Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Hillsborough County, Florida
Final Report November 1, 2004 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tampa’s reputation as a dangerous environment for pedestrians is based on cold facts: the county’s pedestrian fatality rate is three times the national average for comparably sized cities. These statistics represent a challenge to Hillsborough County to rectify these problems and create a safer and more balanced transportation system.
The Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan is a step toward facing the challenge. This county-wide plan recommends a series of safety and education programs and policies that target people of all ages, analyzes the areas where pedestrians are most likely to walk, and presents a series of priority corridors where pedestrian improvements are most appropriate. As part of the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan, the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan is both a practical and a visionary approach to creating a more balanced transportation system for all users.
VISION AND OBJECTIVES
The ultimate vision of the Hillsborough County Pedestrian Plan is a pedestrian network that complements the larger transportation system and improves safety, accessibility and quality of life for people of all ages and abilities. At the fundamental level, realizing this vision requires a transformation of our notions of the street and the automobile. The dominant paradigm since the mid-twentieth century has focused on the automobile, while considerations for bicycles and pedestrians have been afterthoughts or omitted altogether. In response to this outdated paradigm, this pedestrian plan is guided by an underlying principle that encourages the reorganization of transportation modes with pedestrians at the top and single occupancy vehicles at the bottom. This hierarchical shift in the transportation system, illustrated in the graphic at right, is focused on corridors where pedestrian attractors are concentrated, such as downtown, in suburban shopping districts, and around schools and parks.
This vision for Hillsborough County is characterized by a walkable, human-scaled place that encourages interaction at the street level, provides linkages to destinations, and ensures the safety and quality of life of all pedestrians. Walkable streets provide better support for and access to transit and encourage thriving centers of activity. In order to create these places, strategic and financial investments must be committed to the implementation of priority pedestrian corridor improvements, transit enhancements, land use modifications, and safety education and enforcement programs.
Hillsborough County has already made significant steps toward creating an effective pedestrian network. Therefore, the objective of this plan is focused on implementation and achieving the desired goals of improving connectivity and consistency of pedestrian facilities. This plan identifies programs and policies that allow pedestrian travel to become a more integrated and effective mode of transportation and are designed to:
• Reduce pedestrian crashes throughout the county; • Promote livable roadways;
i HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
• Link pedestrian improvements with areas targeted for redevelopment or mixed land uses; and • Promote better access to public transportation.
The plan focuses on connecting people with employment, schools, parks, shopping, and residences and also seeks to involve the public and solicit their input, and to educate them about the necessity of and the realities that come with implementing this plan.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan builds on the findings and analysis from previous studies and continues progress toward achieving a more balanced multimodal transportation system throughout Hillsborough County with a focus on implementation. The Pedestrian Plan reviews the existing pedestrian network and facilities, identifies and prioritizes pedestrian needs, and develops an action plan while soliciting input from the community through the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan update process. The Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan identifies the priority pedestrian corridors and policies to be implemented that improve the safety, accessibility, convenience, and comfort of pedestrians.
This Plan resulted in the update of the Goals, Objectives and Policies from the 1998 Pedestrian Needs Assessment. This update reflects an increased emphasis on pedestrian transportation as well as new community concerns and priorities including:
• Evaluation measures linked to Objectives, which allow for periodic monitoring of the progress and successes of the pedestrian system;
• The direct correlation between obesity and sprawl and role of walking to improve public health and combat the obesity epidemic;
• The necessity of residential development in downtown areas, which will provide round-the-clock pedestrian activity and increase the need for more pedestrian improvements; and
• The work of the Livable Roadways Committee, which stresses the development and adoption of street design guidelines that promote mobility and encourage a more balanced pedestrian network.
A strategic set of Priority Pedestrian Corridors has been selected based on objective criteria such as sidewalk gaps, proximity to schools, parks, and shopping areas, and pedestrian crash locations. Selected corridors are divided into three categories:
Priority Corridors with Committed Funding Identified are roadway segments where funding has been committed by various agencies to implement bicycle and pedestrian projects. These corridors were not factored into the cost affordability calculation:
• Bayshore Boulevard from Platt Avenue to Gandy Boulevard • 22nd Street from Bearss Avenue to 131st Avenue • Bruce B. Downs Boulevard from Fletcher Avenue to Pasco County (future BRT corridor) • Ashley Drive from I-275 to Tyler Street • Tampa Street from Scott Street to Harrison Street
• Gandy Boulevard from the Gandy Bridge to the Crosstown Expressway
ii HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY CORRIDORS
LEGEND
Cost-Affordable Priority Corridors are essential projects that are of highest consideration due to high pedestrian demand or future development. Based on projected revenues, all of these corridors will be funded for implementation:
• US Highway 301 from MLK Jr. Boulevard to Broadway Avenue
• Dale Mabry Highway from Fletcher Avenue to Waters Avenue
• Tampa Street and Florida Avenue from Lake Avenue to downtown Tampa
• Nebraska Avenue from Lake Avenue to downtown Tampa
• Fowler Avenue from Interstate 275 to 56th Street
• Dale Mabry Highway from Boy Scout Boulevard/Columbus Drive to Bay to Bay Drive
• Brandon Boulevard from Interstate 75 to Valrico Road
• Gandy Boulevard from the Crosstown Expressway to Bayshore Boulevard
Unfunded Priority Corridors are the remainder of the priority corridors for which no funding is available at this time. It is expected that as funding becomes available, these projects will be implemented.
iii HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
FUNDING
Successful implementation requires funding commitments for pedestrian improvements. There are numerous likely funding sources at the federal, state, and local level for the development and improvement of pedestrian facilities. The Hillsborough County MPO has identified approximately $51.6 million available for pedestrian projects in the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan. Of this amount, $26 million is reserved for Priority Pedestrian Corridors and $20 million will be used to fill sidewalk gaps through the Urban Services Area. Cost estimates for implementation were based on completion of the sidewalk on both sides of the street and the addition of pedestrian treatments such as crosswalks, appropriately scaled lighting and trees.
IMPLEMENTATION
The specifics of implementation are outlined in the proposed Action Plan. This includes the recommendation for a Corridor Pedestrian Improvement Program, which incorporates an interactive public involvement process that allows citizens and stakeholders to select corridors for implementation and recommend desired improvements. The Action Plan also recommends policies and benchmarks to monitor progress toward achieving the plan’s goals and objectives over time. In addition, the Action Plan outlines safety and education programs. The most effective approaches are coordinated among local, county and state agencies, colleges and universities, and private organization to provide services, literature, and training. Safety education is an ongoing effort for people of all ages and abilities, therefore there is equal importance in educating children, teenagers, adults, seniors and people with special needs or disabilities.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Renaissance Planning Group, in partnership with URS Corporation, was hired by the Hillsborough County MPO to develop this Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan as an update to the 1998 Pedestrian Needs Assessment and 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan. The MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee served as a steering committee for this project while other MPO committees, including the Livable Roadways Committee, were involved in reviewing and commenting on the draft final plan and outreach efforts.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PEDESTRIAN PLAN 1
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 3
PEDESTRIAN NEEDS ASSESSMENT 4
Areas of Pedestrian Demand 4 Gaps and Deficiencies 5 Public Involvement 5
FUNDING SOURCES FOR PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 6 Funds Available 6 GUIDING THE FUTURE OF THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT 7
Goals, Objectives, Policies and Evaluation Measures 8 1.1.1 Facilities 8 1.1.2 Destinations 11 1.1.3 Transit 11 1.1.4 Crossings 12 1.1.5 Safety and Education 12 1.1.6 Special Needs 14 1.1.7 Encouragement and Enforcement 14 PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS 17
Cost Affordability 17 Priority Corridors 18 Sidewalk Gaps 20
FIGURE 1 PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS 21
ACTION PLAN 22
Introduction 22 Corridor Pedestrian Improvement Program (CPIP) 22
v Policies for Pedestrians 24 Existing Policy 24 Multi-modal Transportation District 24 Pedestrian-Supportive Development Review 25 ‘Livable’ Lane Widths 26 Transit Promotion 26 Safety and Education 27 Benchmarks 28
BEST PRACTICES FOR THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT 30
Setting The Context For Walkability 30 Street Connectivity and Block Structure 31 Building Placement and Orientation 32 Pedestrian Facilities 33 Lighting and Landscaping 34 Parking 35 Transit Facilities 36 Pedestrian Safety: CPTED Principles 37
APPENDIX A -- ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 38
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 Priority Pedestrian Corridors 21
List of Tables
TABLE 1 Estimated Costs for Roadway Segments with Zero Sidewalks 39
TABLE 2 Estimated Costs for Committed Projects 46
TABLE 3 Estimated Costs for Cost Affordable Priority Corridors 48
TABLE 4 Estimated Costs for Unfunded Priority Corridors 51
vi HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PEDESTRIAN PLAN
Recent news items related to pedestrian issues signify a shift in attitude toward pedestrians: the Tampa Bay area is among the worst regions in the United States for pedestrian fatalities; a number of high profile hit-and- run accidents have taken several lives in Hillsborough County; and the scientific community has identified obesity as an epidemic health problem, linking low levels of physical activity with a wide variety of health problems that cost billions of dollars to treat.
One approach to all these news stories is to re-evaluate the place of pedestrian activity in the overall transportation system, and shift pedestrian priorities to the top of the hierarchy. The Hillsborough County MPO has stepped up to this challenge by collaborating with Renaissance Planning Group to develop the 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan, a long-term plan that aims to shift the balance of the regional transportation system to better reflect the needs of all users – pedestrians as well as cyclists, transit riders and automobiles.
The key objectives of the Plan are designed to:
• Reduce pedestrian crashes throughout the county,
• Promote livable roadways,
• Link pedestrian improvements with areas targeted for redevelopment or mixed land uses, and
• Promote better access to public transportation.
Several Technical Memoranda were prepared for the MPO in the development of this Final Report. First, the Data Collection and Analysis documents the array of city and county policies, plans and data that address pedestrian issues. This collection reviews and summarizes information from a variety of sources and draws conclusions about the state of pedestrian mobility in Hillsborough County.
These documents serve as the basis for the Needs Assessment, a snapshot of pedestrian facilities and conditions throughout the county. The Needs Assessment analyzes locations of schools, parks, transit and employment along with existing and future land use patterns to identify areas where pedestrian activity is most likely to be found. Gaps and deficiencies of Hillsborough County’s pedestrian transportation system – including physical barriers and obstacles related to policy – are also identified. The high-demand areas and facility gaps are then used as a guide to determine where pedestrian facilities are most needed, resulting in a list of Priority Pedestrian Corridors that will serve the greatest number of people and improve the safety, accessibility, convenience and comfort of pedestrians.
The crown jewel of the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan is a cost-affordable list of Priority Pedestrian Corridors and sidewalk gaps, based on analysis of Funding Sources and the application of projected funds to the estimated costs of Priority Pedestrian Corridors. Additional pedestrian corridors and sidewalk needs are included, to be implemented as funding becomes available.
The culmination of all prior analysis is the Implementation and Cost Affordable Plan, which sets out an Action Plan for the implementation of the recommended pedestrian facilities over the 20-year horizon of the plan. In addition to the recommended facilities, the Action Plan also establishes the charrette-based Corridor Pedestrian Improvement Program; recommends policies that could be pursued by the MPO and local municipalities to improve pedestrian conditions; details safety programs for pedestrians; and establishes
1 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan benchmarks for the future. The Implementation Plan also updates the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the original 1998 Needs Assessment to continue progress toward achieving a more safe and balanced multimodal transportation system throughout Hillsborough County. Finally, the Best Practices design recommendations help to guide implementation by highlighting the ideal relationship of buildings to streets that supports and encourages pedestrian activity.
In order to produce a plan that reflects community priorities, inclusion of the voice of the citizens of Hillsborough County has been a central priority in the development of the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan. Strong support for on- and off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities has been demonstrated via the MPO’s 2025 LRTP Update process. The draft plan and its elements have also been reviewed by the MPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Livable Roadways Committee.
2 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The first step of the process of developing the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan was to gather andreview relevant documents, plans, policies and programs. Technical Memorandum 1, Data Collection and Analysis will continue to serve as a valuable central source for research about the transportation planning context in Hillsborough County. Data and documents from the county government, unincorporated areas and from the cities of Tampa, Plant City and Temple Terrace were collected and summarized. The report includes summaries of the following:
• Community focal points; • Community Plans throughout Hillsborough County; • Community Redevelopment Areas in Tampa, Temple Terrace Plant City; • Comprehensive Growth Management Plans for Hillsborough County and each of the municipalities; • Data for motor vehicle crashes involving pedestrians, including injury and fatality information; • The original Pedestrian Needs Assessment; • The Hillsborough County 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan; • Land uses and large developments; • Pedestrian counts at selected intersections; • Pedestrian facilities that are currently programmed for construction; • Public opinion surveys; • Safety and education programs; • Sidewalk Programs; • Socioeconomic data; • Special area studies; • Trails; and • Transit.
A summary of the overall findings of the data review draws the following conclusions: (a) Pedestrian mobility is an essential element in the creation and preservation of sustainable communities. Investment in pedestrian facilities is seen as investment in the community as a whole. Pedestrian transportation should be supported as a viable transportation mode, with attention to access to destinations, barriers, safety, aesthetics and amenities. (b) The existing pedestrian network in unincorporated Hillsborough County is lacking and in need of investment. The report cites the Needs Plan of the Hillsborough County 2025 LRTP, which identifies $40 million in needed sidewalk segments. (c) Pedestrian needs are different in urban and rural areas, since the function and design of streets and the proximity of destinations is quite different (d) Pedestrian mobility is a critical element of the overall transportation system, and may be provided with off-road trails as well as improved sidewalks that enable access to transit. (e) Pedestrian safety continues to be an issue in Hillsborough county, which has the third-highest rate of pedestrian crashes in the state.
3 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
PEDESTRIAN NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The purpose of Technical Memorandum 2, the Needs Assessment is to review the existing pedestrian infrastructure in Hillsborough County and proposes a strategic set of corridors selected to provide pedestrian treatments where they are most needed. These corridors were selected on the basis of several objective criteria, such as sidewalk gaps, presence of pedestrian demand, public involvement in the long-range transportation planning process, and pedestrian crash locations. The ranked list of priority corridors is discussed in detail in the Pedestrian Projects section below. The Needs Assessment also reviewed the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the original pedestrian plan and recommended updates to the content and organization that are reflected in Guiding the Future below.
AREAS OF PEDESTRIAN DEMAND
Pedestrian demand assessment is a process designed to identify the areas of Hillsborough County with the greatest potential for pedestrian activity. This analysis accounts for a variety of factors that influence pedestrian activity, including existing and future land use designations, the number of jobs found in a certain area, and the presence of potential pedestrian destinations such as schools, parks, shopping areas, and transit lines. These pedestrian attractors were typically given a quarter-mile buffer, representing the generalized distance of a five- minute walk. The analysis also identifies areas where the built environment is typically pedestrian-friendly, such as mixed-use development and dense areas of development. Each of these criteria were mapped, then overlaid in an aggregate map that showed areas of lowest to highest demand.
The demand assessment found that areas of high pedestrian demand are found throughout Hillsborough County, notably the following:
• Ybor City;
• Along Florida Avenue between Columbus Drive and Palm Avenue;
• The Wellswood area near Al Lopez Park;
• Around the intersecton of Gandy Boulevard at Dale Mabry Highway; and
• the Hyde Park area.
These demand areas were used as one factor in the development of priority corridors where pedestrian treatments are most appropriate.
For a detailed discussion of the results of the demand analysis, please see Section 4 of the Needs Assessment.
4 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
GAPS AND DEFICIENCIES
Gaps and deficiencies in the pedestrian network can physically prevent people – both the able-bodied and people with disabilities – from walking as a means of transportation. These problems may also present a psychological barrier to walking, because the environment where people must walk may be perceived as unsafe, inconvenient or hostile. The mission of the 2004 Pedestrian Plan is to identify and rectify these gaps and deficiencies through safety education for motorists and pedestrians, corridor projects to enhance pedestrian infrastructure, and policies to improve the perception of walkability in important areas so that walking may be seen as a safe, pleasurable, and viable means of transportation.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Results of the public involvement activities of the Long Range Transportation Plan process played an important role in the development of the priorities in the Needs Assessment. Throughout the process, a high level of support has been shown for new and improved bicycle, pedestrian and trail facilities, as well as for training and enforcement for pedestrians and motorists. These concerns are reflected throughout the implementation plan.
5 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
FUNDING SOURCES FOR PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
The Implementation Plan reviews likely federal/state sources and potential local funding sources for the development and construction of pedestrian facilities. Federal and state sources are combined because in most cases pedestrian projects are funded by a combination of federal and state funds through federal aid programs. The federal/state listing descriptions includes bicycle facilities as well as pedestrian facilities because for the most part bicycle facilities can be used as pedestrian facilities. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are broadly eligible for funding from almost all the major federal-aid highway, transit, safety, and other programs. Bicycle projects must be “principally for transportation, rather than recreation, purposes” and must be designed and located pursuant to the transportation plans required of states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Funds Available
The Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has identified over $50 million for the construction of pedestrian facilities in their 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The identified projects are funded from Transportation Management Area (TMA) funds, Other Arterials funds, and the Transportation Enhancement set-aside. Some additional pedestrian facilities are also provided as part of bus stop improvements identified in the LRTP, and all cost affordable roadway projects are assumed to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Enhancement funds and TMA funds will also provide over $33 million for bicycle and trail projects.
Additionally, State of Florida Enhancement funds will provide $30 million for bicycle, pedestrian and trail projects. These funds will cover priority corridors on state roads. TMA funds will account for another $30 million for bicycle, pedestrian and trail projects.
