DOCSLIB.ORG

Sociocultural Data Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sociocultural Data Report Sociocultural Data Report Ridgewood Park (Tampa) Population Area: 0.138 square miles Jurisdiction(s): Cities: Tampa Counties:Hillsborough General Population Trends Description 1990 2000 2010 2015(ACS) (ACS) Total Population 491 410 411 479 Total Households 191 188 189 193 Average Persons 7.62 6.34 7.58 8.44 per Acre Race Average Persons 2.68 2.38 2.25 2.45 per Household Average Persons 3.39 3.17 3.00 3.12 per Family Males 251 206 223 258 Females 239 204 188 221 Race and Ethnicity Trends Description 1990 2000 2010 2015(ACS) (ACS) White Alone 197 219 242 281 (40.12%) (53.41%) (58.88%) (58.66%) Black or African 280 176 156 171 American Alone (57.03%) (42.93%) (37.96%) (35.70%) Native Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 and Other Pacific (0.00%) (0.00%) (0.00%) (0.00%) Minority Percentage Population Islander Alone Asian Alone 5 0 2 0 (1.02%) (0.00%) (0.49%) (0.00%) American Indian 1 0 0 0 or Alaska Native (0.20%) (0.00%) (0.00%) (0.00%) Alone Some Other Race 8 0 7 4 Alone (1.63%) (0.00%) (1.70%) (0.84%) Claimed 2 or NA 15 4 23 More Races (NA) (3.66%) (0.97%) (4.80%) Hispanic or 58 30 66 66 Latino of Any (11.81%) (7.32%) (16.06%) (13.78%) Race Not Hispanic or 433 380 345 413 Latino (88.19%) (92.68%) (83.94%) (86.22%) Minority 338 206 223 251 (68.84%) (50.24%) (54.26%) (52.40%) Page 1 of 13 Sociocultural Data Report Printed on: 8/06/2017 Age Trends Population by Age Group Description 1990 2000 2010 2015(ACS) (ACS) Under Age 5 5.70% 3.17% 4.38% 3.13% Ages 5-17 16.09% 10.00% 12.90% 7.52% Ages 18-21 5.30% 1.95% 3.16% 7.31% Ages 22-29 12.83% 11.46% 7.30% 11.48% Ages 30-39 15.48% 22.68% 14.84% 15.03% Ages 40-49 11.00% 12.93% 21.90% 15.03% Ages 50-64 16.90% 13.41% 23.11% 20.46% Age 65 and Over 16.70% 24.39% 12.17% 20.04% -Ages 65-74 8.35% 18.54% 7.06% 11.69% -Ages 75-84 5.50% 4.15% 3.89% 3.97% -Age 85 and Over 3.05% 1.46% 1.22% 4.18% Median Age NA 38 39 44 Median Age Comparison Income Trends Description 1990 2000 2010 2015(ACS) (ACS) Median $18,331 $29,648 $35,955 $44,620 Household Income Median Family $23,156 $26,106 $36,570 NA Income Population below 6.92% 5.61% 9.00% 11.06% Poverty Level Households 8.38% 8.51% 6.35% 16.06% below Poverty Level Households with 14.14% 0.00% 0.00% 3.63% Public Assistance Income Income Trends Poverty and Public Assistance Disability Trends See the Data Sources section below for an explanation about the differences in disability data among the various years. Description 1990 2000 2010 2015(ACS) (ACS) Population 16 To 16 48 64 Years with a (3.63%) (12.09%) (NA) (NA) disability Population 20 To 47 64 Years with a (NA) (NA) (NA) (14.33%) disability Page 2 of 13 Sociocultural Data Report Printed on: 8/06/2017 Educational Attainment Trends Housing Tenure Age 25 and Over Description 1990 2000 2010 2015(ACS) (ACS) Less than 9th 25 48 25 25 Grade (6.91%) (14.16%) (5.36%) (6.70%) 9th to 12th 96 50 20 30 Grade, No (26.52%) (14.75%) (4.29%) (8.04%) Diploma High School 240 241 422 317 Graduate or (66.30%) (71.09%) (90.56%) (84.99%) Higher Bachelor's 90 102 177 169 Degree or Higher (24.86%) (30.09%) (37.98%) (45.31%) Language Trends Age 5 and Over Median Housing Value Comparison Description 1990 2000 2010 2015(ACS) (ACS) Speaks English 10 1 0 0 Well (2.16%) (0.25%) (0.00%) (0.00%) Speaks English NA 1 0 0 Not Well (NA) (0.25%) (0.00%) (0.00%) Speaks English NA 0 0 0 Not at All (NA) (0.00%) (0.00%) (0.00%) Speaks English 0 1 0 0 Not Well or Not (0.00%) (0.25%) (0.00%) (0.00%) at All Housing Trends Description 1990 2000 2010 2015(ACS) (ACS) Total 215 205 223 216 Occupied Units With No Vehicles Available Units per Acre 3.25 3.02 3.24 3.14 Single-Family 161 193 283 202 Units Multi-Family 24 12 45 14 Units Mobile Home 0 0 0 0 Units Owner-Occupied 139 146 121 120 Units Renter-Occupied 52 42 68 73 Units Vacant Units 24 17 34 23 Median Housing $44,150 $77,550 $221,700 $169,700 Value Occupied 9 31 25 4 Housing Units (4.71%) (16.49%) (13.23%) (2.07%) w/No Vehicle Page 3 of 13 Sociocultural Data Report Printed on: 8/06/2017 Existing Land Use Land Use Type Acres Percentage Acreage Not Zoned For Agriculture 0 0.00% Agricultural 