 Net Change to Project 1,543,274.00 1,543,274.00 Net Change to Funding Source -1,543,274.00 -1,543,274.00 Net Change to Proposed Project 1,543,274.00 1,543,274.00 Net Change to STIP

Fund <2017 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 >2021 All Years

Item Number: 437687 1 Project Description: SR 674 FROM W OF BALM WIMAUMA RD TO E OF BALM WIMAUMA RD District: 07 County: HILLSBOROUGH Type of Work: ROAD CONSTRUCTION - 2 LANE Project Length: 0.353 Extra Description: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / MANAGED BY FDOT HSP SAFETY (HIWAY SAFETY PROGRAM) 0 1,387,467 0 0 0 0 0 1,387,467 DDR - DISTRICT DEDICATED REVENUE 0 52,533 0 0 0 0 0 52,533 HSP SAFETY (HIWAY SAFETY PROGRAM) 0 17,212 0 0 0 0 0 17,212 HSP SAFETY (HIWAY SAFETY PROGRAM) 0 86,062 0 0 0 0 0 86,062 Item 437687 1 Totals: 0 1,543,274 0 0 0 0 0 1,543,274 Project Total: 0 1,543,274 0 0 0 0 0 1,543,274

Getting Students to School Survey, Executive Summary

Background

Members of the Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and its Student Transportation Work Group (STWG) sought to collect data from families in Hillsborough County to inform planning decisions and support the efforts of this group. Many local organizations represented through the STWG had already identified a need for survey research to support upcoming Road Safety Audits, planning meetings, and development efforts. As such, the timing was opportune to collaborate across agencies and organizations and gather input from the community through a single survey. The survey was designed and administered in January and February 2017. Methods

Using an online survey service, the survey content was developed. Hillsborough County Public Schools (HCPS) leveraged the email addresses existing in its student information system to invite families with students enrolled to participate in the survey. An email message was sent to all email addresses on file on January 18, 2017. Recipients were asked to open the link in the message to complete the survey for each student in their household. Subsequent to the original invitation, a reminder message was sent to the same group on January 26, 2017, and the survey closed on Friday, February 3, 2017 (see Attachment A). Some 14,215 respondents participated in the survey. Survey Content

Thirty-five questions were included in the survey, including some demographic information, opinion scales, and open-ended items (see Attachment B). Topics addressed in the survey included:  Students in the household  Ages of students in the household  Current transportation methods to and from school  Distance of commute to and from school  Duration of commute to and from school  Considerations about student transportation (e.g., safety, lighting, road conditions)

Page 1 of 5

 Role of school in student transportation  Awareness and interest in community resources and programs Respondents were also offered the opportunity to enter a drawing for 10 AMC Movie Silver Passes as an incentive for participating. About 5,000 respondents opted to enter the drawing. Survey Demographics

Demographics collected through the survey included the number and age of children in the household as well as the schools of attendance.  More than half of respondents indicate that they have children between 12 and 16 years of age.  The zip codes most frequently associated with respondents were 33547 (Lithia), 33647 (Tampa Palms), 33626 (Westchase), 33558 (Cheval), and 33511 (Brandon).  The following schools were most frequently represented: o Elementary . Bryant ES . McKitrick ES . Stowers ES o Middle . Randall MS . Farnell MS . Walker MS o K8 . Turner Bartels K8 o High . Newsome HS . Steinbrenner HS . Riverview HS o Charter . Terrace Community MS . Brooks DeBartolo HS Lutz Preparatory o Other . Erwin Technical College . South County Career Center . Mendez Exceptional Center Current Commute

The survey asked respondents how many days, in a typical week, they used various student transportation methods.  Among morning commutes to school, we find: o Most students take a school bus or family vehicle 4 or more days a week.

Page 2 of 5

o The largest proportion of morning commutes to school take place between 7:00 and 7:30 AM.  Commutes home from school differ somewhat: o School busses are used more often than family vehicles for the commute home from school. On average, school busses are used 4 days per week, while family vehicles are used 3 days per week. o Most commutes home from school take place between 3:00 and 3:30 PM.  More than half of respondents also indicated that heir morning commute exceeds 2 miles.  Additionally, the largest group of respondents indicated that their commute to and from school takes between 10 and 20 minutes. Commuting Conditions

The next question asked respondents to indicate how often certain conditions were encountered along the commute to and from school. The most commonly reported conditions impacting the student commute are:  Vehicles speeding  Poor road conditions (e.g., potholes, damaged signs, uneven pavement)  Bad lighting The least often encountered conditions along the commute to school are:  Pedestrian injuries  Bicyclist injuries When asked if there were specific locations along the commute where the respondent or student feels unsafe, more than half of respondents answered no. Among those that did report feeling unsafe in locations along the commute, this was most often due to:  Speed of traffic along the route  Safety of intersections or crossings  Sidewalks or paths along the route Furthermore, more than two-thirds of respondents indicate that there are no crossing guards along the route to school. Student Requests

At least 4 of every 5 respondents report that their student has not asked for permission to walk or bicycle to or from school in the last year. About of third of respondents report that they would give the student permission to walk or bicycle to and from school in grade 6 or higher. However, about half of respondents report they would not feel comfortable with the student walking or bicycling in any grade.

Page 3 of 5

Respondents most often cited the following conditions that affect their decision to give students permission to walk or bike to school alone:  Distance of the commute  Safety of intersections and crossings  Speed of traffic along the route The conditions with the largest impact on decisions to let students walk or bike to and from school alone are:  Distance of the commute  Speed of traffic along the route  Safety of intersections and crossings When asked about the extent to which the student’s school encourages walking or bicycling to and from school more than half of respondents said the school does not encourage these methods of student transportation at all. Less than 5% of respondents reported that the student’s school encourages these methods a great deal. About 4 of every 10 respondents report that it would not be fun at all for students to walk or bike to school. Despite perceptions that this would not be fun, nearly 6 of every 10 respondents believe that walking or biking to school would be healthy. Commuting Considerations

Respondents indicate that when it comes to letting the student ride to or from school with someone else, the following are most important to consider:  Driver is someone I know personally.  Driver has a safe driving record.  Driver has no criminal record. The least important considerations in making this decision were:  Driver is under age 65.  Time of day  Type or roads In addition to the feedback gleaned from these data, some 3,372 respondents provided open- ended comments about the other factors that influence the decision to let the student ride to and from school with someone else. Awareness and Interest in Community Offerings

Respondents report the most usage of the following student transportation programs and resources:  Hillsborough County Public Schools Driver Education programs  AAA Traffic Safety Programs

Page 4 of 5

 HART (Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit Authority offering public busses and “stay- cation” options) Respondents report the greatest likelihood to use the following programs and resources if they were available:  Mobile applications to coordinate pick-up and drop-off  Carpooling There was most interest in receiving additional information about the following programs and resources among respondents:  Hillsborough County Public Schools Driver Education programs  Walking School Bus  Bike Train Respondents also report that the following features and incentives would make them more likely to carpool:  Faster drop-off and pick-up  Enhanced notification for dismissal, delays, or emergencies  Enhanced notification for drop-off and pick-up times Summary

At the end of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to share any other feedback or suggestions about student transportation in an open-ended question. Some 2,508 respondents provided input through this question. To be sure, there is ample opportunity for additional analysis and disaggregation of the survey data. At this time, the most pressing next steps based on these survey data appear to be:  Engage partners and potential funding sources to help improve road conditions in a way that encourages more walking and bicycling.  Leverage technology to afford better information about student transportation to families in the community.  Devise a formal plan (and potential reward structure) to help schools formally encourage walking and bicycling.  Increase messaging about work underway to address existing problems that influence student transportation.

Page 5 of 5

Printed by: Patti Simmons Tuesday, February 14, 2017 5:51:14 P Title: Getting Students to School Survey : IDEAS Page 1 of 1

Message Wed, Jan 18, 2017 11:00 AM

From: Hillsborough School News To: Hillsborough County School District Recipients

Bcc: Patti Simmons

Subject: Getting Students to School Survey

https://storage.googleapis.com/pt02/images/tinymc

Dear Hillsborough County Public Schools Families, The school district, in partnership with several local transportation agencies including the Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA), is interested in learning more about the conditions, concerns, and needs that influence student transportation in our community. We are inviting you to participate in a survey that will inform planning and funding efforts in the future. Your input is critical in helping address transportation needs for Hillsborough County students. The survey should take about 10 minutes to complete. Your response to this survey will remain confidential and your personal information will not be shared in reporting of the results. We do ask for your contact information if you would like to be entered to win 10 AMC Silver Experience movie passes. The winner of the AMC Silver Experience prize will be contacted in February 2017. To complete the survey, please go to: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GETTINGTOSCHOOL Thank you again for your time and input, Sincerely, Cindy Stuart Board Chair Hillsborough County Public Schools

You are receiving this email because of your relationship with Hillsborough County School District. If you wish to stop receiving email updates sent through the Blackboard service, please unsubscribe. Hillsborough County School District | 901 E Kennedy Blvd, Tampa, FL 33602 | 813-272-4183 Printed by: Patti Simmons Tuesday, February 14, 2017 5:51:33 P Title: HCPS Survey Reminder: Student Transportation : IDEAS Page 1 of 1

Message Thu, Jan 26, 2017 10:26 AM

From: Hillsborough School News To: Hillsborough County School District Recipients

Bcc: Patti Simmons

Subject: HCPS Survey Reminder: Student Transportation

https://storage.googleapis.com/pt02/images/tinymc

Dear Hillsborough County Public Schools Families, Last week, we emailed our families an invitation to participate in a survey about student transportation. This survey was developed in partnership with several local transportation agencies including the Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA). These agencies are interested in learning more about the conditions, concerns, and needs that influence student transportation in our community. Your input is important as results of the survey will inform planning and funding efforts in the future. The deadline for responding to the survey is Friday, February 3rd. Your response to this survey will remain confidential and your personal information will not be shared in reporting of the results. We do ask for your contact information if you would like to be entered to win 10 AMC Silver Experience movie passes. The winner of the AMC Silver Experience prize will be contacted in February 2017. If you have not already taken the survey, please take a few minutes to provide your input: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GETTINGTOSCHOOL Sincerely,

Cindy Stuart Board Chair Hillsborough County Public Schools This email was sent from a notification-only address that cannot accept incoming email. Please do not reply to this message. If you need more information, visit http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us

Survey

This survey is being conducted by several transportation agencies. The Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA), and Hillsborough County Public Schools (HCPS) are all interested in learning more about children getting to and from school.

This survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. If you have more than one school-age student in your household, please complete one survey per school your children attend.

Your responses will be kept confidential and neither your name nor your child's name will be associated with any results. At the end, please provide your contact information if you would like to be entered to win a 10 ticket AMC Movie Silver experience.

Thank you for participating in this survey!

1 1. How many students, by age, currently live in your household: (complete all that apply)

Less than 5 years old

5 years old

6 years old

7 years old

8 years old

9 years old

10 years old

11 years old

12 years old

13 years old

14 years old

15 years old

16 years old

17 years old

18 years old or older

2. In what ZIP code is your home located? (enter 5-digit ZIP code; for example, 00544 or 94305)

* 3. What type of school does this student attend?

Elementary Alternative (career center, alternative school, DJJ site)

Middle Exceptional Center

K-8 Charter School

High School

2 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Elementary Schools

4. Which elementary school does your student attend?

3 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Middle Schools

5. Which middle school does your student attend?

4 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

K-8 Schools

6. Which K-8 school does your student attend?

5 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

High Schools

7. Which high school does your student attend?

6 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Alternative Schools

8. Which alternative school does your student attend?

7 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Exceptional Centers

9. Which exceptional center does your student attend?

8 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Charter Schools

10. Which charter school does your student attend?

9 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Student Commute

11. On a typical week, how many days does your student use each of these transportation methods to get to school?

Walks alone

Walks with a parent

Walking School Bus (a form of transportation where students walk to or from school in a group chaperoned by one or more adults similar to how a bus would drive them to school)

Bicycles alone

Bike Train (a form of transportation where students bike to or from school in a group accompanied by one or more adults)

School bus

Public transit

Family vehicle

Carpool (a form of transportation where a group of students ride to or from school as a group in a car driven by an adult)

10 12. On a typical week, how many days does your student use each of these transportation methods to get home from school?

Walks alone

Walks with a parent

Walking School Bus (a form of transportation where students walk to or from school in a group chaperoned by one or more adults similar to how a bus would drive them to school)

Bicycles alone

Bike Train (a form of transportation where students bike to or from school in a group accompanied by one or more adults)

School bus

Public transit

Family vehicle

Carpool (a form of transportation where a group of students ride to or from school as a group in a car driven by an adult)

13. What time of day does your student typically commuteto school?

Before 6:00 AM

Between 6:00 and 6:30 AM

Between 6:30 and 7:00 AM

Between 7:00 and 7:30 AM

Between 7:30 and 8:00 AM

Between 8:00 and 8:30 AM

Between 8:30 and 9:00 AM

After 9:00 AM

11 14. What time of day does your student typically commutehome from school?

Before 2:00 PM

Between 2:00 and 2:30 PM

Between 2:30 and 3:00 PM

Between 3:00 and 3:30 PM

Between 3:30 and 4:00 PM

Between 4:00 and 4:30 PM

Between 4:30 and 5:00 PM

After 5:00 PM

15. How far does your student live from school?

Less than 1/4 mile Between 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile Between 1/2 mile and 1 mile Between 1 mile and 2 miles

More than 2 miles

16. About long does it take for your student to get to and from school?

Less 5 minutes Between 5 and 10 minutes Between 10 and 20 minutes Between 20 and 30 minutes

More than 30 minutes

17. Thinking about your student's commute to and from school, abouthow often do you encounter:

Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Always

Poor road conditions (e.g., potholes, damaged signs, uneven pavement)

Vehicles speeding

Bad lighting

People hanging out by the roadway

Traffic crashes

Pedestrian injuries

Bicyclist injuries

12 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Unsafe Locations

* 18. Are there specific locations along the route where you or your studentfeel unsafe?

Yes

13 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Unsafe

19. You indicated that there are locations along your route where you or your student feel unsafe. What about these locations makes you/your student feel unsafe? (select all that apply)

Distance

Convenience

Time of day

Before and after school activities

Speed of traffic along the route

Sidewalks or paths along the route

Safety of intersections or crossings

Presence of crossing guards

Violence or crime in the area

Weather or climate

Amount of light along the route

Other (please specify):

14 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Permission to Walk/Bike

20. Are there crossing guards along the route to your student's school?

Yes

21. In the past year, has your student asked you for permission to walk or bicycle to or from school?

Yes

22. In what grade would you give your student permission to walk or bicycle without an adult?

PK 6

K 7

1 8

2 9

3 10

4 11

5 I would not feel comfortable at any grade.

23. How much does your student's school encourage walking or biking to and from school?

Not At All Very Little Somewhat Quite A Bit A Great Deal

24. How much fun do you think do you think it would be to walk or bike to school?

Not At All Very Little Somewhat Quite A Bit A Great Deal

15 25. How healthy do you think it is to walk or bike to school?

Not At All Very Little Somewhat Quite A Bit A Great Deal

26. Which of the following affect your decision to give your student permission to walk or bike to and from school? (select all that apply)

Distance Safety of intersections or crossings

Convenience Presence of crossing guards

Time of day Violence or crime in the area

Before and after school activities Weather or climate

Speed of traffic along the route Amount of light along the route

Sidewalks or paths along the route

Other (please specify):

16 27. Please rank the following conditions along the route in terms of theirimpact on letting your child walk or bike to and from school (1-Most Impact to 11-Least Impact):

Distance

Convenience

Time of day

Before and after school activities

Speed of traffic along the route

Sidewalks or paths along the route

Safety of intersections or crossings

Presence of crossing guards

Violence or crime in the area

Weather or climate

Amount of light along the route

17 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Riding with Others

28. Please rank the importance of these issues when it comes to letting your student ride to or from school with someone else: (1-Most Important and 12-Least Important)

Driver is someone I know personally.

Driver can provide references from others.

Driver has a safe driving record.

Driver has no criminal record.

Driver is dependable.

Distance of the commute.

Type of roads

Time of day

Driver has a reliable vehicle (e.g., make/model/year).

Driver is a non-smoker.

Driver is over age 18.

Driver is under age 65.

18 29. What other factors are important to you when it comes to letting your student ride to and from school with someone else?

19 2017 Getting Students to School Survey

Programs and Resources

30. Which of the following student transportation programs and resources have you/your studentever used? (select all that apply)

AAA Traffic Safety programs St. Joseph’s Children’s Hospital Bicycle Skills program

Bike Train (a form of student transportation where a group of TBARTA Regional School Commute program (matches children bicycle to school together accompanied by one or parents and students by school to encourage carpooling and more adults) other transportation plans like the Walking School Bus or Bike Trains) FDOT Bike and Pedestrian Safety programs Vision Zero Website (safety action plan and concern HART(this is the Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit Authority reporting) offering public busses and "stay-cation" options) Walking School Bus (a form of student transportation where Hillsborough County Public Schools Driver’s Education students walk to or from school, chaperoned by adults, similar programs to how a bus would drive them to school)

MoreHealth (Safe Routes to School Program/Coordinator) WalkWise (interactive presentation)

31. If available, how likely would you be to use these programs or resources?

Neither Very Somewhat Unlikely Somewhat Very Unlikely Unlikely nor Likely Likely Likely

Carpooling

Mobile application that coordinates school pick-up and dismissal (allows parents/guardians to make pick-up changes if an emergency arises and also automatically notifies them of their kids dismissal, status, delays, and emergencies)

Walking School Bus (a group of students walk to or from school, chaperoned by adults, similar to how a bus would drive them to school)

Bike Train (a group of children bicycle to school together accompanied by one or more adults)

20 32. Which of the following student transportation programs and resources would you like toreceive more information about? (select all that apply)

AAA Traffic Safety programs St. Joseph’s Children’s Hospital Bicycle Skills program

MoreHealth (Safe Routes to School Program/Coordinator) WalkWise (interactive presentation)

33. Please use the space below to share any other feedback or suggestions you have about student transportation in our area.

34. If offered, which of the following features and incentives would make youmore likely to carpool?

Faster drop-off/pick-up at school

Environmental and cost savings impact statements

Monetary rewards

Recognition at events or meetings

Credits for community service

Enhanced notification for dismissal, delays, or emergencies

Enhanced notification about drop-off and pick-up times

21 35. If you would like to be entered to win 10 AMC Silver Experience movie tickets, please provide your contact information:

Name

Address

City

State

Zip

Email address

Phone

For more information about student transportation initiatives in our community, please visit our partners at:

Hillsborough MPO TBARTA FDOT MoreHealth AAA Traffic Safety HART Hillsborough County Public Schools Driver’s Education programs St. Joseph’s Children’s Hospital Bicycle skills program Vision Zero Website WalkWise

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item

City of Tampa Livable Projects

Presenter Cal Hardie, City of Tampa staff Summary

Downtown Curb Extensions The City of Tampa has a priority to implement the Downtown Walk/Bike Plan and the Downtown Invision Plan. There are many intersections in the downtown core that require improvement toward better pedestrian and multi-modal connectivity where the current infrastructure is outdated and in conflict with the complete street objectives for this redeveloping neighborhood. Image here

Doyle Carlton and Laurel St Intersection Improvements Doyle Carlton Drive serves as an important north-south thoroughfare for destinations adjacent to the developing Arts and Riverwalk sections of Downtown. While there is an emphasis for improved pedestrian and multi-modal connectivity in this area, the Laurel Street intersection at Doyle Carlton Drive has an auto-centric suburban style infrastructure and traffic control. The current infrastructure is outdated and in conflict with the complete street objectives for this redeveloping neighborhood. The City of Tampa will identify design opportunities to make this intersection more of a “complete street.” This project evaluates which options are technically feasible to better accommodate other modes of travel more safely and to improve aesthetics. Image here

Bayshore Blvd – Buffered Bicycle Lanes and Traffic Calming This project will consist of signing and pavement marking enhancements to improve

safety in the corridor for all modes of travel. The combined improvements will provide traffic calming allowing for the lowering of the speed limit within the corridor. For more information see Fact Sheet.

