DOCSLIB.ORG

PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA I-75 and Overpass Road Interchange 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA I-75 and Overpass Road Interchange 2018 2018 BUILD APPLICATION APPLICATION INFORMATION Type of Application: Capital Location: Pasco County, FL Urban Areas: Tampa Bay Metropolitan Area Amount Requested: $15.1 Million PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA I-75 and Overpass Road Interchange PASCO COUNTY I-75 and Overpass Road Interchange EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pasco County, Florida is ambitiously embarking on a journey to become “Florida’s Premier County.” By focusing on the principles of creating a thriving community, enhancing quality of life, stimulating economic growth, and improving organization performance, the agency is poised to take the community to the next level. In order to accomplish this, Pasco County must offer the region a healthy environment for mobility and connectivity. Since 2006, the East Pasco County area has been experiencing a dramatic increase in population and employment which has resulted in congested travel along Interstate 75 (I-75) and particularly at the CR/SR 54 and SR 52 interchanges of I-75. Additionally, this congestion has created negative impacts to Pasco County’s rural areas, specifically the Northeast Pasco Rural Protection District. In order to address these conditions, Pasco County, is pursuing funding for the I-75 and Overpass Road Interchange – a transportation improvement project that will improve mobility, increase accessibility, and afford new opportunities for economic development. Pasco County and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) have identified the I-75 and Overpass Road Interchange Project as the number one priority project in Pasco County. Additionally, this project has been endorsed by both the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). An Interchange Justification Report (IJR) has been developed by the County concurrently with a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study. The IJR has been approved by FDOT and FHWA and the PD&E was approved in October 2017. The total project cost is $63.2 million (in 2017 dollar terms). The County has identified $33,045,528 for the project, which is being committed as local match. Additionally, FDOT has committed another $15 million. The region is pursuing $15,172,272 through the BUILD discretionary grant program to support this project. A Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) was conducted following BUILD guidelines to compare the benefits and costs associated with the proposed project. Results indicate that the project will yield 2.95 times benefits compared to costs. The project is not only a good use of federal dollars, but also a much needed investment for the mobility, connectivity, and economic vitality of the region. I-75 and Overpass Road Interchange Benefits Quality of Life Environmental Protection Improved Mobility & Access to Parks, $1.6 M Transportation Choices, 28,231 Jobs In Emissions Cost Savings & 5 Secondary Schools Safety Innovation $23.4 M In Accident Cost Savings Design/Build and implementation of FHWA’s 4 State Evacuation Routes Access “Every Day Counts” principles and SMART Goals State of Good Repair Economic Competitiveness $8.3 M 13.9 M VHT Saved & $100.1 M In Travel Time Savings Structure Residual Value 176.4 M VMT Saved & $24.4 M In Vehicle Operating Cost Savings TOTAL PROJECT MONETIZED BENEFITS:$157.8 M (in Present Value Terms) ES-1 Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Transportation Discretionary Grant – FY2018 PASCO COUNTY I-75 and Overpass Road Interchange Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. ES-1 SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 1 Economic Development ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Rural Community Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Transportation Challenges ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 An Interchange Ready for Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION II: PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................... 3 Area Characteristics ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Location Transportation Connections ................................................................................................................................. 3 SECTION III: GRANT FUNDS, SOURCES, & USES OF ALL PROJECT FUNDS .............................................. 9 Project Costs ................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Funding Commitments .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 SECTION IV: MERIT CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................... 11 Safety ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 State of Good Repair ................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Economic Competitiveness .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Environmental Protection ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 Quality of Life ............................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Innovation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Partnership ................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Non-Federal Revenue for Transportation Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 21 Results of the Benefit-Cost Analysis - Summary .......................................................................................................................... 21 SECTION V: PROJECT READINESS................................................................................................................. 23 Technical Feasibility .................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Engineering .......................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Financial Feasibility ............................................................................................................................................................. 24 Assessment of Project Risks and Mitigation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 24 Schedule ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Required Approvals .................................................................................................................................................................... 25 NEPA Approval ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Permitting ............................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Public Involvement .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Additional Approvals ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 Federal Wage Rate Certification .................................................................................................................................................. 27 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing
    High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing Project #: RES2016-05 Final Report Submitted to Tennessee Department of Transportation Principal Investigator (PI) Deo Chimba, PhD., P.E., PTOE. Tennessee State University Phone: 615-963-5430 Email: [email protected] Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) Janey Camp, PhD., P.E., GISP, CFM Vanderbilt University Phone: 615-322-6013 Email: [email protected] July 10, 2018 DISCLAIMER This research was funded through the State Research and Planning (SPR) Program by the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration under RES2016-05: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Tennessee and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Tennessee Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. ii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. RES2016-05 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date: March 2018 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Detection System Testing 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Deo Chimba and Janey Camp TDOT PROJECT # RES2016-05 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering; Tennessee State University 11.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH I-75 MASTER PLAN Summary Report
    NORTH I-75 MASTER PLAN Summary Report Interstate 75 (SR 93) From the Florida’s Turnpike Interchange to the I-10 Interchange Alachua, Bradford, Clay, Citrus, Columbia, Duval, Levy, Marion, and Sumter Counties, Florida Financial Project ID: 191985-2-12-01 June 2017 Updated August 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND & PURPOSE .................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 I-75 Relief Task Force Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 2 3 STUDY AREA CORRIDORS ........................................................................................................................................ 4 3.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 4 STUDY METHODOLOGY & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................. 6 5 EXISTING AND FUTURE I-75 TRANSPORTATION ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Element
    CHAPTER 3 CITY OF NORTH PORT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN _________________________________ TRANSPORTATION Transportation Element Table of Contents Chapter 3 Transportation Page Introduction 3-3 Transportation Issues Identified in the EAR 3-4 Functional Classification of Roads 3-6 Strategic Intermodal System 3-8 Roadway Jurisdiction and Maintenance 3-8 Parking Facilities 3-8 Traffic Generators 3-9 Traffic Counts 3-10 Intersection Deficiencies 3-10 Roadway Level of Service 3-10 State Highway System Levels of Service 3-11 Existing Level of Service Standards 3-12 Concurrency Management 3-14 Proportionate Fair Share 3-14 Access Management Strategies 3-15 U.S. 41 Corridor Master Plan 3-15 Transportation and Disaster Management 3-16 Future Growth and Transportation Improvements 3-17 Alternative Modes of Transportation 3-20 Intergovernmental Coordination 3-21 List of Illustrations TABLES 3-1 Existing Roadway Classification 3-7 3-2 Existing Roadway Lanes 3-8 3-3 Existing Roadway Jurisdiction 3-8 3-4 Backlogged and Constrained Facilities 3-14 3-5 Time to Clear Landfalling Storm for Evacuation Zones 3-17 Attachment 2007 Existing Traffic Counts Goals, Objectives, & Policies 3-22 Maps follow GOP’s 3-1 Existing & Future Transit Generators 3-5 Existing Roadway Lane Classification 3-2 Existing Roadway Jurisdictional 3-5a Future Roadway Lane Classification 3-2a Future Roadway Jurisdictional 3-6 Future Transportation 3-3 Level of Service 3-3b LOS C Congestion Levels 3-4 Existing Roadway Classification 3-2 Transportation Element TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT INTRODUCTION The goal of the transportation element is to develop an effective multi-modal transportation system which optimizes safety, convenience, cost, and pollution reduction practices by establishing internal and external transportation linkages between residential neighborhoods and activity centers.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Mainline & Streetscape
    EXISTING MAINLINE & STREETSCAPE Features Village of Hillside Village of Westchester Village of Bellwood Village of Broadview Village of Maywood Village of Forest Park Village of Oak Park City of Chicago www.eisenhowerexpressway.com HILLSIDE I-290 MAINLINE I-290 Looking West North Wolf Road I-290 East of Mannheim Road - Retaining Walls Underpass at I-290 - Noise Wall I-290 I-290 Looking West IHB R.R, Crossing I-290 Westbound approaching I-88 Interchange EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES I-290 Looking West I-290 East side of Mannheim Road Interchange 2 www.eisenhowerexpressway.com CROSS ROADS OTHER FEATURES HILLSIDE Mannheim Road Mannheim Road Bridge, sidewalk and fence over I-290 Hillside Welcome Signage Mannheim Road Mannheim Road Bridge, sidewalk and fence over I-290 Hillside Marker at I-290 Mannheim Road Northbound - Hillside Markers at I-290 EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES 3 www.eisenhowerexpressway.com WESTCHESTER I-290 MAINLINE I-290 EB CD Road I-290 EB CD Road Entrance I-290 Looking East - Westchester Boulevard Overpass Noise walls along Wedgewood Drive EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES 4 www.eisenhowerexpressway.com CROSSROADS/FRONTAGE ROADS WESTCHESTER Bellwood Avenue Westchester Boulevard Bridge, sidewalk, wall and fencing over I-290 Looking North towards I-290 overpass Westchester Boulevard Mannheim Road Looking South Looking Southeast EXISTING MAINLINE AND STREETSCAPE FEATURES
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Ramp Design Procedures for Facilities Without Frontage Roads
