Pr Project Advi Advisor sory Gr Group oup Meet Meeting #1 #1 We West Busch Busch Boule Boulevar ard (SR (SR 580) 580) Corridor Corridor Study Study fr from om Nor North Dale Dale Ma Mabry High Highway to to Nor North Nebr Nebrask aska Avenue enue Hillsborough Hillsbor ough Coun County ty, Florid Florida FDO FDOT Financial nancial Pr Project ID ID Num Number: er: 435908 435908 ‐ 1 ‐ 22 22 ‐ 01 01 North North Ta Tampa Br Branch anch Lib Library Augu August 29, 29, 2017 2017 – 10:00 10:00 am am to to 12:00 12:00 pm pm
Ag Agenda enda fo for Pr Project Advisor Advisory Gr Group oup Meet Me eting #1 #1 • Introductions • Existing Roadway and Corridor Characteristics • Developing the Corridor Vision • Next Steps • Questions • Adjourn
Pu Purpose of of the the SR SR 580 580 Corrid Corridor Study Study • Define existing conditions • Identify transportation ‐ related needs • Define acceptable levels of access and mobility • Determine transportation system needs to support surrounding land uses • Consolidate and control access points • Identify safety concerns • Identify operational deficiencies and promote operational efficiency
Intr troduction oduction to to PA PAG #1 #1 Me Meet eting
Intr troductions oductions • State your name • Who do you represent • What your interest is in the SR 580 corridor
PA PAG Ro Roles and and Respo sponsibilitie sibilities • Attend as many meetings as possible • Clearly and openly articulate your interests • Listen to varying points of view • Productively discuss issues with members who may hold divergent views • Actively generate and evaluate potential improvement options • Serve as a two ‐ way conduit of information • Keep others informed of the PAG’s efforts
Goal Goals fo for PA PAG #1 #1 • Understand roadway characteristics • Compare EO/Agency Kick ‐ off comments with potential solutions • Understand existing Context Classification and ground ‐ truth future expectations • Provide input on User Preference Surveys
Futur Future PA PAG me meet etings gs • PAG #2 ≈ October 2017 ≈ User Preference survey; visioning • PAG #3 ≈ January 2018 ≈ Purpose and need; range of solutions • PAG #4 ≈ June 2018 ≈ Report on final near ‐ term and long ‐ term decisions
Exis Existing ting Ro Roadway and and Corridor Corridor Char Charact acteri ristics ics
Pr Project In Inform rmatio ion Loc Location tion Ma Map
Project In Pr Inform rmatio ion ‐ FDO FDOT’s context classific classifications tions Development Form and Intensity Street Connectivity Building Placement Block Length Presence of Fronting Uses Block Perimeter Location of Off ‐ Street Intersection Density Parking Land Uses Building Height C1 ‐ Natural C2 ‐ Rural C2T ‐ Rural Town C3R ‐ Suburban C3C ‐ Suburban C4 ‐ Urban General C5 ‐ Urban Center C6 ‐ Urban Core Residential Commercial FDOT Complete Streets Manual
Exis Existing ting co conte ntext classific classification tion Mostly residential uses within C3R-SUBURBAN large blocks and a disconnected or sparse RESIDENTIAL roadway network . Mix of uses set within small blocks with a well-connected roadway network . The roadway C4-URBAN network usually connects to residential neighborhoods GENERAL immediately along the corridor or on the back side of blocks fronting the roadway. Mostly non-residential uses with large building footprints C3C-SUBURBAN and large parking lots within COMMERCIAL large blocks and a disconnected or sparse roadway network .
C3R C3R ‐ Suburban Suburban Re Residential – D – Dale Ma Mabry Hwy Hwy to to Arm Armenia nia Av Ave. Mostly residential uses within C3R-SUBURBAN large blocks and a disconnected or sparse RESIDENTIAL roadway network .
C4 ‐ Urban C4 Urban Gener General – A – Armenia Av Ave to to Nor North Bl Blvd Mix of uses set within small blocks with a well-connected C4-URBAN roadway network . The roadway network usually connects to GENERAL residential neighborhoods immediately along the corridor or on the back side of blocks fronting the roadway.
C3C C3C Suburban uburban Com Commer ercial cial – N – North Bl Blvd to to N Nebr Nebras aska Av Ave. Mostly non-residential uses C3C-SUBURBAN with large building footprints and large parking lots within COMMERCIAL large blocks and a disconnected or sparse Section 1: North Blvd to Florida roadway network .
C3C C3C Suburban uburban Com Commer ercial cial – N – North Bl Blvd to to N Nebr Nebras aska Av Ave. Mostly non-residential uses C3C-SUBURBAN with large building footprints and large parking lots within COMMERCIAL large blocks and a disconnected or sparse Section 2: Florida to Nebraska roadway network .
