University of South Florida Area Multimodal … from USF, University Area Community Development...

USF AREA MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

University of South Florida Area

Multimodal Transportation District

Study Area Evaluation & Transportation Needs

Prepared for Hillsborough County

By Jacobs Engineering Group

May 25, 2010


Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 2

1.0 STUDY BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 6

2.0 MULTIMODAL DISTRICT EVALUATION ....................................................... 8 2.1 Study Area Boundary ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Multimodal Mobility and Land Use Evaluation ........................................................... 10

2.2.1 Appropriate Scale of Development ......................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Land Use Diversity ................................................................................................................. 10 2.2.3 Appropriate Density, Intensity, and Organization of Land Uses ........................................... 14 2.2.4 Interconnected Multimodal Network ..................................................................................... 18 2.2.5 Quality and Level of Service (Q/LOS) for Each Mode ............................................................ 25

2.3 MMTD Evaluation Summary ....................................................................................... 31

3.0 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ................................................ 32 3.1 Development of Multimodal Needs ............................................................................. 32

3.1.1 Agency Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 33 3.1.2 Public Meetings ....................................................................................................................... 33 3.1.3 Initial Input Provided ............................................................................................................. 34 3.1.4 Additional Input Provided ..................................................................................................... 35

3.2 Needed Projects for Multimodal Transportation .......................................................... 36

APPENDIX A: PUBLIC MEETING QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS (SEPT. 9, 2009) ............................... 38

APPENDIX B: PUBLIC MEETING MAP AND CHART BOARDS (SEPT. 9, 2009) ............................... 44

APPENDIX C: PUBLIC MEETING MAP AND CHART BOARDS (DEC. 7, 2009) ................................ 46

APPENDIX D: PUBLIC MEETING GENERAL COMMENTS (DEC. 7, 2009) ........................................ 59

APPENDIX E: IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY LIST WITH COST BY CORRIDOR WITH MAPS ..... 60

APPENDIX F: PRIORITIZED IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY LIST WITH COST BY CORRIDOR .. 66

APPENDIX G: IMPROVEMENTS LIST DETAILED BY CORRIDOR SEGMENT ............................... 72


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the

Hillsborough County Planning and Growth Management Department worked in

partnership with stakeholders and local residents to plan for a Multimodal

Transportation District (MMTD) in the University of South Florida (USF) area of

Hillsborough County. The goals of this effort are to facilitate the use of multiple modes

of transportation that will lead to a reduction in automobile use and vehicle miles

traveled, to create opportunities for long‐term funding of multimodal improvements,

and to help meet community objectives for encouraging infill and redevelopment. The

designation of such districts recognizes the inherent integral relationship between

transportation, land use, and urban design, and the degree to which these elements

affect each other.

The USF Area was selected for many reasons. First, because it is a growing regional

activity center with a diverse and dense mix of residents, students and employees, with

access to a variety of places including the university campus, other schools, hospitals,

parks, public services, and commercial centers. Second, some multimodal

improvements are already in the works. These include the Fletcher Avenue Pedestrian

Safety Study and related improvements, 22nd Street enhancement project recently

completed that provides a model for other corridors in the area, and the new

“MetroRapid” Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service scheduled to begin soon along Fletcher

and Nebraska Avenues. Third, roads are congested with vehicles, and redevelopment

is hindered by costly mitigation requirements for roadway Level of Service (LOS). Last,

there are transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians in this area, indicating that

improvements of these modes will be used if provided.

Creation of an MMTD requires a review of the area to ensure that it meets certain

criteria, analysis of existing and proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS,

identification of needed pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and roadway improvements that

will improve inadequate LOS in the MMTD, and development of a plan to implement

the improvements. The proposed boundaries of the USF Area MMTD are Sinclair Hills

Road and Bearss Avenue to the north, Interstate 275 to the west, Fowler Avenue to the

south, and 56th Street to the east. A map of this 8‐square mile area is shown in Figure

2.1: USF Area MMTD Study Area Location Map.

Using the Florida Department of Transportation’s Multimodal Transportation Districts

and Area‐wide Quality of Service Handbook (November 2003), the existing conditions

analysis was completed. It was determined that the USF Area qualifies as a Regional

Center type of MMTD. As shown in detail in Section 2 of this report, the USF Area has


Page 3

many assets relating to land use and transportation, and also has conditions in need of

improvement, as follows.

Land Use and Transportation Assets

Diverse mix of land uses

Dense residential uses

Primary and supporting uses within walking distance

Appropriate organization of land uses along corridors

Walking is significant mode of travel

Multiple bus services available

Bus hub is located within the proposed District

Adequate LOS and Quality of Service (QOS) for bicycle use

Conditions Needing Improvement

Employment intensity areawide

Connectivity of street network

LOS and QOS for pedestrian and transit uses

Central Core and relation of supporting uses.

These conditions were reviewed by the study team, agency stakeholders, and members

of the public, in order to determine the needed improvements. Stakeholders included

representatives from USF, University Area Community Development Council, Tampa

Homeowners Association of Neighborhoods, Hillsborough County School District,

Hillsborough County City‐County Planning Commission, FDOT, Tampa Bay Area

Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA), Hillsborough Area Regional Transit

(HART), City of Temple Terrace, City of Tampa, Senator Victor Crist’s Office, and Bay

Area Commuter Services. The stakeholder group met at the USF Center for Urban

Transportation Research (CUTR) on June 30, 2009 and October 1, 2009. Members of the

group provided comments on report drafts at each meeting. The Hillsborough County

Transportation Task Force also provided review and guidance.

Two public meetings were held to discuss existing conditions and needed

improvements in the USF Area. These public meetings were held on September 9, 2009

and December 7, 2009, at 6:30 p.m., at the University Area Community Center at 14013

N. 22nd Street in Tampa. At these meetings, the Hillsborough County Public Works

Department also discussed the Fletcher Avenue Pedestrian Safety being conducted

because the area surrounding Fletcher Ave. from 15th Street to 46th Street has been

identified as having one of the highest pedestrian crash rates in unincorporated

Hillsborough County. The study considers new road and traffic safety features and


Page 4

includes a street lighting analysis, traffic conditions analysis, and pedestrian safety

education campaign.

Needed multimodal improvements are shown in detail in Section 3 of this report. The

program of improvements is based on public comments and approved plans.

The approved plans reviewed for developing the list of projects were:

Hillsborough County MPO 2035 Long‐Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Needs

Assessment, 2009.

Adopted Hillsborough County Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years

2011‐2015, November 2009.

Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, August 2008.

The University Area Community and North 22nd Street Master Plans, October

2007.

2005 Tampa Campus Master Plan Update, October 2006.

HART Transit Emphasis Corridor Improvement Planning and Design Services

Study, March 2008.

North South Corridor BRT Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

Preliminary Engineering Report, October 2009.

Types of improvements include the following, in various locations through the USF

Area. Pedestrian Improvements

Sidewalks

Intersection improvements such as ADA curb‐cuts, crosswalks and pedestrian

signals

Pedestrian enhancements such as landscaping and lighting

Drainage improvements

New multi‐use trails

Bicycle Improvements

Bicycle lanes

Wider and more clearly defined bicycle lanes

Bicycle signals

Motorist and bicycle safety and education

Bicyclist amenities such as secure bike storage boxes



Page 5

Transit Improvements

Improved frequency and expanded hours on existing local bus routes

New local bus service

New premium bus service such as “MetroRapid” BRT

New circulator bus route serving major destinations in USF Area

New Light Rail limited‐stop service

Better taxi service

Road Improvements

Widen roads

Add turn lanes

Divide undivided roads

The costs of the projects were identified using cost estimates from the LRTP and CIP.

Priorities were established based on each project’s potential to improve the Pedestrian,

Bicycle, Transit, or Roadway LOS, and if it would connect to an existing facility

(sidewalk, bicycle lane, or transit route), arterial, primary neighborhood collector, or

primary USF thoroughfare. The prioritization scoring is explained in detail in Section 3

of this report.

To establish an MMTD, certain policies need to be in place, and the district should be

shown in the Future Land Use Map of the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

In addition to the program of improvements, community design standards and a mix of

land uses are needed to promote a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment, with

convenient connections to transit. Concurrency determinations within a district are

based on multimodal performance measures that consider all of the available modes of

transportation. The policy framework is provided in Section 1 of this report.


Page 6

1.0 STUDY BACKGROUND

In 1999, the MMTD option was introduced into the Florida Growth Management Act as

an alternative method to manage the traffic impacts of growth in areas where the

provision of alternate modes of travel, supported by appropriate land uses, could

reasonably enable a local government to consider a multimodal LOS standard in lieu of

typical roadway LOS criteria. Section 163.3180(15)(a), Florida Statutes (F.S.), provides

guidance to local jurisdictions for use in developing community improvements that

support walking, bicycling, and transit use by establishing MMTDs. It also enables

jurisdictions to develop transportation concurrency policies that encourage the

development of a high quality multimodal environment.

Further, the development of an MMTD strategy is defined below by Florida

Department of Transportation (FDOT) Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for

Multimodal Transportation Districts (CUTR, April 2004):

A multimodal transportation district is an area where primary priority is placed on

assuring a safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with convenient

interconnection to transit. Communities must incorporate community design features

that reduce vehicular usage while supporting an integrated multimodal transportation

system. Common elements include the presence of mixed‐use activity centers,

connectivity of streets and land uses, transit‐friendly design features, and accessibility to

alternative modes of transportation. The Florida Department of Transportation has

developed a Multimodal Transportation Districts and Area‐wide Quality of Service

Handbook (FDOT, November 2003) to provide guidance on the designation and

planning of multimodal transportation districts as provided in Florida’s growth

management legislation. The handbook provides for multimodal transportation district

designation in a downtown or urban core area, regional activity center, or traditional

town or village, in accordance with certain criteria. In these areas, planning efforts would

focus on enhancing multimodal elements, guiding redevelopment, and encouraging

appropriate infill.

A multimodal transportation district could also be applied to a new or emerging area,

where adopted plans and regulations would need to ensure the internal and external

connectivity, a mix of uses, densities, and urban design features necessary to support

alternative modes of transportation.

Implementation of multimodal LOS standards may provide a framework for

establishing multimodal mitigation requirements as part of the municipality’s land

development code and concurrency management system. Additional requirements

were established by the Florida Legislature on July 8, 2009 by Senate Bill 360, the


Page 7

Community Renewal Act. Specifically, amendments to Section 163.3180(5)(b), F.S.

designate Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEAs) in local governments

qualifying as Dense Urban Land Areas (DULAs). Because Hillsborough County

qualifies as a DULA, it is designated as a TCEA. Within two years of the TCEA

becoming effective (July 8, 2011), Hillsborough County must amend its local

comprehensive plan to include ʺland use and transportation strategies to support and

fund mobility within the exception area, including alternative modes of transportation.ʺ

This study takes the first step to developing these land use and transportation

strategies, and to set up the policy framework for mobility. For the USF Area MMTD in

Hillsborough County, the study identifies improvements to promote quality

multimodal service if minimum automobile LOS standards are exceeded by proposed

developments. This long‐term management strategy would look beyond the five‐year

Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan and would evaluate the

total potential for development within the proposed MMTD during a predetermined

planning horizon. Comprehensive Plan policy language can be tailored for MMTDs in

Hillsborough County as they are defined in Florida law.


Page 8

2.0 MULTIMODAL DISTRICT EVALUATION

Since Senate Bill 360 effectively designated Hillsborough County as a TCEA on July 8,

2009, the County and the USF Area is technically not required to meet the specific

Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD) requirements set by FDOT, the criteria

remain an effective way to evaluate the study area as a proposed MMTD. As explained

in the previous Section 1, Hillsborough County must amend its local comprehensive

plan to include ʺland use and transportation strategies to support and fund mobility

within the exception area, including alternative modes of transportationʺ by July 8,

2011. Therefore, the MMTD evaluation is relevant to developing the strategies.

Evaluating the existing conditions present within the University of South Florida (USF)

Area will assist in identifying the feasibility of implementing an MMTD. The criteria

used are from the Multimodal Transportation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service

Handbook (MMTD Handbook), published by the Florida Department of Transportation

in 2003. Using the MMTD Handbook as a guide, the following evaluation will

determine whether multimodal infrastructure planning is a feasible response to an

area’s mobility needs.

The data used for this MMTD evaluation comes from the Hillsborough County MPO,

Planning Commission, Property Appraiser, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model

(TBRPM), the Cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace, the Florida Geographic Data

Library, and Hillsborough Area Regional Transit. The jobs and population forecasts

used in this evaluation are based on data from the TBRPM Transportation Analysis

Zones (TAZs) for 2006. Although the USF Area MMTD Study Area boundary does not

exactly match the TAZ boundaries, the limits match closely enough to provide an

appropriate level of analysis for the following evaluation.

2.1 Study Area Boundary

The USF Area MMTD study area is located northeast and adjacent to the City of Tampa

including the USF campus and the area northeast of campus to I‐275 and Sinclair Hills

Road, as shown in Figure 2.1.


Page 9

Figure 2.1: USF Area MMTD Study Area Location Map

Source: Hillsborough County MPO.


Page 10

2.2 Multimodal Mobility and Land Use Evaluation

The MMTD Handbook is a guide for evaluating the land use and transportation

features necessary to establish a successful MMTD. Based on the direction provided by

the MMTD Handbook, the following criteria have been evaluated for the USF Area:

Appropriate Scale of Development;

Complementary Mix of Land Uses;

Appropriate Density, Intensity and Organization of Land Uses;

Connectivity;

Level of Service for Each Mode; and,

Areawide Quality of Service for Each Mode.

2.2.1 Appropriate Scale of Development

An MMTD should be a sufficient size, in population and jobs, to support various uses

and transportation alternatives, contain a variety of land uses including residential and

employment, and provide scheduled transit service. The MMTD Handbook identifies a

minimum of 5,000 residents and a minimum of 2 to 1 population to jobs ratio. The

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM) Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data for

2006 was used for this analysis. Within the eight square mile study area, there are over

40,000 residents and 40,000 jobs. The population to job ratio is approximately 1 persons

per job. As shown in Table 2.1, the USF Area meets and exceeds the minimum

requirements for both criteria.

Table 2.1: USF Area Population and Employees

Population Jobs Population:

Jobs Ratio

44,599 44,577 1

Source: Hillsborough County MPO and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TAZ data), 2006.