The City of Tampa has programmed additional funding in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for sidewalk construction. In FY 2004, the city allocated $1 million of its local option gas tax for sidewalks, in addition to other sidewalk improvements that may occur as of the city’s traffic calming and street resurfacing efforts. The City has also budgeted $1 million for the development of a master plan and design for the Riverwalk, and an additional $5 million for other pedestrian and sidewalk projects.
Hillsborough County allocated over $2.3 million in its CIP for sidewalk improvements in FY-04. Its FY-05 budget indicates that just over $3 million will be allocated for pedestrian facilities.
6 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
GUIDING THE FUTURE OF THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
This Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan is guided by an underlying principle that encourages a paradigm shift in the overall transportation system, creating a hierarchy of modes with pedestrians at the top, followed in descending order by bicyclists, transit, other modes besides single-occupancy vehicles, and single- occupancy vehicles. This new paradigm is represented by the graphic on the right, which illustrates the ideal arrangement of transportation system priorities with pedestrians at the top and single-occupancy vehicles at the bottom.
This guiding principle was used to direct a review of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 1998 Pedestrian Needs Assessment. The updated Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Evaluation Measures of 2004 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan includes updates that reflect this paradigm shift as well as recent community priorities, including the role of walking in improving public health, the incorporation of residential development into the fabric of downtown Tampa, and the guidance of the Livable Roadways committee.
The revised Goals emphasize the public health benefits of walking and cycling, an issue that has been in the national news in recent months; the Governor has commissioned a Task Force on the Obesity Epidemic to identify ways the State of Florida can combat obesity in children and adults. The final report of the Task Force recommends that the role of the community in promoting lifelong physical activity includes investment in bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure. Methods for encouraging physical activity include improved community design and land use planning, sidewalks, street lighting, traffic calming, and other environmentally safe constructs.
Recent progress has been made to construct residential units in downtown Tampa, and the resulting shift in land uses will help change the environment for pedestrians. Around the clock safety will need to be prioritized, and attention will need to be paid to pedestrian connectivity and comfort. This shift in land use will require pedestrian-friendly features to be incorporated into new construction and redevelopment of downtown streets and buildings.
The activities of the MPO’s Livable Roadways Committee have also influenced the Goals and Objectives of the pedestrian system in Hillsborough County. Development and adoption of streetscape design guidelines that address issues of streetscaping, lighting, signage, safety and visibility will promote better mobility for all transportation modes while encouraging a more balanced set of transportation strategies that complement land use activities.
Evaluation Measures have also been added to increase the relevance of the Goals, Objectives and Policies. These add an important new facet to the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan by setting clear criteria by which the implementation of the Plan can be monitored. Evaluation measures provide the blueprint for an annual progress report of the pedestrian transportation system by the MPO Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator.
7 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND EVALUATION MEASURES
The original goals, objectives and policies have been reorganized around a new set of concepts:
• Facilities
• Destinations
• Transit
• Crossings
• Safety and Education
• Special needs
• Encouragement and enforcement
Much of the language from the original plan was kept; for the purposes of this draft, the updated language is highlighted in yellow.
1.1.1 Facilities
Goal 1 Construct and improve on- and off-road pedestrian facilities for safe and convenient access between origins and destinations, and other modes of travel.
Objective 1.1 Provide more sidewalks.
Policy 1.1.1 Within the urban service area and city limits, retrofit existing roads with sidewalks using the Roadside Pedestrian Conditions (RPC) model to help establish priorities as described in this Plan.
Policy 1.1.2 Work with local agencies, private landowners, and trails planning groups to develop a sidewalk feeder network for the existing and future off-road trail system.
Policy 1.1.3 Within the urban service area and city limits, incorporate prioritized pedestrian projects (from the priority list developed in the Needs Assessment) into the annual Long Range Transportation Improvement Program.
Measure Miles of sidewalks added.
Measure Number of sidewalk-to-trail connections added.
Objective 1.2 Provide and maintain more off-road trails.
Policy 1.2.1 Provide off-road pedestrian facilities in accordance with the current ADA, FDOT, AASHTO, Hillsborough County Greenways Master Plan, City of Tampa Greenways and Trails Master Plan, and other local standards and/or statutes, in appropriate transportation projects.
Policy 1.2.2 Seek opportunities to construct pedestrian trail facilities along drainage channels, shorelines and utility and railroad rights-of-way.
8 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Policy 1.2.3 Assist in the coordination of a trail network with the Hillsborough County Greenways Committee, the Tampa Greenways and Trails Citizens Advisory Committee, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and local governments and appropriate agencies.
Policy 1.2.4 Develop multi-jurisdictional suitability map of areas where trail development may be feasible, based on existing and proposed plans of the Hillsborough Greenways Committee, the City of Tampa Greenways and Trails Citizens Advisory Committee and other jurisdictions within Hillsborough County.
Policy 1.2.5 Encourage construction of links to the roadway network wherever possible in planning off- road pedestrian trails.
Policy 1.2.6 Maintain trails in order to accommodate pedestrians adequately and safely.
Policy 1.2.7 Initiate a voluntary Adopt-a-Trail program to assist with routine trail maintenance.
Measure Miles of off-road trails added.
Measure Miles of off-road trails receiving regular maintenance.
Measure Number of sidewalk-to-trail connections added.
Objective 1.3 Maintain and enhance existing pedestrian facilities.
Policy 1.3.1 Maintain sidewalks in order to accommodate pedestrians adequately and safely.
Policy 1.3.2 Incorporate pedestrian facility concerns in the public response system for road maintenance calls.
Policy 1.3.3 Provide pedestrian shelters, benches and shade trees at major destinations (i.e., business districts, parks, schools, libraries, retail/commercial areas) and transit connections including bus stops, park & ride lots and commuter centers.
Policy 1.3.4 Identify gaps in pedestrian infrastructure and barriers to travel. Connect gaps and remove barriers with priority to projects in the Needs Assessment.
Measure Percentage of maintenance calls resulting in facility improvements.
Measure Number of new pedestrian shelters, benches, and trees installed.
Measure Number of identified gaps/barriers remedied.
Objective 1.4 Integrate the consideration of pedestrian facilities into all planning, design, construction and maintenance activities relative to transportation.
Policy 1.4.1 Maintain sidewalks to remove landscape obstructions and correct physical deterioration.
Policy 1.4.2 Enforce regulations requiring land developers to include sidewalks in proposed developments, in accordance with adopted policies and standards.
9 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Policy 1.4.3 Continue to include the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in all roadway design plan review.
Policy 1.4.4 In cases where implementing agencies cannot provide sidewalks, request the implementing agency to present its analysis and the alternatives it reviewed for the MPO’s consideration.
Measure Miles of sidewalk added as a result of road maintenance or construction.
Measure Miles of sidewalk added by developers as a result of private development.
Objective 1.5 Adopt policies and design standards that provide for safe, convenient and enjoyable sidewalk facilities.
Policy 1.5.1 Provide sidewalks in accordance with current Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and local standards and/or statutes, in all transportation projects.
Policy 1.5.2 Include sidewalk facilities inventory information provided herein as part of the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan.
Policy 1.5.3 Follow existing standards (State, County and City) to include sidewalks as part of the typical section for roadway designs.
Policy 1.5.4 Revise existing standards (State, County and City) to include pedestrian sensitive traffic control devices and pedestrian staging areas which are appropriately identified in all intersection improvement projects and new construction.
Policy 1.5.5 Develop a list of locations for application of special intersection treatments (i.e. audible or countdown signals), and number of treatments completed.
Policy 1.5.6 Revise and utilize land development code and future land use as tools for creating pedestrian- oriented centers that will mix land uses and encourage walking for daily activities.
Policy 1.5.7 Revise local land development code to require private developers to provide internal pedestrian circulation that offers paved, lighted access between the main building entrance, parking areas and the external sidewalk network.
Policy 1.5.8 Develop a Livable Roadways Design Guide that provides recommendations for new development and redevelopment of a range of thoroughfare cross-sections, intersections, building frontages, street furniture, network connectivity, and other elements of the street realm.
Measure Adoption of Pedestrian Plan as part of Long Range Transportation Plan.
Measure Revision of existing standards and land development code.
Measure Number of intersection treatments completed.
Measure Number of pedestrian-oriented centers created.
Measure Adoption of Livable Roadways Design Guide.
10 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
1.1.2 Destinations
Goal 2 Improve pedestrian access to common destinations.
Objective 2.1 Improve connectivity from neighborhoods to schools, parks, employment, shopping, and trails.
Policy 2.1.1 Initiate a Safe Routes to School program that identifies needed connections, education, and enforcement that will make schools more accessible for children who walk.
Policy 2.1.2 Prioritize pedestrian improvements that create new connections between neighborhoods and activity centers.
Policy 2.1.3 Identify sidewalk-to-trail connections that can tie together neighborhoods and activity centers.
Measure Safe Routes program established at two pilot schools within one year of Plan adoption; established in six schools within three years.
Measure Number of connections created to neighborhoods and trails within a 1⁄2 mile radius of activity centers.
1.1.3 Transit
Goal 3 Facilitate safe, comfortable and convenient pedestrian access to transit.
Objective 3.1 Ensure that Hartline stops are served by the sidewalk network.
Policy 3.1.1 Inventory and prioritize transit stops where sidewalks that connect to neighborhoods or activity centers are missing or need maintenance.
Policy 3.1.2 Encourage new Hartline stops at locations serving neighborhoods or activity centers with adequate existing pedestrian facilities.
Measure Number of connections created between transit access and the neighborhoods or activity centers they serve.
Objective 3.2 Incorporate transit service into office parks, employment centers, and activity centers.
Policy 3.2.1 Revise land development codes to provide incentives for developers who grant easements for transit service in convenient, pedestrian-accessible locations.
Measure Number of transit stops created as components of new developments.
11 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
1.1.4 Crossings
Goal 4 Improve safety and convenience of street crossings.
Objective 4.1 Assess locations where safe and convenient crossings are most needed.
Policy 4.1.1 Identify and prioritize specific intersections county-wide where pedestrian-oriented improvements are needed, e.g. high crash locations, intersections near schools, or intersections between neighborhoods and activity centers.
Policy 4.1.2 Identify locations where a mid-block crossing would be appropriate, i.e. long blocks with existing or potential heavy pedestrian traffic or trail crossings, based on adjacent land use.
Measure Number of intersections improved per year.
Measure Completion of inventory and prioritization of needed intersections and mid-block crossings.
Objective 4.2 Link intersection improvements with roadway projects.
Policy 4.2.1 Create minimum standards for pedestrian-friendly intersections (ramps, crosswalks, lighting, signals, signage, mid-block crossings, greenway/trail crossings, etc.) and require this standard to be met at all intersections affected by each transportation project.
Measure Adoption of intersection standards to be incorporated into roadway projects.
1.1.5 Safety and Education
Goal 5 Heighten the awareness of pedestrians and motorists of their rights and responsibilities for pedestrian safety.
Objective 5.1 Implement pedestrian safety education programs to improve observance of traffic laws and to promote safety for pedestrians of all ages.
Policy 5.1.1 Provide pedestrian safety improvement programs based on the priorities identified and recommendations established herein.
Policy 5.1.2 Assist the School Board in implementing a Safe Routes to School program to inventory and map facilities that can be used by students in choosing safe walking/bicycling routes to school.
Policy 5.1.3 Encourage the School Board to establish a pedestrian education/traffic safety program for elementary-age children offered on a regular, ongoing basis throughout the County which provides both classroom and applied training.
Policy 5.1.4 Develop and provide pedestrian safety information and education programs for adults and children and encourage community organizations to participate in pedestrian and traffic safety education.
Policy 5.1.5 Work with law enforcement agencies to ensure that pedestrian safety information is distributed to violators of pedestrian traffic laws and interested citizens.
12 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Measure Safe Routes program established at two pilot schools within one year of Plan adoption; established in six schools within three years.
Measure Reduction in reported crashes involving pedestrians.
Measure Reduction in number of pedestrian and motorist violations.
Objective 5.2 Improve motorists’ understanding of the need to share the roadway with non-motorized travelers, especially at intersections and crosswalks.
Policy 5.2.1 Educate motorists through public service announcements, signage and handouts regarding Florida’s traffic laws and provide information regarding safety measures to inform them about yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks and sharing the road with pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy 5.2.2 Encourage the inclusion of pedestrian safety information in the State drivers licensing and re-examination program, and in driver education and defensive driving courses.
Measure Number of intersections where new or improved signage, signals, and pavement markings to increase the visibility of pedestrians have been installed.
Measure Incorporation of pedestrian safety information into drivers’ education courses and testing materials.
Measure Reduction in reported crashes involving pedestrians.
Measure Reduction in number of pedestrian and motorist violations.
Objective 5.3 Improve safety and security of pedestrians through partnerships with local law enforcement agencies, citizens groups, and environmental design.
Policy 5.3.1 Partner with local law enforcement to increase presence on major pedestrian routes or those with actual or perceived criminal activity.
Policy 5.3.2 Partner with neighborhood watch groups or other citizen organizations to help observe major pedestrian routes or those with actual or perceived criminal activity.
Policy 5.3.3 Address security concerns in dangerous locations by applying principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.
Policy 5.3.4 Address motorist and pedestrian conflicts when appropriate with traffic calming or other physical improvements.
Measure Reduction in criminal activity involving pedestrians.
Measure Increase in pedestrian activity in targeted areas.
Measure Reduction in reported crashes involving pedestrians.
13 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
1.1.6 Special Needs
Goal 6 Support the mobility needs of the elderly and transportation disadvantaged
Objective 6.1 Design pedestrian facilities to accommodate the needs of commuters and recreational walkers of all ages and abilities.
Policy 6.1.1 Ensure that all new pedestrian facilities are ADA-compliant.
Policy 6.1.2 Retrofit intersections in areas with heavy pedestrian traffic, in proximity to senior centers, or in proximity to elderly neighborhoods with ADA-compliant ramps and intersection treatments.
Policy 6.1.3 Identify areas with a high proportion of special needs populations and prioritize roadway and intersection projects in these areas.
Measure Number of needed improvements completed for special needs population.
Objective 6.2 Target special needs populations for safety training and awareness.
Policy 6.2.1 Distribute educational literature and develop workshops to respond to the specific needs of the elderly population.
Measure Development of a special needs education and workshop program within one year of Plan adoption.
1.1.7 Encouragement and Enforcement
Goal 7 Increase awareness and incentives for pedestrians.
Objective 7.1 Reduce motorists’ violation of traffic safety, especially those laws enacted by the State of Florida which define pedestrians’ rights.
Policy 7.1.1 Promote motorists’ awareness of pedestrians’ rights to the road through increased enforcement of motor vehicle laws regarding pedestrians.
Policy 7.1.2 Make available to providers of drivers’ education programs, including senior adult programs, information regarding pedestrian laws and motorists responsibilities to share the roadway.
Policy 7.1.3 Support programs to train law enforcement officers in appropriate enforcement techniques regarding motorists’ violation of pedestrians’ rights.
Policy 7.1.4 Encourage the ticketing and education of motorists who violate pedestrians’ rights to the road.
Measure Reduction in number of violations by motorists.
Measure Reduction in reported crashes involving pedestrians.
14 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Objective 7.2 Reduce pedestrians’ violation of traffic safety laws.
Policy 7.2.1 Support programs to train law enforcement officers in appropriate enforcement techniques including the education and/or ticketing of pedestrians who violate traffic laws.
Policy 7.2.2 Encourage local law enforcement agencies to monitor and provide pedestrian and bicycling brochures available from the American Automobile Association, Traffic Safety Division.
Policy 7.2.3 Promote awareness and increased enforcement of vehicle laws as they pertain to pedestrians.
Measure Reduction in number of violations by pedestrians.
Measure Reduction in reported crashes involving pedestrians.
Objective 7.3 Provide incentives for walking.
Policy 7.3.1 Provide appropriate support facilities and services for pedestrians, including showers, lockers, commuter centers, shelters and benches (with appropriate lighting) at business districts, parks, schools, retail/ commercial centers, transit stations, and other major destinations.
Policy 7.3.2 Create a Green Commuter program to encourage employers to offer incentives (i.e., flextime, transportation allowances) to employees who use non-motorized/ intermodal transportation for commuting and other work trips.
Policy 7.3.3 Require new commercial developments to provide secure pedestrian amenities, such as shelters, benches, water fountains and lighting.
Policy 7.3.4 Support the development and implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures, including van/car pooling, bicycling, walking, and transit, as well as plans which encourage compact land use and focused development.
Measure Number of businesses enrolled in Green Commuter program and offering incentives for intermodal transportation or participating in TDM efforts.
Measure Number of pedestrian support facilities added at key destinations.
Objective 7.4 Provide information that encourages people to walk for transportation and recreational purposes.
Policy 7.4.1 Develop and implement a public information program to encourage walking for transportation and recreation.
Policy 7.4.2 Develop, distribute and regularly update a county-wide pedestrian map, which indicates the location of sidewalks and trails that can be used to plan pedestrian travel routes.
Policy 7.4.3 Establish programs aimed at pedestrians, as well as at transportation providers, to promote walking in conjunction with other modes of transportation, including bicycling, bus, train, and van/car pooling.
15 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Policy 7.4.4 Encourage local recreational groups to advertise and sponsor workshops to inform the general public of the benefits of walking.
Policy 7.4.5 Educate the public as to the benefits of walking, including those benefits related to improving air quality, reducing energy consumption, reducing congestion, saving money, and promoting health and physical fitness.
Policy 7.4.6 Host bi-monthly or quarterly public events that promote pedestrian activity and provide information on safety and pedestrian routes.
Measure Production of pedestrian map and information on travel choices.
Measure Number of new and ongoing pedestrian encouragement programs and publications.
Measure At least one public event held bi-monthly or quarterly.
Objective 7.5 Increase the effectiveness and extent of the current pedestrian programs.
Policy 7.5.1 Promote increased citizen/business participation in BPAC activities and committees.
