Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum 2 MULTIMODAL TRANSIT AND MANAGED LANES FEASIBILITY EVALUATION FOR SR 54/56 CORRIDOR - US 19

Transcription

1 Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum MULTIMODAL TRANSIT AND MANAGED LANES FEASIBILITY EVALUATION FOR /56 CORRIDOR - US 9 TO BRUCE B. DOWNS BOULEVARD January 0

2 Table of Contents.0 Introduction....0 /56 Corridor: Existing Roadway/Access Conditions....0 Corridor: 05 Future Condition Impact of roposed At-Grade Alternatives to /56 Corridor Recommendation for the Elimination of At-grade Alternatives Analysis of remium Transit Alternatives Recommended Feasible Alternatives... Appendix A Appendix B reliminary Alternatives Schematics riority Access oints Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age i Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

3 .0 INTRODUCTION opulation and employment in asco County are projected to continue to increase at a rapid rate over the next 5 years. Growth estimates show a population increase in the county of 0% and an employment increase of 79% from 006 levels by the year 05. The /56 corridor is located within the designated urban service area and is targeted to support much of the projected growth within the county. See Table for a summary of the projected population and employment growth within the area. Table : opulation and Employment rojections Area Variable % Growth Dwelling Unit 97,654 49,74 5% /56 Corridor opulation 0,95,5 55% Employment 57,09 0,09 % Dwelling Unit,5 40,47 89% asco opulation 44,400 85,00 0% Employment 5,00 49,40 79% Source: Gannett Fleming T, Working Meeting September, 0 To accommodate the increased travel demand associated with the rapid growth in population and employment, 8 proposed preliminary alternatives were developed for the incorporation of prioritized transit service / managed lanes along the /56 Corridor. Schematics depicting the preliminary alternatives and proposed system access points are enclosed in Appendices A and B. See Figure for the project location. The following discusses the feasibility of these 8 proposed preliminary alternatives based on travel demand model results and fatal flaw traffic impact analyses. Special attention was paid to the effect that the proposed at-grade alternatives would have on the function of the /56 corridor and the potential resultant impact to traffic circulation and access along the corridor. In addition, the premium transit alternatives are discussed in relation to ridership projections versus ridership projections of other systems throughout the country..0 /56 CORRIDOR: EXISTING ROADWAY/ACCESS CONDITIONS The /56 corridor study area spans a distance of 5. miles from US 9 to Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. The roadway operates as an Urban rincipal Arterial. The facility exists primarily as a 6-lane divided roadway; however a 4-lane divided segment exists from SR 589/Suncoast arkway to just west of US 4. The /56 Corridor serves as the primary east-west route in southern asco County. The roadway passes through a developing area of the county which is currently dominated by large masterplanned residential developments, retail centers, and undeveloped farmland. The remaining farmland along /56 is quickly being replaced with residential and commercial development. Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

4 Figure : roject Location Within the bounds of the study area, /56 operates as a general use facility. From US 9 to US 4 the facility is designated as a Class 5 restrictive-access roadway, from US 4 to Bruce B. Downs the facility is designated as a Class restrictive-access roadway. Generally, Class 5 facilities occur in developed areas and Class facilities occur in developing or undeveloped areas. Both types of roadways restrict access through the provision of medians, limitation in frequency of connection, spacing of median openings, and spacing of traffic signals. Table describes the spacing of these elements generally present on both Class and 5 facilities. The 006 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) figures show volumes along the /56 Corridor that range from 8,000 vehicles per day (VD) near US 9 to 6,500 VD near US 4. Level of Service (LOS) figures correspond with the traffic volumes ranging from LOS B near US 9 to LOS F near US 4. See Table for volume and LOS details. 006 volumes are reported as they are used in the most recent model validation. Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

