Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 310 Court Street, 2 nd Floor, Clearwater, Florida (727)

Transcription

1 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 31 Court Street, 2 nd Floor, Clearwater, Florida (727) CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 215 TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING WEDNESDAY MARCH 25, 215 2: P.M. PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM FIRST FLOOR 31 COURT STREET CLEARWATER, FLORIDA AGENDA 3. FY 214/15 FY 218/19 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AMENDMENT(S) 4. POLICY ON THE PRIORTY LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FOR STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING 5. PRIORITIZATION OF ROADWAY PROJECTS 6. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 7. BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS CRASH REPORT 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Traffic Fatalities Map B. MPO Board Actions C. Tentative Future Agenda Topics 1. OTHER BUSINESS 11. ADJOURNMENT h:\users\users\trans\webupload\tcc NEXT TCC MEETING APRIL 22,215 Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability, or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact the Office of Human Rights, 4 South Fort Harrison Avenue, Suite 3, Clearwater, Florida 33756; [(727) (V/TDD)] at least seven days prior to the meeting. Web Address: Friend Us on Facebook

2 TCC ITEM 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 215 The minutes of the February 25, 215 TCC meeting are attached for Committee approval. ATTACHMENTS: TCC Minutes February 25, 215 (will be provided by ) ACTION: TCC to approve the February minutes TCC: 3/25/15

3 SUMMARY OF THE TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 215 The following is a summary of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization s Technical Coordinating Committee meeting held February 25, 215 in the Planning Department Conference Room, First Floor, 31 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. Members Present Leland Dicus, Chairman Joan Rice, Vice Chair Paul Bertels Bob Bray Mike Burke Christina Caputo David Chase Gina Harvey Christine McLachlan Michelle Orton Michele Parisano Katie See Heather Sobush Cheryl Stacks Scott Swearengen David Talhouk Chelsey Weldon Tom Whalen Members Absent Bennett Elbo Linda Fisher Michael Frederick Lucy Fuller Tim Funderburk John Holt Jan Norsoph Danny Taylor Mike Taylor Avera Wynne Others Present Rich Clarendon Liz Freeman Brent Hall Felicia Leonard Corey Martens Scott Pringle Scott Swearengen Al Bartolotta Rodney Chatman Chelsea Favero Robert Feigel Anne Funicello, Recorder City of Largo Community Development Engineering City of Dunedin Engineering City of Clearwater Traffic Ops City of Pinellas Park Planning Pinellas County School Board TBARTA City of Pinellas Park Stormwater and Transportation Pinellas County Public Works - Traffic City of Largo Community Development - Planning City of Treasure Island City of Oldsmar City of Clearwater PSTA City of St. Petersburg Transportation and Parking Pinellas County Planning Pinellas County Public Works Engineering City of St. Pete Beach City of St. Petersburg City of Clearwater Engineering Pinellas Planning Council City of St. Petersburg Engineering City of Dunedin Planning Department City of St. Petersburg Engineering and Capital Improvements St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport City of Seminole City of Indian Rocks Beach City of Gulfport Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Hillsborough County MPO Pinellas County Planning Pinellas County Public Works - Engineering City of Clearwater City of Clearwater Jacobs Pinellas County Planning Pinellas County MPO Staff Pinellas County MPO Staff Pinellas County MPO Staff Pinellas County MPO Staff Pinellas County MPO Staff 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dicus called the meeting to order at 2:3 P.M. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 28, 215 The minutes of the January 28, 215 TCC meeting were approved. 3. FY 214/15 FY 218/19 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AMENDMENTS No TIP amendments were brought forward at the meeting.