Recommended Action None, For information Prepared By Lisa K. Silva, AICP, PLA, MPO staff Attachments Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org None [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Plant City Walk Bike Presenter

Wade Reynolds, MPO Staff Summary The Plant City Walk Bike Plan is a way to synthesize the City’s previous planning efforts, identify opportunities to fill in pedestrian and bicycle network gaps, and develop priority project concepts that will move projects from idea to implementation. Through a process of review, project prioritization, public outreach, and concept development, the Project Team will work with the City to develop a Plan that creates an interconnected system of facilities for people walking and biking to enjoy.

An initial kickoff meeting was held on February 2, 2017. More than 40 participants provided valuable feedback on the initial analysis which looks at the feasibility of trails, on-street bike facilities, and sidewalks.

When completed, the Walk | Bike Plant City final report will provide:

 A blueprint for a comprehensive system in Plant City that makes walking and bicycling for all purposes and by all users accessible, safe, and desirable

 A phasing and implementation plan, and a starter project

 Recommendations for a strong, strategic funding plan for walking and bicycle facility expansion and improvement within the City Recommended Action None, for informational purposes only. Prepared By Wade Reynolds, MPO Staff Attachments Initial proposed network maps and attractors.

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

ST R ST R

RD LE

EE !5

LOR WH

TAY

N GORDON GORDON N N N ¹½ !5 RLIE !5 CHA Æc E BAKER ST E BAKER ST N CO ST !5 R ST NOLDS W BAKE E REY LLINS

S ST T EYNOLD ST ¹½ W R !5!5!5

!5 !5 S RDON

D AVE D !5 E SAM ALLEN RD S S GO

!5 ST ARYLAN

LLI

¹½ RK

M ON ON

!5 PA

N S

S ST

GORD S S

I-4

N N

T RD ER

DO !5

R S RK RK

¹½ ERST THO

DE PA

EL !5 ¹½

WILD

GOR N N

NOTOSA N HE

XAN N !5 W

ALE N !5 !5 E US HWY N 92 W BAKER ST SSA !5 W BAKE !5 ¹½E BAKER ST E BAKER ST RD !5!5R ST Æc !5 ¹½ !5 LDS ST ^_ ¹½ W REYNO !5 S COL W REYNOLDS ST ÆP !5!5 ¹½

!5 !5 !5!5 RK RD RK !5 !5 LI !5 !5

NS ¹½ S S PA

ST R 574 W S SAM MONDS RD E ALSOBROOK ST Legend

^_!5 S ST

¹½

RD COR !5 RK ON Proposed Bicycle Facilities

!5 ET R XANDER ALE !5 D S S RD Existing Bicycle Facilities

RD !5 !5RK D E PARK!5 RD PA EK R

DNEY !5

CRE Parks

SY PKW

AN RK NDER ST Æc W ALEXAND DM E ALEXA TU ^_ ¹½ER ST Libraries

L REL

S E ¹½ Schools

JAM ÆP Hospitals ¹½ ^_ Other Plant City Limits

01.5 ¯ Miles

Proposed Bicycle Network Comment on Hillsborough County Technical Manuals through May 31

The comment period for the following Hillsborough County Technical Manuals is open through May 31, 2017, as part of the two-year update cycle:

 Public Utilities - Standard Pump Station Drawings  Public Utilities - Water, Wastewater, and Reclaimed Water Technical Manual  Public Utilities - Water, Wastewater, and Reclaimed Water Technical Specifications  Public Works - Stormwater Management Technical Manual  Public Works - Utility Accommodation Guide and Rights of Way Use Procedures Manual  Public Works - Transportation Technical Manual for Subdivisions and Site Development Projects

 Public Works - Standard Specifications for Construction

Comments and recommendations may be made online using the Comment on PUD/PW Technical Publications form at HCFLGov.net/en/businesses/land-development/technical- publications. Any comments received after May 31 may not be included in this cycle of updates. Proposed manual revisions will be posted in June or July for industry review, and presented in an open workshop for discussion in July or August, before changes are adopted and published in October.

As material specifications, technical criteria, and County polices change to meet new needs and ever changing technology, it is necessary to revise and update Hillsborough County’s technical publications. All changes are handled administratively under the direction of the County Engineer or Public Utilities Department Director, as applicable. The County adopted the uniform two-year cycle for technical publications in 2015.

Committee Reports

Meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on March 15, 2017 The CAC:  Nominated two people to fill the at-large seats on the CAC reserved for a woman and a person of Hispanic origin.  Received status reports on the Dale Mabry Pedestrian Crossing study and the Plant City Walk Bike Plan. Members asked about public input, funding, and how the resulting recommendations will be implemented.  Heard a report on the DEO grant awarded to the Planning Commission to promote health in all policies, focusing on University Square/Terrace Park. Members asked about the relation between traffic speed and mortality. Overall, they were encouraged, and asked if front-yard gardens could be considered as a means of providing healthier food.

Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on March 20, 2017 The TAC heard presentations on:  Planning and Modeling for Connected/Autonomous Vehicles and Ridesourcing from guest Tom Rossi of Cambridge Systematics. There was interest in how to forecast the long-term impacts of this advancing technology, and discussion of the many uncertainties associated with it.  Dale Mabry Pedestrian Crossing Study - Members asked if construction could be accelerated if the “Tampa 1” development agreed to pay for it.  Transportation Disadvantaged Return on Investment - Members were pleased to see the positive social and health benefits of the county’s TD programs.

Policy Committee Meeting of March 28, 2017 The committee:  Forwarded to the Board an update of the MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program, which lists planning studies for the upcoming fiscal year and documents the use of federal grants for planning. This annual update will be reviewed by the other committees in April and by the Board on May 2.  Held a roundtable discussion with local government and transportation authority representatives about their requests for federal grant funding, to be included in

this year’s update of the MPO Transportation Improvement Program Priority Plan Hillsborough List. Members discussed how the trail projects fit together into a regional planhillsborough.org [email protected] corridor; suggested the $2.5 million budgeted earlier for a HART MetroRapid on 813 - 272 - 5940 Kennedy could be shifted towards implementation of the Tampa Bay Regional 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

Transit Plan; and supported advocating for the I-75/Big Bend Rd interchange and the US 41/Causeway Blvd/CSX Rail interchange/overpass as regionally significant projects for consideration by the TMA Leadership Group.

Meeting of the Livable Roadways Committee (LRC) on March 22, 2017 The LRC held an in-depth discussion of the overpass alternatives for the Dale Mabry Pedestrian Crossing Study, and heard a presentation on Transportation Disadvantaged Services Return on Investment. In celebration of Florida Bike Month, member Karen Kress provided an overview of the significant changes to downtown’s transportation system. The group followed up on a member request by reviewing City of Tampa Code Requirements for Replanting of Trees Removed During Site Development. Now they want to know more about Hillsborough County’s process.

Meeting of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee on March 8, 2017 The committee reviewed but did not act on an amendment to the Greenways and Trails Master Plan. The amendment seeks to provide a trail route that connects to Manatee County, qualifies for SUNTrail funding, and extends the South Coast Greenway. The committee asked staff to explore the use of public right-of-way as the priority for this amendment. The committee also heard a presentation on Sidewalk Inventory and Construction Costs. The BPAC suggested that future discussion of funding scenarios should include the length of time it would take to build an adequate sidewalk system.

School Transportation Working Group The committee met on March 29, 2017. The summary will be in next month’s report.

TBARTA MPO Directors Meeting of March 24, 2017 The TBARTA MPO Directors met at St. Pete College Collaborative Labs to view the facility, technology, and software options for the upcoming May 12 regional stakeholder workshop that will guide the Regional Transportation Planning Best Practices Study. RSVPs have been received from all counties. A draft agenda for the May 12 workshop will be reviewed by the TMA Leadership Group on April 7.

The group also briefly discussed performance measure target-setting at the regional level, with the first action being to set targets for transit asset management (sometimes known as “state of good repair” targets). Next month, the group will plan for the first Tampa Bay Safe Streets Summit, slated for February 2018.

MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee & the Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area Leadership Group

Regional Transportation Planning & Coordination Best Practices Study Kick-Off Workshop at Collaborative Labs

SAVE THE DATE Friday | May 12, 2017 | 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM Collaborative Labs, St. Petersburg College 13805 58th Street North Clearwater, FL 33760

Elected Officials, Government Agencies, Transportation Organizations, and Business Leaders of the Tampa Bay Region will review the current state-of-the-practice of transportation planning across the eight counties of West Central Florida. The May 12 collaborative workshop will then focus on how do we get better results by working together. Defining what successful regional coordination means for Tampa Bay, and identifying barriers to it, will guide the next phase of the study: independent research into national best practices. A second collaborative workshop will be held after that research is complete.

Please RSVP to: [email protected]

Contact: Ali Atefi, P.E. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Metropolitan Planning Organization March 27, 2017 Office: 727.847.8140 [email protected]

Wesley Chapel Roadways Connections Study ~~Open House public meeting set for April 18, 2017~~

WESLEY CHAPEL, FL ---- The Pasco County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is holding an open-house style public information meeting for anyone interested in the Wesley Chapel Roadways Connections Study. The purpose of the open house is to gather public comments and other information that will be useful in conducting the study.