2.2.2 Land Use Diversity

The effective organization and mix of land uses can help reduce the number of

automobile trips and promote pedestrian, bicycle and transit trips. The MMTD should

have three or more land uses that are mutually supporting. Due to its size, population,

number of jobs, and character of development, the USF Area qualifies as a “Regional

Center” type of MMTD, according to the MMTD Handbook.


Page 11

The MMTD Handbook identifies significant (or highly desirable) land uses, and

supporting (or contributing) land uses. The significant uses are: Center Office, Regional

Shopping Centers, Hospitals, Recreational, Cultural, Schools and Colleges,

Governmental/Institutional, and Residential 8 to 24 units per acre. All of these uses are

found within the USF Area, with the exception of Center Office. The supporting uses in

the MMTD Handbook located in the USF Area are: Medical Office, Hotels, Theaters,

Restaurants, Retail, Day Care, and Light Industrial.

The primary land uses in the USF Area are Public/Institutions (25%), multi‐family

residential (20%), light commercial (11%), and single‐family residential (11%). The

locations of existing land uses are shown in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3. Figure 2.4 shows

a chart of existing land use composition. The significant uses in the USF Area and

surrounding area are listed below.

Recreational (Mort Park, University Community Area Park, and USF Botanical

Garden);

Governmental (Hillsborough County Veteran’s Affairs, Developmental Center,

Social Services Neighborhood Center and Head Start Division of Children’s

Services; Florida Department of Health and Vital Statistics; and U.S. Post Office);

Regional Shopping Centers (University Square Mall);

Schools/Colleges (USF, Mort and Muller Elementary Schools, and Bowers

Whitley Career Center/High School);

Hospitals (University Community Hospital, James A. Haley Veteran’s Hospital,

Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Shriners Hospital for Children, and

Northside All Children’s Specialty Care);

Libraries (USF Main Library, University Medical Library, Louis de La Parte

Research Library, Veteran’s Library, and Shriners Library);

Cultural (USF Theater, USF Contemporary Art Museum, art galleries, Cobb

Cinema, Museum of Science and Industry, IMAX Theater, etc.); and

Multi‐Family Residential (USF dormitories, St. Croix, Fairway Oaks, Reflections,

Cedar Trace, Sun Pointe Lake, etc.).


Page 12

Figure 2.2: Primary and Supporting Uses

Source: Hillsborough County and Florida Geographic Data Library, 2009.


Page 13

Figure 2.3: Existing Land Use Map

Source: Hillsborough County City‐County Planning Commission and Hillsborough County Property Appraiser,

2009.

USF


Page 14

Figure 2.4: Existing Land Use Composition

Source: Hillsborough County City‐County Planning Commission and Hillsborough County Property Appraiser,

2009.

2.2.3 Appropriate Density, Intensity, and Organization of Land Uses

The MMTD Handbook indicates that marginal transit supportive densities may be

realized with residential densities of 4 dwelling units per acre and employment

intensities of 40 employees per acre. The USF Area far exceeds the minimum residential

density, at approximately 13 units per acre areawide. However, there are only

approximately 21 employees per acre areawide. There are high concentrations of

employees at 60 or more per acre along the 30th Street corridor, as shown in Figure 2.5.

The highest concentrations of dwelling units at 15 or more units per acre occur along

Fletcher Avenue, as shown in Figure 2.6. Since USF has several dormitories, it is

important to also show the number of persons living in group quarters, since these are

not accounted for as dwelling units. There are 6,575 people living in group quarters in

the USF Area, or 939 people per acre, in addition to the 13 units per acre, as shown in

Figure 2.7.

Table 2.2 shows the density and intensity of residential and non‐residential land uses in

the USF Area. Non‐residential uses include Commercial, Industrial, Office,

Educational, and Public/Institutional. Not included in the density and intensity

calculations are Public Communications, Right‐of‐Way/Roads, Vacant, and Water.


Page 15

Figure 2.5: Employment Intensity by TAZ


USF


Page 16

Figure 2.6: Dwelling Unit Density by TAZ


USF


Page 17

Figure 2.7: Persons Living in Group Quarters by TAZ



Page 18

Table 2.2: Residential Densities and Employment Intensities per Acre

Land Use Type Total Dwelling

Units & Jobs Acres

Density &

Intensity per

Acre

Residential (Dwellings) 20,428 1,624 Approx. 13

Non‐Residential (Jobs) 44,577 2,120 Approx. 21

Source: Hillsborough County MPO, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TAZ data), and Hillsborough County

City‐County Planning Commission (Existing Land Use), 2006.

According to the MMTD Handbook, higher density uses such as commercial, office,

multi‐family residential, and institutions should be located within walking distances to

activity centers along major routes. This promotes fewer vehicle trips and increased

multimodal trips. These activity centers are best located at key intersections, to

promote transit use and access or intermodal transfer facilities.

Many uses in the USF Area are within walking distance of each other. Currently, the

University Area Transit Center is located within a quarter‐mile of the USF Campus, and

just over a half‐mile from the University Mall. A mix of land uses occur along major

corridors including Fletcher Avenue, Fowler Avenue, 30th Street, 56th Street, Bearss

Avenue, and Nebraska Avenue.

The organization of land uses in the USF Area provides a framework that promotes

multimodal travel options. Providing a central core of community services is a highly

desirable characteristic of MMTDs, creating vitality and pedestrian activity. The central

core currently seems to be the area surrounding the intersection of Fletcher Avenue and

30th Street, although the core needs to be strengthened. In addition, several clusters of

multi‐family residential development not located in the major corridors create a

challenge, and enhancements to the multimodal transportation system, such as access to

transit or implementation of pedestrian and bicycling amenities, are needed to better

link residential areas with the existing activity centers along the major corridors

2.2.4 Interconnected Multimodal Network

To reduce walking and biking trip lengths and provide multiple alternative routes, a

well‐defined grid street pattern is necessary. The MMTD Handbook recommends a

measure which calculates the number of blocks per square mile as a means of

estimating the street network connectivity. Based on this methodology, a measure of 50

blocks per square mile is considered to be an acceptable level of grid street network

refinement. For the purpose of this analysis, all roadway segments were considered to


Page 19

be elements of the bicycle and pedestrian network, therefore one map is used to

determine the overall connectivity.

Figure 2.8 illustrates the block densities within the USF Area. Section lines from the

Public Land Survey System were used to determine the square mile grid. Since the

MMTD boundary is not a square, several square mile sections are not completely within

the MMTD boundary. In these cases, both the polygons within the MMTD and outside

of it were counted within the square mile. Only one section north of Fletcher Avenue

between Nebraska Avenue and N. 22nd Street meets the minimum criteria with 50

blocks per square mile. The other portions of the USF Area need a better organized

street pattern and improved connectivity.

There are sidewalks and bicycle lanes along all the major roads in the USF Area. These

are shown in Figure 2.9. The University Area Transit Center (UATC), located just south

of Fletcher Avenue on Livingston Avenue, is an asset to the USF Area with access to

eleven Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) bus routes that serve a large area of

the Tampa area, and beyond with bus transfers. There are sidewalks in front of UATC

on Livingston Avenue, but no bicycle lanes.

The HART bus routes that stop at the UATC and run throughout the USF Area are

Routes 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 18, 33, 45, 57, and 83. Commuter Express Routes 20X and 51X run

through the USF Area but do not stop in it. HART bus routes and the UATC are shown

on Figure 2.9.

A number of intermodal facilities can be easily accessed from the bus routes within the

USF Area. The local bus routes serving the USF Area provide access to the following

regional destinations: Union Station (Amtrak), Tampa International Airport, Garrison

Cruise Ship Terminal and Port of Tampa, and the Greyhound bus station.


Page 20

Figure 2.8: Street Network Connectivity, Polygons per Square Mile

Source: Public Land Survey System and Jacobs, 2009.

USF


Page 21

Figure 2.9: Sidewalks, Bicycle Lanes and Bus Routes

Source: Hillsborough County MPO and HART, 2009.

USF


Page 22

According to schedules and maps provided by HART, the following bus routes

provide service to the USF Area:

Route 1 provides service every 20 to 30 minutes from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m., and every

60 minutes from 10 p.m. to midnight on weekdays. Service stops at 11 p.m. on

Saturdays, and at 9 p.m. on Sundays. This route connects the UATC along

Florida Avenue to the Marion Transit Center in Downtown Tampa.

Route 2 provides service every 15 to 20 minutes from 4 a.m. to midnight on

weekdays. On Saturdays, service is every 15 to 30 minutes from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m.

and every 60 minutes from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. On Sundays, service is every 30

minutes from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., and 60 minutes from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. This route

runs between the UATC along Nebraska Avenue to the Marion Transit Center in

Downtown Tampa.

Route 5 provides service every 30 minutes from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. weekdays, and

hourly service on Saturdays from 6:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. This route runs from the

UATC through USF campus, south on McKinley Drive, and through Ybor City to

the Marion Transit Center in Downtown Tampa.

Route 6 provides 20 to 40 minute service from 4:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and every 60

minutes on weekdays from 7:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. On weekends, service is every

45 to 60 minutes from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. This route runs from the UATC

through USF campus and along 56th Street to Netp@rk Transfer Center to the

Marion Transit Center in Downtown Tampa via 21st Avenue.

Route 9 provides service every 30 minutes on weekdays from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m.,

and hourly on Saturdays from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. This route runs from the UATC

south on 15th Street to the Yukon Transfer Center, and through Ybor City to the

Marion Transit Center in Downtown Tampa.

Route 12 provides 20 to 30 minute service on weekdays from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m.

and hourly from 10 p.m. to midnight. On the weekends, service is every 30

minutes from 6:30 a.m.to 7:30 p.m. and hourly from 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. This

route runs from the UATC along 22nd Street through Ybor City to the Marion

Transit Center in Downtown Tampa.

Route 18 provides service every 30 minutes on weekdays from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m.

and hourly from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. On Saturdays, hourly service is provided from

6 a.m. to 9 p.m. This route runs from Sinclair Hills Road to the University

Community Hospital and the UATC through USF campus, and along 30th Street

to 21st Avenue to the Marion Transit Center in Downtown Tampa.


Page 23

Route 33 provides hourly service on weekdays from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. and on

Saturdays hourly from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. This route runs from the UATC to the

University Mall, along Fletcher Avenue, and Dale Mabry Highway to North

Lakeview Drive.

Route 45 provides service every 30 minutes from 4:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. on

weekdays, and hourly service on weekends from 6:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. This route

runs from the UATC to the University Mall, along North Boulevard to Lowry

Park, St. Joseph’s Hospital, the West Tampa Transfer Center, and Westshore

Plaza Transfer Center.

Route 57 provides hourly service from 4:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays. This

route runs from the UATC to the University Community Hospital, the VA

Hospital, Morris Bridge Road, Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino, and

Netp@rk Transfer Center.

Route 83, the University Area Connector, provides service every 30 minutes

from 4 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays. On Saturdays, service is every 30 minutes

from 6:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. and every hour from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. On Sundays,

service is hourly from 7 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. This route runs from the UATC to the

University Area Community Development Center, to Bearss Plaza west of I‐275,

along Florida Avenue to 131st Avenue.

Two Commuter Express Bus routes, 20X and 51X, run through the USF Area to

Downtown Tampa, but do not stop inside the MMTD. The closest stop for Route

20X is at Fletcher Avenue and Florida Avenue, and Route 51X stops in New

Tampa on Bruce B. Downs stopping at the Lowe’s Park‐n‐Ride at Commerce

Palms Drive. Both provide two AM and two PM trips from North Tampa at 6

a.m. and 6:30 a.m., and from Downtown Tampa between 4:30 and 5:15 p.m.

In addition to bus service provided by HART, the USF Bull Runner shuttle bus

provides service to USF students every 10 to 15 minutes with several stops on

campus, the UATC, University Club, University Mall, and University Collection

shops, as shown in Figure 2.10. Routes A, B, C, D and E are in service from 7 a.m.

to midnight on Monday through Thursday, and from 7 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on

Friday. On Saturday and Sunday, Routes C and D are in service from 2:30 p.m.

to 9:30 p.m.


DRAFT Report – USF Area Multimodal Transportation District Page 24

April 2010

Figure 2.10: USF Bull Runner Shuttle Bus Routes, 2008‐2009 Source: University of South Florida, 2008.


Page 25

2.2.5 Quality and Level of Service (Q/LOS) for Each Mode

A successful MMTD provides convenient connections within the network and between

modes, as well as a desirable minimum Level of Service (LOS) for bicycle, pedestrian

and transit. Quality of Service (QOS) is the overall measure of perceived service

performance from the user’s point of view.

Pedestrian LOS is based on lateral separation between pedestrian and motor vehicle

traffic (presence of sidewalk, buffers, etc.), and motor vehicle traffic volume and speed.

Bicycle LOS is based on several factors including total width of pavement, traffic

volume in the outside lane, motor vehicle speeds, and designated bike lanes or paved

shoulders. Transit LOS is based on the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual,

relating to service frequency and hours of service, and pedestrian access to transit stops.

LOS A is the best and LOS F is the worst.

Using the multimodal LOS grading system documented in the 2002 FDOT Q/LOS

Manual, the Hillsborough County MPO gathered bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

and transit service data, and calculated Q/LOS grades for the major roadway network

and several minor roadways. The current bicycle, pedestrian, and transit LOS scores for

the USF Area are shown in Figures 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13.

For a non‐motorized oriented MMTD, rather than transit‐oriented MMTD, the

Areawide Q/LOS, the MMTD Handbook identifies LOS D as adequate for transit users,

and LOS C for pedestrian and bicycle users. Table 2.3 shows the number of roadway

system miles at each LOS grade for the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes. Table 2.4

shows the LOS for each mode as a percentage of the total.

Table 2.3: Level of Service by Mode, in Miles

Adequate LOS A B C D Subtotal

Bicycle 1.08 3.30 13.90 n/a 18.28

Pedestrian 0.00 0.32 6.65 n/a 6.97

Transit 2.31 3.36 1.53 7.03 14.23

Inadequate LOS D E F Subtotal Total Miles

Bicycle 4.64 4.19 0.00 8.83 27.11

Pedestrian 6.85 8.60 4.37 19.82 26.79

Transit n/a 6.88 4.02 10.90 25.13Source: Hillsborough County MPO and Jacobs, 2009.