Policy 7.5.2 Continue to fund a fulltime Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Coordinator who will provide staff assistance to the BPAC and coordinate the MPO’s pedestrian program. Create a position for a full- time pedestrian planner to provide staff support for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Coordinator.
Policy 7.5.3 Encourage the local jurisdictions to fund full-time pedestrian planners.
Policy 7.5.4 Encourage state and local jurisdictions, agencies, transportation management organizations (TMOs), etc. to devote staff and funding to pedestrian facilities and program promotion and implementation.
Policy 7.5.5 Seek new sources of funding through TEA-21 or other grant opportunities.
Measure Attendance at BPAC meetings.
Measure Annual funding committed to pedestrian programs.
16 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS
Two types of pedestrian projects have been defined to implement the Pedestrian Plan:
• Priority Corridors have high levels of pedestrian demand and a greater need for pedestrian treatments. These corridors are listed in Section 5.2 below, along with the recommended improvements that should be considered for each.
• Sidewalk gaps are defined as arterial and collector roads within the Urban Services Area of Hillsborough County that are missing sidewalks. These gaps have been quantified as a percentage of each roadway segment needing sidewalks.
Based on local and statewide estimates of pedestrian facilities, the cost of implementation for each Priority Corridor and sidewalk gap has been estimated, and the number of projects that may be implemented given projected funding level has been calculated. This chapter describes the methodology for cost estimation for each project type and provides detailed information about corridor and sidewalk gap locations. In addition, based on these estimated costs the total number of projects that is projected to be cost affordable is indicated.
COST AFFORDABILITY
As discussed in the Funding Sources section above, there is approximately $51.6 million available for pedestrian projects over the 20-year horizon of the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan. Of this amount, $26 million is earmarked for Priority Corridors, and $20 million will be used to fill gaps in the sidewalk network on roads throughout the Urban Services Area.
In order to determine how many of the pedestrian projects will be cost-affordable, costs were estimated for each Priority Corridor, based on completion of the sidewalk on both sides of the street and the addition of pedestrian treatments such as crosswalks, appropriately scaled lighting and trees.
Two assumptions were made in the estimation of costs. First, the cost of sidewalk construction is assumed to be $157,000 per mile, based on the Florida Department of Transportation’s statewide average costs for transportation improvements. This estimate was used for both Priority Corridors and sidewalk gaps. Second, the assumed cost per mile for pedestrian improvements to roadways is $1 million per mile, based on prior cost estimates performed by the MPO.
These assumed costs were applied using the following methodology:
For filling sidewalk gaps:
1. The percent of sidewalk that was missing from each side of each defined segment of the roadway was determined;
2. The side of the street (left or right) with the lower percentage of needed sidewalk was selected;
3. This percentage was multiplied by the length of the entire segment, resulting in the total length of sidewalk needed; and
17 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
4. The length needed was multiplied by $157,000, resulting in the estimated cost to complete 100 percent sidewalk coverage on one side of the road.
For Priority Corridors: 1. The process of cost estimation was the same as above, but the cost of filling in sidewalk gaps was based on the percent of sidewalk needed on both sides of each street segment;
2. The segment length was multiplied by $1 million to determine the cost of adding pedestrian improvements to the entire corridor;
3. The two totals were added together to determine the estimated cost to complete 100 percent sidewalk coverage on both sides of the road as well as pedestrian improvements for the entire length of the corridor project.
The results of these calculations are found in Appendix A.
PRIORITY CORRIDORS
The general definition of acorridor is the path between an origin and a destination. A corridor is often a roadway but not necessarily, and it also includes the sidewalks, intersections, parallel trails and roads, and perpendicular roads within 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile.
For the purposes of this plan, corridors have been more narrowly defined as specific segments of selected roadways. Upon implementation of the plan, all elements of the street realm – the street itself, the sidewalk, the intersections, the buildings, the landscaping, and the parallel and adjoining streets that carry pedestrian and automobile traffic to the main corridor – should all be considered as part of the corridor. These elements work together to create the character of a corridor. Coordinated planning between municipalities and developers is needed to ensure that a corridor is a cohesive whole with interconnected facilities that is easy and intuitive for pedestrians and cars to navigate.
In order to direct pedestrian improvements to the areas where they are most needed, a list of priority corridors for funding by the MPO has been identified. These corridors were selected on the basis of several criteria, including the pedestrian demand score, prevalence of sidewalks, reported automobile crashes involving pedestrians, and other considerations of the pedestrian environment.
The corridors that have been selected are listed in the following table. These corridors fall into three categories:
• Corridors with Committed Funding Identified are road segments that were selected as priority corridors, and have already been identified for funding. It is assumed that these roadway projects will include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These project costs are not included in the cost affordability calculation.
• Highest Priority Corridors are the needed corridor projects that have been moved to the top of the list due to considerations such as high pedestrian demand and anticipated future development. Based on projected revenues, all of the Highest Priority Corridors will be funded for implementation.
• Priority Corridors are the remainder of the corridors that are not cost affordable at this time, but are recommended for implementation if additional funding becomes available.
18 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
All corridors are mapped in Figure 1 below.
Priority Corridors with Committed Funding Identified
These road segments are priority locations for pedestrian improvements, where funding has been committed by various agencies to implement roadway projects that will include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Bayshore Boulevard from Platt Street to Gandy Boulevard 22nd Street from Bearss Avenue to 131st Avenue Bruce B. Downs Boulevard from Fletcher Avenue to Pasco County (future BRT corridor) Ashley Drive from I-275 to Tyler Street Tampa Street from Scott Street to Harrison Street Gandy Boulevard from the Gandy Bridge to the Crosstown Expressway
Cost-Affordable Priority Corridors
These road segments have been identified as priority locations for pedestrian improvements, and are cost-affordable under current revenue projections for the Long Range Transportation Plan. US Highway 301 from MLK Jr. Boulevard to Broadway Avenue Dale Mabry Highway from Fletcher Avenue to Waters Avenue Tampa Street and Florida Avenue from Lake Avenue to downtown Tampa Nebraska Avenue from Lake Avenue to downtown Tampa Fowler Avenue from Interstate 275 to 56th Street Dale Mabry Highway from Boy Scout Boulevard/Columbus Drive to Bay to Bay Drive Brandon Boulevard from Interstate 75 to Valrico Road Gandy Boulevard from the Crosstown Expressway to Bayshore Boulevard Hillsborough Avenue from Memorial Highway to George Road and from Westshore Boulevard to Dale Mabry Highway
Unfunded Priority Corridors
These roadway segments have been identified as priority pedestrian corridors, for which no funding exists at this time. It is expected that as funding comes available, these projects will be implemented. Riverwalk in downtown Tampa Bayshore Boulevard from Gandy Boulevard to MacDill Avenue Rome Avenue from Columbus Drive to Cypress Street Jackson Street from Nebraska Avenue to Meridian Street Nebraska Avenue from Washington Street to Jackson Avenue
19 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Unfunded Priority Corridors
These roadway segments have been identified as priority pedestrian corridors, for which no funding exists at this time. It is expected that as funding comes available, these projects will be implemented. Washington Street from Brush Street to Nebraska Avenue Westshore Boulevard from Gandy Boulevard to Interbay Boulevard Commerce Street from Picnic Island to Interbay Boulevard Downtown Tampa grid: the Riverwalk, Tyler, Cass, Polk, Zack, Twiggs, Madison, Kennedy, Jackson, Washington, Whiting; Tampa Street, Franklin Street, Florida Avenue, Marion, Morgan, Pierce, Jefferson Cleveland Street from Willow Avenue to N. Boulevard Missing sidewalks in area of Jefferson Street, Morgan Street, Ice Palace Drive, Channelside Drive, Gunn Street, Cumberland Street, Caesar Street, and the Riverwalk connection from Fort Brook/Cotanchobee Park to Channelside/Port Authority/ Cruise Terminal Habana Avenue and Armenia Avenue from MLK Jr. Boulevard to Main Street Palm Avenue, 7th Avenue, and 4th Avenue from Interstate 275 to 22nd Street Fletcher Avenue from Interstate 275 to 56th Street Lois Avenue and Church Avenue from Kennedy Boulevard to Henderson Boulevard (including cross-streets such as Neptune Street and Morrison Avenue) Hyde Park Avenue and Plant Avenue from Kennedy Boulevard to Bayshore Boulevard Providence Road from Lumsden Road to Riverview Drive Rome Avenue from Kirby Street to Martin Luther King, Jr Boulevard 56th Street from Fletcher Avenue to Busch Boulevard Baker Street and Reynolds Street in downtown Plant City Hanley Road from Waters Avenue to Hillsborough Avenue (Town & County Community Plan) Gunn Highway at North Mobley Road (Keystone-Odessa Community Plan) Lutz Lake Fern Road at US Highway 41 (Lutz Community Plan) SR 674 from Interstate 75 to Westlake Drive; US 41 from 19th Avenue NE and SR 674; US 41 from Elsberry Road to Leisey Road (SouthShore Area Wide Systems Plan) Harney Road McKinley Drive/40th Street Riverview Drive and Symmes Road from US 41 to US 301
SIDEWALK GAPS
In addition to the priority corridors listed above, there are a number of roadways throughout Hillsborough County that lack any sidewalk coverage, creating a dangerous roadside environment for pedestrians. Based on revenue projections, adding sidewalks on one side of roadways that currently have zero percent sidewalk coverage on either side will be cost affordable. The full list of these roadways, with estimated costs, may be found in Appendix A.
20 Figure 1 Priority Pedestrian Corridors
Priority Corridors Corridors with Committed Funding Identified Cost Affordable Priority Corridors Unfunded Priority Corridors Sidewalk Gaps Defined in the Pedestrian Plan Major Roads with some Sidewalk Coverage 275 Schools and Universities
Areas where Pedestrian Demand Score is 6 or greater t
e
e
e
u
u
e
r
n
n
t
e
e
S
Hillsborough MPO Urban Services Boundary v
v
t
t
a
A
A
e
e
p
a
a
e
e
r
r m
d k
t
i t
s a
r
S
S
a
T o
l
r
d
h
F b
t
n
e
4
2
3
N
2
Detail Area 4
e
u Palm Avenue
n
e
v 1 d 1
S 4 A
275 v 0
l 3 R S B s e 3 U n S 7th Street U 9
w m o
o
t D . 75
S
R B
d e c n ru 2 B
2 4th Street Fletcher Ave
y
r t b Fowler Ave
a
S
t
M h
t
S
e 6
l
h 5
t
a
d
0
D
4 R Baker St
d 4
e y R
v e y Reynolds St
l
A e 1
n n S 4
a r
e U Hillsborough a
H
m H
o
1
R
0
3
SR 60
S y r
U b a
t
e v S M
275 A SR 60
h
e Brandon Blvd t
l
s i 8
a o 7
D
d
L
R
e Downtown Tampa
c n
e e
r d
o
US 92 i
h v
s o
t r
s P e Riverview Dr.
W
Symmes Rd
Kennedy Boulevard e u n e v e A u
n k r e a 1 v 4 P
A
S 75 U t e
y n a d a y w l vd s H P l s B SR 674 re re p ho x ys E a Miles n B Davis Islands w to 0 0.1250.25 0.5 0.75 1 s s ro 21 C HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
ACTION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
This Action Plan sets forth the details for implementing the 2004 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan. The Corridor Pedestrian Improvement Program incorporates an extensive public involvement process to select corridors to be implemented and determine ideal treatments.
The Action Plan also recommends an array of pedestrian-supportive policies, many of which have been successfully implemented in other Florida communities. These policies seek to balance the goals of the transportation system so that it accommodates mobility options for all modes of travel, not just cars.
Safety and education programs are another key feature of the Action Plan. Programs are aimed at motorists as well as pedestrians to ensure that all users are well-versed in the rights and responsibilities of using the street. These programs reflect the ongoing theme of balance between modes as a key feature of a truly successful transportation system.
Finally, benchmarks are a way of measuring the progress of the Pedestrian Plan over time. Unlike the Evaluation Measures which monitor accomplishments annually, benchmarks establish goals to build toward.
CORRIDOR PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CPIP)
One of the challenges for the Hillsborough County MPO and its partners is overcoming perceptions (and in some cases the reality) that pedestrian travel is unsafe or overly difficult in areas where increased walking and bicycling is possible or desired. There is often a lack of visibility and awareness about pedestrian improvement needs and strategies, and the role they play in community revitalization, accessibility and mobility. As interest in livable roadway design continues to spread through the community, there is an opportunity to transform some of the most challenging and priority corridors into places that are inviting, comfortable and safe for pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
A 10-year Corridor Pedestrian Improvement Program (CPIP) is needed to channel the expertise, energy and interest in the community to focus resources and attention to help transform “mean street” corridors one at a time through a highly visible, action-oriented process. The CPIP is designed to increase the potential for funding by selecting one corridor per year for a livability charrette with participation by key agency stakeholders, residents and businesses, law enforcement and non-profit groups.
The livability charrette is intended to create a vision for the corridor, and address physical retrofits and enhancements for improved pedestrian safety and mobility. The MPO will schedule and organize the livability charrette, with facilitation and participation primarily from state and local agency staff. The MPO may choose to hire a consultant, who would introduce a fresh perspective and objective viewpoint to the charrette process. There are a number of nationally recognized pedestrian planning experts with experience in collaborating with local streets and drainage, law enforcement, planning, public works, etc. (similar to the Community Traffic Safety Team concept) to create a stronger commitment or stake in the ultimate recommendations. Community resources like the Center for Urban Transportation Research, Florida Department of Transportation Safety Office and the MPO can provide resources and expertise in a cost-efficient manner. Business or non-profit sponsorships, contributions or volunteer labor could also help offset or lower costs.
22 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
The CPIP corridors will be selected through a prioritization methodology process guided by the Livable Roadways Committee and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. In the case of Priority Corridors that include trail crossings, the Hillsborough Greenways Committee or the Tampa Greenways and Trails Committee should also be involved in the selection process. The candidate CPIP corridors will come from the list of priority corridors identified in this pedestrian plan. The committees will recommend one corridor per yearovera 10 year period to the MPO for a livability charrette. Prioritization factors considered by the committees will include the following:
• Pedestrian and bicycle crashes (fatal and non-fatal);
• Proximity to schools, adult congregate living facilities, medical facilities, job training, transit routes and other land uses or services related to “special needs” population groups;
• Proximity to intensive commercial (retail or mixed-use office) sites or districts;
• Proximity to existing or proposed greenway trails;
• Proximity to existing and proposed parks and recreational facilities;
• Redevelopment target areas where no specific plan for pedestrian improvements exists;
• Public input from neighborhood groups or businesses;
• Presence of gaps or deficiencies;
• Whether there is a clear understanding of needs; and
• Prior funding commitments.
In developing the list of corridors, it may be that the number one priority corridor has a well-defined set of facility needs just waiting for funding. That particular corridor would not necessarily be a good candidate for the CPIP. Rather, the corridors ultimately selected should have a general need for improvement, but may lack a clear vision for the type of projects or treatments desired. Attention should be given to making the best fit of strategies for the surrounding land use, accessibility and personal mobility objectives.
Once a corridor is selected, work begins on planning the charrette. The livability charrette may take place over a multi-day period (either consecutively or separated by one or two weeks), and will include an intensive schedule involving definition of problems/needs, analysis and development of recommendations/priority projects. Charrette activities will include:
1. Charrette scheduling, publicity and organization. Develop flyers and media announcements to publicize the event, and identify participants. The consultant will prepare a charrette agenda.
2. Day 1: Walkability audit and community workshop.
3. Day 2: Drafting, mapping and documentation of priority issues.
4. Analysis of potential projects and development of recommendations, including design illustrations for modifications.
5. Day 3: Open house and presentation of findings and recommendations to the community.
6. Refinement of the plan for the corridor based on public comments and agency input.
7. Develop potential funding sources and outline implementation schedule for selected projects.
23 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Following the charrette, public presentations and promotional materials should be developed. At this point, funding requests and grant proposals should be developed. Highly visible charrettes with community and elected official support tend to attract new funding, often from sources outside the community. TheMPO and appropriate local government agencies would spearhead fundraising efforts to get commitments for the recommended improvement strategy. News media participation is critical; the MPO and partners should build off the efforts being undertaken by NewsChannel 8 to address pedestrian safety in Hillsborough County and greater Tampa Bay. At this time, cost estimates should also be developed for the construction and annual maintenance of the project, and development of an action plan should be initiated among the responsible agencies.
Therefore, it is imperative that the first “pilot” CPIP charrette achieve quick success. The best thing for continued success of the program is to define a set of projects and get the funding for construction quickly into a work program or capital budget. This will help ensure enthusiastic support from the community and stakeholder agencies.
The cycle of CPIP prioritization and candidate charrette selection will take place annually on a consistent schedule. If it can maintain success, at the end of 10 years, the community will have transformed 10 highly visible problem corridors into a more attractive, convenient and safe environment.
POLICIES FOR PEDESTRIANS
Existing Policy
The Comprehensive Plans for Hillsborough County and the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City all include provisions for pedestrian facilities and policies, including sidewalks, safety programs, pedestrian access to transit stops, amenities such as shade and landscaping, intermodal coordination, development standards, and the like. These policies are reviewed in greater detail in Technical Memorandum 1, Data Collection and Analysis.
The following policy recommendations further the goals of pedestrian planning by promoting a shift in the transportation system to create a greater role for pedestrians and, in many cases, bicycles and transit as well. The goal is not to make driving inconvenient, but rather to balance convenience and accessibility for all modes of travel.
Multi-modal Transportation District
Special transportation districts were created by the Florida Legislature to offset the tendency for concurrency requirements to create urban sprawl and discourage use of non-auto modes. This is accomplished by allowing development activity to occur in certain locations where it may not be feasible or desirable to build additional automobile capacity. Multi-modal Transportation Districts (MTDs) provide the policy framework that allows compact, mixed use pedestrian-scaled or transit-oriented development to occur where automobile capacity may be limited. A MTD will not solve an automobile concurrency problem, but it will provide a community with the tools to create or recreate a pedestrian/transit-friendly urban environment where residents and employees realistically have alternatives to automotive transportation. The focus of MTDs is on urban form rather than replacing existing auto traffic. Transportation professionals generally agree that any excess auto capacity created by diverting person trips to non-auto modes will soon be replaced by latent traffic demand.