Wh Why does does co conte ntext classific classification tion mat matter er? • Projects will be evaluated using future context • Future context should be clearly and consistently documented in local policies • Local form ‐ based codes and zoning can be used to inform FDOT’s context classification determination • On ‐ street parking is a key element in C4, C5 and C6 & where it is not present could be added per local plan, for speed management, or to increase available parking
Ta Take Awa Away fr from om Exis Existing ting Con Context Classification Classific tion in inform rmatio ion • No bike lanes throughout corridor • Sidewalk gaps on South side of SR 580 • There is latitude in Context Classifications • Projects are evaluated on FUTURE context
Pedes destrian/Bicy rian/Bicycle le Coun Counts ts This This slid slide illu illustrates the the loc locations wi with the the hea heavies iest bik bike/p /ped tr traffic fic (base (based on on peak peak 2 ‐ hour hour co counts [1 [1 da day only] only] – f – from VHB VHB AAD AADT mem emo) o) W B SIDEW A LK 80 EB SIDEW A LK 70 Intersection Movements Pedestrian and Bicycle 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM SB Ramps NB Ramps SB Ramps NB Ramps Himes Twin Lakes Orange Armenia North Florida Nebraska Dale Mabry Hway I ‐ 275 Avenue Boulevard Grove Rd Avenue Boulevard Avenue Avenue NB/SB ‐ Bike (171) 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 12 15 12 30 3 40 0 0 0 0 11 37 NB/SB ‐ Ped (147) 0 1 0 0 8 3 3 0 0 1 8 5 49 12 17 7 2 0 0 0 11 20 EB/WB ‐ Bike (53) 0 0 1 0 0 8 2 6 0 2 1 0 2 8 0 7 0 6 0 2 5 3 EB/WB ‐ Ped (69) 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 4 0 4 3 2 9 6 5 6 11 4 0 1 3 3
Exis Existing ting Tr Traffic Coun Counts ts
Tr Traffic Vo Volume Conside Consideratio ions ns SR 580 Existing AADT Minimum = 42,000 Maximum = 52,000 Source: FDOT PPM, Glossary of Terms
BEARSS AVE Adjacent Ea Adjacen East ‐ We West Corridor Corridor Consider Considerations tions FLETCHER AVE Corridor Lanes AADT Notes Bearss Avenue 4 ‐ lane 54,000 3.8 miles north Fletcher Avenue 4 ‐ lane 23,500 Limited western connectivity SR 580 4 ‐ lane 50,000 Waters Avenue 4 ‐ lane 27,000 Limited eastern SR 500 connectivity Hillsborough 6 ‐ lane 51,500 2.6 miles south WATERS AVE Avenue SR 580 Existing AADT Minimum = 42,000 Maximum = 52,000 HILLSBOROUGH AVE
Roundabout undabout Conside Consideratio ion Intersection Entering AADT • Maximum design year total traffic (Existing) volume entering an intersection is: Dale Mabry/SB Ramps 49,100 Dale Mabry/NB Ramps 58,000 ≈ 25,000 AADT for single ‐ lane roundabout Himes 57,500 ≈ 45,000 AADT for two lane roundabout Twin Lakes 54,900 Orange Grove 50,950 SR 580 Existing AADT Armenia 58,500 Minimum = 42,000 North 51,000 Maximum = 52,000 Florida 75,000 I ‐ 275/SB Ramps 60,150 I ‐ 275/NB Ramps 58,150 Nebraska 60,900
Ta Take Awa Away fr from om ex existing Coun Counts ts • Bike/Ped movement N ‐ S exceeds E ‐ W movement. • Lane reduction not viable: ≈ The existing traffic is either within or just above the range for 4 ‐ lane facility Traffic Volumes. ≈ Adjacent corridors are already at or above capacity and too far away. • Round ‐ About configuration not viable: within SR 580 corridor exceeds the maximum traffic volume requirements for a round ‐ about and impacts the RR on the south.
La Latest Cr Crash ash Hi Histor ory by by Ye Year
Cr Crash ash ‐ pr prone one ar areas eas ‐ hea heat ma map
Incapacit pacitating ting and and Fa Fatal Cr Crashes ashes Incapacit pacitating ting and and Fa Fatal Cr Crashes ashes Fatalities Incapacitating Total Crashes 6 42 665
Ta Take Awa Away fr from om Cr Crash ash Hi Histor ory Da Data • Crashes have increased. • Highest “heat” intensity is at Himes and between North Blvd and Nebraska. • The 5 ‐ lane section has a lower frequency and severity of crashes compared to the 4 ‐ lane section. • Five of the six fatalities occurred between North Blvd and Nebraska
De Developi loping ng the the Corridor Corridor Vi Visi sion on
Kick Kick ‐ Of Off me meet eting response sponse to to: How How would yo wo you describe describe the the We West Busch Busch Boule Boulevar ard corridor? rridor?
Kick Kick ‐ of off me meet eting response sponse to to: Challeng Challenges es & ide ideas fo for the the corridor? rridor?
Recommend
More recommend