The study will evaluate the pros and cons of three potential roadway connectors in the Wesley Chapel area and help develop a Transportation Improvement Plan if and when these connections are constructed. Pasco County has not made any decisions regarding these connections.

The three Pasco County connectors the MPO is studying are:  Mansfield Boulevard and Kinnan Street  Meadow Pointe Boulevard and Meadow Pointe Boulevard extension  Wyndfields Boulevard and Wyndfields Boulevard extension

Click HERE to see a map of the study area – including the potential locations of the connectors.

WHAT: Wesley Chapel Roadways Connection Study Open House

WHERE: Pasco-Hernando State College 2727 Mansfield Boulevard Wesley Chapel, FL

WHEN: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. (Summary at 6:00 p.m.)

The open house will include a brief MPO summary at 6:00 p.m., followed by an opportunity to review the study area map. Representatives from Pasco County Planning and Development, the MPO and the consulting team will be available to take comments, address any issues and answer questions.

This is the first public meeting being held in conjunction with this project. Drop in any time between 5:30 and 7:30 p.m.

For more information about transportation planning in Pasco County, visit the MPO website at: www.pascompo.net. 1 of 1 “Pasco County—Florida's Premier County”

56 H T R

NO .

D 56

V L

. D

D R E VD

T O

WO D V

N D S

L I L AV E

O L O E

B .

PASCO P DG 581 I COUNTY S NE R D LI D D Y . W BR EL L

. T O I S E I I

VD OUN SF AD F

L RR

C E

B O

AN ND M B

Y M

S E

M AR W N PASCO COUNTY DSLEY DR.

W HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WYNDFIELDS MEADOW POINTE DO BLVD. EXTENSION . . BLVD. EXTENSION R R B BA A K - NCH E RVE B E LVD B C ES . L R VD

U P OAK . .

BR T

S . D

REGE N R HILLSBOROUGH N T A 581 S E COUNTY PICTORIAL PARK DR. P A NN DG R I I K K LEGEND BR UNDER CONSTRUCTION

D S PLANNED R I

. CONCEPTUAL (PLAN NOT RR COMPLETED/APPROVED) O . COUNTY LINE M VD STUDY AREA BL CROSS CREEK CONNECTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION

CROSS-BAY FERRY PILOT PROJECT EARLY PROGRESS REPORT NOVEMBER 2016 – FEBRUARY 2017

MARCH 2017

Contents Executive Summary ...... 3 Background ...... 4 Project Goals ...... 4 Action Items Completed to Date ...... 4 Early Progress Indications ...... 5 Passenger Information ...... 5 Passenger Counts ...... 5 Passenger Origin and Destination ...... 9 Regional Demand Indications ...... 9 Group Size Information ...... 10 Trip Information ...... 11 Trip Purpose ...... 11 Connecting Travel Modes ...... 11 Customer Knowledge and Satisfaction ...... 15 Financial and Operations Information ...... 17 Farebox Recovery Ratio ...... 17 Operating Expense per Passenger Mile ...... 18 Estimated Impact to Local Businesses ...... 19 Passenger Fare Options – Purchasing Distribution ...... 21 Travel Time Reliability and Variability ...... 23 Operational Incidents...... 25 Benchmarking and Post Evaluation ...... 26 Comparisons with Existing Passenger Ferry Systems ...... 26 Comparisons with Existing Area Transit...... 26 Comparisons with Corridor Alternatives...... 27 Progress toward Achieving Project Goals ...... 28 Next Steps ...... 28 Modifications to Pilot Prior to Conclusions ...... 28 Next Steps and Long-Term Funding Pursuits ...... 29 Appendix A ...... 31 Modal Transfer Data ...... 31 The Looper ...... 31

1 | P a g e

Coast Bike Share ...... 31 Tampa Downtown Partnership’s Downtowner ...... 31 Rideshare ...... 31 Commuter Service Programs Data ...... 32 TBARTA Emergency Ride Home Enrollment ...... 32 TBARTA Emergency Ride Home Service Requests ...... 32 Appendix B ...... 33 Trip Experience Impressions – Detailed Evaluation ...... 33 Speed of Vessel ...... 33 Ease of Boarding ...... 33 Comfort of Seats and Vessel ...... 34 Helpfulness and Courtesy of Crew ...... 34 Overall Experience ...... 34

2 | P a g e

Executive Summary The Cross-Bay Ferry pilot project was initiated to allow Tampa Bay area leaders to learn whether passenger ferry service can be sustained as a viable, regional transportation mode. During its first four months of service, November 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017, the Cross-Bay Ferry carried nearly 23,000 passengers across Tampa Bay, on a direct route between downtown St. Petersburg and Tampa.

Based upon an initial review of operating revenues through February, and a short, comparative analysis of data from the National Transit Database, the Cross-Bay Ferry farebox recovery is more than a third of its operating costs, which is on par with established, similar waterborne transit operations and is considerably higher than the recovery percentage of any transit system on the west coast of Florida. Additional operational metrics of the ferry service have been recorded and indicate that the Cross-Bay Ferry is providing an incident-free transportation option with greater travel time reliability than that found by alternate means of travel between the two downtowns.

Detailed passenger surveys, delivered both on-board and online, provide key insights into the perception of the Cross-Bay Ferry and how passengers are choosing to connect with the service. While the results are not scientific, they represent the responses provided by customers who responded to the surveys through February 28, 2017.

This report seeks to provide an overview of the Cross-Bay Ferry service between November 2016 and February 2017, and summarize the findings from the operations review and survey responses. Some findings to note include -

1) Approximately two-thirds of on-line survey respondents indicated that their trip was one that was induced by the transportation mode, and may not have taken place without the ferry service to enable such a trip. Approximately one-third of the respondents indicated that they used the ferry instead of their car to make a necessary trip that was previously planned. 2) Forty-four percent of passengers got to one of the two ferry terminals by driving, another 18% by a ride share service (taxi, Uber, Lyft, or similar), and the balance by another mode. A fair portion of the latter walked or biked to the ferry terminal. 3) Over 90% of the respondents are area residents, not tourists, and residents from 72% of all Pinellas and Hillsborough County zip codes (75 of 104 zip codes) have used the Cross-Bay Ferry. 4) Ferry passengers made a strong, positive economic impact on local businesses. Specifically, 77% of passengers dined when they got to their destination, 25% went to museums, 24% shopped, and 11% went to a sporting event. These were not mutually exclusive activities. Only 12% of the respondents took the ferry as a "ride," meaning they did not engage in any activity other than riding the ferry. Ninety-two percent of the survey respondents indicated that they travelled with at least other person, and nearly 60% of ferry passengers spent between $15 and $40 per person at their destination. Over 30% of respondents chose to specify an amount spent that was over $40, and the average amount specified was approximately $100 per person. 5) Over 95% of respondents rated their experience with the Cross-Bay Ferry as excellent or very good, with at least 72% rating it as excellent, for five surveyed factors. 6) Ninety-five percent of the passengers that completed the on-board surveys indicated that they support the concept of a permanent ferry service between St. Petersburg and Tampa.

3 | P a g e

Background The Cross-Bay Ferry project is a pilot program to allow Tampa Bay area leaders learn whether passenger ferry service can be sustained as a viable, regional transportation mode. The pilot’s funding partners are the City of St. Petersburg, City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, and Pinellas County. The City of St. Petersburg is the contract officer for the project, and hired HMS Ferries, Inc. (HMS) to provide the passenger ferry service between November 1, 2016 and April 30, 2017. Through the course of the pilot, additional partners related to data gathering and/or supportive programming have been identified and include the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA), the St. Petersburg Downtown Partnership, the Tampa Downtown Partnership, and the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA). This expanded collaborative of funding partners and key transportation agencies has enabled all parties to learn more as to how to provide integrated intermodal transit in the Tampa Bay region, and make greater use of Tampa Bay as a transportation asset.

Given the nature of the pilot program, it’s desirable to develop basic project goals and perform data gathering activities. An invitation was extended to state and regional transportation planning agencies to request data collection assistance, and seek input as to identification of desired metrics that could support conversion of the pilot project to sustained service if warranted. From that invitation, it was determined the that the metrics to be gleaned from the pilot project should include the demand for commuter and non-commuter service, pricing flexibility, revenue generation, consumer preferences, marketing preferences, and impact on motor vehicle use. The identified project goals and a detailed summary of data gathered for the first four months of the pilot, November 2016 through February 2017 are included in this report of early progress.

Project Goals Several project goals have been developed in an effort to establish a baseline of reasonable expectations for the pilot program. They include:

 Increase public awareness of waterborne transportation technology and the specifically the benefits of the service between Downtown St. Petersburg and Downtown Tampa  Achieve inclusion of waterborne transportation and this corridor alignment in local and regional capital planning documents for future service  Provide a service that meets or exceeds customer expectation such that greater than 80% would use again and/or recommend the service to a friend  Provide a safe, reliable transportation service for residents and visitors with no injuries or accidents

Action Items Completed to Date The Cross-Bay Ferry service began on November 1, 2016. The early weeks of service were strategically organized to allow for a “Test the Waters” phase generally through the first month of service. Weekday service through most of November was provided in a series of partial sailings aimed at targeted audiences, while weekend service began in earnest on November 4, 2016 with two roundtrip sailings on Friday evenings, three roundtrip sailings on Saturdays, and two roundtrip sailings on Sundays. Weekday

4 | P a g e

service that was open to the general public began on Monday, November 21, 2016, with the three days prior to Thanksgiving offered at no charge on a first-come-first-served basis. Regular commuter- oriented service began the following Monday with routine service at two roundtrip sailings per day on Mondays through Thursdays.