24 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Rather than continuing the city and county’s current focus on either roadway level of service (LOS) as a concurrency tool or concurrency exceptions for targeted redevelopment and infill areas, the Multi-modal Transportation District changes the definition for transportation concurrency, and requires establishment of multi-modal level of service standards and identification of specific projects to achieve the desired LOS. In lieu of making road capacity modifications to achieve acceptable level of service, the multi-modal transportation district gives primary emphasis to making multi-modal system enhancements, improving pedestrian- supportive design and enhancing street connectivity (versus merely widening to achieve a roadway service volume target).
Through coordination with local and regional planning and growth management departments and with guidance from FDOT, Hillsborough County and/or the municipalities should establish one or more multi-modal transportation districts to give priority to increased use of non-auto transportation modes. It is suggested that the community start with one pilot program in an area that meets the minimum FDOT criteria (e.g., about two miles in area, with a sufficient mix of land use uses and network of roadways) as a test case. The district should include one or more roadways with roadway LOS E or F and no committed road widening projects. Having transit service and a poor bicycle or pedestrian LOS is not necessary, but it would make the district potentially more effective. Ideally, this should be a targeted redevelopment area or a place with new development potential. On that basis, a candidate location for application of the first Multi-modal Transportation District could be the 56th Street corridor from Fletcher Avenue to Busch Boulevard. This proposed district is anchored by the proposed mixed-use development in Temple Terrace to the south, extends through the busy intersection at 56th Street and Fowler Avenue, and includes the student housing areas east of the University.
The Comprehensive Plan will have to be amended to designate the district. Following amendment of the plan, analysis and procedural steps include identifying existing multi-modal LOS, establishing multi-modal LOS standards, developing a list of projects needed to achieve the desired bicycle, pedestrian and transit LOS, preparing urban design standards to support the district’s LOS objectives, and identification of a minimum funding commitment (in addition to developer mitigation requirements), such as through a Community Redevelopment Area.
Pedestrian-Supportive Development Review
Each municipality should establish consistent development review policies that require new development proposals to conduct a pedestrian and bicycle accessibility audit of the site as part of the site plan submittal and review process. Essentially, the Land Development Codes would require an applicant to identify pedestrian desire lines (e.g., to transit stops, commercial uses, schools, parks, trail linkages, etc.) within a quarter- to a half- mile of the project site, and identify the supporting facilities and any potential barriers or deficiencies that may reduce optimal access. Mitigation of the barriers or gaps may be completed as a developer commitment, or in lieu of transportation impact fees. Importantly, this policy would assist local governments in more consistently scrutinizing the linkages between developments, and identifying potential site plan modifications that would reduce the walking distance between buildings and eliminate automobile-pedestrian conflict points.
Application of this policy may be tied to specific zoning districts (e.g., mixed-use zones) or geographic areas (e.g., overlay districts or redevelopment areas), but it would have more impact as a uniform policy for all new development or redevelopment projects larger than a single-family home. It is important that the policy be consistent between each city and Hillsborough County to avoid conflicts. Specific implementation incentives to encourage developer mitigation of deficiencies could relate to density bonuses, relief from transportation concurrency, or other mechanisms that support city and county growth management objectives.
25 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
‘Livable’ Lane Widths
Due to right-of-way constraints, every possible alternative should be identified to modify roadway lane widths for greater accommodation of bicycle and sidewalk facilities. Narrow lanes are possible under Florida’s Livable Community Policy guidelines and there are speed reduction advantages to using narrower lanes on many facility types. The priority corridors should all be considered for livable lane widths, and the policy should be considered for all future road projects. The policy may not result in immediate changes, but would govern the restriping or reconstruction of a roadway when it is resurfaced or when drainage projects are undertaken.
Candidates include sections of downtown Tampa’s one-way streets, which would potentially enable restriping to accommodate a bicycle lane or wide curb lane even if their one-way designation remains. Ashley Drive, in particular, has very wide lanes and cars tend to travel at high speeds. Outside of downtown, priority corridors such as Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa Street, Dale Mabry Highway and Fowler Avenue are excellent candidates for narrowed lane widths.
Consistent with the livable lane widths concept is to approach these corridors where vehicle traffic flow is more important than speed. Traffic control measures, such as signals, roundabouts and intersection design elements (e.g., curb extensions and refuge medians at crosswalks), should be employed to promote slower, but steady traffic flow versus traffic speed.
Transit Promotion
From the premise that all transit riders are pedestrians for at least part of their trip, a strong local public transit system is an important ingredient for increased walking, and vice versa. In fact, these modes complement each other in many ways. Where walking is a supported and feasible mode of transportation, transit generally has much greater patronage and public acceptance. There are several options the cities, Hillsborough County and the University communities should consider to promote complementary transit and non-motorized policies:
• City and County growth management staff should consider development incentives such as flexible design options and density bonuses for new multi-family residential developments located within 1⁄2 mile of a bus route and with heavy student populations, when these developments are designed to accommodate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation.
• The University of South Florida, Hillsborough Community College, and the University of Tampa should consider providing monthly transit passes to faculty, staff and students, and limit the amount of parking available. A combination of these two conditions would support the reduction of congestion on the concurrency facilities, encourage urban infill, and encourage more pedestrian-oriented development in and around the campus areas, which would even further perpetuate the trend.
• Designate Transit Emphasis Corridors in the community where transit service is, or planned to be, frequent and operating within a longer span of service. In those corridors, the City and County would adopt transit- supportive design guidelines and require an increased level transit infrastructure. This policy would encourage creation of an “adopt-a-bus stop” program to provide safe, accessible, high-quality bus stops throughout the transit system. Each stop needs a place to sit, shade/shelter, information and an accessible route – a challenge within existing budgets, but a necessary improvement to get people on the bus (and walking).
26 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
SAFETY AND EDUCATION
The most effective approach to safety and education is a coordinated effort among local, county and state agencies, colleges and universities, business and community service organizations, and private organizations such as the YMCA, track clubs and neighborhood associations to provide services, literature and training. Education on roadway and pedestrian safety is needed throughout all stages of the life cycle – from early childhood education, through high school drivers’ education, commuter services for working-age adults, and senior services for the elderly. A special effort is also needed for those with special needs, such as people with disabilities and the transportation disadvantaged, who frequently need to take advantage of special services or rely on modes other than automobiles to get around.
The following measures are recommended for safety and education of pedestrians and motorists:
• Traffic safety education should begin in elementary schools with experiential activities such as interaction with police officers. Safety-themed coloring books and poster contests are also effective ways toteach children about the rules of the road. Driver education courses for high school students should include a section on watching for and accommodating pedestrians. For all children, pedestrian safety should be incorporated in the curricula for physical education and life skills courses. This should be developed by the school board, ideally by a designated bicycle-pedestrian safety and education coordinator, in conjunction with the MPO.
• Local law enforcement agencies have programs in place for education and outreach to school children that include information about crime and drug prevention. The Sheriff’s Community Resource Officer should work with the School Coordinator to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian safety resources from organizations such as the Florida Department of Transportation’s Safety Office.
• Around universities and colleges, a “Corridors to Campus” initiative designed to identify, evaluate and prioritize the most cost effective strategies to support walking and cycling to and from each of the universities. The University of Florida, in cooperation with the City of Gainesville, conducted such an effort in 1998 as part of an overall mobility management effort. The study entailed intercept surveys and ranking of routes from surrounding neighborhoods and apartment complexes that would benefit from specific bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The results were programmed into the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program as well as University capital investment and program budgets.
• Employers are a key resource to distribute bicycle and pedestrian safety information and encouragement to working age adults. Information can be distributed by the Chamber of Commerce to and through major employers, such as the universities and the various agencies of the State of Florida. This can be distributed via paper materials, company email and websites. The MPO, with support of the local business community, should develop suitable bicycle and pedestrian encouragement materials for distribution.
• A variety of resources and organizations for seniors are already available in Hillsborough County, and can serve as conduits for sharing information and safety training for the elderly. Local events such as the upcoming Tampa Bay Senior Games are an excellent opportunity for reaching out to active older adults.
• A joint project between the MPO, the Hillsborough County Greenways Committee/ program, the City of Tampa Greenways and Trails Citizens Advisory Committee/program, and local track and cycling clubs could produce a walking and cycling guide to Hillsborough County, complete with maps of trails and parks, suggestions of convenient connections to transit service, and safety tips.
27 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
• The MPO, City and County should work together to make the Tampa Bay region a model for bicycling and walking. In order to achieve a higher level of mode share for non-motorized forms of transportation, the community needs to begin working toward the following achievements:
• Joint MPO, City and County Resolution: Establish a commitment to become a national model for biking and walking initiatives and express support for coordination of efforts through the Network, with citizen oversight by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the Hillsborough County Greenways Committee, the City of Tampa Greenways and Trails Committee, and other committees and organizations that promote safe walking and cycling.
• Community Recognition and Awards: The MPO can take the lead in applying for national demonstration programs and recognitions such as a Bicycle Friendly Community designation and an award-winning program through the President’s Council on Physical Fitness.
• Civic Art and Design: The MPO, cities and County should work together to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian themes into public art projects and events such as the Hyde Park Arts Festival. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee could establish a design award program to recognize attractive pedestrian-oriented places. These awards will be included in the “report card” to the MPO and community and highlighted with signs and in local media.
• Clean City Program: Local departments of public works and parks and recreation and FDOT divisions should organize adopt-a-sidewalk, adopt-a-bus-stop, and adopt-a-trail programs to keep key routes clean and report on maintenance issues.
• Economic Development Initiatives: Research in recent years indicates that communities with excellent biking and walking facilities are more appealing to companies that hire young professionals with active lifestyles. In addition, tourism packages for cyclists and hikers are well suited to Tampa Bay’s pleasant climate and variety of natural attractions. City and County economic development offi ces should partner with local Chambers of Commerce to identify and capitalize upon these opportunities.
BENCHMARKS
Benchmarks are measures of progress toward meeting a stated objective. They are an important element of the implementation program for the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan because they help monitor progress toward creating more walkable corridors within Hillsborough County.
To be most useful, the benchmarks for performance monitoring should be integrated into the MPO’s ongoing Congestion Management System (CMS) process, which meets federal and state requirements to assess transportation system performance, identify strategies for improvement and monitor the effectiveness of selected strategies once they are implemented. The CMS is linked to the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan, and thus, provides an important link between long range plans and near-term improvement strategies.
In this context, benchmarks are derived from the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan’s goals, objectives and policies to identify performance targets that measure implementation progress over time. The benchmarks suggested here are intended to be measurable with available tools and existing resources. In other words, they do not require an extensive new data collection program, and should fi t within the MPO’s on-going work program activities. Benchmarks are different from evaluation measures, in that they provide a target for achieving a stated objective; whereas an evaluation measure essentially represents whether an objective
28 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan has been accomplished. In that sense, benchmarks provide a sense of purpose or mission that helps rally stakeholders around shared achievements.
Suggested benchmarks have been grouped into several key categories based on the goals, objectives and policies, as follows:
ACCESS TO SCHOOLS
By 2025 all Hillsborough County public schools will have sidewalks on both sides of arterial and collector streets within 1⁄4 mile of school property.
ACCESS TO TRANSIT By 2025 all HARTline bus stops will have accessible loading pads.
All new development or redevelopment occurring within Hillsborough County within 1⁄4 mile of a transit route will include a sidewalk, pavement markings or accessible pedestrian pathway clearly and visibly connecting the public street and/or existing sidewalk to the building entrance.
More than 50 percent of Hartline’s route network will operate on streets with sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.
GAPS IN THE PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM Construct sidewalks to eliminate 50 percent of existing gaps on the arterial roadway network by 2025.
CROSSINGS Complete enhanced intersection pedestrian treatments or mid-block crossings at 100 locations on the arterial and collector road network by 2025.
Reduce pedestrian crashes and fatalities in Hillsborough County by 25 percent from current per capita rates.
ELDERLY AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Install elder-friendly (such as countdown signals) or accessible pedestrian signals at 100 intersections by 2025.
Construct wide (6’ or greater) sidewalks along roads located within 1⁄4 mile of adult congregate living facilities, senior centers or other areas with concentrations of elderly residents.
29 Setting the Context For Walkability
Introduction
Simply put, walkability is the quality of interaction. These places are pedestrian- an environment for people on foot. This oriented by design and may be found in a environment includes the physical design of variety of contexts, from neighborhoods to the street and street network, buildings and urban centers. The way streets and buildings the way they address the street, and the roles are designed and placed relative to one another and opportunities for bicycles, pedestrian, helps to create focal points and boundaries in and cars within the network. Walkable streets a physical environment conducive to the kind provide better support for and access to transit, of interaction and community that characterize increased safety for homes, businesses, and traditional neighborhoods, districts, and towns. individuals, and a viable transportation mode Placemaking assumes that details such as for those who choose not to drive or who can sidewalks, tree-lined streets, storefronts, and not drive due to age, disability, or economic front porches are elements that welcome disadvantage. pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists equally. Better balance between automobiles, bicycles The dominant paradigm of transportation and pedestrians on existing streets can be design since the mid-20th century has focused encouraged using traffic calming, which refers on the automobile, while facilities for cyclists to a variety of strategies designed to slow traffic and pedestrians have often been afterthoughts and improve bicycle and pedestrian visibility or omitted altogether. On the other hand, and status in the street realm. Traffic calming traditional civic design as it was practiced for measures include choker islands, narrower centuries was compact, walkable and scaled lanes, extended medians at intersections, and for pedestrian access and enjoyment. The other physical and visual cues. street was designed as a place to walk and socialize, rather than as a conduit to move cars. Hillsborough County possesses a rich By sensitively incorporating the principles of foundation for creating an interconnected web traditional design into new development and of places. Placemaking can occur incrementally redevelopment, Hillsborough County can create by establishing community focal points: existing more pedestrian-friendly streets, commercial destinations such as parks, schools, transit districts, and neighborhoods. hubs, and commercial areas retrofitted into walkable, connected places. The streets that The process of creating a walkable, human- serve these community focal points should scaled environment is called placemaking. provide a walkable environment with bicycle Ray Oldenburg, in his book The Great Good and pedestrian facilities designed to ensure Place, refers to three types of place: home, safe, convenient access. work, and the “third place,” a public place that is comfortable and convenient for social
30 Street Connectivity & Block Structure
Purpose
Well-organized and appropriately scaled places and a range of transportation options (which encourage people to enjoy the surroundings, allows for the possibility of diminished vehicle thereby increasing street life and encouraging trips), encourage cycling and pedestrian walking. Compact, pedestrian-friendly places activity (which have proven health benefits), achieve the following objectives: orient people and provide a variety of employment options, and give them a sense of welcome in the dwelling types and lifestyle options street environment, provide convenience Discouraged Typical suburban development patterns Streets & Blocks may have density and diversity, but with few direct connections, pedestrian mobility is Well-connected areas promote pedestrian and Additionally, this framework promotes mixed- difficult. bicycle activity by making connections between use development patterns with smaller block destinations accessible and convenient. The sizes and a greater diversity of building types left illustration in Figure 1 illustrates the typical within close proximity. Small blocks are an suburban condition, where both density and important element within a walkable area. diversity exist but there are few direct, integrated Small blocks help to create a comfortable scale connections. In contrast, connectivity takes for pedestrians by creating an increased sense prominence in the right-hand illustration of of location and direction, breaking down the Figure 2. The interconnected street network space between intersections and destinations, Encouraged creates proximate, direct connections between and providing increased visibility for businesses Small block sizes create a fine-grained buildings and parking is tucked behind, and and offices. The maximum block length per network of streets and buildings. Building separated from, the street edge. Traffic is street edge should be 500’ although 300’-400’ scale and proximity allow for a mixture of uses within each block. spread over several streets to minimize the blocks are recommended. conflict between walking and autos. More New connections may be made within existing streets will disperse traffic and transform the areas to diversify vehicle trips and increase streetscape back into a place for pedestrians. accessibility to important destinations, such as a community school facilities.
Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-Use development provides a wide range Walkable mixed-use development also allows of services and opportunities within walking users to park once and walk between several distance. Few trips are made between similar uses in a single trip. Additionally, a diversity land uses – seldom does one travel from of uses balances activity between the daytime, their home to another home, for example. nighttime, and weekend hours, creating a Rather, trips are made between different yet busier, safer, and more exciting environment for complementary uses, like a trip from home to all citizens to enjoy. work or from work to lunch. A greater diversity of uses within an area creates more opportunities for short trips, which are more likely to be made Mixed-Use Buildings on foot or by bicycle. Mixed-use buildings may integrate ground- level retail space with office space and residential units on upper stories.
31 Building Placement & Orientation
Purpose
Development is becoming oriented towards be drawn to the street edge to create a the automobile at an increasing rate. By simply defined edge and provide “spatial enclosure,” reconfiguring a site, building placement can an important quality for a pedestrian-friendly reduce walking distances for customers and streetscape. Building entries should border make streets more useful for pedestrians, main streets and public thoroughfares to foster transit users, and bicyclists. Buildings should a vibrant, walkable environment.