Page 26

Table 2.4: Level of Service by Mode, as Percentage of Total

Adequate LOS A B C D Subtotal

Bicycle 4.0% 12.2% 51.3% n/a 67.4%

Pedestrian 0.0% 1.2% 24.8% n/a 26.0%

Transit 9.2% 13.4% 6.1% 28.0% 56.6%

Inadequate LOS D E F Subtotal

Bicycle 17.1% 15.5% 0.0% 32.6%

Pedestrian 25.6% 32.1% 16.3% 74.0%

Transit n/a 27.4% 16.0% 43.4% Source: Hillsborough County MPO and Jacobs, 2009.

Currently, 67% of the bicycle network, 26% of the pedestrian network, and 29% of the

transit network are functioning at an adequate LOS. For the implementation of a

successful MMTD, certain performance measures or targets are suggested. By the end of

the planning period, the performance target for pedestrian and bicycle networks should

be that 80% of all facilities function at LOS C or better. For the transit network, a

performance target is to have 80% of residents and jobs within a half‐mile of a transit

stop.

Another performance measure for Areawide Quality and Level of Service (Q/LOS) can

be evaluated by calculating the percentage of population and employees served by

adequate multimodal facilities. TBRPM year 2006 data for population and employment

were used to determine the total number of dwelling units and employees likely to be

situated within a quarter‐mile of roadway segments with adequate LOS scores for the

pedestrian and transit networks, and within a half‐mile of the bicycle network.

According to the MMTD Handbook, the criteria for measuring Quality of Service (QOS)

is based on the percentage of households and jobs within the service area, as shown

below. Table 2.5 shows the dwelling units and employees served by adequate LOS, and

resulting QOS, for each mode.

QOS Percentage of Households

and Jobs Served

A 90‐99%

B 80‐89%

C 70‐79%

D 60‐69%

E 50‐59%

F 1‐49%


Page 27

Table 2.5: Dwelling Units and Employees Served by Adequate LOS, and QOS

Mode

Miles with

Adequate

LOS

Area (Sq.

Miles)

Served

Dwelling

Units

Served

Employees

Served

% Area of

MMTD

Served

QOS

Total 34.36 6.99 20,428 44,577 n/a n/a

Bicycle 21.84 6.86 20,058 43,769 98.2% A

Pedestrian 6.97 3.53 10,307 22,492 50.5% E

Transit 5.55 3.18 9,294 20,281 45.5% F Source: Hillsborough County MPO and Jacobs, 2009.

Presently, the USF Area meets the areawide QOS criteria established in the MMTD

Handbook for bicycle, but not for pedestrian and transit. As such, improvements to the

multimodal network will be a critical part of the County’s multimodal district planning

process.


Page 28

Figure 2.11: Bicycle Level of Service

Source: Hillsborough County MP0.


Page 29

Figure 2.12: Pedestrian Level of Service



Page 30

Figure 2.13: Transit Level of Service



Page 31

2.3 MMTD Evaluation Summary

This evaluation provides the basis for determining what multimodal infrastructure

would be needed for an effective MMTD. The following summarizes the existing

conditions present within the USF Area and how it supports the implementation of an

MMTD, using the MMTD Handbook as a guide.

The proposed MMTD for the USF Area qualifies as a Regional Center, which the

MMTD Handbook defines as a Significant Area of Development Smaller than Urban

Center and larger than Town/Village.

General Characteristics

Regional Center

Population: 40,000

Jobs: 40,000

Population to Jobs Ratio: 1:1

Area: 8 square miles

Land Use and Transportation Assets

Diverse mix of land uses

Dense residential uses

Primary and supporting uses within walking distance

Appropriate organization of land uses along corridors

Walking is significant mode of travel

Multiple bus services available

Bus hub is located within the proposed District

Adequate LOS and Quality of Service (QOS) for bicycle use

Conditions Needing Improvement

Employment intensity areawide

Connectivity of street network

LOS and QOS for pedestrian and transit use

Central Core and relation of supporting uses.


Page 32

3.0 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

3.1 Development of Multimodal Needs

The existing conditions present within the USF Area, as detailed in Section 2, were

reviewed by the study team, agency stakeholders, and members of the public, in order

to help determine the needed multimodal transportation improvements. Also reviewed

were various approved plans of needed projects. The list of improvement projects

needed for multimodal transportation, estimated costs of these projects, and any

existing commitments of funds towards multimodal improvements were identified in

coordination with agency stakeholders and members of the public.

The approved plans reviewed for developing the list of projects were:

Hillsborough County MPO 2035 Long‐Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Needs

Assessment, 2009.

Adopted Hillsborough County Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years

2011‐2015, November 2009.

Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, August 2008.

The University Area Community and North 22nd Street Master Plans, October

2007.

2005 Tampa Campus Master Plan Update, October 2006.

HART Transit Emphasis Corridor Improvement Planning and Design Services

Study, March 2008.

North South Corridor BRT Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

Preliminary Engineering Report, October 2009.

Goals for the MMTD are to:

Plan for and implement strategies to support and fund mobility, and include

alternative modes of transportation;

Address urban design, appropriate land use mix, density and intensity; and

Address network connectivity needed to promote urban infill and

redevelopment.

The primary benefit of establishing an MMTD is the development of a framework that

allows developers to contribute to multimodal improvements which have been

identified through the use of a clear and understandable planning and prioritization

mechanism.


Page 33

The improvement projects should eliminate deficiencies in the multimodal

transportation network, and help achieve the proposed multimodal LOS standards over

the redevelopment timeframe for the USF Area MMTD. For the implementation of a

successful MMTD, certain performance measures or targets are suggested. By the end of

the planning period, the performance target for pedestrian and bicycle networks should

be that 80% of all facilities function at LOS C or better. For the transit network, a

performance target is to have 80% of residents and jobs within a half‐mile of a transit

stop.

3.1.1 Agency Stakeholders

Stakeholders included representatives from USF, University Area Community

Development Council, Tampa Homeowners Association of Neighborhoods,

Hillsborough County School District, Hillsborough County City‐County Planning

Commission, FDOT, Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA),

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART), City of Temple Terrace, City of Tampa,

Senator Victor Crist’s Office, and Bay Area Commuter Services. The stakeholder group

met at the USF Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) on June 30, 2009 and

October 1, 2009. Members of the group provided comments on report drafts at each

meeting. The Hillsborough County Transportation Task Force also provided review

and guidance.

3.1.2 Public Meetings

Two public meetings were held to discuss existing conditions and needed

improvements in the USF Area. These public meetings were held on September 9, 2009

and December 7, 2009, at 6:30 p.m., at the University Area Community Center at 14013

N. 22nd Street in Tampa. At these meetings, the Hillsborough Public Works

Department also discussed the Fletcher Avenue Pedestrian Safety Study that they are

conducting because the area surrounding Fletcher Avenue from 15th Street to 46th

Street has been identified as having one of the highest pedestrian crash rates in

unincorporated Hillsborough County. The study considers new road and traffic safety

features and includes a street lighting analysis, traffic conditions analysis, and

pedestrian safety education campaign. Improvements from the Fletcher Avenue Safety

Study are included in the USF Area MMTD program of improvements.

At the first public meeting, upon entering, attendees were given stickers for each mode

of transportation – walk, bike, transit, and car – and asked to place the stickers on the

map of the USF Area to show where they go and how they get there. The purpose of

this exercise was to help attendees start thinking about how they travel around the USF

Area. A formal presentation was made at the beginning of the meeting that included an

overview of the USF Area MMTD study’s purpose and goals, existing conditions


Page 34

analysis, and instructions for proving their input via questionnaires and map boards

set up around the room. Information on the Fletcher Avenue Safety Study was also

presented. There was a question and answer period after the presentations.

3.1.3 Initial Input Provided

The USF Area MMTD questionnaire given to each meeting attendee included a

mapping exercise and questions about each alternative mode of travel. Attendees were

asked to show in the map where they live and work, and where they regularly go

(school, grocery store, restaurants, entertainment) in the USF Area. They were asked to

show on the map the routes they take to get to those places, and to write on the map

next to the lines how they get there, whether it is “Drive,” “Walk,” “Bike,” or “Bus.”

The questionnaire then asked a series of questions relating to walking, biking and

taking transit. Several questions were asked about transit since there were no map

boards set up for transit, due to the nature of its problem areas being different than

walking and biking. Hillsborough County staff members and their consultants were

available to answer questions about this exercise.

The Questionnaire included the following questions:

What locations in the USF Area have you visited using the bus?

Where would you like to go on a bus that you can’t go now?

Which bus stops do you use, and what do you think of them?

Do you bike or walk to the bus stop?

What would make transit more attractive in the USF Area?

What would make walking more attractive in the USF Area?

What would make biking more attractive in the USF Area?

Which streets or intersections in the USF Area need the most attention overall?

What other comments do you have?

The questionnaire prompted attendees to visit the aerial maps of the USF Area set up in

the room showing pedestrian and bicycle problem areas. There was a “Walk Station”

and a “Bike Station” for attendees to visit. Some problem areas were shown on each

map, identifying potential needed improvements. A blank chart was next to each map

for attendees to identify additional needed improvements. Attendees were asked to

place stickers on the map in the location of the problem area, number the sticker to

correspond with the chart, and write the needed improvement on the chart.

Hillsborough County staff members and their consultants were stationed at the map to

assist attendees, and answer questions about the exercise. According to the sign in

sheets, 39 people attended this first meeting. Many of these attendees were agency

stakeholders. Results of the questionnaire and comments provided on charts are shown


Page 35

in Appendix A. Twelve questionnaires were returned. The maps and charts that were

on boards at the first meeting are shown in Appendix B.

Attendees were given a second questionnaire about the Fletcher Avenue Safety Study,

and were shown maps on boards. Staff members from Hillsborough County Public

Works and their consultants were stationed at these maps that showed the study area

and improvements under consideration. Public comments on this study are available

from the Hillsborough County Public Works Department.

3.1.4 Additional Input Provided

At the second public meeting, on December 7, 2009, lists of potential improvements

were shown with maps, in an open house meeting format. No formal presentation was

provided, but each attendee was greeted upon entering the meeting room and an

explanation of the meeting format was provided. Attendees were given a questionnaire

and sticker dots. The questionnaire explained: “Using the input provided at the public

meeting on September 9, 2009, potential projects were identified. These projects are

shown on maps and lists tonight. The projects are grouped by mode for the

Multimodal Study. Tonight, you will be asked to visit each of the 4 modes: Bicycle,

Pedestrian, Transit, and Roadways. Using the green dots attached, please indicate

which projects you feel are most important by placing a dot next to it on the list. You

may also add projects to the list. Staff will be available to assist with adding projects

and answering your questions. There are 24 green dots for your use, and 68 projects

listed in total. We appreciate your input!”

Attendees visited each map station to review the proposed projects. They talked with

Hillsborough County staff members and their consultants about the projects and

expressed concerns and ideas. Using their sticker dots, they voted for projects they felt

were most important, and added projects to the lists. The dot votes were tallied, and

the results are shown in Appendix C, including the maps displayed at the meeting.

Projects added by attendees are also shown on the maps. Attendees were given the

opportunity to provide written comments as well. General comments from nine

attendees are summarized in Appendix D. According to the sign in sheets, 33 people

attended this first meeting. Many of these attendees were agency stakeholders.

Staff members from Hillsborough County Public Works and their consultants were also

at this second public meeting to present updated maps and proposed improvements for

the Fletcher Avenue Safety Study. Attendees were given a questionnaire about this

study, and were shown maps on boards. Public comments on this study are available

from the Hillsborough County Public Works Department.


Page 36

3.2 Needed Projects for Multimodal Transportation

Types of improvements for the USF Area MMTD include the following, in various

locations through the USF Area.

Pedestrian Improvements

Sidewalks

Intersection improvements such as ADA curb‐cuts, crosswalks and pedestrian

signals

Pedestrian enhancements such as landscaping and lighting

Drainage improvements


Bicycle Improvements

Bicycle lanes

Wider and more clearly defined bicycle lanes

Bicycle signals

Motorist and bicycle safety and education

Bicyclist amenities such as secure bike storage boxes


Transit Improvements

Improved frequency and expanded hours on existing local bus routes

New local bus service

New premium bus service such as “MetroRapid” BRT

New circulator bus route serving major destinations in USF Area

New Light Rail limited‐stop service

Better taxi service

Road Improvements

Widen roads

Add turn lanes

Divide undivided roads

Complete improvements lists are provided in tables in this report. The costs of the

projects were identified using cost estimates from the LRTP and CIP. Priorities were

established based on the project’s potential to improve the Pedestrian Bicycle, Transit or

Roadway LOS, and if it would connect to an existing facility (sidewalk, bicycle lane, or

transit route), an arterial, primary neighborhood collector, or primary USF

thoroughfare. The prioritization scoring is explained on the tables. The summary list of

improvements with cost and maps are shown in Appendix E; the summary with


Page 37

prioritization scores is shown in Appendix F; and detailed list by segment is shown in

Appendix G.

The process of developing the Multimodal Transportation Plan for the USF Area

included analysis of the area’s mobility needs, review of existing plans and programs,

and integration of comments from the public, stakeholders, and agency partners.

Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the MMTD Plan will encourage

redevelopment and provide mobility options for a growing population. Involving the

citizens, stakeholders, and agency partners early on and throughout the development of

the program of improvements was critical to creating a plan that will not only meet the

needs of the community, but have the full support of the community as

recommendations are implemented and promote greater awareness and understanding

of the USF Area’s multimodal transportation needs.

The summary lists of needed improvements were presented to the MPO Board and

committees in February 2010. It is anticipated that the final report will be presented to

the MPO Board in the summer of 2010, and possible amendments to the

Comprehensive Plan and Land Development would occur later.


Page 38

APPENDIX A: Public Meeting Questionnaire Results (Sept. 9, 2009)

Two public meetings held at the University Area Community Center in Tampa. At the first

meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 2009, at 6:30 p.m., twelve questionnaires were returned.

The original questionnaire and summary of results are shown below.


Page 39


Page 40

SUMMARY RESULTS:

Part 1. Mapping Exercise

Many respondents noted using alternative modes of transportation on campus such as walking,

bus, and bike but resorted to driving to locations off of campus

According to respondents the most heavily travelled roads include, Fowler Ave., BBD Blvd.,

Bearss Ave., N. 22nd St., and Fletcher Ave.