4 TCC MEETING SUMMARY February 25, 215 Page 2 4. PRESENTATIONS It was noted by Chairman Dicus that item 4.B. would be addressed prior to item 4.A. B. Express Bus in Tampa Bay Express Lanes Study Scott Pringle, of Jacobs Engineering and FDOT s consultant for the Express Bus in Express Lanes Study, was in attendance at the meeting to review the study. Mr. Pringle noted that the effort was initiated last year by FDOT partnering with the Hillsborough County MPO. He said that the study evaluates the feasibility of creating a regional premium express bus route from southern Pasco County through Hillsborough County and into Pinellas County. Mr. Pringle said that their task was to focus on the highest and best use of those express lanes and determine if they can be used for transit or other multimodal transportation. Their objectives were to identify where the stations should be, what the service would look like and how it would run. The screening process started with a number of different options which were narrowed down to a smaller set of recommendations. They looked at ridership, the cost, how much it would cost to operate. Mr. Pringle said that the feasibility for station locations was a big part of the study as a whole. Throughout approximately one year of technical review, they met routinely with the study project management team which was lead by FDOT and made up of staff from the Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough County MPOs and the transit agencies as well. It was noted by Mr. Pringle that the consultant s recommendation includes 6 stations including Wesley Chapel, Fletcher Avenue in USF area, Downtown Tampa, Westshore, the greater Gateway area and downtown St. Petersburg. Three options are being brought forward. Options A and B would provide all day service, some service on weekends, but with a difference in frequency during the peak hour. Option A would operate every 15 minutes during rush hour and 3 minutes the rest of the day. Option B would operate every 3 minutes during rush hour and 6 minutes the rest of the day. Option C would have service only during the morning and afternoon rush hours more frequent service, but only at certain times during the day. The next steps would be to take these three options forward and engage in regional dialogue with the transit providers and regional agencies and then implement it. These three service options were left on the table because the agency that operates the service will need options and flexibility when developing schedules and implementing the service. Mr. Pringle provided a more in depth review of the particular stations that he had identified. He noted that, to date, they have been involved with several Express Lanes Workshops that were held a couple of weeks ago and said there was a lot of interest for transit opportunities in the express lanes. Mr. Pringle handed out a fact sheet with additional information regarding the project. He said that outreach will continue to the various MPO committees and Boards, the transit agency committees, and other groups. Mr. Pringle said that there are a couple of more weeks left before they complete their presentations. In response to Mr. Bertels asking about buses on the Howard Frankland Bridge, Mr. Pringle said that they will only be using express lanes on the bridge. Mr. Whalen noted that there is nothing shown south of Gandy Boulevard which is a very busy segment of I-275 where the city of St. Petersburg would like to see express lanes and bus service. Mr. Pringle said that FDOT is aware of that and for the purposes of express bus the use of the shoulders is something that is being considered Mr. Martens asked what the reason was for choosing the hours of operation Mr. Pringle had indicated. Mr. Pringle said they were focusing on more traditional weekday services. He noted that it will be up to the implementing transit provider to make those specific determinations. Ms. Stacks noted that FDOT is doing a PD&E for I-275 and asked if they will consider the information from the consultant s study. Mr. Pringle said that they will be able to soon start distributing the information from their analysis, so FDOT will be able to use the information for that PD&E. In response to Chairman Dicus asking how this would help with congestion, Mr. Pringle said that they were pleased to see between eight and ten thousand people per day under Option A. He said that FDOT s tolling policy will dictate what the congestion is on those express lanes and where the threshold is set for what they will or will not allow. Some of the conversations have indicated that they would have a minimum speed of 45 mph for the express lanes, which would very much benefit transit. Ms. Ward noted that the MPO will receive this presentation at their April meeting and the TCC can share its concerns with the MPO Board. The MPO has also received a letter from PSTA about the express lanes going further south into St. Petersburg on I-275.