Building Frontage & Entry
Buildings and frontages are the interface relationships between elements vary depending Discouraged between the public street and the building upon building types and uses, vehicle traffic, Parking lots and large setbacks limit the sense of enclosure and create an unfriendly interior. Treatment of building fronts should and pedestrian traffic. pedestrian environment reflect the use of the interior space. Retail Drawing buildings to the street edge provides frontage (storefront) is intended to draw access for pedestrians which is safe and the public into the interior, while residential unimpeded by vehicles. Building placement frontage (setback with raised porch) protects must respect important existing features of the privacy of the interior, yet allows the the site, such as natural elements or historical residents to observe and engage with neighbors structures. Building entries should border main and passers-by. The ground level should always streets and public thoroughfares to foster be given the most careful consideration. Ground vibrant, walkable streetscapes and allow for floor heights, facade articulation, setbacks, clear pedestrian access and circulation. and entry design have a critical impact on the overall street environment. The dimensions and Encouraged Drawing buildings to the street edge creates Building Scale & Massing a human-scaled pedestrian environment. Building massing describes the physical form uniform building mass should be avoided. of a building or group of buildings. In order to Variations in height and horizontal divisions may maintain a comfortable feeling of scale, building be used to create façade articulation. Visual massing must be carefully considered in building aspects of larger buildings must be detailed to design. Massing should be compatible with maintain a sense of human scale, particularly at surrounding buildings to create a streetscape the pedestrian level. Varying window treatments P.L. P.L. that maintains a consistent scale while allowing and façade materials helps break the mass of unique articulation between buildings. A single, a building.
1:6 Ratio P.L. P.L. Building Setbacks & Spatial Enclosure
Spatial enclosure refers to the relationship of spatial enclosure and result in an unfriendly of buildings to the street. Drawing buildings pedestrian environment. Ideally, maximum to the edge of the street creates a human- setbacks should be established so that the 1:2 Ratio scaled pedestrian environment with a clearly building height to street width ratio is no less defined edge. Using buildings to transform than 1:3, thereby creating a feeling of spatial Building Height to Street Width Ratio the street into a “public room” is essential in enclosure which dignifies the street as a public Maximum setbacks should be established to control the ratio of building height to creating an attractive, walkable streetscape. space, calms traffic, and fosters pedestrian street width. Certain elements such as parking lots and activity. large building setbacks discourage the sense
32 Pedestrian Facilities
Purpose
Sidewalks and walkways are an important clearly marked and ensure visibility between element in pedestrian-oriented design. pedestrians and motorists. On-street parking Sidewalks should make connections between and street trees help define a comfortable complementary uses, allowing citizens to park pedestrian realm buffered from vehicular once and walk between buildings and uses traffic. without a car. Pedestrian crossings should be
Sidewalks
Public sidewalks should be provided on both with disablities. All sidewalks should maintain a sides of all urban roadways. Sidewalks provide 3’ minimum separation between the road and a safe zone for pedestrian traffic and should the paved sidewalk. This zone provides a buffer be wide enough to comfortably serve the between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Discouraged volume and type of pedestrian traffic expected Lack of pedestrian facilities and buffering Street trees are recommended to provide shade from traffic. in a particular area. All sidewalks shall have a for pedestrians and are also an effective way to minimum width of five feet. ensure a comfortable pedestrian zone protected Sidewalks and pedestrian facilities should meet from moving traffic. The recommedned 3’ or exceed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seperation may be used as a planting strip for regulations to ensure the safety and access for street trees. It is recommended that street all citizens. Curb ramps should be provided trees have a 2.5” to 3” caliper and be planted at all crosswalks to provide sidewalk and every 35’ of street frontage. Street trees should crosswalk access to the elderly and persons not obstruct visibility at intersections.
Crosswalks
Safe, convenient, and highly visible crosswalks median refuge islands should be used to reduce make a sidewalk system safe and usable for crossing distances for pedestrians. Bulb-outs pedestrian activity. All crosswalks should be also allow for increased visibility between Encouraged clearly marked (specially paved, textured, pedestrians and motorists. Clearly defined sidewalk with street or painted) to indicate the appropriate route trees and on-street parking serving as a Mid-block crossings should be provided pedestrian buffer. across traffic for pedestrians, assist the visually where there are large uninterrupted distances impaired, serve as a reminder to motorists, between intersections. Angled mid-block and add aesthetic value to an area. Textured crosswalks may be used to further enhance crosswalks increase motorists awareness visibility between pedestrians and motorists. of pedestrians and highlight crossings in an Angled crosswalks are oriented to allow attractive manner. pedestrians to face oncoming traffic, instead Intersections and crossing areas with heavy of moving perpendicular to it. This orientation traffic or wide crossing distances require timed creates a strong awareness and visual pedestrian crossing signals to aid pedestrians connection between moving traffic and crossing and motorists. Curb extensions (bulb-outs) and pedestrians.
Multi-Use Paths & Greenways
A multi-use path is a paved facility separated neighborhoods or land uses. Florida DOT Pedestrian Crosswalk Treatment from vehicle lanes to serve for pedestrians, design guidelines recommend 12-foot widths Bulb-outs reduce corssing distance and special pavement markings help to alert cyclists, skaters, and wheelchairs. These paths for paved, multi-use paths. Narrower, unpaved motorists to pedestrian crossings. may run parallel to the roadway or function as recreational paths may also be included in the part of a greenway system linking adjacent greenway system where appropriate.
33 Lighting & Landscaping
Purpose
Lighting and Landscape help to maintain a building entrances. In addition to providing comfortable, pedestrian-friendly streetscape. shade, street trees help to define a comfortable Pedestrian lighting should guide pedestrians pedestrian realm buffered from vehicular safely to and along intended walkways and traffic. Specialty pavers may be used to highlight destination points including building highlight important public spaces and signal entrances, public spaces, and significant significant roadway elements including bus intersections. Street trees and landscaping stops and crosswalks. distinguish major pedestrian paths and
Pedestrian Lighting
Lighting should be carefully integrated with the including building entrances, public spaces, Discouraged built landscape. Lighting scale, intensity, and and significant intersections. Inappropriately scaled lighting. fixture design should strive to be pedestrian- A large number of low-intensity lights is scaled. Ornamental light posts and fixtures help preferred to fewer, higher-intensity lights to to create an attractive streetscape and should create an attractive pedestrian streetscape. be consistent with the architectural character of Pedestrian street lights should not exceed 12 the immediate area. feet in height and should emit no more than In addition to concerns of aesthetics and scale, 10,000 to 15,000 lumens, with light posts lighting is an important element of public safety. placed no further than 30 feet apart. To prevent All areas with pedestrian and bicycle traffic color distortion and maintain a natural quality, should be well-lit to ensure visibility and safety. lighting elements should provide full-spectrum Well-lit streets and alleys help to promote a light. Light shields should be provided keep secure environment and encourage night time light focused downward, preventing light from activity. Pedestrian lighting should be used leaking into adjacent land uses and polluting to guide pedestrians to and along intended the night time sky. walkways and highlight destination points Encouraged Ornamental lighting contributes to the Pedestrian Landscaping architectural character of the street.
By drawing natural elements into the built Unique landscape treatments are encouraged environment, landscaping helps to maintain for significant streets and entrance corridors. a pedestrian-friendly and visually appealing Hardscape and specialty pavers should be used streetscape. Landscaping includes trees, to highlight important public spaces and signal shrubs, and other plantings as well as hardscape significant roadway elements including bus elements such as brick and pavers. stops and crosswalks.
Landscape design should help to define major Landscape materials should enhance the pedestrian paths and building entrances. building’s texture, color, and pattern. Primary Landscape treatments, including planting strips consideration should be given to elevations and street trees, are recommended to create that border public streets. Buildings may also a comfortable separation between vehicular use landscape elements to create outdoor civic traffic and sidewalks to form a safe, intimate, spaces and seating. and attractive environment for pedestrians. Trees and plantings also have important Trees and vegetation may also be used to Pedestrian Landscaping environmental benefits, protecting air quality Clearly defined pedestrian path and visually screen parking lots and building and service and water run-off and providing shade for appealing streetscape. equipment. buildings, cars, and pedestrians.
34 Parking
Purpose
Parking design should strive to create an the pedestrian atmosphere of the street while environment conducive to pedestrians, leaving parking quantity generally unchanged. bicyclists, transit users, and motorists. Safe, clearly marked pedestrian paths should Parking lots should be placed to the side or rear be provided between parking areas and building of buildings rather than directly adjacent to the entrances. Surface parking alternatives include roadway. This configuration allows buildings to on-street parking and structured parking. be drawn to the street edge and contribute to
Parking Supply Discouraged Standard parking requirements can lead to development. Typical requirements should be 3 Surface parking in front of buildings. an oversupply of parking spaces and open to 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet. To reduce expanses of asphalt. Reducing minimum surface parking needs, on-street parking should off-street parking requirements and setting be counted towards the required number of average-usage standards instead of peak-usage spaces. standards make additional land available for
Surface Parking & Parking Lot Layout
Parking lots should be placed to the side or rear Parking lots should incorporate trees and of buildings rather than directly adjacent to the landscaping to break the unfriendly scale of roadway. This configuration allows the buildings large parking areas. Trees provide shade, to be drawn to the street edge and contribute to screening and noise reduction. Well-defined the pedestrian atmosphere of the street. This pedestrian pathways may also be used to break also provides convenient building entry access up parking rows and provide safe access to Encouraged On-street parking with surface parking to from the sidewalk and transit. This strategy buildings. Plantings within parking lots also help the rear of buildings. reduces walking distances and enlivens the to reduce storm water runoff and filter air. streetscape while leaving parking quantity unchanged.
On-Street Parking
On-street parking provides parking spaces in order to maximize space for sidewalks and within the paved right-of-way. The presence of bike lanes. To reduce surface parking needs, on-street parking helps to buffer the sidewalk on-street parking should be counted towards from vehicular traffic. Parallel parking is the required number of spaces. preferred over angled parking on urban streets
Planning for the Future Surface Parking - Infill Redevelopment Low density retail development is often orientation allows the site to be developed More pedestrian-friendly environment created with smaller block size and a characterized by wide, uninterrupted expanses gradually, lot by lot and block by block. Aisle defined street edge. of asphalt. Parking design and site layout often designs should be consistent with downtown limit the opportunity for future development right-of-way dimensions, creating a framework and increased density. Well-planned parking for future road development. Piece by piece, strategies, however, can prepare a site for paved open lots may be transformed into a future growth. Arranging surface parking higher-density mixed-use centers. in accordance with standard block size and
35 Transit Facilities
Purpose
Transit oriented site design creates enjoyable provide a safe environment integrated with the places that make walking an attractive mode streetscape and surrounding activities. Bus of transportation. Transit stops should be Bays allow busses to exit and re-enter travel accessible to pedestrians, located at the core lanes ensuring safe loading and unloading of of compact development and surrounded by a the riders. good mix of land uses. Transit shelters should
Bus Bays, Transit Stops, & Shelters
Transit must have an attractive and cohesive Transit stops must, by definition, be accessed by image to be considered as an attractive wheelchair or on foot. Therefore, the minimum Discouraged Lack of shade and buffer from roadway transportation alternative. Well designed standards for transit stops should be sidewalk traffic creates an unsafe waiting area for shelters should be integrated into the connectivity, posted route information and transit. streetscape and provide a safe and comfortable a bench for waiting passengers, and a 5’x8’ place for transit patrons. Stops and shelters concrete loading pad for boarding transit must be clearly marked and identifiable. Bus vehicles. Higher-volume stops should have bays may be implemented to allow passengers additional amenities such as shelters, trash to load and unload safely by creating a bus-only cans, newspaper boxes, bicycle racks, and zone undisturbed by roadway traffic. electronic kiosks to display bus arrival times and other information.
Compact Development
Transit-oriented design improves mobility access for pedestrians. A one quarter-mile and leverages public investment in transit radius area, or the distance that a pedestrian Encouraged systems by using pedestrian and transit-friendly can comfortably travel in five minutes, is Shelter and attractive landscaping create a development patterns. These development referred to as the pedestrian shed. Transit safe and pleasent transit stop. patterns encourage a compatible mix of ridership is directly influenced by the density residential, commercial, and other land uses, and diversity of uses within the pedestrian shed. facilitate employment oppurtunities convenient High density, mixed-use development maximizes to transit, and enhance connectivity to transit ridership potential by locating offices, retail and stations and surrounding uses. commercial uses, and residences within walking distance to transit. Transit stops should be centrally located within compact, walkable areas to ensure convenient
Transit-Oriented Development 1/4 mile radius or 5 minute walk.
36 Pedestrian Safety: CPTED Principles
Purpose
Crime Prevention Through Environmental that crime prevention is a community-wide Design (CPTED) provides the proper design responsibility, not only a police responsibility. and effective use of the built environment to There are four core CPTED strategies: Natural lead to a reduction of crime and fear, and Surveillance, Territorial Reinforcement, Natural an improvement to the quality of life in a Access Control, and Maintanence. community. CPTED is based on the concept
The Four Core Strategies of CPTED
1. Natural Surveillance 3. Natural Access Control Promotes visibility and is responsible for keeping Seeks to decrease crime risk by clearly indicating potential offenders observable. public realms, denying access to private entries, - Mixed-use development is encouraged to ensure and creating a perception of risk to a potential people are present at all times of day. offender. - Exterior doors should be visible from the street and - Streets are to be designed so that cut-through neighbors. traffic is discouraged. - Parking areas and pedestrian walkways should be - Entrances should be clearly defined by walkways, well lit and visible from all doors and windows. signage, lighting, landscaping, and architectural elements. - Landscaping should not create blind spots or hiding spots; Shrubbery should be no more than 3’ high - Pedestrian circulation routes should be clearly for clear visibility. defined with paving patterns, lighting, and - Avoid opaque fences and walls to promote safety landscaping; and should be well lit and visible from with minimum loss of privacy. all doors and windows.
2. Territorial Reinforcement 4. Maintenance Extends a sphere of influence over a space through Proper upkeep and care and landscaping and its physical design, where residents take lighting treatment maintenance are an expression responsibility in exerting control over their private of ownership over a space and will promote the and semi-private environments. other principles of CPTED.
- Exterior private areas should be clearly - Proper maintenance of lighting fixtures and distinguishable from public areas. landscaping. - Low landscaping or changes in ground treatment - Minimize conflicts between surveillance and can be used to signal property boundaries. landscaping. - Design spaces that encourage interaction between neighbors; e.g. seating, playgrounds. - Property is to be in good repair and free from trash and litter. - Front porches or stoops create a semi-public transitional area. On-street entrances for multi- family residential uses create a sense of community ownership for the streetscape.
