DOCSLIB.ORG

The Transportation Support Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Transportation Support Document The Transportation Support Document The inventory and analysis in the Support Document provides the foundation for the Plan portion of this Chapter. The Support Document is not adopted. INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS Overview This Transportation Chapter considers the physical and spatial needs of a City that is over 100 years of age and which is the home of approximately 54,639 year-round inhabitants. The City contains over 500 miles of roadway under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Transportation, Sarasota County and local City streets. The City participates in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) with other municipalities in Sarasota and Manatee counties. Fourteen bus routes, operated and managed by Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT), operate within the City of Sarasota. The City includes 83.65 miles of designated bike lanes/routes and almost 16 miles of trails. The Inventory and Analysis of the Transportation Chapter is the data and information that underlies the City’s policies for maintaining and improving the City’s transportation infrastructure. A major issue, as identified by the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, is Transportation Mobility in the Downtown Environment. The City of Sarasota must make a policy decision regarding the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area and implementation of the Downtown Sarasota Mobility Study and Downtown Parking Master Plan. The Inventory and Analysis section is organized as follows: Roadway Functional Classification Thoroughfare Plan Concurrency Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Neighborhood Protection Vehicle Parking Other Automobile Issues Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway Multimodal Transportation Mass Transit Aviation Rail Bicycle Networks Pedestrian Facilities Water Taxi Downtown Master Plan Study Area TCEA Downtown Mobility Study Newtown TCMA Sarasota City Plan - Transportation Support Document Adopted - December 1, 2008 T - 51 Appendices to this Support Document are: Appendix 1: 9J-5 Requirements Index; Appendix 2: EAR Requirements Index; Appendix 3: Strategic Goals Index; Appendix 4: Comprehensive Plan Update Study, 2006; Appendix 5: TCEA Update Study, 2004; Appendix 6: Newtown Transportation Concurrency Exception Area Study, 2006; Appendix 7: Glossary; Appendix 8: Bibliography. Sarasota City Plan - Transportation Support Document Adopted - December 1, 2008 T - 52 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Streets have two basic functions: moving traffic efficiently and providing access to private properties. The level of importance of these two opposing objectives depends on the street’s functional classification. Interstate 75 is at one end of the scale where approximately 99% of its purpose is moving traffic and providing access is about 1%. At the other extreme, a local residential street like Loma Linda Street west of Osprey Avenue, only 1% of its purpose is moving traffic and providing access is approximately 99%. Higher functional classification implies: • stricter access management requirements for developed properties, and • wider rights-of-way and cross-sections; • more lanes; and • streetscape appropriate to heavier traffic. As a result, functional classification has neighborhood implications. Strict access management can mean more driveways on neighborhood side streets. Widening streets can impact front yard setbacks. More intense land uses can impair neighborhood compatibility. These issues are discussed at greater length under “Neighborhood Protection.” Illustration T-3 shows the proposed future number of lanes as recommended in the 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The EAR was developed based on the City’s Capital Improvements Program, the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, FDOT’s Adopted Work Program, and citizen input during the EAR workshops. The major arterials and all interstate connectors in the City are under State or County jurisdiction. This means that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Sarasota County design criteria supersede the City’s Engineering Design Criteria Manual in controlling the location and design of access onto these streets, from both abutting properties and intersecting City streets. The FDOT and County design standards are meant to provide adequate sight-distance and to minimize traffic conflict points. They do not reduce neighborhood intrusion. Illustration T-4 indicates the jurisdictional responsibility for each thoroughfare in the City of Sarasota. Existing and Future Functional Classification Illustration T-4 shows how the City’s streets are classified at the present time using FDOT criteria. The FDOT nomenclature differs somewhat from the classifications shown on the City’s Thoroughfare Plan. The City’s “Interstate Connectors” and “Major Arterials” are called “Principal Arterials” by FDOT. The City’s “Major Collectors” and “Minor Collectors” are called “Urban Collectors” by FDOT. Because the City’s classifications are more precise than FDOT’s, all future references to functional classification in this Chapter (excluding Illustration T-4) will use the City’s nomenclature. Sarasota City Plan - Transportation Support Document Adopted - December 1, 2008 T - 53 Interstate connectors are the first functional class. They connect the City directly to an I-75 interchange. The City has three interstate connectors: University Parkway, Fruitville Road and Bee Ridge Road. Major arterials are designed to move inter-city and intra-city traffic, while minor arterials are for intra-city movements and separate neighborhoods. US-41 and US-301 are major arterials in the City of Sarasota. Major collectors link and connect neighborhoods. Major collectors in the City include Siesta Drive and Myrtle Street (east of US-41). Minor collectors act as funnels from local neighborhood streets. In the City, minor collectors include Lime Avenue (north of Ringling Boulevard) and Osprey Avenue (south of 10th Street.) Finally, local residential streets provide individual parcel access and are not shown on the Thoroughfare Plan. These Thoroughfare Plan designations are mapped in Illustration T-1 and listed by name in the table in Illustration T-2. These maps represent the recommended future functional classifications for the City of Sarasota’s thoroughfares. The desired typical cross-sections for future thoroughfares are listed below. During roadway design, the number of lanes and median widths are set on a case-by-case basis with a preliminary engineering study. In the case of major arterials, some right-of-way widths are specified as 90-feet and others as 100 feet wide. Interstate Connector 6 lanes with 14-foot median 118-ft. ROW Major Arterial 4 lanes with 22-foot median 90-100-ft. ROW Minor Arterial 4 lanes with 15.5-foot median 90-foot ROW Major Collector 4 lanes with No median 75-ft. ROW Minor Collector 2 lanes with 10-foot median 60-ft. ROW Local Residential Street 2 lanes with No median 50-ft. ROW Alleys 2 10-ft lanes with No median 20-ft ROW Sarasota City Plan - Transportation Support Document Adopted - December 1, 2008 T - 54 THE CITY’S THOROUGHFARE PLAN The City of Sarasota Thoroughfare Plan has been amended many times since its original adoption in 1972. The original system was based largely on proportional spacing, with major arterials spaced farthest apart and minor collectors spaced more closely. The concept of proportional spacing of arterials, collectors, and local streets at specified distances is an appropriate traffic engineering practice. However, it does not account for other goals such as streetscape, access management, pedestrian/bicycle-related improvements and transit considerations. Moreover, changes in traffic volume and circulation patterns required an update to confirm whether the roads are actually functioning as the Thoroughfare Plan intended. The City of Sarasota’s 2006 Thoroughfare Plan is found in Illustration T-1. Illustration T-2 is the Thoroughfare Table with the names and functional classifications of City roadways. At the direction of policymakers, City staff have removed a number of streets from the Thoroughfare Plan. South School Avenue, South Shade Avenue, South Orange Avenue, and Circus Boulevard were all considered minor collector roadways. To accomplish the goal of protecting neighborhoods, those streets were removed from the Thoroughfare Plan. This has the effect of making the City’s grid network of streets, particularly in south Sarasota, less efficient. It also has implications for concurrency analysis. With fewer road segments to assign trips to, the concurrency model creates even higher volumes on major roadways like South Tamiami Trail, Tuttle Avenue, and Bahia Vista Street. Those higher volumes make it more likely that proposed development and redevelopment will “break the bank” for level of service and will not be able to proceed. It can be confusing to understand how the number of lanes relates to functional classification. As noted above, the higher the classification, the wider the right-of-way must be. However, the cross-sections suggested in the Engineering Design Criteria Manual are not mandatory. It is possible to recommend, as in the case of Myrtle Street, a two-lane street on a 75-foot right-of-way which could accommodate four lanes. The LOS on Myrtle Street is expected to remain adequate, thus the widening to 4 lanes is not needed. The City of Sarasota has greatly increased its development over the years including a bustling New Urbanist downtown center. In many cases, development has occurred such that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PART 1 BDV25 TWO977-25 Task 2B Delive
    EVALUATION OF SELF CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE AND CLASS IV CONCRETE FLOW IN DRILLED SHAFTS – PART 1 BDV25 TWO977-25 Task 2b Deliverable – Field Exploratory Evaluation of Existing Bridges with Drilled Shaft Foundations Submitted to The Florida Department of Transportation Research Center 605 Suwannee Street, MS30 Tallahassee, FL 32399 [email protected] Submitted by Sarah J. Mobley, P.E., Doctoral Student Kelly Costello, E.I., Doctoral Candidate and Principal Investigators Gray Mullins, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, PI Abla Zayed, Ph.D., Professor, Co-PI Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, FL 33620 (813) 974-5845 [email protected] January, 2017 to July, 2017 Preface This deliverable is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements set forth and agreed upon at the onset of the project and indicates a degree of completion. It also serves as an interim report of the research progress and findings as they pertain to the individual task-based goals that comprise the overall project scope. Herein, the FDOT project manager’s approval and guidance are sought regarding the applicability of the intermediate research findings and the subsequent research direction. The project tasks, as outlined in the scope of services, are presented below. The subject of the present report is highlighted in bold. Task 1. Literature Review (pages 3-90) Task 2a. Exploratory Evaluation of Previously Cast Lab Shaft Specimens (page 91-287) Task 2b. Field Exploratory Evaluation of Existing Bridges with Drilled Shaft Foundations Task 3. Corrosion Potential Evaluations Task 4. Porosity and Hydration Products Determinations Task 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Committee Meeting
    Agenda Policy Committee Meeting Friday, March 15,2002 1:00 P.M. Sarasota Bradenton International Airport 6000 Airport Circle Sarasota, Florida 34243 Airport Authority Boardroom Welcome, Introductions Approval of Minutes from October 26,2002 Meeting Director's Report Mark Alderson -3 N. Tamiami Trail e EPA Bi-ennial Review . .e 104 1. Public Involvement and Education Scott Carpenter Sarasota, FL 34234 Proposal 2. Proposed Technical ProjectsLJpdate Gary Raulerson 3. Sea Grass Reporting Gary Raulerson 4. Discussion of Proposed FY03 Work Plan Mark Alderson 5. Results - Atmospheric Deposition Study Kellie Dixon and Red Tide 6. Financial Status Report Marian Pomeroy Adjourn MINUTES POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING Friday, October 26,2001 1:00 p.m. Sarasota Bradenton International Airport 6000 Airport Circle Sarasota Florida 34243 Airport Authority Boardroom Present: Policy Committee Members Mr. Bo Crum, E.P.A. Reg. IV, Chief, Coastal Program The Honorable Richard Martin, Sarasota City Commissioner P\ Ms. Ce Ce McKiernan, Dept. of Environmental Protection Ms. Deborah Getzoff, FDEP The Honorable Pat Glass, Manatee Board of County Commissioners The Honorable Jon Thaxton, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners Mr. Bruce Wirth, P.E., Director, Resource Management Department Management Committee Members Mr. Mike McNees, City Manager, City of Sarasota Mr. Paul Bispham, Citizens Advisory (:onunittee Mr. Annon Bozeman, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mr. Mark Harnrnond, Manager, SWIM, SWFWMD Mr. George Henderson, Florida Marine Research Institute Mr. Charles Hunsicker, Manatee County Office of Administration Mr. Rob Patten, Sarasota County Environmental Services Ms. Felicia Robinson, U.S. Region IV Mr. John Stevely, Florida Sea Grant Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program Staff Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Destination Strategic Plan 2025 JLL Tourism & Destinations Practice
    Hotels & Hospitality | 2019 Sarasota County Destination Strategic Plan 2025 JLL Tourism & Destinations Practice DAN FENTON DAVID HOLDER BETHANIE DEROSE Executive Vice President Vice President Senior Associate +1 (408) 309-3450 +1 (315) 569-8908 +1 (609) 457-5361 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Table of Contents 5 | Executive Summary 9 | Background 15 | State of Sarasota County Tourism 27 | Destination Strategic Plan Priorities & Recommendations 57 | Direction of Visit Sarasota County 69 | Conclusion 71 | Appendix 4 Visit Sarasota: Destination Strategic Plan Priorities + Recommendations Visit Sarasota: Destination Strategic Plan Priorities + Recommendations 5 Section 1: Executive Summary Visit Sarasota County (VSC) recognizes that the future of Sarasota County depends on having an innovative strategic plan shaped by visitor research, analysis and thoughtful consideration of input from stakeholders and partners across the county. To accomplish this work, VSC partnered with JLL's Tourism practice, an international tourism and destinations consulting group, to assemble a comprehensive destination plan that would build off the efforts and accomplishments since the organization’s 2020 strategic planning initiative and identified goals. Specifically, by 2025, VSC seeks to: • Ensure funding and program development are aligned among VSC, its partners, government entities, non-profits and meets long-term goals of the community • Assess gaps in the tourism, sports, cultural infrastructure to identify potential new or enhanced tourism demand generators. • Recommend actions and activities to increase visitor flow across all segments (leisure, meetings, sports). • Review the effectiveness of VSC’s marketing programs and recommendations to improve these initiatives. Examine VSC impact compared to its direct competitors with their much larger budgets.
    [Show full text]
  • Outstanding Bridges of Florida*
    2013 OOUUTTSSTTAANNDDIINNGG BBRRIIDDGGEESS OOFF FFLLOORRIIDDAA** This photograph collection was compiled by Steven Plotkin, P.E. RReeccoorrdd HHoollddeerrss UUnniiqquuee EExxaammpplleess SSuuppeerriioorr AAeesstthheettiiccss * All bridges in this collection are on the State Highway System or on public roads Record Holders Longest Total Length: Seven Mile Bridge, Florida Keys Second Longest Total Length: Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Lower Tampa Bay Third Longest Total Length: Bryant Patton Bridge, Saint George Island Most Single Bridge Lane Miles: Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Lower Tampa Bay Most Dual Bridge Lane Miles: Henry H. Buckman Bridge, South Jacksonville Longest Viaduct (Bridge over Land): Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway, Tampa Longest Span: Napoleon Bonaparte Broward Bridge at Dames Point, North Jacksonville Second Longest Span: Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Lower Tampa Bay Longest Girder/Beam Span: St. Elmo W. Acosta Bridge, Jacksonville Longest Cast-In-Place Concrete Segmental Box Girder Span: St. Elmo W. Acosta Bridge, Jacksonville Longest Precast Concrete Segmental Box Girder Span and Largest Precast Concrete Segment: Hathaway Bridge, Panama City Longest Concrete I Girder Span: US-27 at the Caloosahatchee River, Moore Haven Longest Steel Box Girder Span: Regency Bypass Flyover on Arlington Expressway, Jacksonville Longest Steel I Girder Span: New River Bridge, Ft. Lauderdale Longest Moveable Vertical Lift Span: John T. Alsop, Jr. Bridge (Main Street), Jacksonville Longest Movable Bascule Span: 2nd Avenue, Miami SEVEN MILE BRIDGE (new bridge on left and original remaining bridge on right) RECORD: Longest Total Bridge Length (6.79 miles) LOCATION: US-1 from Knights Key to Little Duck Key, Florida Keys SUNSHINE SKYWAY BRIDGE RECORDS: Second Longest Span (1,200 feet), Second Longest Total Bridge Length (4.14 miles), Most Single Bridge Lane Miles (20.7 miles) LOCATION: I–275 over Lower Tampa Bay from St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of John Ringling and the American Circus
    University of Massachusetts Boston ScholarWorks at UMass Boston Graduate Masters Theses Doctoral Dissertations and Masters Theses 5-2020 Beyond the Big Top: The Legacy of John Ringling and the American Circus Casey L. Nemec Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umb.edu/masters_theses Part of the United States History Commons BEYOND THE BIG TOP: THE LEGACY OF JOHN RINGLING AND THE AMERICAN CIRCUS A Thesis Presented By CASEY L. NEMEC Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies, University of Massachusetts Boston, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May 2020 History Program © 2020 by Casey L. Nemec All rights reserved BEYOND THE BIG TOP: THE LEGACY OF JOHN RINGLING AND THE AMERICAN CIRCUS A Thesis Presented By CASEY L. NEMEC Approved as to style and content by: Vincent J. Cannato, Associate Professor Chairperson of Committee Timothy Hacsi, Associate Professor Member Roberta Wollons, Professor Member Elizabeth McCahill, Program Director History Program Timothy Hacsi, Chair History Department ABSTRACT BEYOND THE BIG TOP: THE LEGACY OF JOHN RINGLING AND THE AMERICAN CIRCUS MAY 2020 Casey L. Nemec, B.A., Florida Gulf Coast University M.A., University of Massachusetts Boston Directed by Professor Vincent J. Cannato Beyond the Big Top: The Legacy of John Ringling and the American Circus is a focused interpretation of the impact of the American circus post-Civil War through present day, most particularly that of circus impresario, corporate magnate, and philanthropist John Ringling, in what was once a quiet Florida fishing village named Sarasota. It is my observation that John Ringling, through moving the winter quarters of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey to Sarasota, investing in a sizable amount of real estate, and spearheading a campaign to bring a world-class art museum and school to the area, played a key role in shaping Florida tourism, diversity, expanding cultural awareness, and boosting the local economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Bottom Habitat Assessment
    BAY BOTTOM HABITAT ASSESSMENT DRAFT FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program 1550 Thompson Parkway Sarasota, FL 34236 Prepared by: J.K. Culter and J.R. Leverone Mote Marine Laboratory 1600 Thompson Parkway Sarasota, FL 34236 March l2, 1993 Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 303 Suggested reference Culter JK, Leverone JR. 1993. Bay bottom habitat assessment: Final report draft. Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report no 303. 69 p. and appendices. Available from: Mote Marine Laboratory Library. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents i List of Figures ii List of Tables iv I. Executive Summary 1 II. Project Background 4 III. Introduction 5 IV. Bottom Habitat Description 7 V. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 25 VI. Surficial Sediment Analysis 45 VII. Mapping Analysis 55 VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations 65 IX. References 67 APPENDICES: Appendix A. Maps of seagrass distribution based on interpretation of aerial photography. Appendix B. Maps of disturbed bay bottom based on interpretation of aerial photography. Appendix C. Maps of sediment sampling sites and corresponding surface sediment grain size composition. i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 4.1. Sarasota Bay segmentation scheme adopted for the Sarasota Bay Program. 10 Figure 5.1. Seagrass station locations. 28 Figure 5.2. Halodule biomass (grams dry weight/square meter) from five Sarasota Bay seagrass stations during winter, 1990. 34 Figure 5.3 Halodule biomass (grams dry weight/square meter) from five Sarasota Bay seagrass stations during summer, 1990. 35 Figure 5.4. Seasonal differences in Halodule blade biomass (grams dry weight/square meter) for six Sarasota Bay seagrass stations.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SARASOTA Vol
    THE SARASOTA Vol. 2, No. 29 — April 4, 2014 COVER News Leader NO ZOMBIES INCLUDED ‘THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN’’ ROOFTOP DINING IDEA SCRAPPED Inside Old school journalism. 21st century delivery. GET TO HELP KNOW US A.K.A. HELP MASTHEAD Rachel Brown Hackney Cleve Posey Editor and Publisher Production Manager / Graphic Designer [email protected] [email protected] Cooper Levey-Baker Robert S. Hackney Associate Editor Opinion Editor / General Manager [email protected] [email protected] Stan Zimmerman Advertising Sales City Editor [email protected] [email protected] Subscription Services Roger Drouin [email protected] County Editor Press Releases & News Tips [email protected] [email protected] Norman Schimmel Staff Photographer [email protected] Fran Palmeri Contributing Writer [email protected] Harriet Cuthbert Contributing Writer [email protected] Elinor Rogosin A&E Writer [email protected] John Riley Editorial Cartoonist [email protected] Vicki Chatley Copy Editor [email protected] Letters To the Editor [email protected] “The Sarasota News Leader” is a registered trademark of New Sheriff Publishing, Inc., which publishes The Sarasota News Leader. Copyright © 2014 Sarasota News Leader. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Member - National Digital Press Association • P.O. Box 5099 • Sarasota, FL 34277 • (941) 227-1080 WELCOME It seems safe to say the No. 1 topic in the news this week is the joint meeting of the City and County commissions to discuss plans for a homeless shelter.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    FINAL REPORT December 4, 2017 FINAL REPORT Climate Adaptation Plan Contents List of Appendices .................................................................................iv Project Team ............................................................................................v Message from the City Manager .........................................................v Sarasota City Commission ....................................................................vi Key Terms ..............................................................................................viii Acronyms ................................................................................................ix Introduction ............................................................. 1 Regional Landscape ................................................................................2 Past, Present, and Future Climate Change ........................................................... 4 Infrastructure Vulnerability Study .......................................................5 STEP 1 – Identify Climate Projections .............. 7 Climate Science .......................................................................................8 Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................................. 8 Observational Sea Level Rise – Global ..............................................................................................9 Observational Sea Level Rise – Local ...............................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2020/21 – 2024/25
    Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2020/21 – 2024/25 Adopted April 20, 2020 Amended September 21, 2020 Amended October 26, 2020 Amended February 22, 2021 Amended May 24, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS For your convenience, if viewing online, each section listed here is linked to the appropriate location in the document. Simply click on the title of the section below to reach that section immediately. TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.00 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.01 Resolution.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.02 Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.03 FDOT Work Program Fund Codes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.00 TRANSPORTATION
    [Show full text]
  • Vessel Crushing and Structural Collapse Relationships for Bridge Design
    University of Florida Civil and Coastal Engineering Structures Research Report 2010/72908/74039 Final Report August 2010 Vessel Crushing and Structural Collapse Relationships for Bridge Design Principal investigator: Gary R. Consolazio, Ph.D. Research assistants: Michael T. Davidson Daniel J. Getter Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering University of Florida P.O. Box 116580 Gainesville, Florida 32611 Sponsor: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Sam Fallaha, P.E. – Project manager Contract: UF Project No. 00072908/00074039 FDOT Contract No. BDK75 977-02 University of Florida University of Florida Civil and Coastal Engineering DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. ii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date August 2010 6. Performing Organization Code Vessel Crushing and Structural Collapse Relationships for Bridge Design 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author(s) G. R. Consolazio, M. T. Davidson, D. J. Getter 2010/72908/74039 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) University of Florida Department of Civil & Coastal Engineering 11. Contract or Grant No. P.O. Box 116580 BDK75 977-02 Gainesville, FL 32611-6580 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Florida Department of Transportation Final Report Research Management Center 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Tallahassee, FL 32301-8064 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Accounting for waterway vessel collision is an integral component of structural design for any bridge spanning a navigable waterway.
    [Show full text]
  • Floridaps Gulf Coast
    Our Guide to Living, Working and Playing on FLORIDA’s GulF COAST michaelsaunders.com RELOCATION GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS Welcome MSC Core Services Relocate With Ease .......................................................3 MSC Mortgage ............................................................. 14 Florida’s Gulf Coast .......................................................3 MSC Title ...................................................................... 14 Area Map MSC Relocation & Referral Services ...................... 14 Michael Saunders & Company Office Locations .....4 MSC Residential .......................................................... 15 Climate Information ......................................................4 MSC Commercial........................................................ 15 History MSC International ....................................................... 15 Sarasota Area History ...................................................5 MSC Solutions ............................................................. 16 Sarasota the Circus Town ............................................5 MSC New Homes & Condominiums ..................... 16 County Information Moving to Florida’s Gulf Coast Sarasota County .............................................................6 Moving Checklist ......................................................... 17 Manatee County .............................................................6 Moving to Florida’s Gulf Coast ................................ 17 Charlotte County ..........................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • A Report by the Florida Transportation Commission January 23, 2018
    ` A Report by the Florida Transportation Commission January 23, 2018 Commission Members Jay Trumbull Ken Wright Beth Kigel Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary John Browning Donnie Ellington Maurice Ferré Ronald Howse Teresa Sarnoff Jim Sebesta www.ftc.state.fl.us 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450, MS 9 (850) 414-4105 * Fax (850) 414-4234 The Florida Transportation Commission RREEVVIIEEWW OOFF TTHHEE DDEEPPAARRTTMMEENNTT OOFF TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN TTEENNTTAATTIIVVEE WWOORRKK PPRROOGGRRAAMM FFYY 22001188//1199 -- 22002222//2233 AA RReeppoorrtt bbyy tthhee FFlloorriiddaa TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn CCoommmmiissssiioonn JJaannuuaarryy 2233,, 22001188 [Cover Photos: Pensacola Bay Bridge in District 3, SR 44 Roundabout in District 5, SunRail at LYNX in District 5, and the Sunshine Skyway Bridge during the Crane Delivery for Port Tampa Bay in District 7.] Review of the Tentative Work Program FY 2018/19 – 2022/23 Page 1 The Florida Transportation Commission I-95 Concrete Replacement – District 6 SunTrax Test Facility Groundbreaking – Turnpike Page 2 Review of the Tentative Work Program FY 2018/19 – 2022/23 The Florida Transportation Commission Review of the Tentative Work Program FY 2018/19 – 2022/23 Page 3 The Florida Transportation Commission Page 4 Review of the Tentative Work Program FY 2018/19 – 2022/23 The Florida Transportation Commission Review of the Tentative Work Program FY 2018/19 – 2022/23 Page 5 The Florida Transportation Commission I-95 Widening and System Interchange – District 5 Page 6 Review of the Tentative Work Program FY 2018/19 – 2022/23 The Florida Transportation Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Prelude…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 Executive Summary……………………...………………………………….…………...…....….……… 11 1. Overview of the Tentative Work Program……………….……………..………..…………. 15 2. Financial Soundness………………………………………...…...………….….………...........….
    [Show full text]