2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization Prepared by: RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP Adopted - December 2010 Amended - January 27, 2014
Table of Contents Final Table of Contents Overview... 1 About the Sarasota/Manatee MPO...1 About the Long Range Transportation Plan...1 LRTP Planning Factors...2 LRTP Goals...3 Statewide Planning Context...4 Overview of the 2035 Plan Development Process...4 Anticipated Year 2035 System Capacity...6 2035 Transportation System Needs...8 2035 Needs Plan Cost Estimates...12 Financial Resources...13 Financially Feasible Plan...15 Mobility Assessment... 22 SocioEconomic Conditions and Trends...22 Existing and Projected Transportation System Performance...28 Freight Mobility Assessment...40 Core Transit Analysis...54 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan...59 2035 Transportation Needs Plan...63 US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor...88 Environmental and Sociocultural Considerations...119 Community Engagement... 126 Engagement Process...126 Evaluation/Outcomes...131 Financial Resources... 132 Existing Non-Local Revenue Sources...133 Existing Local Revenue Sources...140 2035 Transportation Plan... 150 Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Benchmarks...151 2035 Financially Feasible Plan...159 i
Table of Contents Final Safety Element...196 Security Element...204 Appendix... 210 ETDM Screening Results Roadway...211 ETDM Screening Results Transit...212 ETDM Screening Results Trails...213 2035 Forecast of State and Federal Revenues...215 Public Involvement Worksheet...216 Public Workshop Notice...217 Workshop Comments...218 List of Maps Map 1: Projected Volumes on Committed Roadway Network...7 Map 2: 2035 Needs Plan...9 Map 3: 2035 Financially Feasible Plan Projects...21 Map 4: Committed Projects through Year 2014...36 Map 5: Projected Volumes on E+C Roadway Network (2035)...39 Map 6: Strategic Intermodal System Facilities in Sarasota and Manatee Counties...42 Map 7: Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic, 2008...44 Map 8: Truck Traffic as Percent of Total Traffic, 2008...45 Map 9: Regional LRTP 2035 Cost Affordable Plan Highway Improvements...60 Map 10: Regional LRTP 2035 Cost Affordable Plan Transit Improvements...61 Map 11: 2009 Regional Multi-Use Trails Map...62 Map 12: Vision Map...67 Map 13: 2035 Needs Plan...72 Map 14: 2035 Roadway Needs Plan...73 Map 15: 2035 Transit Needs Plan...74 Map 16: 2035 Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trails Needs Plan...75 Map 17: US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor...90 Map 18: 2035 Financially Feasible Plan Projects...164 ii
Table of Contents Final List of Figures Figure 1: Planning Factors...3 Figure 2: Mobility Corridors...10 Figure 3: Cost Estimation Inflation Factors...12 Figure 4: Projected State/Federal and Local Funding Sources Available for the 2035 LRTP...14 Figure 5: Interim Year Population Projections...24 Figure 6: Interim Year Employment Projections...24 Figure 7: Population Increase Per Acre 2007 2035...27 Figure 8: Employment Increase Per Acre 2007 2035...27 Figure 9: Land Use Mix...56 Figure 10: Density/Intensity...56 Figure 11: Pedestrian Environment...57 Figure 12: Student/Senior Population...57 Figure 13: Low Income Population...58 Figure 14: Core Transit Areas...58 Figure 15: Cost Estimation Inflation Factors...118 Figure 16: Manatee County Plan Summary...193 Figure 17: Sarasota County Plan Summary...193 Figure 18: Florida s Traffic Safety Target Areas...197 Figure 19: Five Highest Crash Locations Manatee County (2007)...199 Figure 20: Five Highest Crash Locations Sarasota County (2006)...199 List of Tables Table 1: Revenue Available for New Capital Projects (in millions, YOE)...14 Table 2: Recommended Financially Feasible Plan Projects...17 Table 3: Population Projections...25 Table 4: Employment Projections...26 Table 5: E+C Performance Measures (2007)...29 Table 6: Committed Projects through Year 2014...30 Table 7: Changes between 2007 and 2035 Performance Indicators...38 Table 8: Freight Mobility Improvements Needs...52 Table 9: Objectives, Performance Measures, and Data Needs for Evaluating Freight Mobility Needs...53 iii
Table of Contents Final Table 10: Core Transit Variables...55 Table 11: Multimodal Emphasis Corridor Design Elements...92 Table 12: Manatee County 2035 Needs Plan (Roadway Improvements)...100 Table 13: Sarasota County 2035 Needs Plan (Roadway Improvements)...108 Table 14: Regional 2035 Needs Plan (Roadway Improvements)...114 Table 15: US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor Segments...116 Table 16: Environmental Evaluation Measures...121 Table 17: Revenue Available for New Capital Projects (in millions, YOE)...133 Table 18: State and Federal Sources and Uses for Identified Funding Types...134 Table 19: State and Federal Program Revenues (in millions, YOE)...135 Table 20: Discretionary State/Federal Revenue Sources (in millions, YOE)...136 Table 21: State Distributed Fuel Tax Revenues (in millions, YOE)...139 Table 22: Existing Local Revenue Sources (in millions, YOE)...143 Table 23: Local Transit Revenue Projections (in millions, YOE)...145 Table 24: Potential New Local Revenue Sources (in millions, YOE)...148 Table 25: 2035 LRTP Goals and Objectives...152 Table 26: Prioritization of Needs Plan Projects...158 Table 27: State Strategic Intermodal System Funds...166 Table 28: SIS - Unfunded Needs...167 Table 29: Manatee County Regional Projects (Federal / State - Other Arterial Funds)...178 Table 30: Manatee County Regional Projects (Federal / State - TMA Funds)...180 Table 31: Manatee County Regional Projects (Federal / State - Enhancement Funds)...181 Table 32: Manatee County - Transportation Impact Fee / Developer -Funded...182 Table 33: Sarasota County Regional Projects (Federal / State - Other Arterial Funds)...186 Table 34: Sarasota County Regional Projects (Federal / State - TMA Funds)...188 Table 35: Sarasota County Regional Projects (Federal / State - Enhancement Funds)...189 Table 36: Sarasota County - Transportation Impact Fee / Developer-Funded...190 Table 37: City of North Port - Transportation Impact Fee / Developer-Funded...192 Table 38: Crashed by Intersection Manatee County (2005-2007)...198 Table 39: Crashes by Intersection Sarasota County (2004-2006)...198 Table 40: Sarasota/Manatee Crash Rates Compared to all U.S. Counties...200 Table 41: Security Scenarios...208 iv
Introduction Final About the Sarasota/Manatee MPO Overview The Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a regional transportation planning agency serving the Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Urbanized Area, which provides a forum for cooperative decision-making concerning regional and local transportation issues. The MPO was created by federal and state law to develop transportation plans and programs that encourage and promote the implementation of transportation facilities and services for all modes of transportation in a manner that increases the mobility of people and goods. The MPO is governed by a policy board comprised of the locally elected officials in the Sarasota/Manatee area, as well as the Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority and the Island Transportation Planning Authority, which represents the cities of Anna Maria, Holmes Beach and Bradenton Beach. The District One Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation serves as a non-voting member of the MPO. The Board is supported by several standing committees, including a Citizen Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee, a Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and a Public Transportation Task Force. About the Long Range Transportation Plan The Sarasota/Manatee 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP, aka Mobility 2035) is a strategic document for multimodal transportation strategies and investments to support and strengthen the region s economic vitality, livability and environment. The plan entails two main elements: a Needs Plan and a Financially Feasible Plan. The Needs Plan charts a strategic direction for how the MPO, its member agencies and partners will achieve important mobility and accessibility goals over the next 25 years. The Financially Feasible Plan, approved on December 13, 2010, identifies priority transportation projects, and their associated costs, that can be funded by the estimated year of expenditure using projected revenues from a variety of federal, state and local sources over the planning horizon. The LRTP must meet certain established federal requirements to maintain the MPO s eligibility to receive federal transportation funding. It is important to note that the LRTP is foundation of the MPO s continuing, comprehensive and coordinated transportation planning process, and provides a vision for regional mobility to address the Sarasota/Manatee s needs and priorities over the next two decades. MPOs are established in all urban areas of the U.S. that are over 50,000 population to define community-based plans for the use of federal highway and transit funding. This process includes two major required products a regional transportation plan, with at least a 20-year planning horizon, and a transportation 1
Introduction Final improvement program, focusing on a shorter-term schedule of active projects. The Sarasota/Manatee MPO's mission is to develop a future plan, through cooperation with our member governments and the general public for a safe, efficient, financially feasible, environmentally sensitive, regional, integrated multimodal transportation system that supports sustainable, livable communities and economic development. LRTP Planning Factors The 2035 LRTP is required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) to reflect consideration of the following eight planning areas: Support the economic vitality of the region by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency; Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; Promote efficient system management and operations; and Emphasize preservation of the existing transportation system. 2
Introduction Final LRTP Goals Considering these factors as well as local and regional plans, policies, and priorities, the MPO established the following goals for the 2035 LRTP: Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the 2035 LRTP goals and the SAFETEA-LU planning factors: Goal 1.0 Improve Multimodal Mobility and Connectivity Across the Region Goal 2.0 Coordinates Land Use, Promote Multimodal Site Design, and Minimize Impacts Goal 3.0 Expand Sustainable Transportation Alternatives to Protect the Environment, Reduce Energy Consumption, and Improve Public Health Goal 4.0 Support Economic Vitality and Ensure Continued and Enhanced Participation in the Global Economy Goal 5.0 Enhance System Management and Operations Goal 6.0 Ensure Financial Feasibility of the Transportation System Goal 7.0 Involve the Public in Transportation Decision- Making Goal 8.0 Increase Safety in the Transportation System Goal 9.0 Increase Security and Resilience in the Transportation System Figure 1: Planning Factors 3
Introduction Final Statewide Planning Context Two recent state laws Senate Bill (SB) 360 and House Bill (HB) 697 that emphasize the integration of land use and multimodal transportation strategies provide a backdrop for a substantial shift in transportation policy. HB 697 (2008) requires that local governments incorporate strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in their future land use, housing and transportation elements. The second draft of the proposed rules issued by the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs would currently require that local governments demonstrate through policies and capital projects how they will work toward reducing vehicle miles of travel. SB 360 (2009) provides for changes to development and transportation concurrency requirements, especially for areas designated as Dense Urban Land Areas (DULA) as defined in the bill. A number of municipalities within the Sarasota/Manatee MPO boundary currently qualify as DULAs and have the opportunity to undertake planning efforts that will clarify transportation requirements for new development and provide strategies and funding methods to achieve the community s vision for creating a multimodal transportation network that provide transportation choices and increases access and mobility. For example, local governments choosing to establish a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) must evaluate and develop funding strategies to improve multimodal mobility and accessibility by 2011. Local governments need to work closely with each other, the MPO, FDOT and other entities to identify funding opportunities, including potential grants, which can help them implement projects identified in both their own Transportation Elements and the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Overview of the 2035 Plan Development Process A team of MPO staff and consultants developed the 2035 Plan in coordination with a technical advisory committee of staff from local regional and state agencies; citizen advisors; the general public; and local decision-makers. Working together, the study team and the community developed and assessed anticipated transportation needs and weighed alternative transportation improvement strategies. 4
Introduction Final SMC Travel Demand Model A technical foundation of the 2035 LRTP was the Sarasota-Manatee-Charlotte (SMC) regional travel demand model, which was developed by the Florida Department of Transportation with assistance from the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda and Sarasota/Manatee MPOs for use in projecting future travel demand through 2035 and testing various transportation alternatives. The SMC model is an evaluation tool that represents land use and transportation interaction to assess the capability of the region s highway and transit networks to support anticipated growth. The SMC model was validated for a 2007 base year using socioeconomic data (population and employment by traffic analysis zone, or TAZ), traffic counts and transit ridership statistics to establish the model as a reasonably accurate representation of current traffic patterns and conditions for use in predicting future travel demand. The model was adjusted to reflect currently planned projects with construction funding through 2014 and those built since 2007 to represent an existing plus committed (E+C) network. This network was matched with projected 2035 land use data to estimate future transportation demand on the roadway and transit networks to determine where congestion is likely to occur. The model was also used to evaluate the ability of various network alternatives to meet future transportation needs by helping to reduce congestion, distributing traffic and reducing delay. These results were mapped and reviewed by the Steering Committee and the public, and provided a basis for selection of a preferred Needs Plan network and to set priorities for projects for consideration as part of the Financially Feasible Plan. The resulting 2035 Financially Feasible Plan includes a balanced array of projects that provide the best possible mobility and accessibility for the region s people and goods in the most cost-efficient manner. Key projects include a select number of critical highway and transit capacity expansion projects, such as additional lanes and routes along major corridors, supported by a broad array of multi-modal strategies to improve traffic and transit operations, such as intersection signal coordination, roadway connectivity, transit service frequency and pedestrian and bicycle route development. Highlights from the analysis, findings, and development of the 2035 Plan are summarized below. More detailed information is presented in subsequent chapters. 5
Introduction Final Anticipated Year 2035 System Capacity One of the first steps in the plan development process was to update the travel demand model in order to identify probable future system performance based on anticipated future transportation and land use conditions. Based on this analysis, the study team identified corridors and networks that needed additional capacity in order to handle increased travel demand. This is the first step in determining the type of mobility improvement may be needed for a given corridor or road segment. The following maps and statistics describe the levels of traffic congestion projected to occur by the year 2035. The results of the analysis assume the completion of short-range transportation improvement projects to which funding has been committed through the year 2015, as identified in the MPO s Transportation Improvement Program. As shown on Map 1 below, increased traffic congestion is anticipated along several major facilities, particularly in the once-rural areas of the region that are attracting increasingly high levels of suburban development. The analysis reveals several important anticipated changes in regional mobility conditions between now and the year 2035, including the following: A four percent increase in regionwide congested lane miles from 779 lane miles to 944 lane miles. An increase in overall Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) from 19,206,847 miles to 25,746,825 miles An increase in Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) from 689,355 hours to 1,137,100 hours regionwide. VHT per person will increase by 18 minutes in Sarasota County, and six minutes regionwide. Overall Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) will increase regionwide from 192,891 hours to 462,219 hours. Delay per person will increase from 15 minutes to 32 minutes in Manatee County, 17 to 24 minutes in Sarasota County, and 16 to 28 minutes regionwide. Regionwide, 41 percent of travel will be spent in delay, an increase of 13 percent over current conditions. 6
Introduction Final Map 1: Projected Volumes on Committed Roadway Network 7
Introduction Final 2035 Transportation System Needs The context of the 2035 Needs Plan is substantially different than when the Sarasota/Manatee MPO last adopted a Long Range Transportation Plan in 2005. Just five years ago, the Sarasota/Manatee region was in rapid growth mode, and the over-riding concern was traffic congestion and the timing of needed roadway capacity to catch up with the demands of approved and pending land development, particularly in areas east of I-75, north of the Manatee River and in the North Port area. Since that time, the United States has struggled through a recession, arguably the worst national economic downturn since the 1930s. The impact on Florida, and its southwestern counties in particular, has been severe. A dramatic decline in housing demand, double-digit unemployment, tight credit markets and constrained household and government budgets, has changed the landscape for transportation and development. Furthermore, the federal and state policy framework has changed since 2005 to emphasize reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption, and less dependence on fossil fuels, and there is greater interest in regional and local major transit investments. Each of those issues frames the strategies for the Sarasota/Manatee MPO s 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. While road capacity and adequate facilities to serve new development remain important, the emphasis appears to have shifted in the region to transportation investments that support diversified job creation, and greater long term economic stability and sustainability. Along with the cities, both counties have a renewed focused on mixed-use redevelopment, infill, economic encouragement zones and green infrastructure as key policies for the future. A desire to create more walkable streets and improve regional and local transit service fit into this new policy framework. Reflecting the difficult economic climate, the MPO s adopted goals and objectives for the 2035 LRTP largely focus on making more efficient use of existing facilities to improve safety, access and mobility for all users. Specific regionwide projects identified in the Needs Plan include the following projects which are discussed in greater detail under the individual corridor descriptions: express bus and managed lanes along I-75, Multimodal Emphasis for US 41 and a corresponding shift of freight and through-traffic to US 301, the Port Manatee Connector which links the Port to other transportation facilities and centers to the east, a series of Bus Rapid Transit lines running both north-south and east-west in the region, and an interconnected network of bicycle & pedestrian facilities and trails to provide for non-motorized transportation. While most of these needs are identified on the Needs Maps and in the Needs Project Table, some will need to be incorporated into policies implemented by the Sarasota/Manatee MPO, local governments, and other decision-making bodies to ensure their future implementation. One example of such a policy issue involves rightof-way dedication and acquisition for Bus Rapid Transit and other similar corridors. 8
Mobility Assessment Final Map 2: 2035 Needs Plan 9
Mobility Assessment Final Regional and Corridor Approach The 2035 Needs Plan builds from a regionwide needs assessment and an examination of key mobility issues and opportunities within 11 defined corridors. The regional perspective examines the current and future growth patterns and travel conditions influencing major regional transportation facilities and services, reflecting mobility issues and needs in the larger West Central Florida and Southwest Florida region. The foundation for the regional assessment is the 2035 Regional LRTP, approved in 2009 by the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee (CCC), of which the Sarasota/Manatee MPO is a voting member. In addition, the regional perspective reflects the employment and activity centers, such as downtowns, sea- and airports, education districts and other major commercial centers, and the primary regional transportation facilities on the Strategic Intermodal System, such as I-75, I-275, SR 70 and University Parkway. Each of the corridors reflects a predominant travel pattern, and generally adheres to a regionally significant roadway or rail alignment. The corridors encompass a series of regional, sub-regional and local transportation facilities. The objective of the corridor-level analysis in the LRTP is to determine the best mix of mobility and accessibility strategies given the economic opportunities and land use objectives in the corridor, as well as the transportation network characteristics, including gaps, barriers and constraints. Figure 2: Mobility Corridors 10
Mobility Assessment Final Summary of Needs Plan Results The recommended 2035 Needs Plan substantially improves mobility and accessibility for Sarasota and Manatee Counties. Each of the transportation projects defined through the needs assessment process has been coded into the regional travel demand model (covering Sarasota, Manatee and Charlotte Counties) to compare transportation network performance against the existing plus committed (E+C) transportation network with estimated 2035 population and employment totals. The E+C network only includes new transportation projects that will be constructed in the next five years. At a regional perspective, the results of this analysis indicate the following: A reduction in 362 lane miles of roadways experiencing traffic congestion (down from 944 lane miles in the E+C network) A 13 percent decrease in congestion (17% in Sarasota County; 10% in Manatee County) A reduction in vehicle miles traveled by more than 100,000 About a 180,000 decrease in vehicle hours of travel and vehicle hours of delay (a measure of congestion relief), and A decrease by about 12 percent of travel time spent in delay from traffic congestion. There are roadways that remain congested with the Needs Plan, including portions of US 41, Cortez Road, US 301 and numerous roadways in the downtown core areas and on the islands where capacity is constrained. However, the addition of two new bridges over the Manatee River substantially improves travel conditions between Palmetto and Bradenton and on I-75. The 2035 Needs Plan assumes a substantial increase in bus service frequency, hours of service and coverage, and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors in both counties, along with regional express bus service, provide faster and more reliable travel options within congested and constrained corridors. These networks have been planned in close coordination with the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA) and the West Central Florida MPO CCC. These investments generally operate in parallel to roadways that remain congested in 2035. The transit component of the 2035 Needs Plan reflects a 120 percent increase in transit ridership above the current ridership levels of the two county-operated bus systems. Of that increase, about 25 percent is attributable to the growth in population and employment expected by 2035, with the rest resulting from more frequent and available transit service. The analysis revealed that the north-south BRT from the Sarasota Memorial Hospital area to the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport is the most productive of the planned BRT routes with roughly 70 percent of the total BRT ridership. The northern BRT connection from the airport to Bradenton/Palmetto generates a similarly large share of projected system ridership. Overall, bus ridership levels are projected to be higher in Sarasota County due to having more route coverage and service hours. 11
Mobility Assessment Final The overall mode share for transit remains very low, even with the planned service improvements, but it increases within certain corridors, such as US 41 between downtown Sarasota and Bradenton. 2035 Needs Plan Cost Estimates The total estimated cost for projects in the 2035 Needs Plan is $6.2 billion ($2.3 billion for Sarasota, and $3.9 billion for Manatee). The estimates were developed using the LRTP Costing Tool developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 1 to assist MPOs with project costs. The Tool provides estimated 2010 project costs based on project type, location, and length, which are refined using local information, planning processes and specific project cost estimates which have been developed. Once the implementation timeframe has been defined during development of the Financially Feasible Plan, the Costing Tool is used to apply inflation factors to the 2010 costs to calculate Year of Expenditure (YOE) costs for each phase. As shown in Figure 3 below, the resulting estimates indicate the MPO should anticipate project costs to increase by as much as 70 percent due to inflation. Projects that are scheduled to take many years, particularly if they are begun in the outer years of the plan, will cost more than projects that can be completed sooner. For example, the road construction (CST) cost for widening 27 th Street East in Manatee County is $24.8 million in 2010 dollars, and it grows to $34.4 million if the project is built in 2021-2025. Figure 3: Cost Estimation Inflation Factors 12
Mobility Assessment Final Financial Resources In order to determine the limits of financial feasibility for evaluating the potential inclusion of Needs Plan projects in the Financially Feasible Plan, the project team developed projections of financial resources and revenues that are anticipated to be available. To meet federal requirements of the SAFETEA-LU, all revenues are expressed in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars to reflect a projected rate of inflation. The use of YOE dollars may present an appearance of a greater availability of funds, but this is not necessarily the case. The revenue projections, which account for the effects of inflation over time, reflect committed and uncommitted transportation revenues expected to be generated at local and state levels, including funding sources dedicated to specific categories such as the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and maintenance/ operations activities. Of the total estimated revenue over the planning period, much of it includes state and local funding sources of that are not available to the MPO for transportation capacity or service improvements, such as the major FDOT expenditures planned for the SIS category (primarily for I-75), as well as on-going maintenance and operations of existing roadways and bus networks in both counties. Many of these sources, such as the Constitutional, County, and Municipal Fuel Taxes, are currently used for roadway operations and maintenance rather than capital projects, and this is likely to be the case in the future. Other sources, such as the existing Sarasota County Infrastructure Surtax, are already fully committed to paying for capital projects through its expiration in 2024. Therefore, the revenue projected to be available to the MPO for development of its financially feasible 2035 LRTP is $1.9 billion, inclusive of state/federal sources (Other non- SIS Arterials, TMA and Enhancements) and transportation impact fee revenues projected to be generated by new development over the planning horizon. An estimate of the existing revenue sources that would potentially be available for new capital projects or transit service expansion is shown in Table 1. The table includes the state and federal revenue sources that have historically been considered by the MPO as available for capital projects during preparation of the Financially Feasible LRTP. It excludes the revenues projected for the SIS category. The existing local revenue sources for roadways included in the table are limited to projected transportation impact fee revenues because all other gas tax and local funding is projected to maintain the current system. Per information from both county transit operating departments, there are no projected revenues identified for expansion of existing local bus service, whether for capital or operating. Figure 4 presents a bar chart of the funding sources for each county. 13
Mobility Assessment Final Table 1: Revenue Available for New Capital Projects (in millions, YOE) REVENUE SOURCES FY 2014/15 SUB TOTAL FY 2016/20 SUB TOTAL FY 2021/25 SUB TOTAL FY 2026/30 SUB TOTAL FY 2031/35 SUB TOTAL 22 YEAR TOTAL State and Federal Sources* 52.3 152.1 167.5 177.6 189.0 738.5 Existing Local Sources Roadways 60.6 182.8 236.8 303.1 385.1 1,168.5 Existing Local Sources Transit Expansion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS 112.9 334.9 404.3 480.7 574.1 1,907.0 * Excluding SIS Highways All projected local revenues are used to maintain current systems in both counties. Figure 4: Projected State/Federal and Local Funding Sources Available for the 2035 LRTP 14
Mobility Assessment Final As shown in the figure, total state and federal revenues are about $738 million, while the total existing local sources available for roadway capital projects is about $1.1 billion. Total local transit revenues are used exclusively to maintain the existing bus operations and maintaining the capital facilities and equipment; there are no defined revenue sources for additional bus service or expansion of bus fleets. Thus, the overall total available revenue for both counties is about $1.9 billion over the planning period, and is $4.3 billion short of the Needs Plan projected cost estimates. Financially Feasible Plan The Financially Feasible Plan identifies priority transportation projects for roadways, transit and non-motorized modes, and their associated costs, that can be funded by the estimated year of expenditure using projected revenues from a variety of available federal, state and local sources over the planning horizon. The MPO Board considered two alternative approaches to building the Financially Feasible Plan using different funding strategies. One option allocated funding to projects in the adopted Needs Plan based on currently-adopted MPO priorities and County thoroughfare plans. That alternative left little funding for emerging priority corridors, such as multimodal redevelopment strategies on US 41 and expansion of bus service in both counties. A second option allocated some of the available funding toward multimodal transportation projects in the US 41 corridor and the development of Bus Rapid Transit. This shift to funding multimodal strategies and projects that support local redevelopment goals resulted in a wider variety of projects that can be funded during the planning horizon, and assumed some changes in MPO priority projects and how they would be funded (such as using locally-generated impact fees to fund some of the priorities). Following the MPO Board workshop on October 25, 2010, to discuss the two alternative funding approaches for the financially feasible plan and a series of presentations to gain additional input from area city and county elected boards, the MPO staff and consultant team developed a recommended financially feasible 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. The recommended plan builds upon the input from the LRTP Steering Committee, as well as the discussions with the MPO and various policy boards following the October workshop, and incorporates elements of both funding options to create a single list of financially feasible transportation projects in both 15
Mobility Assessment Final counties. The MPO Board voted to adopt the 2035 Financially Feasible LRTP on December 13, 2010. The financially feasible plan includes several components: (1) Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) projects as defined by the Florida Department of Transportation s 2035 SIS Cost Feasible Plan; (2) Other roadway capacity projects in Manatee and Sarasota County funded with state/federal revenues; (3) Projects funded using local transportation impact fees and developer mitigation; (4) non-roadway capacity projects funded in each county using federal enhancement revenues; and (5) A US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor program in both counties that includes funding for the Bus Rapid Transit network using state/federal revenues. Due to the lack of defined local funding sources for transit service expansion, the recommended plan does not include any local bus service expansion or operating costs for the planned Bus Rapid Transit network. Overall, the recommended plan entails a balanced approach to development of a multimodal transportation system by combining funding sources to achieve the MPO s adopted project priorities within the 2035 planning horizon. For example, this entails use of a percentage of state/federal revenues for the SR 681 interchange modification and River Road/Englewood Interstate Connector project in Sarasota County to match with projected impact revenues. Other projects are also funded with state/federal sources, such as the EZ Flyover at Port Manatee and 15th Street East in Manatee County. There is one change in the recommended funding of MPO priorities. The plan fully funds the remaining work to six-lane and make intersection improvements to the northern and middle segments of the Venice Bypass. However, the MPO Board voted to modify the 6-lane widening strategy for the very expensive southern segment of the Venice Bypass to instead advance rightof-way and construction funding for a reconstruction, rehabilitation and intersection improvement project along the segment that maintains four through travel lanes. This results in a substantially lower project cost estimate of $25 million. By lowering this cost, the MPO is able to advance the project from the outer years of the LRTP to a near term improvement, with construction in the 2021-2025 time frame. That cost reduction also frees up additional revenue to support construction of US 41 Multimodal Corridor strategies. The plan recommends establishing a box or set-aside of revenue for local governments to seek funds from the MPO for a given segment of the corridor, which runs from 17th Street in Palmetto to the 16
Mobility Assessment Final Charlotte County line, including Business 41 in Bradenton and Venice. The plan allocates a total of $72 million in Manatee County and $146 million in Sarasota County for this corridor, reflecting the changes in scope for the Venice Bypass southern segment and use of impact fees to partially fund the southern segment of the River Road project. Specific strategies will be defined as local governments bring projects forward through funding requests; however, they will generally entail land use and transportation measures that create more balance among modes, safer and more comfortable access for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users, and maintain regional mobility. The MPO will define criteria and other program details following adoption of the LRTP. In Manatee County, the plan funds Port Manatee-related transportation improvements, and widening portions of US 301 and SR 64. The plan includes separate corridor feasibility studies for capacity improvements to the US 41/301 corridor serving Bradenton and Palmetto, and a new bridge crossing of the Manatee River between downtown and I-75. Table 2 presents a list of the recommended Financially Feasible Plan projects by county, including their primary funding source. There are a series of tables elsewhere in this document that provide additional detail on the phasing and year of expenditure cost for these projects. Map 3 depicts the Financially Feasible Plan projects. The Plan funds about 42 percent of Needs Plan projects for the Strategic Intermodal System (leaving some Port-related projects and the I-75 managed lanes unfunded), and allocates about $1.3 billion, or 33 percent of the Needs Plan, toward Manatee County projects, and $1.2 billion, or 51 percent of the Needs Plan, in Sarasota County. Those percentages in each county include assumptions about impact fees and development contributions/commitments toward several projects. Aside from I-75, unfunded projects represent the proposed new Manatee River bridge, growth-related capacity projects that will eventually require developer funding, and bus service expansion. Table 2: Recommended Financially Feasible Plan Projects (Detailed project costs can be found starting on page 155) DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: FUNDING SOURCE I-75 Widen to six lanes River Road to Sumter Blvd FDOT / SIS I-75 at Fruitville Rd Interchange upgrade FDOT / SIS I-75 at SR 70 Interchange upgrade FDOT / SIS Port Manatee Connector New limited access facility US 41 ( Port Manatee) to I-75 FDOT / SIS I-75 at US 301 New limited access facility FDOT / SIS 17
Mobility Assessment Final DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: FUNDING SOURCE I-75 at University Pkwy Interchange upgrade FDOT / SIS CMS funds ($1,000,000 Federal / State (Manatee CMS Boxed Funds Manatee County annually) County) US 301 Corridor Study/ 17th Street-Palmetto to Federal / State (Manatee Feasibility / Corridor Study Bradenton-Palmetto 13 th Ave-Bradenton County) SR 64 (Manatee Ave) Federal / State (Manatee New Manatee River Bridge Feasibility / Corridor Study to US 301 County) 15th St. E Widen to three lanes (center turn lane and multimodal projects) Tallevast Rd to 53rd Ave E. SR 64 / Manatee Ave Widen to four lanes I-75 to 39th St. E US 301 Widen to four lanes CR 675 to Moccasin Wallow Rd. Ellenton-Gillette Rd Widen to four lanes 69th St. to Buckeye Rd EZ Flyover US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor Manatee BRT CMS Boxed Funds Grade separated interchange Multimodal projects on US 41 in Manatee County BRT infrastructure CMS funds ($1,000,000 annually) US 41 at Port Manatee Connector City of Palmetto to USF / University Pkwy City of Bradenton to USF / University Pkwy Sarasota County ATMS Regional System ATMS system expansion Sarasota County US 41 Bypass (Venice North ) US 41 Bypass (Venice Middle) US 41 Bypass (Venice South) Widen to six lanes Widen to six lanes Widen to six lanes Bird Day Drive to Albee Farm Road Albee Farm Road to Gulf Coast Blvd Gulf Coast Blvd to Center Road River Road (EIC phase 1)* Widen to four lanes US 41 to Center Road River Road (EIC Phase 2)* Widen to four lanes Center Road to I-75 River Road (EIC Phase 3) River Road (EIC Phase 4) Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes I-75 / SR 681** Convert to full interchange Winchester Blvd to US 41 SR 776 to S. River Road Federal / State (Manatee County) Federal / State (Manatee County) Federal / State (Manatee County) Federal / State (Manatee County) Federal / State (Manatee County) Federal / State (Manatee County) Federal / State (Manatee County) Federal / State (Sarasota County) Federal / State (Sarasota County) Federal / State (Sarasota County) Federal / State (Sarasota County) Federal / State (Sarasota County) Federal / State (Sarasota County) Federal / State (Sarasota County) Federal / State and Local (Sarasota County) Federal / State and Local (Sarasota County) Federal / State with Local and Developer Funded Contributions (Sarasota County) 18
Mobility Assessment Final DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: FUNDING SOURCE US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor Sarasota BRT Multimodal projects on US 41 in Sarasota County BRT Infrastructure USF / University Pkwy to Charlotte County USF / University Pkwy to Westfield Southgate Plaza Green Bridge Trail Multiuse trail Bradenton to Palmetto Rye Preserve Trail Rails with Trails Trails, Sidewalk gaps and bike lanes Legacy Trail Northern Extension Trails, Sidewalks and Bike Lanes 45th St E. 53rd Ave Multiuse trail Multiuse trail Fill gaps ($120 million need) Multiuse trail Fill gaps ($120 million est. need) Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes Rye Preserve to Lake Manatee State Park Willow to Ellenton Trail with Rail Countywide Northern Terminus to Alderman Trail / Downtown Countywide 53rd Ave E. to 44th Ave E. 43rd St W. to 75th St. W. 63rd Ave E Widen to four lanes US 301 to 39th St E. 27th St E Honore Ave 44th Ave E. 44th Ave E Artisan Lakes Parkway Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes New four lane road and bridge New four lane road New four lane road US 301 to SR 64 (Manatee Ave) Conestoga Place to Sandstone Ave 45th St E to Lakewood Ranch Blvd Lakewood Ranch to Lorraine Rd Moccasin Wallow Rd to Buckeye Rd. Erie Rd Widen to four lanes US 301 to 69th St E. 69th St E Widen to four lanes Erie Rd to US 41 II Road / Sawgrass Rd New four lane road I-75 / Port Manatee Connector to Buckeye Rd Federal / State (Sarasota County) Federal / State (Sarasota County) Federal / State Enhancements (Manatee County) Federal / State Enhancements (Manatee County) Federal / State Enhancements (Manatee County) Federal / State Enhancements (Manatee County) Federal / State Enhancements (Sarasota County) Federal / State Enhancements (Sarasota County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) 19
Mobility Assessment Final DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: FUNDING SOURCE Moccasin Wallow Rd Widen to four lanes US 301 to US 41 ATMS Bee Ridge Rd US 41 ITS infrastructure Widen to six lanes Widen to six lanes Countywide (170 signals) Cattleman Rd to Bond St Gulf Gate Dr to Central Sarasota Pkwy Honore Ave Ext Widen to four lanes Laurel Rd to SR 681 US 41 Widen to six lanes Sumter Blvd to Charlotte County Line River Road (EIC phase 1)* Widen to four lanes US 41 to Center Road River Road (EIC Phase 2)* Widen to four lanes Center Road to I-75 I-75 / SR 681** Convert to full interchange Lakewood Ranch Blvd Price Blvd Price Blvd Price Blvd Price Blvd / Orlando Blvd New four lane road Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes I-75 at Yorkshire St New interchange Fruitville Road to University Pkwy Sumter Blvd to Toledo Blade Blvd Biscayne Dr to Sumter Blvd Toledo Blade Blvd to Panacea Blvd Panacea Blvd to Veterans Blvd * EIC phases 1 & 2 are 20% MPO-funded and 80% Impact Fee-funded ** I-75 / SR 681 interchange is 10% federally-funded and 90% Impact Fee- and Developer-funded Local / Developer Funded (Manatee County) Local / Developer Funded (Sarasota County) Local / Developer Funded (Sarasota County) Local / Developer Funded (Sarasota County) Local / Developer Funded (Sarasota County) Local / Developer Funded (Sarasota County) Local / Developer Funded (Sarasota County) Local / Developer Funded (Sarasota County) Local / Developer Funded (Sarasota County) Local / Developer Funded (Sarasota County) Local / Developer Funded (City of North Port) Local / Developer Funded (City of North Port) Local / Developer Funded (City of North Port) Local / Developer Funded (City of North Port) Local / Developer Funded (City of North Port) 20
Mobility Assessment Final Map 3: 2035 Financially Feasible Plan Projects 21
Mobility Assessment Final Mobility Assessment This chapter describes the following steps taken to assess anticipated future transportation needs, strategies, and resources: Establishing overarching goals, objectives, performance measures and targets to guide the planning process, assist in assessing future conditions and needs, and identifying potential solutions; Seeking input on transportation issues and potential strategies from the public through periodic community workshops and meetings; Analyzing existing and future socioeconomic conditions that affect travel demand; and Assessing current and future year transportation system performance. SocioEconomic Conditions and Trends Methodology The Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida develops and maintains demographic forecasts through the year 2035 for cities and counties to use in individual budgeting, planning and policy analysis. Data is maintained by municipality and county. Using the BEBR control totals for 2035 for each county, growth was allocated to high growth areas following each county s comprehensive plan. Working in concert with individual City and County staffs, allocations were then refined based on current planning documents and studies using the following methodology: Manatee County 2035 population and employment was developed for the Mobility 2035 study which used pending and approved developments and allocated the remaining growth to high growth areas. City of Bradenton population and employment use for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the Objections, Recommendations and Comments responses for the Florida Department of Community Affairs were used in the LRTP. City of Palmetto 2035 population and employment was allocated to vacant and 22
Mobility Assessment Final redevelopable areas following the comprehensive plan. Sarasota County allocated growth with staff based on pending and approved development. City of Sarasota allocated growth with staff based on Redevelopment Plans and high growth areas. City of Venice allocated growth based on high growth areas and comments from staff. City of North Port allocated growth with staff based on Comp Plan and the Price Blvd Study. Demographic and Economic Trends and Issues The Sarasota-Manatee region has experienced steady growth over the past years and is expected to continue this trend into the future. By the year 2035, the population is expected to increase by approximately 289,000 residents. This would bring the total number of residents to nearly one million across the region. The incorporated areas of Sarasota County, including the City of Sarasota, Venice, Northport and Longboat Key, will experience the highest percentage of growth overall, adding 117,230 new residents by 2035, a 14 percent increase. However, most of this growth will take place in Northport, which is expected to add more than 91,000 new residents, the lion s share of growth for the entire region. The unincorporated areas of Manatee County will experience similar amounts of growth within the planning year horizon. Countywide the unincorporated areas will absorb more than 106,000 new residents. Many of the subareas within the unincorporated area will experience percent increases in the triple digits. Bradenton, Palmetto, and Longboat Key will add approximately 17,000 new residents collectively. About 131,000 new jobs are anticipated to be created within the region during the same time frame. The majority of jobs will be added in the incorporated areas of the City of Sarasota, Northport, and Bradenton. Significant job growth will also take place in Manatee County around Lakewood Ranch, DeSoto Mall, Oneco, Parrish, and Ellenton. 23
Mobility Assessment Final Figure 5: Interim Year Population Projections Sarasota / Manatee 2035 LRTP (Interim Year Population Projections) Manatee County Population (Countywide) Sarasota County Population (Countywide) 384,057 324,428 327,900 396,000 341,300 425,500 367,400 458,900 392,700 491,500 416,300 522,700 448,401 551,242 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Figure 6: Interim Year Employment Projections Sarasota / Manatee 2035 LRTP (Interim Year Employment Projections) Manatee County Employment (Countywide) Sarasota County Employment (Countywide) 194,082 139,813 141,309 200,117 147,084 215,025 158,332 231,904 169,235 248,378 179,405 264,145 192,657 272,538 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 24