37 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
APPENDIX A -- ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
The tables on the following pages provide complete information on the estimated costs of pedestrian projects in Hillsborough County:
§ Table 1: Estimated Costs for Roadway Segments with Zero Sidewalks (Page 49)
§ Table 2: Estimated Costs for Committed Projects (Page 46)
§ Table 3: Estimated Costs for Cost Affordable Priority Corridors (Page 48)
§ Table 4: Estimated Costs for Unfunded Priority Corridors (Page 51)
38 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Table 1 Estimated Costs for Roadway Segments with Zero Sidewalks % Need STREET FROM TO ONE SIDE LEFT RIGHT 131ST AVE NEBRASKA AVE 15TH ST 80,063.52 100% 100% 19TH AVE NE US HWY 41 US HWY 301 955,604.25 100% 100% 19TH AVE 40TH ST COLUMBUS DR 43,524.18 100% 100% 30TH ST M L KING BLVD OSBORNE AVE 79,316.25 100% 100% 46TH ST BOUGAINVILLEA A FOWLER AVE 117,138.59 100% 100% 50TH/56TH ST HARNEY RD NET PARK 57,701.16 100% 100% 50TH/56TH ST M L KING BLVD LAKE AVE 18,126.42 100% 100% 56TH ST FOWLER AVE FLETCHER AVE 160,398.94 100% 100% ANDERSON RD ANDERSON RAMP LINEBAUGH AVE 52,857.06 100% 100% ANDERSON RD CITY LIMITS HOOVER BLVD 150,120.10 100% 100% ANDERSON RD HILLSBOROUGH AVE CITY LIMITS 14,561.90 100% 100% ARMENIA AVE CITY LIMITS PINE LAKE DR 23,294.93 100% 100% AZEELE ST CHURCH DALE MABRY HWY 20,911.75 100% 100% BALM RD US HWY 301 BALM RIVERVIEW 161,541.10 100% 100% BENJAMIN RD BARRY RD WATERS AVE 98,151.64 100% 100% BENJAMIN RD HILLSBOROUGH AV JOHN’S RD 115,442.49 100% 100% BENJAMIN RD JOHN’S RD SLIGH AVE 39,133.86 100% 100% BIG BEND RD I-75 US HWY 301 207,415.97 100% 100% BLOOMINGDALE AVE LITHIA PINECRES LITTLE RD 230,281.36 100% 100% BOUGAINVILLEA AVE 30TH ST MCKINLEY DR 95,583.83 100% 100% BOUGAINVILLEA AVE N BOULEVARD FLORIDA AVE 79,359.99 100% 100% BOY SCOUT BLVD LOIS AVE COLUMBUS RD 65,914.37 100% 100% SR 60 / MEMORIAL BOY SCOUT BLVD WESTSHORE BLVD 86,122.29 100% 100% FRONTAGE RD N BOY SCOUT BLVD TRASK ST LOIS AVE 80,396.43 100% 100% BOY SCOUT BLVD WESTSHORE BLVD TRASK 20,496.86 100% 100% BOYETTE RD BELL SHOALS RD RHODINE RD 560,721.16 100% 100% BOYETTE RD MCMULLEN DR BELL SHOALS RD 317,551.08 100% 100% BOYETTE RD RHODINE RD BALM BOYETTE RD 13,908.33 100% 100% BROADWAY AVE CITY LIMITS US HWY 301 76,862.50 100% 100% BROADWAY AVE COLUMBUS DR ORIENT RD 87,969.12 100% 100% BROADWAY AVE FALKENBURG RD WILLIAMS RD 157,918.60 100% 100%
39 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
% Need STREET FROM TO ONE SIDE LEFT RIGHT BROADWAY AVE ORIENT RD CITY LIMITS 47,543.50 100% 100% BROADWAY AVE US HWY 301 FALKENBURG RD 248,615.83 100% 100% BROADWAY AVE WILLIAMS RD LAKEWOOD DR 86,731.20 100% 100% BRUSH ST WHITING ST WASHINGTON ST 8,669.17 100% 100% BUSCH BLVD DALE MABRY HWY HIMES AVE 40,777.84 100% 100% BUSCH BLVD FLORIDA AVE I-275 43,269.11 100% 100% BUSCH BLVD HIMES AVE TWIN LAKES BLVD 78,300.75 100% 100% BUSCH BLVD ORANGE GROVE DR ARMENIA AVE 46,565.69 100% 100% CAUSEWAY BLVD MARITIME BLVD 50TH ST CA Road 100% 100% CAUSEWAY BLVD MAYDELL DR 78TH ST 156,103.23 100% 100% COLUMBUS DR 19TH AVE I-4 60,255.56 100% 100% COLUMBUS DR 40TH ST 19TH AVE 36,383.77 100% 100% COLUMBUS DR I-4 50TH ST 22,712.22 100% 100% COMMERCE ST PICNIC ISLAND P INTERBAY BLVD 197,672.34 100% 100% COURTNEY CAMPBELL PINELLAS COUNTY ROCKY POINT DR 18,588.44 100% 100% CSWY COURTNEY CAMPBELL ROCKY POINT DR MEMORIAL HWY 166,944.40 100% 100% CSWY DALE MABRY FRT RD E CHEVAL GERACI CA Road 100% 100% DALE MABRY FRT RD E GERACI LUTZ LAKE FERN CA Road 100% 100% DALE MABRY HWY FLETCHER AVE EHRLICH RD 211,922.58 100% 100% DALE MABRY HWY HUDSON FLETCHER AVE 157,854.07 100% 100% DALE MABRY HWY LINEBAUGH AVE HUDSON 118,411.27 100% 100% DALE MABRY HWY M L KING BLVD HILLSBOROUGH AV 156,914.63 100% 100% DALE MABRY HWY N NORTH LAKEVIE VAN DYKE RD 165,252.28 100% 100% DALE MABRY HWY VETERAN’S EXPWY CHEVAL BLVD CA Road 100% 100% DALE MABRY HWY WATERS AVE BUSCH BLVD 119,808.84 100% 100% DAVIS BLVD S DAVIS BLVD W HUDSON AVE 122,076.87 100% 100% DOVER RD SR 60 SYDNEY RD 259,794.74 100% 100% FALKENBURG RD 78TH ST FUTURE SPLIT CA Road 100% 100% FALKENBURG RD M L KING BLVD BRYAN RD 43,107.68 100% 100% FLETCHER AVE 46TH ST 50TH ST 79,635.34 100% 100%
40 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
% Need STREET FROM TO ONE SIDE LEFT RIGHT FLETCHER AVE MORRIS BRIDGE R I-75 61,098.51 100% 100% FLETCHER AVE TELECOM PKWY MORRIS BRIDGE R 164,399.70 100% 100% FOWLER AVE I-75 US 301 209,141.13 100% 100% FOWLER AVE RIVERHILLS BLVD I-75 145,225.93 100% 100% FRONTAGE RD CYPRESS ST BOY SCOUT BLVD 117,565.73 100% 100% GANDY BRIDGE HILLSBOROUGH CO WESTSHORE BLVD 372,334.99 100% 100% GEORGE RD DANA SHORES DR INDEPENDENCE PK 28,772.00 100% 100% GEORGE RD INDEPENDENCE PK MEMORIAL HWY 58,148.46 100% 100% GUNN HWY EHRLICH RD CITRUS PARK DR CA Road 100% 100% GUNN HWY LINEBAUGH AVE DALE MABRY HWY 59,964.04 100% 100% GUNN HWY RACE TRACK RD S MOBLEY RD 157,500.44 100% 100% GUNN HWY S MOBLEY RD SHELDON RD 68,854.13 100% 100% HABANA AVE HILLSBOROUGH AV CITY LIMITS 39,108.19 100% 100% HANNA AVE 50TH ST 56TH ST 67,883.50 100% 100% HARNEY RD HILLSBOROUGH AV SLIGH AVE 176,548.20 100% 100% HARNEY RD SLIGH AVE 78TH ST 163,365.04 100% 100% HARNEY RD US HWY 301 WILLIAMS RD 161,004.78 100% 100% HARRISON ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 7,663.47 100% 100% HENDERSON BLVD BAY TO BAY BLVD MANHATTAN AVE 48,953.43 100% 100% HENDERSON BLVD CHURCH AVE DALE MABRY HWY 27,657.84 100% 100% HENDERSON BLVD LOIS AVE NEPTUNE ST 55,408.27 100% 100% HENDERSON BLVD NEPTUNE ST CHURCH AVE 29,246.54 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE 50TH ST 56TH ST 81,834.08 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE 56TH ST EAST LAKE SQ MA CA Road 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE BENJAMIN RD HOOVER RD 79,927.36 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE EAST LAKE SQ MA HARNEY RD CA Road 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE HARNEY RD SUNCOAST SCHOOL CA Road 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE HOOVER RD WESTSHORE BLVD 97,215.35 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE ORIENT RD US HWY 301 148,027.90 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE SHELDON RD MONTAGUE ST 394,249.81 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE SUNCOAST SCHOOL ORIENT RD CA Road 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE VETERANS EXPWY VETERANS FRONTAGE N 5,170.09 100% 100%
41 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
% Need STREET FROM TO ONE SIDE LEFT RIGHT HILLSBOROUGH AVE VETERANS FRONTAGE S VETERANS EXPWY 2,891.98 100% 100% HILLSBOROUGH AVE WESTSHORE BLVD LOIS AVE 98,107.22 100% 100% JEFFERSON ST ICE PALACE DR CHANNELSIDE DR 18,759.21 100% 100% LAKE AVE 40TH ST MARTIN LUTHER K 113,476.00 100% 100% LAKE MAGDALENE BLVD BEARSS AVE FLORIDA AVE 346,006.23 100% 100% LAKEWOOD DR BROADWAY AVE M L KING BLVD 49,960.17 100% 100% LAKEWOOD DR OAKFIELD DR SR 60 37,114.50 100% 100% LAKEWOOD DR WINDHORST RD BROADWAY AVE 185,668.20 100% 100% LIMONA RD LAKEWOOD DR VICTORIA ST 135,677.47 100% 100% LITHIA PINECREST RD ALAFIA RIVER FISH HAWK 180,530.73 100% 100% LITHIA PINECREST RD BROOKER RD VALRICO RD 64,213.21 100% 100% LITHIA PINECREST RD VALRICO RD BLOOMINGDALE AV 136,002.83 100% 100% LIVINGSTON AVE SINCLAIR HILLS DR VANDERVORT RD 168,463.50 100% 100% LOIS AVE CREST AVE HILLSBOROUGH AV CA Road 100% 100% LOIS AVE M L KING BLVD OSBORNE CA Road 100% 100% LOIS AVE SOUTH ST CREST AVE CA Road 100% 100% LOIS AVE TAMPA BAY BLVD M L KING BLVD CA Road 100% 100% LYNN TURNER EHRLICH RD HUTCHINSON RD 106,244.04 100% 100% M L KING BLVD 40TH ST LAKE AVE CA Road 100% 100% M L KING BLVD 50TH ST I-4 CA Road 100% 100% M L KING BLVD HIGHVIEW RD PINE ST 38,989.82 100% 100% M L KING BLVD KINGSWAY RD VALRICO RD 245,165.52 100% 100% M L KING BLVD LAKE AVE 50TH ST CA Road 100% 100% M L KING BLVD N/S CARGO RD LOIS AVE 48,209.44 100% 100% M L KING BLVD PARSONS AVE KINGSWAY RD 81,364.09 100% 100% M L KING BLVD PINE ST PARSONS AVE 79,562.69 100% 100% M L KING BLVD VALRICO RD MCINTOSH RD 316.59 100% 100% M L KING BLVD WESTSHORE BLVD N/S CARGO RD 50,350.17 100% 100% MAIN ST US HWY 301 HARNEY RD 12,961.18 100% 100% MORGAN ST ICE PALACE DR CHANNELSIDE DR 19,149.96 100% 100% MORRIS BRIDGE RD FOWLER AVE FLETCHER AVE 257,670.15 100% 100% MORRISON AVE DALE MABRY HWY STERLING AVE 20,164.60 100% 100%
42 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
% Need STREET FROM TO ONE SIDE LEFT RIGHT NEBRASKA AVE WASHINGTON ST JACKSON ST 8,933.63 100% 100% NEPTUNE ST DALE MABRY STERLING AVE 21,359.49 100% 100% NEPTUNE ST FRANKLAND ST HIMES AVE 9,039.39 100% 100% OLD MEMORIAL HWY COUNTRY WAY BLVD MONTAGUE BLVD 80,024.77 100% 100% OLD MEMORIAL HWY HILLSBOROUGH AVE WATERS AVE 169,138.12 100% 100% OLD MEMORIAL HWY WATERS AVE COUNTRY WAY BLVD 49,545.39 100% 100% ORIENT RD ADAMO DR BROADWAY AVE 163,638.33 100% 100% ORIENT RD HILLSBOROUGH AV SLIGH AVE 157,184.74 100% 100% ORIENT RD I-4 HILLSBOROUGH AV 66,419.24 100% 100% ORIENT RD M L KING BLVD I-4 90,621.80 100% 100% PROGRESS BLVD FALKENBURG RD I-75 95,151.66 100% 100% PROVIDENCE RD PROVIDENCE CONN BLOOMINGDALE AVE 23,473.08 100% 100% RACE TRACK RD COUNTRYWAY BLVD S MOBLEY 244,625.57 100% 100% RACE TRACK RD HILLSBOROUGH AVE LINEBAUGH AVE 243,268.44 100% 100% RACE TRACK RD LINEBAUGH AVE COUNTRYWAY BLVD 223,635.62 100% 100% RIVERHILLS DR 46TH ST 50TH ST 85,580.64 100% 100% RIVERHILLS DR 50TH ST 56TH ST 79,598.79 100% 100% ROME AVE SLIGH AVE WATERS AVE 157,318.58 100% 100% S MOBLEY RD N/S ROAD GUNN HWY 212,071.05 100% 100% S MOBLEY RD RACE TRACK RD N/S ROAD 74,303.31 100% 100% SLIGH AVE BENJAMIN RD HOOVER RD 94,431.07 100% 100% SLIGH AVE HESPERIDES ST MANHATTAN AVE 19,518.16 100% 100% SLIGH AVE ORIENT RD US HWY 301 176,828.80 100% 100% SR 60 / ADAMO DR 19TH ST 21ST ST 23,973.87 100% 100% SR 60 / ADAMO DR 78TH ST US HWY 301 150,358.36 100% 100% SR 60 / ADAMO DR BRANDON CROSSIN FALKENBURG RD CA Road 100% 100% SR 60 / ADAMO DR CHANNELSIDE DR 19TH ST 72,708.19 100% 100% SR 60 / ADAMO DR CITY LIMITS 78TH ST 7,576.11 100% 100% SR 60 / ADAMO DR MAYDELL DR ORIENT RD 98,722.52 100% 100% SR 60 / ADAMO DR ORIENT RD CITY LIMITS 50,193.76 100% 100% SR 60 / ADAMO DR US HWY 301 BRANDON CROSSIN CA Road 100% 100% SR 60 / ADAMO DR US HWY 41 MAYDELL DR 156,768.70 100% 100%
43 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
% Need STREET FROM TO ONE SIDE LEFT RIGHT SR 60 ST CLOUD AVE DOVER RD 159,293.21 100% 100% SYDNEY RD VALRICO RD DOVER RD 318,665.28 100% 100% SYMMES RD EXT US 301 BALM RIVERVIEW 236,196.93 100% 100% TOBACCO RD HUTCHINSON RD SOUTH OF VAN DY 3,495.72 100% 100% TYLER ST JEFFERSON ST CASS ST 3,503.92 100% 100% TYLER ST PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST 5,447.81 100% 100% US HWY 301 ADAMO DR WOODBERRY RD 27,925.10 100% 100% US HWY 301 BALM RD BIG BEND RD 237,206.54 100% 100% US HWY 301 BROADWAY AVE M L KING BLVD 149,759.86 100% 100% US HWY 301 CAUSEWAY BLVD LEE ROY SELMON 84,218.64 100% 100% US HWY 301 FOWLER AVE MAIN ST 15,705.08 100% 100% US HWY 301 GORNTO LAKE RD PROGRESS BLVD 99,527.44 100% 100% US HWY 301 I-4 SLIGH AVE 166,347.78 100% 100% US HWY 301 LEE ROY SELMON PALM RIVER RD 113,898.06 100% 100% US HWY 301 M L KING BLVD I-4 155,697.97 100% 100% US HWY 301 MAIN ST HARNEY RD 13,472.41 100% 100% US HWY 301 PALM RIVER RD ADAMO DR 94,992.05 100% 100% US HWY 301 WOODBERRY RD BROADWAY AVE 183,165.24 100% 100% US HWY 41 7TH ST SW 14TH AVE 82,710.19 100% 100% US HWY 41 LEE ROY SELMON ADAMO DR 28,732.87 100% 100% US HWY 41 PORT SUTTON RD CAUSEWAY BLVD 183,751.67 100% 100% US HWY 92 CR 579 PEACH ST 52,639.87 100% 100% US HWY 92 FALKENBURG RD WILLIAMS RD 160,922.80 100% 100% US HWY 92 KINGSWAY RD MCINTOSH RD 133,919.66 100% 100% US HWY 92 PARSONS AVE KINGSWAY RD 81,497.69 100% 100% US HWY 92 PEACH ST PINE ST 28,733.23 100% 100% US HWY 92 PINE ST PARSONS AVE 79,638.52 100% 100% US HWY 92 US HWY 301 FALKENBURG RD 216,818.75 100% 100% US HWY 92 WILLIAMS RD CR 579 160,885.93 100% 100% VALRICO RD BROOKER RD DURANT RD 77,470.17 100% 100% VALRICO RD WHEELER RD M L KING BLVD 148,218.53 100% 100% VAN DYKE RD DALE MABRY HWY SIMMONS RD 48,624.78 100% 100%
44 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
% Need STREET FROM TO ONE SIDE LEFT RIGHT WASHINGTON ST BRUSH ST NEBRASKA AVE 8,357.84 100% 100% WESTSHORE BLVD M L KING BLVD HILLSBOROUGH AV 156,625.07 100% 100% WESTSHORE BLVD TAMPA BAY BLVD M L KING BLVD 77,485.54 100% 100% WHITAKER RD US HWY 41 HANNA RD 54,468.14 100% 100% WHITING ST BRUSH ST MERIDIAN ST CA Road 100% 100% WHITING ST JEFFERSON ST NEBRASKA AVE CA Road 100% 100% WHITING ST PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST CA Road 100% 100% WILLIAMS RD SLIGH AVE JOE EBERT RD 131,902.15 100% 100% WILLIAMS RD US 92 SLIGH AVE 53,740.12 100% 100% WOODBERRY RD US301 FALKENBURG 243,920.91 100% 100% TOTAL 20,294,969.29
45 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Table 2 Estimated Costs for Committed Projects
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments 22ND ST FLETCHER AVE BEARSS AVE 0.77 $0 $0 $770,000 $770,000 30TH ST 138TH AVE BEARSS AVE 0.48 $75,911 $30,364 $480,000 $586,276 30TH ST FLETCHER AVE 138TH AVE 0.25 $0 $27,965 $250,000 $277,965 ASHLEY ST TYLER ST I-275 0.39 $60,480 $60,480 $390,000 $510,959 BAYSHORE BLVD VERNE ST PLATT ST 0.20 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 BAYSHORE BLVD HYDE PARK AVE DAVIS BLVD 0.10 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 BAYSHORE BLVD ROME AVE SWANN AVE 0.91 $0 $0 $910,000 $910,000 BAYSHORE BLVD BAY TO BAY BLVD HOWARD AVE 0.64 $101,020 $0 $640,000 $741,020 BAYSHORE BLVD GANDY BLVD EUCLID AVE 1.06 $165,925 $0 $1,060,000 $1,225,925 BAYSHORE BLVD INTERBAY BLVD GANDY BLVD 0.68 $79,680 $26,560 $680,000 $786,241 BAYSHORE BLVD SWANN AVE HYDE PARK AVE 0.14 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 BAYSHORE BLVD EUCLID AVE EL PRADO BLVD 0.20 $31,136 $0 $200,000 $231,136 BAYSHORE BLVD EL PRADO BLVD BAY TO BAY BLVD 0.56 $0 $0 $560,000 $560,000 BAYSHORE BLVD HOWARD AVE ROME AVE 0.46 $0 $0 $460,000 $460,000 BAYSHORE BLVD DAVIS BLVD VERNE ST 0.09 $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD BEARSS AVE LAKE FOREST DR 0.29 $45,652 $11,413 $290,000 $347,065 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD LAKE FOREST DR SKIPPER RD 0.25 $38,499 $0 $250,000 $288,499 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD SKIPPER RD 42ND ST 0.17 $26,116 $0 $170,000 $196,116 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 42ND ST CITY LIMITS 0.37 $57,758 $17,327 $370,000 $445,085 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD CITY LIMITS AMBERLY DR 0.41 $64,555 $64,555 $410,000 $539,111 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD AMBERLY DR TAMPA PALMS BLVD 0.66 $103,234 $0 $660,000 $763,234 CYPRESS PRESERVE BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD TAMPA PALMS BLVD 1.09 $171,663 $0 $1,090,000 $1,261,663 DR CYPRESS PRESERVE BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD PALM SPRINGS DR 0.29 $0 $0 $290,000 $290,000 DR COMMERCE PALMS BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD PALM SPRINGS DR 0.32 $50,405 $0 $320,000 $370,405 BLVD COMMERCE PALMS BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD I-75 0.53 $83,425 $0 $530,000 $613,425 BLVD BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD I-75 DONA MICHELLE DR 0.45 $70,979 $0 $450,000 $520,979
46 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments HIGHWOODS BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD DONA MICHELLE DR 0.23 $36,796 $0 $230,000 $266,796 PRESERVE BLVD HIGHWOOD BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD HUNTERS GREEN DR 0.80 $125,525 $125,525 $800,000 $1,051,051 PRESERVE BLVD BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD HUNTERS GREEN DR CROSS CREEK BLVD 0.49 $77,080 $77,080 $490,000 $644,161 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD REGENT PARK N COUNTY LINE RD 1.18 $185,384 $185,384 $1,180,000 $1,550,768 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD CROSS CREEK BLVD REGENT PARK DR S 0.20 $31,049 $31,049 $200,000 $262,097 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD REGENT PARK DR S REGENT PARK DR N 0.52 $81,117 $81,117 $520,000 $682,234 GANDY BLVD MANHATTAN AVE 0.50 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 GANDY BLVD LEE ROY SELMON 0.47 $0 $0 $470,000 $470,000 GANDY BLVD LOIS AVE 0.19 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 TAMPA ST LAUREL ST SCOTT ST 0.08 $13,188 $13,188 $80,000 $106,376 TAMPA ST HARRISON ST LAUREL ST 0.17 $27,242 $27,242 $170,000 $224,484 SUBTOTAL $16,590,000 $19,173,070