In addition to the ferry operation services provided by HMS, measures to include waterborne transportation as a part of the various transportation planning documents have been undertaken. For example, Hillsborough County planning documents include language supportive of waterborne transportation, and water transit was included in the Hillsborough County Long Range Transportation Plan (Hillsborough LRTP) as adopted in November 2014. Furthermore, the corridor that connects Downtown St. Petersburg with Downtown Tampa was specifically identified as a Longer Range Transit Needs Beyond 2040 project in Hillsborough LRTP. In Pinellas County, inclusion of waterborne transportation as a transit option, along with the continued identification of the Downtown St. Petersburg to Downtown Tampa corridor for premium transit, was included in the amended 2040 Pinellas County Long Range Transportation Plan (Pinellas LRTP) in April 2016 as well as a line item on the 2016 Multimodal Transportation Project Priority List.

Early Progress Indications To determine early progress, data was gathered through several means, including financial and operations data provided directly by HMS, voluntary on-board surveys collected by HMS, and voluntary, online surveys distributed by HMS advisory staff. The on-board surveys were developed prior to the Test the Waters phase and collected on a routine basis since the project was initiated. Some questions were modified early in the operation to glean more useful information, though the content of the half- page survey has largely remained constant throughout the pilot to date. A total of 257 surveys were collected between November and January. The online survey is a longer instrument that was sent to passengers through an email database of passenger accounts. A total of 590 responses to the survey were collected between February 19 and February 28, 2017.

In addition to the data collected from the sources indicated above, other operational and financial metrics were obtained from HMS directly for the months of November through February. Critical metrics related to passenger tallies and other trip characteristics along with financial impacts of service operations were also gathered for reporting and comparative purposes.

A summary of metrics collated from the three primary sources described above is provided in the sections below, along with preliminary comparative analysis of those metrics. Passenger Information Passenger Counts The total passenger count from November 2016 through February 2017 is 22,596. The highest ridership month was November, though it’s important to note that operations in this month included the Test the Waters phase with targeted audiences that were invited on board to preview the passenger ferry service. The highest paid ridership month was February with 6,070 passengers. A detailed chart that indicates total passengers by month is located below.

5 | P a g e

Total Passengers

8,000 7,606

7,000 6,070 6,000 5,063 5,000 3,857 4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY

As an indicator of how sustained service may perform, it is important to characterize passengers roughly by the purpose of their trip. Given the service schedule of the Cross-Bay Ferry, generally this relates to the day of week in which the trip was taken. Based on guidance provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Transportation Planning Handbook related to commuter transit planning, it was determined that passengers who rode the Cross-Bay Ferry when limited service was provided on Mondays through Thursdays should be classified as Commuter passengers, while weekend passengers are categorized as Non-Commuter passengers.

The number of Commuter Passengers from November 21, 2016, when regular weekday scheduled service began, through February 2017 is 6,317 passengers. This includes the Frontier Free Days from November 21st through November 28th. The highest number of paid commuter passengers was achieved in February with 2,237 passengers. This increase was influenced by multiple factors including a pricing structure change that included reduced weekday fares to $5 per one way trip, or $2.50 with a commuter value pass (10 trips for $25). A detailed chart that indicates total Commuter passengers by month is located below.

6 | P a g e

Total Commuter Passengers

2,500 2,237

2,000 1,704

1,500 1,240 1,136 1,000

500

0 NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY

The number of Non-Commuter Passengers from November 2016 through February 2017 is 14,528 passengers. The highest ridership was during the month of November 2016. This could be attributed to several factors, including the marketing for the project, which was at its highest levels, and the number of sailings that were provided at no charge during the Test the Waters period. Ridership numbers in February 2017 represent a significant increase in month-over-month totals, which is likely due to the fact that routine service was interrupted on two Saturdays in January (January 7 and January 28) due to port closures related to two significant events in Tampa including the National College Football Championship Game and the annual Gasparilla Pirate Fest. A detailed chart that indicates total Non- Commuter passengers by month is located below.

Total Non-Commuter Passengers

5,000 4,719 4,500 3,833 4,000 3,359 3,500 3,000 2,617 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY

Another important metric that supports the multimodal preferences of the ferry passengers is the number of personal bicycles brought on board, presumably for ease of the first mile/last mile trip link to connect with the passenger ferry service. The total number of personal bicycles brought on board

7 | P a g e

between November 2016 and February 2017 was 473. Bicycles were permitted to be brought on board throughout the duration of the pilot project at no additional charge. The highest ridership for personal bicycles was February with 171 bicycles. A detailed chart that indicates total number of bicycles on board by month is located below.

Bicycles On Board

180 171 160 140 114 120 104 100 84 80 60 40 20 0 NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY

Operational data provided by HMS reveals that the number of passengers by departure city is divided near evenly for both St. Petersburg and Tampa. However, it’s worth noting, as will be described later in the report, not all passengers chose to return to their originating city via the ferry service.

Passengers by Departure City

11,387 11,209 St. Petersburg Tampa

8 | P a g e

Passenger Origin and Destination Passenger Origin An important metric for transit and transportation analysis is passenger origin and destination. It allows those agencies that oversee area transportation systems to better understand the mobility needs and desires of their community. Through the online survey, ferry passengers were asked a series of questions related to their trip origin, destination, and the modes of transportation that were used to link those trips.

Based upon results from the online survey, respondents indicated their trip origin as follows.

Trip Origin Location 0%

Home 3% 5%

My workplace in downtown

My workplace outside of downtown 92% My lodging while visiting in the Tampa Bay area

Regional Demand Indications As noted above, over 90% of survey respondents indicated that their trip originated at their home, indicating that the service has been largely utilized by Tampa Bay area residents. Survey respondents were also asked to provide their home zip code which provides valuable information about the trips that were necessary for ferry passengers to take in order to reach the ferry terminals. A map illustrating the Pinellas and Hillsborough County zip codes from which the survey respondents indicated that they live and the density of those respondents is provided below. Zip codes provided by survey respondents indicate that passengers come from across Tampa Bay, with the highest concentration of passengers in the neighborhoods surrounding the two ferry terminals. It appears that even residents in neighborhoods up to 5 miles away from the ferry terminal still have a propensity to use the ferry service. Outlying areas from the two downtowns saw the least representation on the ferry, but according to the survey responses, residents from 72% of all Pinellas and Hillsborough County zip codes (75 of 104 zip codes) have used the Cross-Bay Ferry.

9 | P a g e

Group Size Information Online survey respondents provided information as to the number of people in their party when they used the ferry service. This information is important to understand some travel demand as it relates to the impact on motor vehicle use. Nearly three quarters of the survey respondents indicated that they travelled with a group of two to four persons, and nearly one in five respondents were members of a group that ranged in size from five to ten people.

Group Size

7% 4% 19% One Two 41% Three or Four 29% Five to Ten

Other (please specify)

10 | P a g e

Trip Information Trip Purpose Another important metric to be determined from the ferry pilot project is whether the existence of the transportation service would induce more trips by providing a new transportation option, or whether trips taken on the ferry would replace those that would ordinarily have been taken through surface transportation means. Passengers using the ferry service were queried in the online survey as to their trip purpose to ascertain this information. Approximately two-thirds of the online survey respondents indicated that their trip was one that was induced by the transportation mode and may not have taken place without the ferry service to enable such a trip. Approximately one-third of the respondents indicated that they used the ferry instead of their car to make a previously planned trip. These latter trips can be assumed to have had an impact to motor vehicle traffic on surface transportation alternatives to the limited access corridors between downtown St. Petersburg and downtown Tampa.

Trip Purpose Induced vs. Replacement Trips

Ferry used as a part of planned activities 34%

66% Ferry used instead of car to make a necessary trip

Connecting Travel Modes To learn which mode(s) of transportation were used by passengers to arrive at or depart from the ferry terminals and which modes were used while they were at their destination, passengers were surveyed, both online and through the on-board surveys. A series of likely transportation options were provided as responses including walked, transit, personal auto (drove alone), personal auto (drove with others), personal bicycle, ride share (taxi, Uber, Lyft, or similar), bike share (Coast Bicycles), or other.

It’s important to note that Coast Bike Share which has operated in the City of Tampa for two years, initiated service in St. Petersburg simultaneously with the Cross-Bay Ferry service. The bike share system in Tampa for the first three months of the ferry service was more robust with 300 bikes available at 30 stations, while service in St. Petersburg included 100 bikes at 10 stations for November through January. Bike share stations are located in close proximity to each of the ferry terminals and

11 | P a g e

membership reciprocity across the system in both cities has been accomplished through the mutual operator, CycleHop, LLC.

Origin Mode From the online survey, nearly one-third of the respondents indicated that they drove a personal auto with others to access the ferry terminal. Parking fees for Commuter ferry passengers were waived at the terminal parking in St. Petersburg. Otherwise, parking fees at nearby parking facilities were not adjusted for ferry users. The second most common mode of transportation to the ferry terminal was walking, followed closely by ride share services.

A detailed chart that indicates the number of responses by mode choice, along with a distributive pie chart is located below.

Mode Choice - Origin to Ferry Terminal

250 221

200 156 150 124

100 84 57 50 23 12 9 0

12 | P a g e

Mode Choice - Origin to Ferry Terminal 4% 2% 1% Personal auto, drove with others

8% Walked

32% Ride Share (taxi, Uber, Lyft, or similar) 12% Personal auto, drove alone

Personal bicycle 18% 23% Other (please specify)

Transit

Bike Share (Coast bicycles)

Modal Choice at Destination From the online survey, over two-thirds of respondents indicated that they chose to walk to their destination upon arrival at the ferry terminal following their trip upon the ferry. Approximately, one- quarter used ride share services and existing transit (including bike share). A detailed chart that illustrates the percentage by each mode choice is located below.