Mobility Assessment Final Table 3: Population Projections POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2007-2035 INCREASE PERCENT INCREASE Manatee County (Unincorporated) 244,319 247,309 258,851 281,330 303,121 323,448 351,096 106,777 44% City of Bradenton 54,093 54,499 56,067 59,120 62,080 64,841 68,597 14,504 27% MANATEE COUNTY City of Palmetto 15,034 15,077 15,242 15,564 15,876 16,167 16,563 1,529 10% Islands 10,982 11,015 11,140 11,385 11,622 11,844 12,145 1,163 11% Total Manatee County (City + County) 324,428 327,900 341,300 367,400 392,700 416,300 448,401 123,973 38% Sarasota County (Unincorporated) 243,519 247,088 255,902 265,882 275,623 284,946 293,474 49,955 21% City of Sarasota 56,427 57,546 60,309 63,437 66,491 69,414 72,087 15,660 28% City of Venice 22,166 22,879 24,641 26,636 28,583 30,446 32,151 9,985 45% SARASOTA COUNTY City of North Port 53,736 60,259 76,372 94,615 112,422 129,463 145,053 91,317 170% Islands 8,209 8,228 8,275 8,329 8,381 8,431 8,477 268 3% Total Sarasota County (City + County) Total MPO Area 384,057 396,000 425,500 458,900 491,500 522,700 551,242 167,185 44% 708,485 723,900 766,800 826,300 884,200 939,000 999,643 291,158 41% 25
Mobility Assessment Final Table 4: Employment Projections EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 2007 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2007-2035 INCREASE PERCENT INCREASE MANATEE COUNTY SARASOTA COUNTY Manatee County (Unincorporated) 94,233 95,328 99,555 107,788 115,769 123,213 132,913 38,680 41% City of Bradenton 35,069 35,415 36,752 39,355 41,878 44,231 47,298 12,229 35% City of Palmetto 6,547 6,602 6,813 7,225 7,624 7,997 8,482 1,935 30% Islands 3,964 3,964 3,964 3,964 3,964 3,964 3,964-0% Total Manatee County (City + County) 139,813 141,309 147,084 158,332 169,235 179,405 192,657 52,844 38% Sarasota County (Unincorporated) 115,549 117,962 123,921 130,668 137,254 143,557 146,802 31,253 27% City of Sarasota 51,072 53,108 58,138 63,833 69,391 74,710 77,725 26,377 52% City of Venice 14,037 14,339 15,084 15,928 16,752 17,540 17,946 3,909 28% City of North Port 7,182 8,467 11,640 15,233 18,739 22,095 23,823 16,641 232% Islands 6,242 6,242 6,242 6,242 6,242 6,242 6,242-0% Total Sarasota County (City + County) 194,082 200,117 215,025 231,904 248,378 264,145 272,538 78,180 40% Total MPO Area 333,895 341,427 362,109 390,236 417,613 443,550 465,195 78,180 23% 26
Mobility Assessment Final Figure 7: Population Increase Per Acre 2007 2035 Figure 8: Employment Increase Per Acre 2007 2035 27
Mobility Assessment Final Existing and Projected Transportation System Performance Current Roadway Network Conditions and Trends The performance evaluation of the roadway network is focused upon the following variables: Congested lane miles and the percentage of congested lane miles; Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and the miles of travel per trip; Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) and the hours of travel per trip; Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) and the delay per trip; and, The percentage of travel spent in delay. Highlights of 2007 roadway conditions are as follows: Twenty-four percent of the lane miles within the MPO are currently congested. The average Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per person is 27. Average Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) per person within the MPO is 1 hour. Manatee County exhibits slightly longer travel times at 72 minutes, while Sarasota travel time is 48 minutes. Average delay per person is 16 minutes. Twenty-eight percent of travel is spent in delay MPO-wide. Sarasota County exhibits 36% of travel in delay. 28
Mobility Assessment Final Table 5: E+C Performance Measures (2007) MANATEE COUNTY SARASOTA COUNTY TOTAL MPO Population 324,428 384,057 708,485 Lane Miles 1,570 1,670 3,240 Congested Lane Miles 345 434 779 Percent Congested 22% 26% 24% Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 8,295,972 10,910,874 19,206,847 VMT per Person 26 28 27 Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) 388,833 300,522 689,355 VHT per Person 1.2 0.8 1.0 Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) 84,327 108,564 192,891 VHD per Person 0.26 0.28 0.27 Percent of Travel Spent in Delay 22% 36% 28% Assessing Future Year System Performance MPO Commitments As documented in the Transportation Improvement Program, the MPO has committed funds through Fiscal Year 2014/15 to certain projects. These projects, shown in Map 4, were incorporated into the base case transportation network for the purposes of modeling anticipated Year 2035 congestion levels and alternative congestion reduction strategies. 29
Mobility Assessment Final Table 6: Committed Projects through Year 2014 COUNTY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Manatee 10th Street West @ 10th Avenue West Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Manatee 10th Street West @ 14th Avenue West Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Manatee 15th Street / 301 Blvd - Tellevast Rd to 53rd Ave E. Widen to 3 lanes (center turn lane + multimodal) Manatee 15th Street East@26th Avenue East Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Manatee 44th Avenue East - 15th Street East to 19th Street East Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Manatee 44th Avenue East - US 41 to 15th Street East Widen 2 to 3 Lanes (Center Turn Lanes) Manatee 44th Avenue East - 19th Street East to US 301 Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Manatee 44th Avenue East - US 301 to 30th Street East Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Manatee 44th Avenue East - US 41 to 45th Street East New 0 to 4 Lanes Manatee 51st Street West@38th Avenue West Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Manatee 59th Street West - Manatee Avenue to Cortez Road Add Turn Lanes Manatee 63rd Avenue East - Over Pearce Canal Widen Two Lane Bridge to Five Lane Bridge Manatee 75th Street West - 53rd Avenue West to Cortez Road Widen 2 to 4 Lanes 30
Mobility Assessment Final COUNTY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Manatee 9th Street East - 53rd Avenue East to 57th Avenue East Manatee El Conquistador Parkway - 53rd Street W to El Conquistador Parkway New 0 to 4 Lanes Manatee Fort Hamer / Upper Manatee River Road - Bridge New 2 Lane Bridge Manatee Haben Boulevard @ Riviera Dunes Roundabout Manatee I-75@ SR 70 Interchange Improvements Manatee I-75@US 301 Interchange Improvements Manatee Lakewood Ranch - SR 64 to SR 70 Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Manatee Manatee Ave - Carlton Arms to I-75 Widen to 6 lanes Manatee MCAT Maintenance & Operations Facility Manatee Old Tampa Road @ Fort Hamer Road Intersection Improvements Manatee SR 64 - East of Lena Rd to Lakewood Ranch Blvd Widen 2 to 6 Lanes Manatee SR 64 - Lakewood Ranch to Lorraine Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Manatee SR 64@67th Street Intersection Improvements 31
Mobility Assessment Final COUNTY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Manatee SR 70 - Tara Blvd to Lorraine Rd Widen 4 to 6 Lanes Manatee U S 301 @ Ellenton Gillette Road Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Manatee U S 301 @ Fort Hamer Road Intersection Intersection Improvements Manatee University Parkway - US 41 to US 301 Median and Turn Lane Upgrade Manatee US 301 - Erie Road to Fort Hamer Road Widen 2 to 6 Lanes Manatee US 301 @ Colony Cove Drive Modify Intersection Manatee US 301@ University Parkway Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Manatee US 41@ 23rd Street East Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Manatee 10th Street West @ 10th Avenue West Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Sarasota 17th Street @ US 301 Intersection Improvements Sarasota Bahia Vista Rd - McIntosh Rd to Cattlemen Rd Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Sarasota Bee Ridge Road Extension - West of Mauna Loa Blvd. to Iona Road Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Sarasota Cattlemen Road - Ph 5 - South of Packinghouse Rd to South of Fruitville Rd New 0 to 4 Lanes 32
Mobility Assessment Final COUNTY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sarasota Center Rd - Jacaranda Blvd to River Rd Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Sarasota Clark Rd@ Honore Rd Intersection Improvements Sarasota Fruitville Rd - Coburn to Sarasota Center Boulevard Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Sarasota Gulfstream (SR 789) - West of Sunset to W of US 41 Add EB to SB Turn Lanes Sarasota Honore Avenue - Bee Ridge Road to north of Weber Extension Sarasota Honore Avenue at Clark Rd Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Sarasota Honore Avenue Phase 5 - SR 681 to Palmer Ranch Parkway New 0 to 2 Lanes Sarasota I-75 - River Road to SR 681 Widen 4 to 6 Lanes Sarasota I-75 - Toledo Blade to Sumter Blvd. Widen 4 to 6 Lanes (Design funded) Sarasota US 41 - Charlotte County Line to Sumter Blvd. PD&E Design Right-of-Way Sarasota I-75@ University Parkway Interchange Improvements Sarasota Laurel Road E and Knights Trail Rd Intersection Improvements Sarasota Legacy Trail Pedestrian Overpass - US 41 Pedestrian Overpass 33
Mobility Assessment Final COUNTY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sarasota McIntosh Rd - BeeRidge Rd to Proctor Rd Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Sarasota McIntosh Rd, ph 1 - Sawyer Loop Rd to Proctor Rd Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Sarasota N.Cattlemen Rd - Richardson Rd to University Pkwy New 0 to 4 Lanes Sarasota North Cattleman Road - Richardson Road to Desoto Road Widen 0 to 4 Lanes Sarasota Pinebrook Road - Venice Ave South to Center Road New 0 to 2 Lanes Sarasota Proctor Rd - Honore Rd to Gantt Rd Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Sarasota Proctor Rd- Ph2 - McIntosh Road to west of Honore Avenue Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Sarasota Ringling Blvd Roundabout@Pineapple Avenue Roundabout Sarasota Ringling Boulevard @ Palm Avenue Roundabout Sarasota River Rd @ US 41 Intersection Improvements Sarasota SR 72 @ Proctor Road Intersection Improvements Sarasota Sumter Boulevard - City Center Blvd To Hansard Avenue Bridge Rehab and Add Lanes Sarasota Toledo Blade Blvd - I-75 to US 41 Widen 2 to 4 Lanes 34
Mobility Assessment Final COUNTY PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sarasota US 301 - Wood Street to 12th Street Reconstruct/Add Turn Lanes Sarasota US 301 - Myrtle Street To Desoto Road Widen 4 to 6 Lanes Sarasota US 301-12th Street to Myrtle Street Widen 4 to 6 Lanes Sarasota US 301 @ Fruitville Road Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Sarasota US 41 - US 41 Bus North to SR 681 Widen 4 to 6 Lanes Sarasota US 41 - US 41 Bypass North to US 41 Bypass South Widen 2 to 4 Lanes Sarasota US 41 @ Bahia Vista Street Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes Sarasota US 41 @ South Biscayne Drive Intersection Improvement Sarasota US 41 - Charlotte County Line to Sumter Blvd Widen to 6 Lanes Sarasota Venice Avenue @Jacaranda Blvd Roundabout Sarasota Webber St - McIntosh Rd to Cattlemen Rd New 0 to 2 Lanes Sarasota West Price Blvd@ Cranberry Blvd Intersection Improvements- Add Turn Lanes 35
Mobility Assessment Final Map 4: Committed Projects through Year 2014 36
Mobility Assessment Final Anticipated Future Congestion Levels The following map and statistics describe the levels of traffic congestion projected to occur by the year 2035. The results of the analysis assume the completion of short-range transportation improvement projects to which funding has been committed through the year 2015, as identified in the MPO s Transportation Improvement Program. As shown in the map, increased traffic congestion is anticipated along several major facilities, particularly along I-75, US 301, SR 64, and SR 70. The analysis reveals several important anticipated changes in regional mobility conditions between now and the year 2035 and includes the following: A four percent increase in regionwide Congested Lane Miles from 779 lane miles to 944 lane miles. An increase in overall Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) from 19,206,847 miles to 25,746,825 miles. An increase in Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) from 689,355 hours to 1,137,100 hours regionwide. VHT per person will increase by 18 minutes in Sarasota County, and six minutes regionwide. Overall Vehicle Hours of Delay (VHD) will increase regionwide from 192,891 hours to 462,219 hours minutes. Delay per person will increase from 15 minutes to 32 minutes in Manatee County, 17 to 24 minutes in Sarasota, and 16 to 28 minutes regionwide. Regionwide, 41 percent of travel will be spent in delay, an increase of 13 percent over current conditions. Table 6 presents the changes in key transportation performance indicators in both counties and for the region as a whole between the 2007 base year condition and the 2035 condition with the E+C transportation network. The table reflects projected increases in population from 2007 to 2035 and the associated effects on transportation network conditions. For instance, the MPO area is projected to experience a growth of nearly 300,000 more residents, which will result in 165 more lane miles of roads operating in congested conditions without additional capacity improvements beyond those already committed for construction by 2014. 37
Mobility Assessment Final Table 7: Changes between 2007 and 2035 Performance Indicators MANATEE COUNTY SARASOTA COUNTY TOTAL MPO Population 124,004 164,809 288,813 Lane Miles 32.00 76.00 108.00 Congested Lane Miles 58.00 107.00 165.00 Percent Congested 3% 5% 4% Vehicle Miles of Travel 3,278,751.00 3,261,229.00 6,539,978.00 VMT per Person 0.00-2.00-1.00 Vehicle Hours of Travel 161,245.00 286,501.00 447,745.00 VHT per Person 0.00 18.00 6.00 Vehicle Hours of Delay 156,040.00 113,288.00 269,328.00 Delay per Person (minutes) 16.80 7.20 11.40 Percent of Travel Spent in Delay 22% 2% 13% 38
Mobility Assessment Final Map 5: Projected Volumes on E+C Roadway Network (2035) 39
Mobility Assessment Final Freight Mobility Assessment The Sarasota-Manatee MPO s Mobility 2035 Plan emphasizes the importance of a freight transportation system that will support economic vitality and enhanced participation in the global economy. Transportation facilities that expedite the movement of goods to, within, and from the Sarasota/Manatee region are critical to the long term economic health and growth of the region. These facilities provide access to key economic generators and districts of industrial, commercial and related types of employment. The Freight Mobility Assessment describes freight s role in the regional economy and identifies the region s key freight activity centers (FACs). It examines the number, type, and performance of facilities serving these areas to develop an inventory of freight mobility needs in Sarasota and Manatee Counties. Long-term freight mobility needs can include new road, rail, seaport, and aviation facilities; capacity enhancements to existing facilities; and intermodal facilities that expedite the transfer of goods from one mode to another. Performance of the Freight Transportation System To identify freight mobility needs, it is necessary to understand how well the existing transportation system is functioning, especially with respect to the service of the FACs described above. An analysis of freight movements on the current transportation system is presented in a map series that identifies major rail, road, aviation, and seaport facilities and the amount of truck traffic served by roadway facilities. This analysis reveals where major freight movements are occurring in the two counties and will aid in identifying needed capacity expansions or new facilities. 40
Mobility Assessment Final The Strategic Intermodal System The Florida Department of Transportation established the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) as a statewide network of highways, railroads, waterways, airports, seaports, and spaceports that would be the target of strategic, but substantial, investments to meet the State s long term mobility, livability, and economic development goals. SIS facilities play a critical role in freight mobility. The SIS facilities in Sarasota and Manatee Counties are displayed in Map 6 below, along with the locations of the FACs. The SIS facilities in the Sarasota/Manatee region consist of I-75, I-275, Port Manatee and its railroad connection, and US 41 road connections from the port to I-275, and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. In addition, the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport is an emerging SIS facility, as is SR 70 east of I-75 through the MPO planning area. University Parkway from the airport entrance road to I-75 is a SIS Connector facility. These facilities are critical not only to the region s transportation network, but also to the state and national networks. The map shows that the highest intensity activity centers (Port Manatee and Tropicana) are served by SIS railroads, with the port being itself a SIS seaport connected by a SIS connector road to I- 275, a SIS highway. Most of the other FACs are located along non-sis rail lines. The Sarasota- Bradenton International Airport is a SIS facility and FAC served by University Parkway. The North Port Park of Commerce and PGT Industries have direct access to I-75, the principal SIS highway spanning Sarasota and Manatee Counties, while the Gulf Coast Corporate Park is situated adjacent to I-275 in Manatee County. Thus, most of the major activity centers enjoy relatively easy access to high capacity facilities that provide mobility to the surrounding region and other parts of the state. Improvements to SIS facilities are planned through FDOT s SIS Multimodal Cost Feasible Plan with coordination among the FDOT districts, MPOs, city and county governments, and other partners. Additional needed improvements to SIS facilities are documented in the SIS Unfunded Needs Assessment. While FACs in Manatee and Sarasota Counties are generally well served by the SIS, needed improvements have been identified and are documented in the Freight Mobility Needs section of this document. 41
Mobility Assessment Final Map 6: Strategic Intermodal System Facilities in Sarasota and Manatee Counties 42
Mobility Assessment Final Truck Traffic Analysis FACs are significant producers and attractors of truck traffic. Providing for the efficient movement of trucks delivering raw materials to producers and finished products to markets within and beyond Sarasota and Manatee Counties is important to maintain the area s economic competiveness and attract new businesses and grow employment. An analysis of which roads are hosting the largest volumes and proportions of truck traffic is provided to guide the development of an inventory of freight mobility needs. Vehicles classified as trucks according to the FDOT classification system include single unit trucks, combination trailer trucks, and multi-trailer trucks (vehicle classes 4-13). Map 7 shows the average number of daily truck trips on major roads in Manatee and Sarasota Counties in 2008. The map reveals the significance of I-75 to freight mobility within and beyond the bi-county area. Other major freight corridors include I-275, US 41 and US 301, SR 70 and SR 64, and portions of 75 th Street and 34 th Street in Bradenton and University Parkway and Fruitville Road in Sarasota. Map 8 displays what percent of total traffic on major roads is truck traffic. Although the major spines of I-75, US 41, and US 301 carry high volumes of truck traffic, trucks comprise a relatively low percentage of total traffic on these facilities. Shorter road segments that link major arterials and provide access to the counties FACs show the highest shares of truck traffic. These segments may provide low utility for passenger trips in some instances (such as Piney Point Road serving Port Manatee) or traverse rural areas in making connections to other parts of the state (Wauchula Road and SR 70 in the eastern portions of Manatee County). 43
Mobility Assessment Final Map 7: Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic, 2008 44
Mobility Assessment Final Map 8: Truck Traffic as Percent of Total Traffic, 2008 45
Mobility Assessment Final Freight Activity Centers In assessing freight mobility and system performance, it is important to understand where freight activities are concentrated. Locations of intermodal transshipment, such as seaports or freight rail terminals, are major hubs of freight activity. Other areas with high levels of freight activity are characterized by industrial and commercial employment. Freight activity centers are major producers and attractors of truck traffic. They may be areas of existing activity or where such growth is planned to occur or where distribution activities are shifting from a local focus to a regional, national, and/or global focus. There are 11 areas in Sarasota and Manatee Counties identified as freight activity centers: Port Manatee Located north of Palmetto on the Gulf Coast, Port Manatee is the closest deepwater port to the Panama Canal in the U.S. The port handles approximately nine million tons of cargo annually, focusing especially on produce, forestry products, and petroleum products. The port has a major economic impact, contributing over $2.3 billion to the regional economy and supporting over 20,000 jobs. Acres of land in the vicinity of the port are planned for notable industrial and port-related growth in years to come. Port Manatee is served by US 41 and a CSX rail line with a spur to serve the docks directly. Additional roadway connections are needed and two improvements, the Port Manatee Connector and EZ Flyover, are in the planning stages. Gulf Coast Corporate Park Located at the US 41/I-275 interchange, the Gulf Coast Corporate Park is a 140-acre mixed-use commercial/residential/light industrial complex. Sysco Food Services operates a 390,000 square foot facility with over 500 employees, occupying the southeast corner of the park. About half the remaining industrial parcels have been absorbed, while commercial, office, and multifamily uses are planned in future phases. Large tracks of land surrounding the corporate park remain undeveloped and with future land use designations for industrial and mixed-use activities. North Central Manatee The area north of US 301 east of Palmetto is home to a variety of industrial and warehousing uses, including packing and shipping businesses that support the agriculture industry in Manatee County. This is an extremely important part of the business of Port Manatee, and these industries also depend on both rail and highway access for regional distribution. US 301 provides a connection from the activity center to US 41 (Port Manatee) and I-75. A CSX rail spur links the industrial area to the main CSX line in central Palmetto. Several 46
Mobility Assessment Final developable tracts are designated for industrial uses in Manatee County s future land use map. Tropicana Tropicana Products employs about 1,400 workers at its processing plant in Bradenton. The Plant is served by US 301 and by a CSX rail line. There is a small rail yard within the plant. The Tropicana facility is classified as an urban industrial use, and there is little room for expansion or additional industrial uses in the immediate vicinity. Central Manatee In central Manatee, south of 38 th Avenue East and west of US 301, Pierce Manufacturing employees around 400 workers in a heavy duty truck manufacturing operation that specializes in emergency vehicles. Additionally, the Manasota Industrial Park is situated adjacent to the Pierce plant with light and heavy industrial, manufacturing, and warehouse operations. The Central Manatee FAC is accessible from 38 th Avenue and 15 th Street East, neither of which are high capacity roadways. They do, however, provide relatively easy access to US 301 and SR 70, which are major transportation facilities that connect to the Interstate system. There is considerable room for growth in the Central Manatee area, with vacant lands to the east designated for industrial uses in the future land use map. Many of these parcels would have direct access to US 301. South Manatee/Sarasota The US 301 corridor in southern Manatee County is characterized by light and heavy industrial and manufacturing uses. The broad north-south industrial corridor covers the area between 15 th Street East to the west and 33 rd Street to the east as it extends from 57 th Avenue to 77 th Avenue, narrowing to simply include sites adjacent to US 301 as it continues into northern Sarasota County. US 301 is the primary highway connection serving the FAC; the Seminole Gulf Railroad provides a rail connection that links to the CSX line in central Manatee County. The southern portions of the corridor contain vacant lands with future land use designations for industrial expansion and mixed-use development. Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport Abutting the South Manatee/Sarasota activity center is the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport industrial area. The airport serves primarily passenger traffic, but handles a nominal amount of air cargo. Together with the light industrial uses to the north, the airport is identified as a low intensity FAC. Future industrial and mixed-use development around the airport will eventually cause the South Manatee/Sarasota and Airport FACs to function as a single high-intensity activity center. 47
Mobility Assessment Final Publix Distribution Center Publix Supermarkets operates a warehouse on Sawyer Road south of Clark Road. Directly west of the Publix warehouse is a United Natural Foods distribution center and smaller light industrial uses along McIntosh Road. Clark Road provides easy access to I-75 to the east and US 41 to the west. Vacant land in the vicinity has a future land use designation of Major Employment Center, meaning that future expansion of freight activities in the area is likely. PGT Industries In North Venice, at the I-75/Laurel Road interchange, PGT Industries anchors a corporate park along with its manufacturing facility, which employs over 900 workers. Smaller light manufacturing and commercial uses are also found in the area. Parcels for further industrial and commercial activities remain available within the existing complex, but expansion opportunities beyond that appear to be limited based on the future land use designations. International Trade Center The International Trade Center on Fruitville Road east of I-75 in Sarasota is a mixed-use office, commercial, and light industrial development. It is a low intensity FAC. There are vacant lands available designated for Major Employment Centers in the future land use map, so expansion of freight activities is likely to occur. The FAC is served only by Fruitville Road, which provides access to I-75. North Port Park of Commerce The North Port Park of Commerce is a 170-acre mixed use commercial, office, and light industrial development located at the I- 75/Toledo Blade Boulevard Interchange in North Port. It is a low intensity FAC. Development in the surrounding area is primarily residential, so major expansions are unlikely to occur. Each of these areas has distinct characteristics warranting different facilities. Port Manatee, for example, is an area of international trade and relatively intense freight activity. It is served by road, rail, and seaport facilities, and connections to proximate intermodal facilities are important to maximizing the efficiency of port operations and promoting port expansion. Major facilities like Port Manatee and Tropicana require different facilities than smaller FACs like the North Port Park of Commerce. Identifying and planning for freight mobility needs will reflect the nature of the various FACs in Sarasota and Manatee counties and their significance on a regional, national, and international scale. 48
Mobility Assessment Final The Port Encouragement Zone The Port Manatee Encouragement Zone (EZ) is a 5,000-acre special district designed to spur the development of Port Manatee and the immediate vicinity. The EZ offers incentives like Development of Regional Impact (DRI) exemptions, impact fee reductions, expedited permit approvals and rezoning options, an extension of the port s foreign trade zone, and tax increment financing to improve the area s infrastructure as it develops. These incentives are intended to attract major shippers and port-related enterprises to Port Manatee and the vast greenfields between the port and I-75. Freight Needs The Sarasota/Manatee MPO s Mobility 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan emphasizes the importance of a freight transportation system that will support economic vitality and enhanced participation in the global economy. Transportation facilities that expedite the movement of goods to, within, and from the Sarasota/Manatee region are critical to the long term economic health and growth of the region. These facilities provide access to key economic generators and districts of industrial, commercial and related types of employment. Freight s Economic Impact A freight transportation system that provides good accessibility to freight activity centers is a key contributor to the economic growth of the region. The freight transportation network contributes to the region s economic vitality by delivering consumer products to markets, transporting raw materials and finished products to and from industries, moving building materials to construction sites, and distributing fuels and energy resources to power cities. As global commerce increases and local economies diversify, it is important for metropolitan areas to ensure that adequate 49
Mobility Assessment Final infrastructure is in place to meet escalating demand for freight capacity and leverage transportation investments to support vibrant, livable, and economically sound communities. For this reason, federal transportation policy has placed increased emphasis on freight mobility in the SAFETEA-LU, expanding or creating funding programs to support goods movement. Freight concerns are also likely to figure heavily in future transportation bills. Leveraging federal and State funding for freight mobility projects creates jobs and supports industries that rely on an efficient, intermodal transportation system. The freight network in Sarasota and Manatee Counties connects the area with the greater West Central and Southwest Florida regions, as well as other parts of the state, country, and world. Efficient goods movement powers commercial and industrial enterprises and contributes to the region s base employment, meaning that jobs produced in freight and supported sectors help to generate additional jobs in the region. The economic impacts of freight make it an important consideration in developing a long range transportation plan and a substantial contributor to livability. However, the goal of providing for efficient goods movement should be balanced with the concerns of residents, businesses, commuters and multimodal system users, including bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders. Therefore, freight mobility needs are identified in appropriate corridors based on an understanding of the region s FACs and the connections made within Sarasota and Manatee Counties and the surrounding West Central Florida and Southwest Florida region. Freight Mobility Needs Understanding the importance of freight mobility to the local and regional economy, a list of freight mobility needs is included in the long range transportation plan based on the locations of freight activity centers and performance of major freight mobility corridors. The needs identified are taken from the master list of multimodal transportation needs developed for the Mobility 2035 Plan. Some needed improvements have received prior study to one degree or another, such as the Port Manatee Connector and EZ Flyover projects, while others are included in larger planning efforts like Florida s SIS Strategic Plan. Finally, other needs are identified that have not received attention in previous plans or studies, but need to be identified to ensure the long term viability of the freight network in Sarasota and Manatee Counties. Port Manatee Connector In 2008, FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) commenced a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study for a proposed high speed connection linking Port Manatee to I-75. The PD&E Study involves analyzing alternative east-west alignments, a new or improved interchange on I-75, and potential improvements to local roads in the Port Manatee area. The purpose of the Port Manatee Connector and associated improvements is to provide the 50
Mobility Assessment Final required transportation infrastructure to aid the economic development of the port, attract new shippers and port-related businesses, and boost the regional economy. The study area extends from south of I-275 to north Valroy Road in southern Hillsborough County and west of U.S. 41 to east of I-75. The PD&E Study is expected to be complete by 2011. EZ Flyover / East-West Connector Manatee County and Port Manatee have identified a need for improved transportation access within the Port Encouragement Zone (EZ) serving the Port. Currently, trucks coming from the port must cross US 41 before entering the EZ. The crossing requires leaving the port security area and then re-entering the security area, as well as breaking down large loads into smaller loads to conform to weight restrictions on US 41. Moreover, traffic on US 41 can slow down truck movements. These factors create inefficiencies and increase the costs of handling shipments through Port Manatee. There are two anticipated transportation projects to support economic development activities related to the expansion of the Port. The EZ Flyover/Connector is envisioned to provide connectivity to lands within the Encouragement Zone between Buckeye Road and the planned Port Connector Road with I-75. While an alignment and number of lanes have not been determined, an east-west at-grade roadway is needed to meet future transportation demands in this area. In addition, a flyover/grade-separated road across US 41 into the Port from the Encouragement Zone is planned to reduce delay and support the Port s operations. SIS Strategic Plan and Needs Plan FDOT adopted an updated Strategic Plan for the SIS in January, 2010. The Strategic Plan calls for investment in the State s major transportation corridors and facilities serving long-haul freight trips around Florida, as well as to other states and countries. As a partner to FDOT in developing an updated long range SIS Multimodal Cost Feasible Plan, the MPO will have the opportunity to put forward freight mobility projects that improve interregional connectivity, increase intermodal connectivity, and/or enhance the region and State s economic competitiveness. The Financially Feasible Plan serves as input to FDOT s Work Program. Some improvements may be outstanding needs catalogued in the 2006 Unfunded Needs Assessment that will be carried forward. These improvements are listed among the needed freight mobility projects identified in Table 7. Other Needs In addition to projects in the planning stages and long-term SIS needs, the data displayed in Map 7 and 8 above suggest some other needed improvements to enhance the freight transportation network. Mobility Plan 2035 projects that address these needs and the goal of supporting economic vitality and increased participation in the global economy are included in Table 7. The projects shown at the bottom of the table for Port Manatee and CSX are from the state s SIS plan, and are identified as unfunded needs that are eligible for SIS funding at some time in the future. 51
Mobility Assessment Final Table 8: Freight Mobility Improvements Needs FACILITY FROM/AT TO PROJECT Port Manatee Connector (SIS) US 41 East of I-75 New 4 Lane Highway EZ Flyover Port Manatee Encouragement Zone New/enhanced road Erie Rd US 301 69th St Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) US 301 CR 675 Moccasin Wallow Rd Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) 44th Ave Morgan Johnson Rd 45th St New 4 Lane road 44th Ave Creek wood Blvd Morgan Johnson Rd Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) 44th Ave Lakewood Ranch Blvd Creek wood Blvd New 4 Lane road / Overpass 44th Ave E Pope Rd Lakewood Ranch Blvd Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) 44th Ave E Lorraine Rd Pope Rd New 4 lane road I-75 (SIS) Sumter Blvd Hillsborough County Line Widen [6+4 managed] Bee Ridge Rd Cattleman Rd Oakhurst Blvd Add 2 lanes (4 to 6) SR 64 I-75 39th St NE Add 2 lanes (4 to 6) US 301 Erie Rd CR 675 Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) I-75 (SIS) Charlotte County Line Sumter Blvd Widen [6+4 managed] I-75 (SIS) Sumter Blvd Hillsborough County ITS US 19 / I-275 (SIS) I-75 Pinellas County ITS SR 70 Lorraine Rd Creekwood Blvd ITS University Pkwy Lorraine Rd US 41 (Tamiami Trail) ITS I-75 (SIS) Charlotte County Sumter Blvd ITS I-75 (SIS) Port Manatee Connector Interchange I-75 (SIS) SR 681 Interchange Port Manatee (SIS) Extension parallel to South Dock St Railyard Port Manatee (SIS) CSX Interchange Holding Railyard CSX (SIS) Tampa to Palmetto Double Track CSX (SIS) Palmetto to Bradenton Double Track Port Manatee (SIS) Widen South Dock St Internal Road Port Manatee (SIS) Northside Rail Extension Internal Rail Port Manatee (SIS) Rail Ladder Tracks/Transfer Yard Internal Rail Port Manatee (SIS) Rail Bridge "South Port" Internal Rail Port Manatee (SIS) Maintenance Dredging Dredging Channel Port Manatee (SIS) Dredging, Berths 1 and 2 Dredging Channel Port Manatee (SIS) Dredging, Berths 3 and 4 Dredging Channel 52
Mobility Assessment Final Evaluating Freight Mobility Needs Although there are a large number of needed improvements for enhanced freight mobility in Manatee and Sarasota Counties, not all of the projects identified will be cost affordable over the next 20 to 25 years. For this reason, improvements need to be prioritized to ensure that financial resources are properly allocated to best meet long term freight mobility needs. A set of performance measures is provided as a tool for determining the relative importance of each freight mobility project to aid in overall project prioritization for the 2035 LRTP. The performance measures listed correspond to objectives supporting Goal 4.0 that pertain to freight movements. A performance measure may be listed more than once if it speaks to multiple objectives. Data needed to support each performance measure are identified in the right hand column of Table 8. Table 9: Objectives, Performance Measures, and Data Needs for Evaluating Freight Mobility Needs GOAL 4.0 SUPPORT ECONOMIC VITALITY AND ENSURE CONTINUED AND ENHANCED PARTICIPATION IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY OBJECTIVES PERFORMANCE MEASURES DATA NEEDS Objective 4.1 Strengthen regional access to the region s economic engines, including Port Manatee, Sarasota- Bradenton International Airport, the central business districts, economic energy zones and other major employment centers to support and sustain job creation. Objective 4.2 Maintain and improve safe, secure, and efficient access to regional and statewide passenger and freight intermodal hubs, particularly through measures that give priority to regional travel on I-75 and I-275. Available capacity of freight network serving freight activity centers Level of service for roadways serving freight activity centers Hours of delay on freight transportation system Number of freight transport modes serving freight activity centers Available capacity of freight network serving intermodal hubs Level of service for roadways serving intermodal hubs Hours of delay on freight transportation system Number of freight transport modes serving intermodal hubs Volume to capacity ratios on freight corridor roadway links CSXT freight rail capacity Volume to capacity ratios on freight corridor links Vehicle hours of delay by 24 hour period GIS data of freight transport modes Volume to capacity ratios on freight corridor roadway links CSXT freight rail capacity Volume to capacity ratios on freight corridor links Vehicle hours of delay by 24 hour period GIS data of freight transport modes 53
Mobility Assessment Final GOAL 4.0 SUPPORT ECONOMIC VITALITY AND ENSURE CONTINUED AND ENHANCED PARTICIPATION IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY OBJECTIVES PERFORMANCE MEASURES DATA NEEDS Objective 4.3 Support the maintenance and expansion of intermodal freight facilities that provide for the regional, national, and international shipments of goods and materials in cooperation with sea ports, airports, railroads, shippers and carriers in the metropolitan area. Objective 4.4 Enhance multimodal connectivity of major commercial and industrial centers of the metropolitan area to support their long-term economic viability. Available capacity of freight network serving intermodal freight facilities Level of service impact from freight facilities for roadways serving these facilities Available capacity of freight transportation system Hours of delay on freight transportation system Length of off-peak travel periods for truck travel Average travel speed on freight transportation system Volume to capacity ratios on freight corridor roadway links CSXT freight rail capacity Volume to capacity ratios on freight corridor links Volume to capacity ratios on freight corridor roadway links CSXT freight rail capacity Vehicle hours of delay by 24 hour period Hourly traffic counts on freight roadway network Average travel speed by roadway link Core Transit Analysis The LRTP analysis of mobility needs determined where the demand for transit would be expected to be highest using an array of socioeconomic and physical features of the area s transportation network and built environment. The project team selected a number of variables to test their relationships with ridership and productivity by bus route, using operating data from MCAT and SCAT. The variables included measures of physical form such as land use diversity, density/intensity, and pedestrian conditions; and also demographic factors such as age and income. Six key variables were identified. All showed positive relationships with route ridership, productivity, or both. Generally speaking, the physical form factors tended to have stronger positive relationships than the demographic factors. Each variable was mapped to discern geographic patterns and to determine relevant thresholds for defining the core area. The variables, descriptions, and thresholds selected are shown in the table below. 54
Mobility Assessment Final Table 10: Core Transit Variables VARIABLE DESCRIPTION THRESHOLD FOR CORE AREA Land Use Diversity Density/Intensity Pedestrian Environment Institutions Age Income Number of land use types within ¼ mile of parcel Average FAR within ¼ mile of each 0.156 acre grid on map Number of buildings per mile of frontage located at front lot line Locations of key institutional uses that attract transit trips schools, hospitals, jails Population of students (15-24) and elderly (70+) in 2009 by Census block group Households earning <$25,000 per year in 2009 by Census block group 5 or more land use types within ¼ mile 0.25 average FAR of properties within ¼ mile Within 1/8 mile (roughly 2 blocks) from frontages with 40 or more buildings per mile at front lot line ¼ mile radius around institutional location Block groups and 1/8 mile area from boundaries of those block groups with the highest concentration (top 10%) of students or elderly Block groups and 1/8 mile area from boundaries of those block groups with the highest concentration (top 10%) of households earning <$25,000 The threshold area for each variable was mapped, all six threshold areas were overlaid on a single map using GIS, and the transit supportive areas were defined as follows: Core Area: Meets the thresholds of four to six variables Supporting Area: Meets the thresholds of two or three variables 55
Mobility Assessment Final Figure 9: Land Use Mix Figure 10: Density/Intensity 56
Mobility Assessment Final Figure 11: Pedestrian Environment Figure 12: Student/Senior Population 57
Mobility Assessment Final Figure 13: Low Income Population Figure 14: Core Transit Areas 58
Mobility Assessment Final Regional Long Range Transportation Plan The West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee (CCC) is comprised of six Metropolitan Planning Organizations and eight counties. The CCC strives to address long range mobility issues affecting the region including, access to jobs, goods movement, personal mobility, emergency evacuation and growth management. Urban areas in the region, once isolated from each other, have expanded to the point where needed transportation improvements overlap; making the need for coordination important. The WCF Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (WCF RLRTP) is the CCC s primary means for coordination. It identifies transportation improvements that agencies in the region will plan for, design and construct over the next 20 years. The WCF RLRTP is updated once every four years to coincide with transportation plan updates made by the participating MPOs in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Hernando, Polk, and Sarasota/Manatee counties. The update process begins with a forecast of land development over the next 20 years followed by an estimate of travel demand generated by that development, determination of transportation improvement needs based on the demand, prioritization of those needs, and finally, identification of the improvements that will be made based on available funding. Map 9, Map 10, and Map 11 depict the highway, transit and trail projects in the WCF RLRTP. The 2035 WCF RLRTP was developed in close coordination with the newly formed Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA), which had recently adopted a Regional Multimodal Master Plan for the eight county West Central Florida region. The Transit Element of the CCC s 2035 WCF RLRTP largely included the TBARTA mid-term (2035) plans as adopted, with some modifications in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. For the Sarasota/Manatee region, the TBARTA and CCC 2035 plans called for the development of several Bus Rapid Transit corridors (SR 64, Fruitville Road, Bee Ridge Road, and a north-south connection from downtown Sarasota to Bradenton), as well as express bus service on I-275 and I-75 to better connect the Sarasota/Manatee are with Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, respectively. The WCF RLRTP and CCC process provides an important planning framework for the Sarasota/Manatee MPO, including interlocal agreements for funding eligibility through Florida s Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP), and the ability to better coordinate and prioritize inter-county transportation projects. One outgrowth of the CCC process is an ability to pursue more regionally integrated projects, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development s recent Sustainable Community Regional Planning Grants, in which the Sarasota/Manatee MPO partnered with several of the CCC-member MPOs to submit a regional grant. These kinds of regional collaborations are seen by many transportation professionals as increasingly important to securing federal and state funding for transportation projects from a statewide, regional, national and global competitiveness perspective. 59
Mobility Assessment Final Map 9: Regional LRTP 2035 Cost Affordable Plan Highway Improvements 60
Mobility Assessment Final Map 10: Regional LRTP 2035 Cost Affordable Plan Transit Improvements 61
Mobility Assessment Final Map 11: 2009 Regional Multi-Use Trails Map 62