47 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Table 3 Estimated Costs for Cost Affordable Priority Corridors COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments DALE MABRY HWY HUDSON FLETCHER AVE 1.01 $157,854 $157,854 $1,010,000 $1,325,708 DALE MABRY HWY LINEBAUGH AVE HUDSON 0.75 $118,411 $118,411 $750,000 $986,823 DALE MABRY HWY BUSCH BLVD LINEBAUGH AVE 0.25 $19,557 $39,114 $250,000 $308,671 DALE MABRY HWY WATERS AVE BUSCH BLVD 0.76 $119,809 $119,809 $760,000 $999,618 DALE MABRY HWY GOLD TRIANGLE COLUMBUS DR 0.13 $0 $0 $130,000 $130,000 DALE MABRY HWY SPRUCE ST GOLD TRIANGLE 0.37 $0 $0 $370,000 $370,000 DALE MABRY HWY KENNEDY BLVD CYPRESS ST 0.51 $0 $0 $510,000 $510,000 DALE MABRY HWY ROLAND ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.07 $0 $0 $70,000 $70,000 DALE MABRY HWY AZEELE ST ROLAND ST 0.18 $0 $0 $180,000 $180,000 DALE MABRY HWY SWANN AVE AZEELE ST 0.25 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 DALE MABRY HWY HENDERSON BLVD SWANN AVE 0.25 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 DALE MABRY HWY NEPTUNE ST HENDERSON BLVD 0.25 $19,736 $0 $250,000 $269,736 DALE MABRY HWY ESTRELLA ST NEPTUNE ST 0.12 $14,662 $19,549 $120,000 $154,210 DALE MABRY HWY SAN CARLOS ST ESTRELLA ST 0.32 $24,893 $12,446 $320,000 $357,339 DALE MABRY HWY BAY TO BAY BLVD SAN CARLOS ST 0.28 $0 $0 $280,000 $280,000 DALE MABRY HWY I-275 SPRUCE ST 0.32 $0 $0 $320,000 $320,000 DALE MABRY HWY CYPRESS ST I-275 0.18 $0 $0 $180,000 $180,000 FLORIDA AVE FLORIBRASKA AVE LAKE AVE S 0.48 $0 $0 $480,000 $480,000 FLORIDA AVE COLUMBUS AVE FLORIBRASKA AVE 0.28 $0 $0 $280,000 $280,000 FLORIDA AVE PALM AVE COLUMBUS AVE 0.32 $0 $0 $320,000 $320,000 FLORIDA AVE HENDERSON PALM AVE 0.19 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 FLORIDA AVE KAY ST HENDERSON 0.15 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 FLORIDA AVE SCOTT ST KAY ST 0.07 $0 $0 $70,000 $70,000 FLORIDA AVE HARRISON ST SCOTT ST 0.22 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 FOWLER AVE I-275 NEBRASKA AVE 0.22 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 FOWLER AVE 15TH ST 22ND ST 0.51 $0 $0 $510,000 $510,000 FOWLER AVE 22ND ST 30TH ST 0.52 $0 $0 $520,000 $520,000 FOWLER AVE MCKINLEY BLVD 46TH ST 0.38 $0 $60,434 $380,000 $440,434 FOWLER AVE 46TH ST 50TH ST 0.50 $19,466 $77,862 $500,000 $597,328 FOWLER AVE 30TH STREET MCKINLEY BLVD 0.60 $0 $94,954 $600,000 $694,954
48 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments FOWLER AVE NEBRASKA AVE 15TH ST 0.51 $0 $0 $510,000 $510,000 FOWLER AVE 50TH ST 52ND ST 0.24 $0 $3,809 $240,000 $243,809 FOWLER AVE 52ND ST 56TH ST 0.25 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 GANDY BLVD BAYSHORE BLVD 0.41 $0 $64,188 $410,000 $474,188 GANDY BLVD MACDILL AVE 0.50 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 GANDY BLVD HIMES AVE 0.26 $0 $40,749 $260,000 $300,749 GANDY BLVD DALE MABRY HWY 0.10 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 HILLSBOROUGH AVE LOIS AVE DALE MABRY HWY 0.50 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 HILLSBOROUGH AVE WESTSHORE BLVD LOIS AVE 0.62 $98,107 $98,107 $620,000 $816,215 HILLSBOROUGH AVE SAWYER RD GEORGE RD 0.39 $0 $0 $390,000 $390,000 HILLSBOROUGH AVE HANLEY RD SAWYER RD 0.38 $0 $0 $380,000 $380,000 HILLSBOROUGH AVE KELLY RD HANLEY RD 0.12 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 HILLSBOROUGH AVE WEBB RD KELLY RD 0.63 $0 $0 $630,000 $630,000 HILLSBOROUGH AVE MEMORIAL HWY WEBB RD 0.42 $0 $0 $420,000 $420,000 NEBRASKA AVE SCOTT ST 0.22 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 NEBRASKA AVE 4TH AVE 0.09 $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 NEBRASKA AVE HENDERSON ST 0.12 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 NEBRASKA AVE 7TH AVE 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 NEBRASKA AVE PALM AVE 0.14 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 NEBRASKA AVE COLUMBUS DR 0.31 $0 $0 $310,000 $310,000 NEBRASKA AVE COLUMBUS DR 0.31 $0 $0 $310,000 $310,000 NEBRASKA AVE 21ST AVE 0.27 $0 $0 $270,000 $270,000 NEBRASKA AVE LAKE AVE 0.49 $0 $0 $490,000 $490,000 SR 60 RIDGEWOOD AVE VALRICO RD 0.51 $0 $0 $510,000 $510,000 SR 60 / BRANDON BUILDERS SQUARE KINGS AVE 0.33 $0 $0 $330,000 $330,000 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON KINGS AVE PARSONS AVE 0.50 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON KINGSWAY RD MOUNT CARMEL RD 1.00 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BLVD
49 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments SR 60 / BRANDON LITHIA PINECRES KINGSWAY RD 0.24 $0 $0 $240,000 $240,000 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON PARSONS AVE LITHIA PINECRES 0.27 $0 $0 $270,000 $270,000 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON HILLTOP RD PAULS DR 0.25 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON LAKEWOOD DR HILLTOP RD 0.25 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON PAULS DR BUILDERS SQUARE 0.17 $0 $0 $170,000 $170,000 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON I-75 GRAND REGENCY B 0.36 $55,747 $55,747 $360,000 $471,493 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON GRAND REGENCY B MEMORIAL GARDEN 0.15 $24,235 $24,235 $150,000 $198,470 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON MEMORIAL GARDEN GORNTO LAKE RD 0.19 $30,496 $30,496 $190,000 $250,992 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON GORNTO LAKE RD PROVIDENCE RD 0.25 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 BLVD SR 60 / BRANDON PROVIDENCE RD LAKEWOOD DR 0.25 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 BLVD TAMPA ST FLORIBRASKA AVE LAKE AVE 0.49 $0 $0 $490,000 $490,000 TAMPA ST COLUMBUS DR FLORIBRASKA AVE 0.28 $0 $0 $280,000 $280,000 TAMPA ST PLAM AVE COLUMBUS DR 0.32 $0 $0 $320,000 $320,000 TAMPA ST SCOTT ST KAY ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 TAMPA ST KAY ST PALM AVE 0.36 $0 $0 $360,000 $360,000 US HWY 301 BROADWAY AVE M L KING BLVD 0.95 $149,760 $149,760 $950,000 $1,249,520 SUBTOTAL $24,940,000 $26,960,255
50 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Table 4 Estimated Costs for Unfunded Priority Corridors COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments 40TH ST YUKON ST BUSCH BLVD 0.25 $39,427 $39,427 $250,000 $328,854 4TH AVE 15TH ST 17TH ST 0.15 $17,989 $23,986 $150,000 $191,975 4TH AVE 17TH ST 19TH ST 0.15 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 4TH AVE 19TH ST 21ST ST 0.15 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 4TH AVE 21ST ST 22ND ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 4TH AVE CHANNELSIDE DR 15TH ST 0.16 $12,476 $24,951 $160,000 $197,427 56TH ST WHITEWAY DR FOWLER AVE 0.51 $0 $20,026 $510,000 $530,026 56TH ST SERENA WHITEWAY DR 0.22 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 56TH ST MISSION HILLS D SERENA 0.28 $0 $0 $280,000 $280,000 56TH ST TEMPLE TERRACE MISSION HILLS D 0.49 $0 $0 $490,000 $490,000 56TH ST FOWLER AVE FLETCHER AVE 1.02 $160,399 $160,399 $1,020,000 $1,340,798 78TH ST TECO DRIVEWAY LEE ROY SELMON 0.52 $0 $0 $520,000 $520,000 78TH ST PALM RIVER RD TECO DRIVEWAY 0.10 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 78TH ST DOWDELL JR HIGH PALM RIVER RD 0.14 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 78TH ST CAUSEWAY BLVD DOWDELL JR HIGH 1.13 $0 $0 $1,130,000 $1,130,000 7TH AVE NEBRASKA AVE NUCCIO PKWY 0.28 $0 $0 $280,000 $280,000 7TH AVE NUCCIO PKWY 15TH ST 0.23 $0 $0 $230,000 $230,000 7TH AVE 15TH ST 17TH ST 0.15 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 7TH AVE 21ST ST 22ND ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 7TH AVE 19TH ST 21ST ST 0.15 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 7TH AVE 17TH ST 19TH ST 0.15 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 ARMENIA AVE TAMPA BAY BLVD M L KING BLVD 0.50 $19,727 $0 $500,000 $519,727 ARMENIA AVE COLUMBUS DR TAMPA BAY BLVD 0.50 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 ARMENIA AVE MAIN ST COLUMBUS DR 0.66 $0 $0 $660,000 $660,000 ARMENIA AVE GREEN ST MAIN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 ASHLEY ST BROREIN ST WHITING ST 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 ASHLEY ST CHANNELSIDE DR BROREIN ST 0.13 $0 $0 $130,000 $130,000 ASHLEY ST CASS ST TYLER ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 ASHLEY ST TWIGGS ST ZACK ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 ASHLEY ST MADISON ST TWIGGS ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000
51 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments ASHLEY ST KENNEDY BLVD MADISON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 ASHLEY ST JACKSON ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 ASHLEY ST POLK ST CASS ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 ASHLEY ST ZACK ST POLK ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 ASHLEY ST WASHINGTON ST JACKSON 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 ASHLEY ST WHITING ST WASHINGTON 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 BROREIN ST MORGAN ST JEFFERSON ST 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 BROREIN ST FLORIDA AVE MORGAN ST 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 BROREIN ST FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 BROREIN ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 BRUSH ST WHITING ST WASHINGTON ST 0.06 $8,669 $8,669 $60,000 $77,338 CASS ST JEFFERSON ST TYLER ST 0.02 $2,854 $0 $20,000 $22,854 CASS ST PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 CASS ST FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 CASS ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 CASS ST ASHLEY ST TAMPA ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 CASS ST FLORIDA AVE MARION ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 CASS ST MARION ST MORGAN ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 CASS ST MORGAN ST PIERCE ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 CHANNELSIDE DR JEFFERSON ST NEBRASKA AVE 0.04 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 CHANNELSIDE DR NEBRASKA AVE WATER ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 CHANNELSIDE DR WATER ST BROREIN ST 0.03 $4,775 $0 $30,000 $34,775 CHANNELSIDE DR HARBOR ISLAND MERIDIAN ST 0.04 $6,503 $0 $40,000 $46,503 CHANNELSIDE DR BROREIN ST HARBOR ISLAND 0.06 $9,455 $9,455 $60,000 $78,910 CHANNELSIDE DR MORGAN ST JEFFERSON ST 0.08 $11,929 $11,929 $80,000 $103,858 CHANNELSIDE DR FLORIDA AVE MORGAN ST 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 CHURCH AVE MORRISON ST SWANN AVE 0.26 $0 $0 $260,000 $260,000 CHURCH AVE HENDERSON BLVD MORRISON ST 0.12 $18,815 $9,407 $120,000 $148,222 CHURCH AVE SWANN AVE AZEELE ST 0.25 $39,195 $39,195 $250,000 $328,390 CHURCH AVE AZEELE ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.25 $38,637 $38,637 $250,000 $327,274 CLEVELAND ST HYDE PARK AVE PLANT AVE 0.07 $11,214 $11,214 $70,000 $92,428
52 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments CLEVELAND ST WILLOW AVE N BOULEVARD 0.25 $39,963 $39,963 $250,000 $329,927 CLEVELAND ST N BOULEVARD HYDE PARK AVE 0.28 $44,374 $44,374 $280,000 $368,749 COMMERCE ST PICNIC ISLAND P INTERBAY BLVD 1.26 $197,672 $197,672 $1,260,000 $1,655,345 CUMBERLAND ST CAESAR ST MERIDIAN ST 0.09 $14,903 $14,903 $90,000 $119,805 CUMBERLAND ST JEFFERSON ST CAESAR ST 0.13 $20,056 $20,056 $130,000 $170,111 FLETCHER AVE 50TH ST 56TH ST 0.48 $75,955 $56,966 $480,000 $612,921 FLETCHER AVE 46TH ST 50TH ST 0.51 $79,635 $79,635 $510,000 $669,271 FLETCHER AVE I-275 NEBRASKA AVE 0.21 $0 $0 $210,000 $210,000 FLETCHER AVE NEBRASKA AVE 15TH ST 0.51 $0 $0 $510,000 $510,000 FLETCHER AVE 15TH ST 22ND ST 0.51 $0 $0 $510,000 $510,000 FLETCHER AVE 22ND ST 30TH ST 0.52 $0 $0 $520,000 $520,000 FLETCHER AVE 30TH ST MAGNOLIA DR 0.19 $0 $0 $190,000 $190,000 FLETCHER AVE MAGNOLIA DR 42ND ST 0.07 $0 $0 $70,000 $70,000 FLETCHER AVE 42ND ST N PALM DR 0.08 $0 $0 $80,000 $80,000 FLETCHER AVE N PALM DR 46TH ST 0.64 $0 $101,220 $640,000 $741,220 FLORIDA AVE TYLER ST HARRISON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 FLORIDA AVE CASS ST TYLER ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FLORIDA AVE POLK ST CASS ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 FLORIDA AVE ZACK ST POLK ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FLORIDA AVE TWIGGS ST ZACK ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FLORIDA AVE MADISON ST TWIGGS ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 FLORIDA AVE KENNEDY BLVD MADISON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FLORIDA AVE JACKSON ST KENNEDY 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FLORIDA AVE WASHINGTON ST JACKSON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 FLORIDA AVE WHITING ST WASHINGTON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FLORIDA AVE BROREIN ST WHITING ST 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 FLORIDA AVE ICE PALACE DR CHANNELSIDE DR 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 FLORIDA AVE LEE ROY SELMON BROREIN ST 0.03 $0 $0 $30,000 $30,000 FLORIDA AVE CHANNELSIDE DR LEE ROY SELMON 0.07 $0 $0 $70,000 $70,000 FLORIDA AVE LAKE AVE S LAKE AVE N 0.01 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 FRANKLIN ST TYLER ST HARRISON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
53 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments FRANKLIN ST CASS ST TYLER ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 FRANKLIN ST KENNEDY BLVD MADISON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FRANKLIN ST TAMPA ST BROREIN ST 0.03 $0 $0 $30,000 $30,000 FRANKLIN ST CHANNELSIDE DR TAMPA ST 0.07 $0 $0 $70,000 $70,000 FRANKLIN ST POLK ST CASS ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FRANKLIN ST ZACK ST POLK ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FRANKLIN ST TWIGGS ST ZACK ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 FRANKLIN ST MADISON ST TWIGGS ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 FRANKLIN ST JACKSON ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FRANKLIN ST WASHINGTON ST JACKSON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 FRANKLIN ST WHITING ST WASHINGTON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 FRANKLIN ST BROREIN ST WHITING ST 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 FRANKLIN ST ICE PALACE DR CHANNELSIDE DR 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 GUNN ST ICE PALACE DR CHANNELSIDE DR 0.09 $13,719 $13,719 $90,000 $117,439 HABANA AVE COLUMBUS DR TAMPA BAY BLVD 0.50 $79,052 $79,052 $500,000 $658,105 HABANA AVE MAIN ST COLUMBUS DR 0.65 $25,696 $102,786 $650,000 $778,482 HABANA AVE TAMPA BAY BLVD M L KING BLVD 0.50 $78,998 $78,998 $500,000 $657,996 HANLEY HILLSBOROUGH AVE MOHAWK AVE 0.08 $0 $0 $80,000 $80,000 HANLEY MOHAWK AVE W COMANCHE 0.16 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 HANLEY RD HANNA AVE JACKSON SPRINGS 0.23 $0 $0 $230,000 $230,000 HANLEY RD HENRY AVE HANNA AVE 0.23 $0 $0 $230,000 $230,000 HANLEY RD FOUNTAIN AVE ARMAND DR 0.09 $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 HANLEY RD ARMAND DR WOODBRIDGE BLVD 0.07 $0 $0 $70,000 $70,000 HANLEY RD WOODBRIDGE BLVD BARRY RD 0.31 $0 $0 $310,000 $310,000 HANLEY RD BARRY RD WATERS AVE 0.57 $0 $0 $570,000 $570,000 HANLEY RD W COMANCHE HENRY AVE 0.32 $0 $0 $320,000 $320,000 HARBOR ISLAND DR S GARRISON CHANNE ICE PALACE DR 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 HARNEY RD TEMPLE TERRACE US HWY 301 0.29 $0 $0 $290,000 $290,000 HARNEY RD SLIGH AVE 78TH ST 1.04 $163,365 $163,365 $1,040,000 $1,366,730 HARNEY RD HILLSBOROUGH AV SLIGH AVE 1.12 $176,548 $176,548 $1,120,000 $1,473,096 HARNEY RD 56TH ST HILLSBOROUGH AV 0.86 $135,239 $101,429 $860,000 $1,096,668