0 0.00% Centrally Assessed 0 0.00% Industrial 0 0.00% Institutional 4 4.55% Mining 0 0.00% Other 0 0.00% Public/Semi-Public 3 3.41% Recreation 0 0.00% Residential 39 44.32% Retail/Office <0.5 <0.57% Row 0 0.00% Vacant Residential 2 2.27% Vacant Nonresidential 1 1.14% Water 0 0.00% Parcels With No Values <0.5 <0.57% Location Maps Page 4 of 13 Sociocultural Data Report Printed on: 8/06/2017 Community Facilities The community facilities information below is useful in a variety of ways for environmental evaluations. These community resources should be evaluated for potential sociocultural effects, such as accessibility and relocation potential. The facility types may indicate the types of population groups present in the project study area. Facility staff and leaders can be sources of community information such as who uses the facility and how it is used. Additionally, community facilities are potential public meeting venues. Community Boundaries (User defined) Facility Name Riverside Heights (Tampa) Old West Tampa (Tampa) Ridgewood Park (Tampa) Tampa Heights (Tampa) Florida Parks and Recreational Facilities (Points) Facility Name Address Zip Code NORTH BLVD PARK/CRUISE-A-CADE 606 W PALM AVE 33602 GLENWOOD DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK N GLENWOOD DR & W FRANCES AVE 33602 Religious Centers (Points) Facility Name Address Zip Code ANCHOR CHURCH TAMPA SERVICE 702 W COLUMBUS DR 33602 US Census Places Facility Name Tampa Page 5 of 13 Sociocultural Data Report Printed on: 8/06/2017 Block Groups The following Census Block Groups were used to calculate demographics for this report. 1990 Census Block Groups 120570029003, 120570028004, 120570042003, 120570042004 2000 Census Block Groups 120570028004, 120570042002, 120570042003, 120570029003 2010 Census Block Groups 120570042001, 120570042002, 120570028004, 120570029003 2015 Census Block Groups 120570028004, 120570042001, 120570029003, 120570042002 Data Sources Area The geographic area of the community based on a user-specified community boundary or area of interest (AOI) boundary. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction(s) includes local government boundaries that intersect the community or AOI boundary. Demographic Data Demographic data reported under the headings General Population Trends, Race and Ethnicity Trends, Age Trends, Income Trends, Educational Attainment Trends, Language Trends, and Housing Trends is from the U.S. Decennial Census (1990, 2000) and the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates from 2006-2010 and 2011-2015. The data was gathered at the block group level for user-specified community boundaries and AOIs, and at the county level for counties. Depending on the dataset, the data represents 100% counts (Census Summary File 1) or sample-based information (Census Summary File 3 or ACS). About the Census Data: User-specified community boundaries and AOIs do not always correspond precisely to block group boundaries. In these instances, adjustment of the geographic area and data for affected block groups is required to estimate the actual population. To improve the accuracy of such estimates in the SDR report, the census block group data was adjusted to exclude all census blocks with a population of two or fewer. These areas were eliminated from the corresponding years' block groups. Next, the portion of the block group that lies outside of the community or AOI boundary was removed. The demographics within each block group were then recalculated, assuming an equal area distribution of the population. Note that there may be areas where there is no population. Use caution when comparing the 100% count data (Decennial Census) to the sample-based data (ACS). In any given year, about one in 40 or 2.5% of U.S. households will receive the ACS questionnaire. Over any five-year period, about one in eight households will receive the questionnaire, as compared to about one in six that received the long form questionnaire for the Decennial Census 2000. (Source: http://mcdc.missouri.edu/pub/data/acs/Readme.shtml)The U.S. Census Bureau provides help with this process: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users/comparing_2015/ Page 6 of 13 Sociocultural Data Report Printed on: 8/06/2017 Use caution when interpreting changes in Race and Ethnicity over time. Starting with the 2000 Decennial Census, respondents were given a new option of selecting one or more race categories. Also in 2000, the placement of the question about Hispanic origin changed, helping to increase responsiveness to the Hispanic-origin question. Because of these and other changes, the 1990 data on race and ethnicity are not directly comparable with data from later censuses. (Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf; http://www.census.gov/pred/www/rpts/Race%20and%20Ethnicity%20FINAL%20report.pdf) The "Minority" calculations are derived from Census and ACS data using both the race and ethnicity responses.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Towards Trash Free Waters: Quantifying Potential Aquatic Trash Recovery in the Hillsborough River Watershed
    Towards Trash Free Waters: Quantifying Potential Aquatic Trash Recovery in the Hillsborough River Watershed Prepared for Nestlé Waters North America October 27, 2015 Prepared by Timothy G. Townsend (Principal Investigator) Max J. Krause Sarah A. Gustitus Jeremy Toms University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 i Executive Summary Despite advances in solid waste management and increased awareness of the negative environmental consequences of pollution, littering is still common in the US. Littering can be the result of carelessness, accidents, or intentional actions, but the effect is the same. In recent years, concerned citizens have increased their attention to litter in the Hillsborough River Watershed (HRW). The University of Florida (UF) research team collaborated with local municipalities and non-government organizations (NGOs) to quantify and map the quantity of collected litter within the HRW. Because much of the storm water within the HRW drains into the Hillsborough River, all of the litter within the watershed has the potential to become aquatic trash (PAT). The PAT that was collected in roadside and park cleanups before it made its way into the Tampa Bay or the Gulf of Mexico (recovered PAT) was cataloged into a database and mapped using ESRI ArcGIS software. Concentrations of recovered PAT were reported as pounds per acre for 1,015 cleanup events at 168 unique sites within the HRW from 2008-2014, shown in Figure E1. Additionally, educational campaigns such as storm drain markings and field visits by the WaterVentures mobile lab were mapped to identify where residents could be expected to have increased awareness of the negative issues associated with littering.
    [Show full text]
  • Tampa Bay Next Presentation
    Welcome East Tampa Area Community Working Group September 25, 2018 Tina Fischer Collaborative Labs, St. Petersburg College Tonight’s Agenda • Open House Area (6:00 - ongoing) – Information about related studies, projects, etc. • Presentation (6:30 - 7:00) – SEIS Update – Overview of Downtown Interchange Design Options • Roundtable Discussions (7:00 - 8:00) – Dive into details and provide input with 2 sessions • Closing Comments/Announcements (8:00 - 8:10) Real Time Record • Comprehensive meeting notes and graphics - available next week • Presentation and Graphic Displays – available tomorrow • Posted on TampaBayNext.com TampaBayNext.com (813) 975-NEXT [email protected] TampaBayNext @TampaBayNext Your input matters. Your ideas help shape the Tampa Bay Next program. Now on to our presentation Chloe Coney Richard Moss, P.E. Sen. Darryl Rouson Alice Price/Jeff Novotny Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) Update FDOT District Seven Interstate OverviewModernization I-275 @ I-4 - Highlighted in Orange North W S Small Group Meetings to date Old Seminole Heights Westshore Palms – May 3 SE Seminole Heights North Bon Air – Jun 14 Tampa Heights V.M. Ybor Tampa Heights – Jun 26 East Tampa Oakford Park – Jul 9 Comm. East Tampa Comm. Partnership – Jul 10 Partnership Encore! – Jul 10 Ridgewood Park SE Seminole Heights – Jul 17 Ridgewood Park – Jul 24 North Bon Air College Hill Old Seminole Heights – Aug 9 Civic Assoc. Corporation to Develop Comm. – Aug 17 Trio at Encore! – Aug 21 Jackson College Hill Civic Assoc. – Aug 23 Heights V.M. Ybor Neighborhood Assoc. – 9/5 Ybor Chamber/Hist Ybor/East Ybor/Gary– 9/11 Encore! Hist Jackson Heights Neighborhood Assoc.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Department of Education