5 Table : Access Management Standards Connection Median Openings Class Medians >45 mph <45mph Directional Full Signal Generally Developing or Undeveloped Areas Restrictive 660 ft 440 ft 0 ft 640 ft 640 ft Generally Developed Areas 5 Restrictive 440 ft 45 ft 660 ft 640/0 ft 640/0 ft Source: Access Management, 00 Table : 006 /56 AADT Counts / LOS Facility Count LOS, East of SR 55/US 9 8,000 B, East of CR 595/Grand Blvd. 7,000 B, East of CR 77/Rowan Rd 40,000 B, West of Little Rd 8,000 B East of Little Rd 44,000 B SR54, West of Gunn Hwy 46,000 C, East of CR587/Gunn Hwy 9,500 B, West of US-4 44,000 B, East of SR 45/US 4 6,500 F, East of Livingston Rd 6,500 F SR56, West of 49,500 C SR56, East of 6,500 B Source: Gannett Fleming T, Working Meeting September, 0.0 CORRIDOR: 05 FUTURE CONDITION asco County is involved in an effort to reshape future land use within the jurisdiction. The County is working to advance a land use scheme that is a departure from traditional use within the county. The new land use plan focuses on corridors along which development strategies are to be implemented to encourage specific types of use. Within the scheme, the County has defined market areas and nodes. The largest red circles shown on Figure indicate major market nodes. The additional red circles indicate future development areas and lesser existing market nodes. Note that the /56 corridor supports several of these nodes. Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

6 Figure : asco County Market Areas Map Source: asco County Special lanning rojects, asco County Market Area Map with otential Nodes, March 0 As a tool to implement several of the concepts contained in the revised land use plan for the county, asco County Growth Management is developing the asco County State Road 54/56 Form-based Transit Center Overlay lanning report. This document details the establishment of six transit overlay districts along /56. Each of these transit oriented development (TOD) areas falls within the bounds of the /56 study area. If the primary elements of this plan are implemented, the area within the overlay districts along /56 will become much more dense with higher concentrations of residential and commercial use. The districts are envisioned to support mixed-use centers that are pedestrian and transit supportive. Figure identifies the location of the Transit Center Overlays. 4.0 IMACT OF ROOSED AT-GRADE ALTERNATIVES TO /56 CORRIDOR The project corridor was divided into 4 segments to facilitate analysis of the project. The 4 roadway segments correspond with those sections of /56 that are located between each of the 5 riority Access oints. The riority Access oints were defined at existing major intersections along the corridor. The access points will serve as the only points of cross access along the corridor and only entry/exit points associated with the at-grade guideway/managed lanes. The 8 Alternative Alignments are identified in Appendix A. The riority Access oints are identified in Appendix B. The physical characteristics of the alternatives lend to a logical comparison of proposed solutions. Based on physical characteristics two major groupings emerge: elevated and at-grade alternatives. Table 4 Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age 4 Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

7 shows each of the 8 Alternatives and separates those alternatives based on grade separation and the location of the proposed improvement. Figure : /56 Transit Center Overlay Location Map Source: Draft: asco County State Road 54/56 Form-Based Transit Center Overlay lanning, March 0 Table 4: roposed Alternative hysical Characteristics Identification Alternative Alignment: At-Grade Managed Lanes/Transit Corridor Within the ROW Alternative : Express Bus/Managed Lane Option - lanes at grade Alternative 5: Express Bus/Managed Lane Option -4 lanes at grade Alternative 7A: Light Rail on dedicated guideway at grade in the median Alternative 7C: Light Rail on dedicated guideway at grade with frontage roads outside the shoulder Alternative 8A: BRT on dedicated guideway at grade in the median Alternative 8C: BRT on dedicated guideway at grade with frontage roads outside the shoulder Alternative 9: Light Rail on dedicated guideway with managed lanes Alternative 0: BRT on dedicated guideway with managed lanes Alternative Alignment: Grade-Separated Managed Lanes/Transit Corridor Within the ROW Alternative 4: Express Bus / Managed Lane Option - lanes grade separated Alternative 6: Express Bus / Managed Lane Option 4-4 lanes grade separated Alternative 7B: Light Rail on dedicated guideway elevated in the median Alternative 7D: Light Rail on dedicated guideway elevated outside the shoulder Alternative 8B: BRT on dedicated guideway elevated in the median Alternative 8D: BRT on dedicated guideway elevated outside the shoulder Alternative Alignment: Managed Lanes/Transit Corridor Outside of the ROW Alternative 7E: Light Rail on dedicated guideway on new backage alignment Alternative 8E: BRT on dedicated guideway on new backage alignment Alternative Alignment: Modified Existing 6-Lane Configuration No Separate Guideway Alternative : BRT Light in general use lanes with queue jumps Alternative : Express Bus in general use lanes with queue jumps Source: Alternative -8, RS&H Team Typical Section Schematics, Version 6/9/00 Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age 5 Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