5 TCC MEETING SUMMARY February 25, 215 Page 3 Ms. Ward also noted that the express lanes are in Pinellas County s Cost Feasible Plan. She said that there will be a presentation when the I-275 PD&E is completed. Ms. Ward also noted that the southern section of I-275 is also being added to the Congestion Management List because of the concerns that have been raised. She also indicated that it was also being assessed to include adding drop lanes from 38 th to 54 th. Chairman Dicus thanked Mr. Pringle for his review. A. Hillsborough County Transportation Vulnerability Assessment Pilot Project Rich Clarendon, Hillsborough County MPO, noted that the Hillsborough County MPO was selected by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for a pilot project to address Hillsborough County s vulnerability from a transportation perspective from three specific threats including sea level rise, storm surge, and inland flooding. As Hillsborough got into the study, Mr. Clarendon said that it was realized it was timely that that the LRTP was in need of updating and they could mesh the two. They considered vulnerability and transportation security as part of their LRTP update. Mr. Clarendon noted that with 158 miles of coastline, 22% of the County s population lives within a flood prone area. There are some specific assets and economic hubs right in the crosshairs and it is important to pay attention to their connections and relationships to the transportation system. There is a lot of money invested in the County s surface transportation assets - freeways, arterial collectors, bridges, the international airport, cargo and cruise ship terminals, a transit fleet, a small street car system and rail. Mr. Clarendon said that they set out to get a handle on what the most critical and vulnerable assets are based on the three weather related risks. They zeroed in on 5 to 1 high risk assets to see what could be done to offset those risks. He noted that a fair amount of time was spent on quantifying the economic value of the assets and what the economic impact would be if they were disrupted for a specific amount of time. Mr. Clarendon said they were able to utilize the TBRPC s REMI model for that. He said that they needed to use a risk scenario and chose the same magnitude as the 1921 hurricane that hit Tarpon Springs and sent a wall of water up Tampa Bay, adding the worst case scenario of a high tide occurring at time of landfall as well as looking out to 24 with a couple of inches of sea level rise. The storm surge parameters are dramatic with the simulated CAT 3 storm with winds up to 129 mph, and storm surge at 21 feet. In terms of links that are vulnerable, a good portion of south Tampa, downtown Tampa and also south Hillsborough County would be inundated, and Pinellas would fare similarly. It was noted by Mr. Clarendon that the study examined a phased recovery where some of the more higher volume major links built to a higher standard would have more attention paid to them and could recover more quickly, surface arterials would take a little longer, and others could be out of service for as many as 8 weeks. To simulate travel disruption, the regional travel demand model was used to translate this into hours of delay. They looked at this in terms of a weekly basis, and converted the travel impacts into work hours, income, and impacts to gross regional product. Using the REMI model for one week s disruption they saw over $1 million lost productivity, $66 million lost income and over 2 million lost work hours. Mr. Clarendon said that those were Hillsborough County s numbers and would increase when adding the other impacted counties in the region. Mr. Clarendon said that there are three types of strategies that can be applied, including limiting exposure, mitigate sensitivity and adaptive capacity. He said that with respect to risk mitigation they looked at three levels of investment for implementing some of the strategies on a system wide basis. With basic low level strategies, which is what is done currently, recovery could take as much as 8 weeks to bring things back on line. Adding a little more investment, that time could be lessened to about six weeks, and with high level investment it could go down to three weeks. Mr. Clarendon said that there is a benefit to offset the impacts by investing additional dollars. One of the main links in the system is Memorial Highway/Memorial Causeway. Under the storm scenario of a Category 3 storm much of it would be underwater. They attempted to quantify the daily change in trip time and lost trips into an estimated weekly loss for the Memorial Highway. The impact to the gross regional product would be almost $16 million. The overall cost of implementing mitigation strategies noted previously, would be approximately $4.2 million. It was noted by Mr. Clarendon that the ideal time to make such improvements would be when major roads come up for reconstruction or expansion and look at the cost vs. the net benefit of avoided losses. Mr. Clarendon said that it is necessary to define the tipping point or how long the road has to be disrupted before it starts to equal the cost of the mitigation strategies. For Memorial Highway, that is a little more than one day. Mr. Chatman said that the Pinellas County Planning Department is applying for funding for something similar to this but it will more involved will look at not only transportation assets but also utility assets and public safety facilities. The goal will be to develop a decision support tool and, when the facilities are coming up for replacement, plan to accommodate for the future changes in climate.