    THE FOLLOWING CHANGES ARE FOR FISCAL YEAR 06-07 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Implementation Date: DOE INFORMATION DATA BASE REQUIREMENTS Fiscal Year 2001-02 VOLUME I: AUTOMATED STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM July 1, 2001 AUTOMATED STUDENT DATA ELEMENTS Element Name: Prior School/Location: District/County Definition/Domain A two-character code which identifies the district/county in which a student was enrolled in school prior to enrolling in the current school. See Appendix C for district numbers. CODE DEFINITION 01 – 69, 71-75, 78 & 79 State assigned number for school district or other agency 99 Other than a Florida school Note: District 70 was used to report the Eckerd Challenge Program prior to 1993-94. Length: 2 Grades and Programs Requiring This Data Element: * Format: Numeric All Program Grades PK-12 Compatibility Requirement: Compatible Use Types: State Reporting Formats Requiring This Data Element: State Report Prior School Status/Student Attendance DB9 55x Local Accountability F.A.S.T.E.R. Data Element Number: 163126 Reported in Survey Periods: 1 2 3 4 5 9 Revised: 12/06 Volume I Effective: 7/06 Page Number: 222-1 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Implementation Date: DOE INFORMATION DATA BASE REQUIREMENTS Fiscal Year 2006-07 VOLUME I: AUTOMATED STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM July 1, 2006 AUTOMATED STUDENT DATA ELEMENTS APPENDIX W TITLE I SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES SCHOOLS – 2006-07 TI SES TI SES District School School Name District School School Name ALACHUA 0021 CHARLES W. DUVAL ELEM SCHOOL BREVARD 3061 HARBOR CITY ELEMENTARY ALACHUA 0031 J. J. FINLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL ALACHUA 0071 LAKE FOREST ELEMENTARY BREVARD 4031 MILA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL BREVARD 4101 GARDENDALE ELEMENTARY ALACHUA 0083 ANCHOR SCHOOL MAGNET SCHOOL ALACHUA 0101 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Tampa's Tomorrow
    TRANSFORMING TAMPA’S TOMORROW Blueprint for Tampa’s Future Recommended Operating and Capital Budget Part 2 Fiscal Year 2020 October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020 Recommended Operating and Capital Budget TRANSFORMING TAMPA’S TOMORROW Blueprint for Tampa’s Future Fiscal Year 2020 October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020 Jane Castor, Mayor Sonya C. Little, Chief Financial Officer Michael D. Perry, Budget Officer ii Table of Contents Part 2 - FY2020 Recommended Operating and Capital Budget FY2020 – FY2024 Capital Improvement Overview . 1 FY2020–FY2024 Capital Improvement Overview . 2 Council District 4 Map . 14 Council District 5 Map . 17 Council District 6 Map . 20 Council District 7 Map . 23 Capital Improvement Program Summaries . 25 Capital Improvement Projects Funded Projects Summary . 26 Capital Improvement Projects Funding Source Summary . 31 Community Investment Tax FY2020-FY2024 . 32 Operational Impacts of Capital Improvement Projects . 33 Capital Improvements Section (CIS) Schedule . 38 Capital Project Detail . 47 Convention Center . 47 Facility Management . 49 Fire Rescue . 70 Golf Courses . 74 Non-Departmental . 78 Parking . 81 Parks and Recreation . 95 Solid Waste . 122 Technology & Innovation . 132 Tampa Police Department . 138 Transportation . 140 Stormwater . 216 Wastewater . 280 Water . 354 Debt . 409 Overview . 410 Summary of City-issued Debt . 410 Primary Types of Debt . 410 Bond Covenants . 411 Continuing Disclosure . 411 Total Principal Debt Composition of City Issued Debt . 412 Principal Outstanding Debt (Governmental & Enterprise) . 413 Rating Agency Analysis . 414 Principal Debt Composition . 416 Governmental Bonds . 416 Governmental Loans . 418 Enterprise Bonds . 419 Enterprise State Revolving Loans . 420 FY2020 Debt Service Schedule . 421 Governmental Debt Service . 421 Enterprise Debt Service . 422 Index .