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-05/0-4538-3 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date RECOMMENDED RAMP DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR September 2004 FACILITIES WITHOUT FRONTAGE ROADS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. J. Bonneson, K. Zimmerman, C. Messer, and M. Wooldridge Report 0-4538-3 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 0-4538 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2002 - August 2004 P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Ramp Design Considerations for Facilities without Frontage Roads 16. Abstract Based on a recent change in Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) policy, frontage roads are not to be included along controlled-access highways unless a study indicates that the frontage road improves safety, improves operations, lowers overall facility costs, or provides essential access. Interchange design options that do not include frontage roads are to be considered for all new freeway construction. Ramps in non- frontage-road settings can be more challenging to design than those in frontage-road settings for several reasons. Adequate ramp length, appropriate horizontal and vertical curvature, and flaring to increase storage area at the crossroad intersection should all be used to design safe and efficient ramps for non-frontage-road settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Directions to Ccc League Games
    DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO CCC LEAGUE GAMES TO: ANSONIA High School…Ansonia, Ohio Take State Route 503 North to and right (North) on State Route 127 to and left (West) on State Route 47. The School is located approximately 3-4 miles from Route 127 on the North side of the road. TO: ARCANUM High School…Arcanum, Ohio Take State Route 503 North and right (East) on State Route 722 (in Ithaca) to and left (North) at the stop sign. Stay on this road as it winds through the edge of Ithaca and eventually continues North into Arcanum. The high school is located past the second traffic signal on the left (West) side of the street in Arcanum. TO: BETHEL High School…Tipp City, Ohio Take State Route 503 North to and right (East) on Interstate 70 to the second exit past Interstate 75 which is State Route 201. Take State Route 201 left (North). The High School is located approximately 3-4 miles from I70 on the left (West) side of the road. TO: BRADFORD High School…Bradford, Ohio Take State Route 503 North to and right (East) on Interstate 70 to the State Route 49 North Exit. Take Route 49 Northwest through Phillipsburg to and right (North) on State Route 721 and continue into Bradford. The High School is located at the North edge of Bradford on the left (West) side of Route 721. TO: COVINGTON High School…Covington, Ohio Take State Route 503 North to and right (East) on Interstate 70 to and left (North) on State Route 48 at the Englewood exit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interstate Highway System: 50 Years of Perspective Jerome Hall and Loretta Hall
    The Interstate Highway System: 50 Years of Perspective Jerome Hall and Loretta Hall On June 29, 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower signed historic legislation that authorized construction of the Interstate Highway System and created a pay-as-you-go Highway Trust Fund to generate the federal government’s 90+ percent share of the system’s cost. Although Eisenhower is justifiably credited with making it a reality, the Interstate System is actually the result of a series of concepts that were refined over several prior decades within the engineering and political arenas. Developing the system required a visionary financing strategy that would satisfy diverse philosophical and economic view points. Designing the system presented unprecedented challenges for standardizing elements that would improve safety and be appropriate for a truly national highway system. The current 46,700-mile Interstate System generated transportation efficiencies and enabled societal mobility to unanticipated degrees. This paper traces the system’s conceptual development; describes its major political, societal, financial, and technical challenges; and evaluates its influences on the American way of life. Conceptual Development The federal government undertook its first interstate road building project in 1806, when it authorized federally funded construction of the National Road (now US 40). President Thomas Jefferson approved legislation to build the 20-foot-wide highway on 60-foot-wide right-of-way. The War of 1812 slowed construction of the first section from Cumberland, Maryland, to the Ohio River. After spirited debate about federal versus state powers, the federal government transferred ownership of the road to the states about 1835. The National Road was a macadam highway traversed by herded livestock and covered wagons.
    [Show full text]
  • US23 Route Is That You Avoid Congested Detroit and of Course Have Less Exposure to Accident Traffic Incidents with Resulting Backups
    Direct southbound route from Flint, Michigan to Perrysburg, Ohio (I-75 exit 192) From Flint, Michigan, Interstate-75 takes a significant turn to the southeast as it runs towards downtown Detroit ... and onwards to Toledo in Ohio. For those driving from the UP, Sault Ste Marie and other points in Michigan north of Flint, here is a route which avoids Detroit and the extra southeast I-75 miles; it is a direct southbound path which rejoins I-75 just below Toledo. Parts of the route are through rural country on a two-lane open highway while others are on a two lane limited access route similar to an interstate. The advantage of the US23 route is that you avoid congested Detroit and of course have less exposure to accident traffic incidents with resulting backups. Comparison Via I-75: time/dist. from Flint to Toledo/I-75 exit 192 = 147 miles (237km) 2:55 hours. Via US23 route: time/dist from Flint to Toledo/I-75 exit 192 = 130 miles (209km) 3:00 hours. Alternative US23 Route 1. On I-75 just south of Flint, Michigan, move to the two right lanes and take exit 115 - US23 to Ann Arbor. 2. Continue of US23 through Fenton, Brighton and Whitmore Lake to Ann Arbor. 3. Just north of Ann Arbor, move to left two lanes and continue following US23South - Toldeo (do not take exit 45, or follow US23 Business or signs to Ann Arbor). The road bends to the east (left) for 2.5 miles (4kms). 4. Stay in right two lanes.
    [Show full text]
  • High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Evaluation Ii
    HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES EVALUATION II Traffic Impact, Safety Assessment, and Public Acceptance Dr. Peter T. Martin, Associate Professor University of Utah Dhruvajyoti Lahon, Aleksandar Stevanovic, Research Assistants University of Ut ah Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Utah Traffic Lab 122 South Central Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 November 2004 Acknowledgements The authors thank the Utah Department of Transportation employees for the data they furnished and their assistance with this study. The authors particularly thank the Technical Advisory Committee members for their invaluable input throughout the study. The authors are also thankful to the respondents who took the time to participate in the public opinion survey. The valuable contribution of those who helped collect data and conduct public opinion surveys is greatly appreciated. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 1.1 Background................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Green Infrastructure Design for Transport Projects: a Road Map To
    GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS A ROAD MAP TO PROTECTING ASIA’S WILDLIFE BIODIVERSITY DECEMBER 2019 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN FOR TRANSPORT PROJECTS A ROAD MAP TO PROTECTING ASIA’S WILDLIFE BIODIVERSITY DECEMBER 2019 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2019 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 8632 4444; Fax +63 2 8636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2019. ISBN 978-92-9261-991-6 (print), 978-92-9261-992-3 (electronic) Publication Stock No. TCS189222 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS189222 The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/.
    [Show full text]
  • Hotel Directions
    HOTEL INFORMATION The Westin Buckhead Atlanta 3391 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30326 866-716-8108 The Westin Buckhead Atlanta is 19-miles or 30 minutes from Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport and 8-miles or 10 minutes from Peachtree DeKalb Airport. If traveling to the hotel by car please follow the following directions. From North Take Georgia State Route 400 South and Exit at Lenox Road (Exit 2). Turn left and follow the signs for Peachtree Road South. Turn right on Peachtree Road. Turn left at the second traffic light. The hotel is on the right. From South (Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport) Domestic Terminal: Take Interstate 85 North. Exit Georgia State Route 400 North. Take the first exit (Lenox Road). Turn right and follow the signs for Peachtree Road South. Turn right on Peachtree Road. Turn left at the second traffic light. The hotel is on the right. International Terminal: Take Interstate 75 North Exit Interstate 85 North Exit Georgia State Route 400 North Take the first exit (Lenox Road) Turn right and follow the signs for Peachtree Road South Turn right on Peachtree Road Turn left at the second traffic light The hotel is on the right From East From East Take Interstate 20 West to Downtown and proceed to Interstate 85 North. Take I-85 and exit at GA400 North. Take the Lenox Road Exit and turn right. Follow the signs for Peachtree Road South. Turn right onto Peachtree Road, then turn left at the second traffic light. The hotel is on the right. From West Take Interstate 285 East to Georgia State Route 400 South.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Design and Construction Terms
    Glossary of Road Design and Construction Terms Nebraska ◆Department ◆of ◆Roads 3-C Planning The continuing, cooperative, comprehensive planning process in an urbanized area as required by federal law. (e.g. Lincoln, Omaha, or Sioux City Area Planning) 3R Project 3R stands for resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation. These projects are designed to extend the life of an existing highway surface and to enhance highway safety. These projects usually overlay the existing surface and replace guardrails. 3R projects are generally constructed within the existing highway right-of-way. Abutment An abutment is made from concrete on piling and supports the end of a bridge deck. Access Control The extent to which the state, by law, regulates where vehicles may enter or leave the highway. Action Plan A set of general guidelines and procedures developed by each state to assure that adequate consideration is given to possible social, economic and environmental effects of proposed highway projects. All states were directed to develop this plan by the Federal Highway Administration. Adapted Grasses Grasses which are native to the area in which they are planted, but have adjusted to the conditions of the environment. Adverse Environmental Effects Those conditions which cause temporary or permanent damage to the environment. Aesthetics In the highway context, the considerations of landscaping, land use and structures to insure that the proposed highway is pleasing to the eye of the viewer from the roadway and to the viewer looking at the roadway. Aggregate Stone and gravel of various sizes which compose the major portion of the surfacing material. The sand or pebbles added to cement in making concrete.
    [Show full text]