8 The Tampa Bay Regional Transit Model Version 8 (TBRTMv8) with an adjusted subarea was used to generate 05 traffic estimates for the /56 corridor. A representative sampling of the 8 Alternatives was selected to account for differing traffic conditions associated with the various modes and alignment alternatives. The AADT and LOS figures for the at-grade alternatives have been combined and shown as ranges in the at-grade overall impact assessment detailed in Table 5. As shown in the data, the roadway level of service in the at-grade managed lanes is maintained, in all cases, at LOS B or C. The at-grade alternatives would maintain LOS B, C, or D in only three of the general purpose corridor segments. Eleven of 4 general purpose lane segments are projected to operate at LOS F. Despite the inclusion of managed lanes, the at-grade alternatives fail to improve conditions in the general purpose local access lanes to acceptable levels. As identified in the typical section schematics in Appendix A, the assumptions associated with the alternatives state clearly that the at-grade exclusive guideway located in the median will restrict turning movements to right-in right-out movements along /56 except for turns which occur at the 5 designated riority Access oints. Assessment of the corridor shows the at-grade alternatives would require the removal of numerous existing median openings and traffic signals. Figure 4 shows the typical section of one at-grade alternative. Tables 6 and 7 identify the number and location of the affected traffic signals and median access points. Figure 4: Typical Section At-Grade Alternative with Improvement in Median Source: Alternative : Express Bus/Managed Lane Option - lanes at grade, RS&H Team Typical Section Schematics, Version 6/9/00 Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age 6 Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