    [Show full text]
  • The Tampa Center City Plan Connecting Our Neighborhoods and Our River for Our Future
    The Tampa Center City Plan Connecting Our Neighborhoods and Our River for Our Future The Tampa Center City Plan Connecting Our Neighborhoods and Our River for Our Future NOvembeR 2012 Prepared for: City of Tampa IMAGE PLACEHOLDER Prepared by: AECOM 150 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 407 843 6552 AECOM Project No. : 60250712 AECOM Contact : [email protected] In Collaboration With: Parsons Brinckerhoff The Leytham Group ChappellRoberts Blackmon Roberts Group MindMixer Crossroads Engineering Fowler White Boggs PA Stephanie Ferrell FAIA Architect Martin Stone Consulting, LLC © AeCOm Technical Services 2012 This document has been prepared by AeCOm on behalf of the City of Tampa, Florida. This project was made possible through a Sustainable Communities Challenge Grant provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Participation List City Team Workshop Participants bob buckhorn - Mayor Chris Ahern Duncan broyd David Crawley bruce earhart bob mcDonaugh - Economic Development Administrator Art Akins Rod brylawski Nelson Crawley Shannon edge Thomas Snelling - Planning & Development Director Catherine Coyle - Planning Manager Adjoa Akofio-Swah bob buckhorn Darryl Creighton Diane egner Randy Goers - Project Manager beth Alden Arnold buckley Jim Crews Chris elmore J.J. Alexander benjamin buckley Laura Crews michael english Consultant Team Albert Alfonso michelle buckley Daryl Croi maggie enncking Robert Allen Davis burdick Andrea Cullen James evans AECOM ChappellRoberts Joseph Alvarez Andy bushnell Wence Cunnigham
    [Show full text]
  • Virtual Workshop of the Livable Roadways Committee Call to Order
    Virtual Workshop of the Livable Roadways Committee Wednesday, May 19, 2021, 9:00 – 11:00 a.m. Call to Order The County Center and Plan Hillsborough offices are closed to the public in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Members of the public may access this meeting and participate via the GoToWebinar link below, or by phoning in. Technical support during the meeting may be obtained by contacting Jason Krzyzanowski at (813) 272-5940 or [email protected]. To view presentations and participate from your computer, tablet or smartphone, go to: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3258942983704569359. Register in advance to receive your personalized link which can be saved to your calendar. Dial in LISTEN-ONLY MODE: (415) 655-0060-4212 Access Code 670-174-100 Public comments are welcome and may be given in person at this teleconference meeting by logging into the website above and clicking the “raise hand” button. Comments may also be provided before the start of the meeting: • by leaving a voice message at (813) 273-3774 ext. 6. • by e-mailing [email protected] • by visiting the event posted on the TPO Facebook page. Written comments will be read into the record, if brief, and provided in full to the committee members. I. Public Comment - 3 minutes per speaker, please II. Approval of Minutes – April 21, 2021 III. Discussion Items- As this is a non-voting workshop, members are asked to individually identify any concerns or objections to these items. A. Transportation Improvement Program Update (Johnny Wong, TPO Staff) B. McIntosh Road PD&E Study Advance Notification (Allison Yeh, TPO Staff) C.
    [Show full text]
  • Pocket Guide to New York
    '^MM ? Ssisiociation 1906 A k Xhe Merchants Association of New York Pocket Guide to Ne^v York PRICE TEN CENTS Marck 1906 Ne%v York Life Bldg., Broadway and Leonard St. After Nov. 1st. 1906 Merchants' Association Bldg., 66-72 Lafayette St. LIBRARY of CONGRESS Two Cooles Received WAY 10 1906 Copyright Entry , COPY B. Copyrighted, 1906, BY THE Merchants' Association OF New York. ^ PREFATORY. AST year more than, nine thousand out-of- town buyers registered at the offices of The Merchants' Association of New York. A great many of these asked information as to hotels, theatres, restaurants, ferries, railroad offices, street-car routes, elevated railroads, libraries, public buildings, pleasure resorts, short excursions, etc. The eleven hundred resident members of the Asso- ciation ask many questions as to the location of public offices, hack-rates, distances, automobile sta- tions and similar subjects. It has been found that a hand-book containing in- formation of the kind indicated, in a form convenient for ready-reference, will not only be a great con- venience for visiting merchants, but also in many respects for residents. This pocket-guide is pub- lished in response to that demand. It will be supplied without charge to visiting mer- chants registering at the offices of the Association; and a few free copies are at the disposal of each resident member. Members who desire a large quantity for distribu- tion to their customers will be supplied at about the cost price. CONTENTS. PAGE Ferries, Manhattan: I. Points Reached by Perries 1 II. Ferries from Manhattan and Desti- nation 2 Ferries, Brooklyn, Jersey City and Staten Island '.