Part 2. Transit Questions

1. What locations in the USF Area have you visited using the bus?

4 responded “None”

Bull Runner on USF Campus

Come in from Sulphur Springs

University Mall, Nebraska Ave., Temple Terrace

UATC, University Mall

The Cambridge Woods Apartments off of 42nd to USF from 42nd

Marshall Center

None by HART; used to take Bull Runner to work but does not come at time I need it.

2. Where would you like to go on a bus that you can’t go now?

Work – Busch Gardens or using the bus to go to lunch in the USF area

#2 along Fletcher Ave. and #1 along 142nd St.

Bus routes currently serve desired destinations, but are circuitous and take a long time

Big Top Flea Market

Home in Hunters Green

3. Which bus stops do you use, and what do you think of them?

N/A, live in Pasco

22nd Street far from Fletcher Ave. (should be closer)

Have used transit transfer center at 131st Avenue. Have boarded HART at stop in front of USF

administration bldg.

Bus stop near Cedar Trace Apartments Fletcher/Nebraska. UATC, University Mall

UATC, Fletcher and Dale Mabry Hwy., and Hillsborough Ave.

4. Do you bike or walk to the bus stop?

N/A Live in Pasco

Walk – To USF HART stop, drove to USF 131st Avenue HART transfer center

Walk

Bike

Walk


Page 41

5. What would make transit more attractive in the USF Area?

Focus and emphasis on pedestrian use; being generous to encourage pedestrian activity; balance

between pedestrian and car.

More frequent, better connecting

Better sidewalk connectivity, better lit areas, less crime

Greater frequency of service

More bus service

More shaded areas and more fountains

Bus turnout lanes and stops nearer to crosswalks

Bus service along BBD Blvd. with a stop outside Hunters Green and another near USF

Bull Runner start earlier; more frequent stops for both HART and Bull Runner; better lighting;

covered stops

Part 3. Walk Questions

6. Walk Station Board Comments (from charts next to aerial map of problem areas)

Sticker 1 – 22nd St. entire corridor – lack of curb cuts at driveways to ADA

Sticker 2 – 22nd St. Bearss Ave. to Fletcher Ave. – bike lanes need better separation/safety issues

Sticker 3 – 138th St. 15th St. to 19th St. – lack of sidewalks

Sticker 4 – 138th St. 15th St. to 19th St. – to narrow of a road for transit

Sticker 5 – 14th St. 15th St. to 19th St. – needs to be paved, dirt road

Sticker 6 – Fletcher Ave. to BBD Blvd. – no sidewalks

Sticker 7 – 54th St. South of Fletcher Ave. – no sidewalks

Sticker 8 – 22nd St. South of Fletcher Ave. – lack of transit to mall

Sticker 9 – 19th St., 142nd St. – lack of turning radius for transit

Sticker 10 – Pine Dr., 30th St. ‐ No sidewalk

Sticker 11 – Pine Dr., 30th St. – limited crossing time

Sticker 12 – Fletcher Ave. – concerns about bike lane safety

Sticker 13 – Fletcher Ave. – no Sidewalks

Sticker 14 – Fletcher Ave. and BBD Blvd. – bike land thru right turn lane

Sticker 15 – General – kiosks, transit guides/carpooling and bike buddies, bike lane maps

Sticker 16 – BBD Blvd., north of Fletcher Ave. – needs sidewalks

7. What would make walking more attractive in the USF area?

Large sidewalks, no less than 10 feet, landscaped barriers to create a buffer between pedestrians

and cars.

Less cars, especially less turning cars

Better lighting, better sidewalk connectivity

Connecting sidewalks and more pedestrian activity for greater sense of security. Reduced motor

vehicle speeds, shade and shelter.

Crosswalks at intersections

Shade, foliage, water features

More shade by trees and more shops

Wider sidewalks with shade covering

Segway friendly and transit parking

More lighting, connectivity of sidewalks, BBD Blvd., to Pine Dr., or the rest of USF

Sidewalks on south side of Fletcher Ave. between BBD Blvd. and 56th St.

Shade, cut‐throughs, more crosswalks


Page 42

Part 4. Bike Questions

8. Bike Station Board Comments (from charts next to aerial map of problem areas)

Sticker 1 – Fletcher Ave., 56th St. – Bikes lanes don’t go straight across, no stop for eastbound from

56th St.

Sticker 2 – Pine Dr., 30th St. BBD Blvd. – No Bike lane, no sidewalk, only route to University

Square Dr.

Sticker 3 – 50th St., south of Fletcher Ave. across from Holly Dr. – Line up of cars make crossing

on 50th St. very difficult; pedestrians hit

Sticker 4 – Bus service needed on BBD Blvd. to get closer to campus and utilize another mode i.e.

bike or segway on bus – could also improve bike trail connection from end of BBD Blvd. trail to

campus via 42nd St. and 46th St.

Sticker 5 – BBD Blvd. – gap from BBD Blvd. trail

Sticker 6 – University Square Dr. – Narrow, needs bike lanes, heavily traveled, most direct route

private road, not well maintained. Also footpaths worn through sides of commercial areas more

access to those stores in back or side.

Sticker 8 – Overall bicycle access to/from campus. On campus adequate but moving off of

residential student housing lacking.

Sticker 9 – Eastbound Bearss Ave. to Southbound BBD Blvd., BBD Blvd. north of Skipper Rd. and

south of Oak Ramble apts. ‐ Difficult for bicyclists to ride southbound on BBD Blvd., cross over

Bears Ave. then cross over merge lane. Traffic is accelerating there. Need multiuse path to extend

southward form Oak Ramble Apts.

9. What would make biking more attractive in the USF area?

Bike troughs

Getting off the sidewalk (where they jeopardize the pedestrians). Scooters also alternative to

bicycles.

Better maintenance of existing bike lanes. Gravel, sand, mud, broken glass in bike lanes pose

danger.

More connection between bike lanes, especially between student housing north of campus.

Bicycle/pedestrian safety through the Cambridge Woods neighborhood between 42nd St. and 37th

St. This is a major pedestrian walkway as the Bull Runner does not serve 37th St. apartments.

I would feel more comfortable if the bike lanes were improved from 42nd St. to USF. I would be

more inclined to ride my bike if it were safer.

Bike lanes ability to take bike/segway home on bus from USF to and from Hunters Green.

Part 5. General Questions

10. Which streets or intersections in the USF Area need the most attention overall? Magnolia Dr. and Fletcher Ave., BBD Blvd. and Fletcher Ave.

22nd St. and Fletcher Ave.

Intersection of Fletcher Ave. and Magnolia Dr., 46th St. needs bike lanes

22nd St. between the mall and Bearss Ave. Needs to have three lanes, one for making left turn

Fletcher 15th St. east. Bearss Ave. from USF west to Dale Mabry Hwy., 46th St. around to 42nd St.

Fletcher Ave. and 22nd St. Bearss Ave. and Fletcher Ave. need bike lanes

North 22nd St. 131st Ave. from VA hospital to 22nd St. near USF


Page 43

Fletcher Ave., it is just off USF, lots of students live there and should use bikes

Fletcher Ave./BBD Blvd., Fowler Ave./BBD Blvd., Fowler Ave./53rd St., 30th St., Pine Dr.

Fletcher Ave. and USF Palm Dr. – 1,000 student cross here every day

11. What other comments do you have?

Recent roadwork on 22nd St. impairs the quick access for fire and rescue. Why do we need plants

in pedestrian median to waste water and tax payer money?

Look at bike transit in Portland and even downtown St. Pete for positive transit ideas

Thanks!

There are many veterans in the area, crosswalk lighting or lengthening the amount of time before

countdown would benefit them.

All questionnaires were returned on September 9, 2009, except for the following comments that were

received from Brian Pessaro via email on 9/11/09.

Additional Comments from FDOT District Seven

1. Include private infrastructure (roadways, bike paths, sidewalks) in LOS calculations. Also consider

that some places like parking lots and fields, though not ideal, may still provide a certain level of

pedestrian/bicycle accessibility.

2. Proposed mid‐block pedestrian crossing should be placed in strategic locations providing the

shortest path between generators and attractors.

3. Consider bus stop locations as a factor in pedestrian safety. Stops should be located as to encourage

use of pedestrian facilities (e.g. near intersections, proposed mid‐block crossings). An analysis of

pedestrian crossing patterns may show a high correlation between bus stops and

generators/attractors.

4. The special area plan and the corresponding land development regulations should include private

sector requirements for pedestrian/bicycle facilities (e.g. bicycle parking, showers, shortest path

sidewalk connections leading to building entrances, pedestrian entrances/exits in fences/walls).

5. The list of projects should be a holistic list to include both public and private projects even though the

private projects are not directly controlled by Hillsborough County.


Page 44

APPENDIX B: Public Meeting Map and Chart Boards (Sept. 9, 2009)

Walk Station Map and Chart


Page 45

Bike Station Map and Chart


Page 46

APPENDIX C: Public Meeting Map and Chart Boards (Dec. 7, 2009)

Walk Station Map and Charts


Page 47


Page 48


Page 49


Page 50

Note: Projects in green were those added by attendees at the public meeting.


Page 51

Bike Station Map and Charts


Page 52


Page 53


Page 54



Page 55

Transit Station Map and Charts


Page 56



Page 57


Page 58


Page 59

APPENDIX D: Public Meeting General Comments (Dec. 7, 2009)

Two public meetings held at the University Area Community Center in Tampa. At the second

meeting on Monday, December 7, 2009, at 6:30 p.m., nine questionnaires were returned. A

summary of these comments are shown below.

Great Idea! Make me feel empowered as a part of my community. Did a great job of touching on key

projects relevant to transportation.

Bike lanes should be separated from roadway. Why isn’t 42nd defined as a pedestrian‐oriented

corridor? Does that term even exist? (in the county) Can the county deliberately design something

that is pedestrian‐oriented? Including landscape, lighting, separation from cars, orientation of

buildings/retail. I challenge you to have some guts!

Most of the projects look great. I would hate to see 46th Street and Skipper widened. They have a nice

neighborhood feeling. A train station at 42nd St. N and Bruce B. Downs would be a great location.

Sidewalks needed along 43rd St. (between Skipper and Bruce B. Downs).

Besides need for HART employees to get out of cars, as to consulting professionals and for HART

office staff to get out of the office and into the field, is a chronic need for a 33X that every 10 minutes

during rush hour goes between USF and Carrollwood, only stopping at UATC, both a south – such

along then crossable Fletcher and North such along Bearss Ave. Also that commuter bus to Pasco

goes into USF. No 1 cent sales tax is already too high and does discourage purchases. More money

can be raised (earmarked for transportation) by enforcement of traffic laws, especially turning cars

and bicycles on sidewalks . Rail is much cheaper if not electrified.

For pedestrian crosswalks blank out no turn signals for blinking yellow red turn signals when

pedestrians are crossing should be used. For bicycles, consider use of bike boxes at intersections,

making signal induction‐loop actuators trigger for bicycles and other facilities which make it possible

to make left turns at lights.

Please do not expand Fletcher Ave. A preservation and wildlife/recreational parks provide canoeing

and awesome outside adventures. Widening Fletcher Ave. could damage the Flatwoods please don’t

expand Fletcher.

On Bruce B. Downs, the Northern side of Fletcher Ave. there could be sidewalk improvements

especially near Grand Pavilion Drive, it is a dangerous intersection for bicyclists. More lighting can be

added because light and sidewalks are the only thing preventing me from venturing there in the

evening hours. The intersection of Fletcher Ave. and Livingston could be improved with a blank out

no turning when pedestrians in crosswalk because many accidents (including myself) have taken

place in that spot.

Excellent ideas. More interested in seeing pedestrian and bicycle lanes and safety improvements then

widening Fletcher Ave. and Fowler Ave. Opposed to widening Fletcher and Fowler Avenues.


Page 60

APPENDIX E: Improvements Summary List with Cost by Corridor with Maps

PEDESTRIAN NEEDS

Map # Roadway From To Improvement Cost (2009 $) LRTP Funding Source

1 131st Ave Nebraska Ave 20th St Sidewalks ‐ gaps only $104,410 Needs Plan Unfunded

2 138th Ave 15th St 19th St Sidewalks $89,005 None Unfunded

3 22nd St Fletcher Ave Bearss Ave Lighting unknown None Unfunded

4 22nd St Area‐wide Program Drainage $682,000 None Underway

5 30th St Bearss Ave Fowler Ave Sidewalks $320,077 Needs Plan Unfunded

6 30th St Bearss Ave Fowler Ave Intersections $485,979 Needs Plan Unfunded

7 30th St Grand Pavilion Intersection $53,998 None Unfunded

8 42nd St Skipper Rd Fletcher Ave Sidewalks $263,593 None Unfunded

9 42nd St Skipper Rd Fletcher Ave Drainage unknown None Unfunded

10 43rd St BBD Skipper Rd Sidewalks $47,926 None Unfunded

11 46th St Fletcher Ave Skipper Rd Sidewalks $131,796 None Unfunded

12 46th St Skipper Rd (SW corner) Drainage unknown None Unfunded

13 46th St Skipper Rd (SW corner) Safety bollards/barrier unknown None Unfunded

14 50th St Fletcher Ave Fowler Ave Sidewalks $71,889 None Unfunded

15 53rd St Fletcher Ave Fowler Ave Sidewalks $174,587 None Unfunded

16 56th St Fletcher Ave Fowler Ave Sidewalks $258,458 Cost Affordable Sales Tax

17 56th St Fletcher Ave Fowler Ave Landscaping, lighting unknown Needs Plan Unfunded