9 Table 5: At-Grade Dedicated Guideway Impact Assessment Matrix for Alternatives, 5, 7A, 7C, 8A, 8C, 9, and 0 US 9 to Grand Grand Blvd to Rowan Rd to Little Rd to Starkey Blvd to Trinity to Gunn Gunn Hwy to Suncoast kwy Sunlake Blvd to US 4 to Collier Collier kwy to Cypress Creek to Bruce B Blvd Rowan Rd Little Rd Starkey Blvd Trinity Blvd Hwy Suncoast kwy to Sunlake Blvd US 4 kwy Cypress Creek Rd Rd to Old CR 54 Old CR 54 to Downs Blvd Totals Segment Length G Lane AADT Range 4,000/,500 4,00/54,00 7,00/74,700 57,600/76,700 46,400/68,600 85,00/0,000 8,000/9,000 78,400/85,00 80,00/87,000 8,700/9,500 85,500/9,700 95,00/6,00 90,600/08,00 60,400/67,000 N/A G LOS Range B/B B/D F/F F/F C/F F/F F/F F/F F/F F/F F/F F/F F/F F/F N/A Managed Lane AADT Range <500 < /6,000,00/7, /4,00 8,00/,400,000/8,400 5,00/0,600,700/7,700,800/,400 9,900/40,00 9,700/54,500 7,700/5,00 5,900/0,700 N/A Managed LOS Range B B B/B B/B B/B B/B B/B B/B B/B B/B B/B B/C B/C B/B N/A Number of Existing Traffic Signals Removed Fire Station Access oints Removed (Flashing Yellow) Number of Directional Median Openings Removed Number of Full Access Median Openings Removed Number of Major Residential Developments resent Colonial Manor Colonial Hills Oaks View Seven Springs Country lace Trinity East Ashley Lakes Suncoast The Bay at Oakstead Winter Quarters Indian Lakes Meadows ointe Cypress Creek Cedar ointe Meadowbrook Village on the Delano Mill ond Fairway Springs Fox Wood Lake Geneva Stonegate Terra Bella Condo Estates ond Apartments Virginia City Huntington Devonwood Heron Cove Colonial Grand Lake Mineola Ballantrae Twin Lakes Creek Residential Condominium at Seven Oaks Tangle Wood Terrace Grey Hawk Willow ointe Carpenter's Run Seven Oaks Anclote River Ivy Lake Estates Oak Grove Arlington Apartments Number of Major Commercial Developments resent Number of Major Community Features resent Elfers Square Shopping Center asco Square Shopping Center Hunting Creek oint Office ark Walmart Supercenter Mitchell Ranch Shopping laza Trinity Village Center Shopping West asco Industrial ark Trinity Corporate Center Starkey Ranch aw Materials Suncoast Crossings Shopping laza North ointe at Suncoast Crossings The Shopps at Sunlake Centre Oakstead rofessional Center Biglots / Bealls Shopping Center Village Lakes Shopping laza Collier Commons Shopping laza Winn Dixie Shopping Center K-Mart Shopping laza Ferman Chrysler Havertys / Ashley Shopping Center Cypress Creek Corporate ark Sam's Club / Shopping Center Summergate rofessional Center Sun Coast Bapt Church Christian Church of Holiday Spirit of Life MMC Seven Springs Elementary School Medical Centers of Trinity (Hospital) Trinity Elementary Trinity Memorial Gardens (cemetery) Source: AADT Figures, Gannett Fleming T, Working Meeting September, 0; LOS Estimates, FDOT 009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Suncoast Trail Trailhead asco County Fire Rescue No. 7 Sunlake High School Willow Bend Community Church asco Baptist Association Keystone Community Church asco County Fire Rescue No. Morton lant North Bay Hospital Myrtle Lake Baptist Church Jehovah's Witnesses Florida Medical Clinic Harvest Church of Tampa Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age 7 Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

10 Table 6: Number of Traffic Signals and Median Openings Eliminated by All At-Grade Alternatives with Dedicated Guideways in the Median Affected Element Number Number of Existing Traffic Signals Removed 0 Number of Existing Emergency Signals Removed Number of Existing Directional Median Openings Removed 68 Number of Existing Full Access Median Openings Removed 8 Source: Field Review Table 7: Traffic Signals Eliminated by At-Grade Alternatives Location of Traffic Signals to be Removed Madison Old CR Hospital Duck Slough Crossing Ballantrae Oakstead Livingston Oak Grove Ancient Oakes SR 56 Location of Emergency Signals to be Removed asco County Fire Rescue #7 asco County Fire Rescue # An issue that complicates impacts associated with the removal of traffic signals and median openings on /56 centers on the existing lack of connectivity between developments. Few parallel routes exist along the corridor. The lack of cross access requires most traffic moving east-west in southern asco County to travel on /56. The lack of parallel routes combined with the removal of left-turn options will require U-turn movements to facilitate western travel for vehicles accessing the corridor from the south and eastern travel for vehicles accessing the corridor from the north. The circuitous travel routes created by the elimination of the median openings and 0 traffic signals will affect multiple large-scale residential and commercial developments. See Table 7 for the location of the 0 eliminated traffic signals. See Table 5 for a summary of the major residential, commercial, and community features present along the /56 corridor. otential impacts to travel resulting from the inclusion of an atgrade guideway in the median are illustrated through the following typical examples: All vehicles exiting the West asco Industrial ark (which has no outside roadway connection other than ) that intend to travel east towards Interstate 75 would be required to first travel. miles west to Starkey Boulevard to execute a U-turn before traveling in the intended eastbound direction. Vehicles exiting the Meadowbrook Estates development that intend to travel west would first need to travel.5 miles east to Sunlake Boulevard and execute a U-turn before traveling in the intended westbound direction. Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age 8 Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