54 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments HARNEY RD 78TH ST TEMPLE TERRACE 1.19 $140,642 $187,523 $1,190,000 $1,518,166 HARRISON ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.05 $7,663 $7,663 $50,000 $65,327 HENDERSON BLVD AZEELE ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.31 $0 $0 $310,000 $310,000 HENDERSON BLVD STERLING SWANN AVE 0.18 $0 $0 $180,000 $180,000 HENDERSON BLVD NEPTUNE ST CHURCH AVE 0.19 $29,247 $29,247 $190,000 $248,493 HENDERSON BLVD SWANN AVE AZEELE ST 0.32 $12,405 $0 $320,000 $332,405 HENDERSON BLVD DALE MABRY HWY STERLING 0.18 $0 $0 $180,000 $180,000 HENDERSON BLVD LOIS AVE NEPTUNE ST 0.35 $55,408 $55,408 $350,000 $460,817 HENDERSON BLVD CHURCH AVE DALE MABRY HWY 0.18 $27,658 $27,658 $180,000 $235,316 HYDE PARK AVE CLEVELAND ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.17 $0 $0 $170,000 $170,000 HYDE PARK AVE PLATT ST CLEVELAND ST 0.10 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 HYDE PARK AVE DELEON ST PLATT ST 0.20 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 HYDE PARK AVE BAYSHORE BLVD DELEON ST 0.07 $11,007 $11,007 $70,000 $92,015 HYDE PARK BRIDGE HYDE PARK DAVIS ISLAND BRIDGE 0.20 $32,170 $32,170 $200,000 $264,340 ICE PALACE DR JEFFERSON ST GUNN ST 0.09 $14,811 $14,811 $90,000 $119,621 ICE PALACE DR MORGAN ST JEFFERSON ST 0.04 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 ICE PALACE DR FLORIDA AVE MORGAN ST 0.11 $17,782 $0 $110,000 $127,782 ICE PALACE DR FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 JACKSON ST JEFFERSON ST NEBRASKA AVE 0.22 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 JACKSON ST PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 JACKSON ST MORGAN ST PIERCE ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 JACKSON ST MARION ST MORGAN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 JACKSON ST FLORIDA AVE MARION ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 JACKSON ST ASHLEY ST TAMPA ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 JACKSON ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 JACKSON ST FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 JACKSON ST NEBRASKA AVE MERIDIAN ST 0.08 $13,071 $13,071 $80,000 $106,142 JEFFERSON ST POLK ST CASS ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 JEFFERSON ST BROREIN ST WHITING ST 0.14 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 JEFFERSON ST CHANNELSIDE DR BROREIN ST 0.10 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 JEFFERSON ST CASS ST HARRISON ST 0.10 $3,790 $11,369 $100,000 $115,159
55 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments JEFFERSON ST ICE PALACE DR CHANNELSIDE DR 0.12 $18,759 $18,759 $120,000 $157,518 JEFFERSON ST WHITING ST WASHINGTON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 JEFFERSON ST WASHINGTON ST JACKSON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 JEFFERSON ST JACKSON ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 JEFFERSON ST KENNEDY BLVD TWIGGS ST 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 JEFFERSON ST TWIGGS ST ZACK ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 JEFFERSON ST ZACK ST POLK ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 LOIS AVE MORRISON ST SWANN AVE 0.26 $40,203 $0 $260,000 $300,203 LOIS AVE HENDERSON BLVD MORRISON ST 0.50 $78,820 $19,705 $500,000 $598,525 LOIS AVE SWANN AVE AZEELE ST 0.25 $29,652 $0 $250,000 $279,652 LOIS AVE AZEELE ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.24 $18,895 $0 $240,000 $258,895 MADISON ST MORGAN ST PIERCE ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MADISON ST MARION ST MORGAN ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MADISON ST ASHLEY ST TAMPA ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MADISON ST FLORIDA AVE MARION ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MADISON ST FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MADISON ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MARION ST TYLER ST HARRISON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MARION ST CASS ST TYLER ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MARION ST POLK ST CASS ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MARION ST ZACK ST POLK ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MARION ST TWIGGS ST ZACK ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MARION ST MADISON ST TWIGGS ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MARION ST KENNEDY BLVD MADISON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MARION ST JACKSON ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MARION ST WASHINGTON ST JACKSON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MARION ST WHITING ST WASHINGTON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MCKINLEY DR BOUGAINVILLEA A FOWLER AVE 0.75 $117,506 $117,506 $750,000 $985,013 MCKINLEY DR BUSCH GARDENS BOUGAINVILLEA A 0.66 $103,943 $103,943 $660,000 $867,886 MCKINLEY DR BUSCH BLVD BUSCH GARDENS 0.09 $14,488 $0 $90,000 $104,488 MORGAN ST TYLER ST HARRISON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000
56 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments MORGAN ST CASS ST TYLER ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MORGAN ST POLK ST CASS ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MORGAN ST ZACK ST POLK ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MORGAN ST TWIGGS ST ZACK ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MORGAN ST MADISON ST TWIGGS ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MORGAN ST KENNEDY BLVD MADISON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MORGAN ST JACKSON ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MORGAN ST WASHINGTON ST JACKSON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 MORGAN ST WHITING ST WASHINGTON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 MORGAN ST CHANNELSIDE DR BROREIN ST 0.10 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 MORGAN ST ICE PALACE DR CHANNELSIDE DR 0.12 $19,150 $19,150 $120,000 $158,300 MORGAN ST BROREIN ST WHITING ST 0.12 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 NEBRASKA AVE WASHINGTON ST JACKSON ST 0.06 $8,934 $8,934 $60,000 $77,867 NEBRASKA AVE JACKSON ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.05 $8,260 $0 $50,000 $58,260 PALM AVE 21ST ST 22ND ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 PALM AVE 15TH ST 21ST ST 0.46 $0 $0 $460,000 $460,000 PALM AVE NEBRASKA AVE NUCCIO PKWY 0.28 $0 $0 $280,000 $280,000 PALM AVE NUCCIO PKWY 15TH ST 0.23 $0 $0 $230,000 $230,000 PALM AVE FLORIDA AVE NEBRASKA AVE 0.50 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 PALM AVE FLORIDA AVE NEBRASKA AVE 0.50 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 PIERCE ST POLK ST CASS ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 PIERCE ST ZACK ST POLK ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 PIERCE ST TWIGGS ST ZACK ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 PIERCE ST MADISON ST TWIGGS ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 PIERCE ST KENNEDY BLVD MADISON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 PIERCE ST JACKSON ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 PIERCE ST WASHINGTON ST JACKSON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 PIERCE ST WHITING ST WASHINGTON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 PLANT AVE CLEVELAND ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.18 $0 $14,121 $180,000 $194,121 PLANT AVE PLATT ST CLEVELAND ST 0.12 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 PLANT AVE BAYSHORE BLVD PLATT ST 0.23 $0 $0 $230,000 $230,000
57 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments PLATT/CHANNELSIDE FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 PLATT/CHANNELSIDE ASHLEY ST FRANKLIN ST 0.10 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 POLK ST PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 POLK ST MORGAN ST PIERCE ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 POLK ST MARION ST MORGAN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 POLK ST FLORIDA AVE MARION ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 POLK ST FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 POLK ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 POLK ST ASHLEY ST TAMPA ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 PROVIDENCE RD RIVERVIEW DR PROVIDENCE CONN 1.36 $53,422 $213,686 $1,360,000 $1,627,108 PROVIDENCE RD PROVIDENCE CONN BLOOMINGDALE AVE 0.15 $23,473 $23,473 $150,000 $196,946 PROVIDENCE RD PROVIDENCE LAKE LUMSDEN RD 0.92 $0 $0 $920,000 $920,000 PROVIDENCE RD BLOOMINGDALE AVE PROVIDENCE LAKE 1.13 $149,117 $149,117 $1,130,000 $1,428,235 RIVERVIEW DR US HWY 41 78TH ST 0.99 $38,729 $154,916 $990,000 $1,183,646 RIVERVIEW DR 78TH ST US HWY 301 3.01 $354,298 $354,298 $3,010,000 $3,718,596 ROME AVE HILLSBOROUGH AV SLIGH AVE 1.02 $119,637 $119,637 $1,020,000 $1,259,274 ROME AVE WISHART BLVD HILLSBOROUGH AV 0.45 $70,443 $0 $450,000 $520,443 ROME AVE M L KING BLVD WISHART BLVD 0.56 $0 $88,015 $560,000 $648,015 ROME AVE SLIGH AVE WATERS AVE 1.00 $157,319 $157,319 $1,000,000 $1,314,637 ROME AVE MAIN ST COLUMBUS DR 0.66 $103,050 $103,050 $660,000 $866,099 ROME AVE CYPRESS ST MAIN ST 0.35 $54,791 $54,791 $350,000 $459,582 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD MERIDIAN ST CHANNELSIDE DR 0.20 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD NEBRASKA AVE MERIDIAN ST 0.10 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD MORGAN ST PIERCE ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD MARION ST MORGAN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD FLORIDA AVE MARION ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD ASHLEY ST TAMPA ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD HILLSBOROUGH RI ASHLEY ST 0.09 $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD PLANT AVE HILLSBOROUGH RI 0.12 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD HYDE PARK AVE PLANT AVE 0.07 $0 $0 $70,000 $70,000
58 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD MACDILL AVE ARMENIA AVE 0.50 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD ARMENIA AVE HOWARD AVE 0.13 $0 $0 $130,000 $130,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD HOWARD AVE WILLOW AVE 0.63 $0 $0 $630,000 $630,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD WILLOW AVE N BOULEVARD 0.25 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD BREVARD AVE HYDE PARK AVE 0.24 $0 $0 $240,000 $240,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD JEFFERSON ST NEBRASKA AVE 0.22 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD N BOULEVARD BREVARD AVE 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 SR 60 / KENNEDY BLVD HENDERSON BLVD MACDILL AVE 0.13 $0 $0 $130,000 $130,000 SR 600 / REYNOLDS ST SR 39 BAKER ST 0.64 $0 $0 $640,000 $640,000 SR 600 / REYNOLDS ST EVERS ST SR 39 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 SR 600 / REYNOLDS ST N WHEELER ST EVERS ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 SR 600 / REYNOLDS ST REYNOLDS ST N WHEELER ST 0.63 $0 $0 $630,000 $630,000 SR 600 / REYNOLDS ST ALEXANDER ST REYNOLDS ST 0.18 $28,068 $0 $180,000 $208,068 SR 600 / REYNOLDS ST US 92 ALEXANDER ST 0.29 $45,186 $0 $290,000 $335,186 SR 674 I-75 CYPRESS LAKES B 0.46 $73,333 $73,333 $460,000 $606,666 SR 674 15TH ST 30TH ST 1.26 $198,288 $198,288 $1,260,000 $1,656,576 SR 674 30TH ST I-75 0.58 $90,579 $90,579 $580,000 $761,158 SR 674 2ND ST 15TH ST 1.07 $83,844 $83,844 $1,070,000 $1,237,687 SR 674 US HWY 41 2ND ST 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 SR 674 VALLEY FORGE BL TRINITY POINT B 0.26 $41,992 $0 $260,000 $301,992 SR 674 TRINITY POINT B N PEBBLE BEACH 0.13 $19,578 $0 $130,000 $149,578 SR 674 N PEBBLE BEACH US HWY 301 1.02 $160,559 $0 $1,020,000 $1,180,559 SR 674 CYPRESS LAKES B VALLEY FORGE BL 1.17 $180,524 $180,524 $1,170,000 $1,531,048 SR 674 US HWY 301 CR 579 0.00 $377,414 $377,414 $0 $754,827 SYMMES RD US HWY 41 US HWY 301 3.25 $254,989 $382,484 $3,250,000 $3,887,473 TAMPA ST POLK ST CASS ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 TAMPA ST ZACK ST POLK ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TAMPA ST TWIGGS ST ZACK ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 TAMPA ST MADISON ST TWIGGS ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000
59 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments TAMPA ST WHITING ST JACKSON ST 0.11 $0 $0 $110,000 $110,000 TAMPA ST CASS ST TYLER ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TAMPA ST KENNEDY BLVD MADISON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TAMPA ST JACKSON ST KENNEDY BLVD 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TAMPA ST BROREIN ST WHITING ST 0.12 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 TAMPA ST TYLER ST HARRISON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 TEMPLE TERRACE HWY MORRIS BRIDGE R HARNEY RD 0.04 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 TWIGGS ST NEBRASKA AVE MERIDIAN ST 0.13 $0 $15,099 $130,000 $145,099 TWIGGS ST MORGAN ST PIERCE ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TWIGGS ST MARION ST MORGAN ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TWIGGS ST ASHLEY ST TAMPA ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TWIGGS ST PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 TWIGGS ST MERIDIAN ST CHANNELSIDE DR 0.21 $0 $0 $210,000 $210,000 TWIGGS ST JEFFERSON ST NEBRASKA AVE 0.22 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000 TWIGGS ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 TWIGGS ST FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TWIGGS ST FLORIDA AVE MARION ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 TYLER ST PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST 0.03 $5,448 $5,448 $30,000 $40,896 TYLER ST ASHLEY ST TAMPA ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TYLER ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 TYLER ST FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TYLER ST FLORIDA AVE MARION ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TYLER ST MARION ST MORGAN ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 TYLER ST MORGAN ST PIERCE ST 0.09 $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 TYLER ST JEFFERSON ST CASS ST 0.02 $3,504 $3,504 $20,000 $27,008 US 92 / BAKER ST EVERS ST SR 39 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 US 92 / BAKER ST N WHEELER ST EVERS ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 SR 600 / REYNOLDS US 92 / BAKER ST SR 39 0.65 $0 $102,138 $650,000 $752,138 ST SR 600 / REYNOLDS US 92 / BAKER ST N WHEELER ST 1.03 $40,530 $40,530 $1,030,000 $1,111,061 ST
60 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY | 2025 Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
COST: LENGTH COST: COST: COST: Total STREET FROM TO Improve- in miles Left Right Corridor ments US HWY 92 REYNOLDS ST PARK RD 0.50 $0 $78,294 $500,000 $578,294 WASHINGTON ST BRUSH ST NEBRASKA AVE 0.05 $8,358 $8,358 $50,000 $66,716 WASHINGTON ST JEFFERSON ST BRUSH ST 0.17 $13,082 $19,622 $170,000 $202,704 WASHINGTON ST PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 WASHINGTON ST FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 WASHINGTON ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 WASHINGTON ST MORGAN ST PIERCE ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 WASHINGTON ST MARION ST MORGAN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 WASHINGTON ST FLORIDA AVE MARION ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 WASHINGTON ST ASHLEY ST TAMPA ST 0.04 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 WESTSHORE BLVD INTERBAY BLVD BAY AVE 0.92 $145,060 $72,530 $920,000 $1,137,590 WESTSHORE BLVD BAY AVE GANDY BLVD 0.98 $153,439 $153,439 $980,000 $1,286,878 WHITING ST MARION ST MORGAN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 WHITING ST FLORIDA AVE MARION ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 WHITING ST FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 WHITING ST ASHLEY ST TAMPA ST 0.04 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 WHITING ST NEBRASKA AVE BRUSH ST 0.07 $8,354 $8,354 $70,000 $86,707 WHITING ST PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST 0.05 $8,144 $8,144 $50,000 $66,288 WHITING ST MORGAN ST PIERCE ST 0.06 $0 $9,129 $60,000 $69,129 WHITING ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 WHITING ST BRUSH ST MERIDIAN ST 0.11 $17,145 $17,145 $110,000 $144,290 WHITING ST JEFFERSON ST NEBRASKA AVE 0.10 $15,207 $15,207 $100,000 $130,414 ZACK ST PIERCE ST JEFFERSON ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 ZACK ST MORGAN ST PIERCE ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 ZACK ST TAMPA ST FRANKLIN ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 ZACK ST FRANKLIN ST FLORIDA AVE 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 ZACK ST FLORIDA AVE MARION ST 0.05 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 ZACK ST MARION ST MORGAN ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 ZACK ST ASHLEY ST TAMPA ST 0.06 $0 $0 $60,000 $60,000 SUBTOTAL $156,200,000 $176,596,791
61