Mobility Assessment Final 2035 Transportation Needs Plan Context The context of the 2035 Needs Plan is substantially different than when the Sarasota/Manatee MPO last adopted a Long Range Transportation Plan in 2005. Just five years ago, the Sarasota/Manatee region was in rapid growth mode, and the over-riding concern was traffic congestion and the timing of needed roadway capacity to catch up with the demands of approved and pending land development, particularly in areas east of I-75, north of the Manatee River and in the North Port area. Since that time, the United States has struggled through a recession, the worst national economic downturn since the 1930s. The impact on Florida, and its southwestern counties in particular, has been severe. A dramatic decline in housing demand, double-digit unemployment, tight credit markets and constrained household and government budgets, has changed the landscape for transportation and development. Furthermore, the federal and state policy framework has changed since 2005 to emphasize reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption, and less dependence on fossil fuels. Of particular note, Florida adopted a new growth management policy that establishes Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEAs) for so-called Dense Urban Land Areas, including many of the cities in Manatee and Sarasota Counties, as a means of encouraging redevelopment and economic revitalization. The TCEAs must adopt integrated land use and transportation strategies through financially feasible mobility plans by July 2011. Another state law requires local governments to include greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies in the land use and transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plans. At the regional level, the Florida Legislature created the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA) in 2007 and it adopted a Regional Multimodal Master Plan two years later. Serving Manatee and Sarasota Counties as well as the several counties to the north in Tampa Bay, TBARTA has helped spark greater interest in regional and local major transit investments, from commuter rail and light rail to various forms of Bus Rapid Transit. Hillsborough County and Polk County voters recently considered sales tax referenda to improve public transportation. Though unsuccessful, these referenda indicate considerable interest in investing local funds in transportation options. The Pinellas County MPO and Pasco County MPO have adopted 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans with a new sales tax assumed to be in place to achieve financial feasibility for selected new transit projects. Finally, the federal government s 63
Mobility Assessment Final investment in High Speed Rail along the I-4 corridor from Tampa to Orlando is spurring discussions of regional connections and additional High Speed Rail connections statewide. Each of those issues frames the strategies for the Sarasota/Manatee MPO s 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. While road capacity and adequate facilities to serve new development remain important, the emphasis appears to have shifted in the region to transportation investments that support diversified job creation, and greater long term economic stability and sustainability. Along with the cities, both counties have a renewed focused on mixed-use redevelopment, infill, economic encouragement zones and green infrastructure as key policies for the future. A desire to create more walkable streets and improve regional and local transit service fit into this new policy framework. Reflecting the difficult economic climate, the MPO s adopted goals and objectives for the 2035 LRTP largely focus on making more efficient use of existing facilities to improve safety, access and mobility for all users. The Regional Perspective Transportation access drives development and private investment. Historically, downtowns came about in the first place because of their regional accessibility waterways, railroads, horse paths, and new roadways, such as the construction of the Tamiami Trail in the 1920s, which helped fuel the early growth along the Southwest coast. Since the 1980s, I-75 has drawn much new investment to the eastern half of the region because of its higher level of regional accessibility, which has attracted significant growth to many of its interchanges. Excellent interstate access has fueled the growth of communities like Lakewood Ranch and other developments along I-75, and the quick access to jobs in St. Petersburg and central Pinellas County via I-275 has helped make northern Manatee County fertile ground for suburban-style development. Port Manatee, Tropicana, PGT Industries, and the agricultural packing and processing industries along the US 301 corridor in Palmetto are examples of local industries that are dependent upon easy interstate or regional rail access for their economic competitiveness to distribute freight and goods. These industries, along with many other smaller manufacturing, warehousing and industrial businesses are an increasingly important economic contributor to the region, especially in light of the recent housing construction decline. The Port Connector Road linking Port Manatee with I-75, and its possible future eastern continuation to US 301 is a key part of regional accessibility for economic growth. 64
Mobility Assessment Final For the region s downtowns to continue to thrive, they need regional accessibility improvements that counter the pull of I-75 and draw economic growth to them in a way that fits their redevelopment goals and supports a more energy efficient development pattern. The excellent network of streets and mix of land uses make these places logical centers of a new regional transportation and economic development focus. There can and will be growth in both the I-75 corridor and the downtowns, but the US 41/Tamiami Trail corridor and downtowns it serves will not thrive economically without newer forms of regional access. Higher forms of transit, including passenger rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), are a central piece of that future. Those modes better fit the walkable redevelopment vision for mobility and access in the western core areas and corridors. A regional link between Sarasota/Manatee and the greater Tampa Bay area via rail and BRT will strengthen the entire West Central Florida region. But the downtowns also need regional highway access, especially if they want to reclaim the Tamiami Trail for quality redevelopment that supports transit, bicycling and walking. Thus, the 2035 Sarasota/Manatee Needs Plan entails a vision for inter-county express bus and Bus Rapid Transit, which may one day become passenger rail, to improve regional accessibility and mobility in the north-south CSX/US 41 corridor. This vision depends on a complementary regional road concept along US 301/41 in northern Sarasota (where US 301 is being widened to six lanes) to connect with Bradenton, Palmetto and the interstate highway system. The regional road would entail long-term operational and capacity upgrades to improve the flow of traffic on US 301, including a new bridge over the Manatee River between I-75 and the existing DeSoto Bridge. There needs to be a detailed corridor capacity feasibility study of the US 301 corridor from the existing overpass at the Red Barn area (1st Street and 13th Avenue) in Bradenton to the 10th Street interchange in Palmetto to fully evaluate near-term and longer-term roadway capacity improvements and mobility solutions for this very congested roadway. In addition, a feasibility study for a new Manatee River crossing west of I-75 is needed. This study may be able to build upon or update information from a prior PD&E study; however, that PD&E study of the crossing was initiated two decades ago and stopped in 1992 because of a lack of consensus from area local governments about how best to move forward. It was never finalized. From discussions held as part of the Bradenton/Palmetto Downtown Mobility Study and this LRTP update, conditions and local attitudes may have changed sufficiently to re-examine this potential project solution, and the feasibility study should be initiated to further explore the crossing, including whether tolling the bridge is a viable option as a possible funding mechanism. 65
Mobility Assessment Final These dual investments in BRT/rail and the US 301 regional road concept would allow Tamiami Trail to be reclaimed as a four-lane, transit-oriented, highly accessible corridor; still providing regional mobility, but at a lower speed and with a more balanced multimodal design than US 301 to accommodate the needs of all users on foot, bicycle, or using transit. The I-75 corridor is planned for 10 lanes, with at least four of those lanes reserved for special use, such as for regional traffic, express bus and trucks. The concept of managed lanes, in which tolls are employed with variable pricing to manage the demand by time of day or special events, should be considered as a way to maintain the interstate for its intended purpose of regional mobility. Long term perhaps beyond the 2035 horizon high speed rail connecting the Sarasota/Manatee region with Tampa and Fort Myers is part of the vision for inter-regional connectivity. Although less densely developed and urban in character, this vision will continue south of downtown Sarasota, in unincorporated Sarasota County and through the cities of Venice and North Port. The northern extension of the Legacy Trail into downtown Sarasota and Manatee County from its current terminus at Clark Road, perhaps in conjunction with a transit line, will strengthen regional multimodal accessibility. Over time, the US 41/Tamiami Trail corridor will include higher levels of transit service and improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, while maintaining a four-lane cross-section where it currently exists through Osprey and a more pedestrian-supportive environment through North Port as development of the city s activity centers occurs. The Venice Bypass and Englewood Interstate Connector project provide improved regional accessibility. The proximity of I-75 to US 41 in southern Sarasota County, and higher capacity connections between the two corridors, would enable this gradual transformation of the Tamiami Trail into a truly multimodal corridor. 66
Mobility Assessment Final Map 12: Vision Map 67
Mobility Assessment Final Sarasota-Manatee-Charlotte Regional Travel Demand Model A technical foundation of the 2035 LRTP was the Sarasota-Manatee-Charlotte (SMC) regional travel demand model, which was developed by the Florida Department of Transportation with assistance from the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda and Sarasota/Manatee MPOs for use in projecting future travel demand through 2035 and testing various transportation alternatives. The SMC model is an evaluation tool that represents land use and transportation interaction to assess the capability of the region s highway and transit networks to support anticipated growth. The SMC model was validated for a 2007 base year using socioeconomic data (population and employment by traffic analysis zone, or TAZ), traffic counts and transit ridership statistics to establish the model as a reasonably accurate representation of current traffic patterns and conditions for use in predicting future travel demand. The model was adjusted to reflect currently planned projects with construction funding through 2014 and those built since 2007 to represent an existing plus committed (E+C) network. This network was matched with projected 2035 land use data to estimate future transportation demand on the roadway and transit networks to determine where congestion is likely to occur. The model was also used to evaluate the ability of various network alternatives to meet future transportation needs by helping to reduce congestion, distributing traffic and reducing delay. These results were mapped and reviewed by the Steering Committee and the public, and provided a basis for selection of a preferred Needs Plan network and to set priorities for projects for consideration as part of the Financially Feasible Plan. Summary of Needs Plan Results The recommended 2035 Needs Plan substantially improves mobility and accessibility for Sarasota and Manatee Counties. Each of the transportation projects defined through the needs assessment process has been coded into the regional travel demand model (covering Sarasota, Manatee and Charlotte Counties) to compare transportation network performance against the existing plus committed (E+C) transportation network with estimated 2035 population and employment totals. The E+C network only includes new transportation projects that will be constructed in the next five years. At a regional perspective, the results of this analysis indicate the following: A reduction in 362 lane miles of roadways experiencing traffic congestion (down from 944 68
Mobility Assessment Final lane miles in the E+C network) A 13 percent decrease in congestion (17% in Sarasota County; 10% in Manatee County) A reduction in vehicle miles traveled by more than 100,000 About a 180,000 decrease in vehicle hours of travel and vehicle hours of delay (a measure of congestion relief), and A decrease by about 12 percent of travel time spent in delay from traffic congestion. There are roadways that remain congested with the Needs Plan, including portions of US 41, Cortez Road, US 301 and numerous roadways in the downtown core areas and on the islands where capacity is constrained. However, the two new bridges over the Manatee River substantially improve travel conditions between Palmetto and Bradenton, and on I-75. The 2035 Needs Plan assumes a substantial increase in bus service frequency, hours of service and coverage, and the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors in both counties, along with regional express bus service, provide faster and more reliable travel options within congested and constrained corridors. These networks have been planned in close coordination with TBARTA and the West Central Florida MPO CCC. These investments generally operate in parallel to roadways that remain congested in 2035. The transit component of the 2035 Needs Plan reflects a 120 percent increase in transit ridership above the current ridership levels of the two county-operated bus systems. Of that increase, about 25 percent is attributable to the growth in population and employment expected by 2035, with the rest resulting from more frequent and available transit service. The analysis revealed that the north-south BRT from the Sarasota Memorial Hospital area to the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport is the most productive of the planned BRT routes with roughly 70 percent of the total BRT ridership. The northern BRT connection from the airport to Bradenton/Palmetto generates a similarly large share of projected system ridership. Overall, bus ridership levels are projected to be higher in Sarasota County due to having more route coverage and service hours. The overall mode share for transit remains very low, even with the planned service improvements, but it increases within certain corridors, such as US 41 between downtown Sarasota and Bradenton. As described in the 2035 LRTP Needs Plan Overview, the Sarasota/Manatee MPO region was divided into 11 corridors representing key travel flows across the region. A corridor generally 69
Mobility Assessment Final encompasses several major parallel transportation facilities that provide options for travel between destinations. The mobility issues and opportunities, overarching transportation strategies and supporting strategies for each corridor are described below. In addition to the LRTP consultant s analysis of the corridor s context, land use, economic opportunities, and other major issues and opportunities, the corridor analysis reflects the adopted 2035 LRTP Goals and Objectives and the goal of a regional transportation framework that supports future economic development and vitality. Detailed information about the proposed transportation projects for each corridor is included on the Needs Assessment Maps (Regional, Roadway, Transit, and Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trail) and in the Needs Project Table. Regional and Corridor Approach The 2035 Needs Plan builds from a regionwide needs assessment and an examination of key mobility issues and opportunities within 11 defined corridors. The regional perspective examines the current and future growth patterns and travel conditions influencing major regional transportation facilities and services, reflecting mobility issues and needs in the larger West Central Florida and Southwest Florida region. The foundation for the regional assessment are the employment and activity centers, such as downtowns, sea- and airports, education districts and other major commercial centers, and the primary regional transportation facilities on the Strategic Intermodal System, such as I-75, I-275, SR 70 and University Parkway. Each of the corridors reflects a predominant travel pattern, and generally adheres to a regionally significant roadway or rail alignment. The corridors encompass a series of regional, sub-regional and local transportation facilities. The objective of the corridor-level analysis in the LRTP is to determine the best mix of mobility and accessibility strategies given the economic opportunities and land use objectives in the corridor, as well as the transportation network characteristics, including gaps, barriers and constraints. Regional Needs To provide for mobility and access within and through the Sarasota/Manatee region, the 2035 LRTP Needs Plan recommends connecting key regional centers throughout the area as well as connecting the Sarasota/Manatee region to Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties to the north and Charlotte County to the south. Consistent with the adopted 2035 LRTP Goals and Objectives, major needs that are common throughout the Sarasota/Manatee region include a strategic plan for providing a range of transit service options and supporting facilities (local bus, express bus, Bus Rapid Transit, passenger rail, and park and ride lots), an interconnected network of bicycle/pedestrian facilities and multi-use trails, roadway capacity and operations improvements to maximize efficiency, and intermodal facilities that provide access to freight hubs and movement of goods. Specific regionwide projects identified in the Needs Plan include the following projects which are discussed in greater detail under the individual corridor descriptions: express bus and managed lanes along I-75, Multimodal Emphasis for US 41 and a corresponding shift of freight 70
Mobility Assessment Final and through-traffic to US 301, the Port Manatee Connector which links the Port to other transportation facilities and centers to the east, a series of Bus Rapid Transit lines running both north-south and east-west in the region, and an interconnected network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and trails to provide for non-motorized transportation. While most of these needs are identified on the Needs maps and in the Needs project table, some will need to be incorporated into policies implemented by the Sarasota/Manatee MPO, local governments, and other decisionmaking bodies to ensure their future implementation. One example of such a policy issue involves right-of-way dedication and acquisition for Bus Rapid Transit and other similar corridors. The following map series shows the 2035 Needs Plan projects by mode. The remaining chapter describes the needs plan projects by corridor. 71
Mobility Assessment Final Map 13: 2035 Needs Plan 72
Mobility Assessment Final Map 14: 2035 Roadway Needs Plan 73
Mobility Assessment Final Map 15: 2035 Transit Needs Plan 74
Mobility Assessment Final Map 16: 2035 Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trails Needs Plan 75
Mobility Assessment Final Port Connector / Moccasin Wallow Intermodal transportation access to Port Manatee for freight accessibility and connectivity is the overarching strategy for the Port Connector/Moccasin Wallow corridor in northern Manatee County. Currently, the Port is served mainly by US 41 and a CSX rail line with a spur to serve the docks directly. Additional roadway connections are needed to better support eastwest travel and connect the Port to I-75, and several major improvements, the Port Manatee Connector, a new interchange at I-75, and widening of Moccasin Wallow Road to relieve severe congestion, are included in the Needs Plan to provide this access. These facilities will support the 2035 LRTP s goals for economic vitality and participation in the global economy by furthering the stated objectives to strengthen regional access to the region s economic engines, to provide safe, secure and efficient access to freight hubs, and to support the maintenance and expansion of intermodal freight facilities. Secondary strategies in the Port Connector/Moccasin Wallow corridor focus on providing nonmotorized access and support facilities for transit/rideshare programs to enhance the environment and promote energy conservation. A series of bicycle/pedestrian trails would provide connections to the regional multi-use trails network identified in the 2035 West Central Florida Regional Long Range Transportation Plan and improve access to downtown Palmetto and Bradenton and regional parks. Strategically-located park and ride facilities, such as at the Moccasin Wallow/I-75 interchange or in Parrish, would facilitate carpooling/vanpooling and transit as viable options for commuters traveling to downtown Bradenton or Sarasota. 76
Mobility Assessment Final US 301 / Erie Road The relatively rural corridor lies in northeastern Manatee and focuses on providing multimodal transportation access from Parrish and newly developing areas north of the Manatee River to other destinations and employment centers in the region. Overarching strategies for this corridor include a mix of enhanced transit service and additional roadway capacity to improve travel options to Palmetto and Bradenton in Manatee County and to Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties to the north. US 301 is projected to be severely congested in 2035, and the Needs Plan proposes widening US 301 to 4 lanes to provide additional motor vehicle and freight mobility while allowing for a design that is sensitive to the context and character of Parrish. A number of other east-west roadways, such as 69 th Street, Erie Road, and Mendoza Road, are recommended for widening as part of the 2035 Needs Plan as well. Express bus service connecting Parrish to downtown Palmetto and Bradenton, and from Palmetto to Hillsborough/Pinellas Counties, as well as new local bus service to Parrish are included in the Needs Plan. The I-75 corridor is also a major component of travel in this area, and strategies for I- 75 are discussed under the I-75 North - Manatee/Hillsborough Line to Bee Ridge Road Corridor below. A supporting strategy for this area involves providing multiple bicycle/pedestrian trails that would converge in Parrish, including one along Erie Road, and providing trailheads and/or park and ride facilities to support both non-motorized transportation and transit service. A number of rail corridors in the area may provide opportunities for rails with trails or future conversions to provide transportation and recreational trails that link to a planned regional network. This mix of roadway, transit and non-motorized enhancements in the US 301 / Erie Road Corridor focuses on accomplishing the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity and economic vitality. Specific objectives addressed interconnected regional network of bicycle/pedestrian facilities, strengthen transit connections and increasing transit coverage and balancing roadway needs with those of other users. 77
Mobility Assessment Final US 41 (Bradenton to Port) The US 41 Bradenton to Port Corridor is characterized by north-south travel from Pinellas County/St. Petersburg and Tampa/Hillsborough to the Bradenton/Palmetto area. The major strategy for this corridor is to create a range of transportation options that provide multimodal access and mobility. A mix of transit, bicycle/pedestrian enhancements, and roadway projects begin to distinguish preferred corridors for freight/motor vehicle vs. transit/bicycle/pedestrian travel. Needs Plan projects focus on shifting throughand freight traffic to either a new eastern bridge over the Manatee River or an enhanced facility on US 41/301. During modeling tests for 2035, the addition of a new bridge better addresses congestion levels on both existing bridges, and provides for more balanced traffic flow across several north-south facilities. However, because of potential environmental impacts and cost, the bridge and improved mobility strategies at the northern and southern approaches to the DeSoto Bridge should be further examined through a more detailed corridor evaluation as part of a Project Development and Environmental Study (PD&E). The interchange at 10 th Street and US 41/301 is rapidly becoming a congestion bottleneck, and will eventually need to be rebuilt. At the same time, Business 41/Green Bridge to the west are recommended for more localized traffic with enhanced transit and bicycle/pedestrian treatments consistent with the recommendations of the Bradenton/Palmetto Downtown Mobility Study. Major rail improvements in this corridor include double-tracking of the CSX rail line from Bradenton to the north to provide for increased industrial/freight traffic and possible longer-term investments in passenger rail connecting to Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. This corridor also includes the northern portion of a major Multimodal Emphasis approach to US 41 (from 17 th Street north of downtown Palmetto to the Charlotte County line), which seeks to transform the corridor, slow traffic, and improve conditions for bicycling, walking and transit use, promote transit-oriented and transit-supportive development and increase livability and accessibility. 78
Mobility Assessment Final This mix of projects in the US 41 Bradenton to Port Corridor focuses on accomplishing the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity, economic vitality, and participation in the global economy. Specific objectives addressed include balancing roadway needs with those of other users, strengthening regional access to the region s economic engines, and supporting the maintenance and expansion of intermodal freight facilities. I-75 North (Manatee/Hillsborough Line to Bee Ridge Rd) This north-south corridor provides a major route for freight and through-traffic as well as providing access to key regional centers and corridors that access the western part of the region. A number of significant employment and residential centers are within close proximity of the I-75 corridor, requiring transportation facilities that will link to Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties and other centers. The major strategies for this corridor involves the addition of managed lanes to I-75 to provide for uses such as high occupancy tolling, express bus, truck only, and in the long-term future, passenger rail. A series of new and expanded roadways running north-south along I-75 (both east and west) will provide additional capacity for local traffic, relieve congestion and preserve capacity on both I-75 and east-west roadways in the region. The planned Fort Hamer Bridge, which is currently being built for two lanes with ROW for four lanes, will need to be widened in the 2035 Needs Plan. The recommendations for this corridor work to achieve the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity, economic vitality, and participation in the global economy. Specific objectives addressed include balancing roadway needs with those of other users, protecting roadway capacity, strengthening transit connections, increasing transit coverage, strengthening regional access to the region s economic engines, and supporting the maintenance and expansion of intermodal freight facilities. 79
Mobility Assessment Final US 41 - Downtown Bradenton (Palmetto to Downtown Sarasota) The US 41 Downtown Bradenton / Palmetto to Downtown Sarasota Corridor encompasses northsouth travel between Manatee and Sarasota Counties, including US 301 and the existing rail line. This corridor includes several major destinations, including colleges and universities, the Sarasota- Bradenton International Airport, and downtowns. The major strategy for this corridor involves a long-term vision of Multimodal Emphasis for US 41 and a shifting of freight and through-traffic to US 301. This strategy would be accomplished over the long-term by 1) providing roadway improvements and operations enhancements to US 301, 2) increasing transit services along US 41 (especially existing Route 99 and new express bus), and 3) focusing on street enhancements on US 41 (e.g., lane reduction, roundabouts, landscaped medians, bike lanes, etc.) from Palmetto to Sarasota. In the area north of University Parkway, these retrofits could occur as redevelopment occurs. South of the county line, there is a reasonably good structure already in place to begin slowing traffic and creating better treatments for nonauto modes. As discussed above, either a new eastern bridge over the Manatee River or an enhanced facility on US 41 will be required to improve conditions for north-south travel across the Manatee River. During modeling tests for 2035, the addition of a new bridge better addresses congestion levels on both existing bridges, and provides for more balanced traffic flow across several north-south facilities. However, because of potential environmental impacts and cost, the bridge and strategies to improve on the approaches to the DeSoto Bridge should be further examined. At the same time, Business 41/Green Bridge to the west will be modified to create a 10 shared path instead of a 4 sidewalk and combined breakdown lane/bike lane that exists today. Major rail improvements in this corridor include double-tracking of the CSX rail line from Bradenton to the north to provide for increased industrial/freight traffic and possible longer-term investments in passenger rail connecting to Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor is identified along the existing rail right-of-way between US 41 and US 301, consistent with previous studies and planning by the local transit operators, MCAT and SCAT. A multi-use trail corridor along the proposed BRT line (rail with trail) and a number of 80
Mobility Assessment Final projects to complete gaps in bicycle facilities would provide non-motorized connections from southern Sarasota County to Bradenton and Palmetto. The proposed BRT line, especially where it departs from the existing rail line, should be identified and incorporated into local plans so that ROW may be secured for future BRT as funds become available for acquisition or new development is approved. Similarly, multi-use trail and future roadway corridors should be incorporated into local plans. A priority for this corridor involves better connectivity for the several colleges and universities along US 41to both downtown Sarasota and Bradenton and to residential areas to the east along University Parkway. The Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, located at the County line, is a key regional destination, and offers opportunities for park and ride facilities and key transfer points among modes. Enhancements to 15 th Street East in this corridor would provide longawaited safety and mobility improvements to a roadway with heavy bicycle/pedestrian and transit use. This transformation of US 41, shift of freight and through-traffic to US 301, and creation of a BRT corridor focuses on accomplishing the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity, coordinating land use, promoting multimodal site design and economic vitality. Specific objectives addressed include balancing roadway needs with those of other users, and encourage redevelopment of established corridors, centers, and neighborhoods to support transit service and improve pedestrian safety and accessibility. Consistent with a recent Environmental Protection Agency report on Restructuring the Commercial Strip, the Needs Plan is structured to promote design that supports new development and coordinates public and private investment to enhance mobility and access in the US 41corridor. 81
Mobility Assessment Final SR 64 This east-west corridor from Lakewood Ranch to the beach along Manatee Avenue serves mainly as a commuter corridor east of downtown and to the west focuses on access to Anna Maria Island and the beach. This corridor is projected to have severe congestion along several east-west roadways in 2035. As such, major strategies for the corridor involve Intelligent Transportation Systems to improve traffic operations, and BRT and enhanced fixed route bus service along Manatee Avenue to provide high-level transit service. Because this corridor is considered constrained west of downtown, there is little opportunity to add bicycle/pedestrian facilities. However, parallel facilities to enhance bicycle/pedestrian connections are recommended, and a multi-use trail on the bridge is recommended. A bicycle/pedestrian strategy is needed for this corridor, and quality facilities would greatly increase non-motorized travel to the island. In addition, consistent with the Bradenton-Palmetto Downtown Mobility Study, a downtown circulator is recommended in Bradenton to connect key destinations like Manatee Memorial Hospital, downtown core businesses, the Village of the Arts and new residential development planned for downtown. The recommendations for this corridor focus on accomplishing the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity and enhanced system management and operations. Specific objectives addressed include increasing transit attractiveness and competitiveness in congested or constrained corridors, promoting a complete streets policy and context sensitive design, protecting roadway capacity, and optimizing operating efficiency. 82
Mobility Assessment Final 44 th Avenue / SR 70 / University Parkway This east-west corridor provides access to several economic engines in the area: the airport, employments centers, the beach, and Lakewood Ranch. Both Cortez Road and SR 70 are constrained in certain areas, and there is a lack of east-west capacity in this corridor. Major strategies for this corridor include a mix of roadway capacity and operations improvements, and transit service enhancements. The Needs Plan recommends capacity improvements along 44th Avenue to the east and west of I-75 and Honore Avenue, Intelligent Transportation Systems along SR 70, and premium transit service in the form of high-frequency bus service along 44th Avenue/Cortez Road and express bus along University Parkway from Lakewood Ranch to University of South Florida/US 41, linking with the BRT line, which runs north-south through this corridor. Widening 27th Street East to connect with the new 44th Avenue extension will provide relief for Manatee Avenue (SR 64) by giving people destined for the islands or going further south another option besides traveling into downtown Bradenton and going south on US 41/301 or Business 41. Secondary strategies for the corridor include additional bicycle/pedestrian capacity and a series of north-south roadway facilities closing gaps in bicycle facilities/treatments, especially along 53rd Avenue and on Cortez Road out to Bradenton Beach, and a proposed multi-use trail along University Parkway. The mix of roadway, operations improvements, and transit service enhancements in the 44th Avenue/SR 70/University Parkway Corridor focuses on accomplishing the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity, economic vitality, and enhanced system management and operations. Specific objectives addressed include increasing transit attractiveness and coverage, protecting roadway capacity, and optimizing operating efficiency. 83
Mobility Assessment Final Fruitville Road / Bee Ridge Road / Clark Road These east-west corridors from I-75 connecting to downtown Sarasota and the islands are generally characterized by commercial development with residential neighborhoods behind. The major strategies include BRT along both Fruitville Road and Bee Ridge Road and major bicycle/pedestrian/trail connections. Both corridors would connect to the major north-south BRT line while serving different markets Fruitville Road as a commuter route to downtown Sarasota and Bee Ridge Road serving Siesta Key, fostering redevelopment along the way and providing relief for traffic congestion on Webber Street. A circulator in downtown Sarasota would provide localized transit access for tourists and others whose destination is downtown. The City of Sarasota s goal is to make Fruitville Road more walkable and less of a barrier to the adjacent walk-to-town neighborhoods to the north, and these projects would support that effort. The Legacy Trail currently terminates just south of Clark Road. The Needs Plan identifies a network of trails and bicycle facilities/treatments that would close gaps in facilities and provide a continuous trail network from Venice into downtown Sarasota and beyond into Manatee County. Secondary strategies for this corridor enhance north-south travel by incorporating ITS along Beneva Road to provide an alternative to US 41 and I-75 and enhancing Beneva Road and Honore Avenue for bicycle and pedestrian travel. The recommendations for this corridor work to achieve the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity and expanded sustainable transportation alternatives to protect the environment and reduce energy consumption. Specific objectives addressed include increasing transit attractiveness and coverage, promoting a complete streets policy and context sensitive design, and creating an interconnected regional network of on-road bicycle facilities and/or trails that link existing and emerging community focal points. 84
Mobility Assessment Final US 41/ I-75 Central (Downtown Sarasota to Venice) North-south travel in the US 41/ I-75 Central (Downtown Sarasota to Venice) in southern Sarasota County is limited to US 41 and I-75. The Legacy Trail provides a major bicycle/pedestrian travel corridor from Venice toward downtown Sarasota. Major strategies for this corridor include Multimodal Emphasis for US 41 as discussed above, and express bus along I-75. Several roadway capacity projects are currently included in the Needs Plan, such as widening US 41 from Gulf Gate Drive to just north of SR 681 and through Venice, as well as ITS/widening of I- 75 to incorporate four managed lanes for future high occupancy tolling or transit lanes. Secondary strategies in this corridor include connecting gaps in bicycle facilities/treatments and enhancing a network of multi-use trails to complement the Legacy Trail and other existing trails in the corridor and connect to key destinations such as Oscar Scherer State Park. The recommendations for this corridor work to achieve the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity accomplishing the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity and economic vitality and participation in the global economy. Specific objectives addressed include balancing roadway needs with those of other users, protecting roadway capacity, creating an interconnected regional network of on-road bicycle facilities and/or trails that link existing and emerging community focal points. 85
Mobility Assessment Final US 41 - I-75 South (Venice to North Port) The key strategies of this east-west corridor in southern Sarasota County involve providing better access to Venice, Englewood and North Port from major roadway facilities in the area, mainly I-75. To this end, several projects to add or expand roadways are included in the Needs Plan, such as along Price Blvd and River Road. Several mixed use activity centers planned for the North Port area will requires increased access to I-75, including a new interchange at Yorkshire St. Multimodal Emphasis for US 41 continues through this corridor, as discussed above. A secondary strategy involves providing connections to regional transit service by providing express bus along I-75, park and ride lots and local bus service on US 41 and Pine Street. The recommendations for this corridor work to achieve the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity accomplishing the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity and economic vitality and participation in the global economy. Specific objectives addressed include balancing roadway needs with those of other users, protecting roadway capacity, strengthening transit connections and increasing transit coverage and balancing roadway needs with those of other users. 86
Mobility Assessment Final Islands Anna Maria Island, Longboat Key, Lido Key and Siesta Key form a string of barrier islands along of coast of the Sarasota/Manatee region. Populated by several independent municipalities and unincorporated areas, these islands constitute key destinations for tourists and residents alike. As a result, parking space and roadway facilities such as Gulf of Mexico Drive are constrained, and the islands have long worked to encourage visitors to park their cars and walk, bike or take a trolley around the islands. Key strategies for the Islands involve enhancements to several causeways and bridges leading over to the islands to better allow for multimodal transportation as well as hurricane evacuation. On the islands, increased trolley/transit service, and extended bicycle and pedestrian facilities are needed. Park and ride lots are needed both on the islands and on the mainland in convenient locations to encourage visitors to use other modes of transportation. The recommendations for this corridor work to achieve the LRTP goals of multimodal mobility & connectivity and increasing security and resilience. Specific objectives addressed include balancing roadway needs with those of other users, strengthening transit connections and increasing transit coverage, creating an interconnected regional network of on-road bicycle facilities and/or trails that link existing and emerging community focal points, and improving conditions on hurricane evacuation routes. 87
Mobility Assessment Final US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor A new aspect of this 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan is the elevation of urban reconstruction plans for the US 41 corridor to major project status. For a long time several decades the economic revitalization and redevelopment of the historic Tamiami Trail (US 41) through Sarasota and Bradenton has been a topic of much discussion and planning. The so-called North Trail, generally running from downtown Sarasota to the Sarasota-Bradenton Airport, has been examined in depth for years. Recent planning studies include a parks and connectivity study and Downtown-Bayfront Connectivity plan undertaken by the City of Sarasota, as well as the Innovation 41 effort involving several local governments, universities and colleges along the corridor. The recently completed Bradenton/Palmetto Downtown Mobility Study identified several conceptual changes along 14 th Street West (Business 41) in Bradenton, as well as 8 th Avenue in Palmetto. A Corridor Management Entity has been established to guide beautification and interpretive signage for the Windows on Gulf Waters Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway, which extends the length of US 41 through Sarasota and Manatee Counties. The corridor traverses multiple downtowns, neighborhoods, aging strip retail centers, nationally renowned educational, tourism and arts destinations, an international airport, state and local parks and numerous waterway vistas. It is a designated scenic highway, and the subject of substantial brownfields remediation efforts. In short, despite recent growth in the eastern part of both counties, the Trail remains a critical gateway to the region and its major destinations. Due to that strategic and historic context, the US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor identified in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan extends from 17th Street in Palmetto to the Charlotte County line, including Business 41 in Bradenton and Venice, as well as the Venice Bypass. For several years, the corridor has featured a cooperative arrangement between Manatee County Area Transit and Sarasota County Area Transit for higher frequency intercounty transit service between downtown Sarasota and Palmetto, initiated at the MPO s urging. The objective is to support further enhancements in transportation mobility and accessibility to support quality redevelopment and economic opportunity. The US 41 corridor exhibits a lack of adequate facilities for all users of the transportation network. 88
Mobility Assessment Final Map 17 identifies the corridor and its various segments where Complete Street and Context Sensitive design treatments shall be evaluated and constructed to provide additional safety and accessibility for non-motorized transportation users or to achieve an appropriate balance among competing needs of all users of the roadway. The Multimodal Emphasis Corridor segments will entail design elements that may include improved signage, pavement markings, modern roundabouts and other intersection modifications, medians, lane modifications or additions (including narrower or fewer lanes, wider sidewalks and bike lanes), on-street parking, transit facilities, operational strategies, curb extensions and other measures to enhance multimodal mobility and accessibility that best fit the character and right-of-way constraints for each segment. The specific strategies for each of 10 corridor segments will be determined in the future by the MPO in consultation with the Florida Department of Transportation, local governments having jurisdiction along the corridor, local businesses and property owners and the public. Additional study is needed in some cases to further refine specific projects and their costs, as well as to justify making certain roadway modifications to ensure safety and continued mobility. 89
Mobility Assessment Final Map 17: US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor 90
Mobility Assessment Final Essentially, the US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor designation is a placeholder in the LRTP for development of specific projects by segment that will improve accessibility, safety and mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and automobile traffic along the corridor in a way that provides better balance among these various modes. It is a very unbalanced corridor today, with its orientation to fast automobile traffic. The intent is to create a package of strategies by segment as a major project for prioritization in the MPO s continuing planning process. Table 10 presents a summary of potential design elements and images of strategies to be considered. Some additional types of multimodal corridor improvements that may be considered include: Roadway Roadway reconstruction to reduce long-term maintenance liabilities Improved operational and traffic flow through intersections and roundabouts that both slow traffic and facilitate its flow Roadway improvements which support multi-occupant vehicle use Roadway-related (functional efficiency/safety) improvements Signal coordination optimization based on current traffic flow patterns Pedestrian Complete segments of missing sidewalks to provide direct and continuous connections between destinations and to transit Adding enhanced pedestrian crossings at strategic locations Installation of pedestrian signals and crossing countdown heads Bicycle Complete missing bicycle trails and bicycle lanes to provide direct and continuous connections Provide bicycle route signage Transit Construct enhancements at key transit stops to include, at a minimum, transit signs and pavement platforms. At higher demand transit stops, shelters, benches and trash receptacles. Operational system efficiency such as ITS/ up-to-the-minute technology, bus bypass lanes, bus signal prioritization 91
Mobility Assessment Final Table 11: Multimodal Emphasis Corridor Design Elements BUILT ENVIRONMENT Development along a corridor can be configured to reduce walking distances for customers and make streets more useful for pedestrians, transit users, and bicyclists. Successful site design balances automobile and pedestrian accessibility and creates a presence that is welcoming to all users. A key factor is the organization of buildings and parking relative to adjacent streets. Drawing the building to the street edge and moving parking to the rear frames the street - enhancing and enlivening - the pedestrian environment with storefronts and entrances along the sidewalk. Building entries should border main streets and public thoroughfares to foster a vibrant, walkable environment. Mixed use buildings drawn to the street edge create a more pleasant and inviting pedestrian environment. Bicycle parking included as part of site design improves accessibility. Massing and facade design create visual interest for pedestrians. On street parking and attractive landscaping buffer pedestrians from traffic. Parking is located behind the building along this arterial. 92 Example of a service drive connecting adjacent parcels and sharing a rear located surface lot.