Mode Choice at Destination

2% 2% 5% Walked 10% Ride Share (taxi, Uber, Lyft, or similar)

12% Transit (Bus, Streetcar, Downtowner) 69% Personal bicycle

Personal auto

Bike Share (Coast bicycles)

13 | P a g e

Return Trip Modes Passengers were queried in the online survey as to the transportation mode that was chosen to allow them to return to the ferry terminal at their departure city. Seventy percent of respondents indicated that they chose to use the ferry for the return trip. Nearly all of the remaining respondents indicated that they chose either a ride sharing service or returned in a personal automobile. A detailed chart illustrating the specific responses is included below.

Return Trip Mode

2% Transit (ferry) 21% Transit (bus) 7% My own or another's personal 0% 70% auto Ride Share (taxi, Uber, Lyft, or similar) Other (please specify)

For the passengers who did chose to return via the ferry, they indicated that they then used one of several modes to complete their trip back to their point of origin. Approximately half of those respondents chose one of two options - personal auto – drove with others, and walked. The remaining half of responses were divided amongst the remaining options. Just over ten percent of respondents chose to use the ferry then use a ride share service for the remainder of the trip.

A detailed illustration of the distribution of responses for the return trip mode choice is shown below.

14 | P a g e

Return Trip Mode Choice Ferry Terminal to Origin 0% Personal auto, drove with others 2% 2% Walked 6% Did not use Ferry 9% 28% Ride Share (taxi, Uber, Lyft, or similar) 11% Personal auto, drove alone

21% Personal bicycle 21% Other (please specify)

Transit

Bike Share (Coast bicycles)

Modal transfer data from partner agencies for services that were provided as response options in the Connect Travel Modes survey questions are included in Appendix A. Specifically, those include St. Petersburg’s The Looper, Tampa’s Downtowner, Coast Bike Share, and TBARTA’s Emergency Ride Home program enrollment and service requests for commuter-based passengers.

Customer Knowledge and Satisfaction As previously indicated, nearly half of the pilot project’s goals are related to public awareness of waterborne transportation technology and the provision of such service in a manner that meets or exceeds customer expectation. To that end, through the online survey, passengers were asked to provide information related to their knowledge of the Cross-Bay Ferry and their interaction with the crew while utilizing the ferry service.

Service Knowledge Through the online survey, passengers were asked to provide information related to how they learned of the Cross-Bay Ferry. Nearly half of the respondents indicated that they heard of the service through either Broadcast or newspaper mediums, and another fifteen percent indicated it was through advertising. Approximately one-third responded that they learned of the service via social media or through a friend or business associate. A more detailed illustration of the distribution of the survey responses is included below.

15 | P a g e

How Respondents Found Out About the Ferry

Broadcast or newspaper 4%

16% Advertising

47% Social media 18%

Personal friend or 15% business associate

Other (please specify)

Customer Satisfaction Passengers, through the online survey, were asked to rate the quality of service provided by the Cross- Bay Ferry for a variety of aspects of their trip. Those categories included the speed of the vessel, the ease of boarding, comfort of the seats and vessel, the helpfulness and courtesy of the crew, and their overall experience. Over 95 percent of respondents indicated that the overall experience of the Cross- Bay Ferry was very good or excellent. Respondents ranked the ease of boarding most favorably with a weighted average of 4.75, on a scale of one to five. Weighted averages for all categories remained well above a score of 4.5, approaching a rating of Excellent in every category.

A detailed chart showing the responses and weighted averages for each of the service categories is shown below.

16 | P a g e

Trip Experience Weighted Average 5

4.9

4.8 4.75 4.72 4.7 4.66 4.64 4.65 4.6

4.5

4.4

4.3

Good Excellent Good 4.2

Very 4.1

4 SPEED OF VESSEL EASE OF VESSEL COMFORT CREW OVERALL BOARDING EXPERIENCE

Financial and Operations Information Financial statistics provided in this section are preliminary and are subject to revision and reconciliation upon the conclusion of the project. They are provided here as a snapshot of project financial performance as an indicator of early progress. Several key metrics are offered as a tool by which the Cross-Bay ferry service can conceivably be compared to other transit operations. Those include Fare Box Recovery Ratio and Operating Expense per Passenger Mile.

Farebox Recovery Ratio The Farebox Recovery Ratio is an indicator that can be used to better understand the financial implications of passenger fares as a portion of the revenue generated by a transit service. It’s calculated by determining the ratio of gross revenue generated by passenger fares to certain operating costs. Those operating costs include the cost of labor, fuel, insurance, on-going project management, marketing, and administrative costs. These are ordinary operating costs incurred for a typical transit system and serve as the baseline for this metric. Amortized vessel costs associated with the charter, project development, and other one-time project development and mobilization costs were treated and classified as capital costs, as they would be for Florida transit systems; they have therefore been excluded from the farebox recovery calculation which is based on operating expenses.

The gross passenger fare revenue collected for the Cross-Bay Ferry during the months of November 2016 through February 2017 was $203,950, while operating expenses remained constant each month at $143,714 for a total of $574,856. Therefore, the average farebox recovery ratio for the pilot project to date is 35%.

A chart illustrating the passenger fare revenue and farebox recovery ratio by month is illustrated below.

17 | P a g e

Fare Revenue and Farebox Recovery Ratio 70,000 50% $64,251 Average Farebox Recovery is 35% 45% 60,000 45% 40% $50,767 $50,390 50,000 35% 35% 35% $38,542 30% 40,000 27% 25% 30,000 20%

20,000 15% 10% 10,000 5%

0 0% November December January February Gross Fare Revenue $64,251 $50,767 $38,542 $50,390 Fare Box Recovery 45% 35% 27% 35% Average Fare Box Recovery 35% 35% 35% 35%

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile Another key metric that provides valuable insight when evaluating transit services is the operating expense per passenger mile. This indicator is quantified by dividing the number of passenger miles provided by the service by the total of certain operating expenses. For the Cross-Bay Ferry, a total of 20,845 complete, one-way passenger trips were provided between November 2016 and February 2017. That total does not include the 1,751 trips that were provided on weekdays during the Test the Waters phase prior to the beginning of routine weekday service operations on November 21, 2016; it does include weekend sailings that were open to the public in the month of November.

Given that the route is consistently 20.5 miles from ferry terminal to ferry terminal, the total number of passenger miles that have been provided by the Cross-Bay Ferry is 427,322.5 miles. Based on operating expenses, as explained in the section above, the total operating costs to date are $574,856. Therefore, the cumulative operating expense per passenger mile is $1.35. A chart and graph that illustrates the quantification of this metric is indicated below.

One-Way Route Passenger Operating Operating Expense Passenger Trips Mileage Miles Expense per Passenger Mile November 5,855 20.5 120,027.5 $ 143,714 $ 1.20 December 5,063 20.5 103,791.5 $ 143,714 $ 1.38 January 3,857 20.5 79,068.5 $ 143,714 $ 1.82 February 6,070 20.5 124,435.0 $ 143,714 $ 1.15 Total 20,845 427,322.5 $ 574,856 $ 1.35

18 | P a g e

Operating Expense per Passenger Mile $2.00 $1.82 Cumulative Operating $1.75 Expense per Passenger Mile is $1.35 $1.50 $1.38

$1.25 $1.20 $1.15

$1.00

$0.75

$0.50

$0.25

$- NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY

As can be seen in the figure above, the operating expense per mile was highest in January when the number of passengers, and correspondingly the number of passenger miles, was lowest. The operating expense per passenger mile was lowest in the months of November and February when the number of passenger miles was highest.

Given the capacity of the vessel at 149 passengers, another metric that could be quantified is the operating expense per passenger mile of capacity. Through February 2017, the Cross-Bay Ferry has provided 1,343,980 miles of service. Operating expenses for the Cross-Bay Ferry have remained constant each month and also remain constant regardless of the number of passengers that are on- board the vessel for each trip. Therefore, the operating cost can also be considered to be parsed according to the number of passenger miles of capacity that are provided. When viewed with this lens, the operating cost per passenger mile of capacity becomes $574,856 divided by the 1,343,980 passenger miles provided, or $0.43 per passenger mile provided.

Estimated Impact to Local Businesses Based upon responses provided in the online survey, the ferry passengers had a positive economic impact on local businesses. Recall that respondents indicated that nearly two-thirds of the trips would not have occurred in the absence of the ferry service.

Destination Activities The above notwithstanding, passengers were surveyed as to the activities that they pursued while at their destination following their trip on the ferry. Seventy-seven percent of passengers dined when they got to their destination, 25% went to museums, 24% shopped, and 11% went to a sporting event. These

19 | P a g e

were not mutually exclusive activities. Only 12% of the respondents took the ferry as a "ride," meaning they did not engage in any activity other than riding the ferry.

A detailed chart illustrating the survey responses for activities at the destination city is included below. Please note that because the activities were not mutually exclusive, the total percentage tallies to more than 100 percent.

Estimated Financial Impacts The online survey asked respondents to provide an estimation of the amount of money spent per person while at their destination. Almost 60% of ferry passengers spent between $15 and $40 per person at their destination. Of those that chose the “Other (please specify)” option, over 30% of respondents, the average amount specified was approximately $100 per person. Recall that 92% of respondents indicated that they travelled with at least one other person, and nearly one in five respondents were members of a group that ranged in size from five to ten people. A more detailed illustration of the distribution of the survey responses is included below.

20 | P a g e

Estimated Amount Spent per Person while at Destination

5% 7%

31% 13% Zero or not applicable Under $15 $15 to $25 $25 to $40 44% Other (please specify)

Based upon the responses provided that included the average amount spent per person and the estimated group size, a conservative overall estimate of the amount spent by the survey respondents is close to $40 per person. If that figure were extrapolated for the total number of passengers that have been aboard the Cross-Bay Ferry between November 2016 and February 2017, which would equal $920,000 in sales to the local economies.