11 Businesses dependent upon turn-in patronage would also be severely affected by the elimination of existing access. One example of this is the Elfers Square Shopping Center located at the intersection of Madison Street and. The center supports more than 0 businesses including a Winn-Dixie Supermarket. With the inclusion of an at-grade exclusive guideway, the existing traffic light at the intersection of Madison/ would be removed. The removal of this access would require vehicles moving east on 54 to travel an addition.5 miles and execute a U-turn movement to access the shopping center. The potential also exists for a number of impacts to emergency vehicle access. Two fire stations (#7/#) would lose their directional access on thereby increasing response times. Additionally the light located at the entrance to the newly constructed Medical Centers of Trinity would be removed complicating access to the Emergency Facilities located at the hospital. In addition to the impacts to vehicular travel along the corridor, pedestrian movement would also be severely restricted. Though not currently an issue along the more rural portions of the corridor; pedestrian mobility will gain importance as the asco County State Road 54/56 Form-Based Transit Center Overlay lanning concept plan is implemented. The Transit Centers Overlay lan developed by asco County identifies six districts that are to be supportive of transit and pedestrian use. The construction of an at-grade dedicated guideway would create a barrier to movement especially prohibitive of travel by pedestrians. These barriers would potentially affect the proposed TOD development. One example of this can be illustrated through discussion of a hypothetical pedestrian moving through the proposed Sunlake overlay district. If the development is to be constructed as outlined in the proposed plan, the Sunlake district would occupy both the north and south sides of. near Sunlake Boulevard is a 4-lane divided roadway, a facility that poses a limited barrier to pedestrian movement. Traffic lights exist at Ballantrae Boulevard to the west and Oakstead Boulevard to the east. If any of the at-grade alternatives were to be implemented, both the Ballantrae and Oakstead traffic signals would be removed. The removal of the Oakstead traffic light would eliminate an existing pedestrian crossing on which would connect to the Sunlake district. The elimination of this crossing could potentially extend the 50-foot distance a pedestrian would need to travel to cross by.5 miles. The time needed to make this trip, assuming the pedestrian moves at an average of 4 feet per second (FDOT pedestrian signal clearance standard), would be approximately 7 minutes. To support north-south pedestrian movement in the priority areas, pedestrian crossing structures may be necessary to mitigate reductions in the number of existing crossings. The disruption of local access along /56 would be nearly continuous along the length of the corridor. The at-grade alternatives with guideways located in the median would eliminate nearly 5 cross access points along /56. At-grade alternatives with guideways located on the shoulder would also impact access along the corridor though not as severely as the median guideways. Current typical section descriptions include the dedicated guideway on the south side of existing /56. The location of these improvements would allow development north of /56 to be relatively unaffected by restrictions in access. Service Roads would also maintain left-turn access for vehicles entering and exiting development and approaching on corridors sited south of the /56 corridor. The primary impacts associated with these alternatives would center on businesses dependent on turn-in patronage. The effects to those uses along the south side of would be similarly severe to those outlined above. The circuitous travel required by residents and employment centers located on the south side of the roadway would be limited by the directional travel provided by the frontage lanes. One turning movement at the most proximate Designated Access oint would be required for traffic to rejoin the general purpose lanes on Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age 9 Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