Mobility Assessment Final COMPLETE STREETS 93
Mobility Assessment Final A complete street is safe, comfortable and convenient for travel by automobile, foot, bicycle, and transit, regardless of age and ability. People who live in communities with complete streets reap the benefits associated with bicycling and walking, such as increased physical activity, broader travel choices and improved safety. Motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and transit are accommodated on this complete street. Sometimes bike lanes and on-street parking can be installed as part of a road-diet, in which a 4 lane road is converted to two. Safety strips help to narrow a roadway and slow traffic while still providing space for emergency vehicles to maneuver. On-street parking provides convenient front door parking opportunities along urban roadways, contributes to the street environment, and creates a protective buffer between pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 94
Mobility Assessment Final INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSINGS 95
Mobility Assessment Final Ensuring that motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists can cross streets safely and conveniently to access destinations is essential to creating an effective multimodal transportation network. Crosswalks are needed to provide higher visibility to pedestrians. Brick crossings are more appropriate in commercial areas or locations with high pedestrian volumes. Medians can serve as a landing place for pedestrians who cross a street midblock or at an intersection location. Countdown pedestrian signals facilitate pedestrian movement at intersections with heavy traffic volumes or signalized midblock crossings. Modern roundabouts can be used as an alternative to signalized intersections. 96
Mobility Assessment Final BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS 97
Mobility Assessment Final Encouraging cycling and walking is critical to creating a healthy, multimodal corridor. Whether in an urban or suburban area, biking and walking is best accommodated by a connected network of facilities, complementary land uses, attractive streetscaping, regular controlled crossings, and lower speeds of passing traffic. Example of bike lane Crosswalks should be present on all legs at signalized intersections. Shared use paths lie outside the roadway and are shared by many non-motorist modes. Shared use path in suburban commercial area. Example of pushbutton-integrated accessible pedestrian signal. 98
Mobility Assessment Final TRANSIT SERVICES AND FACILITIES Comfortable and accessible transit facilities are an important component of a multimodal roadway. Transit stops that are accessible to pedestrians with direct sidewalk connections and surrounded by a good mix of land uses help expedite travel. Providing a shelter, bench, trash receptacle, as well as bicycle parking, lighting, and transit system information creates a more comfortable environment for the user. Sidewalk provides direct connection to transit shelter. Transit stop is surrounded by a mix of uses. Real-time information lets passengers know how long they might have to wait. Shelter, bench, trash can, signage, and bicycle rack provides comfortable waiting area. 99
Mobility Assessment Final Table 12: Manatee County 2035 Needs Plan (Roadway Improvements) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 15 St E Tallevast Rd 53rd Ave E 27th St E US 301 44th Ave E 44th Ave E Lakewood Ranch Blvd Pope Rd Manatee Ave 45th St E Lakewood Ranch Blvd Add Turn Lanes, Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) New 4 Lane road with Bridge Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) 44th Ave E Lorraine Rd Pope Rd New 4 lane road 45th St E 53rd Ave E 44th Ave E 53rd Ave/SR 70 Lorraine Rd 14th St W Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Infrastructure This roadway segment is projected to be congested (portion severely congested) by 2035. The project will provide some additional capacity for cars and trucks with safety improvements for bicycles and pedestrians. This roadway segment is projected to be congested (portion borderline congested) by 2035. The project will provide additional capacity for northsouth travel and creates an alternate route to destinations in south Manatee and Sarasota County. This project will provide an east-west route across I-75 between SR 64 and SR 70, providing a direct corridor from residential developments in the east to the Beach, relieving State Road 70. This project extends 44th Ave to planned residential developments to the east providing an alternative east/west corridor to State Road 64 and 70. This project extends 44th Ave to planned residential developments to the east providing an alternative east/west corridor to State Road 64 and 70. This project will complete gap in 4-lane roadway network and provide connectivity to major east-west corridor (44th Ave). This roadway segment is projected to be congested (portion severely congested by 2035. The ITS Infrastructure adds fiber optic cable and Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) devices to intersections to enhance the operations and safety of the corridor for automobile and freight mobility. 100
Mobility Assessment Final ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 53rd Ave W 43rd St W 75th St W 60th Ave Extension Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Mendoza Rd 69th St New 2 lane road 63rd Ave E US 301 39th St E 69th St E Erie Rd US 41 Artisan Lakes Pkwy Ellenton- Gillette Rd Moccasin Wallow Rd 69th St Buckeye Rd Buckeye Rd Erie Rd US 301 69th St E Ft Hamer Rd Old Tampa Rd US 301 Golf Course Rd Ft Hamer Rd Spencer- Parrish Rd Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) New 4 lane road Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) This roadway segment is projected to be severely congested by 2035. The project will provide some additional capacity for east / west travel while creating a parallel 4 lane corridor to a congested and constrained Cortez Road (SR 684) This project will provide additional north-south capacity and connectivity east of I-75 from in the developing Ellenton Area This roadway segment is projected to be severely congested by 2035. The project will create a complete 4 lane corridor between Lockwood Ridge Road and US 41. This roadway segment is projected to be congested by 2035. Project will provide additional east / west capacity between the developing Ellenton Area and US 41. This project will provide north/south connectivity west of I-75 from Moccasin Wallow Road to Buckeye Road providing access to future development. This project will provide north/south capacity west of I-75 between developing areas in North Palmetto and Port Manatee. This roadway segment is projected to be severely congested by 2035. Project will provide additional east/ west capacity between developing Parrish and Ellenton areas. This roadway segment is part of a major north-south corridor east of I-75 that is projected to be congested by 2035. This project will provide additional north-south capacity to meet future demands between the developing Parish area and Lakewood Ranch. This project widens one of several segments between US 301 and State Road 64 east of I-75. This project will provide additional capacity and connectivity for north-south travel in the developing Parish Area. 101
Mobility Assessment Final ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Honore Ave New Manatee River Bridge Manatee Ave Mendoza Rd Moccasin Wallow Rd II Road/ Sawgrass Road Ft. Hamer Road Extension Conestoga Place Sandstone Ave Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Manatee Ave US 301 New Bridge Lakewood Ranch 72nd Ave E Palma Sola Blvd Ellenton- Gillette Rd US 301 US 41 I-75/Port Manatee Connector US 301 Buckeye Rd Moccasin Wallow Rd Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Infrastructure Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) New 4 lane road New 4 lane road This project will complete gap in 4-lane roadway network and providing a continuous 4 lane corridor between University Parkway and US 4. The need for a new bridge over the Manatee River was identified in the Bradenton-Palmetto Downtown Mobility Study. The region needs additional north / south accessibility crossing the river to relive the currently congested crossings and support the economic development of the local governments. This roadway segment is projected to be congested (portion severely congested by 2035. The ITS Infrastructure adds fiber optic cable and Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) devices to intersections to enhance the operations and safety of the corridor for automobile and freight mobility. This roadway segment will provide additional east-west capacity between developing areas east of I-75 to destinations west of I-75. This roadway is projected to be congested by 2035 with anticipated development. This project will provide additional east-west capacity in northern Manatee County to support growth. This new roadway will provide network a connection for developing areas of North Manatee County to I-75 and Port Manatee with the completion of the Port Manatee Connector. This roadway will provide additional north-south connection to relieve projected congestion on US 301 through the Parish Area. Port Manatee Connector US 41 I-75 New 4 Lane Highway This project will provide the transportation infrastructure to aid the economic development of Port Manatee and port-related businesses, and boost the regional economy, by linking the Port to the State Strategic Intermodal System. 102
Mobility Assessment Final ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED EZ Crossover EZ Flyover Spencer- Parrish Rd Port Manatee Port Manatee East of US 41 East of US 41 Golf Course Rd SR 62 SR 64 I-75 39th St E Upper Manatee River Rd SR 64 US 19 / I-275 I-75 US 301 CR 675 US 41 26th Ave West Old Tampa Rd Pinellas County Moccasin Wallow Rd 69th Ave West Interim at-grade crossing Grade separated crossing Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Add 2 lanes (4 to 6) Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Infrastructure Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Landscaping This interim project will provide connectivity to lands within the Port Encouragement Zone between Buckeye Road and the planned Port Connector Road with I-75. This project will provide connectivity to lands within the Port Encouragement Zone between Buckeye Road and the planned Port Connector Road with I-75. This project will provide additional capacity for north-south travel and allow traffic from east to bypass congested area (in conjunction with widening of Golf Course Road). This roadway segment is projected to be congested by 2035. Project will provide additional capacity on this major east-west corridor to relieve congestion, enhance freight mobility, and complete gap in 6-lane roadway network. This roadway segment is part of a major north-south corridor east of I-75 that is projected to be congested by 2035. This project will provide additional north-south capacity to meet future demands between the developing Parish area and Lakewood Ranch. This project widens one of several segments between US 301 and State Road 64 east of I-75. This ITS project will enhance safety and freight mobility on this State Strategic Intermodal System Corridor. This roadway segment is part of a network of roadways that provide additional capacity between the developing Parrish Area and improved network connectivity, especially for freight mobility. This project will provide for beautification along the US 41 Scenic Highway Corridor. 103
Mobility Assessment Final BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Bicycle Network Gaps - - Manatee County Multi-Use Trails -- Manatee County Sidewalk Gaps Manatee County Green Bridge Trail Rye Preserve Trail Willow to Ellenton Rail with Trails Countywide - Bicycle Facility/Treatm ent Countywide - Multi-Use Trail Countywide - Bradenton Rye Preserve Willow Palmetto Lake Manatee State Park Ellenton (along rails) Pedestrian Facility Multi-Use Trail Multi-Use Trail These projects complete gaps in the on-street bicycle transportation network, providing a continuous system of facilities and treatments for bicycle travel, increasing safety and increasing opportunities for multimodal transportation to key destinations, such as schools, parks, and other activity centers. These projects complete a network of off-street shared use paths, providing for increased multimodal connectivity and a range of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. These projects may be along roadway corridors, in separate alignments, including rails to trails and rails with trails. These projects complete gaps in the sidewalk network, providing a continuous system of facilities for pedestrians of all abilities and ages, increasing safety, providing improved access to transit service/facilities, schools, parks, and other destinations. This project improves a scenic multimodal connection that increases safety and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists by better separating vulnerable road users from high speed traffic. This project provides a key bicycle/pedestrian connection between two parks in eastern Manatee County. This project provides a key regional bicycle/pedestrian connection along the existing rail corridor from northeast Manatee County to Ellenton. 104
Mobility Assessment Final STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM FREIGHT NEEDS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED CSX Tampa Palmetto Double Track CSX Palmetto Bradenton Double Track Port Manatee Extension parallel to South Dock St Railyard Port Manatee CSX Interchange Holding Railyard Port Manatee Widen South Dock St Internal Road Port Manatee Northside Rail Extension Internal Rail Port Manatee Rail Ladder Tracks/Transfer Yard Internal Rail Port Manatee Rail Bridge "South Port" Internal Rail Port Manatee Maintenance Dredging Port Manatee Dredging, Berths 1 and 2 Port Manatee Dredging, Berths 3 and 4 Dredging Channel Dredging Channel Dredging Channel This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility within the region. This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility within the region. This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility. This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility. This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility. This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility. This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility. This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility. This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility. This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility. This project is identified in the SIS Unfunded Needs Plan and will provide for enhanced freight mobility. 105
Mobility Assessment Final TRANSIT NEEDS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Bradenton Downtown Circulator US 41 (Green Bridge)/15th St / 301 Blvd / 9th St Manatee Ave4 9th St W / US 301 Downtown Bradenton US 19 / I-275 US 301 - Circulator Airport 17th St W BRT Lakewood Ranch Blvd Gulf Dr BRT Manatee Ave I-75 Express Bus Pinellas County Express Bus US 301 I-75 SR 62 Express Bus US 301 / I-75 Downtown Palmetto Hillsborough County Express Bus This downtown transit circulator, proposed in the Bradenton-Palmetto Downtown Mobility Study, would provide improved transit connectivity between local origins and destinations to a proposed transit staging / transfer area. This BRT line would connect with and match the proposed BRT from Siesta Drive/Bee Ridge Road in Sarasota to the Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport. This project would provide increased multimodal quality of service and enhanced economic vitality, and is included in TBARTA's master plan. This BRT line would connect with the north-south BRT line and would provide premium transit service across this major east-west corridor. This project would support goals for increasing opportunities for multimodal transportation and improving accessibility in this corridor. Express bus service will increase regional accessibility and mobility and provide faster and more reliable travel options within congested and constrained corridors. Express bus service will increase regional accessibility and mobility and provide faster and more reliable travel options within congested and constrained corridors. Express bus service will increase regional accessibility and mobility and provide faster and more reliable travel options within congested and constrained corridors. Express bus service will increase regional accessibility and mobility and provide faster and more reliable travel options within congested and constrained corridors. 106
Mobility Assessment Final TRANSIT NEEDS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Fixed Route increased frequency (9 routes) Fixed Route Expansion ( 1 route) - - Local Bus - - Local Bus Increased frequency on local routes will provide increased mobility for transit users. This additional route will provide service to new areas of the community, increasing transportation options and providing increased economic opportunity. 107
Mobility Assessment Final Table 13: Sarasota County 2035 Needs Plan (Roadway Improvements) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Bee Ridge Rd Cattlemen Rd Bond St Add 2 lanes (4 to 6) Portions of this roadway segment are projected to be congested by 2035. This project will provide additional east-west capacity in this major corridor and will provide for increased freight mobility and access to I-75. Beneva Rd US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Fruitville Rd Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Infrastructure This roadway segment is projected to be congested (portion severely congested by 2035. The ITS Infrastructure adds fiber optic cable and Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) devices to intersections to enhance the operations and safety of the corridor for automobile and freight mobility. Honore Ave Extension Laurel Rd SR 681 Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) This project will provide additional north-south capacity and connectivity west of I-75, reducing the number of local trips on that severely congested segment of I-75 and US 41increasing network connectivity for all modes. Lakewood Ranch Blvd Extension Fruitville Rd University Pkwy New 4 lane road This project will provide additional north-south connectivity east of I-75 connecting the developing Lakewood Ranch south area to the Regional Roadway Network. Price Blvd / Orlando Blvd Veterans Blvd Biscayne Dr Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Portions of this roadway segment are projected to be congested by 2035. This project is the only east / west corridor connecting activity centers. 108
Mobility Assessment Final ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED River Rd US 41 (Tamiami Trail) I-75 Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) This roadway segment is projected to be congested by 2035. This project will provide additional north-south capacity connecting developing areas to I-75. River Rd / Winchester Blvd US 301 (Washington Blvd) Prospect Ave Mound St US 41 (Tamiami Trail) University Pkwy Add 2 lanes (2 to 4) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Infrastructure This roadway segment is projected to be congested by 2035. This project will provide additional north-south capacity, improvements to reduce flooding and improved emergency evacuation route. This roadway segment is projected to be congested (portion severely congested by 2035. The ITS Infrastructure adds fiber optic cable and Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) devices to intersections to enhance the operations and safety of the corridor for automobile and freight mobility. US 41 (Tamiami Trail) US 41 Bypass Center Rd Add 2 lanes (4 to 6) This roadway segment is projected to be congested by 2035. This project will provide additional north-south capacity in this area to relieve congestion (one of several related projects). US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Vamo Way Baywood Dr Add 2 lanes (4 to 6) This roadway segment is projected to be congested by 2035. This project will provide additional north-south capacity in this area to relieve congestion (one of several related projects). US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Sumter Blvd Charlotte County Line Add 2 lanes (4 to 6) This roadway segment is projected to be congested by 2035. This project will provide additional north-south capacity in this area to relieve congestion (one of several related projects). 109
Mobility Assessment Final ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED US 41 Bypass (Venice) US 41 (Tamiami Trail) US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Add 2 lanes (4 to 6) This roadway segment is projected to be congested by 2035. This project will provide additional north-south capacity in this area to relieve congestion (one of several related projects). I-75 Yorkshire St - Interchange I-75 SR 681 - Interchange This project provides regional access to one of the City s planned activity centers and provides faster emergency response times on a 9 mile section of interstate without an interchange. This project provides regional access to one of the County s planned Economic Energy Zones in Central Sarasota. The modifications would provide access to and from the south with additional ramps making it a full access interchange. 110
Mobility Assessment Final BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Bicycle Network Gaps - - Sarasota County Countywide - Bicycle Facility/Treatment These projects complete gaps in the on-street bicycle transportation network, providing a continuous system of facilities and treatments for bicycle travel, increasing safety and increasing opportunities for multimodal transportation to key destinations, such as schools, parks, and other activity centers. Legacy Trail Northern Extension Northern Terminus Alderman Trail/Downtown Multi-Use Trail This project provides a key regional bicycle/pedestrian connection along the existing rail corridor from southern Sarasota County to downtown and north. Multi-Use Trails -- Sarasota County Sidewalk Gaps Sarasota County Countywide - Multi-Use Trail Countywide - Pedestrian Facility These projects complete a network of off-street shared use paths, providing for increased multimodal connectivity and a range of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. These projects may be along roadway corridors, in separate alignments, including rails to trails and rails with trails. These projects complete gaps in the sidewalk network, providing a continuous system of facilities for pedestrians of all abilities and ages, increasing safety, providing improved access to transit service/facilities, schools, parks, and other destinations. 111
Mobility Assessment Final TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Sarasota Downtown Circulator N/S Sarasota Downtown Circulator E/W Westfield Southgate Mall to Downtown Bee Ridge Rd / US 41 Downtown Sarasota Downtown Sarasota Westfield Southgate Mall Cattlemen Rd - Circulator - Circulator Downtown Siesta Dr/Southgate Plaza BRT BRT Fruitville Rd Lemon Ave east of I-75 BRT Sarasota North BRT Downtown Sarasota International Airport BRT This project would provide localized transit access for tourists and others whose destination is downtown, providing relief from congestion and providing transportation options. This project would provide localized transit access for tourists and others whose destination is downtown, providing relief from congestion and providing transportation options. This project would provide connectivity of regional transit services, linking with BRT line to downtown Bradenton and other key BRT and premium transit services. This project would provide premium transit in the corridor, fostering redevelopment along the way and providing relief for traffic congestion on Webber Street This project would provide options from commuters traveling between the I-75 area and downtown Sarasota. This project would provide connectivity of regional transit services, linking with BRT line to downtown Bradenton and serving key destinations such as the universities and the airport. Sarasota South (Venice) BRT Downtown Sarasota Sumter Blvd BRT This project would provide a regional linkage from high growth areas in southern Sarasota County to downtown Sarasota, connecting to other BRT lines and transit services. 112
Mobility Assessment Final TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED I-75 Local Express US 41 Local Express Fixed Route increased frequency (20 routes) Fixed Route Expansion (14 routes from SCAT TDP + 6 routes planned beyond TDP) Express Bus Express Bus - - Local Bus - - Local Bus Express bus service will increase regional accessibility and mobility and provide faster and more reliable travel options within congested and constrained corridors. Express bus service will increase regional accessibility and mobility and provide faster and more reliable travel options within congested and constrained corridors. Increased frequency on local routes is identified in the SCAT TDP as key to enhancing existing transit service and providing additional transportation options in the County. Several routes have been identified beyond those in the SCAT TDP, providing service to additional transit-supportive areas which have been identified. 113
Mobility Assessment Final Table 14: Regional 2035 Needs Plan (Roadway Improvements) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED I-75 Hillsborough County Line Sumter Blvd Widen [6+4 managed] I-75 Hillsborough County Line Sumter Blvd ITS I-75 Sumter Blvd Charlotte County Line Widen [6+4 managed] I-75 Sumter Blvd Charlotte County Line ITS University Pkwy Lorraine Rd US 41 (Tamiami Trail) ITS BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Bike-Ped Enhancements to Bridges North-South Trail Corridor (along BRT corridor) Countywide - Bicycle/Pedestrian Facility/Treatment Downtown Sarasota Downtown Bradenton Multi-Use Trail/Rail with Trail These projects complete gaps in the on-street bicycle transportation network, providing a continuous system of facilities and treatments for bicycle travel, increasing safety and increasing opportunities for multimodal transportation to key destinations, such as schools, parks, and other activity centers. This project provides a key regional bicycle/pedestrian connection along the existing rail corridor from downtown Sarasota north to downtown Bradenton, along the proposed BRT corridor). 114
Mobility Assessment Final TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS FACILITY FROM TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED I-75 TBARTA Hillsborough County Line Sumter Blvd Express Bus University Pkwy Lakewood Ranch Blvd US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Express Bus Route 99 (increased frequency & span of svc) - - Local Bus 115
Mobility Assessment Final Table 15: US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor Segments SEGMENT/ LOCATION/ PROJECTS FROM/AT TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Segment 1: US 41/Palmetto (8th Avenue) 17th Street /Palmetto Riverside/Green Bridge Roadway modifications: lane reduction, medians, bike lanes, enhanced pedestrian crossings, wider sidewalks Segment 2: US 41/Green Bridge Green Bridge Shared Use Path Segment 3: US 41/Bradenton Green Bridge 26th Avenue West Segment 4: US 41/Manatee County Segment 5: US 41/North Trail 26th Ave West USF/University Parkway USF/University Parkway 14th Street Segment 6: US 41/North Trail 14th Street Orange Ave Roadway modifications: reduced lane width, bike lane, MURT Roadway modifications: reduced lane width, bike lane, MURT This project addresses a congestion and safety problem during peak periods on this roadway. Consistent with overall long-term strategy of removing a share of regional, non-local through traffic from this roadway to support multimodal travel and redevelopment goals. This project improves a scenic multimodal connection that increases safety and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists by better separating vulnerable road users from high speed traffic. This project will improve safety for all users of the roadway and accommodate the same amount of traffic, while encouraging greater pedestrian and bicycle travel This project will improve safety, accessibility and mobility for all users of the roadway to support economic revitalization and enhance the character of the scenic highway. This project will improve safety, accessibility and mobility for all users of the roadway to support economic revitalization and enhance the character of the scenic highway. This project will improve safety, accessibility and mobility for all users of the roadway to support economic revitalization and enhance the character of the scenic highway. 116
Mobility Assessment Final SEGMENT/ LOCATION/ PROJECTS FROM/AT TO PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Segment 7: US 41/South Trail Segment 8: US 41/Bee Ridge Road to Central Sarasota Parkway Segment 9: US 41/Osprey Segment 10: US 41/Venice and North Port Bayfront - East of Orange venue Bee Ridge Road Central Sarasota Parkway Rubens Drive Bee Ridge Road Central Sarasota Parkway Rubens Drive Charlotte County Line Roadway modifications: reduced lane width, bike lane, MURT Multimodal/Transit Improvements (6 lane portion) Roadway modifications: maintain 4 lanes reduced lane width, 12' shared use path, landscaping, enhanced pedestrian crossings Roadway modifications: reduced lane width, landscaping, enhanced pedestrian crossings This project will improve safety, accessibility and mobility for all users of the roadway to support economic revitalization and enhance the character of the scenic highway. This project will improve safety, accessibility and mobility for all users of the roadway to support economic revitalization and enhance the character of the scenic highway. This project will improve safety, accessibility and mobility for all users of the roadway to support economic revitalization and enhance the character of the scenic highway. This project will improve safety, accessibility and mobility for all users of the roadway to support economic revitalization and enhance the character of the scenic highway. Intersection Treatments/Improvements may include: roundabouts, intersection treatments, enhanced pedestrian crossings, MURT connections Multimodal/Transit Improvements include intersection improvements identified above and options for BRT. Corridor-wide Enhancements include: 15-minute bus frequency, express bus service (AM/PM peak), enhanced bus stops, continuous sidewalks 117
Mobility Assessment Final 2035 Needs Plan Cost Estimates The total estimated cost for projects in the 2035 Needs Plan is $6.2 billion ($2.3 billion for Sarasota, and $3.9 billion for Manatee). The estimates were developed with techniques that reflect anticipated inflation rates over time. Specifically, costs were developed using the 2035 LRTP Project Costing Tool that was developed to assist the MPOs in FDOT District One. The tool provides estimated 2010 project costs based on the project type project, location, and length. The resulting costs were refined based on local information and costs developed for specific projects during local planning processes. Several local governments provided updated cost estimates for projects, and other costs were revised based on a review of existing plans, PD&E studies, and other project information. As the Financially Feasible Plan was developed, the Costing Tool was then used to calculate Year of Expenditure costs by phase (PD&E, PE, ROW, CST) for the expected time period during which the various project phases would be implemented. The Costing Tool calculates the YOE costs using anticipated inflation factors developed by FDOT. Figure 15 below illustrates the general change in project costs depending on Year of Expenditure, indicating the MPO should anticipate project costs to increase by as much as 70 percent due to inflation. Projects that are scheduled to take many years, particularly if they are begun in the outer years of the plan, will cost more than projects that can be completed sooner. For example, the road construction (CST) cost for 27 th Street East in Manatee County is $24.8 million in 2010 dollars, and grows to $34.4 million if built in 2021-2025. The project costs are provided in the Financially Feasible Plan tables in the following chapter (Tables 25-36). Figure 15: Cost Estimation Inflation Factors 118
Mobility Assessment Final Environmental and Sociocultural Considerations The planning provisions of SAFETEA-LU emphasize a collaborative and integrated planning process that considers environmental stewardship in the development of MPO plans and programs. The provisions require MPOs to conduct the following activities in the development of the Long Range Transportation Plan: Consider conservation plans and natural and historic resources in the development of the plan s projects and strategies; Consult with state and local agencies responsible for land use management, economic development, natural resources, environmental protection, and historic preservation; Identify potential environmental mitigation strategies and potential areas to carry out these activities; Provide opportunities for public and agency participation in the development of a project purpose and need. Florida s Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Process provides a planning framework for fulfilling the intent of SAFETEA-LU provisions and government regulations supporting the integration of the transportation planning process with the environmental review process. It creates linkages between land use, transportation and environmental planning through early and continuing collaboration among planning, environmental resource agencies and the public. The Long Range Transportation Plan identifies needed transportation improvement projects and strategies to support future transportation demand within the county. These candidate transportation projects are evaluated based on their contribution to achieve mobility, safety, environmental preservation, and other community goals. The results of this evaluation and project prioritization process are used to support funding decisions for priority transportation investments in the county. In support of this process, an environmental resource evaluation was conducted for each candidate transportation project in the LRTP Needs Assessment to determine the relative potential project effects to natural and cultural resources. The environmental resource evaluation characterized each candidate project in the Needs Assessment as having potentially low, moderate or high effects to the natural and cultural resources. Potential project effects were analyzed within a defined buffer area around each candidate project. Low potential effects suggest that the project s potential impacts to environmental resources are relatively low in comparison to other candidate projects. Moderate potential effects indicate that the project s potential impacts are moderate relative to other projects. High potential effects indicate relatively high impacts and suggest that 119
Mobility Assessment Final environmental mitigation measures may need to be identified during the project development phase. The potential project effects were evaluated for certain issues defined within the ETDM Process Environmental Screening Tool (EST). These issues include: Contaminated Sites, Farmlands, Floodplains, Historic Resources, Archaeological Sites, Navigation, Recreation Areas, Section 4(f) Potential, Special Designations, Water Quality and Quantity, Wetlands, Wildlife and Habitat. Evaluation measures, shown in Table 15, were used to determine potential low, moderate, and high impacts on various environmental and cultural resources. Datasets of the EST that are specific to Sarasota and Manatee Counties were used to support the evaluation and measurement of potential project effects for each defined issue. Results of the EST were reviewed by the Technical Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee and MPO staff, and were used in part to identify projects that were included in the Financially Feasible Plan. 120
Mobility Assessment Final Table 16: Environmental Evaluation Measures ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS AREA RESOURCES IMPACTED POTENTIAL EFFECTS Contaminated Sites Farmland Floodplains Historic and Archaeological Sites Navigation Recreation Section 4(f) Potential Special Designations Water Quality and Quantity Wetlands Wildlife and Habitat Urban = 100', Rural = 200' Urban = 100', Rural = 200' Urban = 100', Rural = 200' Urban = 100', Rural = 200' Intersects Urban = 100', Rural = 200' Urban = 100', Rural = 200' Urban = 100', Rural = 200' Urban = 100', Rural = 200' Urban = 100', Rural = 200' Urban = 100', Rural = 200' None Low 1 or 2 sites Moderate 3 or more sites High 5 acres or less Low 5 to 10 acres Moderate More than 10 acres High 5 acres or less Low 5 to 10 acres Moderate More than 10 acres High None Low 1 or 2 sites Moderate 3 or more sites High Absent Low Present Moderate Absent Low Present High Absent Low Present High 5 acres or less Low 5 to 10 acres Moderate More than 10 acres High No Impaired Waterbodies Low Impaired Waterbodies Moderate 5 acres or less Low 5 to 10 acres Moderate More than 10 acres High FFWCC Management Highly Areas Dependent on State and Federal Listed Project Type, Species Habitats, and Species 121
Mobility Assessment Final Contaminated Sites The potential effect for the Contaminated Sites category is based on the total number of known contamination sites and known producers of toxic or hazardous wastes identified within the project s 100-foot buffer (urban) or 200-foot buffer (rural). The following eight datasets provide information on these sites and facilities: FDEP Off-Site Contamination Notices, Hazardous Waste Sites, National Priority List Sites, Super ACT Risk Sources, Solid Waste Facilities, Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites, Toxic Release Inventory Sites, and US EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Regulated Facilities. The total number of sites within the buffer area was used to estimate low, moderate, or high effect. Since the same site may occur in multiple databases, the listing of sites within each dataset were compared to the search results of the other datasets to ensure that sites were counted only once in the analyses. Farmlands The potential effect for the Farmlands category is based on the acreage of Prime Farm Land within the 100 foot project buffer (urban) or 200-foot project buffer (rural). The total acreage was used to estimate a potentially low, moderate, or high project effect. Recent aerial imagery was consulted, in addition, to confirm the presence of Prime Farm Land (i.e. row or commodity crops) in the project area. Floodplains The potential effect for the Floodplains category is based on the total acreage of designated 100- year floodplain identified within the project s 100-foot buffer (urban) or 200-foot buffer (rural). The two datasets assessed in this category include: DFIRM 100-Year Flood Plain and FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps 1996. The reported 100-year floodplain acreage was used to estimate a potentially low, moderate, or high effect (i.e., the results of the two datasets were not added). 122
Mobility Assessment Final Historic Resources For the purposes of this study, historic resources are categorized as those listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and those locally designated as historic properties by Sarasota and Manatee Counties. National Register resources can be categorized as historic buildings, structures, districts, objects, cemeteries, roads, canals, railroads, and landscapes. This data is available through the following Florida Master Site File datasets: Historic structures (individual buildings, structures, and objects) Historic bridges Historic cemeteries Resource groups (roads, canals, railroads, neighborhoods, districts) National Register of Historic Places. The potential effect to historic resources is based on the number of historic resources within the project s 200-foot buffer for both urban and rural areas. The total number of resources within the buffer area was used to estimate low, moderate, or high potential project effect. Archaeological Sites Archaeological Resources include campsites, villages, settlements and other evidence of past human activity that span Florida s long period of human occupation from the earliest hunters and gathers through the early to mid 1900s. For this analysis, these resources are categorized into Sensitive Sites and Unevaluated Archaeological Sites. Sensitive sites include those listed on or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, sites with known or suspected human remains, or known Seminole, Miccosukee, or Creek cultural or heritage sites, as identified in the Florida Master Site File archaeological sites and National Register datasets. Unevaluated sites include those sites included in the Florida Master Site archaeological sites dataset for which no National Register eligibility is recorded. The potential effect to archaeological sites is based on the total number of sites within the project s 200-foot buffer for both urban and rural areas. A project is considered to have a potentially high effect if a Sensitive Site is located within the project buffer. For Unevaluated sites, the total number of sites within the buffer area was used to estimate low, moderate, or high potential project effect. Navigation The potential effect for the Navigation category is based on the presence or absence of navigable water crossings within the project corridor. If the proposed project does not cross a navigable waterway, the potential effect was assumed to be low. If the proposed project includes adding lanes to an existing water crossing, the potential effect was assumed to be moderate. If the 123
Mobility Assessment Final proposed project involves a new crossing over a navigable waterway, the degree of effect was assumed to be high. Recreation Areas The potential effect for the Recreation Areas category is based on the absence or presence of recreational features within or in proximity to the project corridor. Such resources include: multiuse trails, local and state parks, marine facilities, etc. (refer to list of datasets). If a recreational feature was not identified within the 100-foot project buffer (urban) or 200-foot project buffer (rural), then the degree of effect was assumed to be low. If a recreational feature is present within the 100-foot project buffer (urban) or 200-foot project buffer (rural), then the degree of effect was assumed to be high. Section 4(f) Potential The potential effect for the Section 4(f) category is based on the absence or presence of Section 4(f) protected resources. Such resources include: historic and archaeological features, public land, recreational facilities, etc. (refer to list of datasets). If a Section 4(f) resource was not identified within the 100-foot project buffer (urban) or 200-foot project buffer, then the degree of effect was assumed to be low. If a Section 4(f) resource is present within the 100-foot project buffer (urban) or 200-foot project buffer (rural), then the degree of effect was assumed to be high. Special Designations The potential effect for the Special Designations category is based on the total acres of the special designated properties and features within the 100-foot project buffer (urban) or 200-foot project buffer (rural). The special designated properties and features assessed in this category include: Florida Forever Board of Trustees (BOT) Projects, Native American Lands, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Save Our Rivers Lands, and Special or Outstanding Florida Waters. The total acreage was used to estimate a potentially low, moderate, or high effect. Water Quality and Quantity The potential effect for the Water Quality and Quantity category is based on the presence of designated impaired waterbodies within the project s 100-foot buffer (urban) or 200-foot buffer (rural). Listings of impaired waterbodies are contained in the FDEP Total Maximum Daily Loads for Listed Waters dataset and Impaired Waters 303(d) dataset. If an Impaired waterbody was not identified within the 100-foot project buffer (urban) or 200-foot project buffer, then the degree of effect was assumed to be low. If an Impaired waterbody is present within the 100-foot project buffer (urban) or 200-foot project buffer (rural), then the degree of effect was assumed to be 124
Mobility Assessment Final moderate. Wetlands The potential effect for the Wetlands category is based on the acreage of wetlands within the project s 100-foot buffer (urban) or 200-foot buffer (urban) as reported by the Wetlands 2004 dataset. The total wetland acreage reported by the dataset was used to assign a potentially low, moderate, or high effect. Wildlife and Habitat The potential effect for the Wildlife and Habitat category is highly dependent on proposed project type, habitats present, and mix of species potentially present. Datasets that were reviewed to assess the potential degree of effect include the following: Bald Eagle Nesting Territories, Black Bear Road Kills, FFWCC Management Areas, FFWCC Wildlife Observations, Florida Species Observations 2007, FNAI Bird Rookeries, Florida Forever BOT Projects, Florida Managed Areas, Florida Natural Areas Inventory Managed Lands, Florida State Parks, Public Land, Threatened or Endangered Species, and Water Management District Owned Lands. 125
Community Engagement Final Engagement Process Public Involvement Activities Community Engagement The purpose of the public involvement plan for the LRTP was to provide various opportunities through which the community could learn about the planning process and provide their input and ideas for the Sarasota/Manatee region s transportation future. The goal was to obtain substantive and broad-based feedback on transportation issues and options to build consensus on solutions that best reflected the varied needs and interests in the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area. To achieve this goal, the public involvement plan included a range of public engagement mechanisms, including community workshops, focus groups, stakeholder meetings, one-on-one interviews, steering committee meetings, and a project website (maintained by MPO staff). In addition, the LRTP elements were presented to the MPO Policy Board and advisory committees (Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee) at key points throughout the process. Involvement of Local Agencies, Organizations and the General Public The public involvement plan encompassed a broad definition of public for purposes of this planning process. The public includes those affected by changes (the plan) as well as those effecting change individual citizens, organizations, the business community, public agencies, and others. In addition to general categories of the public, the process also sought to engage persons and organizations with particular interests and needs, such as people with disabilities, freight interests, transit users, bicyclists, and others. Project Website Launched at the onset of the process and managed by MPO staff, the site included general information and reports developed for the LRTP, as well as contact information for study staff and upcoming meeting announcements. The website was continuously updated to provide interested parties with project information, results of public outreach activities, and a means to provide additional comments and sign up to receive communications and announcements about the LRTP. 126