18 56th St 127th Ave Intersection $53,998 Cost Affordable Sales Tax

19 Alumni Dr Pine Dr Bull Run Sidewalks $311,519 None Unfunded

20 BBD Bearss Ave Skipper Rd Sidewalks (part of road widening) $0 Cost Affordable Sales Tax

21 BBD Bearss Ave Skipper Rd Intersections $107,995 None Unfunded

22 Bearss Ave I‐275 Ramp BBD Intersections $701,969 Needs Plan Unfunded

23 Bearss Ave Nebraska Ave Skipper Rd Sidewalks $131,796 Needs Plan Unfunded

24 Cambridge Woods Dr 37th St 42nd St Sidewalks $106,122 None Unfunded

25 Elm Dr 50th St Bull Run Sidewalks $68,466 None Unfunded

26 Elm Dr 50th St Intersection $53,998 None Unfunded

27 Fletcher Ave I‐275 Ramp 56th St Intersections $1,079,952 Cost Affordable TE

28 Fletcher Ave I‐275 Ramp 56th St Landscaping, lighting unknown Needs Plan Unfunded

29 Fletcher Ave Magnolia Dr 56th St Sidewalks $504,934 Cost Affordable TE

30 Fowler Ave I‐275 Ramp 56th St Sidewalks $333,769 Cost Affordable OA

31 Fowler Ave I‐275 Ramp 56th St Intersections $1,025,958 Cost Affordable OA

32 Fowler Ave I‐275 Ramp 56th St Landscaping, lighting unknown Needs Plan Unfunded

33 Holly Dr 30th St Magnolia Dr Sidewalks $13,693 None Unfunded

34 Livingston Ave Fletcher Ave 131st St Sidewalks $39,368 None Unfunded

35 Magnolia Dr Fletcher Ave Holly Dr Sidewalks $75,312 None Unfunded

36 Maple Dr Fletcher Ave Alumni Dr Sidewalks $44,503 None Unfunded


Page 61

PEDESTRIAN NEEDS


37 Nebraska Ave Bearss Ave Fowler Ave Intersections $323,986 None Unfunded

38 Pine Dr 30th St Alumni Dr Sidewalks $61,619 None Unfunded

39 Skipper Rd BBD 46th St Sidewalks $107,833 None Unfunded

40 Spectrum Blvd Pine Dr Fowler Ave Sidewalks $18,828 None Unfunded

BICYCLE NEEDS


1 131st Ave 22nd St 30th St Bike Lanes $238,308 None Unfunded

2 15th St Fletcher Ave Fowler Ave Bike Lanes $464,701 Cost Affordable Unfunded

3 42nd St Fletcher Ave BBD Bike Lanes $414,657 None Unfunded

4 46th St Fletcher Ave Skipper Rd Bike Lanes $366,995 Needs Plan Unfunded

5 Alumni Dr Lee Roy Collins Maple Dr Bike Lanes $123,920 Needs Plan Unfunded

6 BBD Bearss Ave Skipper Rd Multi‐use Trail $161,981 Needs Plan Unfunded

7 BBD Bearss Ave Intersection Bike Lanes $107,995 Needs Plan Unfunded

8 Bearss Ave I‐275 Ramp BBD Bike Lanes $967,532 Cost Affordable TMA

9 Bull Run Dr Alumni Dr Elm Dr Bike Lanes $109,622 None Unfunded

10 Cambridge Woods Dr 37th St 42nd St Bike Lanes $142,985 None Unfunded

11 Fletcher Ave I‐275 Ramp 22nd St Bike Lanes $567,173 Cost Affordable TMA

12 Fowler Ave I‐275 Ramp Nebraska Ave Bike Lanes $85,791 Needs Plan Unfunded

13 Holly Dr 30th St N. Palm Dr Bike Lanes $409,891 Needs Plan Unfunded

14 Magnolia Dr Fletcher Ave Holly Dr Bike Lanes $104,856 Needs Plan Unfunded

15 Maple Dr Holly Dr Alumni Dr Bike Lanes $247,841 Needs Plan Unfunded

16 N. Palm Dr Fletcher Ave Holly Dr Bike Lanes $109,622 Needs Plan Unfunded

17 Nebraska Ave Bearss Ave Fowler Ave Bike Lanes $1,087,218 Cost Affordable TE

18 Pine Dr 30th St Alumni Dr Bike Lanes $85,791 Needs Plan Unfunded

19 Skipper Rd BBD 46th St Bike Lanes $109,622 Needs Plan Unfunded

20 Skipper Rd Nebraska Ave 16th St Bike Lanes $257,373 Needs Plan Unfunded

21 Sycamore Dr Elm Dr Holly Dr Bike Lanes $214,477 None Unfunded

22 University Square Dr 30th St Club Dr Bike Lanes $59,577 None Unfunded

23 N/A ‐ Area‐wide Program Safety Awareness $50,000 Needs Plan Unfunded

24 N/A ‐ Off‐Road BBD Fletcher Ave Multi‐use Trail $635,698 None Unfunded

Notes for Pedestrian & Bicycle Lists Bicycle and Pedestrian Costs: FDOT District Seven Centerline Cost Estimates (July 2009).

USF = University of South Florida; BBD = Bruce B Downs Blvd; LRTP = 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, MPO, 2009.

TMA = Transportation Management Area Funds (Federal); TE = Transportation Enhancement Funds (Federal)


Page 62

TRANSIT NEEDS

Map # Name of Service Type of Service Length of Service Within USF Area

Capital Cost * (2009 $)

Annual O&M Cost * (2009 $)

LRTP Funding Source

1 Bull Runner Amenities ** n/a $754,000 unknown None Unfunded

2 Nebraska‐Fletcher MetroRapid

Bus Rapid Transit 2.03 miles $4,734,182 $284,160 Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, System Revenue, State Transit Program

3 New Route on Bearss Ave New Local Bus 3.29 miles $1,713,198 $1,014,984 Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, System Revenue, State Transit Program

4 New Route on Fowler Ave New Local Bus 3.21 miles $1,102,500 $653,692 Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, System Revenue, State Transit Program

5 Route 45 Improved Local Bus 2.21 miles unknown unknown Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, System Revenue, State Transit Program



8 UATC‐New Tampa MetroRapid

Bus Rapid Transit 2.96 miles $6,600,839 $969,750 Cost Affordable Unfunded

9 University Area Circulator Circulator Bus 4.84 miles $1,490,133 $938,624 Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, System Revenue, State Transit Program

10 Westshore to USF Short Distance Rail 2.50 miles $162,500,000 $3,215,408 Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, State New Starts, New Federal Assistance

Notes for Transit List * Cost of portion of route located within the USF MMTD Study Area only, as opposed to the length of the entire route.

** New shelters with pad, bench, bike rack, trash receptacle. Currently 93 stops in system, 33 of those are sheltered. 13 new shelters needed to meet goal of half of total stops sheltered. (Cost $58,000 each, HART 2009.)

Transit Costs: 2035 MPO LRTP Needs Assessment (September 2009). Assumes per mile cost of project (total route cost/length) multiplied by length in study area.

USF = University of South Florida; UATC = University Area Transit Center; LRTP = 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, MPO, 2009.


Page 63

SUMMARY LIST BY CORRIDOR

ROADWAY NEEDS

Map # Roadway From To Improvement Lane

Type Cost in CIE (2009 $)

Cost in 2035 LRTP CA (2009 $)

Funding Years Funding Source

1 131st Ave Nebraska Ave 30th St 2U to 4D ‐ $45,680,000 None Unfunded

2 22nd St Club Dr Fletcher Ave 2U to 2D ‐ $3,600,000 By 2015 Sales Tax

3 46th St Fletcher Ave Skipper Rd 2U to 4D ‐ $23,048,000 None Unfunded

4 BBD Bearss Ave Palm Springs Rd PD&E $3,800,000 ‐ 2009‐2015 CIT Phase III, Gas Taxes, General Revenues, Grants & County Match

5 BBD Bearss Ave Palm Springs Rd 4D to 6D * ‐ $43,000,000 2015‐2025 Sales Tax

6 Fletcher Ave 30th St I‐75 PD&E only $4,000,000 ‐ 2009‐2015 CIT Phase III ‐ Transportation Task Force

7 Fletcher Ave 30th St Morris Bridge Rd 4D to 6D ‐ $147,624,000 None Unfunded

8 Livingston Ave Bearss Ave Vandervort Rd 2U to 4D ‐ $59,966,000 None Unfunded

9 Skipper Rd BBD 46th St 2U to 4D ‐ $11,969,000 None Unfunded

Notes for Roadway List

* As listed in 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, this highway project includes sidewalks.

CIE = Capital Improvements Element, Nov. 2009; CA= Cost Affordable; CIT = Community Investment Tax

U = Undivided, D = Divided, PD&E = Project Development and Environment Study BBD = Bruce B Downs Blvd; LRTP = 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, MPO, 2009.

Notes for All Needs

All Needs: 2035 MPO LRTP Needs Assessment (September 2009), Level Of Service deficiencies, and Public Workshops 9/9/09 and 12/7/09.


Page 64


Page 65


Page 66

APPENDIX F: Prioritized Improvements Summary List with Cost by Corridor

SUMMARY LIST BY CORRIDOR ‐ SORTED BY TOTAL

1.1 PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS

Roadway From To Improvement Jurisdiction

Cost (2009 $)

LRTP Funding Source

MPO LRTP Need1

LOS Need2

LOS Not Assigned

Public Comment ConnectivityTotal8Wkshp

13 Wkshp 24 A5 B6 C7

1 Fletcher Ave I‐275 Ramp 56th St Intersections County $1,079,952 Cost Affordable TE 1 3 1 19 7 1 3 35

2 30th St Bearss Ave Fowler Ave Sidewalks County $320,077 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 3 1 13 4 1 2 25

3 Fletcher Ave I‐275 Ramp 56th St Landscaping, lighting County unknown Needs Plan Unfunded 1 3 1 6 7 1 3 22

4 30th St Bearss Ave Fowler Ave Intersections County $485,979 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 3 1 8 4 1 2 20

5 Fowler Ave I‐275 Ramp 56th St Sidewalks State $333,769 Cost Affordable OA 1 3 0 4 6 1 3 18

6 Fletcher Ave Magnolia Dr 56th St Sidewalks County $504,934 Cost Affordable TE 1 3 1 5 3 1 3 17

7 Fowler Ave I‐275 Ramp 56th St Intersections State $1,025,958 Cost Affordable OA 1 3 0 3 6 1 3 17

8 Fowler Ave I‐275 Ramp 56th St Landscaping, lighting State unknown Needs Plan Unfunded 1 3 0 2 6 1 3 16

9 43rd St BBD Skipper Rd Sidewalks County $47,926 None Unfunded 0 0 x 0 13 1 0 0 14

10 Skipper Rd BBD 46th St Sidewalks County $107,833 None Unfunded 0 2 0 9 2 0 0 13

11 30th St Grand Pavilion Intersection County $53,998 None Unfunded 0 3 0 7 1 1 0 12

12 56th St Fletcher Ave Fowler Ave Sidewalks County $258,458 Cost Affordable Sales Tax 1 2 0 6 2 1 0 12

13 50th St Fletcher Ave Fowler Ave Sidewalks County $71,889 None Unfunded 0 1 0 4 2 1 2 10

14 42nd St Skipper Rd Fletcher Ave Sidewalks County $263,593 None Unfunded 0 0 x 0 8 1 0 0 9

15 42nd St Skipper Rd Fletcher Ave Drainage County unknown None Unfunded 0 0 x 0 8 1 0 0 9

16 56th St Fletcher Ave Fowler Ave Landscaping, lighting County unknown Needs Plan Unfunded 1 2 0 3 2 1 0 9

17 Bearss Ave I‐275 Ramp BBD Intersections County $701,969 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 2 0 2 3 1 0 9

18 Cambridge Woods Dr 37th St 42nd St Sidewalks County $106,122 None Unfunded 0 0 x 1 8 0 0 0 9

19 Livingston Ave Fletcher Ave 131st St Sidewalks City $39,368 None Unfunded 0 0 x 0 6 2 0 0 8

20 22nd St Fletcher Ave Bearss Ave Lighting County unknown None Unfunded 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 7

21 131st Ave Nebraska Ave 20th St Sidewalks ‐ gaps only County $104,410 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 0 x 0 1 3 1 0 6

22 46th St Fletcher Ave Skipper Rd Sidewalks County $131,796 None Unfunded 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 6

23 46th St Skipper Rd (SW corner) Drainage County unknown None Unfunded 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 6

24 46th St Skipper Rd (SW corner) Safety bollards/ped barrier County unknown None Unfunded 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 6

25 Bearss Ave Nebraska Ave Skipper Rd Sidewalks County $131,796 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 6

26 Nebraska Ave Bearss Ave Fowler Ave Intersections State $323,986 None Unfunded 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 6

27 56th St 127th Ave Intersection County $53,998 Cost Affordable Sales Tax 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 5

28 BBD Bearss Ave Skipper Rd Sidewalks (part of road widening) County $0 Cost Affordable Sales Tax 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 5

29 BBD Bearss Ave Skipper Rd Intersections County $107,995 None Unfunded 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 5

30 53rd St Fletcher Ave Fowler Ave Sidewalks City $174,587 None Unfunded 0 0 x 1 1 2 0 0 4

31 Magnolia Dr Fletcher Ave Holly Dr Sidewalks USF $75,312 None Unfunded 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 4

32 Pine Dr 30th St Alumni Dr Sidewalks USF $61,619 None Unfunded 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 4

33 22nd St Area‐wide Program Drainage County $682,000 None Underway 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3

34 Alumni Dr Pine Dr Bull Run Sidewalks USF $311,519 None Unfunded 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3


Page 67


1.1 PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS

Roadway From To Improvement Jurisdiction

Cost (2009 $)

LRTP Funding Source

MPO LRTP Need1

LOS Need2

LOS Not Assigned

Public Comment ConnectivityTotal8Wkshp

13 Wkshp 24 A5 B6 C7

35 Holly Dr 30th St Magnolia Dr Sidewalks USF $13,693 None Unfunded 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3

36 138th Ave 15th St 19th St Sidewalks County $89,005 None Unfunded 0 0 x 1 0 1 0 0 2

37 Elm Dr 50th St Bull Run Sidewalks USF $68,466 None Unfunded 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

38 Elm Dr 50th St Intersection USF $53,998 None Unfunded 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

39 Maple Dr Fletcher Ave Alumni Dr Sidewalks USF $44,503 None Unfunded 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

40 Spectrum Blvd Pine Dr Fowler Ave Sidewalks USF $18,828 None Unfunded 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

Notes for Pedestrian Projects 1 One point for designation as a project in the MPO 2035 LRTP Needs Plan 2 One point if the most deteriorated LOS along the corridor or intersection is equal to ‘D’

Two points if the most deteriorated LOS along the corridor or intersection is equal to ‘E’

Three points if the most deteriorated LOS along the corridor or intersection is equal to ‘F’

Certain roads do not have an LOS assignment. 3 One point for public comments received at first workshop ‐ any mention received a 1 score 4 One point for each vote in favor received at second workshop ‐ 24 votes (dots) were given to each attendee to use on any mode, and to vote for projects they added

Arterials and minor neighborhood collectors included were: Fowler Ave, Fletcher Ave, Bearss Ave, Bruce B. Downs Blvd, 131st Ave, Nebraska Ave, 15th St, 22nd St, 30th St, 46th St, 50th St, 56th St 5 One point for direct connection to an arterial and/or minor neighborhood collector in the USF MMTD Area 6 One point if project is actually on one of the above arterials or minor neighborhood collectors 7 One point for direct connection to primary USF campus thoroughfare Note: Primary USF campus thoroughfares included were: Holly Dr, Pine Dr, Spectrum Blvd, Alumni Dr, Magnolia Dr, North Palm Dr, Leroy Collins Blvd, Maple Dr, Bull

Run Dr, Elm Dr

8 Total is a summation of MPO LRTP score, LOS Need Score, Public Comment score, and Connectivity score. This scoring style skews the final results heavily toward the projects that received the most votes in favor at Workshop #2. This skewing may warrant the addition of weights to the other categories.