Passenger Fare Options – Purchasing Distribution Consumer preference was one factor of the Cross-Bay Ferry from which information was expected to be gleaned. That includes a review of the fare pricing and ticketing options that were available for purchase throughout the course of the pilot program.

Passengers by Ticket Sales Purchases Ferry tickets were sold primarily as one-way passes in order to provide passengers with an option to adequately plan their transportation according to their trip purpose; passengers would not necessarily be beholden to use the ferry service for making return trips if the schedule of service didn’t meet their needs, especially given the limited service that was provided due to the nature of the pilot program. Nonetheless, passengers were able, and often encouraged to purchase passes for both segments of their trip at the onset of their purchase as appropriate.

A Commuter Value Pass that provided ten (10) one-way ticket vouchers was also made available for purchase for use during weekday service. It was decided that offering this style of package was preferable to a monthly pass as it would allow greater flexibility and require a lesser commitment by commuters. Since routine weekday service didn’t begin in earnest until the end of November, the chart below illustrates the distribution of ticket options for the months of December, January, and February.

21 | P a g e

Ticket Purchase Option December January February One-Way and Group Tickets 4,365 3,257 5,365 Commuter Value Passes 6 49 37

As seen in the figure below, nearly all of the tickets purchased for the Cross-Bay Ferry have been standard one-way or group one-way tickets. The number of Commuter Value Passes sold was highest in January, though a revised pricing package that was implemented in February is expected to induce the purchase of additional packages before the end of the pilot.

Fare Distribution by Ticket Sales Options December through February

1% One-Way and Group Tickets

Commuter Value Passes 99%

Fare Distribution by Passenger Age Another way to view the usage of the ferry service is to review the distribution of ticket sales (including advance sales) based on fares that varied by passenger age. As is common, the ticket pricing structure for the Cross-Bay Ferry included differential pricing for youth and child passengers as compared with adult (ages 13 and up) passengers. A chart indicating the number of one-way trip fares for the months of December through February is included below.

December January February Adults (13+) 4,130 3,105 5,253 Youth (3-12) 204 120 121 Child (Under 3) 31 32 28

22 | P a g e

The figure below illustrates the overall distribution of the age of the ferry passengers based on these ticket sales. Most passengers, or 96%, on-board the ferry are adults (or teens). Approximately three percent of the passengers are children ages three through twelve, while one percent are younger children and infants under the age of three.

Passenger Age Distribution by Ticket Sales/Fare Options December through February

3% 1% Adults (13+)

Youth (3-12)

Child (Under 3) 96%

Travel Time Reliability and Variability An important operational metric for transportation system performance is the travel time reliability and variability along a corridor. This is especially interesting for this particular corridor given that the corridor served by the Cross-Bay ferry serves exists along a water way.

Departure Time Reliability Travel time reliability is a measure that looks to the consistency with which the service schedule can be adhered to. To that end, the departure time of the Cross-Bay ferry was recorded for each trip and compared with the scheduled service. A table that summarizes the on-time performance of the service is shown below.

On-Time Departures On-Time (within 1 Departures Delayed Missed Departures min) (2 - 5 min) Departures Sailings Reason for Missed Sailing November 80 61 16 3 0 - December 118 86 29 3 6 Dense fog/Port closure January 122 118 2 2 0 - February 120 118 1 1 0 - Total 440 383 48 9 6

As illustrated in the figure below, the Cross-Bay Ferry vessel departed within one minute of its scheduled departure time 86% of the time. For 95% of its service, the vessel departed within five minutes of its

23 | P a g e

scheduled departure time. A total of six (6) scheduled sailings were missed to date, and were the result of dense fog which caused temporary port closures. A more detailed accounting of those sailings along with two scheduled, service interruptions is noted in the section below.

Departure Time Reliability

1% On-Time Departures 2% (within 1 min) 11% On-Time Departures (2 - 5 min) Delayed Departures

Missed Sailings 86%

Travel Time Variability Another operational metric that has value to transit passengers is travel time variability, which looks at the consistency of the trip duration. To determine the travel time variability of the Cross-Bay Ferry, the trip duration for each sailing was recorded. The duration of the trip varied from 39 minutes to 1 hour – 51 minutes. The average duration of each trip is 52 minutes and the median duration also 52 minutes. A review of the distribution of the trip duration shows that for over two-thirds of the trips, the travel duration varied by less than 1 minute from the average of 52 minutes. For 96% of the trips, the duration varied by no more than 5 minutes, or 10% of the trip duration. An illustration of the travel time variability is indicated below.

24 | P a g e

Travel Time Variability

1% 3% Within 1-min of Average 27% Travel Time 2-5 min of Average Travel Time 69% 6-14 min of Average Travel Time >15 min of Average Travel Time

Operational Incidents One goal of the pilot project was aimed at providing a safe, reliable transportation service for residents and visitors with no injuries or accidents. Therefore, it was important for HMS to catalogue whether any incidents with the passengers, crew, or vessel occurred during the course of the service.

Passenger incidents None

Crew incidents None

Vessel incidents None

Missed Sailings December – 6 Trips 12/12 – 09:30, 15:00 – Dense Fog/Port Closure 12/13 – 07:00, 09:30 – Dense Fog/Port Closure 12/14 – 07:00, 09:30 – Dense Fog/Port Closure TOTAL – 6 Trips

Delayed Sailings January – 2 Trips 1/25 – 07:00, 09:30 – Dense Fog/Port Closure 07:00 sailing delivered at 09:26, 09:30 sailing offered at 10:40

25 | P a g e

Service Interrupted Sailings January 7 – 3 Trips [National College Football Championship] January 28 – 3 Trips [Gasparilla Pirate Fest]

Benchmarking and Post Evaluation As previously indicated, a primary purpose of the Cross-Bay Ferry pilot project was to allow Tampa Bay area leaders to learn whether passenger ferry service can be sustained in the future as a viable, regional transportation mode. The performance metrics collected and reported in the sections above are key toward that understanding as they allow for the establishment of a baseline of performance for passenger ferry service that’s specific to Tampa Bay. However it is equally important to utilize those measurements for comparison with similar metrics from both established passenger ferry systems and existing Tampa Bay area transit service.

Information about each of the transit agencies with which comparisons are to be made is available from the National Transit Database (NTD). The NTD was established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to be the repository of data about the financial, operating, and asset conditions of transit systems in the United States, such that critical data is available to help governments and other decision-makers make multi-year comparisons and perform trend analyses with data that is consistent across the various entities represented in the NTD. Comparisons with Existing Passenger Ferry Systems A review of ferry service providers included in the NTD show that there are few comparable services. One ferry service with similar operational characteristics is the King County Ferry District in Washington State. Other services either are provided at no charge to the user (Staten Island) or operate passenger and vehicle ferry services, which make comparative reviews of operational costs challenging. King County Ferry District which services Puget Sound in Washington State, as currently structured, began service in 2007 with two lines provided with four vessels. With a more mature and robust service, reports in the National Transit Database show that their farebox recovery ratio for 2014 (latest year available) is 35%, which is the same for the Cross-Bay Ferry pilot with the services to date. The reported operating expense per passenger mile for the King County Ferry District is $2.12, while the Cross-Bay Ferry has achieved a lower figure for this metric at $1.35.

King County Ferry Cross-Bay Ferry Operating Expense per Passenger Mile $2.12 $1.35 Farebox Recovery Ratio 35% 35%

Comparisons with Existing Area Transit Transit services currently exist in both Pinellas and Hillsborough counties and are provided by PSTA and HART respectively. Current services offered by each agency vary, but include exclusively surface transportation options that are primarily provided via bus. The agencies have collaborated to provide express bus service that crosses the Pinellas-Hillsborough county line and operates on corridors that represent alternatives to the maritime corridor in which the Cross-Bay Ferry operates.

26 | P a g e

It is important to note that the nature of surface transportation can be vastly different than waterborne transportation, and nothing in this report should be taken to suggest that the two options should be considered anything but complementary to one another. Even so, it is possible to compare some operational metrics between their systems and that of the Cross-Bay Ferry, including fare box recovery and operating expense per passenger mile. Both local transit agencies participate in the NTD and information included in this report stems from that source.

Per the NTD, both PSTA and HART have very similar values for fare box recovery at 23.7% and 23.9%, respectively, while the operating expense per passenger mile is also similar at $0.89 and $0.90, respectively. A table that shows these metrics for PSTA, HART, and the Cross-Bay Ferry is shown below.

PSTA HART Cross-Bay Ferry Operating Expense per Passenger Mile $0.89 $0.90 $1.35 Farebox Recovery Ratio 24% 24% 35%

Comparisons with Corridor Alternatives As previously indicated, one key advantage that waterborne transportation services can provide is the reliability of the travel time necessary to complete a particular trip. The Cross-Bay Ferry, to date, has demonstrated consistent travel time durations with 96% of the trips varying by less than five minutes from the average duration of 52 minutes. It is a relevant exercise to compare this experience with the surface transportation alternatives to the same corridor.

Travel Times Analysis In this instance, a review of travel times for combinations of I-275, US 92 (Gandy Boulevard), and the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway was gathered through the months of January and February while the Cross-Bay Ferry was in service. The travel times were measured at times that were consistent with the scheduled departure of the Cross-Bay Ferry on nineteen randomly selected dates. The trip origin and destination were the ferry terminal/dock locations for each to the data points gathered. While that sample is too small to draw statistically significant conclusions, it is acceptable to note the range of travel times that were measured for each of the alternate corridors. The travel times were gathered using real-time route planning assistant tools that included both Google Maps and the Waze live maps, and verified as reasonably reliable data through occasional staffed driving assignments during the same time period. These maps did illustrate the areas where traffic was moving at slower speeds, but did not provide specific information as to the reason for the slow traffic. It’s notable that these alternative routes are subject to major traffic incidents on occasion which may not be represented in the small sample that was collected for this analysis.