Community Engagement Final Focus Groups and Stakeholder Interviews One of the key components of the public involvement program entailed a series of focus group discussions and stakeholder interviews. While public workshops provide an opportunity for the public to come out and give input, workshops often require a large amount of resources and are not always effective in terms of conducting broad outreach to a diverse cross-section of the community. For that reason, the MPO placed more emphasis on stakeholder interviews and focus groups for this LRTP process, providing for a wider range of geographic and sociocultural diversity and opinions about transportation issues. The public engagement activities emphasized reaching out to on going to many groups and organizations, including the Hispanic community, Sarasota NAACP, low-income housing advocates, and others. While not all groups that were contacted participated in the process, a number of focus group discussions and stakeholder interviews provided valuable input into development of the mobility assessment and transportation needs plan. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE Based on your experience from year to year, would you say the transportation situation in this area has generally improved or gotten worse? What are the primary transportation issues that affect your personal daily travel? Looking at the Sarasota/Manatee region, what transportation improvements are key to the area s future? Are there places in the area that you feel are not safe for certain types of travel? Are there things you would like to see happen to improve bicycling and walking conditions, or to make them more attractive options for transportation? Do you think the state and local governments should do more to improve public transportation in the Sarasota/Manatee area? How could the relationship between transportation and land use could be improved or strengthened to create a better community? If you had the money, what is the one transportation improvement you would make happen in the next five years? How about in the next 25 years? The overarching objectives of the focus group meetings and stakeholder interviews were to identify values and priorities and communicate information and issues to be considered in the transportation planning process. Feedback was solicited during the discussions to identify stakeholder values and their sense of how anticipated development and transportation investments will address individual and regional needs. Ideas on key themes, issues, opportunities and specific investments and strategies to consider in the planning process were recorded. The sessions 127
Community Engagement Final concluded with a discussion about how their input will be used in the development of the Long Range Transportation Plan and the attendees were encouraged to participate in the public workshop. The following list identifies the focus groups and stakeholder interviews that were held as part of the LRTP process: Lakewood Ranch Business Alliance Venice Chamber of Commerce North Port Chamber of Commerce Sarasota Chamber of Commerce Parrish Civic Association Sarasota Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA) Sarasota County Openly Plans for Excellence (SCOPE) Environmental representatives (i.e., Audubon, Manasota 88, Sierra Club, etc.) Manatee Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee Freight interests (Port Manatee, Sysco, Gulf East Coast Intermodal, Bealls) Bicycle & Pedestrian interests Transit interests Emergency responders (law enforcement, fire department, first responders) North Trail Alliance Manatee NAACP Executive Committee Manatee Federation of Homeowner Associations New College of Florida (Environmental Studies Class) Island Transportation Planning Organization Each group brought a distinct perspective to the discussion about the future of transportation in the Sarasota/Manatee region. Key issues that were raised included the following: Access to I-75 (emergency response concerns) and congestion on I-75 Opportunities for redevelopment related to transit, including transit-oriented development in urban core areas Expanded vision for future Bus Rapid Transit and expanded fixed route bus service Commuter rail connections to major regional destinations Improving bicycle and pedestrian safety and accessibility Use of Low Speed Vehicles (LSVs), also called Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) for energy conservation 128
Community Engagement Final Identification of potential freight activity centers and freight operational problem areas Need for better roadway connectivity in the eastern portion of the region These discussions provided a better understanding of the major mobility issues in the Sarasota/Manatee region and were used in developing the draft Needs Plan which was presented to the public at the public workshop. Steering Committee Meetings A Steering Committee comprised of Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee members representing each County, FDOT, and others met throughout the LRTP process to provide direction to the project team and MPO staff. MPO Board Presentations Briefings were provided to the MPO Board at key points in the LRTP process, including their March 2010, May 2010, June 2010, October 2010 meetings. The initial presentation summarized the 2035 Existing + Committed Network Results, Transit Service Core Area Analysis, Preliminary Needs Assessment, and Performance Measures & Financial Resources. At the May 2010 meeting, the project team summarized the results of the public workshops, highlighted major changes to the new E+C model run, reviewed the Needs Assessment and summary of 2035 needs assessment network, and presented refinements to the transit network service characteristics and stops/stations. At the June 2010 meeting, the financial resources were revisited and the 2035 Needs Plan was approved by the MPO board. MPO meetings are public meetings and include a time for public comment, serving as an additional opportunity for the public to weigh in on the transportation needs and priorities. 129
Community Engagement Final Community Workshops Two public workshops were held in April 2010 (one in Sarasota County and one in Manatee County) to give the public an opportunity to provide input on the draft Needs Plan and identify their transportation priorities for the region. While the workshop attendance was minimal, significant comments were provided by those who attended. Workshop participants were asked to: Identify how to better connect people and destinations in the Sarasota/Manatee area by car, bus/bus rapid transit, rail, streetcar, biking, and walking Confirm the assessment of needed transportation projects for each of 11 corridors in the area Identify near term and longer term priorities for funding and implementation of transportation projects Workshop participants indicated their desire that the MPO consider the following: Provide regional transit connections now Focus on US 41 for BRT, bicycle and pedestrian enhancements Improve I-75 for freight (connections to Lakeland; industrial areas) Create transit oriented development around BRT/rail connections to support future transit Connect bicycle and pedestrian trail network Increase commitment to pedestrian safety Improve north-south roadway connections along the I-75 corridor Connect colleges to destinations A summary of workshop comments is included in the Appendix. 130
Community Engagement Final Evaluation/Outcomes The various methods used to engage the public in the development of the LRTP provided a wide range of feedback throughout the process. The combination of workshops, focus groups, stakeholder interview, and steering committee meetings allowed participants to focus on their priorities and needs for the transportation network in the Sarasota/Manatee region. Held at various points in the process, these activities provided important feedback on the plan recommendations, shaping the final Needs and Financially Feasible Plans. As mentioned earlier, this process sought to incorporate a wide range of citizens and organizations with diverse opinions and needs, and the approach was successful. The focus groups and stakeholder interviews supplemented the input provided at the workshop,and in many cases, formed a basis for development of the Needs Plan and priorities. While the workshops did not result in large attendance figures, the input received was valuable and made an impact. In fact, when the April 28 workshop location in Sarasota County had to be changed at the last minute because of a plumbing problem in the building, citizens and agency staff still made the effort to attend. 131
Financial Resources Financial Resources Final To determine the limits of financial feasibility for evaluating the potential inclusion of Needs Plan projects in the Financially Feasible Plan, the project team developed projections of financial resources and revenues that are anticipated to be available. To meet federal requirements of the SAFETEA-LU, all revenues are expressed in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars to reflect a projected rate of inflation. The use of YOE dollars may present an appearance of a greater availability of funds, but this is not necessarily the case. The revenue projections, which account for the effects of inflation over time, reflect committed and uncommitted transportation revenues expected to be generated at local and state levels, including funding sources dedicated to specific categories such as the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and maintenance/ operations activities. The total estimated revenue over the planning period is projected to be about $775.2 billion, but this figure includes many local sources of revenue that are not available to the MPO for transportation capacity or service improvements, such as the major expenditures planned for the SIS category (primarily for I-75), as well as on-going maintenance and operations of existing roadways and bus networks in both counties. Subtracting the SIS revenue produces a total estimate of about $6.2 billion. This figure includes all existing major revenue sources used for transportation purposes. As stated above, many of these sources, such as the Constitutional, County, and Municipal Fuel Taxes, are currently used for roadway operations and maintenance rather than capital projects, and this is likely to be the case in the future. Other sources, such as the existing Sarasota County Infrastructure Surtax, are already fully committed to capital projects through its expiration in 2024. Therefore, the revenue projected to be available to the MPO for development of its financially feasible 2035 LRTP is $1.9 billion, inclusive of state/federal sources (Other non-sis Arterials, TMA and Enhancements) and transportation impact fee revenues projected to be generated by new development over the planning horizon. An estimate of the existing revenue sources that would potentially be available for new capital projects or transit service expansion is shown in Table 16. The table includes the state and federal revenue sources that have historically been considered by the MPO as available for capital projects during preparation of the Financially Feasible LRTP. It excludes the revenues projected for the SIS category. The existing local revenue sources for roadways included in the table are limited to projected transportation impact fee revenues because all other gas tax and local funding is projected to maintain the current system. Per information from both county transit operating departments, there are no projected revenues identified for expansion of existing local bus service, whether for capital or operating. 132
Financial Resources Final Table 17: Revenue Available for New Capital Projects (in millions, YOE) REVENUE SOURCES FY 2014/15 SUBTOT AL FY 2016/20 SUBTOT AL FY 2021/25 SUBTOT AL FY 2026/30 SUBTOT AL FY 2031/35 SUBTOT AL 22 YEAR TOTA L State and Federal Sources* 52.3 152.1 167.5 177.6 189.0 738.5 1,168 60.6 182.8 236.8 303.1 385.1 Existing Local Sources - Roadways.5 Existing Local Sources Transit Expansion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR NEW CAPITAL 1,907 112.9 334.9 404.3 480.7 574.1 PROJECTS.0 * Excluding SIS Highways All projected local revenues are used to maintain current systems in both counties The total state and federal revenues are about $738 million while the total existing local sources available for roadway capital projects is about $1.1 billion. Total local transit revenues are used exclusively to maintain the existing bus operations and maintaining the capital facilities and equipment; there are no defined revenue sources for additional bus service or expansion of bus fleets. The overall total for both counties is about $1.9 billion over the planning period, and is $4.3 billion short of the needs plan estimates. Existing Non-Local Revenue Sources There are several sources of revenue for use by local governments on transportation strategies that originate at the state level. Funds from the state are generally pass-through revenues allocated from the federal government. These are identified below as capacity programs, and are intended for specific uses. The other source of state-determined revenue comes from three types of fuel taxes. Each of these revenue sources, and their subsets, is described in further detail below. State/Federal Revenue Sources Table 17 identifies the funding types that are available from the state and federal government. 133
Financial Resources Final Table 18: State and Federal Sources and Uses for Identified Funding Types FUNDING TYPE SOURCE USES SIS State/Federal SIS facilities (corridors, connectors and hubs) Other Arterial State/Federal Non-SIS/FIHS highway system for federal aid-eligible roadways Transit State/Federal Technical, operating or capital assistance for transit, paratransit, or rideshare Enhancements Federal Non-capacity improvements; limited to regional facilities TMA Federal Flexible funding for capacity and operational mobility improvements TRIP State/Local Regionally significant facilities within FDOT District One; (match) competitive program requires a 50% local match The Sarasota/Manatee MPO receives its share of the above revenues based on a series of formulas tied to population and gas-tax receipts, except for Enhancements, which are distributed through a competitive grant process within the FDOT District One area. Applications for Enhancements funding are evaluated using three specific criteria: (1) connectivity; (2) national, statewide, or regional significance; and (3) existing or future purpose and usage. District 1 has informed the MPO that Enhancements funding in 2014/2015 will be reserved exclusively for regionally significant projects. Table 18 below provides revenue projections of state and federal sources available to the MPO as provided in the 2035 Revenue Forecast Handbook (May 2008) prepared by the Florida Department of Transportation. The Other Arterials revenues can be applied to non-fihs/sis State Highway System roadways for capacity and non-capacity programs. The Enhancement funds in the table are used for locally defined projects providing enhancements, typically for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Transit revenues may be used for technical and operating/capital assistance for transit, paratransit, and rideshare programs. TMA Funds may be used for any of the above categories. 134
Financial Resources Final Table 19: State and Federal Program Revenues (in millions, YOE) REVENUE SOURCES FY 2014-2015 SUBTOTAL FY 2016-2020 SUBTOTAL FY 2021-2025 SUBTOTAL FY 2026-2030 SUBTOTAL FY 2031-2035 SUBTOTAL 22 YEAR TOTAL SIS Highways/FIHS Construction/ROW N/A 98.4 433.2 137.7 162.3 831.6 Other Arterial Construction/ 14.1 43.5 48.9 52.7 57.7 216.9 ROW - Manatee Other Arterial Construction/ 16.7 51.4 57.9 62.4 68.3 256.6 ROW - Sarasota Enhancement Funds 2.4 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 26.4 TMA Funds 19.1 51.2 54.7 56.5 57.0 238.5 Transit* 19.8 53.7 60.3 67.4 73.7 274.9 TOTAL STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS 72.1 96,857.8 372,321.7 137,992.2 162,547.0 769,790.7 *: Technical and operating/capital assistance to transit, paratransit and ridesharing systems. The state continues to place an emphasis on allocating revenues to Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) facilities. SIS facilities in the two counties that are eligible for SIS funding include: Port Manatee o Seaport facility o I-275 to US 41 to Piney Point Road to entrance o On-dock Class III railroad from seaport property to CSX line o Channel and turning basins connecting Gulf Coast shipping line Interstate 75 and Interstate 275 CSX Rail Line - Bradenton to Tampa Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and shipping lanes SR 70 from I-75 to US 17 (Emerging SIS) University Parkway from I-75 to Airport Circle (Emerging SIS) In addition to the SIS and emerging SIS facilities listed above, the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport is identified as an Emerging SIS Hub. This designation implies an increase in regional and 135
Financial Resources Final statewide importance of this transportation hub in the future. There are two other pools of revenue the State of Florida may allocate to projects located within the MPO. In addition to funds specifically dedicated to the Sarasota/Manatee MPO, the State also allocates funds from the Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) and New Starts/Small Starts for transit. TRIP funds apply to improvements on facilities designated as regionally significant, and funds are allocated within each FDOT District based on regional project prioritization processes. The MPO has entered into a TRIP agreement with Sarasota and Manatee Counties, as well as with the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO through an interlocal agreement, and the Polk TPO, working through the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee, and is eligible for funding of regionally significant projects, should funding be available. Roughly half of statewide TRIP funding will be allocated to the passenger rail program passed by the Legislature in December 2009, so the amount potentially available in District One shown here has been adjusted accordingly. The state also receives federal funding for new transit programs. These New Starts/Small Starts grants are available to transit agencies statewide, and are described in the Transit Revenues section below. Table 19 outlines the available state and federal sources and the potential uses of the funds. The TRIP funds and New Starts/Small Starts are not included in the totals in Table 18 above, due to their discretionary nature. Table 20: Discretionary State/Federal Revenue Sources (in millions, YOE) REVENUE SOURCES FY 2014-2015 SUBTOTAL FY 2016-2020 SUBTOTAL FY 2021-2025 SUBTOTAL FY 2026-2030 SUBTOTAL FY 2031-2035 SUBTOTAL 22 YEAR TOTAL Funds Available for District One Projects District One TRIP 19.0 41.8 40.4 40.4 40.4 181.7 Funds* Funds Available for New Transit Starts Statewide New Starts 150.0 291.7 270.9 270.9 270.9 1,254.3 Funds * Reduced by half to account for allocation to statewide passenger rail 136
Financial Resources Final State Fuel Taxes There are three types of fuel taxes collected at the state level that are allocated to local governments. These taxes are not part of the local option taxes, and are collected for every gallon of fuel sold in the state. For each gallon of motor fuel sold, the Constitutional Fuel Tax yields two cents per gallon, and the County Fuel Tax yields one cent per gallon. The Municipal Fuel Tax is a one-cent per gallon tax, and each municipality may dedicate a percentage of their Municipal Revenue Sharing Program funds for certain types of transportation projects. Actual distribution amounts by fiscal year for these revenue sources were obtained from the Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (LCIR), and the five-year averages of distributions from 2004-2008 were used to project future revenues. The section below describes the methodology and assumptions used to project the revenues for each of these state-mandated gas taxes, and Table 20 displays the projected revenues from these sources. Constitutional Fuel Tax This revenue source is based on a 2-cent per gallon tax on fuel sales, and may be used for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of roads. Each county is eligible for revenues through an allocation formula used by the State that is based on the certified fuel gallons sold and a distribution factor calculated using the county s population, land area, and tax collected in the previous fiscal year. The actual revenue distributions by year and BEBR population estimates for those years were used to calculate per capita revenue values for each county from 2004-2008, and the average of those past values was used for the base year (2010) projection. Future years were projected out to 2035 using this average per capita value and adjusting for inflation. County Fuel Tax The County Fuel Tax allocation to counties is determined by the State using the same methodology as the Constitutional Fuel Tax. For this analysis, the five-year average per capital distribution and future projections were calculated in the same manner described above. The County Fuel Tax may be used for the acquisition of rights-of-way; the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and repair of transportation facilities, roads, bridges, bicycle paths, and pedestrian pathways; or to reduce bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. The legislative intent for this tax is to reduce the burden of county ad valorem taxes. Municipal Fuel Tax This tax is a one-cent per gallon tax on motor fuel sold within the state s municipalities, and is collected within the Municipal Revenue Sharing Program trust fund. Each municipality s share of the funds is calculated based on an adjusted municipal population, municipal sales tax collections, 137
Financial Resources Final and a municipality s relative ability to raise revenue. As with the Constitutional and County fuel taxes, the five-year average per capital distribution for each municipality was calculated from actual municipal distributions in each county from 2004-2008. The expected percentage allocated to each municipality was obtained from each year s Local Government Financial Handbook. The per capita values were adjusted for inflation and multiplied by the municipal population projections prepared by Renaissance to project future tax revenues. The Municipal Fuel Tax s portion of the trust fund is determined by the Department of Revenue, and varies each year depending on tax collections. Municipal Fuel Tax revenues may be used for the purchase of transportation facilities and road and street rights-of-way; construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of roads, streets, bicycle paths, and pedestrian pathways; adjustment of city-owned utilities as required by road and street construction; and construction, reconstruction, transportationrelated public safety activities, maintenance, and operation of transportation facilities. For simplicity, the total Municipal Fuel Tax revenues projected for all of the cities in the MPO planning area are shown in Table 20 below. Projections for fuel tax receipts in the analyses do not account for future conditions that can influence supply and/or demand, such as Peak Oil production declines and other variables that would produce an increase in fuel prices. Fuel taxes are a declining revenue source nationally and statewide as motor vehicle efficiency improves and, as demonstrated during the period of high gas prices in 2008, people respond to changes in price by driving less. The analyses presented assume per capita fuel tax revenues will remain at today s level through 2035. 138
Financial Resources Final Table 21: State Distributed Fuel Tax Revenues (in millions, YOE) REVENUE SOURCES FY 2014-2015 SUBTOTAL FY 2016-2020 SUBTOTAL FY 2021-2025 SUBTOTAL FY 2026-2030 SUBTOTAL FY 2031-2035 SUBTOTAL 22 YEAR TOTAL Manatee County Constitutional Fuel Tax Revenues (2-cent) 8.3 24.5 30.8 38.6 48.6 150.7 County Fuel Tax Revenues (1-cent) 3.7 10.8 13.7 17.1 21.5 66.9 Municipal Fuel Tax, from Revenue Sharing 1.7 4.9 6.1 7.4 9.1 29.2 (1-cent) SUBTOTAL 13.7 40.3 50.6 63.1 79.2 246.9 Sarasota County Constitutional Fuel Tax Revenues (2-cent) 8.9 26.2 33.1 41.5 51.7 161.4 County Fuel Tax Revenues (1-cent) 3.9 11.5 14.5 18.2 22.7 70.8 Municipal Fuel Tax, from Revenue Sharing 3.0 9.1 12.0 15.4 19.7 59.2 (1-cent) SUBTOTAL 15.8 46.8 59.6 75.2 94.0 291.4 Total for MPO Constitutional Fuel Tax Revenues (2-cent) County Fuel Tax Revenues (1-cent) Municipal Fuel Tax, from Revenue Sharing (1-cent) TOTAL STATE- DISTRIBUTED FUEL TAX REVENUES 17.2 50.7 63.9 80.1 100.2 312.1 7.6 22.3 28.2 35.3 44.2 137.7 4.7 14.1 18.0 22.9 28.8 88.5 29.5 87.1 110.2 138.3 173.2 538.3 139
Financial Resources Final Existing Local Revenue Sources The Florida Statutes provide the opportunity for local governments to impose taxes and fees in order to raise funds for specific public purposes. One of the means by which local governments are able to raise funds for transportation projects is through the implementation of local option fuel taxes. There are several optional fuel taxes that counties are permitted to levy per each gallon of fuel sold within their jurisdictional boundary. These taxes must be approved by the county governing body, or by voter approval in a countywide referendum. Sarasota and Manatee Counties currently use the maximum rate of local optional fuel taxes available. Each of these is shown on the following pages in Table 21. Local Option Gas Taxes All Florida counties have the option to raise additional revenues by augmenting the state's taxes on highway fuels, discussed above. Local governments are authorized to collect an additional 12 cents (ninth-cent fuel tax and maximum local option fuel taxes) per gallon, which may be spent on local or state transportation projects. Ninth Cent Fuel Tax This tax is collected on both regular and diesel fuel, and is used to fund transportation expenditures. Applied at a rate of one cent per gallon, the counties do not share the Ninth Cent Fuel Tax with the municipalities within their jurisdictions. The projection methodology, therefore, is similar to that used for the Constitutional Fuel Tax. Six-cent and Five-cent Local Option Fuel Taxes These are two separate local fuel taxing options that are collected and distributed in the same manner. The 6-cent Fuel Tax is levied at a rate of six cents for each gallon of fuel, both regular and diesel, sold within a county. The 5-cent Fuel Tax is not applied to diesel fuel. The 6-cent tax may be used for general transportation expenditures, while the 5-cent tax may only be used for transportation expenditures needed to meet the requirements of the capital improvement element of an adopted local government comprehensive plan and other capacity-adding projects. The 5-cent tax may not be used for operating and maintenance expenditures. In Sarasota County, the collected revenues are distributed to each local government based on interlocal agreements between the County and its municipalities that are updated annually for the coming fiscal year. The distribution formula is based on the annual population estimates prepared by BEBR. According to the Local Government Financial Information Handbook, Manatee County does not distribute local option fuel tax revenues to its municipalities. Revenues were projected for each of these two fuel taxes using similar methodologies as described 140
Financial Resources Final above. The LCIR provided actual revenue distributions from 2004-2008 for the two counties, and BEBR population estimates for those years were used to derive annual per capita distributions. Using the population projections for the counties prepared during this Long Range Transportation Plan update, and adjusting the average per capita values for inflation, future revenue projections for each county were calculated by multiplying the two figures. Municipal distributions were calculated using the same per capita methodology and the municipal allocation percentages provided in the Local Government Financial Handbook. Gas Tax Revenue Bonds Sarasota and Manatee Counties have both issued fuel tax revenue bonds to raise money for transportation projects. Sarasota County has bonds issued in 2005 that will be paid off in 2025. Manatee County has bonds issued in 2004 that will be paid off in 2020. Until these bonds mature, a portion of the Counties collected local option fuel taxes will be used to pay the principal and interest. The Counties debt service can be paid through receipts from the 5-cent, 6-cent, 7 th -cent (state-funded County Fuel Tax), and Ninth Cent fuel taxes. The Counties debt service payments for their transportation bonds do not use tax revenues from the municipal governments. In order to calculate the impact of the bonds on future gas tax revenues, the revenues were broken out according to the collecting jurisdiction. Impact Fees/Assessments Impact fees are assessed on new development projects to provide funding for capital infrastructure needed to offset the impacts of new development. Sarasota and Manatee Counties are the two primary collectors of transportation impact fees in the region. The City of North Port also has collected a significant amount of transportation impact fees in recent years due to strong residential growth in that community. The other municipalities historically have not collected a large amount of impact fees. Because of the current state of the economy and development marketplace, Manatee County has instituted a 50 percent reduction in road impact fees for a two-year period from July 27, 2009 to July 27, 2011. The projections take this temporary reduction into account, and assume the fees will not otherwise be adjusted during the planning period. As with all other portions of this analysis, future revenue projections are adjusted for inflation. To project future impact fee collections, and maintain a rational basis for the estimates, the average rates of collections for all transportation-related impact fees collected in the two counties per year from 2000-2008, and in North Port from 2001-2008, were calculated on a per capita basis. Before projecting future revenues, noticeable outlier years were removed to produce a more conservative estimate. These adjusted average per capita values were then applied to the population projections for each jurisdiction. In Sarasota County, the projections were broken out by Impact Fee Benefit 141
Financial Resources Final District for developing the Financially Feasible Plan because the County can only spend impact fee revenue in the district from which it is generated. As with the projections for the fuel taxes, the methodology assumes that population growth will drive (and be tied to) development and the collection of impact fees. Complicating the discussion of transportation impact fees as a long-term funding source is the lingering economic downtown, and widespread discussion among some elected officials statewide that the Legislature will move to eliminate or limit local governments ability to continue charging impact fees to off-set costs of new development. This is only speculation, so the financially feasible plan was developed to reflect the fact of existing impact fees in both counties and their projected revenues to fund some of the needed transportation projects identified in this LRTP. Total Local Revenue Projections The projected revenue totals in Table 21 below do not necessarily provide an accurate representation of available funding for new capital projects. The economic downturn has led to reduced government revenues including many of the fuel tax and other sources that have been used to fund new projects in recent years. In the current budget environment, the local revenue sources most likely to be available for new capital projects are the 5-cent Local Option Fuel Tax and road impact fees. The total of these two sources, net of any debt service obligations, is the best estimate at this time of available funding for new capital projects. This figure is noted at the bottom of Table 21. It should also be noted that while these revenues are available for new capital projects, the amount available for new facilities or capacity projects (as opposed to resurfacing, etc.) will vary. Other sources may become available in future years as the economy recovers and budget policies are revised to respond to new conditions. 142
Financial Resources Final Table 22: Existing Local Revenue Sources (in millions, YOE) REVENUE SOURCES FY 2014-2015 SUBTOTAL FY 2016-2020 SUBTOTAL FY 2021-2025 SUBTOTAL FY 2026-2030 SUBTOTAL FY 2031-2035 SUBTOTAL 22 YEAR TOTAL Manatee County Ninth Cent Fuel Tax 4.0 11.8 14.8 18.5 23.3 72.4 Local Option 6-Cent Fuel Tax 23.2 68.3 86.2 107.8 135.7 421.2 Local Option 5-Cent Fuel Tax 14.1 41.7 52.5 65.7 82.7 256.8 Gas Tax Revenue Bond Debt Service Payments (7.8) (19.6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (27.4) Road Impact Fee Collections 20.5 60.4 76.2 95.3 120.0 372.4 Subtotal: Existing Local Revenue Sources 54.0 162.6 229.7 287.3 361.8 1,095.4 Sarasota County Ninth Cent Fuel Tax 4.7 13.8 17.5 21.9 27.3 85.1 Local Option 6-Cent Fuel Tax Local Option 5-Cent Fuel Tax Gas Tax Revenue Bond Debt Service Payments 27.0 80.8 103.4 131.1 144.7 487.0 19.9 59.6 76.2 96.6 121.2 373.4 (2.2) (5.5) (5.5) 0.0 0.0 (13.2) Infrastructure Sales Surtax* 85.3 254.7 254.0 0.0 0.0 594.0 Sales Surtax Bond Debt Service Payments (27.4) (68.5) (54.8) 0.0 0.0 (150.8) Road Impact Fee Collections 40.1 122.4 160.6 207.8 265.1 796.1 Subtotal: Existing Local Revenue Sources 147.5 457.3 551.3 457.3 558.3 2,171.6 TOTAL EXISTING LOCAL REVENUE 201.5 619.8 781.0 744.6 920.1 3,267.1 SOURCES Total Revenue Sources Likely to be Available for 94.7 284.1 365.5 465.4 589.0 1,798.8 New Capital Projects * Excluding portion distributed to School Board 5-cent fuel tax and impact fees 143
Financial Resources Final Transit Revenues Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) and Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) are the primary public transportation providers within the MPO planning area. Both are departments of their respective counties, and provide service in an area primarily west of I-75 and south of I-275. The two transit agencies receive both operating and capital revenues from federal, state, and local sources. Operating revenues include fare box collections, federal grants, FDOT Block and Commuter Assistance Grants, and local general fund revenues, along with transportation disadvantaged equipment and planning grants. Non-operating revenues include federal capital assistance and grant funds from the New Freedom and Job Access Reverse Commute programs. Local transit revenues primarily come from the general fund of each County, and therefore, must compete annually in their respective budgets with a host of other programs that are similarly funded, such as law enforcement. Lacking a dedicated local funding source introduces variability and limits the capability for either transit department to plan for future service expansion. While some other sources of local funding have been available in the past, for the most part transit operations are primarily funded through the general fund, and subject to competing demands and policy changes. One potential funding source for transit projects is the Federal Transit Administration s Small Starts/New Starts program. This program supports locally planned, implemented, and operated major transit capital investments, such as new, and extensions to, existing fixed guideway transit systems, including commuter rail, light rail, heavy rail, bus rapid transit, and streetcars. The state allocates funds for these types of projects (Table 19), and projects are selected for funding based on a set of evaluation criteria, and feasibility of the required committed local match. A project that receives New Starts funding is eligible for federal funding of up to 50 percent of project costs, with state funding providing up to an additional 25 percent. Small Starts funding is for projects with a maximum cost of $250 million, no more than $75 million in funding from FTA, and requires at least a 20 percent local match. SCAT has applied for these funds to cover costs associated with development of the Bus Rapid Transit line connecting the airport area to downtown Sarasota, the Sarasota Memorial Hospital and ending at Bee Ridge Road. Local operating and capital revenue estimates were collected from the Transit Development Plan (TDP) of each agency. SCAT provided estimates of operating and capital revenues through FY 2019, while MCAT provided projections through FY 2017. Projections for subsequent years were prepared using FDOT s guidelines for inflation factors in transit projects and programs. All federal and state revenue assumptions in the TDPs, for both the capital and operating categories, were not included in the analysis, in order to reduce the likelihood of double-counting potential federal and state revenues. 144
Financial Resources Final State and federal transit funding figures from the 2035 Revenue Forecast Handbook were used instead (see Table 18). Projections to 2035 were estimated by dividing the TDP-estimated local operating and capital revenues for each transit provider for the years provided by the population of the respective counties to obtain per capita revenue values for those years. For subsequent years, the annual increase in revenue was tied to the increase in population and the inflation factor recommended by FDOT. To project revenues for future years, the average for per capita revenues for FY 2010-FY 2017 was set as the base per capita value for MCAT from which to calculate annual inflation-adjusted values. For SCAT, the average for FY2010-FY 2019 was used. These per capita values were in turn applied to the population projections of the two counties to yield annual local transit revenues. Table 22 below identifies the revenue projections for local transit operations and local transit capital revenues for the two transit agencies through 2035. Table 23: Local Transit Revenue Projections (in millions, YOE) REVENUE SOURCES FY 2014-2015 SUBTOTA L FY 2016/20 SUBTOTA L FY 2021/25 SUBTOTA L FY 2026/30 SUBTOTA L FY 2031/35 SUBTOTA L 22 YEAR TOTA L Manatee County Area Transit Operations Revenues 12.9 35.0 41.3 49.7 60.2 199.0 Capital Revenues 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MCAT Subtotal 12.9 35.0 41.3 49.7 60.2 199.0 Sarasota County Area Transit Operations Revenues 36.4 93.6 113.7 137.2 164.2 545.1 Capital Revenues 5.1 12.7 10.1 0.0 0.0 27.9 SCAT Subtotal 41.5 106.3 123.8 137.2 164.2 573.0 Total for Both Agencies Operations Revenues 49.4 128.6 155.0 186.8 224.4 744.2 Capital Revenues 5.1 12.7 10.1 0.0 0.0 27.9 TOTAL LOCAL TRANSIT REVENUES 54.5 141.3 165.1 186.8 224.4 772.0 In FY 2008 MCAT s annual operating budget for operating costs was about $9.6 million, compared to about $21.7 million for SCAT. Sarasota County spends almost $25 more per capita on transit operations, which is reflected in more service hours and routes. The two counties have relatively comparable populations. 145
Financial Resources Final Potential New Local Revenue Sources Given the above-stated volatility of gas prices and long term revenue tied to fuel consumption, initiatives are currently underway at the federal and state levels to re-evaluate fuel tax revenues, and consider alternatives to consumption-based taxes. Mobility Fees With the passage of Senate Bill 360 (2009-096, Laws of Florida), mobility fees may be another source of potential local revenue. These revenues are above and beyond credits granted for impact fees or proportionate fair share payments, and would likely be based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or some other measure with at least an indirect association to urban sprawl. A recent report to the Legislature by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) recommends that mobility fees be implemented in the state at a countywide level, but there is no indication whether the Legislature will act on the report. SB 360 requires local governments that are exempt from state concurrency review as a Designated Urban Land Area (DULA) have a mobility plan and funding strategy in place by July 2011. While SB 360 was recently declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court, that decision has been appealed and its ultimate fate is unknown at this time. There are indications that the primary sponsors in the Legislature will amend the language to remove constitutional objections. It is most likely that mobility fees would like replace existing impact fees rather than apply a new fee on top of an existing impact fee structure. The difference is that a mobility fee would provide a rational basis of funding for non-automobile capacity projects, potentially including transit operating costs, as well as bicycle, pedestrian, auto and related mobility projects. County-wide Discretionary Sales Surtax Sarasota County currently imposes an additional 1.0 percent sales tax on goods and services, above the six percent standard sales tax, as a revenue stream for local government infrastructure. Fees collected may be used to finance, plan, and construct infrastructure, which includes transportation infrastructure (and now also land purchases for affordable housing). It may also be used to purchase land for public recreation, conservation, or protection of natural resources. The tax is effective until December 31, 2024. Sarasota County issued revenue bonds in 2008 supported by the infrastructure surtax in the amount of $143.89 million. Manatee County currently does not impose a discretionary surtax for infrastructure, although it has in the past. Sarasota County is eligible for a new discretionary sales surtax of either 0.5 or 1.0 percent (but not higher) after December 31, 2024, when the current surtax expires. Manatee County is eligible at any 146
Financial Resources Final time since it currently does not impose a tax. In order to levy the additional surtax, an ordinance must be enacted by the County Commission and approved by voters in a countywide referendum. Projection estimates for this surtax, both at 0.5 percent and 1.0 percent, were calculated based on the average of actual surtax revenues that would have been collected in each county from 2004-2008 at the two tax rates, based on figures provided by the Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (LCIR). Like the methodology for the local option fuel taxes, the collected tax receipts were distributed to each unit of local government in each county according to the standard allocation formula used by the DOR. Each county also has the option to set a different allocation formula with its municipalities through an interlocal agreement, which Sarasota County currently has in place that distributes part of the revenue from its existing surtax to the Sarasota County School Board. Charter County Transportation System Surtax The State of Florida authorizes Charter Counties to levy up to an additional one percent surtax specifically for transportation purposes. Only two counties currently employ this surtax, and then only at 0.5 percent each. Sarasota County is a Charter County and thus eligible for the surtax, but Manatee County is not. Legislation was approved in 2010 that allows Manatee and other non-charter counties to impose the surtax, provided they are part of a regional transportation authority, such as the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority, which covers both Manatee and Sarasota Counties. For illustration purposes only, the analysis for the Sarasota/Manatee MPO LRTP used the maximum available surtax (one percent). Unlike the discretionary sales surtax described above, this tax is independent of the cap on optional taxes, outlined in Section 212.055(1), F.S. The Charter County Transportation System surtax is subject to a charter amendment approved by a majority vote of the county s electorate. Generally, the tax receipts are used for the development, construction, operation, and maintenance of fixed guideway rapid transit systems, bus systems, and roads and bridges. Calculations for revenue projections were based on the average of actual surtax revenues that would have been collected in each county from 2004-2008 at a 1.0 percent tax rate, based on figures provided by the LCIR, with no distributive percentages to other units of local government within the County. The average per capita revenue amount was then applied to the county population projections and adjusted for inflation. If implemented, a Charter County or Regional Transportation surtax would likely be used to augment and replace general ad valorem tax revenues that are currently used for transit. Therefore, the net amount of new revenue that would be available for transit may be less than the full amount of the surtax collected, since it would be replacing some existing revenues that are currently used for transit. This revenue source has not been used to develop the financially feasible LRTP, per direction from 147
Financial Resources Final the MPO. Rather, the projections are used to illustrate potential public transportation improvements that could be funded if such an alternative local transportation funding source is approved sometime in the future. Table 24: Potential New Local Revenue Sources (in millions, YOE) REVENUE SOURCES FY 2014-2015 SUBTOTAL FY 2016-2020 SUBTOTAL FY 2021-2025 SUBTOTAL FY 2026-2030 SUBTOTAL FY 2031-2035 SUBTOTAL 22 YEAR TOTAL Discretionary Sales Surtax = 0.5% for Infrastructure* Manatee County 56.5 165.7 207.7 258.6 323.9 1,012.5 Sarasota County 0.0 0.0 70.6 406.6 510.1 987.3 TOTAL 56.5 165.7 278.3 665.1 834.1 1,999.7 Discretionary Sales Surtax = 1% for Infrastructure* Manatee County 113.0 331.5 415.4 517.1 647.9 2,024.9 Sarasota County 0.0 0.0 141.1 813.2 1,020.3 1,974.5 TOTAL 113.0 331.5 556.5 1,330.3 1,668.2 3,999.5 Charter County Transportation System Surtax (Assumes 1%) Manatee County 114.4 337.0 424.9 531.4 669.2 2,077.0 Sarasota County 162.0 479.1 605.1 759.0 944.6 2,949.8 TOTAL 276.4 816.1 1,030.0 1,290.5 1,613.8 5,026.7 * Sarasota County cannot impose a new surtax until 2025 Includes revenue to all local governments Assumes legislative enabling for Manatee County 148
Financial Resources Final Other Local Sources Another source of locally generated funds is municipal service taxing (or benefit) units (MSTU). These sources represent direct revenues to fund infrastructure for identified projects within a specified area, potentially covering both capital and operations/maintenance costs. No revenues from MSTUs or MSBUs are included in the projections provided in this analysis. MSTU revenues may be included at a later time as projects are identified as part of the Financially Feasible element of the LRTP. Local funding also may be generated through vehicle tolls that might be contemplated on I-75 for special use or managed High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, or on a new bridge crossing the Manatee River between I-75 and the existing DeSoto and Green Bridges that serve US 41/301 and US 41 Business, respectively. Other local revenue sources available for transportation improvements or maintenance and operations activities include grants, proportionate fair share contributions and other types of developer mitigation such as outright contributions of right-of-way or project construction, ad valorem or general revenues, and tax increment financing from Community Redevelopment Area sources. In the 2030 LRTP, committed developer contributions formed a large component of the adopted financially feasible plan. The current climate of reduced local revenues and postponed or abandoned development plans makes forecasting the availability of these resources difficult; these resources are already being tapped to their maximums. As such, these sources are not included in the projections at this time. Developer commitments and similar variable local sources have been assumed for selected Needs Plan projects as part of developing the financially feasible 2035 LRTP. 149
2035 Transportation Plan Final 2035 Transportation Plan Every five years the Sarasota/Manatee MPO adopts a 25-year Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) that guides the use of federal and state transportation funds to meet the mobility needs of the two-county region. The LRTP serves as the basis for the MPO s five year Transportation Improvement Program and the Florida Department of Transportation s five year work program, as well as development of the MPO s annual project priority list. The LRTP is the time for the MPO to examine the need for key long-term transportation projects and strategic policy issues that affect mobility and accessibility. The 2035 LRTP is scheduled for adoption by the MPO at its meeting on December 13, 2010, to comply with federal funding requirements. The LRTP must be financially constrained, meaning that transportation projects included in the adopted plan must be financially feasible, with their estimated costs matching projected revenues that the MPO receives through 2035. As the preceding chapter demonstrated, the projected metropolitan area revenues from federal and state sources that are available to the MPO for transportation projects equal about $738 million over the next 25 years. Local transportation funding sources, primarily in the form of impact fees from new development, are projected to equal about $1.1 billion through 2035. The list of transportation project needs for 2035 that was approved by the MPO in June 2010 equates to roughly $6.1 billion in costs, escalated from 2010 dollars to an estimated Year of Expenditure. Putting projects by phase in Year of Expenditure is a new requirement for the 2035 LRTP. The 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan reflects a balanced and integrated approach to enhancing and augmenting multimodal mobility and accessibility throughout the region. This is accomplished through a renewed focus on urban revitalization of the US 41/Tamiami Trail scenic highway corridor through both counties, increasing network connectivity through a complete streets approach, and regional connections to the Tampa/St. Petersburg area to the north, Charlotte County to the south and freight connections to the interstate highway system. Key investments include a mix of corridor improvement projects to enhance network efficiency and multimodal mobility. There is very limited funding to construct significant capacity expansions, so the key strategies in the plan focus on optimizing the performance and safety of existing facilities, preserving the capacity of the existing system, reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) through integrated land use and transportation strategies, creating and supporting existing markets for transit, and enabling more bicycling and walking through roadway retrofits and expansion of non-auto facilities. The starting point for development of the 2035 LRTP entailed the creation of goals, objectives and performance measures to guide definition of a 2035 Needs Plan and identification of financially feasible 150
2035 Transportation Plan Final transportation projects. Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Benchmarks The LRTP goals, objectives, performance measures and benchmarks provide the framework that guides the MPO in the process of achieving its mission through plans, programs, and project prioritization. Goals describe future desired outcomes. Objectives define the actions necessary to move the MPO closer to achieving its goals. The objectives include clearly articulated measures and quantifiable benchmarks that define the standards by which progress toward the goals will be evaluated. The framework is reviewed and refined during each update of the LRTP, and evolves over time to reflect changes in socio-economic conditions, policies, directives, growth patterns, and technology at local, regional, state and federal levels. The framework reflects the The Sarasota/Manatee region will achieve and sustain a safe and effective multimodal transportation network that strengthens the economy, improves longterm community livability, reduces energy demand and its effect on climate change, and supports wise land use decisions and redevelopment in appropriate areas. MPO s ongoing in coordination with local, regional and statewide planning priorities as identified in local plans and state priorities such as the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), and Highway Safety Plan. For example, recent and current planning initiatives, including the 2035 LRTP, reflect the changing focus of the Sarasota/Manatee MPO to place a greater emphasis on the efficiency and accessibility of the entire transportation system (not just roads) and on congestion management solutions that rely less heavily on costly capacity expansions. For the 2035 LRTP, the MPO has developed performance-based measures and targets to evaluate progress not only during each LRTP update cycle, but every year as part of the ongoing Congestion Management Process. 2035 LRTP Goals and Objectives The following list presents the overall goals and objectives for the 2035 LRTP. The measures and targets associated with the goals and objectives are summarized in the individual elements of the plan as described in 2035 Transportation Plan section. 151
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 25: 2035 LRTP Goals and Objectives GOAL 1.0 IMPROVE MULTIMODAL MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY ACROSS THE REGION Objective 1.1 Maintain and improve the level of service of roadways included on the Strategic Intermodal System and Joint Regional Multimodal Transportation System for Charlotte, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties. Objective 1.2 Improve quality of service and connectivity for all transportation modes, properly balancing roadway travel needs for autos with those of transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Objective 1.3 Promote non-motorized modes and transit use for all travel purposes by incorporating a complete streets policy and context sensitive design into the development of transportation facilities and corridors. Objective 1.4 Increase street connectivity and promote proper spacing of through roadways to balance transportation demand and preserve mobility of regionally significant facilities. Objective 1.5 Expand multimodal mobility, connectivity, and access to the region s key destinations and activity centers, especially the downtown business districts, primary commercial corridors, and designated redevelopment areas. Objective 1.6 Increase transit attractiveness and competitiveness in congested or constrained corridors through reduced travel times, increased frequency and provision of transit infrastructure that expands available options. Objective 1.7 Establish and strengthen regional transit connections between public transportation providers and logical origins and destinations in adjacent counties, in order to create a seamless transit system connecting both counties and linking with the Tampa Bay region. Objective 1.8 Extend the coverage of the public transportation system to areas with supportive land use patterns and population or employment characteristics. Objective 1.9 Improve inter- and intra-county access to destinations for people who are transportation disadvantaged. Objective 1.10 Create an interconnected regional network of on-road bicycle facilities and/or trails that link existing and emerging community focal points. Objective 1.11 Increase use of vanpools and carpools to improve regional mobility and manage demand on congested and constrained corridors. GOAL 2.0 COORDINATE LAND USE, PROMOTE MULTIMODAL SITE DESIGN, AND MINIMIZE IMPACTS Objective 2.1 Support, strengthen, and create multimodal walkable centers that serve as attractive community focal points and support all modes of travel through principles of design, density and diversity of the built environment. Objective 2.2 Encourage redevelopment of established corridors, centers, and neighborhoods to reduce sprawl, expand jobs-housing choices, support transit service and improve pedestrian safety and accessibility. 152
2035 Transportation Plan Final Objective 2.3 Promote transit-friendly or transit-ready design in new developments. Objective 2.4 Link state and federal transportation funding with local policies and/or land development activities that demonstrate effective multimodal planning. Objective 2.5 Preserve or enhance agricultural and open space, and minimize adverse impacts of transportation capital projects on natural, cultural and human resources. Objective 2.6 Protect the historic character of established communities by minimizing transportation impacts and employing context sensitive design of transportation facilities when needed. Objective 2.7 Minimize adverse impacts of transportation on existing neighborhoods caused by cut-through traffic, noise or right-of-way needs. Objective 2.8 Provide for wildlife corridors in the design and, if practical, the redesign of transportation facilities to avoid and minimize disruption of habitat, reduce wildlife collisions, and ensure wildlife access to food, water and shelter. Objective 2.9 Establish a right-of-way protection plan for future rail and other mass transit and future road improvements. GOAL 3.0 EXPAND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION, AND IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH Objective 3.1 Coordinate transportation planning with other state and local agencies, including those responsible for air quality, energy, environment, housing, and public health. Objective 3.2 Integrate greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies and technologies into the planning process through coordinated land use policies, public transportation facilities, travel demand management, system operations, and other efforts that are shown to be effective. Objective 3.3 Inventory and monitor transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions to measure policy outcomes, using appropriate tools and methodologies. Objective 3.4 Develop energy efficient transportation solutions that make use of new energy technologies, infrastructure and policies to support improved public health, low impact development, use of low speed vehicles, and alternative fuel sources. Objective 3.5 Improve public health and air quality by retrofitting roadways to encourage increased walking and bicycling activity for all trip purposes. Objective 3.6 Reduce non-point source pollution and impervious surface areas by encouraging innovative ways of handling stormwater runoff from roadways and other transportation facilities. GOAL 4.0 SUPPORT ECONOMIC VITALITY AND ENSURE CONTINUED AND ENHANCED PARTICIPATION IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY 153
2035 Transportation Plan Final Objective 4.1 Strengthen regional access to the region s economic engines, including Port Manatee, Sarasota- Bradenton International Airport, the central business districts, economic energy zones and other major employment centers to support and sustain job creation. Objective 4.2 Maintain and improve safe, secure, and efficient access to regional and statewide passenger and freight intermodal hubs, particularly through measures that give priority to regional travel on I-75 and I-275. Objective 4.3 Support the maintenance and expansion of intermodal freight facilities that provide for the regional, national, and international shipments of goods and materials in cooperation with sea ports, airports, railroads, shippers and carriers in the metropolitan area. Objective 4.4 Enhance multimodal connectivity of major commercial and industrial centers of the metropolitan area to support their long-term economic viability. Objective 4.5 Improve travel and operating efficiency for intermodal and economic priority corridors through Intelligent Transportation Systems that help reduce delays and respond to emergencies. Objective 4.6 Improve the multimodal mobility of tourists and visitors through improvements in access to key destinations. GOAL 5.0 ENHANCE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS Objective 5.1 Protect roadway capacity, optimize operating efficiency, enhance safety of transportation facilities and reduce delays through the application of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), system management and demand management strategies. Objective 5.2 Consider all mobility options and operational strategies in congested corridors before adding capacity for general purpose lanes or building new facilities. Objective 5.3 Improve operational efficiency of the transportation system through coordinated regional planning and project development. Objective 5.4 Enhance intergovernmental coordination and joint planning to ensure efficient use of resources and protect transportation investments. GOAL 6.0 ENSURE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Objective 6.1 Plan to develop and maintain a financially feasible transportation system that meets the future needs of the Sarasota/Manatee area. Objective 6.2 Ensure that existing and future financial resources are realistic, reliable and equitable. Objective 6.3 Promote a balanced transportation system through investment in improvements across modes. Objective 6.4 Make effective use of public-private partnerships, where feasible and in the public interest, to improve transportation connectivity and capacity in regionally significant corridors while responsibly managing public financial resources. 154
2035 Transportation Plan Final GOAL 7.0 INVOLVE THE PUBLIC IN TRANSPORTATION DECISION-MAKING Objective 7.1 Provide early and continuing opportunities for greater public understanding and comment on transportation plans, projects and programs. Objective 7.2 Consider all public input in the Sarasota/Manatee transportation planning process. Objective 7.3 Take appropriate steps to involve the entire community, including those traditionally underserved by the transportation planning process, in the development of plans, projects and programs. Objective 7.4 Engage commercial and industrial business stakeholders in the planning process to better identify and address their transportation issues and challenges. Objective 7.5 Allow for timely public review and comment at key decision points in the transportation planning and project development process. GOAL 8.0 INCREASE SAFETY IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Objective 8.1 Create and maintain a transportation system that respects and provides personal safety to all of its users, in all modes and at all facilities. Objective 8.2 Consistent with Florida s Strategic Highway Safety Plan, ensure the safe and secure accommodation of motorized and non-motorized traffic on area roadways to reduce crash rates and protect the safety of emergency responders and roadway workers within the right-of-way. Objective 8.3 Improve safety, mobility, and accessibility for vulnerable road users, particularly along roadways that provide connectivity to and through downtown areas and other redevelopment districts. Objective 8.4 Develop strategies and techniques, such as access management and truck route designation, to direct commercial vehicles to interstates and other major highways. Objective 8.5 Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety through education, enforcement, engineering (such as intersection design, visibility, lighting, and provision of accessible facilities) and evaluation. Objective 8.6 Support ongoing development of the ITS infrastructure that supports emergency service providers in preventing and or reducing incidents and mitigating the effects afterwards. Objective 8.7 Support the efforts and recommendations of the Traffic Incident Management System (TIMS) in the Sarasota-Manatee region. GOAL 9.0 INCREASE SECURITY AND RESILIENCE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Objective 9.1 Maintain and improve operating conditions on emergency evacuation routes, and enhance emergency access to I-75 and other regional facilities. Objective 9.2 Increase the ability of the transportation network to accommodate variable and unexpected conditions without catastrophic failure. 155
2035 Transportation Plan Final Objective 9.3 Compile existing plans and protocols into a transportation security plan that protects lives and coordinates the use of resources. Objective 9.4 Increase personal security of users by implementing appropriate design strategies, such as improved lighting and visibility measures, at appropriate locations such as transit stops and intermodal facilities where people are waiting. Objective 9.5 Review and update the Continuity of Operations Plan on a regular basis to ensure the continuity of essential office functions if a major event/emergency/disaster occurs. Objective 9.6 Support development of alternative fuel sources and infrastructure to provide continuing transportation services in the event of scarcity. Objective 9.7 Coordinate with appropriate agencies to protect the critical transportation infrastructure against disaster by identifying vulnerable assets and prevention strategies and planning for recovery and redevelopment after disaster (in coordination with the Local Mitigation Strategy). Transportation Demand Management Due to the constrained nature of the transportation network in the Sarasota/Manatee region and pending air quality issues that may arise as a result of new federal regulations, the MPO recognizes the need to incorporate regional efforts to reduce vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and emissions through transportation demand management (TDM) programs. This regional demand management strategy identifies policies that local governments within the region should consider implementing in order to provide transportation options and incentives for the traveling public. TDM encompasses a wide range of activities that promote the use of transportation options (to Single Occupant Vehicle travel) such as carpooling/vanpooling, public transit, bicycling, walking, and telework, through incentives such as emergency ride home, tax savings, commuting allowances, and prizes, with the ultimate goals of reducing VMT, emissions, congestion, saving money (both for the employer and the commuter), and increased productivity. Most traditional TDM programs have focused on the work trip; however, because only about 20 percent of travel consists of work trips, it is important to consider ways to promote implementation of TDM measures for other trips as well. The adopted goals and objectives listed above specifically mention TDM in two objectives (Objective 1.11 calls for increased carpooling/vanpooling, and Objective 3.2 identifies TDM as a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions), and a number of other objectives promote decisions that would increase the success of TDM programs. While these policies, such as those calling for increased network connectivity, compact development, and transportation options that would support TDM and VMT reductions, provide general guidance for the Sarasota/Manatee MPO, the more specific policies below are helpful to further clarify the MPO s role in furthering TDM efforts in the region. 156
2035 Transportation Plan Final TDM Policy 1: The MPO shall work with local governments, transportation demand management (TDM) agencies and FDOT to develop vehicle trip (VT) reduction and vehicle miles of travel (VMT) reduction goals and monitor progress in achieving those goals through the MPO s Congestion Management Process. TDM Policy 2: The MPO shall assist and encourage the efforts of FDOT s Commuter Services program for Southwest Florida by providing technical support and by participating in events (such as Commuter Choices Week) and other activities that promote TDM. TDM Policy 3: The MPO shall work with transportation agencies and local governments to encourage non-work trips to be made at times other than peak periods to assist in the reduction of traffic congestion during those periods. TDM Policy 4: The MPO shall work with transportation agencies and local governments to improve the quality and availability of public transportation services within the Sarasota/Manatee region and connecting to the north and south for both work and non-work travel. TDM Policy 5: The MPO shall encourage local governments to adopt integrated land use and transportation policies that promote compact development patterns and increase the availability of transportation choices within the Sarasota/Manatee region. TDM Policy 6: The MPO shall work with transportation related agencies and local governments to encourage, promote, and support employer participation in the Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefit allowed under the federal IRS Code to provide tax deductible transportation (commuting) benefits to their employees. TDM Policy 7: The MPO shall work with local governments, TDM agencies, employers and developers to encourage and implement effective parking management strategies, including preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, shared use parking, variable parking pricing and park and ride lots. TDM Policy 8: The MPO shall encourage opportunities for advancement in telecommunications and other technologies and their impacts on travel behavior to identify other means for meeting some of the transportation needs of County residents and businesses. 157
2035 Transportation Plan Final Prioritization of Needs Plan Projects Transportation needs in the Sarasota/Manatee MPO region were evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively to maximize the mobility of the regional network. Consistent with the goals and objectives defined above, each Needs Plan project was given a numeric value based on the degree to which it met the criteria identified in the table below. Table 26: Prioritization of Needs Plan Projects CRITERIA Is the project on or parallel to an existing or future congested roadway? Does the project extend existing transit service to serve areas meeting minimum population & employment density thresholds? (Average of 9 du/acre or 12 employees per acre using 2035 data) Does the project connect or extend a currently funded transportation project? Does the project connect two or more collector or arterial roads? Does the project increase frequency of transit service to less than 30 minutes or expand operating hours? V/C is 1.2 or more = 20 V/C is 1.05 to 1.2 = 15 V/C is.80 to 1.05 = 10 POINTS Transit service = 15 Park-and-ride connection = 5 Roadway project to enable future transit service = 5 Extends a funded project to a logical terminus = 20 Connects to a funded project = 10 Both roads are congested = 20 One road is congested = 10 Neither road is congested = 5 (Congestion V/C => 1.05) Both = 25 One = 20 While the evaluation criteria used for Long Range Transportation Plan projects has future congestion and the completion of MPO priority projects as important factors in determining future priority needs, this Long Range Transportation Plan update has placed an emphasis on transit expansion and network connectivity for consideration in project prioritization. The evaluation criteria results were used as an initial screening to help differentiate among potentially competing projects. The financial feasibility of the Needs Plan projects was weighed against estimated project cost, as well as purpose and need, before a recommendation was developed for the complete financially feasible list. Against the backdrop of those goals and objectives, the most challenging aspect of this Long Range Transportation Plan was in defining a financially feasible framework to achieve the vision for the area s transportation network. Development of the financially feasible plan required a number of trade-offs and matching of funding sources to ensure that a coherent and logical set of transportation projects could be funded within the planning horizon for a more interconnected system. The 158
2035 Transportation Plan Final following section describes the development of the financially feasible plan. 2035 Financially Feasible Plan Development of the 2035 Sarasota/Manatee Financially Feasible Long Range Transportation Plan entailed an iterative review process involving the public, the project Steering Committee, the MPO s Citizens and Technical Advisory Committees, and the MPO Board in a workshop session. The process started prior to adoption of the Needs Plan in June 2010, with a public workshop at which participants helped to identify priority projects that should receive funding over other potential transportation projects. As the costs were developed for the Needs Plan projects, the Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Committee members reviewed cost assumptions, and provided feedback on project funding characteristics, such as whether right-of-way had been acquired or negotiated through development review, and whether a local cost had recently been developed. In some cases, the local governments provided cost estimates for projects. Once an initial set of project costs was developed, the Steering Committee and MPO advisory committees reviewed a ranking of projects using selected performance measures developed in support of the goals and objectives. Each project was scored on scale from 0 to 100 and presented to the committees for review and discussion. This provided a basis for developing funding options for the 2035 financially constrained plan. In light of the very high projected Needs Plan costs and constraints on available funding for transportation projects within the two counties, it was important to develop optional approaches for achieving a financially feasible plan. There are inherent trade-offs over competing Needs Plan projects, such as whether to follow long-established priorities that consume most of the projected available revenue, or find ways to fund emerging new issues of importance to the MPO and many of its local government members such as redeveloping the US 41 corridor for improved safety, multimodal mobility and accessibility, expanding transit service and developing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network. For instance, if the MPO chooses to fund its adopted transportation project priorities solely with anticipated state and federal revenue sources, it will take an estimated 61 years to complete construction for 17 priority projects. In light of these competing needs, the available funding presents a serious challenge in creating a workable Long Range Transportation Plan. The planned BRT network is a significant step for Sarasota County and the MPO to improve transit service in the region. Sarasota County submitted an $80 million Small Starts funding application in 2010 to the Federal Transit Administration for engineering, right-of-way and construction of a line running from south of downtown Sarasota to the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport area. Also in 2010, the Florida Department of Transportation, in coordination with the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority, initiated work on an Alternatives Analysis for the BRT in both Manatee County and Sarasota County, covering potential service to the Charlotte County line. If the 159
2035 Transportation Plan Final Small Starts application is approved, the BRT would be financially feasible based on a 20 percent local match commitment by Sarasota County, and should be operational by 2025. However, the BRT is not currently one of the MPO s adopted priority projects, and this grant application cannot be used as a basis for financial feasibility. Demonstrating financial feasibility of the BRT initial operating segment would require some re-allocation of state/federal funds away from current priorities. This is one example of the inherent challenge of defining a financially feasible LRTP given competing demands for limited resources. Thus, in developing a draft financially feasible plan for the MPO s work session prior to a public hearing to adopt the plan, MPO staff presented two optional funding strategies intended to give the MPO Board and its advisory committees significant policy choices for addressing the area s increasing diverse mobility and accessibility needs. The two options represented alternative approaches to achieving a financially feasible plan that broadened the base of funding and accomplish more projects that under a conventional approach. They are described in the next two sections. Financially Feasible Strategy Option 1 This funding strategy, a conventional business as usual plan, attempted to fund the MPO s currently adopted transportation project priorities primarily using projected available revenue from state and federal sources. Separate tables were developed for Sarasota and Manatee County, using each county s share of state/federal funds (non-sis Other Arterial revenues and an equal split of TMA funds), transportation impact fees for both counties, and developer commitments. The premise of this option is to fund the MPO s adopted priorities first, as well as Manatee County s and Sarasota County s Thoroughfare Plan priorities. In Sarasota County, there is a projected surplus of nearly $200 million in transportation impact fee revenues that exceeds identified transportation projects in the MPO s adopted 2035 Needs Plan(with the largest surplus in South County, one of three impact fee districts defined by the County s impact fee ordinance). This additional revenue could go toward miscellaneous intersection improvements or projects to be defined in the future, and was not used to fund any of the MPO s adopted priority projects. Further, due to the uncertain nature of future funding for transit operations, there is no money allocated to bus service enhancements. 160
2035 Transportation Plan Final Financially Feasible Strategy Option 2 Using similar funding sources as Option 1, this strategy reallocated some available funding toward multimodal projects that support redevelopment and accessibility in the US 41 corridor, expansion of transit service in both counties, and the development of the planned Bus Rapid Transit system linking Bradenton with Sarasota. Several defined segments of the US 41 corridor were included as financially feasible through construction of medians, roundabouts, bicycle lanes and other features designed to reduce high traffic speeds and ease the ability of pedestrians, cyclists and transit users to access destinations along the corridor. In order to do this, the option shifted federal/state funding away from several projects, and entailed a greater match of projected transportation impact fee revenues for MPO adopted project priorities, and dropped a select few projects from the financially feasible list. For instance, several six lane widening projects were kept at four lanes, with operational improvements at intersections instead. In addition, projects like the southern segment of the Venice Bypass and widening of River Road in Sarasota County were assumed to be funded with impact fee revenues rather than state/federal sources. Similarly, the I-75/SR 681 interchange modification in Sarasota County was dropped from the financially feasible list in this scenario in light of potential future funding through the state s SIS funding source. Perhaps the greatest policy assumption under this option was the establishment in Manatee County of a new Regional Transportation System Surtax, as recently authorized by the Florida Legislature, which would go into effect by 2025 and generate sufficient funding to complete construction of the BRT, support its operations, as well as other transit service improvements to be determined for the final 10 years of the 2035 LRTP. A similar assumption was used for Sarasota County, replacing its existing Infrastructure Sales Tax with a new Charter County Transit Surtax also enabled through state law, beginning in 2025 when the existing sales tax and its transportation funding commitments expires. There was no adjustment in projected SIS financially feasible projects or projects funded with Enhancement funds in comparison with Option 1. In October 2010, the MPO Board held a workshop to discuss the two funding options and provide guidance to MPO staff on the development of the financially feasible plan. In general, the Board was uncomfortable with the use of transportation impact fees as a funding source for the MPO s priority projects, reflecting uncertainty with the economy and potential legislative changes that may limit the use of impact fees in the future. In general, there was Board consensus on the need for state/federal funds to fully fund the highest priority projects, and at least partially fund lower tier priorities. The Board was also reluctant to consider an alternative local funding source for transit improvements, preferring to address that issue at a future time. The Board asked MPO staff to conduct presentations and seek feedback from the various city and county elected boards on a draft financially feasible plan prior to a planned adoption hearing. 161
2035 Transportation Plan Final Adopted Financially Feasible Plan Based on direction from the Sarasota/Manatee MPO Board at its financially feasible plan workshop, the MPO staff developed an updated financially feasible list of transportation projects for inclusion in the MPO s 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. This new single list of financially feasible projects and funding strategy more closely follows Option 1, but still allocates substantial funding toward the US 41 multimodal corridor improvements and the planned Bus Rapid Transit network, and keeps the SR 681 interchange as a financially feasible project. This new list includes full funding for the northern and middle segments of the Venice Bypass using state/federal revenues, but changes the southern segment from a 6-lane widening project to a project involving reconstruction with intersection improvements. By funding the southern segment as an intersection project, this enables the Venice Bypass improvements to be completed earlier and at a much lower cost than previously assumed. All segments will be eligible for multimodal strategy treatments to help reduce automobile demand and improve safety through the corridor. This approach can be accomplished by using a combination of state/federal funds with some impact fee revenues and developer contributions for selected projects, such as portions of the River Road (Englewood Interstate Connector project) widening to four lanes and the SR 681 interchange. For instance, the southern section of River Road from SR 776 to US 41 would be fully funded from state/federal sources, reflecting its importance as an emergency evacuation route and addressing serious flooding issues. The northern segment from US 41 to I-75 would have partial state/federal funding matched with impact fee revenue, reflecting the development activity in the area. Similarly, there is partial state/federal funding of the SR 681 interchange improvements, with the balance of funding coming from developer contributions and impact fee revenues. There simply is not enough state/federal revenue to fully fund the Venice Bypass, River Road and SR 681 along with other needs elsewhere in Sarasota County by 2035 without some combination of local and state/federal revenue. A limited amount of funding roughly $70 million in each county over the 25 year period (mostly occurring after 2025 due to other priorities) is allocated to the US 41 corridor for right-of-way and construction for multimodal improvements in accessibility and mobility. Using flexible TMA funds, the financially feasible plan includes BRT funding up to construction. If Sarasota County receives the FTA Small Starts grant, then the money allocated to BRT in the financially feasible plan could shift to the US 41 corridor to better match estimated costs for needed urban corridor multimodal reconstruction projects, or to another project elsewhere in the County. Further discussion of potential alternative revenue sources for transit service expansion has been tabled and is not assumed in this LRTP, per direction from the MPO Board. However, there is a clear need for a dedicated local funding source for expansion of local and regional transit service, and both 162
2035 Transportation Plan Final Manatee and Sarasota Counties are legislatively enabled to adopt a sales tax with a voter referendum. Given the lack of funding in this plan for bus service expansion, this issue should be on the MPO's agenda for further discussion with the two counties regarding timing and other pertinent issues. Map 18 presents the 2035 Financially Feasible Long Range Transportation Plan. The plan reflects a balanced and integrated approach to enhancing and augmenting multimodal mobility and accessibility throughout the region, despite the limited funding available for transit service expansion at this time. Key investments include a mix of corridor improvement projects to enhance efficiency and multimodal mobility. In addition to key roadway projects designed to improve regional mobility, efficient movement of freight, and access to economic centers, the plan advances the Bus Rapid Transit system and revitalization of the US 41 corridor throughout both counties. There is very limited funding to construct significant capacity expansions, so the key strategies in the plan focus on optimizing the performance and safety of existing facilities, preserving the capacity of the existing system by reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), creating markets for transit, and providing a complete street network that allows for more bicycling and walking. 163
2035 Transportation Plan Final Map 18: 2035 Financially Feasible Plan Projects 164
2035 Transportation Plan Final Florida s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Table 26 shows transportation projects that are identified in the Florida Department of Transportation s 2035 Cost Feasible Strategic Intermodal System Plan. The funding in this program is only eligible for projects that are on designated SIS facilities, SIS Connectors and Emerging SIS corridors. The projects identified as unfunded in the table are eligible but have not yet been included in the state s SIS Cost Feasible Plan, which adopted in 2009, based on projected revenue through 2035. The unfunded projects were defined by FDOT in the development of the SIS Cost Feasible Plan, and subsequently were reviewed with Port Manatee and the project Steering Committee, and discussed as part of a freight focus group meeting to discuss development of the plan. 165
Table 27 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Financially Feasible List AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Total Cost (2035) PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE 1 I-75 Widen to six lanes Sumter Blvd to River Rd ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 138.7 CST CST CST ** $ 138.7 CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE 2 I-75 at Fruitvile Road Interchange upgrade ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 201.3 CST CST CST $ 201.3 CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE $ 9.2 PE 3 I-75 at SR 70 Interchange upgrade ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 58.5 ROW $ 67.7 CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE 4 Port Manatee Connector New limited access facility US 41 to I-75 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 9.0 $ 40.7 CST CST CST CST CST $ 31.7 BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE $ 16.9 5 I-75 at US 301 Interchange upgrade ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 16.9 CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE 6 I-75 at University Pkwy Interchange upgrade ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 83.0 CST $ 83.0 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX page 166
Table 27 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Financially Feasible List AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Total Cost (2035) 7 I-75 at SR 64 Interchange Upgrade PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST $ 62.8 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $ 8.0 PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW $ 7.7 ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST $ 65.8 BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW $ 34.9 ROW ROW CST CST CST CST $ 45.0 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $ 22.6 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $ 35.5 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX 8 I-75 at SR 72 (Clark Road) Interchange Upgrade $ 81.5 9 I-75 at Bee Ridge Road Interchange Upgrade 10 I-75 Widen to six lanes 11 I-75 Widen to six lanes ** project 1 $170.8 (- $32.1 advanced to 2013) = $138.7 South of Toledo Blade to Sumter Blvd. Charlotte / DeSoto County Line to South of Toledo Blvd YOE Total $ 149.1 $ - $ 382.6 $ 175.5 $ 123.4 $ 830.6 $ $ $ $ 62.8 79.9 22.6 35.5 page 167
Table 28 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Unfunded Needs AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) 12 - UNF I-75 13 - UNF I-75 14 - UNF I-75 15 - UNF I-75 Managed lanes Add four special use lanes Add two special use lanes Add two special use lanes Hillsborough County to Charlotte County Mocassion Wallow Rd to Manatee / Hillsbourugh County Line SR 64 / Manatee Ave to US 301 / 19th St SR-70 to SR-64 / Manatee Avenue Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ $ $ $ Total Cost (2035) 859.0 62.9 52.5 62.0 page 168
Table 28 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Unfunded Needs AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) 16 - UNF I-75 17 - UNF I-75 18 - UNF I-75 19 - UNF I-75 20 - UNF I-75 21 - UNF I-75 Add two special use lanes Add two special use lanes Add two special use lanes Modify Interchange Modify Interchange Modify Interchange SR 780 / Fruitville Rd to SR 70 Jacaranda Blvd to SR-780 / Fruitville Road Sumter Blvd to Jacaranda Blvd At Port Manatee Connector At Moccasin Wallow Rd Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ Total Cost (2035) At I-275 $ 91.1 $ $ $ $ 123.3 287.8 205.7 101.2 47.9 page 169
Table 28 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Unfunded Needs AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) 22 - UNF I-75 23 - UNF I-75 24 - UNF I-75 25 - UNF I-75 26 - UNF I-75 27 - UNF I-75 Modify Interchange Modify Interchange Modify Interchange Modify Interchange Modify Interchange Modify Interchange At SR 681 At Jacaranda Blvd at CR 777 / River Rd At Sumter Blvd At Toledo Blade Blvd Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ $ $ $ Total Cost (2035) At Laurel Rd $ 49.9 $ 105.5 49.9 49.9 49.9 49.9 page 170
Table 28 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Unfunded Needs AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Total Cost (2035) 28 - UNF I-75 29 - UNF SR-70 30 - UNF SR-70 New Interchange Widen to eight lanes At Yorkshire St East of I-75 to Lakewood Ranch Blvd Lorraine Rd to Widen to four CR 675 / lanes Waterbury Rd PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ $ $ 65.2 29.5 60.0 31 - UNF University Parkway 32 - UNF University Parkway Widen to six lanes Widen to six lanes 33 - UNF CSX Double track Honore Ave to 1-75 NB Ramp Airport Entrace to Old Bradenton Road Tampa to Palmetto PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ $ $ 16.9 4.8 5.3 page 171
Table 28 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Unfunded Needs AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Total Cost (2035) 34 - UNF CSX Double track 35 - UNF CSX 36 - UNF CSX Corridor Preservation / Right of Way New Passenger Service 37 - UNF Port Manatee Railyard 38 - UNF Port Manatee Railyard 39 - UNF Port Manatee Internal road Palmetto to Bradenton Extend parallel to south Dock Street CSX interchange holding Widen South Dock Street PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ $ $ $ $ $ 88.5 31.5 121.8 1.3 2.0 2.6 page 172
Table 28 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Unfunded Needs AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Total Cost (2035) 40 - UNF Port Manatee Internal rail 41 - UNF Port Manatee Internal rail 42 - UNF Port Manatee Internal rail 43 - UNF Port Manatee 44 - UNF Port Manatee 45 - UNF Port Manatee Dredging channel Dredging channel Dredging channel Northside rail extension Rail ladder truck / transfer yard Rail Bride - South Port Maintenance Dredging Dredging Berths 1 and 2 Dredging Berths 3 and 4 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.7 3.3 2.2 5.3 7.1 7.1 page 173
Table 28 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Unfunded Needs AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Total Cost (2035) 46 - UNF Port Manatee 47 - UNF Port Manatee 48 - UNF Port Manatee 49 - UNF Port Manatee 50 - UNF Port Manatee 51 - UNF Port Manatee Storage facilities Transfer improvement Transfer improvement Transfer improvement Storage facilities Storage facilities PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ $ $ $ $ $ 5.0 25.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 page 174
Table 28 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Unfunded Needs AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) 52 - UNF Port Manatee 54 - UNF Transit Corridor 55 - UNF Transit Corridor 56 - UNF 57 - UNF Sarasota / Brandenton International Sarasota / Brandenton International Storage facilities Phase 1: Bus rapid transit Phase 2: Short distance rail Access rail Contruct apron Sarasota to Brandenton Sarasota to Brandenton Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX 53 - UNF Port Manatee Docks $ 20.0 $ $ $ $ $ Total Cost (2035) 5.0 621.7 803.1 10.0 5.0 page 175
Table 28 Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 SIS Unfunded Needs AMENDED October 27, 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) 58 - UNF 59 - UNF 60 - UNF 61 - UNF 62 - UNF Sarasota / Brandenton International Sarasota / Brandenton International Sarasota / Brandenton International Sarasota / Brandenton International Sarasota / Brandenton International Extend taxiway Access rail Contruct apron Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ Total Cost (2035) Access rail $ 1.0 Access road $ 0.5 $ $ 2.5 20.4 5.0 Unfunded Total $ 4,294 page 176
2035 Transportation Plan Final Manatee County Projects As shown in Table 28, the financially feasible plan for Manatee County used state/federal Other Arterial funds to cover the cost of the highest priority regional projects, such as SR 64, US 301, the Port Encouragement Zone flyover project, the Advanced Traffic Management System and Intelligent Transportation System infrastructure on key regional corridors. In addition, there is $3 million allocated toward a US 301/41 feasibility/corridor study to examine ways to improve nearterm and longer-term capacity improvements from 13 th Avenue in Bradenton to 17 th Street in Palmetto. This would examine potential interchange modifications at US 301 and 10 th Street in Palmetto, as well as design options and operational strategies for other major intersections in the corridor. In addition, there is $5 million allocated toward a feasibility study of a new bridge crossing the Manatee River between I-75 and downtown Bradenton, as endorsed by both cities and the MPO in the Bradenton/Palmetto Downtown Mobility Study. The feasibility study should also address the potential ability to fund the bridge with toll revenues. It has been more than a decade since a new bridge crossing west of I-75 was studied, and recent traffic incidents on I-75, along with downtown redevelopment plans, have highlighted the need for this issue to be revisited and updated with new information and public participation. Table 29 identifies the use of state and federal TMA funds to advance the BRT system in Manatee County from the airport to Bradenton up to construction, with a significant portion of these funds allocated to multimodal reconstruction of the US 41 corridor. Enhancement funds are used to construct the Green Bridge modification defined in the Bradenton/Palmetto Downtown Mobility Study to create a shared use path across the bridge to connect the Riverwalk projects in both cities. As indicated in Table 30, two other key projects include the Rye Preserve Trail and a Rails-with-Trails project in north Manatee County. The remainder of Manatee County Enhancement funds is slated for sidewalk, bicycle and trails gaps countywide. In Table 31, local transportation impact fees and developer commitments are used to fund a significant amount of the County s projected needs. Major projects funded through these sources include the extension of 44 th Avenue across I-75 to Lakewood Ranch, the widening of 45 th Street and 53 rd Avenue, and widening of Moccasin Wallow Road. A host of other projects provide connectivity and access to support future development. 177
Sarasota / Manatee MPO 2035 Financially Feasible List (Manatee County) Amended January 27, 2014 Table 29: Manatee County Regional Projects (Federal / State - Other Arterial Funds) Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Total Cost (2035) 1 2 3 New Manatee River Bridge Feasibility / Corridor Study SR 64 (Manatee Ave) to US 301 1.7 $ 5.0 4 5 CMS funds ($1,000,000 CMS Boxed Funds Manatee County 0.0 $ 21.0 annually) US 301 Corridor Study Feasibility / Corridor Study 17th Street (Palmetto) to 13th Avenue E (Bradenton). 3.0 $ 3.0 15th St. E Advanced Transportation Management System Widen to three lanes (center turn lane and multimodal projects) Intelligent Transportation Systems Tallevast Rd to US 41 3.04 $ 6.3 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST $ 1.0 BOX $ 5.0 BOX $ 5.0 BOX $ 5.0 BOX $ 5.0 BOX PD&E $ 3.0 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E $ 5.0 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ 1.6 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $ 5.6 PE PE PE PE ROW ROW $ 3.8 ROW ROW ROW CST CST $ 24.2 CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $ 1.6 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ $ $ $ $ 21.0 3.0 5.0 35.2 1.6 page 178
Table 29 Manatee County Amended October 27 2014 Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Total Cost (2035) 6 US 301 Widen to four lanes CR 675 to Moccasin Wallow Rd. 1.21 7 Ellenton-Gillette Rd Widen to four lanes 69th St. to Buckeye Rd 3.3 $ 40.4 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 11.7 CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E $ 2.2 PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE $ 6.6 PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW $ 4.3 ROW ROW CST CST CST $ 57.6 CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E $ 1.9 PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE $ 5.8 PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW $ 6.2 ROW ROW CST CST CST CST $ 46.0 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $ 6.2 PE PE PE PE 8 EZ Flyover Grade separated interchange US 41 at Port Manatee Connector 1 $ 28.3 $ 59.9 9 Anna Maria Island Bridge Bridge Replacement SR 64 (Manatee Ave) from Sr 789 to Perico Bay Blvd. ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW ** CST CST CST CST ** CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ 16.2 $ $ 6.2 11.7 70.8 ** Currently unfunded and future need YOE Total Revenue $ 14.0 $ 36.1 $ 21.6 $ 73.1 $ 51.0 $ 189.6 $ 14.1 $ 43.5 $ 48.9 $ 52.7 $ 57.7 $ 216.9 Balance $ 0.1 $ 7.5 $ 34.9 $ 14.4 $ 21.1 $ 27.3 Page 179
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 30: Manatee County Regional Projects (Federal / State - TMA Funds) PRIORITY DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: LENGTH (MILES) PROJECT COST (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 TOTAL COST (2035) 9 US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor Multimodal projects on US 41 in Manatee County 10 Manatee BRT BRT infrastructure Palmetto Segment - 17th Street to Green Bridge Bradenton Segment - PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E Green Bridge to 26th Ave PE PE PE PE PE Manatee Segment - 26th 12 $72.5 Ave to USF ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW BRT Segment - Palmetto to USF CST CST CST CST CST City of Bradenton to USF / University Pkwy 11 $131.8 BOX $12.5 BOX $15.0 BOX $20.0 BOX $25.0 BOX PD&E PD&E $4.1 PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE $14.1 PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW $28.5 ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $72.5 $46.7 YOE Total $ - $12.5 $19.1 $34.1 $53.5 $119.2 Revenue $9.6 $25.6 427.4 $28.3 $28.5 $119.3 Balance $9.6 $22.7 $30.9 $25.1 $0.0 $0.0 180
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 31: Manatee County Regional Projects (Federal / State - Enhancement Funds) PRIORITY DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: LENGTH (MILES) PROJECT COST (2010) 10 Green Bridge Trail Multiuse trail Bradenton to Palmetto $0.5 11 Rye Preserve Trail Multiuse trail 12 Rails with Trails Multiuse trail 13 Trails, Sidewalk gaps and bike lanes Fill gaps ($120 million need) Rye Preserve to Lake Manatee State Park Willow to Ellenton Trail with Rail $0.3 $0.6 Countywide $120.0 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $0.6 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $0.1 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E $0.1 PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $0.3 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E $0.1 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $0.1 PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $0.6 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $2.0 CST $3.0 CST $3.0 CST $3.0 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX TOTAL COST (2035) $0.6 $0.4 $0.8 $11.0 YOE Total $0.1 $3.6 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $12.4 Revenue $1.2 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $13.2 Balance $1.1 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.9 181
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 32: Manatee County - Transportation Impact Fee / Developer -Funded PROJECT # DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: LENGTH (MILES) PROJECT COST (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 TOTAL COST (2035) 14 45th St E. Widen to four lanes 53rd Ave E. to 44th Ave E. 1.0 $14.1 15 53rd Ave Widen to four lanes 43rd St W. to 75th St. W. 1.8 $22.4 16 63rd Ave E Widen to four lanes US 301 to 39th St E. 1.5 $18.6 17 27th St E Widen to four lanes 18 Honore Ave Widen to four lanes US 301 to SR 64 (Manatee Ave) Conestoga Place to Sandstone Ave 2.2 $30.8 1.5 $18.4 $0.7 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E $1.9 PE PE PE PE PE $0.4 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $14.9 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $1.0 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E $3.0 PE PE PE PE PE $1.3 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $23.1 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E $0.9 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $2.7 PE PE PE PE ROW ROW $1.6 ROW ROW ROW CST CST $22.5 CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ 1.3 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $4.1 PE PE PE PE ROW $5.3 ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST $34.4 CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E $0.9 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE $3.0 PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW $2.0 ROW ROW CST CST CST $26.2 CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $17.9 $28.4 $27.7 $45.1 $32.1 182
2035 Transportation Plan Final PROJECT # DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: LENGTH (MILES) PROJECT COST (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 TOTAL COST (2035) PD&E PD&E $6.9 PD&E PD&E PD&E 19 44th Ave E. 20 - Developer 21 - Developer 22 - Developer 23 - Developer 24 - Developer 44th Ave E Artisan Lakes Parkway New four lane road and bridge New four lane road New four lane road 45th St E to Lakewood Ranch Blvd Lakewood Ranch to Lorraine Rd Moccasin Wallow Rd to Buckeye Rd. 2.3 $99.4 2.5 $49.0 2.1 $43.4 Erie Rd Widen to four lanes US 301 to 69th St E. 3.3 $40.1 69th St E Widen to four lanes Erie Rd to US 41 4.2 $51.0 II Road / Sawgrass Rd New four lane road I-75 / Port Manatee Connector to Buckeye Rd 1.3 $24.0 PE PE PE $23.4 PE PE ROW ROW ROW $36.9 ROW ROW CST CST CST CST $132.8 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $200.0 $114.2 $100.3 $29.4 $113.7 $52.5 183
2035 Transportation Plan Final PROJECT # DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: LENGTH (MILES) PROJECT COST (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 TOTAL COST (2035) PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E 25 - Developer Moccasin Wallow Rd Widen to four lanes US 301 to US 41 7.1 $87.0 PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST $194.0 BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX YOE Total $9.6 $9.6 $51.9 $68.4 $88.4 $351.1 Revenue $20.5 $20.5 $60.4 $16.2 $95.3 $372.4 Balance $11.0 $11.0 $19.5 $27.3 $34.2 $21.4 Developer Funded $604.2 184
2035 Transportation Plan Final Sarasota County Projects As with Manatee County, the state/federal Other Arterials funding source is used to complete or contribute to the construction of major MPO priority projects, as identified in Table 32. The various segments of the US 41 Bypass through the City of Venice as defined in the financially feasible plan are fully funded by 2030. This funding source also fully funds the River Road widening from SR 776 to US 41, and partially funds the segment of River Road from US 41 to I-75 and the interchange improvements at SR 681 (matched with impact fees and developer contributions). As shown in Table 33, federal TMA funds are used to fund the BRT from south of downtown Sarasota to the airport up to construction, and to support multimodal strategies for the US 41 corridor throughout the County. As in Manatee County, an amount of these funds has been boxed, or set aside, for specific projects to be defined after further study and FDOT approval. As indicated previously, if the Federal Transit Administration funds the BRT Small Starts grant, the MPO may choose to amend the LRTP to re-allocate these funds to other priorities in Sarasota County. Table 34 shows the use of Enhancement funds for the extension of the Legacy Trail north into downtown Sarasota. The balance of projected revenues is used to complete gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network countywide. Table 35 shows projects funded through impact fee and developer contributions. These are used to cover the cost of remaining capacity needs in Sarasota County, except for I-75 and projects funded through other sources. The table shows that portions of River Road and the SR 681 interchange will use impact fees to cover a large share of the estimate project cost. Unlike Manatee County, the impact fee revenues must be spent primarily within the several districts where the fees are generated. The financially feasible plan does not allocate all projected impact fee revenues; many of these funds will be used for intersection modifications and other projects to be determined that are needed to increase capacity in the future. 185
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 33: Sarasota County Regional Projects (Federal / State - Other Arterial Funds) Project # Description Project From / To: 1 CMS Boxed Funds 2 US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor CMS funds ($1,000,000 annually) Multimodal projects on US 41 in Sarasota County Length (miles) Project Cost (2010) Total Cost (2035) PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE Sarasota County 0 $ 21.0 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 21.0 CST CST CST CST CST $ 1.0 BOX $ 5.0 BOX $ 5.0 BOX $ 5.0 BOX $ 5.0 BOX North Trail Segment - USF to 14th Street PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E Bayfront Segment - 14th Street to Mound Street PE PE PE PE PE South City Segment - Mound Street to Bee Ridge Road ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW Central County Segment - Bee Ridge to C. Sarasota Pkwy CST CST CST CST CST 39 $ 70.0 South County Segment - C. Sarasota Pkwy to Oscar Sherer $ 85.0 Venice Segment - Oscar Sherer to SR 776 North Port Segment - SR 776 to Charlotte Co. 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Sarasota BRT Segment - USF to Southgate Plaza BOX $ 5.0 BOX $ 35.0 BOX $ 35.0 BOX $ 10.0 BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE 3 ATMS Regional System ATMS system expansion Sarasota County 0 $ 5.0 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 6.4 CST $ 6.4 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE 4 US 41 Bypass (Venice North) Widen to six lanes Bird Day Drive to Albee Farm Road 0.5 $ 19.1 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 5.7 CST $ 5.7 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E 5 US 41 Bypass (Venice Middle) PE PE PE PE PE Widen to six lanes / Albee Farm Road to Gulf Coast Blvd 0.7 $ 9.0 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW Intersection Improvements $ 5.9 CST CST CST CST CST $ 5.9 BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E 6 US 41 Bypass (Venice South) PE PE PE PE PE Widen to six lanes / Gulf Coast Blvd to Center Road 2.4 $ 30.6 ROW $ 25.3 ROW ROW ROW ROW Intersection Improvements CST $ 12.3 CST CST CST CST $ 37.6 BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX 186
2035 Transportation Plan Final Project # Description Project From / To: Length (miles) PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE 7 River Road (EIC phase 1)* Widen to four lanes US 41 to Center Road 2.0 $ 26.5 ROW ROW ROW $ 3.6 ROW ROW $ 9.4 CST CST CST $ 5.9 CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE 8 River Road (EIC Phase 2)* Widen to four lanes Center Road to I-75 2.0 $ 10.9 ROW ROW $ 1.1 ROW ROW ROW $ 3.9 CST CST CST $ 2.8 CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE $ 2.4 PE PE PE 9 River Road (EIC Phase 3)** Widen to four lanes Winchester Blvd to US 41 5.0 $ 18.1 ROW ROW ROW $ 7.7 ROW ROW $ 37.3 CST CST CST CST $ 27.2 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E $ 0.2 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE $ 0.8 PE PE PE 10 River Road (EIC Phase 4)** Widen to four lanes SR 776 to S. River Road 1.0 $ 4.6 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 9.6 CST CST CST CST $ 8.6 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E $ 2.4 PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE $ 7.8 PE 11 I-75 / SR 681*** Convert to full interchange 1 $ 51.4 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW $ 19.3 CST CST CST CST $ 9.1 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX Project Cost (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 Total Cost (2035) * EIC phases 1 & 2 are 20% MPO-funded and 80% Impact Fee-funded ** EIC phases 3 & 4 are 80% MPO-funded and 20% Impact Fee-funded *** I-75 / SR 681 interchange is 10% federally-funded and 90% Impact Fee- and Developer-funded YOE Total Revenue Balance $ 6.9 $ 60.0 $ 44.3 $ 62.3 $ 67.7 $ 241.2 $ 16.7 $ 51.4 $ 57.9 $ 62.4 $ 68.3 $ 9.8 $ 1.2 $ 14.8 $ 14.9 $ 15.5 $ $ 256.7 15.5 187
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 34: Sarasota County Regional Projects (Federal / State - TMA Funds) PROJECT # DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: 2b US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor Multimodal projects on US 41 in Sarasota County LENGTH (MILES) PROJECT COST (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 North Trail Segment - USF to 14th Street Bayfront Segment - 14th Street PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E to Mound Street PE PE PE PE PE South City Segment - Mound Street to Bee Ridge Road ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW Central County Segment - Bee Ridge to C. Sarasota Pkwy CST CST CST CST CST 39 $72.5 South County Segment - C. Sarasota Pkwy to Oscar Scherer Venice Segment - Oscar Scherer to SR 776 North Port Segment - SR 776 to Charlotte Co. Sarasota BRT Segment - USF to Southgate Plaza BOX $12.5 BOX $15.0 BOX $20.0 BOX $25.0 BOX TOTAL COST (2035) $72.5 PD&E $3.1 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E 13 Sarasota BRT BRT Infrastructure USF / University Pkwy to Southgate Plaza 7.3 $76.0 PE $10.1 PE PE PE PE ROW ROW $17.5 ROW ROW ROW $30.7 CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX YOE Total $- $25.7 $32.5 $20.0 $25.0 $103.2 Revenue $9.6 $25.6 $27.4 $28.3 $28.5 $119.3 Balance $9.6 $9.5 $4.3 $12.6 $16.1 $16.1 188
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 35: Sarasota County Regional Projects (Federal / State - Enhancement Funds) PROJECT # DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: LENGTH (MILES) PROJECT COST (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 TOTAL COST (2035) PD&E $0.3 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E 14 Legacy Trail Northern Extension Multiuse trail Northern Terminus to Alderman Trail / Downtown $5.1 PE $0.8 PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST $5.1 CST CST CST $6.1 BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E 15 Trails, Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Fill gaps ($120 million est. need) Countywide $120.0 PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $1.0 CST CST $3.0 CST $3.0 CST $7.0 BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX YOE Total $- $2.0 $5.1 $3.0 $3.0 $13.1 Revenue $1.2 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $13.2 Balance $1.2 $2.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 189
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 36: Sarasota County - Transportation Impact Fee / Developer-Funded PROJECT # DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: LENGTH (MILES) PROJECT COST (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 TOTAL COST (2035) 16 ATMS 17 Bee Ridge Rd 18 US 41 19 Honore Ave Ext 20 US 41 7b River Road (EIC phase 1)* ITS infrastructure Widen to six lanes Widen to six lanes Widen to four lanes Widen to six lanes Widen to four lanes Countywide (170 signals) Cattleman Rd to Bond St Gulf Gate Dr to Central Sarasota Pkwy Laurel Rd to SR 681 Sumter Blvd to Charlotte County Line US 41 to Center Road 7.1 $10.0 1.8 $26.9 2.6 $38.8 3.4 $41.7 1.1 $15.8 2.0 $26.5 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $ 12.9 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $1.1 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $ 3.0 PE PE PE PE ROW $ 2.6 ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST $20.1 CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E $1.8 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $5.5 PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW $6.2 ROW ROW CST CST CST CST $63.3 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $1.9 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $6.1 PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST $59.4 CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $ 0.7 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E $2.1 PE PE PE PE PE $1.3 ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST $15.9 CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW $14.3 ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST $23.4 CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $12.9 $26.9 $76.8 $67.3 $20.0 $37.7 190
2035 Transportation Plan Final PROJECT # DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: LENGTH (MILES) PROJECT COST (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 TOTAL COST (2035) 8b 9a 10a 11b River Road (EIC Phase 2)* River Road (EIC Phase 3) River Road (EIC Phase 4) I-75 / SR 681** Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes Convert to full interchange Center Road to I- 75 Winchester Blvd to US 41 SR 776 to S. River Road 2.0 $10.9 5.0 $4.5 1.0 $1.2 1 $51.4 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW $4.5 ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST $11.1 CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE $0.6 PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW $1.9 ROW ROW CST CST CST CST $ 6.8 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E $0.1 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE $0.2 PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST $2.2 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST $81.5 CST $15.5 $9.3 $2.4 $81.5 21 - Developer Lakewood Ranch Blvd New four lane road Fruitville Road to University Pkwy 3.8 $65.0 BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $108.8 * EIC phases 1 & 2 are 20% MPO-funded and 80% Impact Fee-funded ** I-75 / SR 681 interchange is 10% federally-=funded and 90% Impact Fee- and Developerfunded YOE Total $7.1 $47.8 $39.7 $102.2 $153.7 $350.4 Revenue $28.5 $84.4 $106.6 $133.7 $166.4 $519.6 Balance $21.4 $57.9 $124.8 $156.5 $169.2 $169.2 Developer Funded 108.8 191
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 37: City of North Port - Transportation Impact Fee / Developer-Funded PROJECT # DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM / TO: LENGTH (MILES) PROJECT COST (2010) 2014-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 TOTAL COST (2035) 22 Price Blvd 23 Price Blvd 24 Price Blvd 25 26- Developer Price Blvd / Orlando Blvd Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes Sumter Blvd to Toledo Blade Blvd 3.2 $40.9 Biscayne Dr to Sumter Blvd 2.5 $32.0 Toledo Blade Blvd to Panacea Blvd 2.3 $30.0 Panacea Blvd to Veterans Blvd 4.5 $57.5 I-75 at Yorkshire St New interchange 0.0 $51.5 $ 1.8 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E $5.3 PE PE PE PE PE ROW $4.9 ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST $47.5 CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $1.4 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $4.5 PE PE PE PE ROW $3.8 ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST $43.7 CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E $1.4 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $4.1 PE PE PE PE ROW ROW $4.5 ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST $47.2 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E $2.7 PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE $8.0 PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW $11.2 ROW ROW CST CST CST CST $84.4 CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PD&E PE PE PE PE PE ROW ROW ROW ROW ROW CST CST CST CST CST BOX BOX BOX BOX BOX $59.4 $53.3 $57.2 $106.3 $103.2 YOE Total $8.4 $29.2 $52.0 $54.8 $131.7 $276.1 Revenue $11.6 $38.1 $54.1 $74.1 $98.7 $276.5 Balance $3.2 $12.1 $14.1 $33.4 $0.4 $0.4 Developer Funded $103.2 192
2035 Transportation Plan Final Financially Feasible Plan Summary Using the full array of projected available revenue and other sources for transportation funding through the year 2035, the Sarasota/Manatee MPO can achieve financial feasibility for 39 percent of its total identified transportation needs, exclusive of the SIS. That percentage is comparable to the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. It is important to note that this plan funds the MPO s adopted project priorities, in part due to a matching of state/federal and local funding sources. The major unfunded projects that are needed relate to transit service expansion projects in both counties, the new bridge in Manatee County, development-related impacts in north Manatee County, and completion of the US 41 multimodal projects as defined by area local governments. Figures 16 and 17 present bar charts illustrating the total projected revenues, estimated Needs Plan costs, and the amount of Financially Feasible Plan projects in each county. If the new Manatee River bridge is excluded (at an estimated cost of more than $700 million), the plan funds 70 percent of the regional highway needs. The chart indicates that a substantial portion of unfunded needs relate to transit expansion and non-regional roadway needs. Figure 16: Manatee County Plan Summary Figure 17: Sarasota County Plan Summary 193
2035 Transportation Plan Final Congestion Management System Element Linkage with the MPO s Congestion Management Process One of the important aspects of the comprehensive, continuing and coordinated metropolitan planning process under the SAFETEA-LU federal transportation legislative framework is the integration of the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan with the Congestion Management Process (CMP), which focuses on near term, lower cost strategies for mobility management and corridor or intersection congestion mitigation. The Sarasota/Manatee MPO has an established Congestion Management Process, which defines the data sources, tools and analysis methods to monitor congestion issues, trends and the effectiveness of strategies over time. One of the keys to an effective metropolitan planning process is to give information to decision-makers and advisory groups on the on-going operations of the transportation system, and reporting conditions and trends that may influence policy or project solutions in the future. Therefore, the linkage between the LRTP and CMP is an important one, in which the long range vision and project needs established through the LRTP can guide the development of the five year Transportation Improvement Program and annual priorities through the lens of the CMP. In that spirit, the Sarasota/Manatee MPO has developed several congestion management programs that will be continued with this LRTP, along with new approaches to improving mobility and accessibility in the short term. Congestion Management System Project Funding The Sarasota/Manatee MPO has established a program for setting aside boxed funds in both counties for lower cost, quick-start congestion management projects, such as intersection modifications and related operational and access improvements. The current program allocates up to $1 million annually to projects in each county that meet certain eligibility requirements, including having right-of-way issues resolved at the time of funding, and having a completed design. Cities and counties may submit applications to the MPO each year for funding through a competitive selection process. The 2035 Financially Feasible Plan continues to set aside funds for this program at similar funding levels. US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor As described elsewhere in this document, the 2035 LRTP establishes a funding program for projects that support improved multimodal accessibility and mobility within the US 41 corridor from 17 th Street in Palmetto to the Charlotte County line. There is roughly $70 million set aside in each county that would be allocated on a competitive basis in similar fashion to the MPO s exiting Congestion Management System process. However, rather than fund discrete projects like a 194
2035 Transportation Plan Final bicycle lane here or a roundabout there, the goal is to fund a package of mobility enhancement strategies for a defined segment that would directly relate to land use / redevelopment plans prepared and approved by a member local government. The key to the program is establishing a linkage along the Tamiami Trail (US 41) between land use and transportation strategies through urban design that improves walking, bicycling and transit accessibility conditions. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee The Sarasota/Manatee MPO has recently established a new committee to address and plan for bicycle and pedestrian facility and program improvements in the two counties. The MPO s bicycle and pedestrian program will address the Six E s of education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, equity and evaluation, and will function in complementary fashion to the Congestion Management System and US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor programs. The committee will address both long term and short term bicycle and pedestrian issues, consistent with the vision and direction of the MPO s Long Range Transportation Plan. Regional Advanced Traffic Management System The MPO, in partnership with area local governments and FDOT, has allocated funding using the Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) and other sources, including revenue from the Sunshine Skyway tolls, to develop a regional Transportation Management Center and deploy an Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) on the regionally significant corridors throughout both counties. This includes a fiber optic network, infrared cameras to monitor traffic conditions and traffic signal modifications to improve flow and respond more rapidly to incidents. This network is nearing completion for the regionally significant road network, but there remains several other major corridors where ATMS applications would be beneficial to overall traffic flow in the future. This ATMS is a critical part of the congestion management process, and provides a means of performance-based monitoring of transportation conditions over time. The key is to identify appropriate performance measures and benchmarks from vast amount of data to assess the effectiveness of the system and identify further strategies for improvement. 195
2035 Transportation Plan Final Ongoing Monitoring The MPO continues to consider the idea of preparing a biannual State of the System Report for monitoring of performance and feedback into the LRTP process and development of annual project priorities, which is consistent with performance-based planning to assess progress toward achieving desired goals. This monitoring should ensure Linkage with the State s Strategic Highway Safety Plan for safety issues, and with the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee to monitor regional mobility issues. The report would build upon and use data collected by various local agencies and departments to provide information to the MPO Board, its advisory committees and the public on transportation conditions and trends in the two counties. Safety Element The SAFETEA-LU mandates that MPOs develop a Safety Element as part of their Long Range Transportation Plans to provide planning guidance on ways to improve safety in all aspects of transportation mobility. This legislation recognizes safety as a separate planning factor, and it is indeed a crucial ongoing issue affecting all modes and users. Statistics bear this out. The Florida Department of Transportation s Safety Office developed the Strategic Highway Safety Plan to improve the safety of Florida s surface transportation system for residents and visitors through focusing funding and other resources strategically on those problem areas where the opportunity for improvement is greatest, as measured by reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. This Safety Element of the 2035 Sarasota/Manatee LRTP begins with a discussion of the policy framework provided by the State of Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) followed by an assessment of how Sarasota and Manatee Counties have fared in comparison with other areas of the state and country regarding safety, based on the priority areas in the SHSP. Results show that crash rates in the Sarasota/Manatee region are generally lower than the majority of other counties nationwide, but safety (based on crash rates) is still a major concern, especially for pedestrians. The second section identifies safety goals and objectives adopted by the MPO to guide how the agency intends to address safety in future years. The third section identifies the strategies the MPO will use to monitor safety indicators, allocate resources most effectively to priority safety projects and programs, and coordinate with various agencies to improve overall safety on the region s transportation network. 196
2035 Transportation Plan Final Safety Issues and Conditions FDOT s Strategic Highway Safety Plan provides a framework for addressing local safety issues and identifying funding sources for implementation. The State Office of Safety continually reviews statewide crash statistics. This agency has identified four types of emphasis areas on which to focus efforts and resources, based on an analysis of safety problems and current resource allocation in Florida: Aggressive Driving Intersection Crashes Vulnerable Road Users (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists) Figure 18 below outlines main objectives under each of the four emphasis areas in the Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Figure 18: Florida s Traffic Safety Target Areas As documented in the MPO s Congestion Management Process (CMP), both Manatee and Sarasota Counties compile information on crashes annually and calculate crash rates per mile as well as high crash locations. The May 2009 CMP update provides high crash locations for each county, as shown in Tables 37 and 38 below. The MPO s annual priority list for Congestion Management System funding is based on these crash analyses. 197
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 38: Crashed by Intersection Manatee County (2005-2007) Table 39: Crashes by Intersection Sarasota County (2004-2006) 198
2035 Transportation Plan Final Figure 19: Five Highest Crash Locations Manatee County (2007) Figure 20: Five Highest Crash Locations Sarasota County (2006) The Sarasota/Manatee MPO does not have a separate compilation of crash data that provides a complete and reliable source of information for tracking crashes in the entire region and relies on information provided by the counties. 199
2035 Transportation Plan Final National and Statewide Assessments In addition to the data collected and summarized by the counties, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) summarizes traffic fatality data nationally using a number of measures. Information from the most recent NHTSA reports is summarized in the maps and tables below. Generally, Sarasota and Manatee Counties compare favorably to other counties across the country in regards to the four emphasis areas identified by the State of Florida s Strategy Highway Safety Plan. The rankings place the two counties in the lower third of all US counties for overall fatal crash rates, and the middle to lower third for the other three target measures, except for pedestrian fatalities in Manatee County, which ranks in the upper third. Table 39 shows the ranking of crash rates in Sarasota and Manatee counties compared to nationwide rates. Table 40: Sarasota/Manatee Crash Rates Compared to all U.S. Counties FSHSP TARGET AREA NHTSA MEASURE PLACEMENT WITHIN RANKINGS OF ALL US COUNTIES MANATEE COUNTY SARASOTA COUNTY Overall safety Fatal crashes Lower third Lower third Aggressive driving Intersection crashes Vulnerable road users Lane departure crashes Fatalities in crashes involving speeding Lower third Lower third Fatalities in crashes involving intersections Lower third Middle third Motorcyclist fatalities Middle third Lower third Pedestrian fatalities Upper third Middle third Pedalcyclist fatalities Lower third Lower third Fatalities in crashes involving roadway departure Lower third Lower third 200
2035 Transportation Plan Final System Safety Objectives and Strategies Increasing safety in the transportation system in the Sarasota/Manatee region is one of the MPO s major goals for the LRTP. The key objectives to meet this goal are as follows: Create and maintain a transportation system that respects and provides personal safety to all of its users, in all modes and at all facilities. Consistent with Florida s Strategic Highway Safety Plan, ensure the safe and secure accommodation of motorized and non-motorized traffic on area roadways to reduce crash rates and protect the safety of emergency responders and roadway workers within the right-of-way. Improve safety, mobility, and accessibility for vulnerable road users, particularly along roadways that provide connectivity to and through downtown areas and other redevelopment districts. Develop strategies and techniques, such as access management and truck route designation, to direct commercial vehicles to interstates and other major highways. Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety through education, enforcement, engineering (such as intersection design, visibility, lighting, and provision of accessible facilities) and evaluation. Support ongoing development of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) infrastructure that supports emergency service providers in preventing and or reducing incidents and mitigating the effects afterwards. Support the efforts and recommendations of the Traffic Incident Management System (TIMS) in the Sarasota-Manatee region. These objectives are designed to help the MPO target its safety programs and its funding priorities. Performance measures and targets for each objective are identified below to enable the MPO to track progress on meeting these safety goals and objectives. They will be incorporated to guide MPO annual priorities and work programs, as well as future updates of the LRTP. System Safety Recommendations Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Targets The MPO will rely on the following performance measures and targets to evaluate progress towards achieving its system safety objectives. To ensure consistency of measurements over time, the MPO will being by setting a current baseline data point for each measurement. Once that baseline is established, the MPO will update the measures and track progress through its Congestion Management Process, and through updates to the LRTP. The MPO is considering producing a State of the System Report to document transportation conditions and trends for use in 201
2035 Transportation Plan Final transportation decision-making and evaluation of planning outcomes. System Safety Improvements With its ability to direct state and federal transportation funding, the MPO can directly influence how and where safety improvements are made in the two county area. The MPO sets aside a portion of its major improvement project funds each year for transportation system management and congestion management system projects, many of which are traffic operations and safety improvements. The MPO allocates $1 million per year in funding for these kind of strategies to each county for competitive award based on review by the Technical Advisory Committee. Localities and other agencies, including the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) and newly formed Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, work with the MPO to identify specific safety improvement needs, projects and programs for inclusion in the TIP. Improvements in tracking crash data will enhance the MPO s ability to assess and prioritize needed safety improvements. In addition, the 2035 LRTP reflects an increased emphasis on transforming existing roadways into multimodal corridors, especially in the US 41 Multimodal Emphasis Corridor. The objective for these corridors is to create complete streets, where walking, biking and riding transit are as convenient and safe as driving. Safety strategies are part and parcel of many complete street improvements, ranging from dedicated bike lanes and sidewalk/street buffers to access management strategies and improved pedestrian crossings. As part of the development of complete street improvement projects, the MPO and its partners will collect baseline data regarding safety issues and other travel information. This will allow for before-and-after comparisons of the benefits of complete street improvements. 202
2035 Transportation Plan Final SAFETY OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES Objective: Reduce crash rates and protect safety of emergency & roadway workers. Physical improvements (sidewalks, clearance zones, narrowing roadways, etc.) Education programs to make travelers more aware of safety risks and rules (defensive driving, sharing the road, slow down/move over, etc.). Education and enforcement programs to reduce risky behaviors (drunk driving, seat belt use, etc.) Coordinate with CTSTs to identify projects for funding from various safety programs. Objective: Increase safety, mobility, accessibility for vulnerable road users Construct new sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and trails Increase outreach and education with law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges for enforcing traffic laws relating to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. Adopt a Complete Streets policy to ensure the needs of all users are considered/met in roadway design Objective: Direct commercial vehicles to major roadways Implement access management strategies to encourage trucks to use alternate routes. Designate preferred truck routes through the region. Objective: Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety Implement a 6 Es approach to bicycle and pedestrian planning. Provide education for both motorists and cyclists regarding rules of the road and reducing conflicts Support Safe Routes to Schools programs and projects to encourage children to walk to school. Policy and Coordination Recommendations Both Sarasota and Manatee counties have active Community Traffic Safety Teams, which include individuals representing law enforcement, emergency management, transportation planning and traffic engineering, medical services and others. The CTSTs review safety concerns and promote traffic safety programs, and maintain a list of safety concerns needing some sort of action. CTSTs provide a forum for discussing safety issues and resolving them effectively through interagency coordination and/or funding resources from safety programs. Both teams also participate in the State CTST Coalition, which meets quarterly to share best practices among CTSTs. As the crash rate maps show, pedestrian crash rates for the Sarasota/Manatee region are higher 203
2035 Transportation Plan Final than other counties nationwide (as are those of many Florida counties. In addition, the Dangerous by Design report, prepared by the Surface Transportation Policy Project and Transportation for America, compiled information regarding county spending of federal funds available for pedestrian safety and other projects (2007-2008). The Bradenton/Sarasota/Venice area (within the Sarasota/Manatee MPO) was one of two Florida metropolitan areas that did not use any of the available funds for pedestrian safety. The MPO will, in order to supplement current funding available, investigate these and other funding sources that may be available to fund MPO priorities for pedestrian and bicycle safety and identify projects and programs that can use these funds, especially to improve traffic safety in the region. To this end, the Sarasota/Manatee MPO is currently taking a larger role in planning for bicycle and pedestrian programs, policies and projects. The MPO has established a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee that will be comprised of representatives of all the local governments within the MPO area. The Committee will assist the MPO in identifying priorities for bicycle and pedestrian activities that will improve conditions for bicycling and walking. This committee will also guide MPO efforts to compile a comprehensive inventory of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and a bicycle and pedestrian master plan that builds on the efforts of local governments and the 2035 LRTP through a focused public engagement and coordination effort. The resulting master plan and its policies, programs, and projects will include those that specifically address safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, through the 6 Es -- education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, evaluation, and equity. Security Element System Security Objectives and Strategies Large scale terrorist attacks, such as the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. and natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina s flooding of New Orleans, have raised our awareness about the need to prevent, protect and recover from such calamities. Transportation systems and services are impacted directly and indirectly by such events, particularly terrorist attacks. NCHRP Report 525, c3, p13 highlights the following points: 204
