University of South Florida Area Multimodal Transportation District

Transcription

1 University of South Florida Area Multimodal Transportation District Study Area Evaluation & Transportation Needs Prepared for Hillsborough County By Jacobs Engineering Group May 25, 2010

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STUDY BACKGROUND MULTIMODAL DISTRICT EVALUATION Study Area Boundary Multimodal Mobility and Land Use Evaluation Appropriate Scale of Development Land Use Diversity Appropriate Density, Intensity, and Organization of Land Uses Interconnected Multimodal Network Quality and Level of Service (Q/LOS) for Each Mode MMTD Evaluation Summary MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS Development of Multimodal Needs Agency Stakeholders Public Meetings Initial Input Provided Additional Input Provided Needed Projects for Multimodal Transportation APPENDIX A: PUBLIC MEETING QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS (SEPT. 9, 2009) APPENDIX B: PUBLIC MEETING MAP AND CHART BOARDS (SEPT. 9, 2009) APPENDIX C: PUBLIC MEETING MAP AND CHART BOARDS (DEC. 7, 2009) APPENDIX D: PUBLIC MEETING GENERAL COMMENTS (DEC. 7, 2009) APPENDIX E: IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY LIST WITH COST BY CORRIDOR WITH MAPS APPENDIX F: PRIORITIZED IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY LIST WITH COST BY CORRIDOR.. 66 APPENDIX G: IMPROVEMENTS LIST DETAILED BY CORRIDOR SEGMENT Page 1

3 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 2

4 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 Quality of Service (QOS) for bicycle use Conditions Needing Improvement Employment intensity areawide Connectivity of street network 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, 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 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 3

5 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, Adopted Hillsborough County Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years , November Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, August The University Area Community and North 22nd Street Master Plans, October Tampa Campus Master Plan Update, October HART Transit Emphasis Corridor Improvement Planning and Design Services Study, March North South Corridor BRT Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study Preliminary Engineering Report, October 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 New multi use trails Page 4

6 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 5

7 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 (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 6

8 Community Renewal Act. Specifically, amendments to Section (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 7

9 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, 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 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 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 8

10 Figure 2.1: USF Area MMTD Study Area Location Map Source: Hillsborough County MPO. Page 9

11 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 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), 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 10

12 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 11

13 Figure 2.2: Primary and Supporting Uses Source: Hillsborough County and Florida Geographic Data Library, Page 12

14 Figure 2.3: Existing Land Use Map USF Source: Hillsborough County City County Planning Commission and Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, Page 13

15 Figure 2.4: Existing Land Use Composition Source: Hillsborough County City County Planning Commission and Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, 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 30 th 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 14

16 Figure 2.5: Employment Intensity by TAZ USF Source: Hillsborough County MPO and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TAZ data), Page 15

17 Figure 2.6: Dwelling Unit Density by TAZ USF Source: Hillsborough County MPO and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TAZ data), Page 16

18 Figure 2.7: Persons Living in Group Quarters by TAZ Source: Hillsborough County MPO and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TAZ data), Page 17

19 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), 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, 30 th 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 30 th 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 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 18

20 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. 22 nd 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 19

21 Figure 2.8: Street Network Connectivity, Polygons per Square Mile USF Source: Public Land Survey System and Jacobs, Page 20

22 Figure 2.9: Sidewalks, Bicycle Lanes and Bus Routes USF Source: Hillsborough County MPO and HART, Page 21

23 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 22

24 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 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. Page 23

25 Figure 2.10: USF Bull Runner Shuttle Bus Routes, Source: University of South Florida, DRAFT Report USF Area Multimodal Transportation District Page 24 April 2010

26 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 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 n/a Pedestrian n/a 6.97 Transit Inadequate LOS D E F Subtotal Total Miles Bicycle Pedestrian Transit n/a Source: Hillsborough County MPO and Jacobs, Page 25

27 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, 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. Percentage of Households QOS and Jobs Served A 90 99% B 80 89% C 70 79% D 60 69% E 50 59% F 1 49% Page 26

28 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 ,428 44,577 n/a n/a Bicycle ,058 43, % A Pedestrian ,307 22, % E Transit ,294 20, % F Source: Hillsborough County MPO and Jacobs, 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 27

29 Figure 2.11: Bicycle Level of Service Source: Hillsborough County MP0. Page 28

30 Figure 2.12: Pedestrian Level of Service Source: Hillsborough County MP0. Page 29

31 Figure 2.13: Transit Level of Service Source: Hillsborough County MP0. Page 30

32 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 Quality of Service (QOS) for bicycle use Conditions Needing Improvement Employment intensity areawide Connectivity of street network QOS for pedestrian and transit use Central Core and relation of supporting uses. Page 31

33 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, Adopted Hillsborough County Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years , November Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, August The University Area Community and North 22nd Street Master Plans, October Tampa Campus Master Plan Update, October HART Transit Emphasis Corridor Improvement Planning and Design Services Study, March North South Corridor BRT Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study Preliminary Engineering Report, October 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 32

34 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 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, Members of the group provided comments on report drafts at each meeting. The Hillsborough County Transportation Task Force also provided review and guidance 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 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 33

35 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 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 34

36 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 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 35

37 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 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 New multi use trails 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 36

38 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 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 37

39 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 38

40 Page 39

41 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. 22 nd 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 42 nd to USF from 42 nd 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 142 nd 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 22 nd Street far from Fletcher Ave. (should be closer) Have used transit transfer center at 131 st 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 131 st Avenue HART transfer center Walk Bike Walk Page 40