As illustrated in the figure below, the range of travel time duration was greatest on the continuous I-275 corridor that included the Howard Frankland Bridge, with the longest drive time at 61 minutes (weekday afternoon peak) and the shortest at 28 minutes (weekday morning peak). The range was the smallest on the corridor that utilized US 92/4th Street through St. Petersburg and connected with I-275 (Howard Frankland Bridge), with the longest drive time at 48 minutes (weekday afternoon peak) and the shortest at 33 minutes (weekday morning peak). The range of travel duration on the corridors utilizing the Gandy Bridge and Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway (tolled facility) were very similar, sharing the shortest drive time of 30 minutes and varying in the longest drive time by one minute.

27 | P a g e

Alternate Corridors Recorded Travel Times January and February 2017

30 4TH STREET/GANDY BLVD (GANDY BRIDGE)/SELMON 53

30 I-275 TO GANDY BLVD (GANDY BRIDGE)/SELMON 54

33 4TH STREET/I-275 (HOWARD FRANKLAND BRIDGE) 48

28 I-275 (HOWARD FRANKLAND BRIDGE) 61

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Shortest Drive Time (min) Longest Drive Time (min)

Progress toward Achieving Project Goals While this report is intended to be an indicator of early progress, and two months of service remain in the pilot project, it is valid to review progress made to date toward achieving the project goals. Based on indications provided in this report, the Cross-Bay Ferry and partners have:

 Increased public awareness of waterborne transportation technology and the specifically the benefits of the service between Downtown St. Petersburg and Downtown Tampa  Achieved inclusion of waterborne transportation and this corridor alignment in local and regional capital planning documents for future service  Provided a service that meets or exceeds customer expectations such that greater than 80% would use again and/or recommend the service to a friend  Provided a safe, reliable transportation service for residents and visitors with no injuries or accidents

Next Steps Modifications to Pilot Prior to Conclusions While the Cross-Bay Ferry is demonstrating the reliability of waterborne transportation service and ridership remains strong, given the nature of the project as a pilot, it is prudent to review any additional opportunities to make changes prior to the conclusion of the pilot at the end of April 2017.

HMS has recommended adding an additional roundtrip between Tampa and St. Petersburg on Sundays, at no additional charge except for recovery by HMS of its incremental cost of fuel for operating this

28 | P a g e

additional trip. This does not require any additional allocation of funding by the funding partners, but does require an authorization to add this trip and to allow HMS to adjust net revenue to cover these incremental fuel costs. HMS reasonably believes this would generate additional net revenue for the project funding partners.

Furthermore, HMS has recommended that effective April 1, 2017 weekend service is adjusted to facilitate use of the Cross-Bay Ferry for scheduled Tampa Bay Rays’ home games, of which fourteen are scheduled in April. This could include adjusting April weekday service evening operations as well, particularly if a combination game and ticket package can be developed. That would necessitate some coordination to ensure a seamless transportation mechanism to and from the ferry terminal to Tropicana Field on game days. Regardless of that opportunity, adjusting the weekday schedule during the month of April would allow the pilot to better test weeknight travel demand.

Additional marketing initiatives are under development to provide additional low-cost trip linkages with other transit operations in Hillsborough County. HMS has secured the agreement of HART and the Tampa Streetcar Board to reduce streetcar fares by 50 percent for ferry passengers. Representatives are also approaching local Ybor City merchants to provide incentives that would serve to underwrite the remaining cost of a streetcar ticket. Once that is achieved, HMS can offer and market, a seamless lower- cost transportation option from the ferry to Ybor City via vouchers for the streetcar to Tampa-bound passengers; the Downtowner service area provides service at no charge to the passenger, but the service area stops short of Ybor City.

It could be advantageous to develop marketing and discount packages with local taxi cab companies and Ride Share providers such as Uber and Lyft that will more specifically combine a ferry ticket with a return trip via ground transportation. The experience to date, validated by the responses to the online survey, suggests that such combinations are already being used; a more formalized package could facilitate and improve ferry ridership.

Finally, while not a modification to the pilot, it is recommended that the on-board and online surveys continue through the conclusion of the pilot at the end of April. An additional survey as to why people chose not to use the ferry may be conducted in March and April with results to be included in any final reporting from the pilot project.

Next Steps and Long-Term Funding Pursuits Ninety-five percent of the passengers who completed the on-board surveys indicated that they support the concept of a permanent ferry service between St. Petersburg and Tampa. The current source of funding that’s been provided for the Cross-Bay Ferry does not allow for permanent service at this time, therefore additional funding mechanisms should be identified and pursued. Given the wide-ranging benefits of the Cross-Bay Ferry service as indicated by the performance metrics, a broad review of potential funding sources should be undertaken, at all levels of government and within the private sector to this end.

In the interim, it is reasonable and would be beneficial to pursue opportunities that would allow for recurrent seasonal operations of the Cross-Bay Ferry, November through April, until such time that more permanent operations can be established. It could be accomplished through continued use of the existing business model, with a private operator through the use of a leased vessel, or other arrangement as deemed appropriate. Furthermore, strong consideration for increasing the frequency of

29 | P a g e

service should be given as service frequency is often a primary determinant of rider satisfaction with transit. For the Cross-Bay Ferry, this could be accomplished either through the use additional sailings by the same vessel or through an increase in the number of vessels that serve the route.

Another alternative that also merits further consideration relates to the recent opportunity presented when the Hillsborough County Commission voted unanimously on February 1, 2017 to proceed with the MacDill Passenger Ferry project, allocating $750,000 this fiscal year for its design and engineering. This decision was facilitated, at least in part, by the strong ridership revenue results and strong community support of the Cross-Bay Ferry pilot project. Hillsborough County is evaluating whether it may forego federal funding in order to accelerate the project development and implementation. HMS is a party to an agreement to evaluate and potentially help design and implement a public-private ferry service between Hillsborough County and MacDill AFB. There could be possible synergies between the MacDill project and the opportunity for implementing sustained permanent evening and weekend service on the route between downtown St. Petersburg and downtown Tampa served by the Cross-Bay Ferry.

30 | P a g e

Appendix A Modal Transfer Data The Looper Transfers to St. Petersburg's Looper November – 87 Trolley December – 97 189 January – 26 200 February – 189 150 TOTAL 399 87 97 100

50 26

0 NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY

Coast Bike Share A precise number of passengers who transferred to the Coast Bike Share system cannot be determined but can be estimated by the number of trips initiated and completed at the bike share hubs located adjacent to each of the ferry terminals. The table below shows the number of trips initiated and completed at the hubs located most closely to the ferry terminals for the period between November 1, 2016 and February 28, 2017.

Trips Trips Initiated Completed St. Petersburg - 2nd Avenue NE 417 391 Tampa - Convention Center 692 727 Tampa - Dick Greco Plaza 1,639 1,729

Tampa Downtown Partnership’s Downtowner Between November 1, 2016 and February 28, 2017, a total of 354 passengers were picked up or dropped off in the area around the ferry terminal in downtown Tampa within the half hour after arrival or half hour prior to the departure time of the Cross-Bay Ferry. Recently, the Downtowner app was modified to specifically add the ferry terminal as a “quick pick” in the Explore section so that passengers can specify the ferry terminal as their drop-off or pickup location. More precise data tracking of this modal transfer will therefore be available at the conclusion of the pilot, and could be provided if the ferry service were sustained.

Rideshare As noted within the body of the report, 21% of passengers who responded to the online survey indicated that they chose to use a ride share service rather than the ferry to complete their trip. Otherwise, 11% of the survey respondents indicated that they returned via the ferry but then used a ride share service to return them to their trip origin.

31 | P a g e

Commuter Service Programs Data TBARTA Emergency Ride Home Enrollment November and December – 3

TBARTA Emergency Ride Home Service Requests November and December – 0

32 | P a g e

Appendix B Trip Experience Impressions – Detailed Evaluation Speed of Vessel Trip Experience - Speed of Vessel 1% 1%

4% Excellent 20% Very Good Average 74% Needs Improvement Poor or unsatisfactory

Ease of Boarding Trip Experience - Ease of Boarding 1% 0%

2% Excellent 16% Very Good Average

81% Needs Improvement Poor or unsatisfactory

33 | P a g e

Comfort of Seats and Vessel Trip Experience - Vessel Comfort 1% 0%

5% Excellent 22% Very Good Average 72% Needs Improvement Poor or unsatisfactory

Helpfulness and Courtesy of Crew

Trip Experience - Crew Helpfulness/Courtesy 1% 1%

4% Excellent 20% Very Good Average

74% Needs Improvement Poor or unsatisfactory

Overall Experience Trip Experience - Overall Experience 1% 1%

2% Excellent 18% Very Good Average 78% Needs Improvement Poor or unsatisfactory

34 | P a g e

STATE ROAD 60 (E. KENNEDY BLVD.) MILLING AND RESURFACING Financial Project ID 436491-1-52-01

Project Description:

The purpose of this project is to preserve and extend the life of the existing pavement through milling and resurfacing, construct sidewalk bulb-outs at signalized intersections, bring pedestrian features into conformance with current ADA standards, and update pedestrian signal timing.

Project Location:

The project is located on SR 60 (E. Kennedy Blvd.) from East of N. Ashley Street to West of N. Nebraska Ave. in Hillsborough County. Schedule: Item Status Design Phase II (60%) Right-of-Way N/A Begin Construction Summer 2018

Project Cost: Phase II Cost Estimate* Design $530,000 Right-of-Way N/A Construction $1,100,000  Please note that cost estimate may fluctuate as the project progresses

FDOT Project Manager Public Information Specialist Liyanage “Indike” Ratnayake, PE Kristen Carson 11202 N. McKinley Drive, MS 7-600 11202 N. McKinley Drive, MS 7-600 Tampa, FL 33612 Tampa, FL 33612 Office Phone: (813) 975-6057 Office Phone: (813) 975-6060 E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected]