Meeting of the MPO Board Hillsborough County MPO Chairman Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 9:00 A.M

Commissioner Lesley “Les” Miller, Jr. Meeting of the MPO Board Hillsborough County MPO Chairman Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 9:00 a.m. nd Councilman Harry Cohen Hillsborough County Center, 601 E. Kennedy Blvd., 2 Floor City of Tampa MPO Vice Chairman Watch the HTV live-stream. Send comments in advance on Facebook.* Paul Anderson Port Tampa Bay

David Mechanik I. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance & Invocation HART

Trent Green Planning Commission II. Approval of Minutes – July 31, 2018

Commissioner Ken Hagan Hillsborough County III. Public Comment - 3 minutes per speaker, 30 minutes total; as needed, Commissioner Pat Kemp additional time may be provided later in the agenda. Hillsborough County

Mayor Mel Jurado City of Temple Terrace IV. Committee Reports, Online Comments (Gena Torres, MPO Staff)

Joe Lopano Hillsborough County V. Consent Agenda Aviation Authority

Mayor Rick A. Lott A. Committee Appointments City of Plant City

Councilman B. West Busch Blvd. Multimodal Safety Study Letter of Comment Guido Maniscalco City of Tampa VI. Roll-Call Vote: TIP Roll-forward Amendment Commissioner Sandra Murman Hillsborough County VII. Action Items Cindy Stuart Hillsborough County A. West Tampa Multimodal Plan (Chris Keller, Tindale Oliver) School Board

Councilman Luis Viera B. South Coast Greenway Connection Feasibility Study (Wiatt Bowers, Atkins) City of Tampa

Joseph Waggoner VIII. Status Reports Expressway Authority A. Tampa Bay Next Quarterly Update (FDOT Representative) Commissioner Stacy R. White Hillsborough County B. Resilient Tampa Bay: Transportation Vulnerability Assessment (Allison Yeh,

Beth Alden, AICP MPO staff) Executive Director IX. Executive Director’s Report • Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership Group meeting, FDOT District 7 office, September 7, 9:30am

• It’s Time Tampa Bay outreach to date • Next board meetings: October 2 with Smart Cities/ Integrated Corridor Management presentation; October 31 with BrightLine presentation

X. Old & New Business

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

XII. Addendum

A. Upcoming Events • Drive Electric Week Event, September 12 • Safe Routes to School National Conference, November 2019 with Gulf Coast Safe Streets Summit & co-hosted by Hillsborough MPO B. Project Fact Sheets • SR 60 (Kennedy Blvd) Traffic Signal Upgrades C. Correspondence • To FTA on 2018 HART Bus & Bus Facilities Grant Applications • From FDOT District 7, biweekly traffic fatality list, July 16-29 • From FDOT District 7, biweekly traffic fatality list July 30-August 12 D. Articles Relating to MPO Work • It’s TIME Tampa Bay on The Current with Roxanne Wilder • Planned improvements seek to make West Tampa safer for pedestrians, cyclists • Officials want your input on the future of transportation in Tampa Bay • Bike/Walk Tampa Bay Summer Summit brings community together to move region forward • Planned improvements for dangerous stretch of US 301 include widening road to six lanes E. Miscellaneous • FTA Announces $84.5 Million in Grants to Support Advanced Bus Technology Projects Nationwide • Georgia to spend $100 million on Ga. 400 transit line • How Air Pollution Causes Diabetes

The full agenda packet is available on the MPO’s website, www.planhillsborough.org, or by calling (813) 272-5940.

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 Johnny Wong, 813-273-3774 x370 or [email protected], three business days in advance of the meeting. Also, if you are only able to speak Spanish, please call the Spanish helpline 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 Johnny Wong directamente al (813) 273-3774, ext. 370 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.

If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the board, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. ÿÿ ÿÿ !ÿ !!!"ÿ" !# !ÿÿ ÿ ÿ $%ÿ%&'()(01&23ÿ0233134ÿ'423152&1(3ÿ67ÿ81009@('(A4$ÿB(A3&CÿD0('1E2ÿ F%&ÿ13ÿ%4A02'ÿ%%&134ÿ9G$%EA0%EÿH('ÿA%9E2CÿA0Cÿÿ ÿ2&ÿIPÿ2QFQÿ 13ÿ&$%ÿ R&$ÿD0(('ÿB(3H%'%3G%ÿ((FÿD'%E%'1GSÿTQÿU2'0ÿB(A3&CÿB%3&%'ÿ2F)2ÿ D0('1E2Qÿ $%ÿH(00(V134ÿF%F@%'9ÿV%'%ÿ)'%9%3&Pÿ %90%Cÿ100%'ÿ'QÿB$21'F23ÿB(FF1991(3%'ÿ81009@('(A4$ÿB(A3&Cÿ B$2'0%9ÿU0A4ÿH('ÿ2A0ÿ 3E%'9(3ÿB$1%HÿW%GA&1X%ÿHH1G%'ÿ6B7 ÿ 2F)2ÿ('&ÿ A&$('1&Cÿ 82''CÿB($%3ÿÿB(A3G10F23ÿB1&Cÿ(Hÿ2F)2ÿ62F)27 ÿ B1&CÿB(A3G10ÿ $%(E('%ÿ'%3&ÿ"'%%3ÿÿ0233134ÿB(FF1991(3ÿ U%3ÿ82423ÿ B(FF1991(3%'ÿ81009@('(A4$ÿB(A3&Cÿ %0ÿA'2E(ÿ 2C('ÿB1&Cÿ(Hÿ%F)0%ÿ%''2G%ÿ 2&ÿU%F)ÿÿ B(FF1991(3%'ÿ81009@('(A4$ÿB(A3&Cÿ "A1E(ÿ2319G20G(ÿB(A3G10F23ÿ2F)2ÿB1&CÿB(A3G10ÿ Y2X1Eÿ%G$231Sÿ8 ÿ `23E'2ÿA'F23ÿ62''1X%Eÿ2&ÿIPaÿ2QFQ7ÿB(FF1991(3%'ÿ81009@('(A4$ÿB(A3&Cÿ B13ECÿ`&A2'&ÿ62''1X%Eÿ2&ÿIPbÿ2QFQ7ÿ81009@('(A4$ÿB(A3&Cÿ`G$((0ÿT(2'Eÿ A19ÿc1%'2ÿ62''1X%Eÿ2&ÿIPaÿ2QFQ7ÿB(A3G10F23ÿ2F)2ÿB1&CÿB(A3G10ÿ `&2GCÿd$1&%ÿ B(FF1991(3%'ÿ81009@('(A4$ÿB(A3&Cÿ $%ÿH(00(V134ÿF%F@%'9ÿV%'%ÿ2@9%3&Pÿ (%ÿ()23(ÿ Bÿ81009@('(A4$ÿB(A3&Cÿ X12&1(3ÿ ÿ A&$('1&Cÿ 1GSÿ(&&ÿ 2C('ÿB1&Cÿ(Hÿ023&ÿB1&Cÿ (9%)$ÿd244(3%'ÿ2F)2e81009@('(A4$ÿ W)'%99V2Cÿ A&$('1&Cÿ QÿB ÿÿYÿY"ÿDÿ " !Bÿ !Yÿ!cB !ÿ

B$21'F23ÿ100%'ÿG200%Eÿ&$%ÿF%%&134ÿ&(ÿ('E%'ÿ2&ÿIPÿ2QFQÿÿB(FF1991(3%'ÿ d$1&%ÿ0%Eÿ13ÿ&$%ÿ)0%E4%ÿ(Hÿ200%4123G%ÿ&(ÿ&$%ÿH024ÿ23Eÿ42X%ÿ&$%ÿ13X(G2&1(3Qÿÿ Qÿ c ÿDÿ!`ÿÿ!ÿ ÿ ÿ

B$21'F23ÿ100%'ÿ9(A4$&ÿ2ÿF(&1(3ÿ&(ÿ2GG%)&ÿ&$%ÿF13A&%9Qÿÿfghipqrstiÿ vtiqwptrpgÿwgÿsgxyÿwypgiyÿÿfghipqrstiÿfgyiÿtiÿpt qyÿyiÿgÿy gÿÿ 6%F@%'9ÿA'F23ÿ`&A2'&ÿ23Eÿc1%'2ÿ$2Eÿ3(&ÿ2''1X%Eÿ%F@%'9ÿ()23(ÿ(&&ÿ 23Eÿd244(3%'ÿV%'%ÿ2@9%3&Q7ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ !ÿ!"##$ÿ

#%ÿ!&%'()01&2%ÿ3245ÿ6078)9ÿ%2('@28)ÿ5@A065)2@ÿB0%ÿ)&2ÿ%2C0A54ÿ0Bÿ)&2ÿ @0D8)0D8ÿ5C15ÿ'8)2%6&58E2ÿÿ

%ÿ 5C2(ÿ5A'(08ÿ@'()%'F7)2@ÿ1512%D0%Gÿ58@ÿ245F0%5)2@ÿ08ÿ58ÿ54)2%85)'A2ÿ )%58(10%)5)'08ÿ%2A2872ÿ1458ÿÿÿ

#(ÿ&5%08ÿ!54A2%)ÿ'82445(ÿ!078)9ÿ%2('@28)ÿ'8A')2@ÿ)&2ÿ#"ÿ)0ÿ5))28@ÿ C2%'658ÿ%25Cÿ!HIPQRQHSTUÿWXISUYHXRIRQHSÿ`HPaRQHSUÿQSÿWIbYIÿcIdÿefeSRÿHSÿ 7E7()ÿgÿÿÿ 3ÿ!"##ÿh"hÿ$ÿ"$$ÿ!"##$ÿ

#(ÿi285ÿ0%%2(ÿ#"ÿ(7CC5%'p2@ÿ)&2ÿ60CC'))22ÿ%210%)(ÿ%24592@ÿ2426)%08'6ÿ 60CC28)(ÿ%262'A2@ÿB%0Cÿ#%ÿh0F2%)ÿ5D5442(&ÿ%2E5%@'8Eÿ 5C2(ÿÿq5429ÿ reReXISUTÿsHUYQRIPÿQSReXUetRQHSÿUIueRdÿQbYXHfebeSRUvÿ#(ÿ2%%244ÿ#5)&'(ÿD&0ÿ 1%5'(2@ÿ5ÿ)2C10%5%9ÿ60CC78')9ÿE5%@28ÿ1%0w26)vÿ58@ÿ#2((2%(ÿ#57%'6'0ÿh0(5(ÿ D&0ÿB0%D5%@2@ÿ58ÿ5%)'642ÿXexIXyQSxÿReÿeuuetRUÿHuÿReÿURIReÿHuÿHaQUQISITUÿ 8)2%()5)2ÿÿgÿ2 158('08ÿ58@ÿ%260CC28@2@ÿ2426)2@ÿ0BB'6'54(ÿB5C'4'5%'p2ÿ )&2C(24A2(ÿD')&ÿ17F4'6ÿ)%58(')ÿ58@ÿ!&%'()01&2%ÿ3245ÿD&0ÿD5(ÿ60862%82@ÿ5F07)ÿ %7C0%2@ÿ'8)2%6&58E2ÿ640(7%2(vÿ58@ÿ#(ÿ!&5%40))2ÿi%228F5%EÿD&0ÿ%272()2@ÿ '8B0%C5)'08ÿ5F07)ÿ#"ÿ()7@'2(vÿ58@ÿ80)2@ÿ)D0ÿ42))2%(ÿD2%2ÿ%262'A2@ÿ)&2ÿB'%()ÿ uXHbÿIÿtHSteXSeyÿtQRQeSÿXexIXyQSxÿsWTUÿXetXaQRbeSRÿYXItRQteUÿISyÿReÿ (2608@ÿB%0Cÿ#%ÿ!&5%42(ÿ02FÿD&0ÿ(7110%)2@ÿ)%58(')0%'28)2@ÿ@2A2401C28)ÿÿ 3ÿ!"$$ÿi$ÿ ÿÿ !0CC'))22ÿ110'8)C28)(ÿ ÿ ÿ 8'A2%(')9ÿ0Bÿ07)&ÿ40%'@5ÿÿ2440D(&'1ÿ!08)%56)ÿh282D54ÿ

!&5'%C58ÿ#'442%ÿ(07E&)ÿ5ÿC0)'08ÿ)0ÿ511%0A2ÿÿÿefgÿÿhijÿ kiiÿlmÿfkngÿegkgnkjÿgiÿkgiÿopoÿoÿqrÿÿ#2CF2%(ÿ 01580ÿ0))ÿ58@ÿs5EE082%ÿD2%2ÿ5F(28)ÿ 3ÿ!"$ÿ#ÿ ÿÿ #"ÿ6&004ÿ5B2)9ÿ)7@9ÿ58@ÿ01ÿÿh210%)ÿ

#(ÿ'(5ÿ'4A5ÿ#"ÿ'8)%0@762@ÿ)&2ÿ')2Cÿÿ#2((%(ÿ!&%'()01&2%ÿt2442%ÿ '8@542"4'A2%ÿ58@ÿ((06'5)2(ÿ860%10%5)2@ÿ58@ÿ#5))&2Dÿs25A2%ÿ42C28)ÿ 8E'822%'8Eÿi%071ÿ!ÿE5A2ÿ5ÿ1%2(28)5)'08ÿ'8ÿF56GE%078@ÿC5)2%'54ÿ58@ÿ 2 1078@2@ÿ08ÿ(5B2)9ÿ%260CC28@5)'08(ÿÿ#%ÿ#26&58'GÿD58)2@ÿ645%'B'65)'08ÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ !ÿ!"#ÿ$%&' ($%ÿ)ÿ0$12'&3ÿ&4((5'3(ÿ$%ÿ!"#ÿ4#64!7ÿÿ847ÿ94##%ÿ(3#1ÿ $)ÿ(! 1#%!(ÿ5#4#ÿ4$1$%@ÿ$&A&'#(ÿ!ÿ(&"'7ÿÿ8A4ÿ 41ÿ$%B $4#1ÿ !ÿ 4#(!4$&!$%@ÿ6#40$(($C#ÿ0C#0#%!(ÿ$%ÿ (Aÿ&44$14(7ÿÿ D#(6%1$%@ÿ!ÿ E00$(($%#4ÿ8 40%ÿ847ÿF#C#4ÿ&%)$40#1ÿE"4!#4ÿ(&"'(ÿ5#4#ÿ$%&' 1#1ÿ$%ÿ !"#ÿ(! 1A7ÿÿG''5$%@ÿ&00#%!(ÿ%ÿ %()#ÿ(&"'ÿ&4(($%@(ÿE"$40%ÿ8$''#4ÿ (3#1ÿ)4ÿÿ0!$%ÿ!ÿ664C#ÿ!"#ÿ$!#07ÿÿHIPQRSTUVQÿXVQSYRVTRIÿYIÿUI`abcÿ YaRIQbabÿdeÿHIUUSYYSIQafÿgaUhcÿVQbÿRVffSabÿipSfiaaQÿiIÿqafIrÿs8#0#4(ÿ6%ÿ !!ÿ%1ÿF@@%#4ÿ5#4#ÿ(#%!7tÿ ÿu7ÿÿ v'%ÿw$''(4 @"ÿ!4!#@$&ÿv'%ÿxÿD#(' !$%ÿ)ÿ 664!ÿ

8(7ÿu#!"ÿ'1#%ÿ8vyÿ#& !$C#ÿ$4#&!4ÿ( 004$#1ÿ!"#ÿ$!#07ÿÿ 847ÿ 8#&"%$3ÿ$%B $4#1ÿ !ÿ!"#ÿ$%!#@4!$%ÿ)ÿ'%1ÿ (#ÿ%1ÿ!4%(64!!$%ÿ(ÿÿ &#%!4'ÿ!"#0#ÿ$%ÿ!"#ÿ6'%7ÿÿE"$40%ÿ8$''#4ÿ( @"!ÿÿ0!$%ÿ!ÿ&!ÿ!"#ÿ 6'%7ÿÿHIUUSYYSIQafÿgaUhÿYIÿUI`abcÿYaRIQbabÿdeÿHIPQRSTUVQÿXVQSYRVTRIcÿVQbÿ RVffSabÿipSfiaaQÿiIÿqafIrÿÿs8#0#4(ÿ6%ÿ!!ÿ%1ÿF@@%#4ÿ5#4#ÿ(#%!7tÿ 7ÿÿDvyDÿ 7ÿ u (ÿD6$1ÿ4%($!ÿsuDtÿ6$&(ÿ%1ÿ0#4@$%@ÿ#&"%'@Aÿÿ

8(7ÿ'1#%ÿ$%!41 ÿ47ÿD#4!ÿu#4!$%$ÿ%1ÿ847ÿ#%%$(ÿw$%# @"ÿGÿ E#%!#4ÿ)4ÿ4%ÿ4%(64!!$%ÿD#(#4&"ÿ5"ÿ@C#ÿÿ64#(#%!!$%ÿ&%!$%#1ÿ $%ÿ&3@4 %1ÿ0!#4$'7ÿÿ E00$(($%#4ÿ #06ÿ( @"!ÿ$%)40!$%ÿ%ÿ &%!4''#1ÿ&44$14(ÿ)4ÿ !0!#1ÿC#"$&'#(ÿ%1ÿ#'#C!#1ÿuDÿ&&#((7ÿ u7ÿ ÿÿÿdeÿfeÿ

8(7ÿ #%%$)#4ÿG4! %(ÿG'4$1ÿ#64!0#%!ÿ)ÿ4%(64!!$%ÿsGytÿ 64#(#%!#1ÿ!"#ÿ$!#07ÿÿ E00$(($%#4ÿ #06ÿ4#B #(!#1ÿ04#ÿ $%)40!$%ÿ 1$))#4#%!$!$%@ÿ!A6#(ÿ)ÿ0%@#1ÿ'%#(ÿ! &"#1ÿ%ÿ!"#ÿ'&3ÿ)ÿ"$@"2&& 6%&Aÿ C#"$&'#ÿ'%#(ÿ$%ÿ!"#ÿ& %!Aÿ14#5ÿ&064$(%(ÿ#!5##%ÿ!4%(64!!$%ÿ) %1$%@ÿ $%ÿw$''(4 @"ÿ%1ÿ8$0$21#ÿE %!$#(ÿ%1ÿ$%B $4#1ÿ !ÿ!"#ÿ&4#!$%ÿ)ÿ ÿ%#5ÿ (ÿ@#%&Aÿ!ÿ4 %ÿ($%@'#ÿ4 !#(7ÿÿÿ E7ÿ 4C#'ÿ843#!(ÿ$%ÿ06ÿuAÿ%1ÿ06ÿuAÿ4#ÿD#@$%'ÿ4%($!ÿ ghijÿC'C$%@ÿD'#ÿ

E"$40%ÿ8$''#4ÿ%!#1ÿ!"#ÿ$!#0ÿ5(ÿ1#)#44#1ÿ!ÿÿ'!#4ÿ0##!$%@7ÿÿ 7ÿklkmnopkÿqorkmsrtÿrkusrÿ

8(7ÿ'1#%ÿ! &"#1ÿ%ÿ&3@4 %1ÿ0!#4$'7ÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ!ÿ"ÿ"#ÿ$"ÿ ÿ "&'(ÿ)&&(012ÿ#&31&4356ÿ&7(&)8&9ÿ@(AÿBÿCDE1(6ÿC&1(&9ÿ&FD13ÿ GHDD9ÿ

I4 ÿH3&1ÿ1D(&3ÿ(A&ÿ)&&(012ÿ(0)&ÿ513ÿHDF5(0D1 ÿ ÿ"Iÿ ÿ ÿ 7FD)012ÿP&1(4ÿ ÿÿ ÿQ&20D15Hÿ95147D9(5(0D1ÿ&53&94A07ÿ#D9R4AD7ÿÿBÿE2E4(ÿÿ ÿ ÿSÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ1TDÿ$9DU1ÿ$52ÿVE59(&9H6ÿW$598&XE&Y`ÿÿa54FDÿ5T&(6ÿDU1ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿbÿE2E4(ÿcÿÿ ÿÿ ÿd(Aÿ11E5HÿaH511012ÿ513ÿ&4021ÿU5934`ÿ ÿC5HHÿTD9ÿÿ ÿ ÿ1(90&4ÿE&ÿE2E4(ÿÿÿ ÿ$ ÿ a9De&F(ÿG5F(ÿA&&(4ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿf02AU56ÿcÿa9De&F(ÿ&P&HD7)&1(ÿ513ÿ1P09D1)&1(ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿWaÿ513ÿYÿ(E36ÿ&4021ÿCA512&ÿQ&b&P5HE5(0D1ÿbÿ(Dÿÿ ÿÿ ÿCDE1(6ÿ01&ÿ ÿÿ ÿ#&4(ÿ$E4FAÿ$DEH&P593ÿW(5(&ÿQD53ÿg Q hÿ@YÿCD9903D9ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ(E36ÿ5H&ÿI5896ÿf02AU56ÿ(Dÿ"&8954R5ÿP&1E&ÿ ÿÿ ÿ#&4(ÿ$E4FAÿ$DEH&P593ÿW Q ÿ@YÿQ&4E9T5F012ÿ9)&105ÿ ÿÿ ÿP&1E&ÿ(DÿGHD9035ÿP&1E&ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿf02AU56ÿÿaÿ513ÿÿ(E36ÿ779DP5Hÿ"D(0T0F5(0D1ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ35)Dÿ90P&ÿ(Dÿbÿ ÿC ÿ CD99&47D13&1F&ÿ ÿÿ ÿG9D)ÿG!ÿQ&2593012ÿ$0U&&RH6ÿG5(5H0(6ÿQ&7D9(ÿI56ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿBÿ E1&ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿG9D)ÿG!ÿQ&2593012ÿ$0U&&RH6ÿG5(5H0(6ÿQ&7D9(ÿ E1&ÿbSÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿG9D)ÿG!`ÿÿ$0U&&RH6ÿG5(5H0(6ÿQ&7D9(ÿ E1&ÿÿBÿ EH6ÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿG9D)ÿG!ÿQ&2593012ÿ&25Hÿ3P&9(04&)&1(ÿTD9ÿa544&12&9ÿÿ ÿÿÿ Q50Hÿ64(&)ÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ !"!#$%ÿ&'()0$1ÿ"2'3'45#$5'3ÿ6!($#"'3(ÿ7!55!#ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ5'%'8'3(ÿ93@!452!354ÿ5ÿ!@!#$(!ÿ !@!%A2!35ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ#$34A#5$5'3ÿ'4B#!5'3$#1ÿC#$35ÿD#ÿ9EFÿ7'(ÿ7!3"ÿ6$"ÿ ÿ ÿ935!#B)$3(!ÿ ÿÿGÿÿÿ !"!#$%ÿ#$34'5ÿ"2'3'45#$5'3ÿ#!($#"'3(HÿÿI'%5ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ#$34'5EP#'!35!"ÿ!@!%A2!35ÿI%$33'3(ÿC#$35ÿ ÿÿFÿ #2ÿQ!5#I%$3ÿP#%$3"ÿ6!($#"'3(ÿC#$35ÿI#A4$%ÿD#ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿR$5'3$%ÿB32'BÿI$#53!#4)'A4ÿD#ÿ933@$5'@!ÿAA#$B)!4ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ5ÿQS%5'E S#'4"'B5'3$%ÿT#"'3$5'3ÿ ÿÿ #5'B%!4ÿ6!%$5'3(ÿ5ÿQIPÿU#Vÿ ÿÿÿWXY``Yaÿcdeÿfghi`pÿcYÿXgepdÿXYYqrÿ ÿÿÿWsiqeah`tpuÿvgYppah`tpÿwehgÿfhxyhÿsdYY`rÿ ÿÿÿWX`Ygiqhÿhccegpÿÿeqepcgihÿsh ecrÿ ÿÿÿWX`YgiqhÿhccegpÿYgeÿYqhpcHÿÿQ$V'3(ÿ$2A$ÿ7$1ÿ$D!ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿcYÿh`tÿYgÿiterÿ ÿÿÿWsdYahpiÿfedÿiÿ`hcÿvicuÿyeg`YYyÿvYxyhÿshpÿÿ ÿÿ ÿXigxÿYcÿiqÿYÿErÿ ÿÿGÿWvhggY``aYYqÿweidYgdYYqÿY#V'3(ÿ5ÿ5AÿA!!"'3(ÿ$3"ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿvghpdeprÿ ÿÿ Q'4B!%%$3!S4ÿ ÿÿÿQIPÿI$(!4ÿ&'%%4#S()ÿTS351ÿI#A4!"ÿ7S"(!5ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ5)#S()ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿdgci`eÿÿWvhÿ`hpciÿeYhqpÿvfgÿhpceÿgyiqexihrÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ !"#$#ÿ

%&'&ÿ(&)01ÿ02ÿ34'5%&'ÿ(46)0&66ÿ5%&ÿ7&&5)01ÿ896ÿ9@A24'0&@ÿ95ÿBÿ9 7 ÿÿ ÿ ÿ "ÿ#ÿCC"!DBÿEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEÿ ÿÿÿÿÿFG"$#ÿ Bÿ CÿH"#IÿF"Iÿ ÿ PQBÿEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEÿ ÿÿÿÿ&R45QÿFS&'Tÿ 91ÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿ

Committee Reports

Meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on August 8 The CAC recommended the following:

 Appointing CAC members Rick Richmond (and Nicole Rice as alternate) as MPO representatives on TBARTA’s Citizens Advisory Committee;  Approval of the TIP Roll-Forward Amendment, for previously-funded FDOT projects that are being carried into the TIP that becomes effective October 1st;  Approval of the South Coast Greenway Connector Study;  Approval of transmitting comments on the West Busch Blvd Multimodal Safety Study;  Approval of the resolution of support for the Westshore Mobility Plan, by a vote of 7 – 5.

The CAC also received a report on Crash Modification Factors for Complete Street improvements from an FDOT consultant.

Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on August 20 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board:  TIP Roll-Forward Amendment;  South Coast Greenway Connector Study;  Westshore Mobility Plan resolution of support. The TAC was briefed on: o Complete Streets Crash Modification Factors; o North Alexander Street Corridor Land Use & Marketing Study; and was encouraged to send comments to FDOT on the proposed FDOT Strategic Intermodal System designations and 2045 Cost Feasible Plan recommendations.

Meeting of the Policy Committee on August 28 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board:  TIP Roll-Forward Amendment;  Letter of Comment on West Busch Blvd Multimodal Safety Study - with the change that the letter not ask for the 6-lane alternative to be removed from the report, but simply identified as inconsistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, unless it is a busway. The committee also discussed the TDCB’s concern Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org about stormwater drainage, and suggested that FDOT coordinate with the City [email protected] of Tampa and Hillsborough County, so that addressing stormwater and roadway 813 - 272 - 5940 needs doesn’t result in the roadway being torn up twice. 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

The committee also discussed: o FDOT Strategic Intermodal System facility designation changes, which primarily affect streets in Downtown Tampa; o FDOT’s 2045 Cost Feasible Plan, which will be presented to the committee later for consideration of sending a comment letter; o The 2018 Florida transportation earmarks veto list – this year, the earmarks can be absorbed by FDOT using unallocated funds, but in future, it is possible that projects might have to be removed from the Work Program to fund the earmarks- - including possibly removing MPO priority projects; o TMA Leadership Group Facilitation and Decision-Making – members discussed creating a one-MPO-one-vote decision-making mechanism and establishing a rotating chair.

Meeting of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on August 8 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board:

 West Tampa Multimodal Plan;  South Coast Greenway Connector Study;  West Busch Blvd Multimodal Safety Study Letter of Comment - members commented that the 4-lane section with a median should have landscaping and shade for pedestrians.  Westshore Mobility Plan resolution of support.

The BPAC was briefed on: o Complete Streets Crash Modification Factors. The group was very interested, and members asked, if you add lanes or otherwise decrease safety, can you get a CMF over 1.0? The report does show CMFs over 1.0, so this is true. o The group was happy to hear that the Courtney Campbell Causeway sidewalk gap is being addressed. FDOT is examining possible solutions for a complete path on the north side. o The Chair resigned from the BPAC. Elections will be held at the next meeting.

Meeting of the Livable Roadways Committee (LRC) on August 15 The committee approved and forwarded to the MPO Board:

 West Tampa Multimodal Plan;  South Coast Greenway Connector Study;  Westshore Mobility Plan The committee was briefed on: o Complete Streets Crash Modification Factors

The committee discussed o Bay to Bay Blvd under Old Business

Meeting of the School Transportation Working Group (STWG) on August 29 The working group held a special meeting and hosted the quarterly Info BBQ with Corporal Bullock from Pasco County’s Safety Town as the guest speaker. The group

is interested in a field trip to visit the site and develop a Hillsborough County Safety Town.

Meeting of the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board on August 24 The board approved and forwarded to the MPO Board:

 West Busch Blvd Multimodal Safety Study Letter of Comment – with the addition of a request to address the existing condition of hazardous water pooling on the roadway. The board also discussed that there is a need for a broader study on lowering speed limits for safety – including looking at how other cities such as New York have done that – and asked that the Policy Committee discuss the issue of lowering speeds to make our corridors safer for pedestrians.

The Board also approved the continued coordination contract with the Agency for Community Treatment Services (ACTS). In the last fiscal year, ACTS provided 20,737 one-way passenger trips for 1,462 unduplicated clients with 16 vehicles at an average cost of $17.12 per trip.

Meeting of the TBARTA MPO Chairs’ Coordinating Committee (CCC) Staff Directors on August 24 The MPO staff directors discussed: o Transmitting the updated priority lists for Regional Trails and the Transportation Regional Incentive Program to the FDOT district offices, along with the Resolution Supporting Preservation of Transit Right-of-Way in the I-4 Corridor. These items were adopted at the July meeting of the CCC and Central Florida MPO Alliance. o The MPOs leading the update of the priority list for Major Regional Projects, now that TBARTA is focusing on transit only. o Regional coordination on performance measure target-setting.

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Committee Appointments Presenter None – Consent Agenda Summary The Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) shall be responsible for making recommendations to the MPO, Hillsborough County, City of Tampa, City of Plant City, City of Temple Terrace, the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and others, on matters concerning the planning, implementation and maintenance of a comprehensive bikeway and pedestrian system. In addition, the BPAC shall be responsible for studying and making recommendations concerning the safety, security, and regulations pertaining to bicyclists and pedestrians. The following individual has been nominated by the BPAC to fill one of several Citizen-at-Large seats:

 Holly Simmons

The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) shall be responsible for providing information and overall community values and needs into the transportation planning program of the MPO; evaluating and proposing solutions from a citizen’s perspective concerning alternative transportation proposals and critical issues; providing knowledge gained through the CAC into local citizen group discussions and meetings; and establishing comprehension and promoting credibility for the MPO Program. The following update to membership:

 David J. Bailey, III, nominated by Commissioner Hagan  Diane Stull, nominated by THEA

The role of the TBARTA CAC includes providing region-oriented advice to the Authority regarding the development and implementation of a regional transit development plan, representing a wide range of stakeholder interests and community organizations, evaluating proposals and proposed solutions from a citizen's perspective, promoting public

Plan Hillsborough awareness and participation in the planning and implementation of planhillsborough.org TBARTA plans and help disseminate information to local citizen groups. [email protected] The Hillsborough MPO’s CAC has nominated the following as our 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd representative on the TBARTA CAC: 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602

 Rick Richmond (Primary)  Nicole Rice (Alternate)

The purpose of the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating Board (TDCB) is to assist the MPO in identifying local service needs and providing information, advice, and direction to the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) on the coordination of services to be provided to the transportation disadvantaged pursuant to Section 427.0157, Florida Statutes. The following citizen has been recommended for membership:

 Michelle Correll, representing Local Public Education  Angel Williams, representing Florida Department of Children and Families

Recommended Action That the MPO confirm the above appointments.

Prepared By Wanda West Attachments None

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item West Busch Boulevard Multimodal Safety Study Letter of Comment Presenter

FDOT Representative Summary FDOT District 7 staff will provide an update to the committees on the West Busch Boulevard Corridor Study from Dale Mabry Highway to Nebraska Avenue. The study kicked off earlier in 2017 and is expected to take 18 months to complete. FDOT has prepared a webpage for the public to learn more and leave comments. Several corridor alternatives have been developed, from no-build to adding lanes.

The attached letter summarizes concerns about expanding West Busch Blvd., and the effect on land use, vehicular speeds, and the safety of walkers and bicyclists. Recommended Action Support sending the attached letter regarding the study. Prepared By

Gena Torres, MPO staff Attachments • West Busch Boulevard Presentation

• Draft Letter of Comment, reflecting MPO committee input

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602 7/25/2018

West Busch Boulevard (SR 580) Corridor Study from North Dale Mabry Highway to North Nebraska Avenue Hillsborough County, Florida FDOT Financial Project ID Number: 435908‐1‐22‐01 Local Agency Coordination Meeting

Purpose of this meeting

1. Discuss draft typical section alternatives 2. Gauge agency interest in recommendations for further study which would require inter‐ agency coordination (JPA, maintenance agreements, etc.)

1 7/25/2018

AgendaAgenda 1. Introductions 2. Project Overview 3. Typical Section Alternatives 4. Inter‐agency Recommendations (Interim Design) 5. Other Recommendations

Introductions

2 7/25/2018

Project Overview

Project Study Area •3.3 miles •Within the city of Tampa and unincorporated Hillsborough County •Concurrent RRR project

BEGIN WEST BUSCH BLVD CORRIDOR STUDY END WEST BUSCH BLVD CORRIDOR STUDY

BEGIN WEST END WEST BUSCH BLVD BUSCH BLVD RRR PROJECT RRR PROJECT

3 7/25/2018

Study Purpose Achieve the Corridor Vision: “The Busch Boulevard corridor offers safe, comfortable and convenient access through and across the corridor for all users and all travel modes.”

PD&E Study Changes (implement typical section changes)

Interim Design Project Changes (implement spot improvements)

Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation Project (3R) Changes

We Busch Boulevard Corridor Study Are Here (identify the vision, recommendations & implementation plan)

Updated Study Schedule

•Began in March 2017 •Held Agency Project Kick‐off Meeting, 3 Project Advisory Group Meetings, & Public Visioning Workshop •Meet with local agencies to review draft alternatives and recommendations •PAG #4 – May 24, 2018 •Alternatives Public Meeting – June 2018 •Final Corridor Alternatives and Strategies Report – August 2018

4 7/25/2018

Long Term Recommendations: Typical Section Alternatives

Currently Developing Range of Alternatives

Alternative Description No‐Build Existing condition

4‐Lane Construct 4‐lane divided roadway without bike lanes, but with raised median, border width, and wide (8’) sidewalk to accommodate additional pedestrian demand

5‐Lane Construct a 5‐lane divided roadway with flush unrestricted median, bike/parking lanes, border width, 6’ sidewalks

6‐Lane Construct a 6‐lane divided roadway with raised median, bike lanes, border width, 6’ sidewalks

• Many variations are possible, but these alternatives provide a good range to receive feedback and further refine the concepts for the corridor vision

• To be presented at the Public Alternatives Meeting

• PD&E Alternative(s) could be all, some, or a variation of these alternatives

5 7/25/2018

Existing Conditions (no build) Segment 1 (4‐lane undivided w/sidewalk)

City of Tampa

Context Class: C3R - Suburban Residential

52,000 49,000 AADT AADT

Unincorporated Hillsborough County

Existing Conditions (no build) Segment 2 (4‐lane, TWLT, s/w gaps) City of Tampa

Context Class: C4 –Urban General

42,000 AADT Unincorporated Hillsborough County

6 7/25/2018

Existing Conditions (no build) Segment 3 (4‐lane w/sidewalk) City of Tampa

Chamberlin High School

Context Class: C3C - Suburban Commercial Unincorporated 43,000 Hillsborough County AADT

Existing Conditions (no build) Segment 4 (6‐lane, median)

City of Tampa

Context Class: C3C - Suburban Commercial Unincorporated 49,000 Hillsborough County AADT

7 7/25/2018

Alternative 1: 4 Lanes with Median and Wide Sidewalk on the North Side

(Existing R/W: 61’ – 100’)

Alternative 2: 4 Lanes with Center Two‐Way Left Turn Lane and Buffered Bike Lanes

(Existing R/W: 61’ – 100’)

8 7/25/2018

Potential Parallel Parking Option for Segment 2 (North Armenia Ave. to North Blvd.)

South side of Busch Boulevard 466 off‐street parking spaces existing 332 on & off‐street proposed 29% reduction

Width of parallel parking = buffered bike lane

City of Tampa code does not currently address cross/joint access and discourages commercial access from non‐arterial streets (Sec. 27‐ 283.12.(j)(1)).

To address the public interest in these matters, land development regulations include conditions or circumstances where nonconforming access features may be brought into conformance. Such conditions may include: • when new driveway permits are requested; • an increase in land use intensity; • substantial enlargements or improvements; • significant change in trip generation; and • as changes to roadway design allow. (p.1‐8)

Overlay requirements may address any issues of concern, such as joint access, parking lot cross access, reverse frontage, driveway spacing, and limitations on new driveways. (p. 1‐9)

Source: “Land Development and Subdivision Regulations that Support Access Management”, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, January 1994. Williams, Kristine M. https://www.cutr.usf.edu/oldpubs/pcm/files/Model %20Land%20Development%20and%20Subdivision%2 0Regulations%20that%20Support%20Access%20Man Image: Driveway agement.pdf Information Guide (FDOT 2008) p. 85

9 7/25/2018

Alternative 3: 6 Lanes with Median and Buffered Bike Lanes

(Existing R/W: 61’ – 100’)

Planning Consistency – 6 Lane Alternative • 2040 LRTP ≈ Need for 6/7 lanes on “Beyond 2040” Map (pg. 98) from Armenia Blvd. to North Blvd.

• Tampa Comprehensive Plan (effective date February 20, 2016) Constrained Roadways (physical constraints) ≈ Busch Blvd. from Dale Mabry Blvd. to North Blvd. constrained to 4 lanes ≈ “Page 151; MBY (Mobility) Policy 3.2.2: Constrained roadways… shall be eligible for… Dedicated transit lanes...” • Hillsborough County Corridor Preservation Plan (Map 25) shows preserved for 6 lanes/ 6 lanes enhanced through study limit

10 7/25/2018

Inter‐agency Recommendations (Interim Design)

Interim Design Project Recommendations

• Safety improvements at Dale Mabry off‐ramp • Turn lane extensions as feasible • Complete sidewalk gaps • Add signal and/or mid‐block crossing at Rome Circle or Willow Ave. • Leading pedestrian interval or ped‐only phase at North Blvd. • Add refuge islands or tighten curb radius at North Florida Ave. and North Nebraska Ave. • Add YOUR SPEED radar sign(s)

Potential additional improvements with local agreements include…

11 7/25/2018

Corridorwide Recommendations

• Add pedestrian lighting

• Interconnect signals to increase platooning ≈ Traffic signal speed signs

≈ Explore potential of dynamic signal timing and/or Traffic Signal Speed Sign setting signals to a 35 mph target speed MUTCD, Section 2H.03 Traffic Signal Speed Sign (I1‐1) ≈ City and county signals are not interconnected

Florida Friendly/ Pedestrian Deterrent Landscaping in Opportunity Areas

• Opportunity areas defined where: • At least one existing driveway per property accessible via left turn • At least 50‐ft. of turn lane provided in advance of the driveway

Example: 13th Street, Gainesville, FL

12 7/25/2018

High‐emphasis pedestrian crossings / hardscape intersections

Stamped Asphalt Crosswalk Colored Concrete Crosswalk

Colored Concrete Intersection Painted Intersection

Gunn Highway Sidewalk Gap

• County jurisdiction

N Dale Mabry Hwy Himes Ave Twin Lakes Blvd

13 7/25/2018

Mossvale Lane Extension + Intersection

• County land‐use jurisdiction

White Trout Lake Planned Subdivision Dale Mabry Hwy Himes Ave Twin Lakes Blvd

Other Recommendations

14 7/25/2018

Recommendations related to future transit/rail plans

• The CSX line runs parallel to the corridor along the south for most of the study limits • Are there any plans related to transit or the rail corridor that should be documented in this report?

Speed Management along Corridor

• Recommending further study of lowering the speed limit • Recommend school safety study to explore school zone designation • Speed reduction can be bolstered by: ≈ Urban form changes ≈ Increasing police enforcement ≈ Parallel parking (requires speed limit of 35 mph or less) ≈ Landscaping • Development/redevelopment requirement to provide landscaping along sidewalk can calm traffic and improve pedestrian environment

15 7/25/2018

Adopt an overlay district to support corridor vision

• Coordinate landscaping opportunities with development code • Set‐back for R/W preservation based on recommended alternative(s) • Reduced/revised parking requirements • Form‐based code to promote pedestrian environment City of Tampa Code Sec. 27‐238 Westshore Overlay District Table 238.c

Bicycle Master Plan/ Bicycle Network

• Overall regional bicycle connectivity benefits are limited • Bicycle routes defined at a regional level would help support the potential future investment of bicycle lanes on Busch Boulevard • Parallel route to Busch Blvd. may be preferable • MPO/County should lead

16 7/25/2018

Regional BEARSS AVE origin/destination planning study • To study the perceived "through traffic" along FLETCHER AVE the corridor between Dale Mabry Hwy and I‐275 • Limited east‐west corridors and existing congestion suggest the opportunity to address regional travel flows at a more regional level than within the limits of this corridor study

• MPO or FDOT should lead

SR 580 Corridor Lanes AADT Notes Bearss Avenue 4‐lane 54,000 3.8 miles north WATERS AVE Fletcher 4‐lane 23,500 Limited western Avenue connectivity SR 580 4‐lane 50,000 Waters Avenue 4‐lane 27,000 Limited eastern connectivity Hillsborough 6‐lane 51,500 2.6 miles south HILLSBOROUGH AVE Avenue

Commissioner September 5, 2018 Lesley “Les” Miller, Jr. Hillsborough County MPO Chairman

Councilman Harry Cohen City of Tampa MPO Vice Chairman Mr. Richard Moss

Paul Anderson Director of Development Port Tampa Bay Florida Department of Transportation David Mechanik HART 11201 N. McKinley Drive

Trent Green Tampa, FL 33612-6403 Planning Commission

Commissioner Ken Hagan Subject: West Busch Boulevard Corridor Study (FPN 435908-1-33-02) Hillsborough County

Commissioner Pat Kemp Dear Richard, Hillsborough County

Mayor Mel Jurado The MPO has appreciated the opportunity to be a member of the Project Advisory City of Temple Terrace Group for the West Busch Boulevard Corridor Study. We recognize that since the Joe Lopano Hillsborough County project began, the Department updated the FDOT Design Manual calling for context- Aviation Authority based criteria, putting the “right street in the right place.” Applying this new policy to

Mayor Rick A. Lott a project already underway is commendable! City of Plant City

Councilman Guido Maniscalco The study team has been responsive to our suggestions through the course of the City of Tampa study, such as extending public outreach to more of the community, updating the

Commissioner study website with the latest information, and allowing the discussion to continue Sandra Murman Hillsborough County regarding reducing speed on the road. We would like to share some additional thoughts. Cindy Stuart Hillsborough County School Board 6-lane alternative. With right of way impacts, and potentially high construction costs, Councilman Luis Viera West Busch Blvd is constrained from being widened to six general-purpose lanes, City of Tampa per the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. The MPO’s long range transportation plan Joseph Waggoner Expressway Authority (LRTP) is required by Florida law to be consistent with local comprehensive plans to

Commissioner the greatest extent possible, so such a widening would not be included in the LRTP. Stacy R. White Hillsborough County 5-lane alternative. The center lane in the 5-lane alternative was described at the Beth Alden, AICP Executive Director PAG meetings as not being a continuous, unrestricted, two-way turn lane. The report describes the center lane differently. If, as discussed at PAG meetings, center refuge islands will be considered in locations along the roadway -- preferably at mid-block crossing locations -- it should be noted in the report.

4-lane alternative. If on-road bicycle lanes are not able to be included in the 4-lane section, then the sidewalks/sidepaths should be at least 8-feet on both sides of Busch Boulevard. The reason for this is that bicyclists should travel in the same direction as the adjacent motorized traffic, even if they are using a sidewalk/sidepath, to prevent an unfortunately common type of crash. Leaving the sidewalk narrow on one side of the road presumes that cyclists will cross the road – which presents its own risks -- to use the wider sidewalk on the opposite side – and will therefore ride

Plan Hillsborough counter-flow to motorized traffic. In addition, it is vitally important that the planhillsborough.org sidewalk/sidepath be clearly delineated where it crosses side streets and driveways. [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th Floor Tampa, FL, 33602

No build. In segments where the lane widths are 12’, reducing to 11’ will give slightly more buffer distance from the roadway for sidewalk users. Leading Pedestrian Intervals at intersections should be installed for safer crossing, and the recommendations around Chamberlain High School, documented in the MPO’s School Safety Study, should be included: improved lighting, curb ramps, signal phasing to disallow permissive left turns, and enhanced crosswalks.

Level of service. One of the most influential statements heard at PAG meetings has been that the motor vehicle level of service fails under ALL alternatives. This should be clearly stated in the corridor report. As with many arterials through urban communities, the ability to improve motor-vehicle level of service in the long term is impractical; this constrained condition clarifies why safety and non-motorized modes are an important focus of the study. Data on the level of service for walking, cycling, and transit, now and in the future would be a helpful addition to the report. As mentioned previously, the MPO is happy to supply those data, consistent with FDOT Q/LOS guidelines.

Speeds and Context Classification. With speed often being the determining factor between life and death in a crash, a reduction in speed is paramount. Therefore, classification of the School Segment from North Boulevard to N. Florida Avenue as Suburban Commercial should be reconsidered as Urban General to allow for the reduction from the current 45mph and 40mph speeds to a 35mph speed. If the context classification is based on the criteria for average block length, the presence of the railroad -- which does not allow for traditional block lengths -- should be a unique exception for this urban community.

Land use. We fully agree with the report that an overlay district would help increase opportunities for urban infill and redevelopment. Busch Boulevard to the east has been recognized by the Innovation Alliance as a prime area for creating a hub of education and employment opportunities. A potential gateway has been identified at the interchange of I-275 and Busch Boulevard. These revitalization plans will offer local residents places of employment and commerce in proximity of comfortable walking and cycling trips, putting less burden on the roadway network.

Lastly, our Policy Committee members suggested coordinating with city and county staff responsible for stormwater improvements prior to starting construction.

Plan Hillsborough is uniquely situated to coordinate plans for land use, redevelopment and mobility needs. We welcome the opportunity to work with you on solutions. Please let us know how we can be of service.

Sincerely,

Beth Alden, AICP MPO Executive Director

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item TIP Roll-Forward Amendment Presenter

Joseph Price, MPO Staff Summary The annual roll-forward amendment to the adopted Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) reconciles differences between the TIP -- drafted in May -- and the fiscal year-end close-out of the Florida Department of Transportation’s Work Program. The recently adopted FY 2018/19 through 2022/23 TIP will take effect on October 1, 2019. Until then, the FY 2017/18 through 2021/22 TIP is used by FHWA and FTA for authorization of funds. This amendment is a routine, annual process to assist Hillsborough MPO in fully utilizing funds that were not committed as anticipated in the previous fiscal year and that should now be added to the first fiscal year of the new TIP.

The attached reports show the projects which were in the previous fiscal year and which were not authorized before the June 30th fiscal year end. They now must be

incorporated into the new MPO TIP.

This amendment ensures that year one of the TIP, adopted by the Board on June 12, 2018, matches year one of the FDOT Work Program, with no funds left on the table.

Recommended Action Adoption of the roll-forward amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program for FY 2018/19 through FY 2022/23.

Prepared By Joseph Price, MPO Staff Attachments • Roll-Forward Funding Summary • Comparative Report

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY 2018/19 through 2022/23 Difference between Amended and Roll-Forward Funding Summary Adopted FY19 Amended Funding Amended Adopted FY19 Amendment FPN AmendNum WorkDesc Description 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 5 Year Total 5 Year Total Cost Change 257862 3 1 ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT CR 580/SAM ALLEN RD FM W OF SR39/BUCHMAN HWY TO E OF PARK RD $1,663,389 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,663,389 $0 $1,663,389 258643 1 2 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT I-275/I-4 FROM N HILLSBOROUGH RIVER TO DOWNTOWN INTERCHANGE $322,383 $0 $0 $0 $0 $322,383 $0 $322,383 412531 1 3 INTERCHANGE (NEW) I-275 (SR 93) FM WEST OF SR 60/MEMORIAL TO N OF SPRUCE STREET $2,201,636 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,201,636 $1,200,000 $1,001,636 258413 1 4 ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT I-275 (SR 93) FROM N OF US 41 TO N OF LIVINGSTON $1,845 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,845 $0 $1,845 258415 1 5 INTERCHANGE (NEW) I-4/SELMON EXPRESSWY FROM S OF SELMON EXPRSSWY TO I-4 $439 $0 $0 $0 $0 $439 $0 $439 405492 8 6 NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION CR 581 (BB DOWNS BL) FROM COMMERCE PALMS DR TO DONA MICHELLE DR $1,974 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,974 $0 $1,974 410909 2 7 ITS FREEWAY MANAGEMENT I-75 (SR 93A) FROM SR 582 (FOWLER AVE) TO N BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD $653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $653 $0 $653 410909 9 8 ITS FREEWAY MANAGEMENT I-75 (SR 93A) FROM CR 581 (BB DOWNS BL) TO SR 56 $203 $0 $0 $0 $0 $203 $0 $203 418685 1 9 URBAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS SR 585(21ST/22ND ST) FROM SR 60 (ADAMO DRIVE) TO SR 600 (HILLSBOROUGH) $144,336 $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,336 $0 $144,336 421524 1 10 RIGID PAVEMENT REHABILITATION US 92 (SR600/DMABRY) FROM KENNEDY BLVD TO HILLSBOROUGH AVE RAMPS $999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $999 $0 $999 423088 1 11 RESURFACING SR 616 FROM E OF OBRIEN ST TO DALE MABRY HWY $926 $0 $0 $0 $0 $926 $0 $926 425335 1 12 RESURFACING SR 574 (MLK BLVD) FROM E OF NEBRASKA AVE TO N 42ND STREET $11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 $0 $11 427159 1 13 RESURFACING US92/SR580/SR600 FROM E OF BENJAMIN RD TO E OF WESTSHORE BLVD $125 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125 $0 $125 428953 1 14 INTERCHANGE - ADD LANES I-75 (SR 93A) FM WB SR60 ENTRANCE RAMP TO S OF CSX RR/CR 574 $451,161 $0 $0 $0 $0 $451,161 $1 $451,160 434317 1 15 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT CR 582 (KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD) OVER ITCHEPACKESASSA CREEK BR # 104608 $20,396 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,396 $0 $20,396 434848 2 16 TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE US 41 AT GIBSONTON DRIVE $186,266 $0 $386,759 $0 $0 $573,025 $386,759 $186,266 436495 1 17 RESURFACING SR 674/SUN CITY CENTER FROM E OF COMMERCIAL CTR DR TO E OF US 301/SR43 $1,438,755 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,438,755 $0 $1,438,755 436713 1 18 SIDEWALK LUTZ LAKE FERN RD TRAIL CON FM STILL WOOD DR TO UPPER TAMPA BAY TRAIL $1,000 $109,200 $0 $0 $0 $110,200 $109,200 $1,000 437242 1 19 SIDEWALK CYPRESS CREEK ELEM FROM E OF SALIDA DEL SOL DR TO E OF BETH SHIELDS WY $11,470 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,470 $0 $11,470 437244 1 20 SIDEWALK STOWERS ELEM SCHOOL FR GENTLE WOOD AVE TO S OF BARRINGTON STOWERS DR $10,935 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,935 $0 $10,935 437247 1 21 SIDEWALK SUMMERFIELD ELEM SCHOOL HERITAGE GRN PKWY TO E OF HERITAGE GRN PKWY $10,915 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,915 $0 $10,915 437248 1 22 SIDEWALK OLD BIG BEND RD FROM E OF COVINGTON GARDEN DR TO E OF EAST BAY HS $10,924 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,924 $0 $10,924 437646 1 23 ADD TURN LANE(S) SR 573/S DALE MABRY HWY FROM PINEWOOD ST TO GANDY BLVD $510,650 $0 $953,226 $0 $0 $1,463,876 $1,462,876 $1,000 439691 1 24 SIDEWALK MORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL VARIOUS LOCATIONS AROUND SCHOOL $1,000 $454,150 $0 $0 $0 $455,150 $454,150 $1,000 439692 1 25 SIDEWALK ALAFIA ST & VERN STREET FROM NUNDY AVE TO GIBSONTON DR $1,000 $281,003 $0 $0 $0 $282,003 $281,003 $1,000 439696 1 26 SIDEWALK 21ST AVE FROM 66TH ST TO 62ND ST $1,000 $264,269 $0 $0 $0 $265,269 $264,269 $1,000 408109 1 27 CAPITAL FOR FIXED ROUTE HART SECTION 5307 $74,705,900 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $140,818,860 $82,641,200 $58,177,660 434366 1 28 PURCHASE VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT HART SECTION 5339 CAPITAL ACTIVITIES $6,829,972 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,829,972 $0 $6,829,972 440401 1 29 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS EMERGENCY STORM DEBRIS/MOT/SERVICE PARTROL/EMERG REPAIRS $5,052 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,052 $0 $5,052 TOTALS $88,535,315 $17,636,862 $17,868,225 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $157,096,882 $86,799,458 $70,297,424

Page 1 of 1

Annual Roll-Forward Amendment

COMPARATIVE REPORT

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) FY2018/19 through 2022/23

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602 FDOT Adopted FY 2017/18 - 2021/22 TIP

Item Number: 257862 3 Description: CR 580/SAM ALLEN RD FM W OF SR39/BUCHMAN HWY TO E OF PARK RD LRTP: 124 Extra Description: 2 TO 4 LANES Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Project Length: 2.018 *NON-SIS* Fund <2018 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 >2022 All Years PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial SU $2,482,457 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,482,457 Initial ACSA $208,998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,998 Initial DDR $510,265 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $510,265 SA $277,771 $5,807 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $283,578 Totals: $3,479,491 $5,807 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,485,298 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT SU $840,364 $2,380,020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,220,384 ACSU $5,891 $2,725 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,616 Totals: $846,255 $2,382,745 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,229,000 CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT SA $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 SU $0 $22,216,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,216,632 Initial CM $0 $1,635,115 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,635,115 Initial SU $0 $2,284,747 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,284,747 Totals: $0 $26,137,494 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,137,494 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial ACSU $43,157 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,157 Initial SU $131,923 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $131,923 Initial DDR $50,739 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,739 Initial ACSA $268,853 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $268,853 Totals: $494,672 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $494,672 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial LF $272,931 $5,150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,422,931 Initial EB $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 ACSU $0 $198,173 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $198,173 Initial ACSA $240,975 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,975 SU $28,600 $773,227 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $801,827

1 FDOT Adopted FY 2017/18 - 2021/22 TIP

Totals: $572,506 $6,121,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,693,906 Item 257862 3 Totals: $5,392,924 $34,647,446 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,040,370

Item Number: 437242 1 Description: CYPRESS CREEK ELEM FROM E OF SALIDA DEL SOL DR TO E OF BETH SHIELDS WY LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Extra Description: CONSTRUCT 5' SIDEWALK Type of Work: SIDEWALK Project Length: 0.497 *NON-SIS* Fund <2018 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 >2022 All Years PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH CO BOARD OF COUNTY Initial TALU $19,030 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,030 Totals: $19,030 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,030 CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH CO BOARD OF COUNTY Initial TALU $0 $130,252 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,252 Initial TALT $0 $231,549 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $231,549 Totals: $0 $361,801 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $361,801 Item 437242 1 Totals: $19,030 $361,801 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $380,831

2 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 1 Item Number: 257862 3 Description: CR 580/SAM ALLEN RD FM W OF SR39/BUCHMAN HWY TO E OF PARK RD LRTP: 124 Related Project: 2578621 Extra Description: Project Length: 2.018 *NON-SIS* Type of Work ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified ACCM $886,291 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $886,291 Modified ACSA $9 $199,991 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Modified ACSU $12,793,928 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,793,928 Modified CM $748,824 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $748,824 Modified DS $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 Modified LF $107,075 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107,075 Modified SU $9,915,202 $133,919 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,049,121 Totals: $24,601,329 $333,910 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,935,239 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified ACSA $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 DDR $50,739 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,739 Modified SA $268,852 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $268,852 SU $175,079 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,079 Totals: $494,671 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $494,671 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT ACSA $208,998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,998 DDR $510,265 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $510,265 Modified SA $334,144 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $334,144 Modified SU $2,482,457 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,482,457 Totals: $3,535,864 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,535,864 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified ACSA $229,593 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $229,593 ACSU $198,173 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $198,173 EB $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 Modified LF $5,626,655 $546,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,172,735 Modified SA $11,382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,382 Modified SU $652,773 $149,054 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $801,827 Totals: $6,748,576 $695,134 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,443,710 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT ACSA $906,405 $349,599 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,256,004

3 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Modified ACSU $7,127 $1,623 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 Modified SA $1,692,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,692,000 Modified SU $3,718,871 $283,123 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,001,994 Totals: $6,324,403 $634,345 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,958,748 Item 257862 3 Totals: $41,704,843 $1,663,389 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,368,232

4 FDOT FY2015/16 - 2019/20 TIP

Item Number: 258643 1 Description: I-275/I-4 FROM N HILLSBOROUGH RIVER TO DOWNTOWN INTERCHANGE *SIS* Related Project: 2583981 Extra Description: OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS RAMP MODIFICATIONS/ADVANCED RW TIS Type of Work: INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT LRTP: 1005 Lanes Existing /Improved/Added: / / Fund <2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 >2020 All Years PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT IM $9,384,539 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,384,539 DDR $22,407 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,407 DS $520,777 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $520,777 Totals: $9,927,723 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,927,723 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT DS $1,337,917 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,337,917 DDR $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 BNDS $1,190,586 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,190,586 BNIR $5,824,894 $24,082,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,906,894 BNIR $10,798,154 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,798,154 NHAC $1,750,237 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,750,237 IMAC $1,357,895 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,357,895 NH $1,265,719 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,265,719 IM $7,735,084 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,735,084 DIH $1,076,662 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,076,662 DS $77,218 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,218 DIH $18,910 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,910 DDR $5,923,983 $0 $1,087,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,011,883 Totals: $38,373,259 $24,087,000 $1,092,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,553,159 CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT IMAC $918,189 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $918,189 IM $56,237,012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,237,012 DDR $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 DS $2,050,182 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,050,182 NHAC $10,065,549 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,065,549 DI $159,024 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $159,024 NH $21,844,992 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,844,992 Totals: $91,674,948 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,674,948 CONTRACT INCENTIVES - MANAGED BY FDOT NHAC $2,620,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,620,000 Totals: $2,620,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,620,000

5 FDOT FY2015/16 - 2019/20 TIP

ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT DS $181,843 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $181,843 Totals: $181,843 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $181,843 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT NHAC $253,859 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $253,859 NH $3,706,343 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,706,343 DS $19,903 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,903 DDR $900,597 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $900,597 Totals: $4,880,702 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,880,702 Item 258643 1 Totals: $147,658,475 $24,087,000 $1,092,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,838,375

Item Number: 433535 5 Description: I275/SR93 NB FLYOVER FROM SR 60 EB TO I-275 NB *SIS* Related Project: 2583981 Extra Description: Type of Work: INTERCHANGE RAMP (NEW) LRTP: 1093 Lanes Existing /Improved/Added: / / Fund <2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 >2020 All Years PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT ACNP $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,433,000 $0 $0 $3,433,000 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,433,000 $0 $0 $3,433,000 CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT STED $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,593,307 $45,593,307 DIH $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $368,400 $368,400 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45,961,707 $45,961,707 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT DEM $0 $0 $605,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $605,000 Totals: $0 $0 $605,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $605,000 Item 433535 5 Totals: $0 $0 $605,000 $0 $3,433,000 $0 $45,961,707 $49,999,707

6 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 2 Item Number: 258643 1 Description: I-275/I-4 FROM N HILLSBOROUGH RIVER TO DOWNTOWN INTERCHANGE LRTP: 1005 Related Project: 2583981 Extra Description: Project Length: 0.406 *SIS* Type of Work INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT DDR $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 DI $159,024 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $159,024 Modified DS $1,979,445 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,979,445 IM $56,237,012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,237,012 IMAC $918,189 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $918,189 NH $21,844,992 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,844,992 NHAC $10,065,549 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,065,549 Totals: $91,604,211 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,604,211 CONTRACT INCENTIVES - MANAGED BY FDOT NHAC $2,620,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,620,000 Totals: $2,620,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,620,000 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT DS $181,842 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $181,842 Totals: $181,842 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $181,842 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT DDR $22,407 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,407 DS $1,209,444 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,209,444 IM $9,384,539 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,384,539 Totals: $10,616,390 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,616,390 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT DDR $900,594 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $900,594 DS $19,903 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,903 NH $3,706,343 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,706,343 NHAC $253,859 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $253,859 Totals: $4,880,699 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,880,699 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified BNDS $1,158,660 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,158,660 Modified BNIR $21,268,590 $322,383 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,590,973 Modified DDR $6,585,188 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,585,188

7 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

DI $27,492 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,492 DIH $1,431,966 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,431,966 Modified DS $1,524,468 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,524,468 Modified IM $7,722,386 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,722,386 IMAC $1,357,888 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,357,888 NH $1,265,718 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,265,718 NHAC $1,750,236 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,750,236 Totals: $44,092,592 $322,383 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,414,975 Item 258643 1 Totals: $153,995,734 $322,383 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,318,117

8 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Adopted Adopted Date: 6/12/2018 Item Number: 412531 1 Description: I-275 (SR 93) FM WEST OF SR 60/MEMORIAL TO N OF SPRUCE STREET LRTP: 1093 Related Project: 2583981 Extra Description: INTERSTATE MODIFICATION SECTION 4 Project Length: 3.812 *SIS* Type of Work INTERCHANGE (NEW) Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $36,026 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,026 Initial DI $0 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 Totals: $36,026 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,236,026 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $128,398 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,398 Initial DIH $302,147 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $302,147 Initial DS $3,219,508 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,219,508 Initial ACSU $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Initial EB $1,050,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,050,000 Initial SU $7,993,129 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,993,129 Initial DEM $502,739 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $502,739 Initial DS $1,336,274 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,336,274 Totals: $15,532,195 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,532,195 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $18,434 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,434 Initial DIH $6,562 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,562 Initial DS $1,908,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908,700 Totals: $1,933,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,933,696 Item 412531 1 Totals: $17,501,917 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,701,917

9 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 3 Item Number: 412531 1 Description: I-275 (SR 93) FM WEST OF SR 60/MEMORIAL TO N OF SPRUCE STREET LRTP: 1093 Related Project: 2583981 Extra Description: Project Length: 3.812 *SIS* Type of Work INTERCHANGE (NEW) Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $36,026 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,026 Initial DI $0 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 Totals: $36,026 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,236,026 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified ACSU $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Initial DDR $128,398 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,398 Initial DEM $502,739 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $502,739 Modified DIH $305,511 $1,636 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $307,147 Modified DS $4,570,476 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,570,476 Initial EB $1,050,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,050,000 Initial SU $7,993,129 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,993,129 Totals: $14,550,253 $1,001,636 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,551,889 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $18,434 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,434 Initial DIH $6,562 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,562 Initial DS $1,908,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908,700 Totals: $1,933,696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,933,696 Item 412531 1 Totals: $16,519,975 $2,201,636 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,721,611

10 HILLSBOROUGH Five Year Final Draft Tentative Work Program FY July 1, 2010 Through June 30, 2015 District Seven Florida Department of Transportation April 13, 2010

Facility Item No. Phase Fund 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

FPN: 2583985 I-275 (SR 93) DSB NHAC 0 0 0 250,380,008 0 FROM SR 60 (MEMORIAL HWY) TO HIMES AVE PE NHAC 0 0 0 972,000 0 DESCRIPTION: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT PROJECT LENGTH: 2.083MI LRTP PROJECT: H742 RRU LF 0 0 0 331,059 0 NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND GOES WITH 258399 2 RRU NHAC 0 0 0 331,059 0

Total: 0 0 0 252,014,126 0

FPN: 2583992 I-275 (SR 93) DSB NHAC 0 0 0 138,292,368 0 FROM HIMES AVE TO HILLSBOROUGH RIVER PE NHAC 0 0 0 536,000 0 DESCRIPTION: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT PROJECT LENGTH: 2.053MI LRTP PROJECT: H746 SOUTHBOUND GOES WITH 258398 5

Total: 0 0 0 138,828,368 0

FPN: 2584131 I-275 (SR 93) RRU NHAC 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 FROM N OF US 41 TO 2MILES N OF LIVINGSTON CST NHAC 0 22,802,976 0 0 0 DESCRIPTION: ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT PROJECT LENGTH: 3.241MI LRTP PROJECT: H795 4 TO 6 LANES INTERIM (TO S OF SR 56)

Total: 0 23,802,976 0 0 0

PDE-Project Development Environment; PE-Preliminary Engineering; ROW-Right of Way; CST-Construction; RRU-Rail Road/Utilities; INC-Incentive; ENV-Environmental Mitigation; CAP-Capital Grant; OPS-Operations Grant; LAR-Local Advance Reimbursement; DSB-Design Build; ADM-Administration; PLN-Planning

11 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 4 Item Number: 258413 1 Description: I-275 (SR 93) FROM N OF US 41 TO N OF LIVINGSTON LRTP: Related Project: 2584131 Extra Description:

Project Length: 2.858 *SIS* Type of Work ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMN T Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DC $509 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $509 Modified DDR $552,383 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $552,383 Modified DI $423,278 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $423,278 Modified DIH $13,496 $1,845 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,341 Modified DS $34,417 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,417 Modified NH $13,882,431 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,882,431 Modified NHPP $44,765 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,765 Totals: $14,951,279 $1,845 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,953,124 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DDR $16,812 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,812 Modified NH $581,662 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $581,662 Totals: $598,474 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $598,474 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DDR $710 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $710 Modified DIH $9,350 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,350 Modified DS $2,429 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,429 Modified NH $1,387,489 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,387,489 Modified NHAC $1,018,166 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,018,166 Totals: $2,418,144 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,418,144 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DIH $98,725 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $98,725 Modified NH $2,194,874 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,194,874 Totals: $2,293,599 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,293,599 Item 258413 1 Totals: $20,261,496 $1,845 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,263,341

12 FY 2013/14 - 2017/18 TIP

Item Number: 258415 1 Description: I‐4/SELMON EXPRESSWY FROM S OF SELMON EXPRSSWY TO I‐4 *SIS* District: 07 County: HILLSBOROUGH Type of Work: INTERCHANGE (NEW) Roadway ID: 10190000 Beginning Point: 8.49 Project Length: 2.207 LRTP: H825 Ending Point: 9.403 Lanes Existing /Improved/Added: 8/ 0/ 0 Fund <2014 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 >2018 All Years Preliminary Engineering ‐ Managed by FDOT PKYI $145,792 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $145,792 TIMP $4,291,459 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,291,459 NH $192,973 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,973 DIH $533,205 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $533,205 EB $4,037,177 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,037,177 NHAC $18,707,438 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,707,438 PKYI $295,364 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $295,364 DDR $33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $33 DS $111,433 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,433 LF $2,791,351 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,791,351 HPP $6,362,812 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,362,812 LFP $24,687 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,687 CIGP $4,025,312 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,025,312 DIS $6,050,876 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,050,876 Preliminary Engineering Totals: $47,569,912 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,569,912 Railroad and Utilities ‐ Managed by FDOT EBNH $1,198,086 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,198,086 NH $2,984,699 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,984,699 NHAC $3,669,990 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,669,990 DDR $2,425,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,425,000 DS $372,899 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $372,899 DSB1 $1,314,527 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,314,527 DSB1 $2,686,016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,686,016 DS $1,388,076 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,388,076 DDR $3,364,093 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,364,093 Railroad and Utilities Totals: $19,403,386 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,403,386 Right of Way ‐ Managed by FDOT LF $2,153,846 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,153,846 DSB1 $4,956,939 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,956,939 BRRP $25,618 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,618 NHAC $15,921,258 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,921,258 DSB1 $2,932,456 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,932,456 DS $53,710 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $53,710

13 FY 2013/14 - 2017/18 TIP

BNDS $525,582 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $525,582 NCPD $1,825,999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,825,999 BNIR $25,144,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,144,567 Right of Way Totals: $53,539,975 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $53,539,975 Construction ‐ Managed by FDOT DC $2,056 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,056 DDR $349,988 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $349,988 DIH $1,286,139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,286,139 DS $625,571 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $625,571 LF $830,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $830,000 DDR $5,661,450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,661,450 DS $6,231 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,231 DDR $11,820,720 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,820,720 LFP $20,173,085 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,173,085 S112 $841,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $841,500 FSSU $28,804,102 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,804,102 FSF1 $76,229,747 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $76,229,747 NHPP $0 $4,124,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,124,000 NH $24,359,629 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,359,629 DI $4,733,031 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,733,031 ACSA $1,102,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,102,000 HPP $143,057 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $143,057 NHAC $133,954,345 $63,570,026 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $197,524,371 EBNH $180,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 PKBD $80,000,001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000,001 EB $863,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $863,000 HPP $1,533,214 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,533,214 TIMP $2,051,515 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,051,515 PKYI $5,162,392 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,162,392 NCPD $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 S117 $256,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,780 Construction Totals: $400,969,554 $67,694,026 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $468,663,580 Grants and Miscellaneous ‐ Managed by FDOT DI $650,277 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,277 NHAC $16,729,409 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,729,409 DSB1 $731,320 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $731,320 DSB1 $1,555,678 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,555,678 DI $3,398,558 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,398,558 DDR $206,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $206,500 NHAC $262,581 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $262,581 DS $550,711 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550,711

14 FY 2013/14 - 2017/18 TIP

ACNP $7,534,501 $650,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,184,501 Grants and Miscellaneous Totals: $31,619,535 $650,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,269,535 Item 258415 1 Totals: $553,102,362 $68,344,026 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $621,446,388

Item Number: 258415 2 Description: I‐4/SELMON EXPRESSWY FROM 7TH AVE TO I‐4 *SIS* District: 07 County: HILLSBOROUGH Type of Work: INTERCHANGE (NEW) Roadway ID: 10190000 Beginning Point: 8.49 Project Length: 0.913 LRTP: H825 Ending Point: 9.403 Lanes Existing /Improved/Added: 8/ 0/ 0 Fund <2014 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 >2018 All Years Preliminary Engineering ‐ Managed by FDOT HPP $60,002 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,002 DIS $5,030,701 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,030,701 S115 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 S117 $2,459,820 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,459,820 DS $103,120 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $103,120 NHAC $7,765,055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,765,055 Preliminary Engineering Totals: $17,418,698 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,418,698 Railroad and Utilities ‐ Managed by FDOT NHAC $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 DSB1 $91,241 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,241 DS $471,021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $471,021 Railroad and Utilities Totals: $687,262 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $687,262 Right of Way ‐ Managed by FDOT DSB1 $7,319,180 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,319,180 DIH $10,096 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,096 Right of Way Totals: $7,329,276 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,329,276 Construction ‐ Managed by FDOT DIS $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 DS $9,136 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,136 Construction Totals: $9,137 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,137 Grants and Miscellaneous ‐ Managed by FDOT NHAC $2,446,124 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,446,124 ACNP $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 DI $101,956 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $101,956 Grants and Miscellaneous Totals: $2,548,080 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,648,080 Item 258415 2 Totals: $27,992,453 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,092,453

15 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/15/2018 Amendment Number: 5 Item Number: 258415 1 Description: I-4/SELMON EXPRESSWY FROM S OF SELMON EXPRSSWY TO I-4 LRTP: Related Project: 2584151 Extra Description: Project Length: 7.732 *SIS* Type of Work INTERCHANGE (NEW) Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT DC $2,056 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,056 Modified DDR $20,666,324 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,666,324 Modified DI $14,328,94 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,328,941 Modified DIH $1,590,545 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,590,545 Modified DS $6,869,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,869,564 Modified EB $862,993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $862,993 EBNH $180,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 FSF1 $76,229,745 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $76,229,745 FSSU $28,804,101 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,804,101 Modified HPP $2,590,463 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,590,463 Modified LF $837,825 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $837,825 Modified LFP $20,173,085 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,173,085 NCPD $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 NH $24,473,219 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,473,219 Modified NHPP $217,179,556 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $217,179,556 PKBD $80,000,001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000,001 Modified PKYI $929,927 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $929,927 Modified SA $1,337,451 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,337,451 Modified S112 $841,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $841,500 S117 $256,781 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,781 Modified TIMP $2,203,231 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,203,231 Totals: $500,357,309 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,357,309 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DDR $206,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $206,500 Modified DI $4,048,835 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,048,835 Modified DS $1,050,711 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,050,711 Modified DSB1 $2,286,998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,286,998 Modified NHAC $15,365,729 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,365,729 NHPP $19,458,572 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,458,572 Totals: $42,417,345 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,417,345 P D & E - MANAGED BY FDOT

16 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

PKYI $501,757 $439 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $502,196 Totals: $501,757 $439 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $502,196 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT CIGP $4,025,312 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,025,312 DDR $33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $33 DIH $533,203 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $533,203 DIS $6,050,876 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,050,876 Modified DS $103,021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $103,021 EB $4,037,177 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,037,177 HPP $6,362,812 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,362,812 LF $2,791,351 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,791,351 LFP $24,687 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,687 NH $192,973 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,973 NHAC $18,707,437 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,707,437 Modified PKYI $263,126 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $263,126 TIMP $4,291,459 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,291,459 Totals: $47,383,467 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,383,467 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DDR $4,140,104 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,140,104 Modified DS $1,780,379 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,780,379 Modified DSB1 $3,690,305 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,690,305 Modified EBNH $1,948,086 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,948,086 Modified NH $2,984,699 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,984,699 Modified NHAC $6,810 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,810 Modified NHPP $3,663,180 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,663,180 Modified TIMP $521,701 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $521,701 Totals: $18,735,264 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,735,264 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified BNDS $525,582 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $525,582 Modified BNIR $25,144,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,144,567 Modified BRRP $25,618 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,618 Modified DS $53,710 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $53,710 Modified DSB1 $8,001,876 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,001,876 Modified LF $2,153,846 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,153,846 Modified NCPD $1,825,999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,825,999 Modified NHAC $15,921,258 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,921,258 Totals: $53,652,456 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $53,652,456 Item 258415 1 Totals: $663,047,598 $439 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $663,048,037

17 FDOT Adopted FY 2014/15 - 2018/19 TIP

Item Number: 405492 8 Description: CR 581 (BB DOWNS BL) FROM COMMERCE PALMS DR TO DONA MICHELLE DR *NON‐SIS* Related Project: 4054921 Extra Description: Type of Work: NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION Roadway ID: 10590000 Beginning Point: 7.121 Project Length: 0.99 LRTP: H305 Ending Point: 8.111 Lanes Existing /Improved/Added: 4/ 4/ 0 Fund <2015 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 >2019 All Years RAILROAD & UTILITES ‐ MANAGED BY FDOT NA‐F $208,710 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,710 Totals: $208,710 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,710 CONSTRUCTION ‐ MANAGED BY FDOT NA‐F $1,727,673 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,727,673 NA‐L $2,175,354 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,175,354 NA‐S $1,119,382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,119,382 Totals: $5,022,409 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,022,409 Item 405492 8 Totals: $5,231,119 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,231,119

Project 4054921 Totals: $129,890,471 $11,854,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $141,744,571

18 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 6 Item Number: 405492 8 Description: CR 581 (BB DOWNS BL) FROM COMMERCE PALMS DR TO DONA MICHELLE DR LRTP: H305 Related Project: 4054921 Extra Description: Project Length: 0.99 *NON-SIS* Type of Work NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DDR $21,878 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,878 Modified EB $48,486 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $48,486 Modified LF $1,014,510 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,014,510 Modified LFP $1,077,504 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,077,504 Modified SA $1,783,623 $1,974 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,785,597 Modified SU $552,115 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $552,115 Modified TRIP $1,077,504 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,077,504 Totals: $5,575,620 $1,974 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,577,594 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified SA $168,020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,020 Totals: $168,020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,020 Item 405492 8 Totals: $5,743,640 $1,974 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,745,614

19 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 7 Item Number: 410909 2 Description: I-75 (SR 93A) FROM SR 582 (FOWLER AVE) TO N BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD LRTP: Related Project: 4109091 Extra Description: Project Length: 8.729 *SIS* Type of Work ITS FREEWAY MANAGEMENT Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $315,433 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $315,433 Initial DI $14,744 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,744 Initial DIH $346 $653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $999 Initial DS $34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34 Initial NH $1,279,276 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,279,276 Initial NHPP $16,417 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,417 Totals: $1,626,250 $653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,626,903 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $1,184 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,184 Initial DIH $7,476 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,476 Totals: $8,660 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,660 Item 410909 2 Totals: $1,634,910 $653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,635,563

20 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 8 Item Number: 410909 9 Description: I-75 (SR 93A) FROM CR 581 (BB DOWNS BL) TO SR 56 LRTP: Related Project: 4109091 Extra Description: Project Length: 3.056 *SIS* Type of Work ITS FREEWAY MANAGEMENT Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DI $10,418 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,418 Initial DS $94,403 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,403 Initial NH $971,135 $203 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $971,338 Initial NHPP $4,535 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,535 Totals: $1,080,491 $203 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,080,694 Item 410909 9 Totals: $1,080,491 $203 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,080,694

21 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 9 Item Number: 418685 1 Description: SR 585(21ST/22ND ST) FROM SR 60 (ADAMO DRIVE) TO SR 600 (HILLSBOROUGH) LRTP: Related Project: 4186851 Extra Description: Project Length: 3.874 *SIS* Type of Work URBAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial LF $779,611 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $779,611 Initial DDR $6,918,807 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,918,807 Initial DIH $362,024 $919 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $362,943 Initial DS $1,255,765 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,255,765 Totals: $9,316,207 $919 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,317,126 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $109,548 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,548 Initial DIH $112,581 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $112,581 Initial DS $242,097 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $242,097 Initial SA $1,872,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,872,000 Totals: $2,336,226 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,336,226 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $168,273 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,273 Initial DS $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 Initial LF $1,619,037 $143,417 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,762,454 Totals: $1,862,310 $143,417 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,005,727 Item 418685 1 Totals: $13,514,743 $144,336 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,659,079

22 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 10 Item Number: 421524 1 Description: US 92 (SR600/DMABRY) FROM KENNEDY BLVD TO HILLSBOROUGH AVE RAMPS LRTP: Related Project: 4215241 Extra Description: Project Length: 3.296 *NON-SIS* Type of Work RIGID PAVEMENT REHABILITATION Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $96,648 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,648 Initial DIH $173,293 $999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $174,292 Initial DS $122,093 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $122,093 Initial SA $741,655 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $741,655 Initial SU $6,929,688 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,929,688 Totals: $8,063,377 $999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,064,376 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $143,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $143,861 Totals: $143,861 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $143,861 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $9,428 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,428 Initial DIH $38,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,500 Initial DS $1,426,054 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,426,054 Totals: $1,473,982 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,473,982 Item 421524 1 Totals: $9,681,220 $999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,682,219

23 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 11 Item Number: 423088 1 Description: SR 616 FROM E OF OBRIEN ST TO DALE MABRY HWY LRTP: Related Project: 4230881 Extra Description: Project Length: 1.731 *NON-SIS* Type of Work RESURFACING Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $3,965,754 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,965,754 Initial DIH $87,431 $926 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $88,357 Initial DS $24,774 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,774 Initial HSP $312,949 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $312,949 Initial LF $101,399 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $101,399 Totals: $4,492,307 $926 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,493,233 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DS $61,768 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,768 Totals: $61,768 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,768 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $1,030,856 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,030,856 Initial DIH $78,050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,050 Initial DS $59,332 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $59,332 Totals: $1,168,238 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,168,238 Item 423088 1 Totals: $5,722,313 $926 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,723,239

24 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 12 Item Number: 425335 1 Description: SR 574 (MLK BLVD) FROM E OF NEBRASKA AVE TO N 42ND STREET LRTP: Related Project: 4253351 Extra Description: Project Length: 2.343 *NON-SIS* Type of Work RESURFACING Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $4,547 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,547 Initial DIH $387 $11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $398 Initial DS $207,383 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $207,383 Initial SU $2,883,297 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,883,297 Totals: $3,095,614 $11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,095,625 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $714,315 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $714,315 Initial DIH $53,269 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $53,269 Initial DS $1,552 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,552 Totals: $769,136 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $769,136 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $224 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 Totals: $224 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 Item 425335 1 Totals: $3,864,974 $11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,864,985

25 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 13 Item Number: 427159 1 Description: US92/SR580/SR600 FROM E OF BENJAMIN RD TO E OF WESTSHORE BLVD LRTP: Related Project: 4271591 Extra Description: Project Length: 1.242 *SIS* Type of Work RESURFACING Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DIH $62,963 $125 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,088 Initial DS $1,821,315 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,821,315 Initial DDR $956,073 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $956,073 Totals: $2,840,351 $125 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,840,476 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DS $6,206 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,206 Totals: $6,206 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,206 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $3,789 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,789 Initial DIH $26,513 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,513 Initial DS $17,617 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,617 Initial EB $593,192 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $593,192 Totals: $641,111 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $641,111 Item 427159 1 Totals: $3,487,668 $125 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,487,793

26 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Adopted Adopted Date: 6/12/2018 Item Number: 428953 1 Description: I-75 (SR 93A) FM WB SR60 ENTRANCE RAMP TO S OF CSX RR/CR 574 LRTP: p. 176 Related Project: 4289531 Extra Description: IMPROVE WB SR 60 TO NB I-75 ENTRANCE RAMP/INCL 2LANE ENT RMP ENTRANCE RAMP, BRIDGE WIDENING & 2000' ACCEL LN W 840'TAPER Project Length: 1.648 *SIS* Type of Work INTERCHANGE - ADD LANES Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial ACNP $25,492,276 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,492,276 Initial DI $6,421,381 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,421,381 Totals: $31,913,657 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,913,657 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $13,857 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,857 Initial DS $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 Totals: $70,857 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,857 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $57,428 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,428 Initial DIH $95,252 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,252 Initial DS $42,914 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,914 Initial ACNP $68,388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $68,388 Initial NHPP $2,162,535 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,162,535 Initial DDR $55,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,000 Initial DS $326,006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $326,006 Totals: $2,807,523 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,807,523 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DI $586,169 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $586,169 Initial DS $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Totals: $636,169 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $636,169 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 Totals: $0 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 Item 428953 1 Totals: $35,428,206 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,428,207

27 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 14 Item Number: 428953 1 Description: I-75 (SR 93A) FM WB SR60 ENTRANCE RAMP TO S OF CSX RR/CR 574 LRTP: p. 176 Related Project: 4289531 Extra Description: Project Length: 1.648 *SIS* Type of Work INTERCHANGE - ADD LANES Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified ACNP $18,836,889 $325,773 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,162,662 Initial DI $6,421,381 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,421,381 Totals: $25,258,270 $325,773 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,584,043 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $13,857 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,857 Modified DS $0 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 Totals: $13,857 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $70,857 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified ACNP $0 $68,388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $68,388 Modified DDR $112,428 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $112,428 Modified DIH $99,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $99,637 Modified DS $372,836 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $372,836 Initial NHPP $2,162,535 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,162,535 Totals: $2,747,436 $68,388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,815,824 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DI $458,345 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $458,345 Initial DS $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Totals: $508,345 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $508,345 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 Item 428953 1 Totals: $28,527,908 $451,161 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $28,980,069

28 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 15 Item Number: 434317 1 Description: CR 582 (KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD) OVER ITCHEPACKESASSA CREEK BR # 104608 LRTP: System preservation, p. 161 Related Project: 4343171 Extra Description: Project Length: 0.334 *NON-SIS* Type of Work BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial ACBR $917,284 $19,389 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $936,673 Initial DDR $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Initial NHBR $636,599 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $636,599 Totals: $1,603,883 $19,389 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,623,272 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial SA $17,654 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,654 Totals: $17,654 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,654 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial NHBR $138,964 $1,007 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $139,971 Initial SABR $466,646 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $466,646 Totals: $605,610 $1,007 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $606,617 Item 434317 1 Totals: $2,227,147 $20,396 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,247,543

29 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Adopted Adopted Date: 6/12/2018 Item Number: 434848 2 Description: US 41 AT GIBSONTON DRIVE LRTP: Minimize congestion, p. 163 Related Project: 4348481 Extra Description: REBUILD EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH MAST ARM SIGNAL Project Length: 0.2 *NON-SIS* Type of Work TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $0 $0 $0 $381,246 $0 $0 $0 $381,246 Initial DIH $0 $0 $0 $5,513 $0 $0 $0 $5,513 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $386,759 $0 $0 $0 $386,759 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Totals: $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DIH $1,999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,999 Initial DS $136,895 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $136,895 Totals: $138,894 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $138,894 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DIH $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 Initial DS $374,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $374,400 Totals: $414,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $414,400 Item 434848 2 Totals: $603,294 $0 $0 $386,759 $0 $0 $0 $990,053

30 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 16 Item Number: 434848 2 Description: US 41 AT GIBSONTON DRIVE LRTP: Minimize congestion, p. 163 Related Project: 4348481 Extra Description: Project Length: 0.2 *NON-SIS* Type of Work TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $0 $0 $0 $381,246 $0 $0 $0 $381,246 Initial DIH $0 $0 $0 $5,513 $0 $0 $0 $5,513 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $386,759 $0 $0 $0 $386,759 ENVIRONMENTAL - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DDR $6,693 $43,307 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Totals: $6,693 $43,307 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DIH $3,355 $993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,348 Initial DS $136,895 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $136,895 Totals: $140,250 $993 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $141,243 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Added DDR $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Totals: $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 RIGHT OF WAY - MANAGED BY FDOT Modified DIH $1,634 $18,366 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 Modified DS $0 $123,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $123,600 Totals: $1,634 $141,966 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $143,600 Item 434848 2 Totals: $168,577 $186,266 $0 $386,759 $0 $0 $0 $741,602

31 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 17 Item Number: 436495 1 Description: SR 674/SUN CITY CENTER FROM E OF COMMERCIAL CTR DR TO E OF US 301/SR43 LRTP: System preservation, p. 161 Related Project: 4364951 Extra Description: Project Length: 2.922 *NON-SIS* Type of Work RESURFACING Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial ACSA $4,448,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,448,625 Initial CM $303,567 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $303,567 Initial DDR $2,819,743 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,819,743 Initial DIH $589 $113,269 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $113,858 Initial DS $1,472,475 $177 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,472,652 Initial HSP $290,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $290,840 Initial LF $1,431,202 $14,023 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,445,225 Totals: $10,767,041 $127,469 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,894,510 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial DDR $1,373,735 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,373,735 Initial DIH $84,756 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,756 Initial DS $204,738 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $204,738 Initial LF $63,380 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,380 Totals: $1,726,609 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,726,609 RAILROAD & UTILITIES - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial LF $766,196 $1,311,286 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,077,482 Totals: $766,196 $1,311,286 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,077,482 Item 436495 1 Totals: $13,259,846 $1,438,755 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,698,601

32 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Adopted Adopted Date: 6/12/2018 Item Number: 436713 1 Description: LUTZ LAKE FERN RD TRAIL CON FM STILL WOOD DR TO UPPER TAMPA BAY TRAIL LRTP: Choices when not driving, p. 166 Related Project: 4367131 Extra Description: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT 5' SIDEWALKS Project Length: 0.14 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial TALU $0 $0 $109,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,200 Totals: $0 $0 $109,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,200 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial TALT $13,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,750 Totals: $13,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,750 Item 436713 1 Totals: $13,750 $0 $109,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $122,950

33 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 18 Item Number: 436713 1 Description: LUTZ LAKE FERN RD TRAIL CON FM STILL WOOD DR TO UPPER TAMPA BAY TRAIL LRTP: Related Project: 4367131 Extra Description: Project Length: 0.14 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial TALU $0 $0 $109,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,200 Totals: $0 $0 $109,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,200 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Modified TALT $12,750 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,750 Totals: $12,750 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,750 Item 436713 1 Totals: $12,750 $1,000 $109,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $122,950

34 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 19 Item Number: 437242 1 Description: CYPRESS CREEK ELEM FROM E OF SALIDA DEL SOL DR TO E OF BETH SHIELDS WY LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4372421 Extra Description: Project Length: 0.298 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial ACTA $78,725 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,725 Initial TALT $152,824 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $152,824 Initial TALU $119,317 $10,935 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $130,252 Totals: $350,866 $10,935 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $361,801 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial TALU $465 $535 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Totals: $465 $535 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Item 437242 1 Totals: $351,331 $11,470 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $362,801

35 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 20 Item Number: 437244 1 Description: STOWERS ELEM SCHOOL FR GENTLE WOOD AVE TO S OF BARRINGTON STOWERS DR LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4372441 Extra Description: Project Length: 0.242 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial TALT $11,153 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,153 Initial TALU $117,627 $10,935 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,562 Totals: $128,780 $10,935 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $139,715 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial TALU $23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23 Totals: $23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial TALU $17,934 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,934 Totals: $17,934 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,934 Item 437244 1 Totals: $146,737 $10,935 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $157,672

36 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 21 Item Number: 437247 1 Description: SUMMERFIELD ELEM SCHOOL HERITAGE GRN PKWY TO E OF HERITAGE GRN PKWY LRTP: Related Project: 4372471 Extra Description: Project Length: 0.36 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial TALU $0 $10,915 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,915 Totals: $0 $10,915 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,915 CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial TALT $16,579 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,579 Initial TALU $131,724 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $131,724 Totals: $148,303 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $148,303 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial TALU $90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90 Totals: $90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90 Item 437247 1 Totals: $148,393 $10,915 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $159,308

37 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 22 Item Number: 437248 1 Description: OLD BIG BEND RD FROM E OF COVINGTON GARDEN DR TO E OF EAST BAY HS LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4372481 Extra Description: Project Length: 0.357 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial TALU $0 $10,874 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,874 Totals: $0 $10,874 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,874 CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial TALT $16,066 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,066 Initial TALU $200,597 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,597 Totals: $216,663 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $216,663 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial TALU $950 $50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Totals: $950 $50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Item 437248 1 Totals: $217,613 $10,924 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $228,537

38 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Adopted Adopted Date: 6/12/2018 Item Number: 437646 1 Description: SR 573/S DALE MABRY HWY FROM PINEWOOD ST TO GANDY BLVD LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4376461 Extra Description: CONVERT, CLOSE MEDIAN OPENINGS. LENGTHEN,CONST TURN LANES Project Length: 1.701 *SIS* Type of Work ADD TURN LANE(S) Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial HSP $0 $0 $0 $953,226 $0 $0 $0 $953,226 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $953,226 $0 $0 $0 $953,226 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial HSP $1,000 $509,650 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $510,650 Initial DS $1,895 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,895 Totals: $2,895 $509,650 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $512,545 Item 437646 1 Totals: $2,895 $509,650 $0 $953,226 $0 $0 $0 $1,465,771

39 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 23 Item Number: 437646 1 Description: SR 573/S DALE MABRY HWY FROM PINEWOOD ST TO GANDY BLVD LRTP: Related Project: 4376461 Extra Description: Project Length: 1.701 *SIS* Type of Work ADD TURN LANE(S) Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial ACSS $0 $0 $0 $953,226 $0 $0 $0 $953,226 Totals: $0 $0 $0 $953,226 $0 $0 $0 $953,226 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY FDOT Added ACSS $0 $509,650 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $509,650 Modified DS $1,895 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,895 Modified HSP $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 Totals: $1,895 $510,650 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $512,545 Item 437646 1 Totals: $1,895 $510,650 $0 $953,226 $0 $0 $0 $1,465,771

40 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Adopted Adopted Date: 6/12/2018 Item Number: 439691 1 Description: MORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL VARIOUS LOCATIONS AROUND SCHOOL LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4396911 Extra Description: SRTS - 5' SIDEWALK 142ND, 140TH, 139TH, 12TH, 19TH, 20TH Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial SR2T $0 $0 $454,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $454,150 Totals: $0 $0 $454,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $454,150 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial SR2T $297,786 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $297,786 Totals: $297,786 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $297,786 Item 439691 1 Totals: $297,786 $0 $454,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $751,936

41 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 24 Item Number: 439691 1 Description: MORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL VARIOUS LOCATIONS AROUND SCHOOL LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4396911 Extra Description: Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial SR2T $0 $0 $454,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $454,150 Totals: $0 $0 $454,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $454,150 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Modified SR2T $296,786 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $297,786 Totals: $296,786 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $297,786 Item 439691 1 Totals: $296,786 $1,000 $454,150 $0 $0 $0 $0 $751,936

42 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Adopted Adopted Date: 6/12/2018 Item Number: 439692 1 Description: ALAFIA ST & VERN STREET FROM NUNDY AVE TO GIBSONTON DR LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4396921 Extra Description: CONTRUCT 5' SIDEWALK GIBSONTON ELEMENTARY -SRTS Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial SR2T $0 $0 $281,003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $281,003 Totals: $0 $0 $281,003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $281,003 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial SR2T $200,707 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,707 Totals: $200,707 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,707 Item 439692 1 Totals: $200,707 $0 $281,003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $481,710

43 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 25 Item Number: 439692 1 Description: ALAFIA ST & VERN STREET FROM NUNDY AVE TO GIBSONTON DR LRTP: Related Project: 4396921 Extra Description: Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial SR2T $0 $0 $281,003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $281,003 Totals: $0 $0 $281,003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $281,003 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Modified SR2T $199,707 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,707 Totals: $199,707 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,707 Item 439692 1 Totals: $199,707 $1,000 $281,003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $481,710

44 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Adopted Adopted Date: 6/12/2018 Item Number: 439696 1 Description: 21ST AVE FROM 66TH ST TO 62ND ST LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4396961 Extra Description: CONSTRUCT 5' SIDEWALK KENLY ELEMENTARY - SRTS Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial SR2T $0 $0 $264,269 $0 $0 $0 $0 $264,269 Totals: $0 $0 $264,269 $0 $0 $0 $0 $264,269 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial SR2T $242,777 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $242,777 Totals: $242,777 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $242,777 Item 439696 1 Totals: $242,777 $0 $264,269 $0 $0 $0 $0 $507,046

45 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 26 Item Number: 439696 1 Description: 21ST AVE FROM 66TH ST TO 62ND ST LRTP: Crash reduction, p. 164 Related Project: 4396961 Extra Description: Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work SIDEWALK Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CONSTRUCTION - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Initial SR2T $0 $0 $264,269 $0 $0 $0 $0 $264,269 Totals: $0 $0 $264,269 $0 $0 $0 $0 $264,269 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOCC Modified SR2T $241,777 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $242,777 Totals: $241,777 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $242,777 Item 439696 1 Totals: $241,777 $1,000 $264,269 $0 $0 $0 $0 $507,046

46 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Adopted Adopted Date: 6/12/2018 Item Number: 408109 1 Description: HART SECTION 5307 - Operating & Capital Related Assistance LRTP: Choices when not driving, p. 166 Related Project: 4081091 Extra Description: ADA Paratransit, Preventive Maintenance, Capital Leases, Associated Transit Improvements, and Security Projects Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work CAPITAL FOR FIXED ROUTE Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CAPITAL - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Initial FTA $145,246,402 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $0 $227,887,602 Totals: $145,246,402 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $0 $227,887,602 Item 408109 1 Totals: $145,246,402 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $0 $227,887,602

47 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 27 Item Number: 408109 1 Description: HART SECTION 5307- Operating & Capital Related Assistance LRTP: Choices when not driving, p. 166 Related Project: 4081091 Extra Description: ADA Paratransit, Preventive Maintenance, Capital Leases, Associated Transit Improvements, and Security Projects Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work CAPITAL FOR FIXED ROUTE Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CAPITAL - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Modified FTA $87,068,742 $74,705,900 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $0 $227,887,602 Totals: $87,068,742 $74,705,900 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $0 $227,887,602 Item 408109 1 Totals: $87,068,742 $74,705,900 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $16,528,240 $0 $227,887,602

48 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 28 Item Number: 434366 1 Description: HART SECTION 5339 CAPITAL ACTIVITIES LRTP: Related Project: 4343661 Extra Description: Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work PURCHASE VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years CAPITAL - MANAGED BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Added FTA $1,297,193 $6,829,972 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,127,165 Totals: $1,297,193 $6,829,972 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,127,165 Item 434366 1 Totals: $1,297,193 $6,829,972 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,127,165

49 FDOT Adopted FY 2018/2019 - 2022/2023 TIP

Status Amended Amendment Date: 9/5/2018 Amendment Number: 29 Item Number: 440401 1 Description: EMERGENCY STORM DEBRIS/MOT/SERVICE PARTROL/EMERG REPAIRS LRTP: Related Project: 4404011 Extra Description: Project Length: 0 *NON-SIS* Type of Work EMERGENCY OPERATIONS Fund <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 >2023 All Years MISCELLANEOUS - MANAGED BY FDOT Initial ACER $0 $5,052 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,052 Initial DER $892 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $892 Initial FEMA $483,603 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $483,603 Totals: $484,495 $5,052 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $489,547 MISCELLANEOUS - RESPONSIBLE AGENCY NOT AVAILABLE Initial ACER $918,759 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $918,759 Totals: $918,759 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $918,759 Item 440401 1 Totals: $1,403,254 $5,052 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,408,306

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item West Tampa Multimodal Plan Presenter

Chris Keller, Tindale- Oliver Summary The West Tampa Multimodal Plan is an effort to identify opportunities to enhance the multimodal transportation network, improve connections between existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and identify opportunities to implement complete streets strategies throughout West Tampa. The study area includes the neighborhoods of North Hyde Park, Old West Tampa, West Tampa, West Riverfront, Macfarlane Park, Armory Gardens, Carver City/Lincoln Gardens, North Bon Air, and Oakford Park. The neighborhoods and study area have a rich historical context and includes a National Historic District and a well-established street grid. The study area is home to a significant amount of historic and contributing structures including the first public library in Hillsborough County, the West Tampa Free Public Library. Enhance the multimodal environment throughout West Tampa will help to reinforce and reestablish a sense of place, create new connections, and improve economic opportunity.

The Plan’s Objectives are: • Enhance Connections: Explore opportunities to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections between existing and planned facilities and to/from destinations within West Tampa. • Complete Streets: Integrate complete streets strategies and develop concept improvements along corridors such as Main Street and Columbus Drive. • Bicycle Boulevards: Explore bicycle boulevard/neighborhood greenway/bikeway opportunities along streets such as Gray Street, Beach Street, and Palmetto Street. • Safety and Mobility Improvements: Identify general safety and mobility improvements that support the City’s “Livable City” vision and provide a safe, comfortable, and convenient environment for all users.

Recommended Action Support for the Plan’s recommendations and forward to the MPO Board for approval.

Prepared By Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org Michele Ogilvie, MPO Staff [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 Attachments 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor West Tampa Multi Modal Plan Draft. Tampa, FL, 33602

City of Tampa Walk–Bike Plan Phase VI West Tampa Multimodal Plan Draft June 2018

Completed For: In Cooperation with:

Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization City of Tampa, Transportation Division th 601 East Kennedy Boulevard, 18 Floor 306 East Jackson Street, 6th Floor East Tampa, FL 33601 Tampa, FL 33602 Task Authorization: TOA – 09

Prepared By:

Tindale Oliver 1000 N Ashley Drive, Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33602

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction and Purpose ...... 1 Background and Existing Conditions Review ...... 1 Multimodal Enhancements ...... 2 Best Practice Enhancements ...... 2 Next Steps ...... 6 Introduction ...... 8 West Tampa Study Area...... 8 West Tampa Planning Efforts ...... 10 City of Tampa Walk–Bike Plans ...... 10 Green Spine Corridor ...... 10 Westshore Pedestrian Plan ...... 11 Westshore Circulator Study ...... 11 West River Master Plan...... 11 West Tampa CRA Plan ...... 12 West Tampa Strategic Action Plan ...... 12 Greenways and Trails Master Plan ...... 12 Dale Mabry Pedestrian Overpass Technical Feasibility Analysis ...... 12 Spruce Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements ...... 13 Regional Transit Feasibility Study ...... 13 Tampa Bay Next ...... 13 USF Sustainable Transportation Class Project ...... 13 Existing Conditions ...... 16 Community Assets ...... 16 Overlays and Special Districts ...... 18 Community Redevelopment Areas ...... 18 West Tampa National Historical District ...... 18 Overlay Districts ...... 18

i WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Roadway Classification ...... 22 Intersection Control ...... 22 Pedestrian Facilities ...... 22 Bicycle Facilities ...... 22 Crash History ...... 21 Transit Routes and Ridership ...... 21 Planned Capital Improvements ...... 26 Himes Avenue Improvements ...... 26 Lois Avenue Improvements ...... 27 Willow Avenue Improvements ...... 27 Howard‐Armenia Avenue Improvements ...... 27 Rome Avenue Improvements ...... 28 West Cypress Street Improvements ...... 28 West Spruce Street Improvements ...... 29 East‐West Green Spine/Cass Street ...... 29 Julian B. Lane Park ...... 29 Enhancing Safety and Mobility in West Tampa ...... 31 Best Practice Enhancements for Safety and Mobility ...... 31 Complete Sidewalks ...... 31 Speed Management ...... 32 Lighting ...... 32 Intersection Enhancements ...... 33 Mid‐Block Crossings ...... 35 Access to Transit ...... 35 Drainage ...... 35 Site‐Specific Enhancements ...... 35 Complete Streets Opportunities ...... 36 Columbus Drive ...... 41 Howard Avenue and Armenia Avenue ...... 47 Neighborhood Greenway Opportunities ...... 51

ii WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Gray Street ...... 52 Beach Street ...... 55 Trail Connections – I‐275 Greenway and Green Spine ...... 57 Connecting Existing and Planned Facilities ...... 75 Feasibility Review ...... 75 Cost Estimates ...... 75 Next Steps ...... 76

List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area Boundary ...... 9 Figure 2: City of Tampa Walk–Bike Plan Recommendations by Plan Phase ...... 15 Figure 3: Community Assets and Points of Interest ...... 17 Figure 4: Community Redevelopment Areas ...... 19 Figure 5: West Tampa Historic District ...... 20 Figure 6: Overlay Districts ...... 21 Figure 7: Existing Intersection Controls ...... 23 Figure 8: Existing Sidewalks and Gaps ...... 24 Figure 9: Sidewalk Gaps on Classified Network ...... 25 Figure 10: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure ...... 19 Figure 11: Planned and Existing Bicycle Infrastructure ...... 20 Figure 12: All Crash Clusters and Counts ...... 22 Figure 13: Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Clusters and Counts ...... 23 Figure 14: Existing Bus Service ...... 24 Figure 15: Average Daily Bus Stop Activity ...... 25 Figure 16: Intersection and Crosswalk Lighting Design ...... 33 Figure 17: High‐Emphasis Ladder Crosswalk Markings ...... 33 Figure 18: Retrofitted Curb Cut with Smaller Turning Radius ...... 34 Figure 19: Bulb‐Outs ...... 34 Figure 20: Neighborhood Traffic Circle ...... 34 Figure 21: Bulb‐Out with Rain Garden ...... 35 Figure 22: Main Street Existing Typical Section ...... 37 Figure 23: Proposed Typical Section for Main Street from MacDill Avenue to Armenia Avenue ...... 37

iii WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 24: Enhanced Decorative Crosswalk Markings ...... 38 Figure 25: Proposed Typical Section for Main Street from Armenia Avenue to Howard Avenue ...... 39 Figure 26: Proposed Typical Section for Main Street from Howard Avenue to Albany Avenue ...... 40 Figure 27: Columbus Drive Bridge, Looking East ...... 47 Figure 28: Shared‐lane markings with green background ...... 53 Figure 29: Alternative 1 Alignment, Dale Mabry Highway to New Jersey Avenue ...... 60 Figure 30: Alternative 1 Alignment, New Jersey Avenue to Fremont Avenue ...... 61 Figure 31: Alternative 1 Alignment, Fremont Avenue to N Boulevard ...... 62 Figure 32: Alternative 2 Alignment, Dale Mabry Highway to New Jersey Avenue ...... 63 Figure 33: Alternative 2 Alignment, New Jersey Avenue to Fremont Avenue ...... 64 Figure 34: Alternative 2 Alignment, Fremont Avenue to N Boulevard ...... 65 Figure 35: Alternative 3 Alignment, Dale Mabry Highway to New Jersey Avenue ...... 68 Figure 36: Alternative 3 Alignment, New Jersey Avenue to Fremont Avenue ...... 69 Figure 37: Alternative 3 Alignment, Fremont Avenue to N Boulevard ...... 70

List of Tables Table 1: Existing Transit Routes Service in West Tampa ...... 26 Table 2: Columbus Drive Typical Sections...... 41 Table 3: Columbus Drive AADT ...... 41 Appendices Appendix A – Feasibility Review Appendix B – Cost Estimates Appendix C – Columbus Drive at Rome Avenue Intersection Review

iv WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

City/Lincoln Gardens, North Bon Air, and Oakford Park. The study Executive Summary area is bounded by Gray Street to the south, Lois Avenue to the west, Columbus Drive to the north, and North Boulevard to the east. Introduction and Purpose

To help the City of Tampa achieve its “Livable City” vision of a robust network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities to improve transportation options and livability, the Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the City of Tampa have coordinated on the development of a series of Walk–Bike and multimodal plans that have identified opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements throughout the city. Whereas parts of the greater West Tampa area have been reviewed by some of these previously‐ completed studies, many of these efforts considered how to get people through West Tampa as a means of connecting to other regional activity centers but were not focused on how people within West Tampa get around.

The purpose of this multimodal plan is to identify opportunities to improve safety and mobility for all transportation users with a focus West Tampa Multimodal Plan Study Area on identifying opportunities to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment. Although some of the identified enhancements will Background and Existing Conditions Review help connect people through West Tampa, the focus of this plan is to A multitude of planning efforts that impact the West Tampa area support mobility within the neighborhoods of West Tampa. This has have been developed and are essential for understanding how the become increasingly necessary, as the West Tampa area has been area is intended to evolve in the coming decades. The review of West experiencing a wave of reinvestment, revitalization, and growth; with Tampa planning efforts helped inform recommendations and ensure this, there is an increasing need to ensure a safe, inviting, and well‐ that planning efforts are not duplicated or redundant. connected transportation network that supports all users and modes. A review of the existing conditions and facilities within the study area The West Tampa Multimodal Plan study area includes the was conducted to provide background information and context and neighborhoods of North Hyde Park, Old West Tampa, West Tampa, was used to guide the development of potential pedestrian and West Riverfront, Macfarlane Park, Armory Gardens, Carver

DRAFT 1 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN bicycle improvements throughout the study area. The existing  Complete sidewalks conditions review provided documentation of community assets and  Speed management history, existing transportation facilities, planned improvements,  Lighting crash history, and identified gaps in the current multimodal network.  Intersection enhancements  Mid‐block crossings Multimodal Enhancements  Access to transit As noted, the purpose of this multimodal plan is to identify  Drainage opportunities to improve safety and mobility for all transportation Site‐Specific Enhancements users by identifying opportunities to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment, improve connections between existing and The Site‐Specific Enhancements explore opportunities to improve planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and identify opportunities safety and mobility at specific locations/corridors throughout the to implement complete streets strategies throughout the study area. study area. Although many of the concepts from these The potential safety and mobility enhancements in this plan are enhancements could be applied elsewhere, they were developed categorized as either Best Practice Enhancements or Site‐Specific specifically for the identified locations. The Site‐Specific Enhancements. Enhancements were grouped into three categories—Complete Street Enhancements, Neighborhood Greenway Enhancements, and Best Practice Enhancements Trail Connections. The following is an overview of the identified Site‐ A variety of transportation best practices have been established and Specific Enhancements. are available for moving the West Tampa area towards the “Livable Complete Street Enhancements City” vision and connecting and enhancing the pedestrian and bicycle network. Although the list of Best Practice Enhancements is by no “Complete streets” is a modern term for roadways designed and built means exhaustive, it provides a range of enhancements that may or to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicycles, may not be appropriate based on an areas context, goals, and motorists, and public transportation. Complete streets are accessible financial feasibility. Additionally, the identified Best Practice and promote safety and mobility for users of all agers and all abilities. Enhancements typically go beyond providing improvements to the Additionally, complete streets can be used to encourage economic transportation realm and often create synergies that help beautify development and activity, promote social cohesion, and make for an areas, bolster economic development, and improve community improved urban environment. Three corridors within the West cohesiveness and sense of place. The following are best practices that Tampa study area were identified for potential complete street should be considered throughout the study area, whether specifically enhancements: mentioned or not, throughout the remainder of the plan.

DRAFT 2 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

 Main Street from MacDill Avenue to N Boulevard In general, the identified enhancements for Main Street involve  Columbus Drive from Dale Mabry Highway to the better delineating the existing pavement by marking the on‐street Hillsborough River parking areas, providing shared‐lane markings, improving the  Howard and Armenia Avenues from Columbus Drive to visibility of pedestrians at intersections through enhanced crosswalk south of Gray Street markings and bulb‐outs, and installing neighborhood traffic circles at selected intersections. Due to the planned West River Main Street Complete Street Enhancements – Main Street was once redevelopment, most of the identified enhancements focused on the the heart of the thriving City of West Tampa and is now the heart of western part of Main Street between MacDill Avenue and Rome the social and economic development in the West Tampa Avenue, but some identified enhancements could be considered neighborhood. The historical and present significance of Main Street, between Rome Avenue and N Boulevard. the land use fronting the street, and a significant amount of pedestrian traffic provide additional opportunities for complete Columbus Drive Complete Street Enhancements – Columbus Drive street enhancements to reinforce Main Street’s historic significance. provides east‐west connections through West Tampa to the Westshore area on the western end of the corridor and to Tampa Heights, V.M. Ybor, and East Tampa beyond the Hillsborough River. Recently, some segments of Columbus Drive east of the study area were studied for complete street improvements. Considering complete street enhancements along Columbus Drive west of N Boulevard would improve safety and mobility throughout the West Tampa area.

The identified enhancements along Columbus Drive include enhanced corridor lighting where necessary, providing marked crosswalks along the corridor, wider sidewalks/pathways between Lois Avenue and Dale Mabry Highway, and intersection enhancements at Lincoln Avenue, MacDill Avenue, Habana Avenue, Armenia Avenue, Howard Avenue, and Albany Avenue. Additionally, a consideration for a road diet along Columbus Drive from Rome Avenue to N Boulevard was revisited (originally identified as a

Proposed Typical Section for Main Street potential improvement in Phase I of the Walk–Bike Plan), along with from Howard Avenue to Albany Avenue potential road‐diet improvements to the intersection of Columbus

DRAFT 3 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Drive at Rome Avenue; these alternative included an evaluation of Similar to the identified enhancements along Main Street and signalizing the intersection or constructing a roundabout at the Columbus Drive, most of the identified enhancements along Howard intersection. Avenue and Armenia Avenue include enhancing lighting, improving pedestrian visibility through the use of enhanced crosswalk markings and bulb‐outs, providing enhanced and additional crossings, and exploring speed management strategies throughout the corridor.

Columbus Drive Bridge, Looking East

Howard Avenue and Armenia Avenue Complete Street Howard Avenue at Carmen Street (south of Cass Street) Enhancements – Howard Avenue and Armenia Avenue are north‐ south one‐way pairs that connect West Tampa to the neighborhoods Neighborhood Greenway Enhancements to the north and south of the study area. Both streets are planned for Neighborhood greenways, also known as bicycle boulevards and resurfacing by Hillsborough County. A previous resurfacing project by bikeways, are streets that have been designed, designated, and the County included the addition of buffered bicycle lanes on the prioritized for bicycle travel. Neighborhood greenways provide a sections of Howard Avenue and Armenia Avenue from north of safe, inviting, low‐stress option for bicyclists of vary degrees of Columbus Drive to St. Louis Street, south of Columbus Drive. experience. Neighborhood greenways, as part of a larger bicycle Although there are no known current plans to extend the buffered network, help provide connections between neighborhoods, bicycle lanes south as part of the upcoming resurfacing project, destinations, and different bicycle facilities. In addition to improving providing complete and continuous bicycle facilities should be a top safety, comfort, and connectivity for bicyclists, neighborhood priority for both Hillsborough County and the City of Tampa. greenways create safer streets for all users and can help promote

DRAFT 4 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

communities that encourage bicycling as a more convenient, easy, Street provides a continuous connection between Westshore and sociable mode of transportation. Boulevard and Rome Avenue and has signalized crossings at Westshore Boulevard and Dale Mabry Highway. Gray Street’s Although there is no set design template for neighborhood connectivity and location between Kennedy Boulevard and I‐275 greenways, a few common principles should apply when considering make it an ideal candidate for neighborhood greenway treatments. one:  Logical, direct, and continuous bike route Enhancements identified for Gray Street include the addition of  Safe and comfortable intersection crossings pavement markings and signage that distinguish the street as a neighborhood greenway, speed management strategies including  Reduced bicyclists delay the installation of speed cushions and neighborhood traffic circles,  Enhanced access to desired destinations and the enhancement of crossings at major streets such as Lois  Low motor vehicle speeds Avenue, MacDill Avenue, Armenia Avenue, and Howard Avenue.  Low motor vehicle volumes Beach Street Neighborhood Greenway Enhancements – Beach Street is a two‐lane two‐way undivided east‐west local street situated between Spruce Street and Columbus Drive. It is primarily residential in character, with low‐speeds (posted 25 mph) and low traffic volumes, and it provides a continuous connection between Dale Mabry Highway and Rome Avenue. Similar to the Gray Street neighborhood greenway, the enhancements along Beach Street focus on providing pavement markings and signage, speed management through speed cushions and neighborhood traffic circles, and improving crossings at major streets such as MacDill Avenue, Armenia Avenue, and Howard Avenue.

Shared‐Lane Markings with Green Background Trail Connections Gray Street Neighborhood Greenway Enhancements – Gray Street is I‐275 Greenway and Green Spine Trail Connections – The Green a two‐lane undivided east‐west local street that parallels Kennedy Spine and I‐275 Greenway are key bicycle and pedestrian projects Boulevard to the south and Cass Street to the north. The street is aimed at connecting the major activity centers and greenspaces in residential in character, with low speeds (posted 25 mph) and low Tampa and providing recreational amenities to residents. Although traffic volume. Unlike many of the local streets in the area, Gray the projects are separated by less than a half mile at parts, the lack

DRAFT 5 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN of a safe and obvious connection between the two is a challenge that MacDill Avenue between La Salle Street and Main Street interrupts the overall network. and then a two‐way bikeway down the middle of Main Street from MacDill Avenue to N Boulevard. This alternative Although both projects are incomplete, with many segments still in would require eliminating the on‐street parking along Main planning and design stages, a connection between the two pathways Street and would prohibit many of the identified Main should be considered and addressed. Several alternative alignments Street complete street enhancements, but it would move a for connecting to the two are available, the creation of which may large portion of the I‐275 Greenway out the I‐275 right‐of‐ further an integrated pedestrian and bicycle network beyond way. connecting only these two major infrastructure projects. Four potential alternatives to connect these facilities were examined as part of this effort:  Alternative 1 mostly uses existing Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) right‐of‐way and portions of La Salle Street to connect the I‐275 Greenway between Himes Avenue and North Boulevard.  Alternative 2 follows the Alternative 1 alignment between Himes Avenue and Rome Avenue. It would then use the planned bicycle lanes on Rome Avenue or a potential pathway along the west side of Rome Avenue to connect to the planned Green Spine extension along Cass Street.  Alternative 3 follows the Alternative 1 alignment between I‐275 Greenway at Armenia Avenue, Looking West Himes Avenue and Armenia Avenue. This alignment Next Steps proposes converting the east side of Armenia Avenue between the existing I‐275 Greenway trailhead at Armenia The key to implementing the enhancements identified in this plan is Avenue to a potential future Cass Street extension. This continued coordination among the various involved agencies, alternative would require right‐of‐way through the existing including the Hillsborough MPO, City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, armory to extend the Green Spine and Cass Street from FDOT, and the West Tampa Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). Howard Avenue to Armenia Avenue. This coordination will help to ensure that the identified  Alternative 4 uses the Alternative 1 alignment between improvements are realized. Himes Avenue and MacDill Avenue. It then travels along

DRAFT 6 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

DRAFT

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Introduction The multimodal plan is structured as follows:  West Tampa Study Area As part of the “Livable City” vision for the City of Tampa, a robust  West Tampa Planning Efforts network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities has been identified as  Existing Conditions critical for both transportation and livability. To help achieve this  Planned Capital Improvements vision, the Hillsborough MPO and the City of Tampa have coordinated  Enhancing Safety and Mobility in West Tampa on the development of a series of Walk–Bike Plans that have o Best Practice Enhancements identified opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements o Site‐Specific Enhancements throughout the city. Whereas it has been reviewed, in part, by other plans, the greater West Tampa area has not been the focus of one of West Tampa Study Area the previously‐completed Walk–Bike Plans. The neighborhoods of West Tampa have been experiencing a wave of reinvestment, The West Tampa Multimodal Plan’s study area is bounded by Gray revitalization, and growth; with this, there is a need to ensure a safe, Street to the south, Lois Avenue to the west, Columbus Drive to the inviting, and well‐connected transportation network that supports all north, and N Boulevard to the east, as shown Figure 1. users and modes and connects users to not only the major activity The study area includes the neighborhoods of North Hyde Park, Old centers of West Tampa and the surrounding community but supports West Tampa, West Tampa, West Riverfront, Macfarlane Park, mobility within the neighborhoods themselves. Armory Gardens, Carver City/Lincoln Gardens, North Bon Air, and The purpose of this multimodal plan is to identify opportunities to Oakford Park. The neighborhoods and study area have a rich improve safety and mobility for all transportation users by identifying historical context and a well‐established street grid and include a opportunities to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment, National Historic District. The study area is home to a significant improve connections between existing and planned pedestrian and number of historic and contributing structures, including the first bicycle facilities, and identify opportunities to implement complete public library in Hillsborough County, the West Tampa Free Public streets strategies throughout the study area. Library. Enhancing the multimodal environment throughout West Tampa will help to reinforce and reestablish a sense of place, create

new connections, and improve economic opportunity.

DRAFT 8

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 1: Study Area Boundary

DRAFT 9

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

the pedestrian and bicycle network. Improvements and proposals West Tampa Planning Efforts including new, improved, and refurbished sidewalks and crossings, bicycle lanes, and overall network and connectivity redesign. Recent A multitude of planning efforts that impact the West Tampa area iterations of the Walk–Bike plan focus on a bicycle/pedestrian loop have been developed and are essential for understanding how the trail (the Green ARTery) linking downtown Tampa to neighborhoods area is intended to evolve in the coming decades. The review of West along the river and back down through East Tampa and Ybor City to Tampa planning efforts provided below will help inform downtown, connecting parks, schools, and other destinations along recommendations and ensure that planning efforts are not its path. duplicated or redundant. The following plans and studies were reviewed as part of this study effort: Phase I of the Walk–Bike Plan identified Cypress Street, Willow  City of Tampa Walk–Bike Plans I–V Avenue, MacDill Avenue, Lois Avenue, N Boulevard, Rome Avenue,  Green Spine Corridor Himes Avenue, and Habana Avenue for improvements. Phase II  Westshore Pedestrian Plan identified the Howard–Armenia Avenue corridor for possible improvements. Figure 2: City of Tampa Walk–Bike Plan  Westshore Circulator Study RecommendationsFigure 2 shows previously identified Walk–Bike  West River Master Plan Plan improvements in the study area.  West Tampa Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Plan  West Tampa Strategic Action Plan Green Spine Corridor  Greenways and Trails Master Plan  Dale Mabry Pedestrian Overpass Technical Feasibility The Green Spine Corridor is a proposed and partially‐completed Analysis separated cycle‐track facility along Cass Street and Nuccio Parkway st  Spruce Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements between Howard Avenue and 21 Avenue. Phase I of the project Technical Memorandum between the Cass Street Bridge and Nebraska Avenue was completed  Regional Transit Feasibility Study in 2016, and Phase II, between Howard Avenue and the Cass Street Bridge, is slated to begin construction sometime in summer 2018.  Tampa Bay Next The project, once completed, will result in a 3.4‐mile cycle‐track  USF Sustainable Transportation Class Project facility connecting North Hyde Park, Downtown Tampa, and Ybor City City of Tampa Walk–Bike Plans and will be a significant component of a well‐connected bicycle network. The City of Tampa has released five Walk–Bike plans between 2011 and 2016 that identify an extensive list of possible improvements to

DRAFT 10

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Westshore Pedestrian Plan West River Master Plan

The Westshore Pedestrian Plan, originally released in 2005 and The West River Master Plan is a transformative redevelopment plan updated in 2009, identified pedestrian improvements and for the between I‐275, Columbus Drive, Rome Avenue, and the designated pedestrian priorities streets within the Westshore area, Hillsborough River. The area will be home to multiple mixed‐use which overlaps with the West Tampa Multimodal Plan study area developments with a focus on creating a livable urban environment. between Dale Mabry Highway, Lois Avenue, Boy Scout Boulevard, The plan includes a comprehensive section on transportation and Gray Street. Of note, the plan identified Cypress Street, Spruce infrastructure improvements that identifies several new bicycle and Street, and Lois Avenue as pedestrian priority roadways. Three pedestrian facilities that will be created or improved with the new enhanced pedestrian crosswalks were identified on Lois Avenue development, as well as several new streets that will seek to between La Salle Street and Green Street, and intersection crosswalk reinforce or reestablish the grid network in the area. improvements were identified at the intersection of all major roadways within the study area. The plan also proposed a trail along I‐275 from Dale Mabry Highway to Westshore Boulevard, which has carried through multiple plans and iterations. Westshore Circulator Study

Findings from this 2012 study from the Hillsborough MPO indicated conditional support for bus circulator service within the Westshore Area, which aimed to expand on and provide mobility choices for various markets, including residents, workers, visitors, and students, connecting key area such as Tampa International Airport, Raymond James Stadium, Al Lopez Park, and the two regional malls in the area. The study indicated that key triggers such as land use changes, proposed premium transit services, and developing economic development initiatives would foster the environment needed for a

viable circulator service. The study stressed that the service can be a West River Plan Transportation Improvements major asset to the community, given it is implemented at a level and time that are consistent with the needs presented by the community and corresponding triggers.

DRAFT 11

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

West Tampa CRA Plan Greenways and Trails Master Plan

The West Tampa Community Redevelopment Plan was published In 2016, the Hillsborough MPO, Hillsborough County, and the City of with the goal of providing a strategy to “eliminate conditions of blight Tampa updated the Tampa‐Hillsborough Greenways and Trails found to exist within the area.” The West Tampa CRA Plan identified Master Plan. The plan identified several enhancements, including several transportation issues to address, notably that 33% of the continuation of the I‐275 Greenway, an essential component of the roadways within the CRA have a pavement condition index of Greenways and Trails Master Plan that ultimately aims to connect “Failed” and that there is an overabundance of surface parking that Cypress Point Park and the Courtney Campbell Trail to Robles Park was identified as an impediment to growth and aesthetically north of Downtown Tampa through West Tampa and over the displeasing. In terms of transit and mobility, the CRA identified the Fortune Street Bridge. Much of the trail uses the I‐275 right‐of‐way need for additional transit choices and improved frequency of service but also traverses several parallel streets and facilities, including the and further identified the need for new and improved bicycle and West River Greenway. pedestrian facilities. The creation of a trail along the west side of the The northeast corner of the study area also includes a small portion Hillsborough River was identified as a potential mobility and of the proposed Perimeter Trail, which is envisioned to circle Central beautification improvement. Tampa. The Perimeter Trail aims to connect neighborhood assets, the West Tampa Strategic Action Plan Hillsborough River, Tampa’s greenspaces, and the Greenways and Trails System with improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities both on‐ The West Tampa CRA is in the process of developing a Strategic and off‐street. Action Plan for the West Tampa area, which is envisioned to include strategic public investment projects that attract private investment, Dale Mabry Pedestrian Overpass regulatory actions that can foster quality development, incentive Technical Feasibility Analysis programs to attract private investment, and community services that enhance the economic standing, social and cultural environment, and This analysis examined potential alignments and the engineering public safety of the area. Work on the plan is currently identifying feasibility of providing a pedestrian overpass across Dale Mabry priorities, including economic development, job creation, housing Highway in the vicinity of I‐275. The overpass is to become a part of and business assistance, infrastructure improvements, greenspace, the I‐275 Greenway and was identified as a critical gap in the planned transportation, parking, and sensitivity to and embracing of the West trail. The analysis recommended an alignment along the south side Tampa area’s history, culture, and diversity. of I‐275 using existing FDOT right‐of‐way to provide a continuous uninterrupted trail facility from Cypress Street at I‐275 to Himes Avenue.

DRAFT 12

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Spruce Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Tampa Bay Next

The Spruce Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Plan was Tampa Bay Next is a transportation modernization effort aimed at completed by the Hillsborough MPO to identify safety and mobility addressing transportation problems throughout Tampa Bay with a improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists along the Spruce Street comprehensive set of multimodal solutions. A large component of corridor between Rome Avenue and Dale Mabry Highway. The plan Tampa Bay Next is identifying interstate improvements, including the identified intersection improvements throughout the corridor, potential for new express lanes along I‐275 through West Tampa and including at Dale Mabry Highway, Armenia Avenue, and Howard the reconstruction of the I‐275/SR 60 interchange to the west of the Avenue, the potential for a small urban roundabout at Rome Avenue, study area and the Downtown interchange east of the study area. the reconstruction of the sidewalk/pathway along the south side of Current interstate plans call for express lanes to be built from I‐4 in Spruce Street in front of Macfarlane Park, and the inclusion of a wide Ybor City through I‐275 to St. Petersburg using right‐of‐way within sidewalk along the north side of Spruce Street between Dale Mabry I‐275. Currently, the Tampa Bay Next process is exploring express Highway and Lincoln Avenue. lane options that include looking at the potential for express lane access ramps at either Himes Avenue or MacDill Avenue, or Regional Transit Feasibility Study potentially both. Decisions on what and how I‐275 may operate in The Tampa Bay Regional Transit Feasibility Plan aims to identify a the future are being made concurrently with the timeframe of this catalyst transit project that has the greatest potential to be built, study and will be monitored for further development as part of the compete for federal and State dollars, and spur further investment in study process. transit services in Tampa Bay. The plan’s catalyst and recommended USF Sustainable Transportation Class Project project is a 41‐mile express or rapid bus service between Wesley Chapel and St. Petersburg that uses I‐275 as the primary corridor. The Recently the Hillsborough MPO paired with the University of South plan calls for several stations to be built along the I‐275 right‐of‐way, Florida’s (USF) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering including an elevated station at Howard/Armenia and street‐level Sustainable Transportation class to consider complete street stations at Himes Avenue and N Boulevard. As the study progresses, redesigns for Columbus Drive between Dale Mabry Highway and the identifying pedestrian and bicycle connections to and from the Hillsborough River. As part of the class project, four concepts for planned station areas will be a critical component of any transit complete street redesigns came out of the cooperative effort. Some investments through West Tampa. notable concepts from the class projects included:

DRAFT 13

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

 Roundabouts at MacDill Avenue and Himes Avenue  Creation of a bicycle intersection at Howard Avenue and

Armenia Avenue  Dedicating a lane of Columbus Drive for transit, either as a bus lane or streetcar extension  Directional medians

 Road diet that would include bike lanes, where feasible  Improved signage, street lighting, and pedestrian lighting

DRAFT 14

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 2: City of Tampa Walk–Bike Plan Recommendations by Plan Phase

DRAFT 15

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Existing Conditions accelerator and incubator. Other community centers include the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center with a pool complex, the A review of the existing conditions and facilities within the study area Rey Park Community Center, the Tampa Bay Community Center, and was conducted to provide background information and context and the David Barksdale Senior Citizen Center. The Loretta Ingraham has been used to guide the development of potential pedestrian and Center and Pool is immediately outside the study area boundaries. bicycle improvements throughout the study area. This section The study area is home to eight city parks, with MacFarlane Park the provides documentation of community assets and history, existing largest and most central and the newly‐renovated Julian B. Lane Park, transportation facilities, planned improvements, and identified gaps immediately adjacent to the study area, the other major park. Other in the current multimodal network. parks in the study area include Jim Walters Park, Lincoln Gardens Park Community Assets Soccer Field, Fremont Linear Park, Salcines Park, Villa Brothers Park, Rey Park, and the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Center Parks. The West Tampa area is rich with historic and modern community assets, including a state‐of‐the‐art community center, a recently‐ The West Tampa area is home to one public library, the West Tampa refurbished riverfront park, and the first public library in Hillsborough Branch Library, which was Hillsborough County’s first public library. County. Recognizing, documenting, and mapping the range of Funded by a $17,500 grant by Andrew Carnegie, the structure community assets available aids in identifying where people are opened in 1914 and is currently recognized as a historical building, in going within the neighborhood and how to create a network of part due to its Neo‐classical revivalist architectural characteristic of facilities that effectively connects people to destinations that are Carnegie libraries. frequented. Figure 3 shows the location of community assets, The study area is home to five public schools, with three additional including the many parks, community centers, and schools located public schools within a mile of the study area. It also is home to two within and adjacent to the study area. private schools. Just Elementary, West Tampa Elementary, and Several community centers are scattered throughout the study area Macfarlane Elementary are within the study area, and Graham that provide a range of services and recreational opportunities for Elementary and Mitchell Elementary are within a half‐mile of the residents of varying incomes. The newest community center is the study area. Stewart Middle Magnet School is the only middle school new Bryan Glazer Family Jewish Community Center (JCC), which in the study area, and Roland Park K–8 is immediately outside the opened in December 2016 in the historic Fort Homer Hesterly Armory study area. Blake High School and Jefferson High School are building and has 100,000+ square feet for community services, immediately outside the study area bounds. Other notable schools including aquatics, visual arts, and senior centers, areas for teens and include St. Joseph Catholic School and Tampa Preparatory School and tweens, event space, community services space, and a business the University of Tampa.

DRAFT 16

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 3: Community Assets and Points of Interest DRAFT 17

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Overlays and Special Districts West Tampa Overlay

Several distinct overlays or special district designations are located The West Tampa Overlay District is intended to ensure that all types within the study area, including a CRA, a National Historic District, of new and infill development and other major additions to and two Special Overlay Districts. structures are compatible in building and structural orientation, design elements, height, lot dimensional requirements, public safety, Community Redevelopment Areas and other site and spatial relationships set by current precedent in the area. Standards within the overlay include setbacks, roof pitches, The West Tampa CRA (see Figure 4), established in 2015, is located parking, and other elements intended to complement or simulate the within the study area and encompasses 964 acres immediately historic and architectural significance of the neighborhood. adjacent to the Central Business District (CBD). The West Tampa area was identified as being physically, economically, and aesthetically Westshore Overlay distressed, and the CRA and the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) The Westshore Overlay District Standards are designed to guide the were created to allow for strategic investments and facilitate future development and character of the Westshore area through redevelopment throughout the community. creating an appealing business, commercial, and residential West Tampa National Historical District development environment and improve existing conditions through the lens of public health, safety, comfort, amenities, properties, and West Tampa is home to a nationally‐recognized Historic District – general welfare. The standards provide guidance on the appropriate home to buildings, properties, and sites that have been designated advertisement of goods and services, enhancing pedestrian and as historically or architecturally significant. National Historic Districts bicyclist connectivity, and increasing public awareness of the are recognized through the US Department of the Interior under the Westshore District as a significant economic activity area with high National Park Service, are afforded no special legal status, and concentrations of retail, business, and residential and mixed‐use impose no restrictions on what property owners may do with a density. The standards simultaneously aim to protect and preserve designated property. Historic Districts contain two types of the existing lower‐density residential development in the District properties—contributing and non‐contributing; contributing from encroachment and adverse impacts and identify several structures are broadly considered to add to the historical integrity or pedestrian priority streets that include guidance on sidewalk widths, architectural qualities that make a historic district significant. Figure setbacks, building heights, and other design criteria. Identified 5 shows the extent of the West Tampa National Historic District. priority streets include Westshore Boulevard, Lois Avenue, Spruce Overlay Districts Street, Himes Avenue, Kennedy Boulevard, Dale Mabry Highway, and The West Tampa area overlay districts are shown in Figure 6. Hillsborough Avenue.

DRAFT 18

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 4: Community Redevelopment Areas

DRAFT 19

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 5: West Tampa Historic District

DRAFT 20

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 6: Overlay Districts

DRAFT 21

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

pedestrian network. A significant portion of the roadways within and Roadway Classification immediately surrounding the study area have a sidewalk on one or Roadways are grouped into functional classes according to the both sides of the roadway, and the major roadways typically have a character of the service they provide or are intended to provide. The sidewalk and ADA accessible curb ramps on both sides of the following are the major roadways in the study area grouped by their roadway and at intersections. Figure 8 shows existing sidewalks along current functional classification: with current sidewalk gaps in the study area, and Figure 9 shows sidewalk gaps along the classified/major roadway network.  Arterial – Dale Mabry Highway, MacDill Avenue, Howard Consideration to prioritizing sidewalks along these streets should be Avenue, Armenia Avenue, Lois Avenue, Columbus Drive, given. It is important to note that current projects are addressing N Boulevard sidewalks and the pedestrian network along Himes Avenue, Cass  Collector – Habana Avenue (I275 to Columbus Drive), Himes Street, Lois Avenue, Willow Avenue, and North Boulevard. Avenue, Cass Street, Cypress Street (Lois Avenue to MacDill Avenue), Willow Avenue Bicycle Facilities  Neighborhood Collector – Cypress Street (MacDill Avenue to Bicycle facilities including trails/shared‐use paths, bicycle lanes, and N Boulevard), Main Street, Spruce Street (MacDill Avenue to shared‐lane markings provide bicyclists with opportunities to travel Lois Avenue) on various facilities based on their levels of comfort and experience. Intersection Control Figure 10 shows the various existing bicycle facilities within the greater West Tampa area. In 2015, Florida ranked as the #1 state in the country for intersection‐ related traffic facilities; 30% of all traffic fatalities in Florida occur as Several planned bicycle facilities are within and adjacent to the study a result of intersection‐related crashes. A great opportunity for area. Figure 11 shows these planned improvements along with the improving the safety of the transportation network in the study area existing facilities. A few of the more prominent bicycle improvements lies in improving or addressing operational and safety issues at at‐ include the expansion of the Green Spine, a protected two‐way cycle grade intersections. As part of the existing conditions analysis, all track along Cass Street from the Cass Street Bridge to Howard signalized and four‐way stop intersections within the study area were Avenue; buffered bike lanes along both Howard Avenue and Armenia identified and mapped and are shown in Figure 7. Avenue between Kennedy Boulevard and Columbus Drive; new bike lanes along Himes Avenue and along Lois Avenue between Kennedy Pedestrian Facilities Boulevard and Boy Scout Boulevard; and a potential trail bridge along the south side of I‐275 at Dale Mabry Highway. Sidewalks and other facilities such as curb ramps are essential components of creating a safe, accessible, and well‐connected

DRAFT 22

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 7: Existing Intersection Controls

DRAFT 23

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 8: Existing Sidewalks and Gaps

DRAFT 24

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 9: Sidewalk Gaps on Classified Network

DRAFT 25

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 10: Existing Bicycle Infrastructure

DRAFT 19

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 11: Planned and Existing Bicycle Infrastructure

DRAFT 20

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

 Dale Mabry Highway at Gray Street Crash History  Dale Mabry Highway at Spruce Street To help inform and prioritize safety improvements, a five‐year (2013–  Dale Mabry Highway at Kennedy Boulevard 2017) crash history, obtained from the FDOT District 7 Crash Data  Rome Avenue at Main Street Management System, was reviewed. Figure 12 shows the location Transit Routes and Ridership and concentration of total crashes that occurred within the study area; crashes were grouped into clusters based on proximity to each To help inform the design of the pedestrian and bicycle network, other to better show where the crashes occurred and the existing transit routes, stops, and stop ridership were evaluated. concentration of crashes within the study area. Based on review, it Figure 14 shows the existing fixed‐route transit network within the was determined that most crashes were concentrated along the study area, and Table 1 lists the existing transit routes with their study area’s major roadways, with the highest crash clusters near the existing service frequencies and operating times. Figure 15 shows following intersections: stop‐level transit ridership (boardings + alightings) for the stops  Dale Mabry Highway at Columbus Drive within the study area.

 Cypress Street at Dale Mabry Highway The majority of routes within the study area operate on 30‐minute  Cypress Street at Lois Avenue headways during weekdays and 60‐minute headways on weekends.  Armenia Avenue off‐ramp from I‐275 Existing bus routes provide connections to the St. Petersburg  Himes Avenue at Columbus Drive Gateway area, Tampa International Airport, Downtown Tampa, Given that a major focus of this planning effort is to improve Yukon Transfer Center, and other essential destinations in the pedestrian and bicycle safety, understanding where pedestrian and county. In addition to the fixed‐route services provided by bicycle crashes are occurring is an essential component of identifying Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART), there is a FLEX Route potential safety enhancements. Figure 13 shows clusters of within the study area that provides door‐to‐door or door‐to‐transit pedestrian and bicycle crashes within and adjacent to the study area. service for all within the FLEX zone. Similar to total crashes, most of the pedestrian and bicycle crashes The highest ridership fixed‐route bus stops within the study area are: are concentrated along the major roadways, with the following  Himes Avenue at Columbus Drive locations having the highest concentration of pedestrian and bicycle  Dale Mabry Highway at Spruce Street crashes:

DRAFT 21

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 12: All Crash Clusters and Counts

DRAFT 22

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 13: Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Clusters and Counts

DRAFT 23

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 14: Existing Bus Service

DRAFT 24

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 15: Average Daily Bus Stop Activity

DRAFT 25

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Table 1: Existing Transit Routes Service in West Tampa Weekday Weekend Route Weekday Span Weekend Span Frequency Frequency 7 West Tampa 30 min 5:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. 60 min 6:30 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. 14 Armenia/Howard Avenue 30 min 5:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. 30 min 6:30 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. 15 Columbus Drive 30 min 5:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. 60 min 6:00 a.m. – 10:45 p.m. 30 Kennedy Boulevard 30 min 4:30 a.m. – 12:30 a.m. 30 min 6:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. 32 Dr. MLK Jr. Boulevard 30 min 5:00 a.m. – 12:45 a.m. 60 min 7:00 a.m. – 11:40 p.m. 36 Dale Mabry Hwy / Himes Avenue 30 min 5:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. 60 min 5:50 a.m. – 10:45 p.m. 45 Yukon / Westshore 30 min 5:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. 60 min 6:50 a.m. – 10:30 p.m. 60LX Cross County Limited Express 60 min 5:30 a.m. – 10:20 p.m. 60 min 6:30 a.m. – 10:20 p.m.

Planned Capital Improvements

Himes Avenue Improvements

Himes Avenue between Kennedy Boulevard and Columbus Drive is currently a four‐lane roadway with a center two‐way left‐turn lane and no existing bicycle facilities. The City of Tampa currently has planned improvements for Himes Avenue that will include the installation of raised median islands and dedicated left‐turn lanes and as well as the narrowing of the existing travel lanes to create space for a bike lane on both sides of Himes Avenue. Additionally, a new mid‐block crossing is planned along Himes Avenue between Carmen Himes Avenue, Showing Bike Lanes, Median, and Street and Cass Street. Midblock Crossing North of Beach Street

DRAFT 26

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Lois Avenue Improvements Columbus Drive included the addition of buffered bicycle lanes. This report will examines enhancements that could potentially be Lois Avenue is currently being evaluated for a complete street incorporated into the upcoming resurfacing project. redesign between Kennedy Boulevard and Boy Scout Boulevard. A concept study has identified bicycle and pedestrian connectivity issues and established new lane configuration that includes 4’ bike lanes on both sides of the roadway.

Source: City of Tampa Lois Avenue, Proposed Typical Section Cypress Street to Spruce Street Willow Avenue, Looking North from Arch Street Willow Avenue Improvements

Willow Avenue is currently receiving shared‐lane markings from Kennedy Boulevard to Main Street and improvements to address sidewalk and ADA issues along both sides of the street between Cass Street and I‐275. Additional signage and pavement markings are also proposed as part of the overall improvements along Willow Avenue. Howard‐Armenia Avenue Improvements

Although within the City of Tampa, Howard Avenue and Armenia Avenue are owned and maintained by Hillsborough County, which is currently developing plans to resurface both in the near future. A recently‐completed resurfacing project along these streets north of Howard Avenue at Columbus Drive, Looking South DRAFT 27

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Rome Avenue Improvements Phase I of the W Cypress Street improvements from N Dale Mabry Highway to N Himes Avenue include: Identified in Phase I of the City of Tampa Walk–Bike Plan are  Widening the existing three‐lane roadway to a four‐lane improvements to Rome Avenue that address sidewalk gaps and the roadway with a centered left‐turn lane from Dale Mabry addition of bicycle lanes. The City’s current capital improvement program lists construction for these improvements some time in Highway to Himes Avenue fiscal year 2020.  Reconstructing the signalization infrastructure at Himes Avenue  Providing a continuous sidewalk on both sides of the roadway  Providing shared‐lane markings

Phase II of W Cypress Street improvements from N Himes Avenue to N Boulevard include:  Providing shared‐lane markings  Providing sidewalk connectivity on the north side of Cypress Street from Himes Avenue to MacDill Avenue  ADA upgrades including curb ramps

Rome Avenue at Cass Street, Looking North West Cypress Street Improvements

West Cypress Street is functionally classified as a Collector Road from Dale Mabry Highway to MacDill Avenue and a Neighborhood Collector Road from MacDill Avenue to N Boulevard. Improvements to the roadway are currently divided into two phases that are being constructed independently and are intended to improve mobility and accessibility between the Westshore District and Downtown Tampa in accordance with Walk–Bike Plan Phase I.

Cypress Street at Oregon Avenue, Looking West

DRAFT 28

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

West Spruce Street Improvements Avenue, was completed as part of the two‐way conversion project along Cass Street and Tyler Street. The second phase of the Green West Spruce Street is functionally classified as a Neighborhood Spine is expected to follow Cass Street and connect the North Hyde Collector Road and consists of two lanes with a center two‐way left‐ Park neighborhood from Howard Avenue into Downtown with a turn lane from Lois Avenue to Dale Mabry Highway and a two‐lane, separated two‐way cycle track. The current capital improvement two‐way roadway from Dale Mabry Highway to N Boulevard. program has identified just under $1 million in construction funds for Proposed improvements to W Spruce Street include roadway the extension of the Green Spine. resurfacing and targeted improvements to operation and safety issues and to alleviate congestion.

Preliminary engineering is underway to identify operation improvements to traffic flow and congestion at the Dale Mabry Highway intersection. Additionally, the project is looking at a potential midblock crossing and the possibility of a multi‐use path Source: City of Tampa Proposed Green Spine Concept between between Hesperides Street and Manhattan Avenue. Howard Avenue and Willow Avenue Julian B. Lane Park

Julian B. Lane Park, on the eastern border of the study area, recently opened after a $35 million renovation that provided a variety of new services, amenities, and recreation opportunities for the West Tampa area. The park is envisioned to become a major activity center and attraction, not only for the West Tampa community but for the entire city of Tampa. Source: City of Tampa West Spruce Street East‐West Green Spine/Cass Street

The East‐West Green Spine is an urban trail/cycle track project that, when complete, will provide pedestrian and bicycle connections

between North Hyde Park, Downtown, and Ybor City. The first phase Source: City of Tampa of the Green Spine, between the Cass Street Bridge and Nebraska Renovated Julian B. Lane Park

DRAFT 29

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

DRAFT 30

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Enhancing Safety and Mobility in West Tampa Tampa, Westshore, and the USF area, major network gaps exist within the study area that impede the full effective use of This section explores potential safety and mobility enhancements transportation facilities. Existing plans have focused primarily on and and is arranged in the following sections: created networks that connect the primary activity centers of Tampa,  Best Practice Enhancements – This section reviews a variety but have not been as focused on intra‐neighborhood networks. of general transportation best practices that should be A variety of transportation best practices have been established and considered throughout the study area, whether specifically are available for moving the West Tampa area towards the “Livable mentioned or not. In many instances, the Best Practice City” vision and connecting and enhancing the planned bicycle and Enhancements noted herein may already have been pedestrian networks. This list of Best Practice Enhancements is by no established and are in place in many locations throughout means exhaustive, but it provides a range of enhancements that may the study area. or may not be appropriate based on an areas context, goals, and  Site‐Specific Enhancements – This section explores financial feasibility. Additionally, the identified Best Practice opportunities to enhance safety and mobility at specific Enhancements typically go beyond providing improvements to the locations/corridors throughout the study area. Although the transportation realm and often create synergies that help beautify concepts from these enhancements could be applied areas, bolster economic development, and improve community elsewhere, they were developed specifically for the cohesiveness and sense of place. identified locations. Complete Sidewalks Best Practice Enhancements for Safety and Mobility Sidewalks are an essential component of a transportation network The “Livable City” vision for Tampa promotes a safe, accessible, and and act as a conduit for pedestrian movement, access, and effective network of bicycle and pedestrian pathways across Tampa connectivity. Sidewalks are the ultimate public space, serving as that connect people and neighborhoods to key destinations and also facilitators of economic activity, social interaction, and community allow for local circulation. With the wave of growth and cohesion. As streets become bigger with higher‐speed traffic and redevelopment in the West Tampa area, and given recent plans from higher traffic volumes, sidewalks become a necessary component of the variety of transportation agencies in the Tampa Bay region, a the transportation system. Providing sidewalks along both sides of all thorough multimodal plan for the West Tampa area is needed to major roadways should be a priority, followed by completed fulfill the “Livable City” vision. Although existing plans create a connections along local streets by filling sidewalk gaps and missing relatively effective network of trails, pathways, and sidewalks that links. connect the West Tampa area to key destinations such as Downtown

DRAFT 31

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Speed Management set the design speed and design features based on a target speed – the speed intended for drivers to travel – rather than the observed Speed plays a critical role in the cause and severity of crashes, and operating speeds. Target speed should be determined based on the there is a direct correlation among higher speeds, crash risk, and context of the street and consistent with the existing/desired level of injury severity. Speed is also a factor in determining livability and multimodal activity to provide mobility for motor vehicle and a safe overall comfort for all travel modes along a street. Managing travel environment for non‐motorized users. speeds can help make streets feel like a part of the city rather than highways running through it. Using target speed to establish a roadway’s design speed can result in greater flexibility in implementing speed management strategies. Although speed reduction cannot be achieved simply by reducing the Popular design strategies used to manage traffic speeds, change posted speed limit, a variety of speed management strategies can be driver behavior, and improve the quality of the non‐motorized employed to bring speeds to a more “livable” level. There are two environment include narrower lane widths, roadside landscaping, approaches to managing speed—change the physical design of the and extended curbs. Exploring strategies to manage speeds and street and/or change people’s perceptions and responses to the create a safer and more livable environment throughout West Tampa street. should be supported and implemented where feasible. Changing a street’s design changes people’s behavior. Street design Lighting traditionally has been based on highway design principles that accommodate higher speeds and are forgiving of driver error. Street lighting is a critical component of street safety and should be Designing for higher speeds often means including mandated design designed to provide adequate illumination for all roadway users. features such as larger curb radii, wider travel lanes, and clear zones, Many factors affect street lighting and its effectiveness in improving features that have many positive benefits on highways intended to safety, including the location and space of lights; orientation, move a large number of fast‐moving vehicles, but in complex urban intensity (brightness), and color; ambient light; type of light (e.g., LED environments with multiple users traveling at various speeds often or high‐pressure sodium), and others. Generally, street lighting can create a less‐than‐favorable environment, especially for non‐ be divided into two categories—intersection lighting and roadway motorized users. lighting or lighting along the street. For intersection lighting, considerations to the placement of overhead lights in relation to the The conventional highway design practice for establishing posted intersection and crosswalk should be considered; ideally, intersection speed limit involves establishing a roadway design speed based on lighting should be placed in advance of a crosswalk to positively existing observed (85th percentile) speeds on a roadway. The design illuminate pedestrians within the crosswalk (Figure 16). speed is then used to determine the various design features of the roadway. An alternative approach to establishing posted speed is to

DRAFT 32

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Improved Crosswalk Markings – Crosswalks are a vital component of the pedestrian network and provide a designated crossing area for pedestrians, alerting drivers of the likelihood of pedestrians. Providing high‐emphasis markings (Figure 17) helps discourage drivers from encroaching on the crosswalk area and may help pedestrians assert their right‐of‐way. Marked crosswalks should be provided at all signalized intersections and considered along major streets at cross‐street and major driveway intersections.

Source: FHWA Figure 16: Intersection and Crosswalk Lighting Design Another form of lighting along the street is pedestrian‐level lighting, which can enhance the overall environment and sense of place along a street while also improving pedestrian visibility to motorists. Source: safety.fhwa.dot.gov Pedestrian lighting differs from traditional street lighting in that it is Figure 17: High‐Emphasis Ladder Crosswalk Markings often placed lower in height and is designed to light the primary Reduced Turning Radii – The radii of curbs and corners at walkway as opposed to the street itself. intersections directly impact vehicle turning speeds and crossing Intersection Enhancements distance for pedestrians. Smaller curb radii require vehicles to slow down more to complete a turning movement and are a key to As intersections are among the most dangerous places for road users, creating compact urban intersections with safe turning speeds and a variety of best practices have been developed to improve the safety short, safe pedestrian crossings. Figure 18 shows a reconstructed and mobility of users. Possible intersection enhancements include intersection corner with a reduced curb radius. the following.

DRAFT 33

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

constructed most often in the center of intersections along primarily residential streets. Vehicles approaching the circle must change their path of travel to maneuver around it, and they often are used in conjunction with an all‐yield intersection. Although not as effective as roundabouts at managing travel speeds, neighborhood traffic circles can reduce travel speeds when used in series along a corridor, can promote a more consistent rate of travel, and provide an opportunity for increased aesthetics and landscaping.

Source: pedbikesafe.org Figure 18: Retrofitted Curb Cut with Smaller Turning Radius Bulb‐outs – Bulb‐out (curb extensions or bump‐outs) are extensions of the sidewalk into the roadway or parking lane at either intersections or mid‐block locations. They provide additional space for pedestrians at intersections and increase pedestrian safety through improved visibility and shorter crossing distances. They also can be used to help reduce turning radii and slow down turning movement speeds. Figure 19 is an example of how bulb‐outs can be used to reduce crossing distances and provide opportunities for an Source: NACTO Urban Design Guide enhanced streetscape. Figure 19: Bulb‐Outs

Roundabouts – Modern urban roundabouts and mini‐roundabouts are near‐circular intersections designed to reduce speeds, conflict points and provide for a more stable, smooth flow of traffic at intersections. Roundabouts may vary in size and design but follow the same general design principles and have similar applications. They are intended to make intersections safer through reduced speeds and reduced conflict points.

Neighborhood Traffic Circles – Similar to roundabouts, Source: NACTO Urban Design Guide neighborhood traffic circles (Figure 20) are raised circular medians Figure 20: Neighborhood Traffic Circle

DRAFT 34

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Mid‐Block Crossings infrastructure practices such as rain gardens (Figure 21) and bioswales into roadway design. Integrating stormwater management Pedestrian crossings, particularly at or over busy roadways, are into street design allows for stormwater to be controlled at the essential for creating a safe and uninterrupted pedestrian network. source, provides an opportunity for improved aesthetics, may Although pedestrian crossing improvements typically focus on provide traffic calming benefits, and increases resiliency to climate crossings at intersections, trail and mid‐block crossings are also a change. needed component of pedestrian networks and often can be overlooked. Pedestrians are not always likely to cross at marked intersections, particularly where the markings are inconvenient or unsafe. Several pedestrian or trail crossings are proposed or needed within the study area.

Access to Transit

The so‐called “first mile–last mile” dilemma is a well‐documented challenge for transit riders or those who wish to use transit. As a result, connecting the pedestrian and bicycle network to transit stop locations is an essential consideration for network design. Given that transit stops are traditionally located on busy high‐traffic roadways, Source: dirt.asla.org creating safe and accessible bicycle and pedestrian connections to Figure 21: Bulb‐Out with Rain Garden stops can be a challenge. Best practices for creating improved access Site‐Specific Enhancements to transit for all users focus on complete street enhancements to auto‐centric roadways and creating parallel alternative routes for The following section identifies potential improvements and other users where complete streets enhancements may not be recommendations for enhancing safety and mobility in West Tampa, practical. with the aim of creating effective intra‐neighborhood networks and significant safety enhancements. Through the variety of best practice Drainage treatments and practices discussed in the previous section, Streets and other impervious surfaces are a significant contributor to recommendations can significantly improve mobility for residents, stormwater in urbanized areas, creating standing pools of water and beautify the neighborhood, bolster economic development, and flooding. Recognizing this dilemma, modern complete streets reinforce the urban and social fabric of the area. improvements are integrating stormwater management and green

DRAFT 35

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Complete Streets Opportunities enhancements to reinforce Main Street’s historic significance as the center of business and social life in West Tampa. Complete streets is a modern term for roadways designed and built to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicycles, Main Street is a two‐way two‐lane undivided street with on‐street motorists, and public transportation. Complete streets are accessible parking on both sides throughout most of the corridor. The posted and promote safety and mobility for users of all agers and all abilities. speed limit along Main Street is 25 mph. For most of its length, there Additionally, complete streets can be used to encourage economic is approximately 60 feet of right‐of‐way, comprising 40 feet of development and activity, promote social cohesion, and make for an pavement and 5‐foot sidewalks separated from the street by a 5‐foot improved urban environment. Three corridors within the West landscape buffer. Figure 22 is a representation of the typical section Tampa study area were identified for potential complete street along the majority of Main Street. enhancements: Current pavement conditions along Main Street indicate that it has  Main Street from MacDill Avenue to N Boulevard not been resurfaced in some time, as evidenced by cracked  Columbus Drive from Dale Mabry Highway to the pavement, faded paint, and potholes. For the most part, the Hillsborough River sidewalks along Main Street are in good condition and adequate for  Howard Avenue and Armenia Avenue from Columbus Drive the existing levels of pedestrian activity, but there are locations to south of Gray Street where the sidewalks are severely cracked and in need of repair. There are existing street lights along the corridor, and it appears that many Main Street of the lights at intersections have been recently upgraded to brighter Main Street, once the heart of thriving West Tampa, is now the heart and more energy efficient LED lights. of social and economic development in the West Tampa In general, the identified complete streets enhancements for Main neighborhood. The street and adjacent roadways are surrounded by Street involve better delineating the on‐street parking areas, which a variety of historical structures and developing small businesses. will have a narrowing effect on the travel lanes, improving the Salcines Park fronts Main Street at Howard Avenue and serves as the visibility of pedestrians at intersections through enhanced crosswalk center of the neighborhood. The western end of Main Street leads markings and bulb‐outs, installing neighborhood traffic circles at into Macfarlane Park, a major recreational area and greenspace for select intersections, and providing shared lane markings along the residents, and the eastern end connects into the West River corridor. Due to the planned West River redevelopment, most of the redevelopment, which is planned as a new model for urban living. identified enhancements are focused on the part of Main Street The historical and current significance of Main Street, the uses between MacDill Avenue and Rome Avenue, but there are some fronting the roadway, and a significant amount of existing pedestrian traffic provide additional opportunities for complete streets

DRAFT 36

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN identified enhancements for Main Street that could be consider section the lack of on‐street parking delineation creates the between Rome Avenue and N Boulevard. appearance of an extremely wide travel lane. There are no stops along Main Street between MacDill Avenue and Armenia Avenue, this in combination with wide travel lanes results in travel speeds that often exceed the posted 25 MPH through this segment. Some of the enhancements for this segment of Main Street include delineating the on‐street parking areas and providing shared lane markings. These improvements will help to better define the roadway surface and create a narrower feeling street that is more conducive to non‐motorized users (see Figure 23).

Figure 22: Main Street Existing Typical Section

The following is a detailed description of identified enhancements for Main Street. Main Street, MacDill Avenue to Armenia Avenue – This portion of Main Street is primarily fronted by single family homes and begins to transition to commercial frontage near the Armenia Avenue Figure 23: Proposed Typical Section for Main Street from MacDill intersection. While on‐street parking is permitted through this Avenue to Armenia Avenue

DRAFT 37

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Potential enhancements along this segment of Main Street include Main Street at Armenia Avenue – This intersection begins the the following: transition to the more commercial segments of Main Street, and the  As a considerable amount of westbound to southbound identified enhancements help align the travel lanes to the proposed turning movements were observed during field visits, enhancements for the next block of Main Street between Armenia consider conducting a turning movement count at this Avenue and Howard Avenue. Potential enhancements that could be locations to determine if a westbound left‐turn lane on considered for this intersection include the following: Main Street would be warranted. Additionally, based on the  Consider enhancing the existing crosswalk markings to turning movement count, consider determining if a traffic include high‐visibility ladder‐style markings; alternatively, signal would be warranted at this location. consider utilizing a decorative crosswalk with the ladder  The north side of Main Street east of MacDill Avenue is used style markings integrated into the crosswalk (Figure 24). by Macfarlane Park IB Elementary School as a student pick‐  Evaluate constructing a raised (landscaped) median along up/drop‐off area. Consider providing pavement Main Street west of Armenia Avenue extending from the markings/striping in front of the school to help designate intersection to approximately 225 feet west of the this area as a drop‐off/pick‐up area and consider including intersection. signage stating that there is no parking during the  On the east side of the intersection, evaluate constructing a designated drop‐off and pick‐up times. raised median between the westbound left‐turn lane and  The sidewalk along the north side of Main Street between the eastbound travel lane and extending the median MacDill Avenue and Gomez Avenue is severely cracked in approximately 225 feet east of the intersection past the multiple locations and poses a potential trip hazard, left‐turn lane. especially given the proximity to Macfarlane Park and Macfarlane Elementary. Consider repairing/replacing the broken sidewalk sections.  Evaluate the intersections of Habana Avenue and Tampania Avenue for neighborhood traffic circles and conversion from two‐way stop control to an all‐yield intersection. Also consider providing marked crosswalks on all legs of these intersections. As an alternative to the neighborhood traffic circles, consider installing bulb‐outs at the intersections.

Figure 24: Enhanced Decorative Crosswalk Markings

DRAFT 38

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Main Street, Armenia Avenue to Howard Avenue – The block of Main Street between Armenia Avenue and Howard Avenue begins the transition from single‐family residential to commercial. This segment also is signed for no on‐street parking, partly due to the existing left‐turn lanes at both Armenia Avenue and Howard Avenue.

Potential enhancements along this segment of Main Street include the following:  Consider providing a raised landscaped median along Main Street between the left‐turn lanes to help physically narrow the street and provide opportunities for enhancements to the streetscape and a potential gateway feature to the Main Street commercial district. Figure 25 is an illustrative concept of the proposed typical section between Armenia Avenue and Howard Avenue.

Main Street, Howard Avenue to Albany Avenue – The segment of Main Street between Howard Avenue and Albany Avenue is fronted by commercial properties and is the civic and commercial center for the corridor. The segment is anchored by parks on both ends, has 10‐ Figure 25: Proposed Typical Section for Main Street foot sidewalks, active storefronts, and on‐street parking. from Armenia Avenue to Howard Avenue Opportunities to highlight this segment as the commercial center of West Tampa should be explored and could include the addition of  At Howard Avenue, consider constructing bulb‐outs in the pedestrian‐scale pedestal lighting and mid‐block curb extensions that northwest and northeast quadrants. In the northeast could be used to improve the streetscape and provide variety to the quadrant, consider continuing the curb extension along the pedestrian environment. Figure 26 shows how shared‐lane markings, north side of Main Street (adjacent to Salcines Park) to marked on‐street parking, and curb extensions could be used to Ysolino Street. Also, consider enhancing the crosswalk transform the street without the need for major reconstruction. markings at the intersection to include high‐visibility ladder‐ style markings; alternatively, consider providing decorative Potential enhancements for this segment of Main Street include the crosswalks integrated with the ladder style markings. following:

DRAFT 39

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

park. Additionally, consider constructing a bulb‐out in the southwest quadrant and along Main Street in the northeast and southeast quadrants.  Consider enhancing the existing crosswalk markings to high visibility ladder style markings at Albany Avenue.

Main Street, Albany Avenue to Rome Avenue – This segment of Main Street begins the transition back to primarily residential from the commercial frontage in the previous blocks. As with the portions on the western end of the corridor, most of the enhancements through this segment are focused on better defining the roadway surface through the delineation of on‐street parking and the inclusion of shared‐lane markings. Other enhancements for this segment of Main Street could include the following:  Consider providing crosswalk markings across the side street intersection at Fremont Avenue and extending the curb along Main Street to define the on‐street parking areas and improve the visibility of pedestrians at this intersection.  Consider providing enhanced intersection lighting at Rome Figure 26: Proposed Typical Section for Main Street Avenue; there currently is one overhead LED light in the from Howard Avenue to Albany Avenue northwest corner of the intersection. Evaluate the existing  There are existing alleyways behind the commercial intersection and crosswalk lighting levels and enhance if properties north and south of Main Street; consider better necessary. using the alleyways to circulate traffic and for parking  The existing crosswalk markings at Rome Avenue are faded access within this segment. Encouraging parking access and in need of rehabilitation. Consider enhancing the from the alleys could provide additional opportunity to crosswalk markings to high‐visibility ladder‐style markings. improve the pedestrian realm along Main Street. In addition to rehabilitating and enhancing the crosswalk  At Albany Avenue, consider extending the curb along the markings, evaluate the existing pedestrian curb ramps to north side of Main Street from the northwest corner at ensure that they meet ADA requirements and provide ADA Albany Avenue to the existing driveway located west of the detectable truncated dome pads within the curb ramps.

DRAFT 40

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

 Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Rome Avenue in the Columbus Drive provides east‐west connections through West northeast and southwest intersection quadrants. Tampa to the Westshore area on the western end of the corridor and Additionally, consider evaluating the current need for to Tampa Heights, V.M. Ybor, and East Tampa beyond the northbound and southbound right‐turn lanes on Rome Hillsborough River. The travel demand and character of Columbus Avenue; if turn lanes are not needed, consider constructing Drive changes throughout the study area. Table 2 provides typical bulb‐outs within these intersection quadrants. roadway information for the various segments of the corridor, and Table 3 shows recently collected annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts. Table 2: Columbus Drive Typical Sections Posted Speed Est. ROW From – To Lanes (mph) Width (ft) Lois Ave to Grady Ave 8D 50 210’ Grady Ave to Dale Mabry Hwy 6D 45 180’ Dale Mabry Hwy to Himes Ave 6D 45 130’ Himes Ave to E of Lincoln Ave 4D 40 80’ E of Lincoln Ave to N Boulevard 4U 40 50’ – 60’ Table 3: Columbus Drive AADT Columbus Drive from/to AADT (Year) Main Street at Rome Avenue Lois Ave to Dale Mabry Hwy 48,000 (2015) Dale Mabry Hwy to Himes Ave 25,500 (2015) Main Street, Rome Avenue to N Boulevard – The West River Himes Ave to MacDill Ave 26,052 (2015) Redevelopment Plan includes the portions of Main Street between Habana Ave to Armenia Ave 21,500 (2015) Rome Avenue and N Boulevard. The West River Plan recognizes the Rome Ave to N Boulevard 17,703 (2015) historical and future importance of Main Street to the West Tampa Recently, some segments of Columbus Drive east of the study area area and has identified Main Street for land use, streetscape, and were studied for complete street improvements. Considering infrastructure enhancements that will promote pedestrian activity complete street enhancements along Columbus Drive west of N and incorporate complete street principles. Continue coordination Boulevard would improve safety and mobility throughout the West with the West River Planning efforts and support for continued Tampa area. The following is a detailed description of the identified complete street enhancements along this segment of Main Street. enhancements for Columbus Drive; in addition to the identified enhancements, consideration should be given to enhancing lighting Columbus Drive along the corridor where necessary and to providing marked

DRAFT 41

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN crosswalks at side streets and major driveway intersections along the continuous 12’ path along the south side of Columbus Drive, corridor. but that there may be adequate room for a 10’ pathway without adversely impacting the properties along Columbus Columbus Drive, Lois Avenue to Grady Avenue – Consistent with Drive. previous Walk–Bike Plans, bicyclists in this high‐speed, high‐volume  Consider improving sidewalk geometry to better align the segment should be provided as an alternative to traveling in the on‐ pedestrian path with intersection crosswalks. street bike lanes. This is especially important because the on‐street  Consider providing pedestrian‐scale lighting at roadway bike lanes are fragmented by right‐turn drop lanes at either side of crossings to enhance the safety of sidewalk/pathway users. Jim Walter Boulevard, creating a challenging condition for bicyclists. Columbus Drive at Dale Mabry Highway – This is a very large, high‐ Potential enhancements to this segment of Columbus Drive include volume intersection with geometric and operation conditions that do the following: not favor non‐motorized users.  Consider widening or reconstruction of existing 6’ sidewalks to 8’ minimum or preferred 12’ shared‐use paths. Potential improvements for the safety and mobility for non‐  Consider improvements to sidewalk geometry at signalized motorized users include the following: and unsignalized intersections to better align pedestrian  Consider reducing the curb radius in the southwest corner paths with intersection crosswalks and reduce out‐of‐ of the intersection to allow larger vehicles to turn into the direction travel. center of inside travel lanes of southbound Dale Mabry  Consider providing pedestrian‐scale lighting at roadway Highway, and realign the crosswalk accordingly. crossings to better enhance the safety of sidewalk/pathway  The channelized westbound and southbound right‐turn users. movements operate under free‐flow conditions, which can diminish driver yield rates to pedestrians and result in Columbus Drive, Grady Avenue to Dale Mabry Highway – This high‐ higher‐speeds and more severe crashes. Free‐flow right speed, high‐volume segment does not have an existing eastbound turns may also contribute to rear‐end crashes when the bicycle lane. leading driver slows, not realizing the free‐flow condition Potential improvements to this segment include the following: exists. To address this issue and improve safety at the  Consider widening or reconstruction of existing 6’ sidewalks northbound (non‐free‐flow) right‐turn channel, consider the to either minimum 8’ sidewalk or preferred 12’ shared‐use following: path. From aerial and parcel map review, it appears that o Perform an intersection operational analysis to there may not be enough right‐of‐way to provide a determine whether the free‐flow condition is

DRAFT 42

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

necessary to maintain acceptable level of service at each direction and a center two‐way left‐turn lane with intermittent the intersection. If not, consider converting the landscaped medians. free‐flow lanes into conventional right‐turn lanes  The City of Tampa is in the process of enhancing Himes without receiving lanes. Avenue; enhancements to Columbus Drive include: o Consider providing raised crosswalks between the o Replacing the existing painted median between curb and right‐turn islands to reduce right‐turning Himes Avenue and Glen Avenue with a raised traffic speeds. median. o Provide R10‐15 (“Turning Traffic Yield to o Extending the existing raised median between Glen Pedestrians”) signage. Avenue and Lincoln Avenue into the existing o Consider providing push‐button activated painted median areas east and west of the median. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) to facilitate right‐turn lane crossings between the curb Potential enhancements to this segment include the following: and the channelized islands.  Consider evaluating the need for a mid‐block crossing at  Evaluate existing intersection and crosswalk lighting Glen Avenue by conducting a pedestrian count near this conditions and enhance as necessary; see Florida Design intersection. Manual Chapter 231 for guidance.  At Lincoln Avenue, consider the following: Columbus Drive, Dale Mabry Highway to Himes Avenue – This o Enhance the existing crosswalks to high‐visibility segment has a 10’ sidewalk along most of the south (eastbound) side ladder‐style markings. of the roadway, and a sidewalk currently is being constructed along o There are LED overhead lights in the northeast and the north side of the roadway adjacent to the New York Yankees southwest quadrants of the intersection; lighting training facility. may be sufficient, but consider evaluating existing lighting levels and enhance if necessary. Potential improvements to this segment include the following: o Evaluate the existing pedestrian curb ramps to  Consider monitoring development and identifying ensure that they meet ADA requirements and install opportunities to complete the 10’ wide sidewalk along the ADA detectable truncated dome pads within the south side of Columbus Drive. curb ramps. o The left turns from Columbus Drive onto Lincoln Columbus Drive, Himes Avenue to East of Lincoln Avenue – This Avenue are permissive controlled movements. segment has approximately 60’ of pavement with two travel lanes in Consider conducting an operational analysis to

DRAFT 43

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

determine the feasibility of implementing a  At MacDill Avenue, consider enhancing the existing protected‐permissive left‐turn signal phase. crosswalk markings to high‐visibility ladder‐style markings Additionally, evaluate the existing span‐wire signal and evaluating the existing intersection lighting levels and structure to determine if it would support enhance if necessary. additional four‐section flashing yellow arrow traffic  The existing eastbound and southbound left‐turn signal assemblies. movements are controlled by a permissive‐only phase;  Consider extending the existing raised median into the consider conducting an operational analysis to determine painted median areas, similar to the planned improvements the feasibility of implementing a protected‐permissive left‐ between Glen Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. turn phase for these movements. Both the westbound and northbound left‐turns are controlled by a protected‐ Columbus Drive, East of Lincoln Avenue to East of Habana Avenue – permissive phase. Additionally, evaluate the existing span‐ This segment has approximately 48’ of pavement with two travel wire signal structure to determine if it would support lanes in each direction and no median. Between Matanzas Avenue and MacDill Avenue, the right‐of‐way is constrained by the Marti‐ additional four‐section flashing yellow arrow traffic signal Colon Cemetery along the south side of Columbus Drive. The assemblies; also determine if it would support replacing the sidewalk on the south side is substandard, at approximately 3’ wide existing five‐section signal assemblies with four‐section and adjacent to an approximate 4’ tall wall. Traffic volumes on this assemblies. segment exceed 25,000 AADT, making this segment a poor candidate  Along MacDill Avenue, south of Columbus Drive, consider for a conventional road diet. providing green skip markings through the northbound bike lane transition to the keyhole across the right‐turn lane. Potential enhancements along this segment include the following:  Along MacDill Avenue north of Columbus Drive, consider  Consider reducing travel lane widths to 10’ and provide a extending the curb in the northeast quadrant into the narrow 8’ painted/textured median buffer with intermittent existing painted gore area north of the intersection. 6’ wide landscaped median islands to help calm traffic.  At Habana Avenue, consider enhancing the existing  Consider widening the existing 5’ sidewalks into the crosswalk markings, evaluating intersection lighting adjacent grass utility strip to provide a minimum 8’ pathway conditions, and evaluating the existing pedestrian curb that could be shared by pedestrians and bicyclists. ramps to ensure that they meet ADA requirements.  Between St. Vincent Street and MacDill Avenue, there Additionally, consider installing ADA detectable truncated appears to be adequate pavement width; consider reducing dome pads within the curb ramps. the travel lanes to 10’ and extend the curb along the south  The left turns from Columbus Drive onto Habana Avenue side to accommodate a wide (8’) sidewalk. are permissive controlled movements. Consider conducting

DRAFT 44

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

an operational analysis to determine the feasibility of requirements and consider installing ADA detectable implementing a protected‐permissive left‐turn signal phase. truncated dome pads within the curb ramps. Additionally, evaluate the existing span‐wire signal structure  Albany Avenue splits into two two‐way streets north of to determine if it would support additional four‐section Columbus Drive; one continues straight north through the flashing yellow arrow traffic signal assemblies. intersection, and the other continues in a northeast diagonal towards Kathleen Street. Consider either constructing a cul‐de‐sac to close off access to this portion of Albany Avenue from Columbus Drive or completely eliminate the diagonal segment of Albany Avenue between Columbus Drive and Kathleen Street.

Columbus Drive East of MacDill Avenue, Looking East Columbus Drive, East of Habana Avenue to West of Rome Avenue – This segment has approximately 40’ of pavement with two travel lanes in each direction and no median. The available right‐of‐way in this segment reduces to approximately 50’ with 5’ sidewalks located between the curb and right‐of‐way line.

Potential enhancements for this segment include the following:  At Armenia Avenue, consider evaluating the existing Columbus Drive at Albany Avenue pedestrian curb ramps to ensure that they meet ADA requirements and consider installing ADA detectable Columbus Drive at Rome Avenue – The intersection of Columbus truncated dome pads within the curb ramps. Drive and Rome Avenue is emerging as an important access point for  At Howard Avenue, consider evaluating the existing the West River area and should be considered for safety, mobility, pedestrian curb ramps to ensure that they meet ADA and operational enhancements. The following is a summary of potential intersection enhancements; Appendix A and Appendix C

DRAFT 45

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN contain additional discussion on these potential enhancements. Also, o note that the identified improvements for this intersection are based on the assumption of a road diet along the portion of Columbus Drive from Rome Avenue to North Boulevard.  Signalized intersection alternative – Consider installing a traffic signal at the intersection with the following intersection lane arrangement: o Northbound – single through left‐turn lane with a single right‐turn lane. o Southbound – single lane o Eastbound – prohibit left turns onto Rome Avenue, single through lane, right‐turn drop lane onto Rome

Avenue Columbus Drive East of Rome Avenue, Looking West o Westbound – single through lane with dedicated Columbus Drive, West of Rome Avenue to North Boulevard – This left‐turn lane segment has approximately 40’ of pavement with two travel lanes in  Roundabout alternative – Consider constructing a compact each direction and no median. The available right‐of‐way through modern urban roundabout with the following lane this segment is approximately 50’ with 5’ sidewalks between the curb arrangement: and right‐of‐way line. o North leg – single southbound entry lane and single Potential enhancements for this segment of Columbus Drive are as northbound exit lane follows: o South leg – single northbound entry lane and single southbound exit lane; may need a southbound  Based on existing AADT, it appears reasonable to consider a merge lane to accommodate right‐turning vehicles road diet along the portion of Columbus Drive between from Columbus Drive Rome Avenue and North Boulevard. o East leg – dual westbound entry lanes and a single o Across the Hillsborough River Bridge is eastbound exit lane approximately 38’ of pavement; consider a two‐lane o West leg – single eastbound entry leg with a single section with 10’ travel lanes, a 4’ median buffer, right‐turn bypass lane onto Rome Avenue, two and buffered bike lanes (bicyclists currently are westbound exit lanes

DRAFT 46

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

asked to walk their bikes across the bridge due to upcoming resurfacing project, providing complete and continuous the lack of available space; see Figure 27). bicycle facilities should be a top priority for both Hillsborough County o From the river to N Boulevard is approximately 40’ and the City of Tampa. The following is a detailed description of the of pavement; consider a two‐lane section with 10’ identified enhancements for Howard Avenue and Armenia Avenue travel lanes, a center turn lane with intermittent between Gray Street and Columbus Drive. landscaped median islands, and 5’ bike lanes on Gray Street to Cypress Street both sides. Howard Avenue – Between Gray Street and Cypress Street, Howard Avenue is a three‐lane one‐way (northbound) street with some on‐ street parking along the west side and a posted speed limit of 40 mph. There are left‐turn lanes into the Glazer Jewish Community Center parking lot and at Cypress Street. The existing pavement width through this section is approximately 40 feet, and there are 5’ sidewalks along both sides of the street. The AADT on this segment of Howard Avenue was 17,500 in 2015.

Potential enhancements for this segment of Howard Avenue include the following:  As part of the Gray Street Neighborhood Greenway, consider constructing bulb‐outs along the west side of Figure 27: Columbus Drive Bridge, Looking East Howard Avenue and providing a marked crossing Howard Avenue and Armenia Avenue supplemented by RRFBs.  Evaluate strategies to reduce the posted speed limit on this Howard Avenue and Armenia Avenue are north‐south one‐way pairs segment of Howard Avenue from 40 mph to 35 mph or less. that connect West Tampa to the neighborhoods to the north and If the posted speed can be lowered to or below 35 mph, south. Both are planned for resurfacing by Hillsborough County. A consider providing shared lane markings along this previous resurfacing project by the County included the addition of segment. buffered bicycle lanes on the sections of Howard Avenue and  Consider widening the sidewalk along the east side of Armenia Avenue from north of Columbus Drive to just south of Howard Avenue using the existing utility strip. This wide Columbus Drive at St. Louis Street. Although there are no current sidewalk could accommodate both pedestrians and plans to extend the buffered bicycle lanes south as part of the

DRAFT 47

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

bicyclists, especially if speeds cannot be reduced along  Evaluate strategies to reduce the posted speed limit to 35 Howard Avenue. mph or less.  Consider providing a buffered bicycle lane; 48’ feet of pavement for two travel lanes and two on‐street parking lanes should provide more than enough space to accommodate a buffered (7’) bicycle lane with an 8’|7’|12.5’|12.5’|8’ lane configuration.  Consider constructing bulb‐outs at Gray Street and providing a marked crossing with RRFBs to accommodate the proposed Gray Street Neighborhood Greenway.  Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Armenia Avenue at all intersections between Gray Street and Cypress Street to better define the on‐street parking lanes and improve pedestrian visibility. Howard Avenue at Carmen Street (south of Cass Street)  Consider conducting an operational analysis at the Armenia  Consider conducting an operational analysis to determine if Avenue and Cypress Street intersection to determine if the the northbound left‐turn lane onto Cypress Street is southbound left‐ and right‐turn lanes are needed to needed. If not, consider shifting the through travel lanes to maintain appropriate intersection level of service. If not, the west (between State Street and Cypress Street) and consider repurposing the pavement width to better construct a bulb‐out in the southeast corner along Howard accommodate pedestrians at the intersection. If justified, Avenue. consider constructing bulb‐outs along Armenia Avenue in the southeast and southwest quadrants. Armenia Avenue – Armenia Avenue between Gray Street and Cypress Street is a two‐lane one‐way (southbound) street with on‐street Cypress Street to Spruce Street parking along both sides and a pavement width of approximately 48’. Howard Avenue – The portion of this segment between Cypress The posted speed limit along this segment is 40 mph. There are no Street and I‐275/Green Street is a three‐lane one‐way street with no bicycle facilities along this segment, and there are 6’ sidewalks along on‐street parking and a posted speed limit of 40 mph. At Main Street, both sides of the street. Howard Avenue becomes a two‐lane one‐way street with a posted Potential enhancements for this segment of Armenia Avenue include speed limit of 30 mph and on‐street parking along both sides. the following: Potential enhancements for this segment of Howard Avenue include: DRAFT 48

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

 Evaluate strategies to reduce the posted speed limit on the Potential enhancements for this segment of Armenia Avenue include segment of Howard Avenue south of Main Street from 40 the following: mph to 35 mph or less.  Evaluate strategies to reduce the posted speed limit to 35  Consider widening the existing sidewalk using the utility mph or less. strip and FDOT right‐of‐way to accommodate a minimum 8’  Consider providing a buffered bicycle lane; 48’ feet of sidewalk for both pedestrians and bicyclists through the pavement for two travel lanes and two on‐street parking interchange. lanes should provide more than enough space to  On‐street parking returns along Howard Avenue north of accommodate a buffered (7’) bicycle lane with a Green Street, and the posted speed limit is reduced to 30 8’|7’|12.5’|12.5’|8’ lane configuration. mph north of Main Street. Consider providing shared‐lane  Consider construction bulb‐outs along Armenia Avenue at markings along Howard Avenue between Main Street and all intersections between Cypress Street and Spruce Street. Spruce Street.  Consider providing marked crossing across south leg of the  At Main Street, consider the enhancement identified in the Armenia Avenue and Laurel Street/I‐275 ramp intersection. Main Street section of this report.  Consider implementing the enhancements identified in the  At Spruce Street, consider the enhancements identified in Main Street section of this report. the MPO’s Spruce Street Pedestrian and Bicycle  At Spruce Street, consider the enhancements identified in Improvement Report; consider reconstructing the existing the MPO’s Spruce Street Pedestrian and Bicycle bulb‐outs and providing enhanced crosswalk markings Improvement Report; consider reconstructing the existing supplemented with RRFBs. bulb‐outs and providing enhanced crosswalk markings  Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Howard Avenue at all supplemented with RRFBs. intersections between Main Street and Spruce Street.  Consider enhancing the existing crosswalk at Union Street to include high‐visibility ladder‐style markings.

Armenia Avenue – This segment of Armenia Avenue is similar to the segment to the south, in that it is primarily a two‐lane one‐way street with approximately 48’ of pavement and a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Between Laurel Street (I‐275 Ramp) and Main Street are three travel lanes along Armenia Avenue and no on‐street parking.

DRAFT 49

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

 Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Howard Avenue at all intersections between Main Street and Beach Street.  At Cherry Street, consider enhancing the existing crosswalks with high‐visibility markings supplemented with RRFBs.  At Palmetto Street, consider replacing the existing flashing beacon with a push‐button‐activated RRFB.  At Beach Street, consider constructing bulb‐outs and providing a marked crossing to accommodate the proposed Beach Street neighborhood greenway.

Armenia Avenue – This segment of Armenia Avenue is similar to the

Armenia Avenue at La Salle Street, Looking South previous segments, in that is has two one‐way travel lanes, a pavement width of approximately 48’, and a posted speed limit of 40 Spruce Street to Columbus Drive mph. Howard Avenue – Between Spruce Street and Columbus Drive, Potential enhancements for this segment of Armenia Avenue include Howard Avenue is a two‐lane one‐way street with on‐street parking the following: along both sides between Spruce Street and Beach Street. The posted speed limit through this segment is 30 mph. At St Louis Street, south  Evaluate strategies to reduce the posted speed limit to 35 of Columbus Drive, there is a buffered bicycle lane that continues mph or less. north of Columbus Drive.  Consider providing a buffered bicycle lane; 48’ feet of pavement for two travel lanes and two on‐street parking Potential enhancements for this segment of Howard Avenue include lanes should provide more than enough space to the following: accommodate a buffered (7’) bicycle lane with a  Consider providing shared‐lane markings between Spruce 8’|7’|12.5’|12.5’|8’ lane configuration. Street and Beach Street.  Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Armenia Avenue at  North of Beach Street, there is no marked on‐street parking; all intersections between Spruce Street and Columbus consider reducing the travel lane widths, delineate on‐ Drive. street parking on the west side, and provide a buffered (7’)  Consider relocating the existing signalized pedestrian bicycle lane to connect to the existing lane at St. Louis crossing between Walnut Street and Pine Street to Pine Street. Street.

DRAFT 50

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

 Enhance the existing crosswalks at Pine Street to include Neighborhood greenways typically employ a set of features that high‐visibility ladder‐style markings. include signs, pavement markings, traffic volume management, and  Consider constructing bulb‐outs and providing a marked traffic calming to improve the safety and comfort of bicycling. Several crosswalk with RRFBs at Beach Street to accommodate the design treatments can be used to transform a street into a proposed Beach Street neighborhood greenway. neighborhood greenway, but it is important to recognize that these treatments can be tailored to fit local needs and can be phased over Neighborhood Greenway Opportunities a period of time to achieve the complete transformation. Some common design considerations for neighborhood greenways include Neighborhood greenways, also known as bicycle boulevards and the following: bikeways, are streets that have been designed, designated, and prioritized for bicycle travel. Neighborhood greenways provide a  Pavement Markings – Pavement markings are a reminder to safe, inviting, low‐stress option for bicyclists of varying degrees of both bicyclists and motorists that bicycle travel is expected experience. Neighborhood greenways, as part of a larger bicycle and has priority along the street. network, help provide connections between neighborhoods,  Signage – Signage can be used to passively identify the destinations, and different bicycle facilities. In addition to improving street as a neighborhood greenway and can help strengthen safety, comfort, and connectivity for bicyclists, neighborhood the branding of the facility. Neighborhood greenway signs greenways create safer streets for all users and can help promote can include post‐mounted placard signs identifying the communities that encourage bicycling as a more convenient, easy, greenway at key points or specially‐branded street name and sociable mode of transportation. signs that identify the street as a neighborhood greenway. Wayfinding signage also can be provided to help direct, Although there is no set design template for neighborhood guide, alert, and inform bicyclists on distances and greenways, a few common principles should be sought when estimated travel times to key destinations. considering one:  Stop Sign Placement – Frequent stop signs along a  Logical, direct, and continuous bike route neighborhood greenway increase bicycling travel time and  Safe and comfortable intersection crossings energy expenditure. This often increase the likelihood of  Reduced bicyclists delay non‐compliance or the use of other routes. To improve  Enhanced access to desired destinations bicycle travel and the attractiveness neighborhood  Low motor vehicle speeds greenways, bicyclists should be able to travel along the  Low motor vehicle volumes greenway with a minimal number of stops.  Intersection Treatments – If bicyclists cannot safely and comfortably cross other roadways along the neighborhood DRAFT 51

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

greenway, improvements along the greenway will have A common concern about neighborhood greenways, especially limited impact. Intersection treatments along neighborhood pertaining to traffic calming and volume management, is maintaining greenways should improve the visibility of bicyclists, reduce access to properties along the neighborhood greenway. Access along crossing distances, increase awareness to the potential of a neighborhood greenway should be maintained, the route to access bicyclists, reduce or eliminate conflicts/movements, reduce particular properties may change. This is not uncommon during bicyclist delay, and ultimately, make crossing streets along typical roadway reconstruction or access management the neighborhood greenway safer, more convenient, and improvements that may modify median openings and require drivers more comfortable for bicyclists. Common neighborhood to adjust their route. greenway intersection treatments include intersection bulb‐ The following sections explore neighborhood greenway outs, roundabouts, and neighborhood traffic circles. opportunities along two corridors, Gray Street between Westshore  Speed Management – Maintaining low motor vehicle Boulevard and Rome Avenue and Beach Street between Himes speeds along a neighborhood greenway is a key component Avenue and Rome Avenue. in creating a safe and comfortable bicycling environment. Speed management techniques are generally divided into Gray Street two categories, vertical elements (speed humps or Gray Street is a two‐lane two‐way undivided east‐west local street cushions) and horizontal elements (pinch points). Although that parallels Kennedy Boulevard to the south and Cass Street to the various speed management techniques can be used on their north. The street is residential in character, with low speeds (posted own, they are most effective when used in combination and 25 mph) and low traffic volume. Unlike many local roads in the area, with other design elements and techniques. Gray Street provides a continuous connection between Westshore  Volume Management – Volume management uses physical Boulevard and Rome Avenue and has signalized crossings at and operational elements to reconfigure traffic patterns Westshore Boulevard and Dale Mabry Highway. along a street to help reduce or discourage through traffic to ensure that traffic volumes are maintained at a level that Gray Street’s connectivity and position between Kennedy Boulevard is comfortable to a wide range of bicyclists. Some elements and I‐275 makes it a candidate for neighborhood greenway include forced turn movements, partial closures (divert treatments, which is most likely why it was identified in Phase I of the motor vehicle traffic in one direction), and full closures that City of Tampa’s Walk–Bike Plan for enhancements. Following is a divert motor vehicle traffic in both directions while still detailed overview of the proposed enhancements that would help accommodating bicyclists. transform Gray Street into a neighborhood greenway.

DRAFT 52

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Although not identified in the detailed enhancements, one option  Consider constructing neighborhood traffic circles and that could be used to help “brand” the neighborhood greenway is the conversion to all‐yield control at Hesperides Street, addition of specialized street name signage. There are many national Manhattan Avenue, and Hubert Avenue. and international examples of how cities have used street name  Consider providing wayfinding signage at Hesperides Street signage to help in the designation of prioritized bicycle streets. directing bicyclists to the trail that begins on Hesperides Additionally, there are multiple options for pavement markings; Street south of Carmen Street. some cities use special bike boulevard markings, some use typical  Consider conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis at the shared‐lane markings, and some—including some cities in Florida— intersection of Gray Street and Lois Avenue. The closest have begun using shared‐lane markings within a green background signalized intersections are at I‐275 approximately 600’ to box (Figure 28). the north and Kennedy Boulevard approximately a quarter‐ mile to the south. An alternative to a signalized intersection would be to provide a raised median traffic diverter island along Lois Avenue that would allow bicyclists to continue through the intersection but would prohibit through and left‐turn motor vehicle movements. The median island could be accommodated by narrowing the travel lanes on Lois Avenue.

Gray Street, Lois Avenue to Dale Mabry Highway – In addition to providing pavement markings and signage, potential enhancements along this segment include the following:

Figure 28: Shared‐lane markings with green background  Consider constructing a neighborhood traffic circle at Grady Avenue and converting the intersection from a four‐way Gray Street, Westshore Boulevard to Lois Avenue – The intersection stop to an all‐yield intersection. of Gray Street and Westshore Boulevard is signalized, and this  The intersection of Gray Street and Dale Mabry Highway is segment has existing traffic calming (speed humps). General signalized. Consider installing bike boxes on the eastbound considerations for this segment include the addition of pavement and westbound approaches and evaluating the feasibility of markings and supplemental signage (R4‐11, “Bikes May Use Full installing bicycle detection at the intersection to help Lane”). Additional neighborhood greenway enhancements along this reduce bicycle delay and improve compliance with the segment include the following: traffic signal.

DRAFT 53

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Gray Street at Louis Avenue, Looking West Gray Street at Dale Mabry Highway, Looking East Gray Street, Dale Mabry Highway to Matanzas Avenue – Provide Gray Street, Matanzas Avenue to Armenia Avenue – Consider pavement markings and signage along with speed cushions between providing pavement markings and signage along with speed cushions Himes Avenue and Glen Avenue and Lincoln Avenue and Matanzas between Matanzas Avenue and MacDill Avenue, MacDill Avenue and Avenue. Additional enhancements include the following: Gomez Avenue, Gomez Avenue and Habana Avenue, Habana Avenue  Consider constructing neighborhood traffic circles at Glen and Tampania Avenue, and Tampania Avenue and Armenia Avenue. Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and Matanzas Avenue. Also Following are additional enhancements for this segment: consider converting these intersections from stop‐  Consider conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis at controlled to all‐yield. MacDill Avenue. The closest signalized intersections are at  At Himes Avenue, consider conducting a traffic signal Cypress Street to the north and Kennedy Boulevard to the warrant analysis; the closest signalized intersections are at south, both approximately a quarter‐mile from this Cypress Street to the north and Kennedy Boulevard to the intersection. south, both approximately a quarter‐mile from this  Consider neighborhood traffic circles and conversion to all‐ intersection. yield control at Gomez Avenue and Habana Avenue.  At Armenia Avenue, consider constructing bulb‐outs along Armenia Avenue in each quadrant and providing a marked crosswalk with RRFBs to accommodate the neighborhood greenway crossings.

DRAFT 54

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Gray Street at Kathy Echevarria Greenspace, Looking East Gray Street at Howard Avenue, Looking South Gray Street, Armenia Avenue to Rome Avenue – As with the other segments, consider providing pavement markings and signage. To help with traffic calming, consider speed cushions between Howard Avenue and Albany Avenue, Albany Avenue and Fremont Avenue, and Fremont Avenue and Rome Avenue. Also consider the following enhancements along this segment:  At Howard Avenue, consider constructing bulb‐outs along the west side and providing a marked crossing supplemented with RRFBs.  Consider constructing neighborhood traffic circles at Albany Avenue and Fremont Avenue. If neighborhood traffic circles are installed, consider converting the intersections from Gray Street at Fremont Avenue, Looking East stop controlled to all‐yield. Beach Street  At Rome Avenue, consider providing a marked crossing supplemented with RRFBs along the south leg of the Beach Street is a two‐lane two‐way undivided east‐west local street intersection. situated between Spruce Street and Columbus Drive. It is primarily residential in character, with low speeds (posted 25 mph) and low

DRAFT 55

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN traffic volumes and provides a continuous connection between Dale  Consider conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis at the Mabry Highway and Rome Avenue. intersection of Beach Street and MacDill Avenue. The closest signalized intersections to this intersection are With the planned addition of bicycle lanes along Himes Avenue, it Columbus Drive to the north and Spruce Street to the south, was determined that a logical western terminus of the neighborhood both approximately a quarter‐mile from the intersection. greenway would be Himes Avenue. Similar to Gray Street, there are multiple options for pavement markings, and the option of special Beach Street, MacDill Avenue to Armenia Avenue – Consider street name signs could be included as part of the neighborhood providing pavement markings and signage along this segment. greenway. Following is an overview of the enhancements that could Additionally, consider installing speed cushions between MacDill help transform Beach Street into a neighborhood greenway. Avenue and Habana Avenue, Habana Avenue and Tampania Avenue, and Tampania Avenue and Armenia Avenue. Additional Beach Street, Himes Avenue to MacDill Avenue – Consider providing enhancements to this segment include: pavement markings and supplemental signage (R4‐11 “Bikes May Use Full Lane”) to this segment along with speed cushions between  Consider installing a neighborhood traffic circle at Habana Himes Avenue and Glen Avenue, Glen Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, Avenue and converting the intersection to an all‐yield Lincoln Avenue and Matanzas Avenue, and Matanzas Avenue and intersection. MacDill Avenue. Additional enhancements to this segment include:  At Armenia Avenue, consider constructing bulb‐outs within all four quadrants, enhancing the existing crosswalk  Consider conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis at the markings, and supplementing the crossing with RRFBs. intersection of Beach Street and Himes Avenue. The ongoing improvements to Himes Avenue will provide a Beach Street, Armenia Avenue to Rome Avenue – Consider providing marked mid‐block crossing north of Beach Street, but it is pavement markings along this segment with signage. There are unlikely that users of the neighborhood greenway will travel existing speed humps along this segment that, while not conducive to bicycle travel, help with calming traffic along this segment. the distance out‐of‐direction to use the crossing. The closest Additional improvements along this segment include the following: signalized intersections to this intersection are Columbus Drive to the north and Spruce Street to the south, both  Consider constructing bulb‐outs within all four quadrants at approximately a quarter‐mile from the intersection. Howard Avenue, enhance the existing crosswalk markings,  Consider installing neighborhood traffic circles at Glen and supplementing the crossing with RRFBs. Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. In conjunction with the  At Rome Avenue, consider installing a marked crosswalk neighborhood traffic circles, consider converting the with RRFBs to help facilitate movements to/from the intersections from two‐way stop control to all‐yield neighborhood greenway. intersections. DRAFT 56

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Beach Street at Armenia Avenue, Looking East Beach Street at Rome Avenue, Looking West Trail Connections – I‐275 Greenway and Green Spine

The Green Spine and I‐275 Greenway are key bicycle and pedestrian projects aimed at connecting the major activity centers and greenspaces in Tampa and providing recreational amenities to residents. Although the projects are separated by less than half a mile at parts, the lack of a safe and obvious connection between the two is a challenge that interrupts the overall network.

The Green Spine cycle‐track, slated for Phase II construction on Cass Street between Howard Avenue and Willow Avenue, will be a Beach Street at Howard Avenue, Looking East transformative project for the North Hyde Park neighborhood, creating a continuous protected bicycle pathway between the Glazer Family Jewish Community Center, Downtown Tampa, Ybor City, and the Cuscaden Pool and Park.

The I‐275 Greenway, similarly, is envisioned as a continuous trail that will connect Cypress Point Park and the Courtney Campbell Causeway to the west with Downtown Tampa and beyond to the east. This

DRAFT 57

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN alignment also is identified as part of a larger Sun Trail alignment that will connect the Tampa Bay region to Collier County in Southwest Florida.

Although both projects are incomplete, with many segments still in the planning and design stages, a connection between the two pathways should be considered and addressed. Several alternative alignments for connecting to the two are available, the creation of which may further an integrated pedestrian and bicycle network beyond connecting only these two major infrastructure projects. Four potential alternatives to connect these facilities were examined as part of this effort, a detailed summary of which follows. For each alternative, the western terminus is Himes Avenue at La Salle Street and the eastern boundary is N Boulevard.

Alternative 1 – This alternative utilizes a combination of available right‐of‐way in the I‐275 corridor and some on‐street segments along La Salle Street. The total on‐street portion of this alignment is just under a half‐mile, similar to the alignment identified in the Tampa‐ Right‐of‐Way along I‐275 at Willow Avenue, Looking West Hillsborough Greenway and Trails Master Plan Update. Figures 29, 30, and 31 show the Alternative 1 alignment  An on‐street section of the trail would continue along New Jersey Avenue approximately 50’ to La Salle Street, continue Key components of the alternative include the following: along La Salle Street approximately 900’ to connect to the  From Himes Avenue, continue the trail within the FDOT existing I‐275 Greenway at Habana Avenue, and then right‐of‐way adjacent to La Salle Street to east of MacDill continue along the existing trail to Armenia Avenue. Avenue at New Jersey Avenue. A crossing at MacDill Avenue  A crossing would need to be provided at Armenia Avenue; would need to be provided, and the pond site between from there, the trail would continue on‐street along La Salle MacDill Avenue and New Jersey Avenue may need to be Street for about a quarter‐mile to Habana Avenue where it modified to accommodate a trail and still provide would connect into the existing trail/maintenance road maintenance access to the pond. north of the residences that front La Salle Street.

DRAFT 58

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

 The trail would continue along the existing trail/maintenance road to Oregon Avenue. At Oregon Avenue, consider continuing the trail within the FDOT right‐ of‐way south of I‐275 to N Boulevard.

Rome Avenue South of I‐275, Looking North

I‐275 Greenway at Armenia Avenue, Looking West Alternative 2 – Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 except that at the eastern end of the study area the trail connects to the Green Spine/Cass Street via Rome Avenue. Figures 32, 33, and 34 illustrate the proposed alignment options, and the following provide details about the alternative:  Use the I‐275 right‐of‐way and La Salle Street to provide a connection between Himes Avenue and Rome Avenue.  At Rome Avenue, use the planned bicycle lanes or consider exploring opportunities for a separated facility to connect to the planned Green Spine extension along Cass Street. Existing I‐275 Greenway at Rome Avenue, Looking East  The trail would then use the Green Spine to connect to and

through downtown Tampa.

DRAFT 59

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 29: Alternative 1 Alignment, Dale Mabry Highway to New Jersey Avenue

DRAFT 60

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 30: Alternative 1 Alignment, New Jersey Avenue to Fremont Avenue

DRAFT 61

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 31: Alternative 1 Alignment, Fremont Avenue to N Boulevard

DRAFT 62

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 32: Alternative 2 Alignment, Dale Mabry Highway to New Jersey Avenue

DRAFT 63

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 33: Alternative 2 Alignment, New Jersey Avenue to Fremont Avenue

DRAFT 64

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 34: Alternative 2 Alignment, Fremont Avenue to N Boulevard

DRAFT 65

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Alternative 3 – Alternative 3 explores options to connect the I‐275 Greenway to the Green Spine via Armenia Avenue. Figures 35, 36, and 37 illustrate the potential Alternative 3 alignment between Himes Avenue and Armenia Avenue. This alignment is the same as Alternatives 1 and 2. The following provides information on how the Alternative 3 alignment could be accomplished. Note that part of this alternative assumes that Cass Street could be extended from Howard Avenue to Armenia Avenue through where the current armory is located.  If the armory is relocated, the City could extend Cass Street

and the Green Spine from Howard Avenue to Armenia Armenia Avenue at La Salle Street, Looking South Avenue. Extending Cass Street could provide an opportunity Alternative 4 – As with the other alternatives, this alternative begins to extend the Green Spine to Armenia Avenue. at Himes Avenue and La Salle Street, but deviates north from the  To accommodate the bicycle facility, approximately 30 on‐ I‐275 right‐of‐way at MacDill Avenue and continues down Main street parking spaces would need to be removed from the Street to N Boulevard Street. Figures 38, 39, and 40 show the east side of Armenia Avenue. Alternative 4 alignment, and the following provides a description of  To create a separated bicycle facility along Armenia Avenue, the connection from MacDill Avenue to Main Street and how the trail consider constructing a 12’ two‐way bicycle facility with a could be accommodated along Main Street. raised 4’ median along the east side of Armenia Avenue. This facility could connect the existing I‐275 Greenway to  Consider providing a shared‐use path along the east side of where Cass Street could potential intersect Armenia MacDill Avenue from north of La Salle Street to Green Avenue. A potential typical section along Armenia Avenue is Street. shown below.  Between Green Street and Main Street is an existing 5’ sidewalk and 5’ utility strip, and MacDill Avenue has approximately 50’ of pavement comprising four travel lanes and bicycle lanes. Consider eliminating the bicycle lanes through this section and extending the curb along the east

side of the street to accommodate a minimum 10’ path Armenia Avenue Typical Section with along the east side of MacDill Avenue between Green Street Potential Separated Bicycle Facility and Main Street. DRAFT 66

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

 There are several driveways along both sides of Main Street to the West Riverwalk and across the Fortune (Laurel that are not conducive to a trail facility along the side of the Street) Bridge. street. Main Street has approximately 40’ of pavement comprising two travel lanes and on‐street parking along both sides of the street. To accommodate a trail along Main Street, consider eliminating the on‐street parking and running the trail down the center of Main Street with 3’ separators between the travel lanes and the trail. A local example of a trail running down the middle of the street is the Pinellas Trail along Safford Avenue in downtown Tarpon Springs.

Trail Concept along Main Street

Source: tarponspringsfla.blogspot.com Figure 41 illustrates the alignment of the four proposed trail Pinellas Trail along Safford Avenue in Tarpon Springs alternatives.  Continue the trail along Main Street into the West River redevelopment area and depending upon the design of the reconstructed downtown interchange consider connecting

the trail in the vicinity of North Boulevard and Green Street DRAFT 67

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 35: Alternative 3 Alignment, Dale Mabry Highway to New Jersey Avenue

DRAFT 68

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 36: Alternative 3 Alignment, New Jersey Avenue to Fremont Avenue

DRAFT 69

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 37: Alternative 3 Alignment, Fremont Avenue to N Boulevard

DRAFT 70

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 38: Alternative 4 Alignment, Dale Mabry Highway to MacDill Avenue

DRAFT 71

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 39: Alternative 4 Alignment, MacDill Avenue to Fremont Avenue

DRAFT 72

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 40: Alternative 4 Alignment, Fremont Avenue to N Boulevard

DRAFT 73

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 41: Combined Trail Alternative Alignments

DRAFT 74

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Connecting Existing and Planned Facilities lanes and, due to right‐of‐way constraints and traffic demand, is not likely to be able to accommodate a bicycle Providing a connected pedestrian and bicycle network will improve facility. Consider transforming Kathleen Street into a people’s ability to travel throughout the West Tampa area without a neighborhood greenway between Himes Avenue and Rome motor vehicle. As documented in this report, there are currently Avenue, which would provide a parallel bicycle facility to multiple efforts underway and various opportunities to further Columbus Drive and provide bicyclists with a new east‐west improve safety and mobility in West Tampa. This section examines option. additional connections and enhancements that could be considered throughout the West Tampa area, including the following: Feasibility Review  Lincoln Avenue – Although it does not continue through For the Site‐Specific Enhancements, a review of project feasibility I‐275, Lincoln Avenue is a significant north‐south street in was conducted with a goal of identifying potential fatal flaws or the West Tampa area. Consider providing shared‐lane challenges that would make the suggested enhancements unfeasible markings along Lincoln Avenue from Kennedy Boulevard to (physically or fiscally) or significantly increase the complexity and/or Cypress Street and from Green Street to Columbus Drive. cost to complete the enhancement. Appendix A contains a detailed Additionally, consider filling in sidewalk gaps and providing summary of the feasibility review. a complete sidewalk along both sides of Lincoln Avenue.  Habana Avenue – Habana Avenue is an important north‐ It is recommended that necessary engineering, survey, and/or design south corridor within the West Tampa area, even though it work be completed prior to commencing construction on any of the does not cross I‐275. Consider installing shared‐lane identified enhancements. Unless otherwise noted, most of the markings and providing complete sidewalks along both enhancements identified as part of this plan were developed to avoid sides of Habana Avenue. major right‐of‐way impacts and avoid/minimize major reconstruction  Albany Avenue – Albany Avenue does not cross I‐275, but of the roadway, curb, and drainage structures like Lincoln Avenue and Habana Avenue, it is an important north‐south connector. There are sidewalks along Albany Cost Estimates Avenue, but consider providing complete sidewalks along Planning‐level cost estimates for the identified enhancements were both sides of Albany Avenue and providing shared‐lane developed to provide general guidance on the expected financial markings, especially between Kennedy Boulevard and Cass investment for implementing the identified enhancements. Using a Street and Main Street and Beach Street. mix of generic cost estimates and pay‐item unit costs from FDOT’s  Kathleen Street – Kathleen Street is located one block north historic cost estimates, a list of cost estimate assumptions for the of Columbus Drive. Columbus Drive does not have bicycle

DRAFT 75

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN identified enhancements was developed. For the most part, these  I‐275 Greenway Trail Connections, $1,425,000 cost assumptions include the costs associated with materials and Alternative 1 base construction costs along with an assumed cost percentage to  I‐275 Greenway Trail Connections, $1,241,000 cover maintenance of traffic (MOT), mobilization, and project Alternative 2 unknowns.  I‐275 Greenway Trail Connections, $1,147,000 Additional detailed engineering and design work will be required to Alternative 3 determine actual implementation costs, but using the developed cost  I‐275 Greenway Trail Connections, $2,596,000 assumptions provides a general planning‐level estimate for the Alternative 4 implementation of the identified enhancements. Next Steps Of note is that the cost estimates do not include any costs associated with the attainment of right‐of‐way; if right‐of‐way is needed, there The key to implementing the enhancements identified in this plan is could be significant cost increases associated with implementing the continued coordination among the various involved agencies, enhancements. Appendix B provides a more detailed breakdown of including the Hillsborough MPO, the City of Tampa, Hillsborough the cost estimates, but if all of the identified enhancements in this County, FDOT, and the West Tampa CRA. This coordination will help plan were implemented, the potential associated costs are estimated to ensure that the identified improvements are realized. to be as follows: Additionally, whereas a feasibility review for this plan was conducted  Main Street Complete Street Enhancements $1,669,000 and cost estimates were developed, they were done at the planning level and focused primarily on identifying fatal flaws and high‐level  Columbus Drive Complete Street $1,192,000 Enhancements challenges. Funding for additional project evaluation and engineering design should be allocated prior to implementing the identified  Howard Avenue Complete Street $904,000 improvements. The design effort will identify any additional Enhancements challenges, further review the feasibility of the improvements,  Armenia Avenue Complete Street $2,559,000 develop more accurate cost estimates that could be used in Enhancements programming funding, and may result in some changes to the  Gray Street Neighborhood Greenway improvements identified in this plan. $2,084,000 Enhancements  Beach Street Neighborhood Greenway $1,405,000 Enhancements

DRAFT 76

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Appendix A – Feasibility Review

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments Main Street Complete Street Enhancements Delineate on‐street parking areas and provide shared lane markings to better define the roadway surface and create a Maintain appropriate sight lines by adhering to on‐street narrower feeling street that is more conducive to non‐ parking setbacks from intersections and driveways. motorized users. A considerable amount of westbound to southbound turning movements were observed during field visits, consider Conduct turning movement count to determine need for a conducting a turning movement count at this locations to westbound to southbound left turn lane and to determine if determine if a westbound left turn lane on Main Street would the overall turning movements at this intersection would be warranted. Additionally, based on the turning movement warrant a traffic signal. count consider determining if a traffic signal would be warranted at this location. The north side of Main Street, east of MacDill Avenue, is utilized by Macfarlane Park IB Elementary School as a student pick‐up/drop‐off area. Consider providing pavement Coordinate with the school to establish potential designated markings/striping in front of the school to help designate this Main St, MacDill Ave to drop‐off and pick‐up times. area as a drop‐off/pick‐up area and consider including Armenia Ave signage stating no parking during the designated drop‐off and pick‐up times. The sidewalk along the north side of Main Street between MacDill Avenue and Gomez Avenue is severely cracked in multiple locations and pose as potential trip hazards, There appears to be 10‐15 sidewalk sections that are in need especially given the proximity to Macfarlane Park and of repair. Macfarlane Elementary. Consider repairing/replacing the broken sidewalk sections. There appears to be sufficient pavement width to provide a Evaluate the intersections of Habana Avenue and Tampania min. 12' diameter traffic circle at both of these intersections Avenue for neighborhood traffic circles and conversion from without having to modify the intersection corners. 2‐way stop control to an all‐yield intersection. Additionally, For the bulb‐out alternative, there appear to be no drainage consider providing marked crosswalks on all legs of these inlets in proximity to the intersection that would be impacted intersections. As an alternative to the neighborhood traffic by the construction of bulb‐outs, however drainage should be circles, consider installing bulb‐outs at the intersections. evaluated as part of this consideration.

Appendix A‐1 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments Consider enhancing the existing decorative crosswalk Could be considered as part of a resurfacing project along markings to include high visibility ladder style markings Armenia Ave. integrated into the decorative markings Alternative or interim options to providing a raised median Main St at Armenia Ave could be to provide a painted/hashed median or to explore Evaluate constructing a raised (landscaped) median along an alternative similar to what is used on portions of Nebraska Main Street on both sides of Armenia Avenue. Ave that use decorative stamped asphalt to delineate the median area. A raised median may impact access to some sites within this block and may require some drivers to utilize the adjacent Consider providing a raised (landscaped) median along Main street network to access sites. Coordinate with local land Main St, Armenia Ave to Street between the left turn lanes. The median would help owners and business on access concerns. Additionally, Howard Ave physically narrow the street and could provide opportunities alternatives to a raised median could include a for streetscape and gateway feature enhancements. painted/hashed median or the use of decorative stamped asphalt to delineate the median area. Delineate on‐street parking areas and provide shared lane markings to better define the roadway surface and create a Maintain appropriate sight lines by adhering to on‐street narrower feeling street that is more conducive to non‐ parking setbacks from intersections and driveways. motorized users. At Howard Avenue, consider constructing bulb‐outs in the northwest and northeast quadrants. In the northeast quadrant consider continuing the curb extension along the While there are no drainage inlets near the proposed bulb‐ north side of Main Street (adjacent to Salcines Park) to outs, a drainage evaluation should be conducted to identify Main St, Howard Ave to Ysolino Street. Also, consider enhancing the crosswalk any potential drainage impacts near the intersection. Albany Ave markings at the intersection to include high visibility ladder style markings. There are existing alleyways behind the commercial properties north and south of Main Street; consider better utilizing the alleyways to circulate traffic and for parking Further evaluation would be needed to establish a formal access within this segment. Encouraging parking access from parking/circulation plan within this block. the alleys could provide additional opportunity to improve the pedestrian realm along Main Street.

Appendix A‐2 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments At Albany Avenue consider extending the curb along the north side of Main Street from the northwest corner at While there are no drainage inlets near the proposed bulb‐ Albany Avenue to the existing driveway located west of the outs, a drainage evaluation should be conducted to identify Main St, Howard Ave to park. Additionally, consider constructing a bulb‐out in the any potential drainage impacts near the intersection. Albany Ave southwest quadrant and along Main Street in the northeast and southeast quadrants. Consider enhancing the existing crosswalk markings to high NA visibility ladder style markings. Delineate on‐street parking areas and provide shared lane markings to better define the roadway surface and create a Maintain appropriate sight lines by adhering to on‐street narrower feeling street that is more conducive to non‐ parking setbacks from intersections and driveways. motorized users. Consider providing crosswalk markings across the side street While there are no drainage inlets near the proposed bulb‐ intersection at Fremont Avenue and extending the curb along outs, a drainage evaluation should be conducted to identify Main Street to define the on‐street parking areas and any potential drainage impacts near the intersection. improve the visibility of pedestrians at this intersection. Consider providing enhanced intersection lighting at Rome Evaluate the existing wooden utility pole in the northeast Main Street, Albany Avenue Avenue, there is currently one overhead LED light in the quadrant to determine if an overhead luminaire could be to Rome Avenue northwest corner of the intersection. Evaluate the existing affixed to the pole or if a new pole would need to be intersection and crosswalk lighting levels and enhance if installed. necessary. The existing crosswalk markings at Rome Avenue are faded and in need of rehabilitation. Consider enhancing the crosswalk markings to high visibility ladder style markings. In addition to rehabilitating and enhancing the crosswalk NA markings evaluate the existing pedestrian curb ramps to ensure that they meet ADA requirements and provide ADA detectable truncated dome pads within the curb ramps.

Appendix A‐3 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Rome Avenue in the northeast and southwest intersection quadrants, additionally While there are no drainage inlets near the proposed bulb‐ Main Street, Albany Avenue consider evaluating the current need for the northbound and outs, a drainage evaluation should be conducted to identify to Rome Avenue southbound right‐turn lanes on Rome Avenue, if the turn any potential drainage impacts near the intersection. lanes are not needed consider constructing bulb‐outs within these intersection quadrants as well. The West River Plan recognizes the historical and future importance of Main Street to the West Tampa area and has Main Street, Rome Avenue to identified Main Street for land use, streetscape, and NA North Boulevard infrastructure enhancements that will promote pedestrian activity and incorporate complete street principles. Columbus Drive Complete Street Enhancements Widening or reconstruction of the existing 6’ sidewalks to 8’ May require modifications to the existing swale and drainage minimum, or preferred 12’ shared use paths. ditch. Consider improvements to the sidewalk geometry at the May require modifications to the existing swale and drainage Columbus Drive, Lois Avenue signalized and un‐signalized intersections to better align the ditch. to Grady Avenue pedestrian paths with the intersection crosswalks. Consider providing pedestrian scale lighting at roadway crossing to better enhance safety of the sidewalk/pathway NA users. May require modifications to the existing swale and drainage Widen or reconstruct the existing 6’ sidewalks to either a ditch. Need to evaluate existing right‐of‐way along the south minimum 8’ sidewalk or preferred 12’ shared use path. side of Columbus Dr to determine if a 12’ path could be Columbus Drive, Grady accommodated or if a narrower 8’ to 10’ path is needed. Avenue to Dale Mabry Consider improving the sidewalk geometry to better align the May require modifications to the existing swale and drainage Highway pedestrian path with intersection crosswalks. ditch. Consider providing pedestrian scale lighting at roadway NA crossings to enhance the safety of sidewalk/pathway users. Reduce the curb radius in the southwest corner of the Evaluate drainage impacts. There is an existing drainage inlet Columbus Drive at Dale intersection to allow larger vehicles to turn into the center of on the south side of Columbus Dr, west of the intersection, Mabry Highway inside travel lanes of southbound Dale Mabry Highway. but it should be set‐back enough from the intersection to Realign the crosswalk accordingly. avoid the need for modification.

Appendix A‐4 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments The channelized westbound and southbound right turn movements operate under free‐flow conditions. To address pedestrian and operation issues at these locations and to improve safety at the northbound (non‐free‐flow) right turn channel, consider the following: • Consider converting the free‐flow lanes into conventional right turn lanes without receiving lanes. Perform an intersection operational analysis to determine Columbus Drive at Dale • Consider providing raised crosswalks between the curb and whether the free‐flow condition is necessary to maintain Mabry Highway the right turn islands to reduce right turning traffic speeds. acceptable level of service at the intersection. • Provide R10‐15 (Turning Traffic Yield to Pedestrians) signage. • Consider providing push‐button activated RRFBs to facilitate crossing from curb to right turn channels • Evaluate existing intersection and crosswalk lighting conditions and enhance as necessary; see FDM Chapter 231 for guidance. Monitor development and identify opportunities to complete Columbus Drive, Dale Mabry the 10’ wide sidewalk along the south side of Columbus NA Highway to Himes Avenue Drive. The City of Tampa’s Himes Avenue enhancement project includes the following enhancements along Columbus Drive: • Replacing the existing painted median between Himes Avenue and Glen Avenue with a raised median. NA Columbus Drive, Himes • Extending the existing raised median between Glen Avenue Avenue to East of Lincoln and Lincoln Avenue into the existing painted median areas Avenue east and west of the median. Consider evaluating the need for a mid‐block crossing at Glen Determine existing pedestrian crossing demand by Avenue by conducting a pedestrian count near this conducting a three‐day pedestrian volume count near this intersection. intersection.

Appendix A‐5 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments At Lincoln Avenue consider the following: • Enhance the existing crosswalks to high visibility ladder style markings. • There are LED overhead lights in the northeast and southwest quadrants of the intersection, lighting may be Evaluate intersection and crosswalk lighting levels. sufficient, but consider evaluating existing lighting levels and Perform and intersection operational analysis to determine enhance if necessary. feasibility of introducing a protected‐permissive left turn • Evaluate the existing pedestrian curb ramps to ensure that signal phase for the eastbound and westbound left turn the meet ADA requirements and install ADA detectable movements from Columbus Drive. Columbus Drive, Himes truncated dome pads within the curb ramps. Avenue to East of Lincoln • The left turns from Columbus Drive onto Lincoln Avenue Evaluate the existing signal span‐wire structure to determine Avenue are permissive controlled movements. Consider conducting if it could support additional signal head assemblies – if it will an operational analysis to determine the feasibility of not evaluate signal structure upgrades. implementing a protected‐permissive left turn signal phase. Additionally, evaluate the existing span‐wire signal structure to determine if it would support additional four‐section flashing yellow arrow traffic signal assemblies. Consider extending the existing raised median into the painted median areas, similar to the planned improvements NA between Glen Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. Consider reducing the travel lane widths to 10’ and provide a narrow 8’ painted/textured median buffer with intermittent Evaluate access impacts. 6’ wide landscaped median islands to help calm traffic. Consider widening the existing 5’ sidewalks into the adjacent Columbus Drive, East of grass utility strip to provide a minimum 8’ pathway that could May require the relocation of some utilities. Lincoln Avenue to East of be shared by pedestrians and bicyclists. Habana Avenue Between St Vincent Street and MacDill Avenue there appears to be adequate pavement width, consider reducing the travel NA lanes to 10’ and extend the curb along the south side in order to accommodate a wide (8’) sidewalk.

Appendix A‐6 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments At MacDill Avenue consider enhancing the existing crosswalk markings to high visibility ladder style markings and Evaluate intersection and crosswalk lighting levels. evaluating the existing intersection lighting levels and enhance if necessary. Perform an intersection operational analysis to determine the feasibility of implementing protected‐permissive left turn phases for the eastbound and southbound movements. The existing eastbound and southbound left turn movements are controlled by a permissive only phase, consider Additionally, evaluate the existing signal span‐wire structure implementing a protected‐permissive left turn phase for to determine if it would support additional four‐section these movements. flashing yellow arrow traffic signal assemblies for the eastbound and southbound movements along with replacing Columbus Drive, East of the westbound and northbound five‐section signal assemblies Lincoln Avenue to East of with four‐section assemblies. Habana Avenue Along MacDill Avenue, south of Columbus Drive, consider providing green skip pavement markings through the NA northbound bike lane transition to the keyhole across the right‐turn lane. Along MacDill Avenue, north of Columbus Drive, consider extending the curb in the northeast quadrant into the Evaluate potential drainage impacts. existing painted gore area north of the intersection. At Habana Avenue, consider enhancing the existing crosswalk markings, evaluate intersection lighting conditions, and evaluate the existing pedestrian curb ramps to ensure that Evaluate existing intersection and crosswalk lighting levels. they meet ADA requirements. Additionally, consider installing ADA detectable truncated dome pads within the curb ramps.

Appendix A‐7 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments Perform an intersection operational analysis to determine the feasibility of implementing a protected‐permissive left turn The left turns from Columbus Drive onto Habana Avenue are phase for the left turns from Columbus Drive to Habana Columbus Drive, East of permissive controlled movements, consider implementing a Avenue. Lincoln Avenue to East of protected‐permissive left turn signal phase for these Habana Avenue movements. Additionally, evaluate the existing signal span‐wire structure to determine if it would support the additional four‐section signal assemblies. At Armenia Avenue, consider evaluating the existing pedestrian curb ramps to ensure that they meet ADA NA requirements and consider installing ADA detectable truncated dome pads within the curb ramps. At Howard Avenue, consider evaluating the existing pedestrian curb ramps to ensure that they meet ADA NA requirements and consider installing ADA detectable Columbus Drive, East of truncated dome pads within the curb ramps. Habana Avenue to West of Albany Avenue splits into two two‐way streets north of Rome Avenue Columbus Drive, one continues straight north through the intersection, the other continues in a northeast diagonal towards Kathleen Street. Consider either constructing a cul‐ Evaluate impacts to access and circulation. de‐sac to close off access to this portion of Albany Avenue from Columbus Drive, or completely eliminate the diagonal segment of Albany Avenue between Columbus Drive and Kathleen Street. Based on existing AADTs it appears reasonable to consider a Perform an operational analysis to determine the feasibility of road diet along the portion of Columbus Drive between a road diet along this section of Columbus Drive. Rome Avenue and North Boulevard. Columbus Drive, West of Across the Hillsborough River bridge there is approximately Rome Avenue to North 38’ of pavement, if a road diet is feasible, consider a two lane Boulevard section with 10’ travel lanes, a 4’ median buffer, and Dependent on the feasibility of a road diet along Columbus buffered bike lanes (bicyclists are currently asked to walk Drive. their bikes across the bridge due to the lack of available space).

Appendix A‐8 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments From the river to North Boulevard there is approximately 40’ Columbus Drive, West of of pavement, consider a two lane section with 10’ travel Dependent on the feasibility of a road diet along Columbus Rome Avenue to North lanes, a center turn lane with intermittent landscaped Drive. Boulevard median islands, and 5’ bike lanes on both sides. Conventional Intersection Alternative – Consider modifying the existing non‐signalized intersection to include a Dependent on the feasibility of a road diet along Columbus westbound through lane and left turn lane, northbound Drive – perform an intersection operational analysis. See through/left land and right‐turn lane, and a single eastbound Appendix C for more detail on the feasibility of this through lane with an eastbound right‐turn drop lane onto alternative. Columbus Drive at Rome Rome Avenue. Avenue Roundabout Intersection Alternative – Consider converting Dependent on the feasibility of a road diet along Columbus the existing non‐signalized intersection to a roundabout with Drive – perform an intersection operational analysis and single northbound and southbound entry lanes, a single determine potential right‐of‐way impacts of the proposed eastbound entry lane with an eastbound right‐turn bypass roundabout alternative. See Appendix C for more detail on onto Rome Avenue, and dual westbound entry and through the feasibility of this alternative. lanes. Howard and Armenia Complete Street Enhancements There is a drainage inlet in the southwest corner of the Consider constructing bulb‐outs along the west side of intersection that will need to be modified to accommodate a Howard Avenue at Gray Street and providing a marked curb extension. While there shouldn’t be impacts to the inlet crossing supplemented by RRFBs in coordination with the in the northwest corner along Gray Street, evaluate potential development of the Gray Street neighborhood greenway. drainage impacts from a bulb‐out along Howard Avenue. Evaluate strategies to reduce the posted speed limit on this Perform a speed analysis study to determine if the existing Howard Avenue, Gray Street segment of Howard Avenue from 40 MPH to 35 MPH or less. speeds along this segment of Howard Avenue warrant the to Cypress Street If the posted speed can be lowered to or below 35 MPH existing posted speed limit. consider providing shared lane markings along this segment. Consider widening the sidewalk along the east side of Howard Avenue utilizing the existing utility strip. This wide Would require either relocating the existing utility poles or sidewalk could accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists, routing the sidewalk around the existing utilities. especially if speeds cannot be reduced along Howard Avenue.

Appendix A‐9 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments Consider conducting an operational analysis to determine if Perform intersection operational analysis. The southeast the northbound left turn lane onto Cypress Street is needed. corner of the intersection is the only corner of the Howard Avenue, Gray Street If it is not needed, consider shifting the through travel lanes intersection that does not have a drainage inlet, constructing to Cypress Street to the west (between State Street and Cypress Street) and a bulb‐out in this corner should have minimal impacts on construct a bulb‐out in the southeast corner along Howard drainage. Avenue. Perform a speed analysis study to determine if the existing Evaluate strategies to reduce the posted speed limit on this speeds along this segment of Armenia Avenue warrant the segment of Armenia Avenue to 35 MPH or less. existing posted speed limit. Consider providing a buffered bicycle lane, 48’ feet of pavement for two travel lanes and two on‐street parking lanes should provide more than enough space to Consider as part of planned resurfacing project. accommodate a buffered (7’) bicycle lane with a 8’|7’|12.5’|12.5’|8’ lane configuration. Consider constructing bulb‐outs at Gray Street and providing There are drainage inlets in all four intersection quadrants, Armenia Avenue, Gray Street a marked crossing with RRFBs to accommodate the proposed further evaluation is needed to determine drainage impacts. to Cypress Street Gray Street neighborhood greenway. Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Armenia Avenue at all Most of the intersections have drainage inlets located at or intersections between Gray Street and Cypress Street. near the intersection; evaluate drainage impacts. Consider conducting an operational analysis for the Armenia Perform an intersection operational analysis to determine if Avenue and Cypress Street intersection to determine if the the southbound left and right turn lanes on Armenia Avenue southbound left and right‐turn lanes are needed. If they are are needed to maintain an acceptable level of service. not needed, consider repurposing the pavement width to better accommodate pedestrians at the intersection. If they Evaluate drainage impacts, there are drainage inlets within are justified, consider constructing bulb‐outs along Armenia each corner of the intersection with the exception of the Avenue in the southeast and southwest quadrants. southeast corner. Evaluate strategies to reduce the posted speed limit on the Perform a speed analysis study to determine if the existing segment of Howard Avenue south of Main Street from 40 speeds along this segment of Howard Avenue warrant the MPH to 35 MPH or less. existing posted speed limit. Howard Avenue, Cypress Consider widening the existing sidewalk utilizing the utility Street to Spruce Street strip and FDOT right‐of‐way to accommodate a minimum 8’ Would require either relocating the existing utility poles or sidewalk that could accommodate both pedestrians and routing the sidewalk around the existing utilities. bicyclists through the interchange.

Appendix A‐10 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments On‐street parking returns along Howard Avenue north of Green Street. The posted speed limit is reduced to 30 MPH north of Main Street. Consider providing shared lane Dependent on reduction in posted speed to 35 MPH or less. markings along Howard Avenue between Main Street and Spruce Street. At Main Street consider the enhancements identified in the See Main Street review comments. Main Street section. Howard Avenue, Cypress At Spruce Street consider the enhancements identified in the Street to Spruce Street MPO’s Spruce Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Report and consider reconstructing the existing bulb‐outs Impacts to drainage will need to be evaluated. and providing enhanced crosswalk markings supplemented with RRFBs. Evaluate drainage impacts, there are drainage inlets at or Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Howard Avenue at all near most of the intersection corners through this segment of intersection between Main Street and Spruce Street. Howard Avenue. Consider enhancing the existing crosswalk at Union Street. NA Perform a speed analysis study to determine if the existing Evaluate strategies to reduce the posted speed limit on this speeds along this segment of Armenia Avenue warrant the segment of Armenia Avenue to 35 MPH or less. existing posted speed limit. Consider providing a buffered bicycle lane, 48’ feet of pavement for two travel lanes and two on‐street parking lanes should provide more than enough space to Consider as part of planned resurfacing project. accommodate a buffered (7’) bicycle lane with a Armenia Avenue, Cypress 8’|7’|12.5’|12.5’|8’ lane configuration. Street to Spruce Street Evaluate drainage impacts, there are drainage inlets at or Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Armenia Avenue at all near most of the intersection corners through this segment of intersections between Cypress Street and Spruce Street. Armenia Avenue. Consider providing a marked crossing across the south leg of In addition to crosswalk markings include R10‐15 signage to the Armenia Avenue and Laurel Street/I‐275 Ramp remind right turning drivers to yield to pedestrians in the intersection. crosswalk. Consider implementing the enhancements identified in the See Main Street review comments. Main Street section of this report.

Appendix A‐11 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments At Spruce Street, consider the enhancements identified in the MPO’s Spruce Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Armenia Avenue, Cypress Improvement Report and consider reconstructing the existing Evaluate drainage impacts. Street to Spruce Street bulb‐outs and providing enhance crosswalk markings supplemented with RRFBs. Consider providing shared lane markings between Spruce NA Street and Beach Street. North of Beach Street there is no marked on‐street parking, consider reducing the travel lane widths, delineate on‐street parking on the west side, and provide a buffered bicycle lane Consider as part of planned resurfacing project. to connect to the existing lane at St Louis Street, the lane configuration could be 9’|12’|12’|7’. Howard Avenue, Spruce Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Howard Avenue at all Evaluate drainage impacts. Street to Columbus Drive intersections between Main Street and Beach Street. At Cherry Street, consider enhancing the existing crosswalks NA with high visibility markings supplemented with RRFBs. At Palmetto Street, consider replacing the existing flashing NA beacon with a push‐button activated RRFB. At Beach Street, consider constructing bulb‐outs and Evaluate drainage impacts. In the southeast corner an providing a marked crossing to accommodate the proposed elongated curb extension could also serve as a bus bulb. Beach Street neighborhood greenway. Perform a speed analysis study to determine if the existing Evaluate strategies to reduce the posted speed limit on this speeds along this segment of Armenia Avenue warrant the segment of Armenia Avenue. existing posted speed limit. Consider providing a buffered bicycle lane, 48’ feet of Armenia Avenue, Spruce pavement for two travel lanes and two on‐street parking Street to Columbus Drive lanes should provide more than enough space to Consider as part of planned resurfacing project. accommodate a buffered (7’) bicycle lane with a 8’|7’|12.5’|12.5’|8’ lane configuration. Consider constructing bulb‐outs along Armenia Avenue at all Evaluate drainage impacts. intersections between Spruce Street and Columbus Drive.

Appendix A‐12 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments Consider relocating the existing signalized pedestrian Identified as a Walk‐Bike II enhancement. If not relocated crossing between Walnut Street and Pine Street to Pine construct bulb‐outs at the existing location to improve Street. visibility of crossing pedestrians. Armenia Avenue, Spruce Enhance the existing crosswalks at Pine Street to include high NA Street to Columbus Drive visibility ladder style markings. Consider constructing bulb‐outs and providing a marked crosswalk with RRFBs at Beach Street to accommodate the Evaluate drainage impacts. proposed Beach Street neighborhood greenway. Gray Street Neighborhood Greenway Enhancements Consider constructing neighborhood traffic circles and There appears to be adequate pavement width at these conversion to all‐yield control at Hesperides Street, intersections to accommodate neighborhood traffic circles. Manhattan Avenue, and Hubert Avenue. Consider providing wayfinding signage at Hesperides Street directing bicyclists to the trail that begins on Hesperides NA Street south of Carmen Street. Consider conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis at the intersection of Gray Street and Lois Avenue. The closest signalized intersections are at I‐275 approximately 600’ to Gray Street, Westshore the north and Kennedy Boulevard approximately a quarter‐ Boulevard to Lois Avenue mile to the south.  An alternative to a signalized intersection would be Conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis, consider using the to provide a raised median traffic diverter island trail crossing requirements for this location. along Lois Avenue that would allow bicyclists to continue through the intersection, but would prohibit through and left turn motor vehicle movements. The median island could be accommodated by narrowing the travel lanes on Lois Avenue. Consider constructing a neighborhood traffic circle at Grady Gray Street, Lois Avenue to There appears to be adequate pavement width to Avenue and converting the intersection from a four‐way stop Dale Mabry Highway accommodate a neighborhood traffic circle. to an all‐yield intersection.

Appendix A‐13 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments The intersection of Gray Street and Dale Mabry Highway is signalized. Consider installing bike boxes on the eastbound Gray Street, Lois Avenue to The east and west stop bars along Gray Street may need to be and westbound approaches and evaluating the feasibility of Dale Mabry Highway set‐back to accommodate the bike boxes. installing bicycle detection at the intersection to help reduce bicycle delay and improve compliance with the traffic signal. Consider constructing neighborhood traffic circles at Glenn Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and Matanzas Avenue. Also, There appears to be adequate pavement width at these consider converting these intersections from stop controlled intersections to accommodate neighborhood traffic circles. Gray Street, Dale Mabry to all‐yield. Highway to Matanzas Avenue At Himes Avenue consider conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis, the closest signalized intersections are at Cypress Conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis, consider using the Street to the north and Kennedy Boulevard to the south, trail crossing requirements for this location. both approximately a quarter‐mile from this intersection. Consider conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis at MacDill Avenue. The closest signalized intersections are at Conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis, consider using the Cypress Street to the north and Kennedy Boulevard to the trail crossing requirements for this location. south, both approximately a quarter‐mile from this intersection. Gray Street, Matanzas Consider neighborhood traffic circles and conversion to all‐ There appears to be adequate pavement width at these Avenue to Armenia Avenue yield control at Gomez Avenue and Habana Avenue. intersections to accommodate neighborhood traffic circles. At Armenia Avenue consider constructing bulb‐outs along Armenia Avenue in each quadrant and providing a marked Evaluate drainage impacts. crosswalk with RRFBs to accommodate the neighborhood greenway crossings. At Howard Avenue consider constructing bulb‐outs along the west side of Howard Avenue and providing a marked crossing Evaluate drainage impacts. supplemented with RRFBs. Gray Street, Armenia Avenue Consider constructing neighborhood traffic circles at Albany to Rome Avenue Avenue and Fremont Avenue. If neighborhood traffic circles There appears to be adequate pavement width at these are installed consider converting the intersection from stop intersections to accommodate neighborhood traffic circles. controlled to all‐yield.

Appendix A‐14 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments At Rome Avenue consider providing a marked crossing Gray Street, Armenia Avenue Coordinate with planned improvement project along Rome supplemented with RRFBs along the south leg of the to Rome Avenue Avenue. intersection. Beach Street Neighborhood Greenway Enhancements Consider conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis at the intersection of Beach Street and Himes Avenue. The ongoing improvements to Himes Avenue will provide a marked mid‐ block crossing north of Beach Street, but it is unlikely that Conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis, consider using the users of the neighborhood greenway will travel the distance trail crossing requirements for this location. out‐of‐direction to utilize the crossing. The closest signalized intersections are Columbus Drive to the north and Spruce Street to the south, both approximately a quarter‐mile from the intersection. Beach Street, Himes Avenue Consider installing neighborhood traffic circles at Glenn to MacDill Avenue Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. In conjunction with the There appears to be adequate pavement width at these neighborhood traffic circles, consider converting the intersections to accommodate neighborhood traffic circles. intersections from two‐way stop control to all‐yield intersections. Consider conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis at the intersection of Beach Street and MacDill Avenue. The closest Conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis, consider using the signalized intersections to this intersection are Columbus trail crossing requirements for this location. Drive to the north and Spruce Street to the south, both approximately a quarter‐mile from the intersection. Consider installing a neighborhood traffic circle at Habana There appears to be adequate pavement width at this Avenue and converting the intersection to an all‐yield intersection to accommodate a neighborhood traffic circle. Beach Street, MacDill Avenue intersection. to Armenia Avenue At Armenia Avenue consider constructing bulb‐outs within all Evaluate impacts to drainage. Coordinate with enhancements four quadrants, enhancing the existing crosswalk markings, along Armenia Avenue. and supplementing the crossing with RRFBs. Consider constructing bulb‐outs within all four quadrants at Beach Street, Armenia Evaluate impacts to drainage. Coordinate with enhancements Howard Avenue, enhance the existing crosswalk markings, Avenue to Rome Avenue along Howard Avenue. and consider supplementing the crossing with RRFBs.

Appendix A‐15 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments At Rome Avenue consider installing a marked crosswalk with Beach Street, Armenia RRFBs to help facilitate movements to/from the Coordinate with improvements along Rome Avenue. Avenue to Rome Avenue neighborhood greenway. I‐275 Greenway and Green Spine Trail Connections From Himes Avenue continue the trail within the FDOT right‐ Coordinate with FDOT on use of right‐of‐way and conduct of‐way adjacent to La Salle Street to east of MacDill Avenue necessary engineering work to determine if the pond site at New Jersey Avenue. A crossing a MacDill Avenue would between MacDill Avenue and New Jersey Avenue would need need to be provided and note that the pond site between to be modified to accommodate a trail adjacent to it. MacDill Avenue and New Jersey Avenue may need to be Additionally, there is a retaining wall and a slight elevation modified to accommodate a trail and still provide change along the east side of MacDill Avenue that would maintenance access to the pond. need to be mitigated for. An on‐street section of the trail would continue along New Jersey Avenue approximately 50’ to La Salle Street and then continue along La Salle Street approximately 900’ to connect NA Alternative 1 to the existing I‐275 Greenway at Habana Avenue and then continue along the existing trail to Armenia Avenue. A crossing would need to be provided at Armenia Avenue, from there the trail would continue on‐street along La Salle Could utilized proposed south leg crossing of Armenia Avenue Street for about a quarter‐mile to Habana Avenue where it and Laurel Street/I‐275 Ramp intersection. Evaluate crossing would connect into the existing trail/maintenance road north opportunities at Howard Avenue. of the residences that front La Salle Street. The trail would then continue along the existing trail/maintenance road to Oregon Avenue. At Oregon Avenue NA consider continuing the trail with the FDOT right‐of‐way south of I‐275 to North Boulevard. Utilize the Alternative 1 alignment within the I‐275 right‐of‐ way and La Salle Street to provide a connection between See Alternative 1 review comments. Himes Avenue and Rome Avenue. At Rome Avenue utilize the planned bicycle lanes or consider Alternatively evaluate opportunities to construct a pathway Alternative 2 exploring opportunities for a separated facility, to connect to along Rome Avenue to Cass Street, potentially along the west the planned Green Spine extension along Cass Street. side of Rome Avenue. The trail would then utilize the Green Spine to connect to NA and through downtown Tampa.

Appendix A‐16 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments Utilize the Alternative 1 alignment within the I‐275 right‐of‐ See Alternative 1 review comments. way and La Salle Street to Armenia Avenue. If the armory is relocated, the City of Tampa could potentially Depends on the relocation of the armory and the City’s ability extend Cass Street and the Green Spine from Howard Avenue to obtain the right‐of‐way to connect Cass Street and the to Armenia Avenue. Extending Cass Street could provide an Green Spine from Howard Avenue to Armenia Avenue. Alternative 3 opportunity to extend the Green Spine to Armenia Avenue. To create a separated bicycle facility along Armenia Avenue To accommodate the two‐way bicycle facility approximately consider constructing a 12’ two‐way bicycle facility with a 30 on‐street parking spaces would need to be removed from raised 4’ median along the east side of Armenia Avenue. This the east side of Armenia Avenue. Consider conducting a facility could connect the existing I‐275 Greenway to where parking utilization study along this segment of Armenia Cass Street could potentially intersect Armenia Avenue. Avenue. Utilize the Alternative 1 alignment within the I‐275 right‐of‐ See Alternative 1 review comments. way to MacDill Avenue. Consider providing a shared use path along the east side of NA MacDill Avenue from north of La Salle Street to Green Street. Between Green Street and Main Street there is an existing 5’ sidewalk and 5’ utility strip, MacDill Avenue has approximately 50’ of pavement comprised of four travel lanes and bicycle lanes. Consider eliminating the bicycle lanes May require relocation of some utilities. through this section and extending the curb along the east side of the street to accommodate a minimum 10’ path along Alternative 4 the east side of MacDill Avenue between Green Street and Main Street. There are several driveways along both sides of Main Street that are not conducive to a trail facility along the side of the street. Main Street has approximately 40’ of pavement that is Would require eliminating on‐street parking along Main comprised of two travel lanes and on‐street parking along Street as well as eliminating the left turn lanes along Main both sides of the street. In order to accommodate a trail Street at both Armenia Avenue and Howard Avenue. along Main Street consider eliminating the on‐street parking and running the trail down the center of Main Street with 3’ separators between the travel lanes and the trail.

Appendix A‐17 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Suggestion for Consideration Review Comments Continue the trail along Main Street into the West River redevelopment area and depending upon the design of the reconstructed downtown interchange consider connecting Alternative 4 Coordinate with the West River development. the trail in the vicinity of North Boulevard and Green Street to the West Riverwalk and across the Fortune (Laurel Street) Bridge.

Appendix A‐18 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Appendix B – Cost Estimates

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Summary of Suggestions for Consideration Planning Level Cost Estimate Main Street Complete Street Enhancements  Intersection enhancements at Main Street and MacDill Avenue including a potential westbound left turn lane on Main Street and potentially signalizing the intersection.  Repair/replace broken sidewalk segments Main Street, MacDill Avenue to Armenia Avenue $718,000  Provide shared lane markings  Delineate on‐street parking areas  Neighborhood traffic circles at Habana Avenue and Tampania Avenue  Intersection enhancements including possible bulb‐outs  Enhanced crosswalk markings Main Street at Armenia Avenue and Howard Avenue $139,000  Raised landscaped median west of Armenia Avenue and between Armenia Avenue and Howard Avenue  Delineate on‐street parking areas  Provide shared Lane markings  Improving lighting conditions, including pedestrian scale Main Street, Howard Avenue to Albany Avenue $ 445,000 lighting between Howard Avenue and Albany Avenue  Intersection Enhancements at Albany and Main Street including bulb‐outs  Delineate on‐street parking areas  Provide shared lane markings Main Street, Albany Avenue to Rome Avenue  Installing intersection lighting $ 155,000  Intersection enhancements including bulb‐outs, enhanced crosswalks, and ADA compliant infrastructure  Intersection enhancements including improved crosswalk Main Street, Rome Avenue to North Boulevard markings $ 212,000  Improved intersection lighting Columbus Drive Complete Street Enhancements  Widen sidewalks  Sidewalk reconstruction and geometry improvements at Columbus Drive, Lois Avenue to Grady Avenue $ 249,000 intersections  Pedestrian scale lighting

Appendix B‐1 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Summary of Suggestions for Consideration Planning Level Cost Estimate  Widen sidewalks Columbus Drive, Grady Avenue to Dale Mabry  Sidewalk reconstruction and geometry improvements at $120,000 Highway intersections  Intersection enhancements including reducing curb radii, Columbus Drive at Dale Mabry Highway realigning crosswalks, operational analysis, RRFBs, and $ 129,000 lighting conditions Columbus Drive, Dale Mabry Highway to Himes  Monitor redevelopment and identify opportunities to widen NA Avenue sidewalk along the south side  Providing marked crosswalks along the side‐street crossings  Intersection enhancements including high emphasis Columbus Drive, Himes Avenue to East of Lincoln crosswalks, LED overhead lighting, and pedestrian curb ramps $ 189,000 Avenue  Signalized left turn operational changes and new traffic signal head assemblies  Evaluating signal timing and phasing, consider new signal head assemblies  Intersection enhancements including improved and realigned Columbus Drive, East of Lincoln Avenue to East of crosswalks, ADA enhancements, and curb extensions $440,000 Habana Avenue  Roadway realignment between St Vincent St and MacDill Ave to accommodate sidewalk along the south side  Sidewalk enhancements  Intersection enhancements including improved crosswalks, Columbus Drive, East of Habana Avenue to West of curb ramps $124,000 Rome Avenue  Crosswalk along the side‐street crossings  Road diet and intersection signalization Columbus Drive at Rome Avenue $504,000  Further roundabout feasibility evaluation Columbus Drive, West of Rome Avenue to North  Crosswalk enhancements at intersections and along $129,000 Boulevard Columbus Drive Howard Avenue and Armenia Avenue Complete Street Enhancements

Appendix B‐2 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Summary of Suggestions for Consideration Planning Level Cost Estimate  Bulb‐outs along Howard Avenue  Crossing enhancements at Gray Street including markings and Howard Avenue, Gray Street to Cypress Street RRFBs $136,000  Operations analysis for Cypress Street intersection  Widening sidewalk along Howard Avenue  Reconstructing bulb‐outs Howard Avenue, Cypress Street to Spruce Street  Shared lane markings $269,000  Providing enhanced crossing with RRFBs  Crosswalk enhancements including RRFBs  Shared lane markings Howard Avenue, Spruce Street to Columbus Drive $499,000  Reducing travel lane widths, providing buffered bicycle lane between Beach Street and St Louis Street  Bulb‐outs at all intersections along Armenia Avenue Armenia Avenue, Gray Street to Cypress Street  Accommodating buffered bicycle lane $444,000  Intersections enhancements including an RRFB  Bulb‐outs at all intersections along Armenia Armenia Avenue, Cypress Street to Spruce Street  Accommodating buffered bicycle lane $ 884,000  Intersection enhancements including an RRFB  Bulb‐outs at all intersections along Armenia Ave Armenia Avenue, Spruce Street to Columbus Drive  Accommodating buffered bicycle lane $1,271,000  Intersection enhancements including RRFBs Gray Street Neighborhood Greenway Enhancements  Shared lane pavement markings with green background box  “Bikes May Use Full Lane” Signs Gray Street, Westshore Boulevard to Lois Avenue  Wayfinding signage $ 592,000  Installing neighborhood traffic circles  Installation of traffic signal at Lois Avenue

Appendix B‐3 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Summary of Suggestions for Consideration Planning Level Cost Estimate  Shared lane pavement markings with green background box  “Bikes May Use Full Lane” Signs Gray Street, Lois Avenue to Dale Mabry Highway  Wayfinding signage $42,000  Installing neighborhood traffic circles  Bike boxes and bicycle detection at Dale Mabry Highway  Shared lane pavement markings with green background box  “Bikes May Use Full Lane” Signs Gray Street, Dale Mabry Highway to Matanzas  Wayfinding signage $550,000 Avenue  Installing neighborhood traffic circles  Installing speed cushions  Shared lane pavement markings with green background box  “Bikes May Use Full Lane” Signs  Wayfinding signage  Installing neighborhood traffic circles Gray Street, Matanzas Avenue to Armenia Avenue $672,000  Installing speed cushions  Crossing enhancements at Armenia Avenue including bulb‐ outs and RRFBs  Potential new traffic signal at MacDill Avenue  Shared lane pavement markings with green background box  “Bikes May Use Full Lane” Signs  Wayfinding signage Gray Street, Armenia Avenue to Rome Avenue $ 228,000  Installing neighborhood traffic circles  Installing speed cushions  Enhanced crossings at Howard Avenue and Rome Avenue Beach Street Neighborhood Greenway Enhancements  Shared lane pavement markings with green background box  “Bikes May Use Full Lane” Signs  Wayfinding signage Beach Street, Himes Avenue to MacDill Avenue $526,000  Installing neighborhood traffic circles  Installing speed cushions  Potential new traffic signal at Himes Avenue

Appendix B‐4 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Summary of Suggestions for Consideration Planning Level Cost Estimate  Shared lane pavement markings with green background box  “Bikes May Use Full Lane” Signs  Wayfinding signage  Installing neighborhood traffic circles Beach Street, MacDill Avenue to Armenia Avenue $642,000  Installing speed cushions  Enhancing existing or installing new crosswalk markings and installing an RRFB  Installing traffic signal at MacDill Avenue  Shared lane pavement markings with green background box  “Bikes May Use Full Lane” Signs  Wayfinding signage Beach Street, Armenia Avenue to Rome Avenue  Installing neighborhood traffic circles $238,000  Installing speed cushions  Enhancing existing crossings with improved crosswalk markings and RRFBs I‐275 Greenway and Green Spine Trail Connections Alternative 1  Constructing multi‐use path within FDOT right‐of‐way Alternative 1, Himes Avenue to MacDill Avenue $666,000  Signalized crossing at MacDill Avenue  Constructing multi‐use path Alternative 1, MacDill Avenue to Habana Avenue $45,000  Shared lane markings  Constructing multi‐use path within FDOT right‐of‐way Alternative 1, Habana Avenue to Albany Avenue  Trail crossing $510,000  Shared Lane markings Alternative 1, Albany Avenue to Rome Avenue  Shared lane markings $500  RRFB crossing Alternative 1, Rome Avenue to North Boulevard $204,000  Construct multi‐use path within FDOT right‐of‐way Alternative 2  Constructing multi‐use path within FDOT right‐of‐way Alternative 2, Himes Avenue to MacDill Avenue $666,000  Signalized crossing at MacDill Avenue

Appendix B‐5 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Location Summary of Suggestions for Consideration Planning Level Cost Estimate  Construct multi‐use path within FDOT right‐of‐way Alternative 2, MacDill Avenue to Habana Avenue $45,000  Install shared lane markings  Construct multi‐use path within FDOT right‐of‐way Alternative 2, Habana Avenue to Albany Avenue  Install shared lane markings $510,00  Install trail crossings Alternative 2, Albany Avenue to Rome Avenue  Utilize existing trail/maintenance road alignment NA Alternative 2, Rome Avenue from I‐275 Greenway to  Utilize planned bike facilities along Rome Avenue $20,000 Cass Street/Green Spine  Enhanced crossing with RRFBs Alternative 3  Constructing multi‐use path within FDOT right‐of‐way Alternative 3, Himes Avenue to MacDill Avenue $ 666,000  Signalized crossing at MacDill Avenue  Construct multi‐use path within FDOT right‐of‐way Alternative 3, MacDill Avenue to Armenia Avenue  Install shared lane markings $66,000  Crossing enhancement at Armenia Avenue  Construct two‐way cycle track along Armenia Ave Alternative 3, Armenia Avenue from I‐275 Greenway  Intersection enhancements $415,000 to Cass Street/Green Spine  Does not include improvements to Cass Street or right‐of‐way acquisition costs Alternative 4 Alternative 4, Himes Avenue to MacDill Avenue  Construct multi‐use path within FDOT right‐of‐way $216,000 Alternative 4, MacDill Avenue from I‐275 Greenway  Signalized crossing at MacDill Avenue $600,000 to Main Street  New multi‐use path along MacDill Avenue  Construct two‐way cycle track with physical separation in the Alternative 4, Main Street from MacDill Avenue to middle of Main Street; includes resurfacing and intersection $1,780,000 North Boulevard enhancements

Appendix B‐6 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Appendix C – Columbus Drive at Rome Avenue Intersection Review

WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Columbus Drive at Rome Avenue Alternatives 4. Alternative 4 – Roundabout Operational Analysis Traffic Data

For the feasibility analysis of the concepts proposed for Columbus Turning movement count data collected in 2015 was used for the Drive at Rome Avenue, isolated intersection, existing scenario and analysis. The operational analysis was performed for the PM peak three alternative concepts were analyzed using Synchro9 and the hours from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. configuration of network for the scenarios and the results are described as follows: Intersection Operations Analysis and Results

Figure 1 shows the study area and intersection with network setup in Study intersections were analyzed using the turning movement Synchro. volume. Detailed operational analyses were conducted for the year 2015. Unsignalized Intersection

Existing:

 For the existing scenario and the road diet concept, a curb radius of 50 feet is given at the northbound left to incorporate the storage length at the right turn.  As shown in Table 1, the Columbus Drive at Rome Avenue intersection currently operates at LOS D during the evening peak hour.

Road Diet:

 For the road diet concept with a 2‐lane divided lane configuration the suggested lane arrangements are: Figure 1: Study Area and Intersection o Southbound – T/R/L Four Scenarios under Consideration for Analysis: o Westbound – T/R + L (150 ft) o Northbound – T/L + R (100 ft) 1. No Build – Existing scenario o Eastbound – T/L + R (1,000 ft) 2. Alternative 1 – Road diet with change in lane configurations  The intersection in this scenario is anticipated to operate at 3. Alternative 2 – Signalized intersection LOS F for the evening peak hour. In this concept the

Appendix C‐1 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

northbound and southbound approaches experience high  The eastbound and westbound approaches (major street) levels of delay. experience high delay with a single circulating roundabout lane. Signalized Intersection:  The analysis results show that the intersection operates at  The control type adopted for the signal timing is Actuated – LOS F during the PM peak hour for the roundabout concept. coordinated type with a cycle length of 90 seconds. Summary  The lane configuration is the same as that given for the unsignalized road diet concept. Based on the intersection analysis performed with 2015 turning  The signal cycle length and the split is optimized using movement count data for the Columbus Drive at Rome Avenue Synchro9. intersection, the intersection currently operates at an acceptable  The results show that the intersection in this scenario level per FDOT standards (Standard LOS D). Of the analyzed operates at LOS B during the PM peak hour. intersection alternatives it the signalized road diet alternative operates the best with a LOS B in the PM peak hour. Roundabout:

 For the roundabout concept, the intersection fails with only one circulatory lane.

Appendix C‐2 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Table 1: PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Analysis Summary

HCM 2010 Synchro Queue Queue Approach Movement Approach Movement Movement Approach V/C length Approach Approach V/C length delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS ratio 95th delay LOS ratio 95th (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (ft) (ft) Existing: Unsignalised Eastbound L 0 * 0 T 0.37 R 0.37 Westbound L 12.34 0.16 15 B 3 2.3 0.16 14 T(shared) 2.4 2.2 0.34 14 R 0 0.34 0 Northbound L 350.5 350.5 1.6 423 F T 413.1 $413.10 F 1.74 450 F 350.5 1.6 423 F R 350.5 1.6 423 F Southbound L 162.4 F 0.16 12.5 F 108.2 108.2 0.1 8 F T 162.4 108.2 0.1 8 F R 108.2 0.1 8 F Overall 39.6 - 33.4 1.6 D Alt1: Unsignalised; Road Diet Eastbound L 0 0 A 0 0 0 T 0 0 R 0 0.04 Westbound L 11.73 0.9 0.15 12.5 B 12.3 0.9 0.16 14 B T(shared) 0 0.68 A R 0 0.68 A Northbound L $958.50 62.3 F 2.11 130 F 798 798 2.56 567 F T 61.9 0.82 160 F 798 2.56 567 F R 798 2.56 567 F Southbound L $473.20 7.9 F 0.4 22.5 F 473 473 0.37 22 F T 473 0.37 22 F R 473 0.37 22 F Overall 19.6 - 74.7 2.56 F Alt2: Road Diet; Signalized; Control type: Actuated - Coordinated; Cycle length:90sec Eastbound L 0 15.2 B 0 - A 0 13.7 B 0 T 21.4 0.84 - B 14.5 0.79 #807 B R 5.4 0.07 - A 2.5 0.07 19 A Westbound L 49.6 18.7 B 0.45 C 15.2 16.6 B 0.46 #81 B

Appendix C‐3 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

T(shared) 0 0.88 A 16.8 0.84 #884 B R 26.8 0.88 B 0 0 - Northbound L 30.1 47.6 D 0.12 C 0 29.8 C 0 - T 0 0.14 A 36.2 0.22 45 D R 44.1 0.83 D 28.2 0.7 109 C Southbound L 28.9 31.7 C 0.01 C 0 25.5 C 0 - T 0 0.01 A 25.5 0.02 10 C R 0 0.02 A 0 0 - Overall 19.8 B 16.6 B Alt3: Roundabout Eastbound L 104.2 F 1.17 850 T R Westbound L 105.7 F 1.18 900 T(shared) R Northbound L 31.9 D 0.68 125 T R Southbound L 12 B 0.01 0 T R *, ‐ Missing LOS is LOS A.

Appendix C‐4 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Roundabout Capacity Analysis

Using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roundabout The geometric elements of the roundabout also affect the rate of Informational Guide and the 2015 turning movement count data a entry flow. The most important geometric element is the width of the roundabout capacity analysis was conducted for the Columbus Drive entry and circulatory roadways, or the number of lanes at the entry at Rome Avenue intersection. According to the FHWA Guide, the and on the roundabout. Two entry lanes permit nearly twice the rate maximum traffic flow rate that can be accommodated at a of entry flow as one lane. Wider circulatory roadways allow vehicles roundabout entry depends on two factors: the circulating flow on the to travel alongside, or follow, each other in tighter bunches and so roundabout that conflicts with the entry flow, and the geometric provide longer gaps between bunches of vehicles. The fare length elements of the roundabout. also affects the capacity. The inscribed circle diameter and the entry angle have minor effects on capacity. When circulating flow is low, drivers at the entry are able to enter the roundabout without significant delay. The larger gaps in the The following is a summary of the roundabout capacity analysis that circulating flow are more useful to the entering drivers and more was completed for the Columbus Drive at Rome Avenue intersection. than one vehicle may enter each gap. As the circulating flow For this analysis the AM and PM peak hours were evaluated for both increases, the size of the gaps in the circulating flow decrease, and the existing conditions, see Table 2 and Figures X – X, and for a future the rate at which vehicles can enter also decreased. Note that when condition using assumed growth percentages as shown in Table 3 and computing the capacity of a particular leg, the actual circulating flow in Figures 2 – 9. to use may be less than demand flows, if the entry capacity of one leg contributing to the circulating flow is less than demand on that leg.

Appendix C‐5 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Table 2: Columbus Drive at Rome Avenue Turning Movement Count (2015)

Peak Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total AM 1 1 1 3 1 1,277 82 1,360 87 1 27 115 61 410 0 471 PM 2 1 1 4 6 1,056 88 1,150 190 2 33 225 69 1,008 0 1,077

EB Entering 471 3 Southbound All 82 Westbound Left

556 85 Eastbound All 471 1390 3SB Entering Southbound Left 1 1387 Circulating 472 1360 Westbound All NB Entering 115 587 27 Northbound Left 115 1475

Northbound All 115 Eastbound Left 0 1360 Max Entering: 1360 WB Entering Max Circulating: 1387 Max Entering + Circulating: 1475 Figure 2: Existing (2015) AM Peak Hour Flow

Appendix C‐6 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 3: Existing (2015) AM Peak Hour Approach Capacity

Appendix C‐7 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

EB Entering 1077 4 Southbound All 88 Westbound Left

1169 92 Eastbound All 1077 1187 4SB Entering Southbound Left 1 1183 Circulating 1078 1150 Westbound All NB Entering 225 1303 33 Northbound Left 225 1375

Northbound All 225 Eastbound Left 0 1150 Max Entering: 1150 WB WB Entering Max Circulating: 1183 Max Entering + Circulating: 1375 Figure 4: Existing (2015) PM Peak Hour Flow

Appendix C‐8 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Table 3: Columbus Drive at Rome Avenue Turning Movement Count with Growth Factors

Peak Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Hour Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Growth 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 50% 20% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 20% 20% 20% % AM 1 1 1 4 1 1,532 123 1,632 131 2 41 173 92 492 0 565 PM 2 1 1 5 7 1,267 132 1,380 285 3 50 338 104 1,210 0 1,292 EB Entering 565 4 Southbound All 123 Westbound Left

692 127 Eastbound All 565 1677 4SB Entering Southbound Left 1 1673 Circulating 566 1632 Westbound All NB Entering 173 739 41 Northbound Left 173 1805

Northbound All 173 Eastbound Left 0 1632 Max Entering: 1632 Westbound WB Entering Max Circulating: 1673 Max Entering + Circulating: 1805 Figure 6: AM Peak Hour with Growth Factors Flow

Appendix C‐9 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 7: AM Peak Hour with Growth Factors Approach Capacity

Appendix C‐10 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

EB Entering 1292 5 Southbound All 132 Westbound Left

1429 137 Eastbound All 1292 1435 5SB Entering Southbound Left 1 1430 Circulating 1293 1380 Westbound All NB Entering 338 1631 50 Northbound Left 338 1718

Northbound All 338 Eastbound Left 0 1380 WB Entering Max Entering: 1380 WB Max Circulating: 1430 Max Entering + Circulating: 1718 Figure 8: PM Peak Hour with Growth Factors Flow

Appendix C‐11 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Figure 9: PM Peak Hour with Growth Factors Approach Capacity

Appendix C‐12 WEST TAMPA MULTIMODAL PLAN

Columbus Drive, Rome Avenue to North Boulevard Crash Diagram

Appendix C‐13

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item South Coast Greenway Connector Study

Presenter

Wiatt Bowers, Atkins Summary Implementation of the South Coast Greenway Connector Trail will assist in completing a major component of the greenways and trails system in eastern Hillsborough County, and provide additional mobility options for the Palm River, Clair Mel, Progress Village, and Gibsonton areas. The trail is included in the Florida Shared-Use Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail Network and will generally be required to be an off-road multi-use path.

The study has identified possible routes and costs associated with those scoring highest for connections to neighborhoods, parks, schools, and other amenities and based on public input.

Recommended Action Acceptance of the South Coast Greenway Study Prepared By

Wade Reynolds, MPO Staff

Attachments South Coast Greenway Connector Study (Draft)

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

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study

Symmes Road to Adamo Drive

Prepared for:

Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization 601 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 272-5940

Prepared by:

The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the 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. The MPO does not discriminate in any of its programs or services. Public participation is solicited by the MPO without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, family or religious status. Learn more about our commitment to nondiscrimination and diversity by contacting our Title VI/Nondiscrimination Coordinator, Johnny Wong at (813) 273-3774 ext. 370 or [email protected].

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 Table of Contents List of Figures FIGURE 1. PROJECT AREA ...... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 FIGURE 2. FGTS WEST CENTRAL REGION MAP ...... 2 1.1 SUN TRAIL PROGRAM ...... 2 FIGURE 3. SELMON GREENWAY CONNECTOR ...... 3 1.2 SCG TRAIL BACKGROUND ...... 3 FIGURE 4. TAMPA BYPASS CANAL TRAIL (SOUTH) ...... 3 1.3 SCG TRAIL SYSTEM CONNECTIONS ...... 3 FIGURE 5. SOUTH COAST GREENWAY MANATEE CONNECTION ...... 4 1.4 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ...... 5 FIGURE 6. AOI 0.25 MILE BUFFER AREA ...... 5 FIGURE 7. PROJECT AREA SECTORS ...... 6 2.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ...... 6 FIGURE 8. SOUTHERN ALTERNATIVES ...... 7 2.1 SECTOR ALTERNATIVES ...... 7 FIGURE 9. CENTRAL SECTOR ALTERNATIVES...... 8 2.2 SCORING THE ALTERNATIVES ...... 10 FIGURE 10. NORTHERN SECTOR ALTERNATIVES ...... 9 3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 12 FIGURE 11. QUESTION 1 RESULTS ...... 13 FIGURE 12. QUESTION 2 RESULTS ...... 13 3.1 APRIL OPEN HOUSE MEETINGS ...... 12 FIGURE 13. TRAIL AMENITIES VOTES (APRIL) ...... 14 3.2 JUNE OPEN HOUSE MEETING ...... 15 FIGURE 14. TRAIL ENVIRONMENT VOTES (APRIL) ...... 14 4.0 ALIGNMENT CONCEPTS AND COST ESTIMATES...... 17 FIGURE 15. TRAIL ENVIRONMENT VOTES (JUNE) ...... 16 FIGURE 16. TRAIL AMENITIES VOTES (JUNE) ...... 16 4.1 CREEK RENDERING (N2)...... 17 FIGURE 17. TRAIL ENVIRONMENT COMBINED ...... 16 4.2 CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD CROSSING (ALTERNATIVE N2) ...... 18 FIGURE 18. TRAIL AMENITIES COMBINED ...... 16 4.3 MADISON AVENUE WEST OF PALM DRIVE (ALTERNATIVE N2) ...... 20 FIGURE 19. CAUSWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE ...... 18 TH 4.4 PALM RIVER ROAD AT 78 STREET (ALTERNATIVE N3) ...... 21 FIGURE 20. CAUSEWAY HAWK ALTERNATIVE ...... 19 4.5 CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD AT 86TH STREET (ALTERNATIVE N3) ...... 22 4.6 MADISON AVENUE WEST OF 78TH STREET (ALTERNATIVE N3) ...... 23 4.7 RIVERVIEW DRIVE AT US 41 (ALL ALTERNATIVES) ...... 24 4.8 GIBSONTON DRIVE AT US 41 (ALTERNATIVE S2) ...... 25 List of Tables 4.9 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ...... 26 TABLE 1. NORTHERN SECTOR SCORING RESULTS ...... 10 5.0 NEXT STEPS ...... 27 TABLE 2. CENTRAL SECTOR SCORING RESULTS ...... 11 TABLE 3. SOUTHERN SECTOR SCORING RESULTS ...... 11 APPENDICES ...... 28 TABLE 4. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ...... 26 APPENDIX A: CADD SHEETS ...... A APPENDIX B: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ...... B APPENDIX C: COST ESTIMATES ...... C APPENDIX D: SOCIOECONOMIC DATA REPORT ...... D

Page | ii

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018

1.0 Introduction Hillsborough County and the Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) have prioritized the development of a new FIGURE 1. PROJECT AREA shared-use trail connecting the South Coast Greenway Trail with the Tampa Bypass Canal Trail. Once developed, this new shared-use trail (part of the South Coast Greenway Trail) will be a major contribution to the greenways and trails system in eastern Hillsborough County providing additional mobility options for the Palm River, Clair Mel, Progress Village, and Gibsonton areas. Figure 1 displays the project McKay area along with the northern and southern connection points. Bay

Additionally, the trail is included in the Florida Shared-Use

Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail Network, authorized under 339.81, Florida Palm River/ Statutes. As part of the SUN Trail program’s Gulf Coast Trail, the South Clair Mel Coast Greenway Trail (SCG Trail) will generally be required to be a 12- foot off-road multi-use path. The purpose of the SCG Trail Alignment

Study is to identify feasible alignments for a trail connection from KEY Progress Symmes Road to Adamo Drive and develop concept designs for the SCG Trail Village future layout. The connector will link previously identified phases of the SCG Trail with the Tampa Bypass Canal Trail. Hillsborough County Connection Points recently advertised Phase 3 of the SGT Trail for engineering services.

This report is divided into the following sections:

￭ 1.0 Introduction: Provides an overview of the study

Hillsborough Bay ￭ 2.0 Alternatives Evaluation: Summarizes the process for developing the alignment alternatives Gibsonton ￭ 3.0 Public Involvement: Summarizes the public involvement aspect of the study

￭ 4.0 Conceptual Design: Presents the conceptual designs and preliminary cost estimates for the finalized alignment alternatives

Style by Mapbox,, rendered using osm2vectortiles, © OpenStreetMap contributors. ￭ 5.0 Next Steps: Synthesizes key issues to be studied further

Page | 1

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018

1.1 SUN Trail Program FIGURE 2. FGTS WEST CENTRAL REGION MAP The SUN Trail program was adopted by the Florida Legislature in 2015 with the intention of forming a statewide network of nonmotorized trails known as the Florida Greenways and Trails System (FGTS). The FGTS will allow nonmotorized vehicles and pedestrians to access a variety of origins and destinations with limited exposure to motorized vehicles. The SUN Trail program is managed by the Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT) through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). For purposes of funding and maintaining projects within the network, the department allocates a minimum of $25 million annually.

Trails that are part of the SUN Trail system need to meet the following characteristics:

￭ Multi-use or shared-use path typically 12 feet wide (but may vary from 10 feet to 14 feet) physically separated from motor Project vehicle traffic Area ￭ Identified as an FGTS priority or opportunity trail (a map of KEY FGTS west central region shown in Figure 2) SCG Project ￭ Constructed with asphalt, concrete, or another hard surface Area

￭ Provides connections to destinations such as: communities, Priority Trail conservation areas, state parks, beaches, and other natural or cultural attractions for a variety of trip purposes including Opportunity Trail work, school, shopping, and other personal business, as well as social, recreational, and personal fitness purposes

￭ Network components do not include sidewalks, nature trails, or loop trails

￭ May include limited on-road facilities that are no longer than 0.5 mile when connecting two or more nonmotorized trails

where off-road facilities are infeasible Source: Florida Greenways and Trails System Plan and Maps, FDEP OGT

Page | 2

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 1.2 SCG Trail Background Tampa Bypass Canal Trail The SCG Trail has been recognized in the Hillsborough County Additionally, the northern terminus of the SCG Trail will connect to the Greenways Master Plan (1995) and the Greenway and Trails Master future Tampa Bypass Canal Trail. The Tampa Bypass Canal Trail will be Plan Update (2016), where it was also identified as a “key regional and a 17-mile multiuse trail connecting the Flatwoods Park in New Tampa countywide trail concept”. In addition, the SCG Trail is included in the through Wilderness and Trout Creek Parks, and the Selmon Greenway. Priority list of trails identified in the Tampa Bay Area Transit Authority’s The greatest challenge to this project is crossing the major roadways Long Range Transportation Plan and the Hillsborough MPO’s 2040 along the trail included: I-75, US 301, I-4, Fletcher Avenue, Fowler Long Range Transportation Plan. Avenue, Harney Road, and Alamo Drive. 1.3 SCG Trail System Connections The guiding principles of the Tampa Bypass Canal Trail include: The SCG Trail is identified as a key component in the Hillsborough ￭ Safe and comfortable crossings of roadways County trail network and will function to provide a north/south ￭ Availability for all non-motorized transportation users connection to the Selmon Greenway Connector and the proposed ￭ West side alignment preferred Tampa Bypass Canal Trail to the north, and the South County ￭ Regional amenity, local access Greenway Connector to the south. ￭ Phasing Selmon Greenway Connection The next steps of the Tampa Bypass Canal Trail include: The northern terminus of the SCG Trail is intended to travel over the ￭ Collaboration and support with the Parks, Recreation, and Maydell Drive Bridge and connect to the Selmon Greenway Connector, Conservation Department for implementation which provides networks to the West Tampa neighborhood through ￭ Identification of trail amenities (water, benches, trees, etc.) Downtown Tampa through Ybor City. The Selmon Greenway ￭ Partnership with historical societies for marker placement Connector is also eligible for SUN Trail funding. ￭ Funding and Project Design & Engineering FIGURE 3. SELMON GREENWAY CONNECTOR FIGURE 4. TAMPA BYPASS CANAL TRAIL (SOUTH)

SCG Connection

Source: Hillsborough County Greenway and Trails Master Plan Update (2016) Source: Tampa Bypass Canal Multi-Use Trail Master Plan and Feasibility Study (2013)

Page | 3

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 South County Greenway Connection FIGURE 5. SOUTH COUNTY GREENWAY MANATEE CONNECTION

The southern terminus of the SCG Trail begins at the Tampa Electric

Company (TECO) utility tract on Symmes Road. According to the

Hillsborough County Greenway and Trails Master Plan Update, there SCG are three elements remaining to complete the trail to Manatee County: Connection 1) Continue the trail down the TECO utility tract and connect to (4 miles US 301 using 19th Ave. further north) 2) Continue south along US 301 (a portion of this connection is underway along with capacity improvements to US 301).

3) Connect to Manatee County via ELAPP corridor between Willow and Saffold Road.

The next steps for the South County Greenway Connector include: ￭ Coordination with FDOT for a PD&E regarding a shared-use path along US 41 ￭ Initiating a new PD&E study to determine trail alignment across the Little Manatee River into Manatee County ￭ Coordination with Manatee County for trail alignments

Figure 5 displays a portion of the South Coast Greenway (western green dotted line) connecting through to Manatee County (yellow line). The project area for this study begins about 4 miles north of the SCG connection shown on the map.

The South County Greenway Connector to Manatee County is also SUN Trail eligible.

Source: Hillsborough County Greenway and Trails Master Plan Update Amendment (2017)

Page | 4

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 1.4 Socioeconomic Characteristics Population Age An Area of Interest (AOI) study FIGURE 6. AOI 0.25 MILE BUFFER AREA Over 26% of the population is under the age of 17, and about 15% of and Socioeconomic Data the population is between the ages of 18 and 29. Approximately 10% Report (SDR) was conducted of the population is aged 65 and older. using the Efficient Transportation Decision Housing Making (ETDM) database, The housing characteristics include: single family units (64%), mobile which uses US Census and home units (26%), multi-family units (10%). Of these housing units, American Community Survey 56% are owner occupied, 35% are renter occupied, and 9% are vacant. (ACS) data. The results of the The average housing density is 0.98 units per acre. The median SDR report for the AOI is housing value is $83,700, which is significantly less than the median summarized in this section, housing value for Hillsborough County ($170,000). and the full report is in Appendix D. Race and Ethnicity The AOI utilized was a 0.25- Approximately 59% of the population identifies as ‘White Alone’, and mile buffer area (shown in 25% of population identifies as ‘Black or African American Alone’. Figure 6) from the initial In addition to race identification, around 37% of the population general alignment of the SCG specified having ‘Hispanic or Latino of Any Race’ ethnicity. The Trail obtained from the ethnicity question was added to the US Census in 2000 in addition to Hillsborough MPO. The race. More information defining race and ethnicity is provided in the following summarizes the SDR in Appendix D. results of the ETDM report. Land Use Minority Population Minority calculations were derived using both race and ethnicity Residential Low Density (less than 2 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), responses. The SDR report defined the minority population as those Residential Medium Density (2-5 du/ac), Commercial and Services, individuals who list a race other than White and/or list their ethnicity Open Land, and Hardwood Conifer Mixed were the five major existing as Hispanic/Latino. Approximately 65% of the population is land uses. considered minority. Concentrations of minority populations are in the Households Progress Village and Palm River-Clair Mel areas. There are 2,419 total households with a population of 7,092 people within the project area. The median household income is $32,318. Educational Attainment Over 76% of the population aged 25 and over consists of High School Approximately 29% of the households are below the poverty level, Graduates or Higher education, with approximately 16% with a with 3.7% of the households receiving public assistance income. Bachelor’s Degree or Higher.

Page | 5

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 2.0 Alternatives Evaluation FIGURE 7. PROJECT AREA SECTORS A major component of the study was to identify potential trail alignment options and evaluate their feasibility. The alignment options (alternatives) were established in coordination with the steering committee and the consultant team. The steering committee was comprised of representatives from the Hillsborough MPO, the City of Tampa, and Hillsborough County.

Due to the length of the corridor (approximately 8 miles), the project area was divided into three sectors: north, central, and south. The McKay sector limits are displayed in Figure 7 and described below. Bay NORTHERN ￭ Southern Sector: Symmes Road to Riverview Drive (shown in SECTOR green in Figure 7). Includes Gibsonton, Bullfrog Creek, and the Alafia River. Palm River/ Clair Mel ￭ Central Sector: Riverview Drive to Madison Avenue (shown in purple in Figure 7). Includes Progress Village Area and Larry MADISON AVENUE Progress Sanders Sports Complex. Village

￭ Northern Sector: Madison Avenue to Maydell Drive Bridge CENTRAL (shown in blue in Figure 7). Includes the Palm River and Clair SECTOR Mel areas. Most developed and densely populated sector.

Additionally, a cursory review of existing conditions was conducted including: transportation infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, roadway RIVERVIEW DRIVE conditions, signalized intersections, etc.), potential connections (schools, parks, grocery stores, retail etc.), and trail environment (e.g. SOUTHERN Hillsborough Bay adjacent to a roadway, powerline easement, along a creek) to yield SECTOR segment alternatives for each sector (N1, N2, N3, C1, C2, S1, S2). Gibsonton The next phase of the alternatives evaluation was to develop a SYMMES ROAD quantitative method for evaluating the segments. A scoring criteria was created where each segment could be scored based on various attributes contributing to the overall feasibility of the segment.

Page | 6

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018

2.1 Sector Alternatives FIGURE 8. SOUTHERN ALTERNATIVES The trail alignments are described briefly in this section. More details can be found in the CADD renderings for S1 and S2 in Appendix A.

Southern Sector RIVERVIEW The South Sector contains two water crossings (Bullfrog Creek and the Alafia River), which limits alternative flexibility. Two alternatives were Central Sector developed for this sector, both use US 41 to cross the Alafia River and turn east on Riverview Drive. However, the route variations start at the TECO utility tract on Symmes Road and converge at US 41 and Gibsonton Drive. The two alternatives are displayed in Figure 8.

S1 (US 41 Alternative, green): Starting from the TECO utility tract at Symmes Road, the alignment travels west on Symmes Road and turns north on US 41. The route uses the US 41 bridge across Bull Frog Creek, and provides access to the Gardenville Recreation Center and businesses along US 41.

S2 (Utility Tract Alternative, purple): This alignment continues GIBSONTON north along the TECO utility tract starting from Symmes Road to Gibsonton Gibsonton Road, adjacent to Gibsonton Elementary School. The trail Elementary

travels west along Gibsonton Road to connect to US 41. This alternative requires a new pedestrian bridge across Bull Frog Creek.

Lula Alternative (yellow dotted line): FDOT District Seven recently completed a Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study of the STREET LULA S2

roadway, which recommended widening US 41 to six lanes. Due to TRAIL TAMIAMI limited right of way (ROW) on US 41, the study proposed the trail be routed along Lula Street, which was the vision of the 1995 Greenways and Trails Master Plan. This deviation off US 41 could be explored more in future studies but has challenges including open drainage, S1 limited Right of Way, and environmental constraints. Gardenville South County Recreation Greenway Center Connection

Page | 7

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 Central Sector Two alternatives were developed for the Central Sector. The route FIGURE 9. CENTRAL SECTOR ALTERNATIVES through the Central Sector follows the TECO utility line north from Northern Sector Riverview Drive to the vicinity of the Larry Sanders Sports Complex (county owned), just west of South 78th Street. The two alternatives developed either follow the utility line north on the eastern side of the Sports Complex to Madison Avenue, or continue further west to a Tech Academy more centralized tract of the Sports Complex eventually leading up to Larry Sanders Sports Complex Madison Avenue. The two alternatives are displayed in Figure 9 and C2 Sports further detailed below. Complex C1

C1 (East Alternative, purple): Continues north along utility tract Progress th connecting to Madison Avenue just east of 78 Street. This alternative Village Magnet travels near the main entrance of the Larry Sanders Sports Complex Lamb and is in the vicinity of Lamb Elementary and Progress Village Middle Elementary Magnet.

C2 (West Alternative, green): Travels northwest along a cleared tract close to the center of the Larry Sanders Sports Complex property. This alternative connects to Madison Avenue further west than C1, and travels near the Literacy Leadership Tech Academy.

Southern Sector

View of utility tract to be used for the trail from South 78th Street (looking west).

Page | 8

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 Northern Sector FIGURE 10. NORTHERN SECTOR ALTERNATIVES Initially, two alternatives were created for the northern sector (N1 and N2). N1 followed the initial alignment submitted by the Hillsborough MPO along Maydell Drive. N2 was a new alignment following a creek between two neighborhoods west of 78th Street. The steering committee suggested a third northern alternative (N3) be added, which was further east near Frost Elementary and Giunta Middle School. The three alternatives are depicted in Figure 10 and further described below. PALM Dowdell/ N1 (Maydell Alternative, blue): Travels the furthest west down Clair Mel MAYDELL DRIVE MAYDELL Madison Avenue from the Central alternatives. The route turns north Schools along 66th Street up to Bing Elementary, where it jogs west on 36th Avenue. The route then continues north along Maydell Drive to the northern project limits across the Maydell Drive Bridge.

N2 (Creek Alternative, green): Travels west along Madison Avenue Y and turns north on 70th Street to 36th Avenue South. The route then travels north on South 74th Street to meet up with a creek between N1 N2 N3 two neighborhoods. This creek is currently owned and maintained by Hillsborough County. The trail follows the creek north to Dowdell Frost/ Middle, Clair Mel Elementary, and Winston Park connecting to Palm Bing Giunta Schools River Road, where it travels west to Maydell Drive. Elementary

N3 (East Alternative, purple): Travels north from the TECO utility tract the Central routes travel, eventually turning east on Camden Field Parkway. The route turns north along an easement adjacent to Giunta Middle and Frost Elementary to eventually connect to Palm River Road, traveling west, and meeting up with Maydell Drive.

Central Sector

Page | 9

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 2.2 Scoring the Alternatives Scoring Results: Northern Sector Once the alternatives for each sector were established, a scoring The Northern Sector scoring results are displayed in Table 1. The N2 system was developed based on criteria relating to trail development, (Creek) Alternative scored the highest with a total of 40 points out of trail feasibility, and SUN Trail requirements allowing for a quantitative 50, and the N1 (Maydell) Alternative scored the lowest with 13 points. evaluation and comparison of each alternative. The scoring system is ￭ N1 (Maydell) Alternative: Higher scores were in the Safety summarized in this section and further detailed in Appendix B. Costs and ROW categories. Lower scores were in the Ownership, were not directly considered at this stage. Construction Barriers, Healthy Food, and Comfort categories. Scoring Criteria ￭ N2 (Creek) Alternative: Higher scores were in the Safety, The scoring criteria used included the following measures: Environmental Justice, Trail Scenery, Public Transportation, and Community Facilities categories. ￭ Ownership: If the land is publicly, utility, or privately owned. ￭ N3 (East) Alternative: Scored high in the Public ￭ Right-of-Way (ROW) Required: Land required to build a Transportation, Healthy Food, and Community Facilities 12' multi-use path on a subjective low, medium, high scale. categories. Scored low in Ownership and ROW categories.

￭ Trail Construction Barriers: If a road crossing, bridge TABLE 1. NORTHERN SECTOR SCORING RESULTS crossing, or roadway realignment needed. Max N1 N2 N3 Criteria ￭ Public Transportation: Proximity to HART stops. Score (Maydell) (Creek) (East) Ownership 5 -2 1 1 ￭ Schools: Proximity to K-12 public schools. Right-of-Way (ROW) 5 3 3 1 ￭ Healthy Food: Proximity to healthy food source. Construction Barriers -5 -4 -4 -2 Public Transportation 5 1 5 5 ￭ Community Facility: Proximity to community facilities. Schools 4 3 4 3 ￭ Parks and Natural Land: Proximity to greenways or parks. Healthy Food 3 -1 3 4 Community Facilities 5 0 5 5 ￭ Population Served: Population density per square mile. Parks/Natural Lands 3 2 1 2 ￭ Equity: Proximity to Environmental Justice (EJ) areas. Trail Scenery 5 1 5 3 Comfort 5 0 3 2 ￭ Trail Scenery: Surrounding area aesthetics including shade or other scenic elements along the route. Safety 5 5 5 3 Environmental Justice (EJ) 5 3 5 3 ￭ Trail Comfort: If the trail is adjacent to a major roadway, Population Density 5 2 4 2 local roadway, utility corridor, or through a natural area. Total 50 13 40 32 ￭ Safety: Proximity to bicycle and pedestrian crash locations.

Page | 10

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 Scoring Results: Central Sector Scoring Results: Southern Sector The scoring results for the Central Sector are displayed in Table 2. The The scoring results for the Southern Sector are displayed in Table 3. C1 (East) Alternative scored highest with 19 points, and the C2 (West) The S2 (Utility) Alternative scored highest with 23 points, and the S1 Alternative scored 9 points. Both alignments had similarly high scores (US 41) Alternative scored 14 points. The alternatives scored similarly in Comfort and Safety categories, and low scores in the Population in the Public Transportation, Trail Scenery, and Environmental Justice Density category and several of the connections categories. However, categories. However, the S1 Alternative scored lower in the Ownership, the C1 Alternative offers fewer ROW and Construction Barriers while Schools, and Comfort categories. providing more connections to schools and healthy food. ￭ S1 (US 41) Alternative: High scores were in the ROW, ￭ C1 (East) Alternative: High scores in the Ownership, Healthy Food, and Parks/Natural Lands categories. Low Comfort, Safety, and EJ categories. Low scores in the ROW, scores were in the Ownership, Schools, Safety, and Comfort Public Transportation, Community Facilities, Parks and categories. Natural Lands, and Population Density categories. ￭ S2 (Utility) Alternative: High scores in Ownership, Schools, ￭ C2 (West) Alternative: Low scores in the ROW, Construction Comfort, and Safety categories. Low scores in the Healthy Barriers, Public Transportation and Healthy Food categories. Food and Parks/Natural Lands categories.

TABLE 2. CENTRAL SECTOR SCORING RESULTS TABLE 3. SOUTHERN SECTOR SCORING RESULTS

Max C1 C2 Max S1 S2 Criteria Criteria Score (East) (West) Score (US 41) (Utility) Ownership 5 3 1 Ownership 5 -2 3 Right-of-Way (ROW) 5 -2 -2 Right-of-Way (ROW) 5 5 3 Construction Barriers -5 0 -2 Construction Barriers -5 -4 -4 Public Transportation 5 1 -1 Public Transportation 5 5 5 Schools 4 2 1 Schools 4 -1 1 Healthy Food 3 2 -1 Healthy Food 3 2 -1 Community Facilities 5 0 0 Community Facilities 5 3 0 Parks/Natural Lands 3 1 1 Parks/Natural Lands 3 3 -1 Trail Scenery 5 -2 -2 Trail Scenery 5 3 3 Comfort 5 5 5 Comfort 5 -2 3 Safety 5 5 5 Safety 5 1 5 Environmental Justice 5 3 3 Environmental Justice 5 3 3 Population Density 5 1 1 Population Density 5 2 3 Total 50 19 9 Total 50 18 23

Page | 11

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 Aerial Maps 3.0 Public Involvement Two large aerial maps of the study corridor and potential alignments Another major component of the SCG Trail Alignment Study was the were placed on tables for the participants to write comments on using public involvement element. In addition to reviewing existing post-its and markers. The following summarizes the map comments: conditions, steering committee meetings, and the alternatives analysis, public opinion of future trail alignments is crucial. Therefore, ￭ Northern Sector (N1/N2): N2 appeared to be more popular the project team hosted two open house community meetings in April than N1 among the attendees. However, another popular 2018, and held an additional meeting in June 2018 to further fine tune opinion was combining N1 + N2 to form a continuous loop. the alternatives and receive supplementary feedback on the Northern N3 was not yet developed by the steering committee at the Sector alternatives. time of this meeting.

￭ Central Sector (C1/C2): C1 was trending as the preferred 3.1 April Open House Meetings alternative due to the connection to Lamb Elementary and the Two community meetings were hosted by the Hillsborough MPO, access to parks. Hillsborough County Public Works, and the project team on the ￭ Southern Sector (S1/S2): A modified S2 crossing the Alafia evenings of Tuesday, April 3, 2018 from 6:00 PM to 7:45 PM and (and not turning west along Magnolia) appeared to be the Wednesday, April 4, 2018 favored option for the attendees. The community was from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM. interested in finding another way to cross the Alafia River than The Tuesday meeting using US 41. location was within the th Northern Sector at the 78 Street Community Library, and the Wednesday location was held within the Southern Sector at the Gardenville Recreation Center. Postcard mailed to over 10,000 residents.

To spread the word about the meetings, over 10,000 post cards were mailed to residents before the meeting. As a result, over 50 people attended.

Meeting activities included: aerial maps for comments, “Thought Boards” with questions for participants to respond to, visual preference boards to allow participants to identify what type of trail environments or trail amenities they prefer, and general comment Open House participants and hosts surrounding the aerial map discussing route alignments. forms. The results are summarized in this section.

Page | 12

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 Thought Boards Question 2: Where would you like the South Coast Greenway to connect? Two questions were displayed on a “Thought Board” for the meeting participants to respond to via sticky notes to determine how the There were 41 responses to this participants would use the South Coast Greenway, and where they question over the two would like the South Coast Greenway to connect. meetings. The most frequent response was Parks, with over Question 1: How would you use the South Coast Greenway? 40% of the responses. Three of There were 47 responses to this the Parks responses were question over the two meetings. specified as a dog park. Other The most frequent response was popular responses included Biking with 17 responses, Schools (9 responses, 22%), and accounting for more than 35% of Shopping (6 responses, 15%). the total votes. The other popular The Other category includes responses were Walking (14 restaurants, transit, doctor/ responses, 30%), Other (7 clinic, library, and post office, responses, 15%), Recreation (5 which all received one vote responses, 11%), and each. Meeting participants also Transportation (4 votes, 9%). The mentioned Beach/ Waterfront ‘Other’ category includes running, and Other Trails as additional Open House participants and staff golf carts, fishing, skating, transit, desirable connections. Figure discussing the study. and bird watching responses. 12 displays the response Figure 11 displays the response Open House participants using the distribution. distribution. Thought Board. FIGURE 12. QUESTION 2 RESULTS FIGURE 11. QUESTION 1 RESULTS

Biking Parks Schools Walking Shopping Other Other Recreation Beach/Waterfront Transportation Other Trails

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Page | 13

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018

Visual Preference Boards (April) FIGURE 13. TRAIL AMENITIES VOTES (JUNE) Visual preference boards were provided to poll the meeting participants on their preferred trail environments and trail amenities. Bike/Ped Bridge One side of the board showed images of four existing trails built along Benches different settings throughout the U.S. (major road, local road, creek, Water Fountains power line) representing the trail alternatives. For example, S1 is along Lighting US 41, which is a major road; a picture of an existing trail in Pasco Wayfinding County along US 301 was provided as an example trail environment. Exercise Equipment The other side of the board showed images of eight potential trail Enhanced Crossing amenities (bike repair station, enhanced crossing, exercise equipment, Bike Repair etc.). The meeting participants were given two dots for the trail 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 environments side and four dots for the trail amenities side.

Trail Environment: 80 total FIGURE 14. TRAIL ENVIRONMENT VOTES (APRIL) dots were placed on the trail environment side of the Major Road board. The two most popular (S1) environments were Creek 11% Creek Power (similar to N2) with 39% of the (N2) Line (S2) votes, and Local Road (N1) 39% 14% with 36% of the votes. The Major Road (S1) environment Local received the fewest votes Road (N1) (11%). Figure 14 to the right 36% displays the response Open House participants at the Visual Preference Board. distribution.

Trail Amenities: 160 total dots were placed on the trail amenities side Comment Forms (April) of the board. The three most popular amenities were Bike/Ped Bridge Three comment forms were received at the meetings, and one was (30 votes, 19%), Benches (28 votes, 18%), and Water Fountains (24 emailed to the project team the day after the meetings. Comments votes, 15%). The two least popular amenities were Bike Repair Station received regarding the trail were distributed among the following: (7 votes, 14%) and Enhanced Crossing (9 votes, 6%). There was one safety (2), roadway maintenance/debris (1), adding a dog park and/or write-in trail amenity for a ‘doggie waste center’. Figure 13 displays other dog friendly amenities, and using trails through Golden Aster the trail amenities response distribution. Preserve (1).

Page | 14

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 3.2 June Open House Meeting Mailing Results Nine comment forms were received in After the April meetings, it was determined by the steering committee None that the public outreach effort should be enhanced, with a focus on response to the mailing. The results were the northern alignments. Therefore, an additional meeting was held distributed as follows: Optio th n A on June 11, 2018 from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM at the 78 Street Library ￭ Option A (N1, Maydell): 9 votes Option C and a survey/comment form was mailed to residents requesting feedback on which of the three routes they preferred. ￭ Option B (N2, Creek): 12 votes Optio To spread awareness for the ￭ Option C (N3, Powerline): 6 votes n B meeting, approximately 720 ￭ Opposed: 3 votes mailings were sent to those directly along each of the In addition to selecting options, some respondents included three northern routes. comments regarding the three alternatives: Included with the mailing were stamped, self-addressed ￭ Option A (N1, Maydell): Supporters of this option envelopes with space to mentioned reasons such as: ‘beautiful area’, would serve Palm comment to provide residents River Elementary, and the shade will be nice for the summer an additional avenue to send heat. The respondents that were against this option cited feedback other than safety concerns by having a trail so close to the road due to physically attending the the volume and speed of cars. meeting. ￭ Option B (N2, Creek): The respondents supporting this As a result, approximately 8 option included reasons such as: safety, that it would benefit members of the public the neighborhood, and that lots of people would be very attended the meeting. The June mailing to over 700 residents. close. The respondents not supporting this option indicated format of the meeting was visibility and safety concerns (crime). similar to the April meetings. Materials at the meeting included the ￭ Option C (N3, Powerline): Supporters of this option aerial plot to write comments on and maps of the regional and county mentioned: it was the ‘cheapest and easiest’ option, no cars, trail systems for context. and convenience. The respondents not supporting this option In addition to meeting attendance, 30 comment forms were received mentioned visibility and safety concerns (crime), concern via mail and email responding to the trail alignments. The most about ‘exposure to electric power lines’. favorited alternative was Alternative B, which is also known as N2 or ￭ Opposed: The respondents that were against building the the Creek alignment. trail or were against all three alternatives indicated that they felt resources should be spent elsewhere (specifically to focus on motor vehicle roadway improvements).

Page | 15

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 Visual Preference Board (June) Visual Preference Board Combined Totals The same visual preference boards provided in the April meetings The combined results of the visual preference boards from the April were also provided in the June meeting. The meeting participants were and June meeting are summarized below. 256 total votes were cast also given two dots for the trail environment side and four dots for the between both meetings, with 84 votes for the trail environments and trail amenities side. Sixteen total votes were cast on the visual 172 votes for the trail amenities. preference board during the June meeting. FIGURE 17. TRAIL ENVIRONMENT COMBINED Trail Environment: The two Trail Environment: Four FIGURE 15. TRAIL ENVIRONMENT VOTES most popular trail Major (JUNE) total votes were cast on the environments were Creek Road (S1) trail environments side of the (N2) with 40% of the total Power Local Line board. Three of the votes Road votes, and Local Road (N1) Creek (N2) (S2) were for the Creek (N2) (N1) with 36% of the votes. The alternative, and one vote was least popular trail Local for the local road (N1) environment was Major Road Creek alternative. No votes were Road (S1), with only 11% of (N1) (N2) cast for the Major Road (S1) the votes. or Power Line (S2) alternatives. Trail Amenities: The top four trail amenities were fairly close in votes. Benches and a Bike/Ped Bridge had 30 (19%) and 31 (19%) votes, Trail Amenities: Twelve total votes were cast on the trail amenities respectively. Water Fountains and Lighting both had 17 votes (17%). side of the board. The two most popular amenities were Lighting (4 The two least popular amenities were Bike Repair Stations (7 votes, votes) and Water Fountains (3 votes). Bike Repair Stations, Exercise 4%0, and Enhanced Crossings (11 votes, 7%). Equipment, and Wayfinding Signage did not receive any votes.

FIGURE 16. TRAIL AMENITIES VOTES (JUNE) FIGURE 18. TRAIL AMENITIES COMBINED

Bike/Ped Bridge Lighting Benches Water Fountains Lighting Benches Enhanced Crossing Water Fountains Bike/Ped Bridge Wayfinding Wayfinding Exercise Equipment Exercise Equipment Enhanced Crossing Bike Repair Bike Repair 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Page | 16

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 4.0 Alignment Concepts and Cost Estimates The final concepts for the SCG Trail Study were developed based on In addition, concept renderings were developed for areas where the SCG Trail would the results of the alternatives evaluation, the public involvement cross major roadways. Regardless of the alignment chosen, there are several responses, and guidance from the steering committee. In order to locations where enhanced crossings of major roadways would be desirable. These better illustrate the creek alignment (N2), before and after concept locations, at a minimum, include Causeway Boulevard, Madison Avenue, Riverview renderings were developed prior to the June community meeting. Drive and Gibsonton Drive. 4.1 Creek Rendering (N2)

Location

Before: Creek Rendering

After: Creek Rendering

Page | 17

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 4.2 Causeway Boulevard Crossing (Alternative N2) Two options were conceptualized for crossing Causeway Boulevard in the creek alignment. The first option features a 17-foot high pedestrian overpass displayed in Figure 19. The second option is a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Crossing (HAWK) displayed in Figure 20. Included with both figures is a 70-foot pedestrian bridge crossing the canal north of Causeway Boulevard. Option 1: Pedestrian Overpass Alternative The pedestrian overpass alternative includes a continuous 245-foot long ramp (or longer, depending on design needs) with 5-foot wide landings placed every 30 feet to the overpass structure. The slope of the ramp would be approximately 8.3%. The pedestrian overpass will be approximately 100 feet long across Causeway Boulevard with a minimum of 17 feet in height to the bottom of the structure. With this option, a portion of the trail could be located above the canal/creek, thereby minimizing the need for ROW acquisition.

FIGURE 19. CAUSWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS ALTERNATIVE

Page | 18

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 Option 2: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Crossing (HAWK) The HAWK crossing includes replacing the existing light pole at the crossing with a pedestrian hybrid beacon. Additional lighting can be added to the top of the beacon pole. HAWK midblock crossings would be installed with appropriate ADA ramps and high visibility crosswalk markings. This alternative also includes the reconstruction of the northern sidewalk and bike lane to accommodate combined use for bicyclists and pedestrians. There would be challenges to getting a 12-foot wide trail on the north side of Causeway Boulevard, and ROW acquisition of several parcels south of Causeway Boulevard may be needed. FIGURE 20. CAUSEWAY HAWK ALTERNATIVE

Page | 19

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 4.3 Madison Avenue west of Palm Drive (Alternative N2)

The concept below depicts a mid-block crossing with rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB). Note that Hillsborough County plans to widen Madison Avenue to four lanes. Depending on the roadway configuration and traffic volumes, a HAWK intersection may be desirable.

Page | 20

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 4.4 Palm River Road at 78th Street (Alternative N3)

The intersection depicted below is an area of concern with Alternative N3. 78th Street is a relatively well travelled corridor, and has an interchange connecting to the Selmon Expressway approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection. Moreover, there is minimal ROW along Palm River Road, as the roadway widens out at the intersection to accommodate turn lanes. Additional analysis would be required, but it appears that ROW acquisition would be necessary to get a 12-foot wide trail through the area.

Page | 21

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 4.5 Causeway Boulevard at 86th Street (Alternative N3) In Alternative N3, the utility easement crosses Causeway Boulevard just west of 86th Street. The proposed SCG Trail alignment would move to the eastern edge of the utility easement, such that crossing would occur at the intersection. This is currently an unsignalized intersection, and a pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) is recommended.

Page | 22

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 4.6 Madison Avenue west of 78th Street (Alternative N3)

As noted in Section 4.3, Madison Avenue is expected to be widened to four lanes in the future. Because the current roadway widens to four lanes just east of the proposed SCG Trail crossing, a pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) is illustrated below. More detailed analysis of the road configuration and traffic volumes may show that installing rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB) is sufficient.

Page | 23

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 4.7 Riverview Drive at US 41 (all alternatives)

The trail alignment along Riverview Drive applies to all of the alternatives evaluated in this study. The proposed concept depicted below allows the SCG Trail crossing to be separated from the rail crossing and US 41 intersection. Moreover, crossing east of the rail line affords the opportunity for the trail to be integrated into the park on the south side of Riverview Drive. Additional analysis would be necessary to evaluate any impacts of installing a mid-block crossing less than 400 feet from the US 41 signalized intersection.

Page | 24

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 4.8 Gibsonton Drive at US 41 (Alternative S2) As shown below, special attention should be given to the SCG Trail alignment at the US 41 / Gibsonton Drive intersection. It is recommended that the curb radii be tightened and that the trail be constructed perpendicular to the rail line.

Page | 25

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 4.9 Preliminary Cost Estimates Preliminary cost estimates were developed for three different options, based on the CADD conceptual design files. FDOT Long Range Estimates (LRE) were calculated for the trail and bridge components, along with Maintenance of Traffic (MOT), mobilization, and initial contingency. All three options are based on implementing Alternative S2 and Alternative C1. As shown on Table 4, the first option includes Alternative N2 with the Causeway Boulevard overpass. Option 2 also includes Alternative N2, but with an at-grade crossing of Causeway Boulevard. The third option is based on Alternative N3, again with an at-grade crossing of Causeway Boulevard. In addition to the LRE information, general FDOT cost estimates for enhanced crossings were obtained, and both are detailed in Appendix C. Additional costs were identified for drainage and trail enhancements, and ROW acquisition/easements. The ROW costs vary for each option, based on the amount of properties that may be impacted. Finally, a 20% contingency of calculated construction costs was included, and 15% additional costs for design and construction engineering inspection (CEI) were applied.

TABLE 4. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

Cost Components Option 1 Alignment N2 Option 2 Alignment Option 3 Alignment Overpass N2 At Grade N3 At Grade

LRE Trail Component $3,712,900 $3,712,900 $3,896,400

LRE Bridges Component $2,173,900 $851,800 $655,200

LRE MOT / Mobilization $980,000 $730,400 $757,400

LRE Initial Contingency (1%) $68,700 $53,000 $53,100

LRE SUBTOTAL $6,935,500 5,348,100 $5,362,100

Enhanced Crossings $240,000 (2) $360,000 (3) $360,000 (3)

Drainage & Trail Enhancements $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Additional Contingency (20%) $1,635,100 $1,341,600 $1,344,400

Construction (CST) SUBTOTAL $9,810,600 $8,049,700 $8,066,500

Design Cost (15% of CST) $1,471,600 $1,207,500 $1,210,000

CEI Cost (15% of CST) $1,471,600 $1,207,500 $1,210,000

ROW Acquisitions / Easements $750,000 $1,000,000 $850,000

TOTAL Cost $13,493,800 $11,464,700 $11,336,500

Page | 26

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 5.0 Next Steps This study evaluated a series of potential alignments for the South Coast Greenway Trail (SCG Trail). Further analysis of these alignments, and others, should be conducted to more fully understand the opportunities, challenges, impacts, and costs of completing the trail. Key issues for further study include the following:

• Availability of the TECO utility corridor, as well as potential costs or mitigation offsets for utilizing the corridor • Potential bridging of Bull Frog Creek along the TECO utility corridor, or providing a trail across the Bull Frog Creek Bridge on US 41 • Providing a trail as part of a new Alafia River Bridge, and addressing minimal ROW south of the Alafia River on US 41 • Constructing a trail in the maintenance easement of the Hillsborough County drainage canal west of 78th Street • Connecting the SCG Trail to the planned Tampa Bypass Canal trail, and possibly to an extended Selmon Greenway trail

These issues, and others, would likely be evaluated in a PD&E Study, which would also include more detailed environmental and engineering analyses, as well as additional public involvement. The PD&E Study would be followed by design, ROW acquisition (if needed), and construction. Finally, as discussed at the beginning of this report, the SCG Trail is part of the larger SUN Trail network. Hillsborough County and its community partners should continue working with state agencies, including FDOT and FDEP, to potentially secure SUN Trail funding for portions of the corridor.

View of natural area along Hillsborough County drainage canal south of Causeway Boulevard.

Page | 27

South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study | 2018 Appendices

Appendix A: CADD Sheets Appendix B: Alternatives Evaluation Appendix C: Cost Estimates Appendix D: Socioeconomic Data Report

Page | 28

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Tampa Bay Next Quarterly Update

Presenter FDOT Representative

Summary Tampa Bay Next is a program to modernize Tampa Bay’s transportation infrastructure and prepare for the future. FDOT will provide an update on recent activities.

Recommended Action None; for information only

Prepared By Wanda West

Attachments

None

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

Board & Committee Agenda Item

Agenda Item Resilient Tampa Bay: Transportation Vulnerability Assessment Presenter

Allison Yeh, MPO Staff

Summary The Tampa Bay region is one of the most vulnerable areas in the country, experiencing frequent storm events and persistent flooding. The Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in collaboration with the Pinellas MPO, Pasco MPO, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and the Florida Department of Transportation District 7, was awarded a Federal Highway Administration Resilience and Durability to Extreme Weather grant to assess the tri-county surface transportation system.

Each MPO is currently conducting their 2045 Transportation Plan (LRTP) update. New federal requirements state that LRTP updates must work on "improving the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reducing or mitigating the stormwater impacts of surface transportation ..." This pilot project will assist in meeting the new federal mandate as well as inform the LRTP updates for three MPOs and the regional LRTP.

MPO Staff will provide an overview of the project which officially kicked off August 10th. Additional project information can be found on the MPO website: http://www.planhillsborough.org/resilient-tampa-bay-transportation/

Recommended Action

None; for information only Prepared By Allison Yeh, AICP, LEED GA Attachments None

Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org [email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor Tampa, FL, 33602 Hillsborough County Celebrates Drive Electric Week Wednesday, Sept. 12 11 a.m. – 2 p.m. Joe Chillura Courthouse Square 600 E. Kennedy Blvd. Join us to celebrate National Drive Electric Week and learn all about electric vehicles and sustainable transportation options in Hillsborough County. Event includes: • Electric and hybrid vehicles • Alternative transportation exhibits on display • Information about Hillsborough • Electric vehicle charging stations and County’s efforts to enhance the quality charging equipment demonstrations of life for residents HCFLGov.net/Sustainability Save the Date: The Safe Routes to School National Conference is Nove... https://mailchi.mp/saferoutespartnership/free-webinar-using-pop-ups-to-...

View this email in your browser

Like us. @SafeRoutesNow Our Website

Mark your calendars! The Safe Routes to School National Conference is Coming to Florida!

The 2019 Safe Routes to School National Conference will be held at the Hilton Tampa Downtown from November 12-14, 2019. Be sure to save the date for this fabulous opportunity to join hundreds of active transportation and public health advocates and practitioners from across the country for valuable networking, sharing best practices, and exploring one of Florida's most vibrant and active cities.

The Safe Routes to School National Partnership wishes to extend warm thanks to the presenting sponsor, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization, who is our local host and partner for this event.

Spend two days with leaders in Safe Routes as they address today’s most pressing challenges and hot topics. You’ll go home with new strategies and techniques to share to continue the movement. -Sarita Taylor, FDOT Safe Routes to School Coordinator

We welcome the Safe Routes to School National Conference to Tampa. Safe roads for kids are safe roads for everyone. Hillsborough’s Vision Zero Coalition and the Gulf Coast Safe Streets Summit look forward to celebrating the work of the National Partnership! - Beth Alden, AICP, Hillsborough MPO Executive Director

We will share more information about the conference in the months ahead; for now, mark the date on your calendar and plan to attend the conference and consider a fun-in-the-sun trip to Florida with friends or family.

SR 60 (Kennedy Boulevard) Traffic Signal upgrades between Armenia Avenue and Brevard Avenue 416856-1-52-01

Project Details Work Traffic Signal Upgrades Type Phase Design Limits From Armenia Avenue to Brevard Avenue City Tampa County Hillsborough Map dataReport ©2018 a map Google error Road Kennedy Blvd SR 60 About Design $835,000 This project will replace the existing traffic signals on SR 60 Cost ( Kennedy Blvd) with hurricane resistant poles at Armenia, ROW $30,000 Howard, Willow and Brevard avenues. A new signal will be Cost installed at Rome Avenue as well.

Contact Information The project is currently in design. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2019. Design Manager Jake Hemingway 813-975-6057 [email protected] Media Contact Kris Carson 813-975-6060 [email protected]

http://www.fdottampabay.com/factsheet/276 8/8/2018

Beth Alden

From: Gwynn, David Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 9:09 AM To: D7-outlook users Cc: Hollingsworth, Lora; Beth Alden Subject: Bi-weekly crash report Attachments: Traffic Fatality List July 16th- 29 2018.pdf

There were 11 crashes which resulted in 13 fatalities during the latest two week period. These included 5 pedestrians and 1 motorcyclist for about 50% vulnerable road users. Over half were under the age of 30. Thank you for making a difference as we continue to work diligently to reduce these numbers as we aspire towards zero fatalities.

David W. Gwynn, P.E. District Seven Secretary Florida Department of Transportation 11201 N. McKinley Drive Tampa, FL 33612 813‐975‐6039

1 Safety in Seven

District Seven’s Bi-Weekly Crash Report Update - A Summary of Traffic Fatalities that has occurred on public highways in the Tampa Bay Region. For more information, please note names of victims highlighted in blue are hyperlinked to news stories as published by the media and text highlighted in green are hyperlinked to obituaries as available. “Safety Doesn’t Happen by Accident.” Suggestions and/or ideas to enhance safety are welcomed here or by contacting Matthew Nance at 813-975-6747 or [email protected]. Please note the word “here” is hyperlinked to District Seven’s Innovation Share Point Site.

July 16, 2018 Susan Newhall Henninger, 73, Tampa: Susan and her husband were walking on the sidewalk along Northdale Boulevard. A vehicle, which was approaching Northdale Boulevard from a driveway, lost control and entered the sidewalk area, where it struck Susan. She was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital after the crash, where she died from her injuries. July 17, 2018 Keely Rai Oltmanns, 15, Lakeland: Keely was passenger of a vehicle traveling westbound on Trilby Road approaching US 301. The vehicle entered the path of an oncoming vehicle, which was traveling northbound on US 301. As a result, the front the oncoming vehicle collided with the left side of Keely’s car and caused it to crash into a fence and into two other cars. Keely was taken to Bayonet Point Medical Center, where she died from her injuries. She loved outdoor activities including fishing, hunting and camping. She is survived by her parents, sister, brother, and many family and friends.

Michael Luciano Deleon, 26, Spring Hill: Michael was riding a motorcycle northbound on US 19. A vehicle was traveling southbound on US 19 and turned left at Breakwater Boulevard, into the path of his motorcycle. As a result, the two vehicles collided and Michael, who was wearing a helmet, died at the scene of the crash. He is survived by his parents, daughter, siblings, family, and friends.

July 18, 2018 Gabriel Wyatt, 21, Lakeland: Gabriel was driving his car northbound on Old Hopewell Road approaching SR 60. He failed to negotiate a curve, traveled onto the east shoulder of the road and struck a tree. He was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash.

July 19, 2018 Thomas Michael Mueller, 68, Inverness: Thomas was walking in the eastbound lane of West Homosassa Trail. A vehicle was traveling eastbound on West Homosassa Trail approaching South Kings Avenue and collided with Thomas. He suffered fatal injuries at the scene of the crash. July 20, 2018 Rosemarie Lillian Plante, 18, Homosassa: Rose was traveling eastbound on SR 44, west of South Brisson Terrace. For an unknown reason, she lost control of her vehicle and traveled across the median into the westbound lane of SR 44, striking the rear of an oncoming vehicle. Post impact, Rose’s car rotated until it collided with a pedestrian handrail and a fence, she was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash. She is survived by her parents, siblings, family and friends. July 21, 2018 Jason Anthony Daniels, 38, Tampa: Jason was struck by a vehicle that was traveling eastbound on East Columbus Drive, near North 36th Street. Based on the evidence at the scene of the hit and run crash, police say he was either skateboarding or carrying a skateboard traveling eastbound on Columbus Drive. Jason was taken to Tampa General Hospital where he later died from injuries sustained during the crash.

Paul Nicholas Leftwich, 38, Weeki Wachee: Paul was lying in the middle of Bourassa Boulevard, east of US 19, where he was hit by a vehicle traveling eastbound. He suffered fatal injuries at the scene of the crash. Paul is survived by his mother, father, stepmother, daughter, brothers and sister. July 26, 2018 Darwin David Carrillo, 30, Daytona Beach: Darwin was attempting to cross eastbound lanes of US 92 near Poplar Street Northeast, where he was hit by a vehicle traveling eastbound. He came to rest in travel lanes and was struck again by another vehicle. He suffered fatal injuries at the scene of the crash.

July 28, 2018

Harvey Delzer, 86, Madeira Beach ; Edward Delzer, 59, New Port Richey: Harvey was passenger of a vehicle driven by his son, Edward. The Delzers’ were stopped at a red light in the westbound lanes of Park Boulevard at 104th Lane, where they were rear-ended by a vehicle that failed to stop at the red light. The impact pushed both vehicles across the dividing line, where they collided with two more vehicles. Harvey and Edward were pronounced dead at the scene of the crash. Harvey is survived by his wife and daughter, Edward’s mother and sister, along with countless family and friends of both.

July 29, 2018

Hannah Marie Nelson, 24, Dade City; Ashley Aaron Plummer, 24, Zephyrhills: Hannah and her three passengers, including Ashley, were traveling westbound on SR 54. A vehicle that was traveling behind them at a high rate of speed, overtook and collided with the rear of their car. As a result, Hannah’s vehicle departed the roadway and overturned. Hannah and Ashley were pronounced dead at the scene of the crash. Hannah is survived by her son, parents, grandparents, sisters, family and friends. Ashley is survived by her parents, grandparents, siblings, family and friends.

Beth Alden

From: Gwynn, David Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:57 PM To: D7-outlook users Cc: Beth Alden; Hollingsworth, Lora Subject: Bi-weekly Fatal Crash Report Attachments: Traffic Fatality List July 30th- August 12th, 2018.pdf

Attached is the bi‐weekly fatal crash report for the latest two week period. The bad news is that we lost ten lives, of which six were vulnerable road users. Three were pedestrians, one was a bicyclist and two were motorcyclists.

Sometimes you have to look for a glimmer of hope and good news within the bad news. The glimmer we are seeing right now is that year to date in District 7 we have seen a reduction of 20% in fatalities compared with a year ago. If we can continue that trend we will continue towards our aspirational goal of zero fatalities. Keep doing your part, I assure you it makes a difference.

Two of the fatalities were high school students and pedestrians. Please keep in mind the following tips:

 The changes in school times may have increased the number of students you see walking or biking to and from school.  There could be an increase or change in traffic patterns in or around schools. Please be alert and watch out for students.  Always watch for the big yellow school busses and ensure you stop for them. There is a new School Bus Safety Tip card available from our Traffic Safety Office.  As always, watch for distracted drivers. Be a responsible driver yourself and put your phone down. Always pay attention to your surroundings. Try to anticipate the unexpected.

Thank you and keep safety at the forefront of your work.

David W. Gwynn, P.E. District Seven Secretary Florida Department of Transportation 11201 N. McKinley Drive Tampa, FL 33612 813‐975‐6039

1 Safety in Seven

July 30, 2018 Kathleen Trammell Chaffee, 67, Dunnellon: Kathleen was traveling southbound on CR 491 approaching the intersection of West Pine Ridge Boulevard, where she disregarded the traffic signal and entered the path of a vehicle which was traveling eastbound on West Pine Ridge Boulevard. As a result, the front of the oncoming vehicle collided with the right side of Kathleen’s vehicle causing it to overturn. She suffered fatal injuries at the scene of the crash. August 2, 2018 Donald E. Young, 56, South Pasadena: Donald was traveling eastbound on 5th Avenue North approaching the intersection of 49th Street North. A driver who fled a deputy’s earlier attempted traffic stop, ran multiple red lights and collided with Donald’s car at the intersection. Donald later died from the injuries sustained during the crash. Donald is survived by his wife, daughters, grandson, brothers, and many family and friends. August 3, 2018 Meghan Alisha Wiggins, 31, Ruskin: Meghan was traveling southbound on US 41 just south of Valroy Road, where she failed to notice a tractor slowing to make a right turn and struck the rear of the trailer towed by the tractor. Meghan suffered fatal injuries at the scene of the crash. She is survived by her parents, children, brother and many family and friends.

August 4, 2018 Jacob Taylor Gianatasio, 23, Wesley Chapel: Jacob was riding a motorcycle southbound on US 19, approaching San Marco Drive. A vehicle that was traveling northbound on US 19 attempted a U-turn from the left lane and turned into the path of his motorcycle. As a result, Jacob, who was wearing a helmet, collided with the right front of the vehicle and suffered fatal injuries at the scene of the crash. Jacob is survived by his mother, father, family and friends.

August 5, 2018 Robert Clinton King, 63, Brooksville: For unknown reasons, Robert was standing and/or walking in the middle of SR 50, in front of Bayfront Health Brooksville, where he was struck by a vehicle traveling eastbound. He was then struck by second vehicle traveling eastbound. Robert suffered fatal injuries at the scene of the crash. Robert is survived by his wife, mother, brother and family and friends. Johnny L. Arrington, 53, Tampa: Johnny was riding a bicycle near the intersection of 78th Street and Eau Claire Circle, where he was hit by a vehicle that fled the scene. Johnny suffered fatal injuries at the scene of the crash. August 10, 2018 Jephté Germain-Rogers, 16, Tampa: Jephté was trying to cross West Sligh Avenue near North Rome Avenue, where a car struck him. He was transported to a local hospital, where he later died from the injuries sustained in the crash. Jephté loved playing football and was about to start a new school year at Tampa Bay Christian Academy. He is survived by his parents, brothers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and many family and friends.

August 11, 2018 Erik William Hoxie, 20, Lecanto: Erik was traveling southbound on US 19, approaching Vespa Way, when he turned left into the path of an oncoming vehicle that was traveling northbound on US 19. As a result, the front of the oncoming vehicle collided with the passenger side of Erik’s car. He was transported to Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, where he later died from his injuries. Erik is survived by his fiancé, father, mother, brother, and many family and friends. Alec Bishop McMurray, 17, Inverness: Alec was walking east on East Stage Coach Trail, approaching the intersection of South Pleasant Grove Road. He was struck from behind by a driver who failed to notice him. He was transported to Bayonet Point Hospital, where he later died from the injuries sustained in the crash. Alec was a football player who was about to start his senior year at Citrus High School. He is survived by his parents, brothers, sister, grandparents, and many family and friends.

August 12, 2018 Mahmoud Sousi, 29, Clearwater: Mahmoud was riding a motorcycle westbound on Memorial Causeway approaching the intersection of Island Way, where a vehicle that was making a left turn onto Island Way came into his path. As a result, the two vehicles collided causing Mahmoud to suffer serious injuries. He was transported to Bayfront Medical Center where he later died from his injuries.

Beth Alden

Subject: FTA Announces $84.5 Million in Grants to Support Advanced Bus Technology Projects Nationwide

FYI. Here are the recipients in FL.

FL Broward Broward County Transit will receive $2,225,000 County Transit funds to replace aging buses with battery electric buses and install solar power infrastructure.

FL City of The City of Gainesville will receive $1,000,000 Gainesville funds to purchase battery electric buses and charging stations, as well as fleet monitoring and diagnostic tools.

FL Pinellas The Pinellas Suncoast Transit $1,000,000 Suncoast Authority will receive funds to Transit purchase electric buses and install Authority on-route chargers.

Allison G. Yeh, AICP, LEED GA MPO Executive Planner • Sustainability Coordinator

From: Florida Transit Planning Network On Behalf Of Matthews, Gabrielle Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 1:10 PM To: FT‐[email protected] Subject: [FT‐FORUM] FTA Announces $84.5 Million in Grants to Support Advanced Bus Technology Projects Nationwide

Today, FTA announced $84.45 million in grant selections through the Low- or No-Emission (Low-No) Grant program, which funds the deployment of transit buses and infrastructure that use advanced propulsion technologies. Fifty-two projects in 41 states will receive a share of the funding.

Eligible projects include the purchase or lease of buses that are powered by modern systems such as hybrid or battery electric engines, as well as related infrastructure investments such as charging stations.

Links: Press Release: U.S. DOT Announces $84.5 Million in Grants to Support Advanced Bus Technology Projects Nationwide Low or No-Emission Grant Program FY 2018 Low-No Selected Projects

1 Georgia to spend $100 million on Ga. 400 transit line

June 19, 2018 By David Wickert and Greg Bluestein, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Georgia officials Tuesday announced a major down payment on a transit expansion along Ga. 400 in north Fulton County.

The state will spend $100 million over the next several years to build four new interchanges for commuter buses along a 16-mile stretch of the busy highway between I-285 and McFarland Parkway in Alpharetta.

Many of the details – including where the interchanges will be built – remain to be worked out. But the announcement is the latest evidence that transit – long an afterthought on Georgia’s list of transportation priorities – now has solid backing among the state’s political leaders.

“This is a huge step, and it shows the sea change in attitudes by the Republican Party,” said Sandy Springs Mayor Rusty Paul, a former chair of the Georgia GOP. “It shows that we can change, we can be flexible, and move forward with reality.”

This spring lawmakers approved Gov. Nathan Deal’s request for $100 million in bonds for transit construction. On Tuesday Deal and other officials announced that money will go to land- acquisition and construction of four transit interchanges along one a stretch of highway that carries some 230,000 vehicles a day.

The interchanges are needed to provide bus rapid transit service along Ga. 400 - service envisioned in a transit expansion plan approved by Fulton County officials earlier this year.

Supporters liken bus rapid transit to passenger rail on tires – customers board at stations, and the vehicles make limited stops to speed commuters to their destination.

The Hands-Free Georgia Act takes effect July 1.

The Ga. 400 buses would operate in new toll lanes the state plans to build along the highway, and the new interchanges would connect buses to transit stations and park-and-ride lots.

Federal officials recently announced they would provide $184 million for the $1.8 billion toll- lane project. And MARTA has said it will pay to operate the bus rapid transit line out of its existing budget. The total cost of the new bus rapid transit line has not been determined. But Georgia Department of Transportation Commissioner Russell McMurry said the state’s $100 million is a substantial down payment on the construction cost.

It’s the first time the state, Fulton County and MARTA have directly partnered on a mass transit system, Deal said.

“We are introducing collaborative solutions for both transportation and transit, which is exactly what the ATL and Georgia’s commitment to improving mobility are all about,” he said.

GDOT will begin acquiring land for the interchanges and transit stations next year, and could begin selecting a contractor in mid-2020.

Gov. Nathan Deal and other state leaders on Tuesday announced they’ll spend $100 million on four new interchanges for commuter buses on Ga. 400. BOB ANDRES/[email protected] (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

For the project to move forward, Fulton County voters would have to agree to raise sales taxes to help pay for construction of transit stations and other facilities. Local officials said the state and federal investments will give voters another incentive to support the county’s plans to use rapid buses to combat traffic congestion.

“It’s a quality of life issue,” County Commissioner Liz Hausmann said. “The house is on fire. We’ve got to put it out.”

Momentum for transit expansion has been gaining ground across metro Atlanta since voters rejected a $7.2 billion regional road and transit construction package in 2012.

Clayton County voters got things started in 2014, agreeing to join MARTA. Two years later, Atlanta voters approved a $2.5 billion MARTA expansion package.

Gwinnett and Fulton counties also are preparing for transit expansion votes, and DeKalb and Cobb counties may not be far behind. This spring the General Assembly approved legislation allowing 13 metro Atlanta governments to raise sales taxes for transit construction, with voter approval.

Only a few years ago, political support for transit was scarce in metro Atlanta’s Republican- dominated suburbs. But the region’s awful traffic congestion has softened opposition. And major corporate relocations along MARTA lines have convinced many officials that transit is now an economic development imperative.

Georgia ranks 27th among the states in transit funding – spending about $14.5 million annually. But this is the second time in recent years the state has offered a big infusion of one-time cash for transit.

In 2015, lawmakers approved $75 million in one-time grants for transit projects. That money helped pay for 11 projects ranging from an upgrade to Gwinnett County’s Sugarloaf Mills park- and-ride lot to a new audio-visual information system for MARTA rail stations.

At Tuesday’s press conference, Republican House Speaker David Ralston and Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle – a Republican candidate for governor – signaled this year’s $100 million transit investment may not be the state’s last.

A state House of Representatives commission is studying transit issues in rural Georgia this year, and Ralston said money for rural transit agencies may follow.

How Air Pollution Causes Diabetes - The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/07/a-frightening-new-r...

1 of 7 7/19/2018 9:01 AM How Air Pollution Causes Diabetes - The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/07/a-frightening-new-r...

2 of 7 7/19/2018 9:01 AM How Air Pollution Causes Diabetes - The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/07/a-frightening-new-r...

μ μ

3 of 7 7/19/2018 9:01 AM How Air Pollution Causes Diabetes - The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/07/a-frightening-new-r...

4 of 7 7/19/2018 9:01 AM