    [Show full text]
  • Vacant Land Input Form: Ocala MLS Page 1 of 2
    Vacant Land Input Form: Ocala MLS Page 1 of 2 General Information Listing Member Co-listing Member Address Information Street No Direction* Street Name St Suffix* Apt/Lot/Suite/Unit* Apt/Lot/Suite/Unit # City* State/Province* Zip Code* County* Parcel # Contract/Misc Prop Info Listing Date Expiration Date Listing Price Property Sub-Type* Exclusive Agency* Listing Service* How to Show* Enable Automated Showing Scheduling* Combo Auction Y/N* Short Sale* Foreclosed/REO* Sign* Escrow Agent Name Escrow Agent Phone Escrow Agent Fax Escrow Agent Address Escrow Agent Email General Property Description Lot Size Dimensions Acres HOA* HOA Fee (Month) Location, Tax & Legal Info Deed Restrictions* Parcel B Parcel C Parcel D Section* Township* Range* Zoning* 55+ Community* Seller Name Seller Phone Total Tax Utility Company* AG Exempt* Elementary School* Middle School* High School* Subdivision* Legal Desc Remarks & Misc Directions Remarks Realtor Only Remarks Commission Info Buyer Agent Buyer Agent Type* Transaction Broker Transaction Broker Type* NR Non-Rep NR Non-Rep Type* Dual Commission* Seller Opt Out: Seller Directs Listing to be Excluded from Internet Seller Directs Address to be Excluded from Internet Seller Directs Listing to Not Be Used in AVMs on Internet Seller Directs Listing to Not Allow Comments on Internet Publish this listing to: Listhub Show Address in VOWs Zillow Required Field Field with a list* Vacant Land Input Form: Ocala MLS Page 2 of 2 Land Type: 1 to 3 req'd Unknown VA Other - See Remarks Cleared Comm Potential Location: 1 to
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Transit Projects
    NON‐TRANSIT PROJECTS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE MOBILITY PROPOSAL JOB CENTER - DOWNTOWN Estimated Total Costs (in millions): $105 ESTIMATED COST PROJECT LOCATION IMPROVEMENT (in millions of Dollars) 1 All Downtown Crosswalks Curb extensions at all downtown crosswalks 2.90 2 Cass St. & Tyler St from Hillsborough River to Nebraska Ave One-way roadway to two-way roadway 8.20 Citywide Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) 3 Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) 30.00 Deployment 4 Columbus Dr & 17th, 18th and 19th Ave from 14th St to 43rd St One-way roadway to two-way roadway 14.30 5 Columbus Dr from Florida Ave to Nebraska Ave Shared lane markings 0.02 6 Columbus Dr. from Nebraska Ave to 14th St Bike/ped enhancements 0.38 7 Cypress St from Howard Ave to Hillsborough River Roadway enhancement 2.10 8 Downtown Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) 6.00 East Ybor, Palmetto Beach & Channel District, Downtown & 9 Bike/ped enhancements 1.00 Ridgewood Park segments 10 East-West Green Spine Multi-Use Trail 2.80 11 Floribraska Ave from Nebraska Ave to Florida Ave Road diet 1.30 12 Howard Ave from Bayshore Blvd to Kennedy Blvd 2 lanes undivided to 2 lanes enhanced 4.20 13 Kennedy Blvd from Willow Ave to Channelside Dr Roadway enhancement 0.35 DRAFT 07/28/2014 Page 1 of 2 ESTIMATED COST PROJECT LOCATION IMPROVEMENT (in millions of Dollars) 14 Madison St from Ashley Dr to Marion St Roadway enhancement 1.40 15 Palm Avenue from Nebraska Ave to N.