2035 Transportation Plan Final Transportation infrastructure s vulnerability to terrorist acts can be attributed to several features. First, transportation infrastructure (stations, vehicles, and networks) serve high concentrations of people, thereby increasing the potential number of casualties. Second, transportation systems provide essential services to the public, thereby threatening their way of life. Third, transportation systems can be used as both the delivery and escape mechanisms of terrorists. These features make transportation infrastructure a target of choice for those wanting to spread fear to the widest segment of society. They also make transportation infrastructure harder to secure from terrorist actions. Transportation security and safety are closely related. Safety-related plans, policies, programs, and projects generally focus upon protection from injuries and fatalities among the traveling public. Security-related plans, policies, programs, and projects address protection and recovery from manmade and natural disasters. Whatever the cause, disruption of the transportation system undermines the safe and energy-efficient movement of people and goods. In recognition of the need to properly plan for the security of the nation s transportation systems for motorized and non-motorized travelers, the Federal Transportation Bill of 2005, SAFETEA- LU, specifies the following considerations that must be included in a long-range transportation planning process: Federal requirements for security planning for the transportation system; The MPO s role in local and regional security planning activities; Protection of, and recovery planning for, critical transportation infrastructures including airports, railroads, intermodal terminals, and transit facilities; Coordination of regional freight security planning policies and procedures with those of FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration; and Policies relevant to transportation security planning, coordination and communications; project programming and prioritization; and green transportation initiatives that support national security. 205
2035 Transportation Plan Final Goal 9 of the 2035 LRTP states that that MPO will improve the security and resilience of the transportation system. Key objectives for achieving this goal include the following: Maintain and improve operating conditions on emergency evacuation routes, and enhance emergency access to I-75 and other regional facilities. Increase the ability of the transportation network to accommodate variable and unexpected conditions without catastrophic failure. Compile existing plans and protocols into a transportation security plan that protects lives and coordinates the use of resources. Increase personal security of users by implementing appropriate design strategies, such as improved lighting and visibility measures, at appropriate locations such as transit stops and intermodal facilities where people are waiting. Review and update the Continuity of Operations Plan on a regular basis to ensure the continuity of essential office functions if a major event/emergency/disaster occurs. Support development of alternative fuel sources and infrastructure to provide continuing transportation services in the event of scarcity. Coordinate with appropriate agencies to protect the critical transportation infrastructure against disaster by identifying vulnerable assets and prevention strategies and planning for recovery and redevelopment after disaster (in coordination with the Local Mitigation Strategy). System Security Issues and Conditions Based upon recommendations from national research on transportation safety and security planning, the assessment of issues and conditions in the Sarasota/Manatee region incorporates the following steps: Step 1: Identify the high value transportation assets in the Sarasota/Manatee MPO region. Step 2: Consider security-related threats to these assets under the two most likely types of incidents: a terrorist attack or a hurricane. Step 3: Identify the MPO s potential role in mitigating the impacts of each scenario. High-Value Transportation Assets Key transportation assets in the Sarasota/Manatee region that may be particularly vulnerable to security threats include the following facilities: Port Manatee: Port Manatee plays a significant role in the economic health of Manatee County. With an estimated 1,100 employees working at the port, the facility is the closest U.S. deepwater seaport to the Panama Canal, providing shippers with access to Pacific Rim 206
2035 Transportation Plan Final markets, and serves as a key intermodal facility in Manatee County. The Port is vulnerable to storm surge/flooding from hurricanes and other storms, as well as a potential target for terrorist attacks. Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport: Most International airports are attractive targets for terrorists. Access to freight and passengers within the airport grounds and on board aircraft served by this facility are vulnerable to the impacts of attacks and hurricanes. I-75, US 41, and US 301 and other major state roadways: These major roadways handle a large majority of the freight and goods movement through and into the region making them attractive targets for terrorist attacks. In addition, these roads are the region s primary hurricane evacuation routes. Hurricane Evacuation Routes: State, regional and local emergency operations and management teams develop hurricane preparedness plans. As coastal counties, hurricane evacuation is a particularly important factor in Sarasota and Manatee counties transportation system performance evaluation and planning. Key issues include evacuating traffic across the causeways from the barrier islands, as well as providing adequate evacuation routes out of the inland areas. Examples include River Road, which is prone to flooding, in South Sarasota County, University Parkway, SR 64, Cortez Road and SR 70 in Manatee County. Application of Advanced Traffic Management System information on these and other regionally significant roadways is a key aspect for improving emergency evacuation. Security Threat Scenarios The primary large-scale security threats to the Sarasota/Manatee region s transportation system are terrorist attacks and hurricanes. Key transportation-related strategies for these types of events include evacuating residents quickly and efficiently, rerouting traffic away from impacted areas and corridors, and restoring operations of critical facilities such as the Port and the Airport. The table below summarizes the potential impacts of these events on high-value transportation assets. The development of scenarios reveals several key threats to major transportation assets in the Sarasota/Manatee region. The counties Emergency Management Plans, Local Mitigation Strategies, and Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plans provide further detail on the hazards affecting the region s critical infrastructure, including transportation facilities. 207
2035 Transportation Plan Final Table 41: Security Scenarios TRANSPORTATION ASSET Port Manatee Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport I-75, US 41, US 301 and other state roadways POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF TERRORIST ATTACK Any attacks on the Port could directly impact businesses on the Port's property as well as adjacent residential and commercial areas. A shut-down of the Port could result in closures of nearby access roads for extended periods. The freight moving through the Port is a key economic generators for the County. It is very important to ensure that plans and strategies are in place to restore full accessibility to, and operational functions of, the Port as quickly as possible. A major disruption or shut-down of Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport would likely result in increased traffic congestion and possible closures along several regionally important roadway corridors, including I-75, US 41, US 301 and University Parkway. Access plans and methods to implement those plans are needed within the impact area. These major roadways handle a large majority of the freight and goods movement through and into the region, making them particularly vulnerable to a terrorist attack. They are also the primary evacuation routes for the region. It is very important to ensure that plans and strategies are in place to manage and redirect traffic to other routes and/or travel modes in the event of disruptions or route closures along these corridors. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF HURRICANE Plans are in place to safely evacuate the Port. The primary concern is restoring access quickly along major roadways to the port. Though located on the mainland, restoring access to the airport after a hurricane or other major storm will still be a concern. In addition, as noted for the terrorism scenario, a shut-down of the airport could affect traffic congestion along regional corridors, which could further complicate the process of hurricane evacuation. These roads, along with several eastwest corridors (SR 64, SR 70, etc.), are the primary evacuation routes for the region. The local evacuation plans define how these major facilities will be operated during a major evacuation. In addition the Local Mitigation Strategies and the Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plans identify the need to maintain access along these corridors to aid disaster recovery. 208
2035 Transportation Plan Final System Security Recommendations Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Targets The MPO will rely on the following performance measures and targets to evaluate progress towards achieving its system safety objectives. To ensure consistency of measurements over time, the MPO will being by setting a current baseline data point for each measurement. Once that baseline is established, the MPO will update the measures and track progress annually as part of the State of the System Report targets. System Security Improvements, policies and Coordinating Strategies Based upon guidance from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, transportation system security plans should address the following issues and strategies: Prevention, including strategies such as surveillance (CCTV) and communication infrastructure technologies, and processes such as continual communication, coordination and planning; Protection, including physical access barriers and design features that limit access to a facility, such as blast-resistant fences and concrete pilings; Redundancy, which provides the ability to recover quickly in case of an attack or a hurricane event. Strategies include backup plans and infrastructure to ensure uninterrupted interagency communications, multiple transportation routes, and effective public information systems. Recovery, including plans and strategies that involve operational and communications technologies, as well as institutional coordination. As noted earlier, security preparedness, response, mitigation and redevelopment plans have been prepared for both Sarasota and Manatee counties, and are incorporated into the 2035 LRTP by reference. Each of the plans addresses the threat responses listed above. The MPO will stay apprised of those plans and any updates, paying particular attention to best to supplement those plans through needed improvements and strategies. In particular, the MPO is in a key position to serve in a coordinating role both planning for and during recovery from a disaster based on its unique position of being an independent organization that crosses jurisdictional boundaries and works with staff and elected officials at various levels. 209
Appendix Final Appendix 210
Appendix Final ETDM Screening Results Roadway 211
Appendix Final ETDM Screening Results Transit 212
Appendix Final ETDM Screening Results Trails 213
214 Appendix Final
Appendix Final 2035 Forecast of State and Federal Revenues 215
APPENDIX FOR THE METROPOLITAN LONG RANGE PLAN 2035 Forecast of State and Federal Revenues for Statewide and Metropolitan Plans Overview This appendix documents the current Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) state and federal transportation revenue forecast through 2035. Funding estimates for major state programs for this metropolitan area and Florida are included. The forecast is based upon recent federal and state legislation, changes in factors affecting state revenue sources, and current policies. This information will be used for the updates of metropolitan long range transportation plans, the Florida Transportation Plan and the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Highways Cost Feasible Plan. Background The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21) enacted in 1998, and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) enacted in 2005 have provided the impetus to enhance the cooperative relationship between FDOT and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in planning for and providing transportation facilities and services. The 2025 Florida Transportation Plan (FTP), developed with the assistance of Florida s 26 MPOs and other transportation partners, established long range goals and program emphases for the expenditure of state and federal funds expected from current revenue sources. The Department developed a long range revenue forecast through 2035. The forecast was based upon recent federal and state legislation (e.g., SAFETEA-LU, Florida s 2005 Growth Management legislation), changes in factors affecting state revenue sources (e.g., population growth rates) and current policies. This information is being used for updates of metropolitan plans and the SIS Highways Cost Feasible Plan. This 2035 forecast incorporates (1) amounts contained in the Department s Work Program for 2009 through 2013, (2) the impact of the Department s objectives and investment policies, and (3) the current Statutory Formula (equal parts of population and motor fuel tax collections) for distribution of certain program funds, and expresses the estimates in year of expenditure dollars. Intent This appendix is intended to provide the public and interested parties with clear documentation of the state and federal financial issues related to each MPO plan and to facilitate reconciliation of statewide and metropolitan plans. This appendix does not address financial issues related to funds that do not flow through the state work program. Information on financial issues related to local and regional revenue sources what those resources are and how the metropolitan areas plan to spend them is contained in other documentation of the metropolitan plan. This appendix describes how the statewide 2035 Revenue Forecast was developed. Also, metropolitan estimates are identified for certain major FDOT programs that expand the capacity of existing transportation systems, and are referred to as capacity programs. Metropolitan estimates are the share of the state capacity programs that are planned for this metropolitan area. They can be used to fund planned improvements to major elements of the transportation system. Florida Department of Transportation 1 October 2010
This appendix also includes estimates of funds required for other FDOT programs designed to support, operate, and maintain the state transportation system. The FDOT has set aside sufficient funds in the 2035 Revenue Forecast for these programs, referred to as non-capacity programs in this document, to meet statewide objectives and program needs in all metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Funding for these programs is not included in the metropolitan estimates. 2035 Revenue Forecast (State and Federal Funds) The 2035 Revenue Forecast is the result of a three-step process: 1. State and federal revenues from current sources were estimated. 2. Those revenues were then distributed among statewide capacity and non-capacity programs in concert with statewide priorities. 3. Estimates for certain capacity programs were developed for each of Florida s 26 metropolitan areas. Forecast of State and Federal Revenues The 2035 Revenue Forecast includes program estimates for the expenditure of state and federal funds expected from current revenue sources (i.e., new revenue sources were not added). The forecast estimated revenues from federal, state, and Turnpike sources that are included in the Department s 5-Year Work Program. The forecast did not estimate revenue from other sources (i.e., local government/authority taxes, fees, and bond proceeds; private sector participation; and innovative finance sources). Estimates of state revenue sources were based on estimates prepared by the State Revenue Estimating Conference in March 2008 for state fiscal years 2009 through 2018. Estimates of federal revenue sources were based on the Department s Federal Aid Forecast for the same fiscal years. Assumptions about revenue growth were as follows: Revenue Sources Years Assumptions State Fuel Taxes 2009 2018 Florida Revenue Estimating Conference Estimates 2019 2035 Annual 3.84% increase in 2019, gradually decreasing to 1.89% in 2035 State Tourism Driven Sources (Rental Car Surcharge, Aviation Fuel Tax) State Vehicle Related Taxes (Vehicle License, Initial Registration, and Incremental Title fees) Federal Distributions (Total Obligating Authority) 2009 2018 Florida Revenue Estimating Conference Estimates 2019 2035 Annual 1.86% increase in 2019, gradually decreasing to 1.46% in 2035 2009 2018 Florida Revenue Estimating Conference Estimates 2019 2035 Annual 2.39% increase in 2019, gradually decreasing to 1.83% in 2035 2009 2018 FDOT Federal Aid Forecast 2019 2035 Annual 1.22% increase in 2019, gradually decreasing to 0.00% in 2031 and beyond Turnpike 2009 2018 Existing and programmed projects, cap on outstanding debt, and planned toll increases on expansion projects Florida Department of Transportation 2 October 2010
Revenue forecasts by FDOT typically estimate the value of money at the time it will be collected (e.g., 2020) and reflect future growth in revenue and inflation, sometimes referred to as current or year of expenditure dollars. Unlike previous long range revenue forecasts by FDOT for statewide and metropolitan plans, the 2035 Revenue Forecast is expressed in year of expenditure dollars. A summary of the forecast of state, federal and Turnpike revenues is shown in Table 1. The 2035 Revenue Forecast Handbook contains inflation factors that can be used to adjust project costs expressed in present day cost to year of expenditure dollars. Table 1 Forecast of Revenues 2035 Revenue Forecast (Millions of Dollars) Major Revenue Sources Federal 3 4,984 26% Time Period 2009 10 1 2011 15 1 2016 20 2021 25 2026 30 2031 35 9,914 27% 10,137 26% 10,836 25% 11,417 24% 11,912 23% 27 Year Total 2 2009 2035 59,200 25% State 11,502 61% 23,964 65% 25,431 66% 28,530 66% 31,978 67% 35,531 68% 156,936 66% Turnpike 2,365 13% 3,237 9% 3,027 8% 4,149 10% 4,515 9% 4,921 9% 22,214 9% Total 2 18,852 37,114 38,594 43,514 47,910 52,365 238,350 1 Based on the FDOT July 1, 2008 Adopted Work Program for 2009 through 2013. 2 Columns and rows sometimes do not equal the totals due to rounding. 3 Federal revenues also include state dollars used to match federal aid. Estimates for State Programs Long range revenue forecasts assist in determining which needed transportation improvements are financially feasible and in identifying funding priorities. As directed by FDOT policy, the Department places primary emphasis on safety and preservation by first providing adequate funding in the Revenue Forecast to meet established goals and objectives in these important areas. Remaining funding has been planned for new or expanded statewide, metropolitan/regional, and local facilities and services (i.e., capacity programs). As Florida moves into the 21st Century, safety and preservation will continue to be emphasized. The 2035 Revenue Forecast includes the program funding levels contained in the July 1, 2008 Adopted Work Program for 2009 through 2013. The forecast of funding levels for FDOT programs for 2014-2035 was developed based on the Program and Resource Plan (PRP) for fiscal years 2009-2017. The remainder of this Appendix provides forecast information for Capacity, Non-Capacity, and Other state programs. The information is consistent with Financial Guidelines for MPO Long Range Plans adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council in October 2007, as amended in October 2008. Florida Department of Transportation 3 October 2010
Capacity Programs Capacity programs include each major FDOT program that expands the capacity of existing transportation systems (e.g., highways, transit). Table 2 includes a brief description of each major capacity program and the linkage to the program categories used in the PRP. Statewide Forecast for Capacity Programs Table 3 identifies the statewide estimates for capacity programs in the 2035 Revenue Forecast in year of expenditure dollars. About $238 billion is forecast for the entire state transportation program from 2009 through 2035; about $108 billion (45%) is forecast for capacity programs. Metropolitan Forecast for Capacity Programs As the first step in preparing metropolitan estimates, the Department prepared district and metropolitan estimates for the capacity programs from the statewide forecast consistent with provisions in state and federal law. Pursuant to federal law, transportation management area (TMA) funds were distributed based on 2000 population. District estimates for the following programs were developed using the current statutory formula 1 : other arterials construction/rightof-way (net of TMA funds); enhancements; and the transit program. Estimates for SIS/FIHS Construction and ROW were based on the SIS Long Range Highway Capacity Plan dated January 2010. Because of the evolving nature of the SIS, estimates for the Rail, Aviation, Seaports and Intermodal Access programs will not be available until a SIS Cost Feasible Plan for all SIS modes is completed. FDOT districts developed the metropolitan estimates consistent with district shares of the statewide forecast, adjusted as needed to account for issues such as metropolitan area boundaries (e.g., differences between metropolitan area boundaries and county boundaries). The estimates for this metropolitan area are included in Table 4 in year of expenditure dollars. Table 4a contains estimates of TMA funds. Senate Bill 360 (Chapter 2005-290, Laws of Florida) established recurring appropriations to several major state transportation programs in 2005. Annually, $541.75 million was to be appropriated from proceeds from the Documentary Stamp Tax 2. These funds are distributed according to formulas defined in Senate Bill 360 to the SIS, the Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP), the New Starts Transit Program, and the Small County Outreach Program. The 2035 Revenue Forecast contains estimates of Growth Management funds not included in an Adopted Work Program. Because some MPOs may desire to include projects partially funded by the TRIP and/or New Starts programs in their long range plans as illustrative projects, the Department provided separate estimates of these funds. Districtwide estimates of TRIP funds are included in Table 5. Statewide estimates of New Starts Funds are included in Table 6. For information purposes only, estimates of Enhancement Funds are shown in Table 7. These funds are included in the estimates for Other Arterials Construction & ROW in Table 4. 1 The statutory formula is based on 50% population and 50% motor fuel tax collections. 2 Subsequent to the 2035 Revenue Forecast, 2008 Legislation altered the formula for transportation revenues from Documentary Stamp Tax proceeds from $541.75 million annually to a percentage of Documentary Stamp Tax proceeds with an annual cap of $541.75 million. This change is not reflected in the 2035 Revenue Forecast. Florida Department of Transportation 4 October 2010
TABLE 2 Major Capacity Programs Included in the 2035 Revenue Forecast and Corresponding Program Categories in the Program and Resource Plan (PRP) 2035 Revenue Forecast Programs PRP Program Categories SIS/Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) Construction/ ROW Construction, improvements, and associated right of way on the Strategic Intermodal System and the Intrastate Highway System (e.g., Interstate, the Turnpike, other toll roads, and other facilities designed to serve interstate and regional commerce including SIS Connectors). Other Arterial Construction/ROW Construction, improvements, and associated right of way on State Highway System roadways not designated as part of the SIS or FIHS. The program also includes funding for the Economic Development program, the County Incentive Grant Program, and the Small County Outreach Program. Aviation Financial and technical assistance to Florida s airports in the areas of safety, capacity improvements, land acquisition, planning, economic development, and preservation. Transit Technical and operating/capital assistance to transit, paratransit, and ridesharing systems. Rail Rail safety inspections, rail highway grade crossing safety, acquisition of rail corridors, assistance in developing intercity and commuter rail service, and rehabilitation of rail facilities. Intermodal Access Improving access to intermodal facilities and acquisition of associated rights of way. Seaport Development Funding for development of eligible ports, including such projects as land acquisition, dredging, construction of storage facilities and terminals, and acquisition of container cranes and other equipment used in moving cargo and passengers. Growth Management Improving access to intermodal facilities and acquisition of associated rights of way. Interstate Construction Turnpike Construction Other SIS/Intrastate Construction Toll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund SIS/Intrastate Right of Way SIS/Intrastate Advance Corridor Acquisition Traffic Operations Construction County Transportation Programs Economic Development Other Arterial & Bridge Right of Way Other Arterial Advance Corridor Acquisition Airport Improvement Land Acquisition Planning Discretionary Capacity Improvements Transit Systems Transportation Disadvantaged Department Transportation Disadvantaged Commission Other Block Grants New Starts Transit Fixed Guideway Passenger Service Rail/Highway Crossings Rail Capacity Improvement/Rehabilitation Intermodal Access Seaport Development No Subprograms; Total Growth Management Funds not in Adopted Work Programs by July 1, 2008. Florida Department of Transportation 5 October 2010
Major Programs Table 3 Statewide Capacity Program Estimates State and Federal Funds from the 2035 Revenue Forecast (Millions of Dollars) 5 Year Period (Fiscal Years) 27 Year Total 2 2009 10 1 2011 15 1 2016 20 2021 25 2026 30 2031 35 2009 2035 SIS/FIHS Construction & ROW 4,892 8,444 7,306 8,473 9,218 9,816 48,149 Other Arterials Construction & ROW 2,684 3,901 3,503 3,885 4,142 4,453 22,568 Aviation 428 711 745 868 991 1,107 4,850 Transit 970 1,736 1,504 1,692 1,889 2,067 9,859 Rail 647 815 688 788 895 995 4,829 Intermodal Access 189 186 230 266 302 335 1,508 Seaport Development 106 243 228 265 302 338 1,482 Growth Management 3 0 1,730 3,493 3,285 3,285 3,285 15,077 Total Capacity Programs 9,916 17,768 17,698 19,521 21,024 22,395 108,322 Statewide Total Forecast 18,852 37,115 38,594 43,514 47,910 52,365 238,350 1 Based on the FDOT July 1, 2008 Adopted Work Program for 2009 through 2013. 2 Columns and rows sometimes do not equal the totals due to rounding. 3 Growth Management funds not programmed in FDOT Work Programs as of July 1, 2008. 4 Other is primarily for debt service. Table 4 Metropolitan Area Capacity Program Estimates State and Federal Funds from the 2035 Revenue Forecast (Millions of Dollars) Estimates for Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Area Capacity Programs* 5 Year Period (Fiscal Years) 22 Year Total 2014 2015 2016 20 2021 25 2026 30 2031 35 2014 2035 SIS Highways/FIHS Construction & ROW N/A $98.4 $433.2 $137.7 $162.3 $831.6 Other Arterials Construction & ROW $30.8 $94.9 $106.8 $115.1 $126.0 $473.6 Transit $19.8 $53.7 $60.3 $67.4 $73.7 $274.9 Aviation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Rail N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Seaports N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Intermodal Access N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Capacity Programs $50.6 $247.0 $600.3 $320.2 $362.0 $1,580.1 * Notes: Estimates for 2009 through 2015 are contained in the Adopted Work Program. Information on projects and revenue estimates for Aviation, Rail, Seaports and Intermodal Access will be provided upon completion of the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Cost Feasible Plan. Source for SIS Highways/FIHS Construction & ROW: SIS Long Range Highway Capacity Plan (FY 2015 FY 2035). Time period adjustments for Table 4: 2016 20 = FY 2015 2019, 2021 25 = FY 2020 2025. Florida Department of Transportation 6 October 2010
Table 4a Transportation Management Area (TMA) Funds Estimates State and Federal Funds from the 2035 Revenue Forecast (Millions of Dollars) Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Area 5 Year Period (Fiscal Years) 22 Year Total 2 2014 15 1 2016 20 2021 25 2026 30 2031 35 2014 2035 TMA Funds $19.1 $51.2 $54.7 $56.5 $57.0 $238.5 1 TMA Funds are included in the FDOT July 1, 2008 Adopted Work Program for 2009 through 2013; amounts in this table are for 2014 and beyond. 2 Rows sometimes do not equal the totals due to rounding. FDOT District Table 5 Districtwide Transportation Regional Incentive Program Estimates State Funds from the 2035 Revenue Forecast (Millions of Dollars) 22 Year 5 Year Period (Fiscal Years) Total 2 2014 15 1 2016 20 2021 25 2026 30 2031 35 2014 2035 District 1 38 83 81 81 81 363 District 2 30 67 65 65 65 292 District 3 21 47 45 45 45 205 District 4 50 111 108 108 108 485 District 5 55 121 117 117 117 525 District 6 35 77 74 74 74 335 District 7 40 89 86 86 86 387 Statewide Total Forecast 270 595 576 576 576 2,592 1 TRIP Funds are included in the FDOT July 1, 2008 Adopted Work Program for 2009 through 2013 in the statewide program categories in which they have been programmed (e.g., Other Arterials Construction & ROW, Transit); amounts in this table are for 2014 and beyond. 2 Columns and rows sometimes do not equal the totals due to rounding. Statewide Program Table 6 Statewide New Starts Program Estimates State Funds from the 2035 Revenue Forecast (Millions of Dollars) 22 Year 5 Year Period (Fiscal Years) Total 2 2014 15 1 2016 20 2021 25 2026 30 2031 35 2014 2035 Statewide Total Forecast 150 292 271 271 271 1,254 1 New Starts Funds are included in the FDOT July 1, 2008 Adopted Work Program for 2009 through 2013 in the Transit Program; amounts in this table are for 2014 and beyond. 2 Rows sometimes do not equal the totals due to rounding. Florida Department of Transportation 7 October 2010
Table 7 Enhancement Funds 1 Estimates State and Federal Funds from the 2035 Revenue Forecast (Millions of Dollars) Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Area 5 Year Period (Fiscal Years) 22 Year Total 3 2014 15 2 2016 20 2021 25 2026 30 2031 35 2014 2035 Enhancement Funds $2.4 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $26.4 1 For information purposes only; these estimates are included in estimates for Other Arterials & ROW in Table 4. 2 Enhancement Funds are included in the FDOT July 1, 2008 Adopted Work Program for 2009 through 2013; amounts in this table are for 2014 and beyond. 3 Rows sometimes do not equal the totals due to rounding. Non-Capacity Programs Non-capacity programs refer to FDOT programs designed to support, operate and maintain the state highway system: safety, resurfacing, bridge, product support, operations and maintenance, and administration. Table 8 includes a description of each non-capacity program and the linkage to the program categories used in the Program and Resource Plan. Metropolitan estimates have not been developed for these programs. Instead, the FDOT has included sufficient funding in the 2035 Revenue Forecast to meet the following statewide objectives: Resurfacing program: Ensure that 80% of state highway system pavement meets Department standards; Bridge program: Ensure that 90% of FDOT-maintained bridges meet Department standards while keeping all FDOT-maintained bridges open to the public safe; Operations and maintenance program: Achieve 100% of acceptable maintenance condition standard on the state highway system; Product Support: Reserve funds for Product Support required to construct improvements (funded with the forecast s capacity funds) in each district and metropolitan area; and Administration: Administer the state transportation program. The Department has reserved funds in the 2035 Revenue Forecast to carry out its responsibilities and achieve its objectives for the non-capacity programs on the state highway system in each district and metropolitan area. Table 9 identifies the statewide estimates for non-capacity programs. About $120 billion (50% of total revenues) is forecast for the non-capacity programs. Other The Department is responsible for certain expenditures that are not included in major programs discussed above. Primarily, these expenditures are for debt service and, where appropriate, reimbursements to local governments. About $10 billion (4% of total revenues) is forecast for these expenditures. These funds are not available for statewide or metropolitan system plans. Florida Department of Transportation 8 October 2010
TABLE 8 Major Non Capacity Programs Included in the 2035 Revenue Forecast and Corresponding Program Categories in the Program and Resource Plan (PRP) 2035 Revenue Forecast Programs PRP Program Categories Safety Includes the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the Traffic Safety Grant Program, Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety activities, the Industrial Safety Program, and general safety issues on a Department wide basis. Resurfacing Resurfacing of pavements on the State Highway System and local roads as provided by state law. Bridge Repair and replace deficient bridges on the state highway system. In addition, 15% of federal bridge funds must be expended off the federal highway system (i.e., on local government bridges not on the state highway system). Product Support Planning and engineering activities required to produce the Department s products and services (i.e., Capacity, Safety, Resurfacing, and Bridge programs). Operations & Maintenance Activities to support and maintain transportation infrastructure once it is constructed and in place. Highway Safety Grants Interstate Arterial and Freeway Off System Turnpike Repair On System Replace On System Local Bridge Replacement Turnpike Preliminary Engineering Construction Engineering Inspection Right of Way Support Environmental Mitigation Materials & Research Planning Public Transportation Operations Routine Maintenance Traffic Engineering Toll Operations Motor Carrier Compliance Administration Resources required to perform the fiscal, budget, personnel, executive direction, document reproduction, and contract functions. Also, includes the Fixed Capital Outlay Program, which provides for the purchase, construction, and improvement of non highway fixed assets (e.g., offices, maintenance yards). Administration Fixed Capital Outlay Florida Department of Transportation 9 October 2010
Major Programs Table 9 Statewide Non Capacity Program Estimates State and Federal Funds from the 2035 Revenue Forecast (Millions of Dollars) 5 Year Period (Fiscal Years) 27 Year Total 2 2009 10 1 2011 15 1 2016 20 2021 25 2026 30 2031 35 2009 2035 Safety 252 531 580 613 631 635 3,242 Resurfacing 2,136 4,473 4,368 5,015 5,481 5,912 27,383 Bridge 735 1,188 1,013 1,132 1,241 1,334 6,644 Product Support 2,961 5,707 5,863 6,784 7,787 8,821 37,923 Operations and Maintenance 2,025 4,937 5,868 6,962 7,955 9,076 36,823 Administration 330 942 1,201 1,446 1,737 2,084 7,740 Total Non Capacity Programs 8,440 17,776 18,892 21,952 24,833 27,863 119,756 Other 3 495 1,571 2,004 2,042 2,053 2,106 10,272 Statewide Total Forecast 18,852 37,115 38,594 43,514 47,910 52,365 238,350 1 Based on the FDOT July 1, 2008 Adopted Work Program for 2009 through 2013. 2 Columns and rows sometimes do not equal the totals due to rounding. 3 Other is primarily for debt service. Florida Department of Transportation 10 October 2010
APPENDIX FOR THE SARASOTA-MANATEE METROPOLITAN AREA LONG RANGE PLAN UPDATE 2035 Forecast of State and Federal Revenues for Statewide and Metropolitan Plans
Appendix Final Public Involvement Worksheet 216
Mobility 2035 Sarasota/Manatee Long Range Transportation Plan TRANSPORTATION NEEDS Take a look at the 11 corridors identified in the two-county region. Each corridor reflects the predominant travel patterns in the region, such as from home to work, school or shopping. The corridors generally center on one principal roadway, and include parallel street, bus and trail networks. Think about how each of the corridors functions today. What are their congestion and safety problems? Are there gaps or barriers in them that make it difficult to travel? What is needed to improve both mobility and accessibility in corridors so they better serve all users? Please review the maps of the corridors and mark any changes or additions you think are needed. Consider both transportation and land use patterns. You can also record your comments on the flip charts or on this worksheet. How should the region s transportation networks develop? (Please circle your level of support on a scale of 1 5) 1. There should be a greater investment in roads and bridges to handle emergencies and reduce daily congestion. 1 2 3 4 5 (1 Strongly Opposed 3 Moderate support if balanced with other needs 5 Strongly In Favor) 2. The two counties need to focus resources on fast, frequent and reliable forms of public transportation to improve mobility and help encourage quality redevelopment in the corridors and downtowns. 1 2 3 4 5 (1 Strongly Opposed 3 Moderate support if balanced with other needs 5 Strongly In Favor) 3. Wherever possible, roads should be designed or modified to slow traffic and better provide for safe, comfortable and accessible travel on bicycle or by foot. 1 2 3 4 5 (1 Strongly Opposed 3 Moderate support if balanced with other needs 5 Strongly In Favor) 4. This region needs to do more to create a network of multi-use trails and exclusive transit corridors as transportation alternatives to increasingly congested roads. 1 2 3 4 5 (1 Strongly Opposed 3 Moderate support if balanced with other needs 5 Strongly In Favor) 5. Do you support a strategy to bring passenger rail service (such as via TBARTA) to Manatee and Sarasota Counties, connecting the region to Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando and Fort Myers? 1 2 3 4 5 (1 Strongly Opposed 3 Moderate support if balanced with other needs 5 Strongly In Favor) I live in Manatee County Sarasota County Other Additional comments on the area s transportation needs:
TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES Mobility 2035 Sarasota/Manatee Long Range Transportation Plan The Sarasota/Manatee area has many more transportation needs than it can fund. So it is important to identify transportation priorities that provide the best fit with broader goals for land use, community character, economic development and the environment. Using the large display maps of the four geographic areas, please indicate your transportation priorities for the near term and longer term. Select any type of project or mode (roadway, transit, traffic operations, bicycle & pedestrian). NORTH MANATEE AREA Near Term (through 2020) Longer Term (2020 to 2035) 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. SOUTH MANATEE AREA 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. NORTH SARASOTA AREA 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. SOUTH SARASOTA AREA 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. REGIONAL NETWORK 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4.
Appendix Final Public Workshop Notice 217
SARASOTA/MANATEE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan UPDATE PUBLIC WORKSHO P www.mympo.org The public is invited to help us identify transportation needs and priorities. Workshop Locations: Wed. April 28 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm Fruitville Library 100 Coburn Road, Sarasota ThuRS. April 29 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm Bradenton Municipal Auditorium 1005 Barcarrota Blvd, Bradenton Workshop Agenda 4:00 5:00pm Open House/Input on Needs & Priorities 5:00 5:30pm Presentation 5:30 6:00pm Questions & Answers 6:00 7:00pm Open House/Input on Needs & Priorities In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Chapter 286.26, Florida Statutes, persons needing special accommodations to participate in this workshop should contact the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization at least fortyeight (48) hours prior to the workshop. Call (941) 359-5772 between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. The MPO s planning process is conducted in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes. Any person or beneficiary who believes he/she has been discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability or family status may file a complaint with the Florida Department of Transportation District One Title VI Coordinator Robin Parrish at (863) 519-2675 or by writing her at P.O. Box 1249, Bartow, Florida 33831.
Appendix Final Workshop Comments Sarasota/Manatee MPO Public Workshops April 28 & 29, 2010 Comments Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Dangerous by Design report says no federal funds spent per capita on pedestrian safety in Sarasota/Bradenton MSA. need to access federal funds. Sidewalk design make it more friendly. Remove from clear zone or provide physical barrier from traffic; provide shade Provide MURT connections to Legacy Trail from US 41 along Bay Street and through Oscar Scherer State Park. Are greenways prioritized? Transit & Transit Oriented Development Use I-75 ROW for a high speed rail connection BRT needs to be rail o Include passing points for double tracking MCAT and SCAT bus systems need to be combined ASAP o Waste of money o Greater efficiency o Better service Remote parking/park and ride lots should be scattered throughout the area to provide places for people to park and then go to Siesta Key Beach (not enough parking there) and downtown Sarasota. The airport would be a good location. Park and ride at US301 and Fruitville for hospital employees works well (not enough parking at hospital) o Consider for other employers, especially medical facilities Look at loop/route connecting Sarasota Interstate Park of Commerce DRI Lakewood Ranch to existing transit system BRT stops need to be connected to pedestrian/bicycle network Future land use around bus stop nodes needs minimum densities to encourage most dense in walkable distance and somewhat lighter densities towards bikeable distances Shady walk/bike ways to bus stop Protected from elements stops Multiple choices of community services at or near bus stops 218
Appendix Final Secured way to carry bike on bus or leave Major bus stops or central in a city have a way to change clothes if a long walk/ride necessitates changing before work. Require a diverse group of housing choices in bus nodes. Wise people of all income levels could take advantage of mass transit. Consider retirement communities placement on routes to access medical, groceries, entertainment, church and cultural events If possible, access close by of a community center, schools, recreational opportunities immediately outside dense residential areas outside ½ mile from bus Corridors/Roadway Design Add interchange on I-75 at SR 681 o Halfway between exits 205 and 105? o Connection between I-75 and US 41 shortest distance between the two in Sarasota County Keep US 41 through Osprey 4 lanes with multi-use recreational trails Add roundabouts to replace traffic signals Make US 41 more scenic to fit its designation as a scenic highway o Bury utilities o Plant trees o Restrict signage o Improve maintenance of medians Require interconnection between commercial uses along arterials Allow slower speed limits on state highway where they pass through town centers (Osprey) Deal with backlog of transportation needs first by seniority (oldest problems first) o Manatee Ave at 15 th Street West and 6 th Ave instead of N. Manatee o 9 th Street W from US 41 to 301 4-lane bottleneck Manatee Ave from 43 rd St west widening to support BRT No roads more than 4 lanes wide Limited Access Highways o University Parkway o 301 from Myrtle to 301/41 in Palmetto and 19 o SR681 o Reclaim 41 for transit, bikes, pedestrians by making 301 limited access Manatee River bridge crossing use Fort Hamer Bridge instead to move it to align with 15 th Street E and Canal Road fewer impacts to historic residential areas and provides a direct bypass around Palmetto o Better link to US 301 15 th Street East widening should be high priority 219
Appendix Final Impact of service roads or better connectivity of grid system to make options? Land Use Considerations CRAs are mentioned, but what about UIRA? Energy Economic Zone (at SR 681) o Require standards for reduction in automobile dependency o Is the location more like urban sprawl? Despite talk, we still spend most money for roads on the edge of the urban area o Fruitville Road, Honore, Bee Ridge o More dollars need to go into rebuilding corridors within the urban area Freight Freight rail along I-75 to serve warehouse/industry o To Lakeland o Intermodal distribution centers New roads several east of I-75 (from SR 70 to south; north and south of 44 th ave), west of I-75 north and south of SR 681 Road diet on Bus 41 from 26 th Ave to downtown Bradenton Change location of new bridge of Manatee River to connect Canal Road to 15 th St to US 301 Don t grade separate bridge BRT along US41 from downtown Sarasota to Bradenton and from downtown Sarasota to Lido Key; up US 41 to Park and Ride US 41 BRT, follow recommendations of Innovation 41 for bike lane, slower traffic, pedestrian improvements (continuous sidewalks on both sides, etc (educational corridor) Commuter Rail from downtown Sarasota to downtown Bradenton up to Tampa/Hillsborough Extend Alderman Trail proposed to Palm Ave Bicycling enhancements Desoto, Webber, Tuttle, Trail connections in southern Sarasota County Oscar Scherer, etc. Park and Ride lots o Moccasin Wallow Road just east of I-75 o In Parrish o US 41 and 33 rd St (north of Palmetto) o By airport to go downtown High speed rail along I-75 Trail head in Parrish Express bus from Parrish along Moccasin Wallow Road to connect to US 41 220
Appendix Final Bus circulator/service to/on Siesta Key beaches Two lane roundabouts a problem for bike/ped; Fruitville a problem/barrier Priorities BRT in Sarasota; completion of Legacy Trail Correction needed bike lane existing on 57 th Ave (not need) 221