12 /56. Figure 5 depicts one of two alternatives (7C and 8C) that place a dedicated guideway and frontage road in the shoulder. Figure 5: Typical Section At-Grade Alternative with Improvement and Frontage Road in the Shoulder Source: Alternative 7C: Light Rail on dedicated guideway at grade with frontage roads outside the shoulder, RS&H Team Typical Section Schematics, Version 06/9/ RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ELIMINATION OF AT-GRADE ALTERNATIVES The effect to local conditions associated with each at-grade alternative shows that the concepts would negatively affect local mobility and create circuitous travel patterns by restricting access and creating barriers to movement. The use of grade separation of the dedicated guideways or backage routes provided by the other design alternatives would allow for local connectivity to occur through connection beneath the proposed facility or the avoidance of points of conflict. The elevated structures and backage alternatives would provide the additional service associated with managed lanes/transit without sacrificing local mobility. Based on data and analysis outlined in this report the resultant circuitous travel patterns, barrier to movement created by the at-grade alternatives, and diminished LOS, it is recommended that the following proposed at-grade alternatives be eliminated from further consideration. Table 8 provides the alternatives recommended for elimination. Table 8: At-Grade Alternatives roposed to be Eliminated from Further Consideration Alternative Alignment: At-Grade Managed Lanes/Transit Corridor Within the ROW Alternative : Express Bus/Managed Lane Option - lanes at grade Alternative 5: Express Bus/Managed Lane Option -4 lanes at grade Alternative 7A: Light Rail on dedicated guideway at grade in the median Alternative 7C: Light Rail on dedicated guideway at grade with frontage roads outside the shoulder Alternative 8A: BRT on dedicated guideway at grade in the median Alternative 8C: BRT on dedicated guideway at grade with frontage roads outside the shoulder Alternative 9: Light Rail on dedicated guideway with managed lanes Alternative 0: BRT on dedicated guideway with managed lanes Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age 0 Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

13 6.0 ANALYSIS OF REMIUM TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES The Tampa Bay Regional Transit Model Version 8 (TBRTMv8) with an adjusted subarea was used to project ridership for the premium transit alternatives. It was determined in a meeting with FDOT, RS&H, URS, and Gannett Fleming that the premium transit alternatives with the highest ridership potential would be modeled to represent all LRT and/or BRT alternatives, including those on a backage alignment. This methodology was used to save resources and screen these alternatives. Alternative 7B and 8B were modeled to represent exclusive guideway LRT and BRT respectively. In addition, the model results were modified to produce several different headways and station stop scenarios in an effort to attain the highest ridership possible. The resulting ridership was between,400 to 4,500 riders per day for LRT and,90 to 4,000 riders per day for BRT. According to the nd Quarter 00 LRT ridership numbers documented by the American ublic Transportation Association, the nationwide average weekday ridership per mile is approximately,900 passengers. This national average includes ridership for the TECO line in downtown Tampa that calculated to 96 passengers per mile. The projected 05 ridership numbers for the 54/56 corridor range from 54 to 76 passengers per mile for LRT and 46 to 56 for exclusive-guideway BRT. Due to the projections being substantially lower than the national average, it is recommended that no exclusive transit guideway alternatives be moved forward. Table 9 indicates the alternatives that would be eliminated from further consideration. Table 9: remium Transit Alternatives roposed to be Eliminated from Further Consideration Alternative Alignment: Grade-Separated Managed Lanes/Transit Corridor Within the ROW Alternative 7B: Light Rail on dedicated guideway elevated in the median Alternative 7D: Light Rail on dedicated guideway elevated outside the shoulder Alternative 8B: BRT on dedicated guideway elevated in the median Alternative 8D: BRT on dedicated guideway elevated outside the shoulder Alternative Alignment: Managed Lanes/Transit Corridor Outside of the ROW Alternative 7E: Light Rail on dedicated guideway on new backage alignment Alternative 8E: BRT on dedicated guideway on new backage alignment 7.0 RECOMMENDED FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES Of the original proposed alternatives depicted in Appendix A, Alternatives and include BRT Light and Express Bus provided within the existing 6-lane divided roadway envelope and are recommended for further study. Each alternative incorporates queue jump lanes at major intersections and dedicatedright-turn lanes. No managed lanes or dedicated guideways are included in these alternatives. Figure 6 and Figure 7 depict the typical sections for Alternatives and, respectively. In addition, Alternatives 4 and 6 are recommended for further study as warranted by the managed lane traffic volumes indicated by the model results. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the typical sections for Alternatives 4 and 6, respectively. Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

14 Figure 6: /56 Typical Section Alternative Source: Alternative : BRT Light in general use lanes with queue jumps, RS&H Team Typical Section Schematics, Version 6/9/00 Figure 7: /56 Typical Section Alternative Source: Alternative: Express Bus in general use lanes with queue jumps, RS&H Team Typical Section Schematics, Version 6/9/00 Figure 8: /56 Typical Section Alternative 4 Source: Alternative 4: Express Bus/Managed Lane Option - Lanes Grade Separated, RS&H Team Typical Section Schematics, Version 6/9/00 Figure 9: /56 Typical Section Alternative 6 Source: Alternative 6: Express Bus/Managed Lane Option 4-4 Lanes Grade Separated, RS&H Team Typical Section Schematics, Version 6/9/00 Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

15 Alternatives 8B and 8D are recommended for further study even though their anticipated ridership is very low. Including these alternatives allows for a detailed review of the costs and benefits associated with providing fixed guideway premium transit in the /56 Corridor, as well as an indication of the level of BRT ridership that could be expected to use the managed lanes evaluated in Alternatives 4 and 6. Figure 0 and Figure show the typical sections for Alternatives 8B and 8D, respectively. Figure 0: /56 Typical Section 8B Source: Alternative 8B: BRT on Dedicated Guideway Elevated in the Median, RS&H Team Typical Section Schematics, Version 6/9/00 Figure : /56 Typical Section 8D Source: Alternative : BRT on Dedicated Guideway outside the shoulder, RS&H Team Typical Section Schematics, Version 6/9/00 Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority age Definition of Feasible Alternatives Technical Memorandum /4/0

16 Appendix A reliminary Alternatives Schematics

17 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE BRT "LIGHT" IN GENERAL USE LANES WITH QUEUE JUMS FIGURE 6/6/0 8:40:5 AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt.dgn

18 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE EXRESS BUS IN GENERAL USE LANES WITH QUEUE JUMS FIGURE 6/6/0 8:40:07 AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt.dgn

19 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Managed Lanes at Grade Access To/From Managed Lanes /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE EXRESS BUS/MANAGED LANE OTION - LANES AT GRADE FIGURE 6/6/0 :7:50 M G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt.dgn

20 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Managed Lanes Grade Separated Managed Lanes at Grade /SR 56 General Lanes Access To/From Managed Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 4 EXRESS BUS/MANAGED LANE OTION - LANES GRADE SEARATED FIGURE 6/6/0 8:8:08 AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 4.dgn

21 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Managed Lanes at Grade Access To/From Managed Lanes /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 5 EXRESS BUS/MANAGED LANE OTION - 4 LANES AT GRADE FIGURE 6/6/0 :9:6 M G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 5.dgn

22 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Managed Lanes Grade Separated Managed Lanes at Grade /SR 56 General Lanes Access To/From Managed Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 6 EXRESS BUS/MANAGED LANE OTION 4-4 LANES GRADE SEARATED FIGURE 6/6/0 0::8 AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 6.dgn

23 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Dedicated Guideway at Grade /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 7A LIGHT RAIL ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY AT GRADE IN THE MEDIAN FIGURE 6/6/0 8:44:8 AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 7A.dgn

24 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Dedicated Guideway Grade Separated /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 7B LIGHT RAIL ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY ELEVATED IN THE MEDIAN FIGURE 6/6/0 8:46: AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 7B.dgn

25 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles riority Signal Access Dedicated Guideway at Grade LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. /SR 56 General Lanes Frontage Road ( way Traffic) asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 7C LIGHT RAIL ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY AT GRADE WITH FRONTAGE ROADS OUTSIDE THE SHOULDER 6/7/0 7:45:49 AM FIGURE G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 7C.dgn