    [Show full text]
  • TAMPA BAY NEXT UPDATE FDOT DISTRICT 7 April 10, 2017
    4/9/2019 TAMPA BAY NEXT UPDATE FDOT DISTRICT 7 April 10, 2017 Howard Frankland Bridge Cost Estimate: $814.4 Million Construction to begin early 2020 • Construction of new bridge Future Design • Final design to provide 4 general purpose lanes in each direction and two express lanes in each direction • Envelope on new bridge is designed to support future light rail • Bike/pedestrian trail will connect Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties 2 1 4/9/2019 Aesthetic Features & Overlook Locations Legend Howard Frankland Bridge bike/ped path construction Overlook locations 3 Creating a Sense of Arrival • Arrival zone helps establish sense of arrival into a special place • Designed to be appreciated at anticipated travel speeds • Increased details calms traffic speeds coming to a decision point • Primary and secondary features complement the project Champs-Ely sees Arrival Sequence to the Place de Concorde & Tuileries Gardens 2 4/9/2019 Arrival Zones Pinellas Primary Aesthetic Features Secondary Aesthetic Features Hillsborough Primary Aesthetic Features Secondary Aesthetic Features 5 Preliminary Proposed Example at Dale Mabry Concepts Concept # 2 – Schooner Rig Sails Design inspiration comes from the historic ‘Windjammer” Concept # 1 - Marconi Sails rig ships common in the 1800’s Design inspiration comes from sailboats racing on the bay “Turning the Mark” 6 3 4/9/2019 Primary Feature Aesthetics • Enhance the driver experience • Enhance bike and pedestrian path users • Serve as welcoming features to Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties Secondary Feature
    [Show full text]
  • SSHCA FDOT Presentation 10.17.18
    Welcome South Seminole Heights Civic Association, Inc. October 17, 2018 Tampa Interstate Study Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 1 Stephen Benson Opening FDOT District Seven 2 3 Our solutions are more than just interstates. Active/Ongoing Studies Interstate Bike/Ped Transit Modernization Facilities Complete Transportation Freight Streets Innovation Mobility 4 A New Approach to Transportation Studies: How can we work together and think differently about transportation solutions? 5 A New Approach • Tampa Interstate Study SEIS (Westshore to Downtown) 6 A New Approach • Tampa Interstate Study SEIS (Westshore to Downtown) • I-275 North Project Development & Environment Study 7 A New Approach • Tampa Interstate Study SEIS (Westshore to Downtown) • I-275 North Project Development & Environment Study • Regional Transit Plan Vision Plan & Catalyst Projects 8 A New Approach • Tampa Interstate Study SEIS (Westshore to Downtown) • I-275 North Project Development & Environment Study • Regional Transit Plan • Tampa Streetcar Extension Study (Alternatives A & B) 9 A New Approach • Tampa Interstate Study SEIS (Westshore to Downtown) • I-275 North Project Development & Environment Study • Regional Transit Plan • Tampa Streetcar Extension Study (Alternatives A & B) • Heights Mobility Plan ‘Florida Ave is a main street, It should be optimized for local transportation modes’. ‘There is too much cut-thru Traffic. These cars should be on I-275 but its backed up daily!’ ‘Traffic calming, Walk/bike safety & TRANSIT!’ 10 A New Approach • Tampa Interstate
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Tampa Parking Survey Report
    Downtown Tampa Parking User Survey 2017 Introduction This Downtown Tampa Parking User Survey was commissioned by the Tampa Downtown Partnership and carried out by Plan Hillsborough. The survey was overseen by the Tampa Downtown Partnership Parking Task Force representing Downtown stakeholders. While results of this Survey show the majority of respondents were unsatisfied with parking in Downtown Tampa, responses to the various questions can provide insight about potential improvements that could be made to improve parking satisfaction. The Survey shows the most important factors in parking choice are proximity, availability, and cost. While the proximity of parking to their final destination was identified as the most important factor in parking choice, a majority of respondents were willing to walk three blocks or more from their final destination. Parking facilities to cover a three block radius of development would be considered acceptable for most drivers according to the data collected. Another major factor focused on the availability of parking. The vast majority of open-ended responses indicated a need for more parking garages. In fact, the greatest proportion of respondents stated that they prefer to park in garages as opposed to on-street or surface level parking lots. While the cost of parking is a major factor in parking choice, only about two out of every five respondents indicated the cost of parking in Downtown Tampa was too high. The majority were comfortable with the current cost of parking. Employees in Downtown tended to have the greatest concern about the cost of parking. When it comes to finding their way around Downtown and to available parking, the majority of respondents found wayfaring signage to be inadequate.
    [Show full text]