USF = University of South Florida; County = Hillsoborough County; City = City of Tampa, BBD = Bruce B Downs Blvd

TE = Transportation Enhancement Funds (Federal); OA = Other Arterial Funds (State & Federal)

Wkshp = Workshop/Public Meeting ‐ 1 held September 7, 2009, and 2 held December 9, 2009.


Page 68


2.1 BICYCLE PROJECTS

Roadway From To Improvement Jurisdiction Cost (2009 $) LRTP Funding Source

MPO LRTP Need1

LOS Need2

LOS Not Assigned

Public Comment Connectivity5 Total6Wkshp

13 Wkshp 24

1 Fletcher Ave I‐275 Ramp 22nd St Bike Lanes County $567,173 Cost Affordable TMA 1 2 1 21 3 28

2 BBD Bearss Ave Skipper Rd Multi‐use Trail County $161,981 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 0 1 12 1 15

3 Bearss Ave I‐275 Ramp BBD Bike Lanes County $967,532 Cost Affordable TMA 1 2 1 7 3 14

4 46th St Fletcher Ave Skipper Rd Bike Lanes County $366,995 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 2 1 7 2 13

5 Skipper Rd BBD 46th St Bike Lanes County $109,622 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 1 1 9 1 13

6 N/A ‐ Area‐wide Program Safety Awareness County $50,000 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 0 x 0 9 0 10

7 42nd St Fletcher Ave BBD Bike Lanes County $414,657 None Unfunded 0 0 x 0 9 0 9

8 BBD Bearss Ave Intersection Bike Lanes County $107,995 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 0 0 6 1 8

9 Holly Dr 30th St N. Palm Dr Bike Lanes USF $409,891 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 1 1 1 4 8

10 Nebraska Ave Bearss Ave Fowler Ave Bike Lanes State $1,087,218 Cost Affordable TE 1 1 0 4 2 8

11 15th St Fletcher Ave Fowler Ave Bike Lanes County $464,701 Cost Affordable Unfunded 1 0 0 2 4 7

12 Alumni Dr Lee Roy Collins Maple Dr Bike Lanes USF $123,920 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 0 0 4 2 7

13 Magnolia Dr Fletcher Ave Holly Dr Bike Lanes USF $104,856 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 1 0 3 2 7

14 N/A ‐ Off‐Road BBD Fletcher Ave Multi‐use Trail County $635,698 None Unfunded 0 0 x 0 5 2 7

15 Cambridge Woods Dr 37th St 42nd St Bike Lanes County $142,985 None Unfunded 0 0 x 1 5 0 6

16 131st Ave 22nd St 30th St Bike Lanes County $238,308 None Unfunded 0 0 x 1 1 3 5

17 Maple Dr Holly Dr Alumni Dr Bike Lanes USF $247,841 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 0 0 0 4 5

18 Pine Dr 30th St Alumni Dr Bike Lanes USF $85,791 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 1 1 0 2 5

19 Sycamore Dr Elm Dr Holly Dr Bike Lanes USF $214,477 None Unfunded 0 0 x 1 0 4 5

20 University Square Dr 30th St Club Dr Bike Lanes Private $59,577 None Unfunded 0 0 x 0 3 2 5

21 Fowler Ave I‐275 Ramp Nebraska Ave Bike Lanes State $85,791 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 1 0 1 1 4

22 N. Palm Dr Fletcher Ave Holly Dr Bike Lanes USF $109,622 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 1 0 0 1 3

23 Bull Run Dr Alumni Dr Elm Dr Bike Lanes USF $109,622 None Unfunded 0 0 0 0 2 2

24 Skipper Rd Nebraska Ave 16th St Bike Lanes County $257,373 Needs Plan Unfunded 1 1 0 0 0 2

Notes for Bicycle Projects 1 One point for designation as a project in the MPO 2035 LRTP Needs Plan 2 One point if the most deteriorated LOS along the corridor or intersection is equal to ‘D’

Two points if the most deteriorated LOS along the corridor or intersection is equal to ‘E’

Three points if the most deteriorated LOS along the corridor or intersection is equal to ‘F’ 3 One point for public comments received at first workshop ‐ any mention received a 1 score


Page 69

Notes for Bicycle Projects 4 One point for each vote in favor received at second workshop ‐ 24 votes (dots) were given to each attendee to use on any mode, and to vote for projects they added 5 One point for each direction a bicyclist can access an existing on‐road bike lane from the recommended project

MPO 2035 LRTP Cost Affordable projects are not considered as existing facilities 6 Total is a summation of MPO LRTP score, LOS Need Score, Public Comment score, and Connectivity score. This scoring style skews the final results heavily toward the projects that received the most votes in favor at Workshop #2. This

skewing may warrant the addition of weights to the other categories.

USF = University of South Florida; County = Hillsborough County; City = City of Tampa, BBD = Bruce B Downs Blvd

TMA = Transportation Management Area Funds (Federal); TE = Transportation Enhancement Funds (Federal)



Page 70


3.1 TRANSIT PROJECTS

Name of Service Type of Service

Length of Service Within USF Area

Capital Cost * (2009 $)

Annual O&M Cost * (2009 $)

LRTP Funding Source MPO LRTP Need1

LOS Need2

Public Comment Connectivity5 Total6Wkshp

13 Wkshp 24

1 Westshore to USF Short Distance Rail 2.50 miles $162,500,000 $3,215,408 Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, State New Starts, New Federal Assistance

1 2 1 26 10 40

2 University Area Circulator Circulator Bus 4.84 miles $1,490,133 $938,624 Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, System Revenue, State Transit Program

1 2 0 12 19.36 34.36

3 Nebraska‐Fletcher MetroRapid

Bus Rapid Transit 2.03 miles $4,734,182 $284,160 Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, System Revenue, State Transit Program

1 2 1 18 8.12 30.12


1 2 0 4 19.88 26.88

5 UATC‐New Tampa MetroRapid

Bus Rapid Transit 2.96 miles $6,600,839 $969,750 Cost Affordable Unfunded 1 2 1 7 11.84 22.84

6 New Route on Bearss Ave New Local Bus 3.29 miles $1,713,198 $1,014,984 Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, System Revenue, State Transit Program

1 1 0 3 13.16 18.16

7 New Route on Fowler Ave New Local Bus 3.21 miles $1,102,500 $653,692 Cost Affordable Local Sales Tax, System Revenue, State Transit Program

1 2 0 0 12.84 15.84


1 1 0 4 8.84 14.84


1 1 0 2 6.32 10.32

10 Bull Runner Amenities ** n/a $754,000 unknown None Unfunded 0 0 0 1 n/a 1

Notes for Transit Projects

* Cost of portion of route located within the USF MMTD Study Area only, as opposed to the length of the entire route.

** New shelters with pad, bench, bike rack, trash receptacle. Currently 93 stops in system, 33 of those are sheltered. 13 new shelters needed to meet goal of half of total stops sheltered. (Cost $58,000 each, HART 2009.)

1 One point for designation as a project in the MPO 2035 LRTP Needs Plan 2 One point if the most deteriorated LOS along the corridor or intersection is equal to ‘E’

Two points if the most deteriorated LOS along the corridor or intersection is equal to ‘F’ 3 One point for public comments received at first workshop ‐ any mention received a 1 score

4 One point for each vote in favor received at second workshop ‐ 24 votes (dots) were given to each attendee to use on any mode, and to vote for projects they added

5 One point for each 0.25 mile of transit service within the USF MMTD Study Area


Page 71

6 Total is a summation of MPO LRTP score, LOS Need Score, Public Comment score, and Connectivity score. This scoring style skews the final results heavily toward the projects that received the most votes in favor at Workshop #2. This skewing may warrant the addition of weights to the other categories.

USF = University of South Florida; UATC = University Area Transit Center



4.1 ROADWAY PROJECTS

Roadway From To

Improvement Lane Type

Cost in CIE (2009 $)

Cost in 2035 LRTP CA (2009

$)

Funding Years

Funding Source MPO LRTP Need

LOS Public Comment

Wkshp 1 Wkshp 2

1 Fletcher Ave 30th St I‐75 PD&E only $4,000,000 ‐ 2009‐2015

CIT Phase III ‐ Transportation Task Force

No F n/a 5

2 Fletcher Ave 30th St Morris Bridge Rd 4D to 6D ‐ $147,624,000 None Unfunded Yes F n/a 5

3 131st Ave Nebraska Ave 30th St 2U to 4D ‐ $45,680,000 None Unfunded Yes C n/a 0

4 BBD Bearss Ave Palm Springs Rd 4D to 6D * ‐ $43,000,000 2015‐2025

Sales Tax Yes F n/a 0

5 22nd St Club Dr Fletcher Ave 2U to 2D ‐ $3,600,000 By 2015 Sales Tax Yes C n/a 0

6 46th St Fletcher Ave Skipper Rd 2U to 4D ‐ $23,048,000 None Unfunded Yes F n/a ‐1

7 BBD Bearss Ave Palm Springs Rd PD&E $3,800,000 ‐ 2009‐2015

CIT Phase III, Gas Taxes, General Revenues, Grants & County Match

No F n/a ‐1

8 Skipper Rd BBD 46th St 2U to 4D ‐ $11,969,000 None Unfunded Yes E n/a ‐1

9 Livingston Ave Bearss Ave Vandervort Rd 2U to 4D ‐ $59,966,000 None Unfunded Yes F n/a ‐2

Notes for Roadway Projects

* Includes sidewalks (received 1 Public Comment vote for sidewalks, but 1 vote "no" for widening = 0)

Negative votes indicate opposition of the project.

CIE = Capital Improvements Element, Nov. 2009; CA= Cost Affordable; CIT = Community Investment Tax

U = Undivided, D = Divided, PD&E = Project Development and Environment Study

LOS Source: Hillsborough County Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Report, Sept. 2008.

BBD = Bruce B Downs Blvd



Page 72

APPENDIX G: Improvements List Detailed By Corridor Segment

5.0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Needs by Corridor Segment LENGTH No.

Needs Identified

Dots Cost Estimate1 ($ 2009) ROADWAY FROM TO (miles) Location Owner Need Source

131ST AVE NEBRASKA AVE BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 1.11 Bike Lanes and Sidewalks 16 2 $ 342,718

131ST AVE NEBRASKA AVE ROBBINS LUMBER 0.14 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gaps: South Sidewalk btw Nebraska and Rail Corridor

LOS and MPO Needs 6 1 $ 23,963

131ST AVE ROBBINS LUMBER (Rail Corridor) 15TH ST 0.36 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gaps: South Sidewalk btw Rail Corridor and 15th St MPO Needs 4 1 $ 61,619

131ST AVE 15TH ST 22ND ST 0.11 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gaps: North Sidewalk btw 18th and 20th St MPO Needs 4 1 $ 18,828

131ST AVE 22ND ST BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 0.50 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike Lane from VA Hospital to 22nd St (both sides)

Public Comment 2 1 $ 238,308

131ST AVE BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD Intersection Hillsborough Hillsborough County Project: Intersection Improvements ? N/A

138TH AVE 15TH ST 19TH ST 0.26 Sidewalks 2 0 $ 89,005

138TH AVE 15TH ST 19TH ST 0.26 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gaps: both sides Public Comment 2 0 $ 89,005

15th ST FLETCHER AVE FOWLER AVE 1.01 Bike Lanes 9 2 $ 464,701

15TH ST 131ST AVE FLETCHER AVE 0.25 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Bike Lanes: Gaps on entire west side, gaps on east side btw La Place Circle and Fletcher MPO Needs 5 2 $ 102,473

15TH ST FOWLER AVE 131ST AVE 0.76 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike Lanes MPO Needs 4 2 $ 362,229

22nd ST BEARSS AVE FLETCHER AVE 1.02 ADA Compliant Curb Cuts 7 ? $ 11,036

22ND ST FLETCHER AVE BEARSS AVE 0.77 Hillsborough Hillsborough Curb Cuts: 4 intersections Public Comment 4 ? $ 6,306

22ND ST FLETCHER AVE BEARSS AVE 0.77 Hillsborough Hillsborough County Project ? N/A

22ND ST 131ST AVE FLETCHER AVE 0.25 Hillsborough Hillsborough Curb Cuts: 3 intersections Public Comment 3 ? $ 4,730

30th ST BEARSS AVE FOWLER AVE 1.49 Sidewalks, Crosswalks, Safety 102 28 $ 806,056

30TH ST 138TH AVE BEARSS AVE 0.49 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Sidewalk Gaps: West side btw Azalee Cir and Americana Lane, entire east side


30TH ST 138TH AVE BEARSS AVE Hillsborough Hillsborough Intersection Improvement at 30th St & Grand Pavilion Dr

Public Comment 7 $ 53,998

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 202,910


Pedestrian LOS: High corridor volumes, pedestrian safety enhancements (3 Intersection Improvements)


30TH ST 131ST AVE FLETCHER AVE 0.25 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap: east side Public Comment 13 $ 42,791

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 204,784


Page 73


Needs Identified


30TH ST PINE DR 131ST AVE 0.58 Hillsborough Hillsborough



30TH ST PINE DR 131ST AVE 0.58 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap: east side LOS and MPO Needs 13 $ 99,275