26 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Dedicated Guideway Grade Separated /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 7D LIGHT RAIL ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY ELEVATED OUTSIDE THE SHOULDER FIGURE 6/6/0 9:0:00 AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 7D.dgn

27 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Dedicated Guideway At Grade /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 7E LIGHT RAIL ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY ON NEW "BACKAGE" ALIGNMENT FIGURE 6/6/0 9:04:5 AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 7E.dgn

28 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Dedicated Guideway at Grade /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 8A BRT ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY AT GRADE IN THE MEDIAN FIGURE 6/6/0 0:5: AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 8A.dgn

29 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Dedicated Guideway Grade Separated /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 8B BRT ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY ELEVATED IN THE MEDIAN FIGURE 6/6/0 9:8: AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 8B.dgn

30 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles riority Signal Access LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. Dedicated Guideway at Grade /SR 56 General Lanes Frontage Road ( Way Traffic) asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 8C BRT ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY AT GRADE WITH FRONTAGE ROADS OUTSIDE THE SHOULDER 6/7/0 7:48:7 AM FIGURE G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 8C.dgn

31 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Dedicated Guideway Grade Separated /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 8D BRT ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY ELEVATED OUTSIDE THE SHOULDER FIGURE 6/6/0 9::9 AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 8D.dgn

32 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles LEGEND Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. riority Signal Access Dedicated Guideway At Grade /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 8E BRT ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY ON NEW "BACKAGE" ALIGNMENT FIGURE 6/6/0 9:5:4 AM G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 8E.dgn

33 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles riority Signal Access Managed Lanes at Grade Access To/From Managed Lanes Dedicated Guideway at Grade LEGEND /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 9 LIGHT RAIL ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY WITH MANAGED LANES FIGURE 6/6/0 :4:09 M G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 9.dgn

34 W estern Hub a b Gunn Highway Suncoast arkway Sunlake Boulevard U.S. 4 W iregrass Boulevard NORTH NOT TO SCALE U.S. 9 Grand Blvd. Rowan Road Litle Road Starkey Road Suncoast kwy. Sunlake Blvd. U.S. 4 Colier kwy. Old CR 54 SR 58 SR 56 7 Springs Blvd. Gunn Hwy. Cypress Creek Road Trinity Blvd. CR 58(Bruce B. Downs Blvd.) 0.9 Miles.9 Miles.0 Miles.5 Miles. Miles. Miles.5 Miles.6 Miles.8 Miles. Miles 0.5 Miles 0.9 Miles.0 Miles riority Signal Access Managed Lanes at Grade Access To/From Managed Lanes Dedicated Guideway at Grade LEGEND /SR 56 General Lanes asco County Future Transit Station (IBI Report) End-Of-Line Transit Station Note: Distances are approximate based on aerial mapping measurement on S.R. 54/56. /56 CORRIDOR STUDY MANAGED LANES ALTERNATIVE 0 BRT ON DEDICATED GUIDEWAY WITH MANAGED LANES FIGURE 6/6/0 :4:44 M G:\ 56\Sheets\Alt 0.dgn

35 Appendix B riority Access oints

36 4 roject Start: US 9 US 9 9 GRAND BLVD ") ") ") ASCO ROWAN ROAD/ 7 SRINGS BLVD ") LITTLE ROAD ") STARKEY ROAD GUNN HWY «589 roject End: Bruce B. Downs SUNLAKE BLVD TRINITY BLVD «") ") ") 54 SUNCOAST KWY US 4/ LAND O LAKES BLVD OLD CR ") ") ") ") ") 54 ") COLLIER KWY I 75 «54 «") 56 CYRESS CREEK RD «58 INELLAS HILLSBOROUGH «597 Legend ") riority Access oints /56 Study Area Interstates US Roads State Roads Roads County Boundary ASCO INELLAS HILLSBOROUGH «589 «