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 261,268

30TH ST FOWLER AVE PINE DR 0.17 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Pedestrian LOS: High corridor volumes, pedestrian safety enhancements (2 Intersection Improvements) LOS Need 25 8 $ 107,995

30TH ST FOWLER AVE PINE DR 0.17 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap: east side

MPO Needs and Public Comment 13 $ 29,098

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 137,093

42ND ST BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD FLETCHER AVE 0.87 Sidewalks 28 17 $ 678,249

42ND ST SKIPPER RD FLETCHER AVE 0.77 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gaps: both sides Public Comment 18 8 $ 263,593

42ND ST SKIPPER RD FLETCHER AVE 0.77 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike Lane Public Comment 9 $ 366,995

42ND ST BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD SKIPPER RD 0.10 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike Lane Public Comment 10 9 $ 47,662

42ND ST N PALM DR Intersection Hillsborough Hillsborough County Project: Intersection Improvements ? N/A

43RD ST BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD SKIPPER RD 0.14 Sidewalks 14 13 $ 47,926

43RD ST BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD SKIPPER RD 0.14 Sidewalk Gaps: both sides Public Comment 14 13 $ 47,926

46th ST FLETCHER AVE SKIPPER RD 0.77 Bike Lanes and Sidewalks 17 9 $ 498,791

46TH ST FLETCHER AVE SKIPPER RD 0.77 Tampa/

Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike LOS: no bike lanes

LOS, MPO Needs, and Public Comment 17 7 $ 366,995

46TH ST FLETCHER AVE SKIPPER RD 0.77 Tampa/

Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap: east side LOS Need 2 $ 131,796

46TH ST FLETCHER AVE Intersection Tampa/

Hillsborough Hillsborough County Project/Intersection Improvements ? N/A

LENGTH No. Needs

IdentifiedDots Cost Estimate1 ($

2009) ROADWAY FROM TO (miles) Location Owner Need Source

50th ST FLETCHER AVE FOWLER AVE 1.01 Sidewalks 7 4 $ 71,889

50TH ST FOWLER AVE FLETCHER AVE 1.01 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Sidewalk Gaps: eastside btw Fletcher and Excellence Blvd, 128th and 122nd/westside btw Fletcher and Holly Ct LOS Need 7 4 $ 71,889

53rd ST FLETCHER AVE FOWLER AVE 1.02 Sidewalks 8 1 $ 174,587


Page 74


Needs Identified


53rd ST FLETCHER AVE FOWLER AVE 1.02 Temple Terrace

Temple Terrace Sidewalk Gaps: east side


56th ST FLETCHER AVE FOWLER AVE 1.01 Sidewalks, Crosswalks, Safety 15 10 $ 420,451

56TH ST FOWLER AVE FLETCHER AVE 1.01 Temple Terrace Hillsborough


MPO Needs and Public Comment 15 4 $ 161,993

56TH ST FOWLER AVE FLETCHER AVE 1.01 Temple Terrace Hillsborough

Sidewalk Gap: east side btw Fowler and 122nd /westside from north of Fowler to Fletcher LOS Need 6 $ 258,458

PINE DR 30TH ST ALUMNI DR 0.18 Bike Lanes and Sidewalks 9 0 $ 147,410

PINE DR 30TH ST ALUMNI DR 0.18 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Bike LOS: no bike lanes

LOS Needs, Public Comment, USF Master Plan 9 0 $ 85,791

PINE DR 30TH ST ALUMNI DR 0.18 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Sidewalk Gaps: both sides

LOS Need, Public Comment, USF Master Plan 0 $ 61,619

ALUMNI DR PINE DRIVE BULL RUN DR 1.21 Bike Lanes and Sidewalks 21 6 $ 435,439

ALUMNI DR PINE DR LEROY COLLINS BLVD 0.75 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF

Sidewalk Gaps: north side btw Pine and Magnolia, Laurel and Lee Roy/south side btw Pine and Laurel, Palm to Leroy Collins

LOS Need, Public Comment, USF Master Plan 9 2 $ 243,053

ALUMNI DR LEROY COLLINS BLVD MAPLE DR 0.26 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Bike LOS: no bike lanes

MPO Needs & USF Master Plan 9 4 $ 123,920

ALUMNI DR MAPLE DR BULL RUN 0.20 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Sidewalk Gaps: both sides LOS Need 3 2 $ 68,466

BEARSS AVE I-275 N RAMP BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 2.03 Bike Lanes, Sidewalks, Crosswalks, Safety 101 9 $ 1,801,298

BEARSS AVE I-275 N RAMP NEBRASKA AVE 0.17 Hillsborough State


BEARSS AVE I-275 N RAMP NEBRASKA AVE 0.17 Hillsborough State Bike LOS: no bike lanes

LOS, MPO Needs, and Public Comment 7 $ 81,025

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 189,020


Page 75


Needs Identified


BEARSS AVE NEBRASKA AVE SKIPPER RD 0.77 Hillsborough Hillsborough


BEARSS AVE NEBRASKA AVE SKIPPER RD 0.77 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gaps: north side LOS Need 0 $ 131,796

BEARSS AVE NEBRASKA AVE SKIPPER RD 0.77 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike LOS: no bike lanes


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 660,784

BEARSS AVE SKIPPER RD 17TH ST 0.07 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Pedestrian LOS: High corridor volumes, pedestrian safety enhancements (1 Intersection Improvement) LOS Need 15 2 $ 53,998

BEARSS AVE SKIPPER RD 17TH ST 0.07 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike LOS: no bike lanes


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 87,361 LENGTH No.

Needs Identified


BEARSS AVE 17TH ST 22ND ST 0.42 Hillsborough Hillsborough


BEARSS AVE 17TH ST 22ND ST 0.42 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike LOS: no bike lanes


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 362,172

BEARSS AVE 22ND ST LIVINGSTON AVE 0.24 Hillsborough Hillsborough


BEARSS AVE 22ND ST LIVINGSTON AVE 0.24 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike LOS: no bike lanes

LOS & MPO Needs, and Public Comment 7 $ 114,388

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 222,383

BEARSS AVE LIVINGSTON AVE BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 0.36 Hillsborough Hillsborough


BEARSS AVE LIVINGSTON AVE BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 0.36 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike LOS: no bike lanes 7 $ 171,582

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 279,577

BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD BEARSS AVE SKIPPER RD 0.53 Bike Lanes, Sidewalks, Crosswalks, Safety 26 20 $ 269,976


Page 76


Needs Identified


BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD BEARSS AVE SKIPPER RD 0.53 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap/Multi-Use Trail: north side

LOS, MPO Needs, and Public Comment 26 19 $ 161,981

BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD BEARSS AVE SKIPPER RD 0.53 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Pedestrian LOS: High corridor volumes, pedestrian safety enhancements (2 Intersection Improvements) LOS Need 1 $ 107,995

CAMBRIDGE WOODS DR 37TH ST 42ND ST 0.31 Bike Lanes, Sidewalks 15 13 $ 249,107

CAMBRIDGE WOODS DR 37TH ST 42ND ST 0.31 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap: both sides Public Comment 15 8 $ 106,122

CAMBRIDGE WOODS DR 37TH ST 42ND ST 0.30 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike Lane Gap: both sides Public Comment 5 $ 142,985

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal

ELM DR BULL RUN DR 50TH ST 0.20 Bike Lanes, Sidewalks, Crosswalks, Safety 2 1 $ 122,463

ELM DR BULL RUN DR 50TH ST 0.20 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Sidewalk Gap: both sides

USF Campus Connections 2 1 $ 68,466

ELM DR BULL RUN DR 50TH ST 0.20 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF

Pedestrian enhancements (1 Intersection Improvement)

USF Campus Connections 0 $ 53,998

BULL RUN DR ALUMNI DR ELM DR 0.23 Bike Lanes 0 0 $ 109,622

BULL RUN DR ALUMNI DR ELM DR 0.23 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Bike Lane Gap: both sides MPO Need 0 0 $ 109,622

FLETCHER AVE I-275 N RAMP 56TH STREET 3.92 Bike Lanes, Sidewalks, Crosswalks, Safety 448 51 $ 2,152,062

FLETCHER AVE I-275 N RAMP NEBRASKA AVE 0.18 Hillsborough State

Pedestrian LOS: High corridor volumes, pedestrian safety enhancements (1 Intersection Improvement)


FLETCHER AVE I-275 N RAMP NEBRASKA AVE 0.18 Hillsborough State Bike LOS: no bike lanes LOS and MPO Needs 21 $ 85,791

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 139,789

FLETCHER AVE NEBRASKA AVE 15TH ST 0.51 Hillsborough Hillsborough


LOS and MPO Need 55 25 $ 107,995

FLETCHER AVE NEBRASKA AVE 15TH ST 0.51 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike Lane Gap: both Sides MPO Needs 21 $ 243,074

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 351,070


Page 77


Needs Identified


FLETCHER AVE 15TH ST 22ND ST 0.50 Hillsborough Hillsborough



FLETCHER AVE 15TH ST 22ND ST 0.50 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike Lane Gap: both sides MPO Needs 21 $ 238,308

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 400,301 LENGTH No.

Needs Identified


FLETCHER AVE 22ND ST LIVINGSTON AVE 0.25 Hillsborough Hillsborough


FLETCHER AVE LIVINGSTON AVE 30TH ST 0.26 Hillsborough Hillsborough


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 161,993

FLETCHER AVE 30TH ST MAGNOLIA DR 0.19 Hillsborough Hillsborough


FLETCHER AVE 30TH ST MAGNOLIA DR 0.19 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap: south side MPO Need 5 $ 32,521

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 140,517

FLETCHER AVE MAGNOLIA DR 42ND ST 0.35 Hillsborough Hillsborough


FLETCHER AVE MAGNOLIA DR 42ND ST 0.35 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap: south side MPO Need 5 $ 59,907

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 167,903

FLETCHER AVE 42ND ST N PALM DR 0.06 Hillsborough Hillsborough


FLETCHER AVE N PALM DR Intersection Hillsborough Hillsborough County Project: Intersection Improvements LOS Need ? N/A

FLETCHER AVE N PALM DR 46TH ST 0.65 Hillsborough Hillsborough


FLETCHER AVE N PALM DR 46TH ST 0.65 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap: south side MPO Needs 5 $ 111,257

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 219,252

FLETCHER AVE 46TH ST 50TH ST 0.48 Tampa Hillsborough

Pedestrian LOS: High corridor volumes, pedestrian safety enhancements (2 Intersection Improvements) LOS Needs 37 25 $ 107,995

FLETCHER AVE 46TH ST 50TH ST 0.48 Tampa Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap: both sides LOS, MPO Needs, and 5 $ 164,318


Page 78


Needs Identified


Public Comment

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 272,313

FLETCHER AVE 50TH ST 56TH ST 0.49 Hillsborough Hillsborough


FLETCHER AVE 50TH ST 56TH ST 0.49 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gap: south side btwn 50th and 53rd, entire north side

LOS and MPO Needs 5 $ 136,931

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 244,927

FLETCHER AVE CORRIDOR STUDY 15TH ST 46TH ST 0.49 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Improvements associated with Corridor Study

LOS and MPO Needs 51 N/A

FOWLER AVE I-275 N RAMP 56TH ST 3.65 Bike Lanes, Sidewalks, Crosswalks, Safety 153 10 $ 1,445,517

FOWLER AVE I-275 N RAMP NEBRASKA AVE 0.18 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE I-275 N RAMP NEBRASKA AVE 0.18 Tampa State Bike Lane Gap: both sides LOS and MPO Need 1 $ 85,791

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 139,789

FOWLER AVE NEBRASKA AVE 15TH ST 0.51 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE 15TH ST 22ND ST 0.50 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE 15TH ST 22ND ST 0.50 Tampa State Sidewalk Gap: north side btw 17th and 18th St LOS Need 4 $ 11,981

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 227,972

FOWLER AVE 22ND ST UNIVERSITY COLLECTION 0.24 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE UNIVERSITY COLLECTION 30TH ST 0.27 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE 30TH ST MCKINLEY BLVD 0.60 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE 30TH ST MCKINLEY BLVD 0.60 Tampa State Sidewalk Gap: south side LOS and MPO Needs 4 $ 102,698

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 210,694


Page 79


Needs Identified


FOWLER AVE MCKINLEY DR S PALM DR 0.18 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE MCKINLEY DR S PALM DR 0.18 Tampa State Sidewalk Gap: south side LOS and MPO Needs 4 $ 30,810

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 84,807

FOWLER AVE S PALM DR 46TH ST 0.19 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE S PALM DR 46TH ST 0.19 Tampa State Sidewalk Gap: south side LOS and MPO Needs 4 $ 32,521

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 86,519

FOWLER AVE 46TH ST BULL RUN 0.31 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE 46TH ST BULL RUN 0.31 Tampa State Sidewalk Gap: south side LOS and MPO Needs 4 $ 53,061

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 107,059

FOWLER AVE BULL RUN 50TH ST 0.18 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE 50TH ST 52ND ST 0.25 Tampa State



FOWLER AVE 50TH ST 52ND ST 0.25 Tampa State Sidewalk Gap: both sides LOS and MPO Needs 4 $ 85,582

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 139,580

FOWLER AVE 52ND ST 56TH ST 0.24 Temple Terrace State




Sidewalk Gap: south side btw 53rd and 52nd St LOS Need 4 $ 17,116

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 179,109

HOLLY DR 30TH ST N PALM DR 0.86 Bike Lanes and Sidewalks 14 2 $ 423,583

HOLLY DR 30TH ST MAGNOLIA DR 0.34 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Sidewalk Gaps: partial north side LOS Need 8 1 $ 13,693


Page 80


Needs Identified



Owned By State

Maintained By USF Bike Lane Gap: both sides LOS Need 1 $ 162,050

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 175,743

HOLLY DR MAGNOLIA DR N PALM DR 0.52 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Bike Lane Gap: both sides LOS Need 4 1 $ 247,841

LIVINGSTON AVE FLETCHER AVE 131ST ST 0.23 Sidewalks 8 6 $ 39,368

LIVINGSTON AVE FLETCHER AVE 131ST ST 0.23 Tampa Tampa Sidewalk Gaps: west side Public Comment 8 6 $ 39,368

MAGNOLIA DR FLETCHER AVE HOLLY DR 0.22 Bike Lanes and Sidewalks 11 4 $ 180,168

MAGNOLIA DR HOLLY DR FLETCHER AVE 0.22 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Sidewalk Gap: both sides LOS Need 11 1 $ 75,312

MAGNOLIA DR HOLLY DR FLETCHER AVE 0.22 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Bike Lane Gap: both sides LOS Need 3 $ 104,856

MAPLE DR FLETCHER AVE ALUMNI DR 0.83 Bike Lanes and Sidewalks 8 1 $ 292,343

MAPLE DR HOLLY DR FLETCHER AVE 0.23 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF

Sidewalk Gap: partial both sides near Fletcher 2 1 $ 15,405

MAPLE DR ALUMNI DR HOLLY DR 0.60 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF

Sidewalk Gap: both sides btw Leroy Collins and Alumni Dr 6 1 $ 29,098


Owned By State

Maintained By USF Bike Lane Gap: both sides MPO Needs 0 $ 247,841

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 276,938

NEBRASKA AVE BEARSS AVE FOWLER AVE 2.30 Bike Lanes 35 4 $ 1,420,204

NEBRASKA AVE SKIPPER RD BEARSS AVE 0.51 Hillsborough State

Pedestrian LOS: High corridor volumes, pedestrian safety enhancements (1 Intersection Improvement) LOS Need 8 ? $ 53,998

NEBRASKA AVE SKIPPER RD BEARSS AVE 0.51 Hillsborough State Bike Lane Gap: both sides LOS and MPO Needs 4 $ 243,074

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 297,072


Page 81


Needs Identified


NEBRASKA AVE FLETCHER AVE SKIPPER RD 0.77 Hillsborough State

Pedestrian LOS: High corridor volumes, pedestrian safety enhancements (2 Intersection Improvements) LOS Need 8 ? $ 107,995

NEBRASKA AVE FLETCHER AVE SKIPPER RD 0.77 Hillsborough State Bike Lane Gap: both sides LOS and MPO Needs 4 $ 366,995

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 474,990

NEBRASKA AVE 131ST AVE FLETCHER AVE 0.25 Hillsborough State

Pedestrian LOS: High corridor volumes, pedestrian safety enhancements (1 Intersection Improvement) LOS Need 9 ? $ 53,998

NEBRASKA AVE 131ST AVE FLETCHER AVE 0.25 Hillsborough State Bike Lane Gap: both sides MPO Needs 4 $ 119,154

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 173,152

NEBRASKA AVE FOWLER AVE 131ST AVE 0.77 Hillsborough State

Pedestrian LOS: High corridor volumes, pedestrian safety enhancements (2 Intersection Improvements) LOS Need 10 ? $ 107,995

NEBRASKA AVE FOWLER AVE 131ST AVE 0.77 Hillsborough State Bike Lane Gap: both sides LOS and MPO Needs 4 $ 366,995

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 474,990

LENGTH No.

Needs Identified


N PALM DR FLETCHER AVE HOLLY DRIVE 0.23 Bike Lanes 8 0 $ 109,622

N PALM DR HOLLY DR FLETCHER AVE 0.23 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Bike Lane Gap: both sides


SKIPPER ROAD NEBRASKA AVENUE 46TH STREET 0.94 Bike Lanes and Sidewalks 28 18 $ 474,828

SKIPPER RD NEBRASKA AVE 16TH ST 0.54 Hillsborough Bike Lane Gap: both sides LOS and MPO Needs 3 0 $ 257,373

SKIPPER RD BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 46TH ST 0.40 Hillsborough Hillsborough Sidewalk Gaps: entire north side south side east of 42nd LOS Need 25 9 $ 107,833

SKIPPER RD BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 46TH ST 0.40 Hillsborough Hillsborough Bike Lane Gap: both sides LOS and MPO Needs 9 $ 109,622

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subtotal $ 217,455

SPECTRUM BLVD PINE DR FOWLER AVE 0.54 Sidewalks 7 1 $ 18,828

SPECTRUM BLVD PINE DR FOWLER AVE 0.54 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Sidewalk Gaps: partial north side LOS Need 7 1 $ 18,828

SYCAMORE DR ELM HOLLY DR 0.45 Bike Lanes 1 0 $ 214,477


Page 82


Needs Identified


SYCAMORE DR ELM HOLLY DR 0.45 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Bike Lane Gap: both sides


UNIVERSITY SQUARE DR 30TH ST CLUB DR 0.25 Bike Lanes 6 3 $ 59,577

UNIVERSITY SQUARE DR 30TH ST CLUB DR 0.25 Hillsborough Hillsborough Increase Bike Lane Width Public Comment 6 3 $ 59,577

NEW OFF-ROAD MULTI-USE PATH 1.04 Multi-Use Path 9 5 $ 317,849

GATES DR BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 138TH AVE 0.52 Hillsborough Hillsborough Multi-Use Path Public Comment 9 5 $ 158,925

13TH AVE GATES DR 37TH ST 0.26 Hillsborough Hillsborough Multi-Use Path Public Comment 5 $ 79,462

37TH ST 138TH AVE FLETCHER AVE 0.26 Hillsborough Hillsborough Multi-Use Path Public Comment 5 $ 79,462

SUB TOTAL $ 13,889,152

1SOURCE: FDOT District Seven Centerline Mile Cost Estimates (July 2009)


Page 83

6.0 Transit Needs by Route/Corridor Segment

LENGTH

ROUTE/CORRIDOR FROM TO (miles) Location Owner Need Source LOS Dots ROUTE Cost Estimate2 ($ 2009)

LOCAL BUS: THONOTASSA Length of Route in

Study Area 3.21 Future Route 23 0 $ 1,102,500 131ST AVE 22ND ST LIVINGSTON AVE 0.25 Hillsborough Hillsborough Local Bus: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 0 $ - 131ST AVE 27TH ST 30TH ST 0.20 Hillsborough Hillsborough Local Bus: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 0 $ - 131ST AVE LIVINGSTON AVE 27TH ST 0.06 Hillsborough Hillsborough Local Bus: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 0 $ - 30TH ST FOWLER AVE PINE DR 0.17 Hillsborough Hillsborough Local Bus: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 1 $ -

30TH ST PINE DR 131ST AVE 0.58 Hillsborough Hillsborough Local Bus: Thonotosassa

LOS, MPO Needs, and Public Comment 1 $ -

FOWLER AVE 52ND ST 56TH ST 0.24 Temple Terrace State Future Local service: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 3 $ -

FOWLER AVE BULL RUN 50TH ST 0.18 Tampa State Future Local service: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 3 $ - FOWLER AVE 50TH ST 52ND ST 0.25 Tampa State Future Local service: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 3 $ - FOWLER AVE 30TH ST MCKINLEY BLVD 0.60 Tampa State Future Local service: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 3 $ - FOWLER AVE S PALM DR 46TH ST 0.19 Tampa State Future Local service: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 3 $ - FOWLER AVE MCKINLEY DR S PALM DR 0.18 Tampa State Future Local service: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 3 $ -

FOWLER AVE 46TH ST BULL RUN 0.31 Tampa State Future Local service: Thonotosassa MPO Needs 3 $ -

LOCAL BUS: USF CIRCULATOR Length of Route in

Study Area 4.84 Future Route 30 12 $ 1,490,133 131ST AVE 27TH ST 30TH ST 0.20 Hillsborough Hillsborough USF Circulator MPO Needs 0 $ - 131ST AVE LIVINGSTON AVE 27TH ST 0.06 Hillsborough Hillsborough USF Circulator MPO Needs 0 $ -

ALUMNI DR PINE DR LEROY COLLINS BLVD 0.50 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF USF Circulator MPO Needs 3 $ -

BULL RUN FOWLER AVE ALUMNI DR 0.18 Tampa Private Future USF Circulator MPO Needs 3


Transit LOS E: Route 6, Future USF Circulator MPO Needs 3 $ -

FOWLER AVE BULL RUN 50TH ST 0.18 Tampa State Transit LOS F: Route 6, Future USF Circulator MPO Needs 3 $ -

FOWLER AVE 50TH ST 52ND ST 0.25 Tampa State Transit LOS E: Route 6, Future USF Circulator

LOS and MPO Needs 3 $ -

FOWLER AVE BULL RUN 46TH ST 0.19 Tampa State Transit LOS F: No existing service, Future USF Circulator

LOS and MPO Need 3 $ -

FOWLER AVE MCKINLEY DR BULL RUN 0.18 Tampa State Transit LOS F: No existing service, Future USF Circulator


FOWLER AVE 46TH ST BULL RUN 0.31 Tampa State Transit LOS F: No existing service, Future USF Circulator



Page 84


LENGTH


HOLLY DR N PALM DR MAPLE DR 0.32 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF Future USF Circulator MPO Needs 2 $ -

HOLLY DR MAGNOLIA DR N PALM DR 0.52 Tampa

Owned By State



Owned By State



Owned By State


SPECTRUM BLVD PINE DR FOWLER AVE 0.54 Tampa

Owned By State

Maintained By USF

Transit LOS F: No existing service, Future USF Circulator


LIVINGSTON AVE FLETCHER AVE 131ST AVE 0.23 Tampa Hillsborough Future USF Circulator MPO Needs 0 $ -

LENGTH ROUTE Cost Estimate2 ($ 2009)

ROADWAY FROM TO (miles) Location Owner Need Source LOS Dots

LOCAL BUS: ERLICH/BEARSS Length of Route in

Study Area 3.29 Future Route 13 3 $ 1,713,198 22ND ST 131ST AVE FLETCHER AVE 0.25 Hillsborough Hillsborough Local Bus: Erlich/Bearss MPO Needs 0 $ -

30TH ST FLETCHER AVE 138TH AVE 0.25 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Transit LOS E: Low Frequency on Route 18 & 57/Local Bus: Erlich & Bearss



Transit LOS E: Low Frequency on Route 18 & 57/Local Bus: Erlich & Bearss


BEARSS AVE LIVINGSTON AVE BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 0.36 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Transit LOS: Route 18, Future improvements to Local Bears & Erlich service


BEARSS AVE 22ND ST LIVINGSTON AVE 0.24 Hillsborough Hillsborough



BEARSS AVE 17TH ST 22ND ST 0.42 Hillsborough Hillsborough




Page 85


LENGTH


BEARSS AVE SKIPPER RD 17TH ST 0.07 Hillsborough Hillsborough



BEARSS AVE I-275 N RAMP NEBRASKA AVE 0.17 Hillsborough State



BEARSS AVE NEBRASKA AVE SKIPPER RD 0.77 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Transit LOS F: No Service, Future improvements to Local Bears & Erlich service


FLETCHER AVE 22ND ST LIVINGSTON AVE 0.25 Hillsborough Hillsborough Future Local bus improvements (Bearss and Erlich)

MPO Needs and Public Comment 0 $ -

FLETCHER AVE LIVINGSTON AVE 30TH ST 0.26 Hillsborough Hillsborough Future Local bus improvements (Bearss and Erlich)


LENGTH

LOS

ROUTE Cost Estimate2 ($ 2009)

ROADWAY FROM TO (miles) Location Owner Need Source

BUS RAPID TRANSIT: UATC TO NEW TAMPA Length of Route in

Study Area 2.96 Future Route 8 7 $ 6,600,839

FLETCHER AVE N PALM DR 46TH ST 0.65 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Transit LOS F: no service, Future BRT improvements (UATC to New Tampa) MPO Needs 1 $ -

FLETCHER AVE 42ND ST N PALM DR 0.06 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Transit LOS F: Route 57, Future BRT improvements (UATC to New Tampa) MPO Needs 1 $ -

FLETCHER AVE MAGNOLIA DR 42ND ST 0.35 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Transit LOS F: Route 6, Future BRT improvements (UATC to New Tampa)


FLETCHER AVE 30TH ST MAGNOLIA DR 0.19 Hillsborough Hillsborough Future BRT improvements (UATC to New Tampa)

MPO Needs and Public Comment 1

FLETCHER AVE LIVINGSTON AVE 30TH ST 0.26 Hillsborough Hillsborough Future BRT improvements (UATC to New Tampa)


FLETCHER AVE 22ND ST LIVINGSTON AVE 0.25 Hillsborough Hillsborough Future BRT improvements (UATC to New Tampa)


FLETCHER AVE 50TH ST 56TH ST 0.49 Hillsborough Hillsborough Future BRT improvements (UATC to New Tampa)


FLETCHER AVE 46TH ST 50TH ST 0.48 Tampa Hillsborough Future BRT improvements (UATC to New Tampa)


LIVINGSTON AVE FLETCHER AVE 131ST ST 0.23 Hillsborough Hillsborough Future BRT improvements (UATC to New Tampa) MPO Needs 0 $ -


Page 86


LENGTH


BUS RAPID TRANSIT: NEBRASKA/FLETCHER Length of Route in

Study Area 2.03 Future Route 0 18 $ 4,734,182

FLETCHER AVE 15TH ST 22ND ST 0.50 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Transit LOS F: Route 1 & 33, Future BRT improvements (Nebraska Fletcher)


FLETCHER AVE NEBRASKA AVE 15TH ST 0.51 Hillsborough Hillsborough

Transit LOS E: Route 1 & 33, Future BRT improvements (Nebraska Fletcher)


NEBRASKA AVE 131ST AVE FLETCHER AVE 0.25 Hillsborough State Future Nebraska/Fletcher BRT MPO Needs 0 $ -

NEBRASKA AVE FOWLER AVE 131ST AVE 0.77 Hillsborough State Future Nebraska/Fletcher BRT MPO Needs 0 $ -

RAIL SERVICE: USF TO WESTSHORE Length of Route in

Study Area 2.30 Future Route 4 26 149,500,000 30TH ST BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD FOWLER AVE 1.75 1 $ 113,750,000 BRUCE B DOWNS BLVD 30TH ST SKIPPER RD 0.55 3 $ 35,750,000 $ -

$ -

SUB TOTAL $ 165,140,851

2SOURCE: 2035 MPO LRTP NEEDS ASSESSMENT (SEPTEMBER 2009)

*Assumes per mile cost of project (total route cost/length) multiplied by length in study area

Date post:	22-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dodieu
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

University of South Florida Area Multimodal … from USF, University Area Community Development...

Documents