6 TCC MEETING SUMMARY February 25, 215 Page 4 Mr. Clarendon said that the information is on their website. The full report is available at: Ms. Ward said that it is something that MPOs should be looking at. She thanked Mr. Clarendon for his presentation. C. Florida Transportation Plan Update Mr. Beaty, FDOT, provided a brochure regarding the Florida Transportation Plan and noted that he would update the Committee on what is occurring with regard to the FTP update which is currently underway. His Power Point Presentation was for both the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) and the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Policy Plan. He said that the plans must be updated every five years. Mr. Beaty noted that the FTP is the State s long range transportation plan and is for all of Florida including local, regional and private partners responsible for transportation planning and funding decisions. It was noted by Mr. Beaty that the Strategic Intermodal System consists of the highest priority transportation facilities in the State as determined by the designation criteria. These roads move the most people and freight between Florida s regions and are extremely important to FDOT. They involve all modes including airports, connectors to airports and freight centers, etc. As the state prepares for the eventual upsurge in freight activity, the SIS will become much more important in making that successful distributing the freight from the port throughout the state. The SIS Strategic plan contains the designation criteria, a needs assessment, a prioritization process and a finance strategy. The SIS fits into the FTP and connects all the modes together. All of the FDOT s plans and the MPO LRTPs can be connected back to the policies and goals of the FTP. All LRTPs in the state must have a consistency with the FTP. The partners involved in this process include the MPOs, several other state agencies, local governments in terms of their comprehensive plans, regional planning councils, the transit agencies and expressway authorities as well as regional and community vision through public outreach. As the population continues to grow in the state, it will be necessary to plan for the increases in population and freight movement, while maintaining the quality of life and to also look to the future and emerging issues. In that regard, District 7 was selected to participate in the autonomous vehicle studies that are ongoing because of the ability to use the reversible lane facility in Tampa that can be used for the evaluations of vehicles. The SIS Policy Plan defines objectives of the States high priority transportation network. Florida is one of the select few states that has such a diverse transportation system including roads, bridges, airports, and seaports so we want to be in the lead when facilitating those modes and determine what the needs will be over the next fifty years for highways, intermodal connectivity, freight, etc. It was announced this year that Florida has overtaken New York as the third most populist state in the country and is continuing to grow. It is expected that Florida will break the 2 million mark by 216 and will have a population of 25.5 million by 24. Mr. Beaty said that Florida has seen a more diverse economy. For the longest, time tourism was most prevalent along with agriculture and construction. Today, things are evolving. The state is working on becoming a major information technology center and is strong in defense in the Tampa Bay area as well as cyber security at USF. As the economy becomes more diverse it increases the state s economic competitiveness. Looking ahead, Mr. Beaty said that the FTP and the SIS will be updated by the end of 215. He said that there will be six meetings of the Steering Committee during 215 spread out across the state. The FTP website has additional information on how to get involved. Throughout the year, the Department will be going to the MPOs and policy boards to gather comments and feedback. Mr. Beaty said that the members of the TCC can provide any comments on the website or through the MPO staff to Lee Royal who will get them to the central office. Mr. Beaty said this is extremely important, and asked the members to spend time on it and provide input. Chairman Dicus thanked Mr. Beaty for his report. D. 214 Crash Report Chairman Dicus said that this item would be tabled until the next meeting. E. Roadway Prioritization Criteria Ms. Favero provided a spreadsheet to those present. She said that this item was brought to the TCC in January and to the MPO earlier in February where it generated some discussion. Ms. Favero reminded the members that the adopted STP Priority List contains only 3 remaining projects. With the update of the LRTP, the cost feasible projects must be included on the adopted list so they will be eligible for any funding going forward. Ms. Favero said that for the LRTP the prioritization criteria included in the packet was used and all the criteria was weighted evenly if it met one of the criteria it got one point. Ms. Favero noted that the projects circled on the list she disseminated are cost feasible and not currently on the prioritization list. It is proposed that the projects be taken in priority order and added to the bottom of the STP Priority List which will be updated at the May TCC meeting.

7 TCC MEETING SUMMARY February 25, 215 Page 5 It was noted by Ms. Favero that when the MPO Board reviewed this information, questions were brought up about the priority of the projects. One was that the Gandy segment ranked higher on the list than the U.S. 19/Curlew Interchange project, as well as other U.S. 19 interchange projects. They said that safety should be our top priority. It was recognized that U.S. 19 has many crashes at the interchanges and that possibly it should be ranked higher than that one segment of Gandy. It was also stated that U.S. 19 has been under construction forever and asked if it should be a higher priority to just finally complete it. There was discussion to possibly weight crash data higher than some of the other criteria to see if that would elevate the priority of U.S. 19. Ms. Favero said that the spreadsheet she disseminated showed the crashes per year by segment. It indicates that the top two segments with the highest crashes are two of the U.S. 19 segments to the north, the Tampa Road and Nebraska Avenue interchanges, and the Curlew Road had fairly low crash levels. Ms. Favero asked the Committee for their input regarding the information provided. She said that weighting by crashes may not elevate the Curlew/U.S. 19 interchange higher. In response to Mr. Bertels asking if this would affect the discussion with regard to adding transit to the STP list, Ms. Favero said that it could. Mr. Bertels also asked which three on the list were the projects in question. She said Gandy Boulevard, the Curlew Road Interchange and the Roosevelt Boulevard segment are on the current STP priority list in that order. Ms. Stacks said that it appeared that we already included crashes and recognized that safety is important which was included in two different criteria. Chairman Dicus agreed but also said maybe the other consideration of weighting would be the way to address safety instead of adding other criteria. Ms. Stacks asked if there were other criteria that we would want to consider weighting including land use or the types of activity centers. Ms. Favero responded that there are three different types of activity centers Tier 1, 2 and 3 which each get one point. A question was asked if the crashes were just totals or if they related to volumes. Ms. Favero said that they took crashes per year and divided that by miles traveled, but it did not include crash rates. Ms. Ward said that crash rates would be better criteria. In response to Mr. Dicus asking where the current prioritization criteria came from, Ms. Favero said that it was developed with the TCC in April or May when the projects for the cost feasible plan were being prioritized. In response to Mr. Bertels noting that U.S. 19 was the top priority for many years, Ms. Ward said that, about one year ago, the MPO chair at the time asked that the TCC and the Board make 118th the number one priority, which is how we got the Gateway Expressway. U.S. 19 moved to a lower priority at that time. This year, the new MPO chair asked which projects would be ready to go if additional dollars came along. It was indicated that the Curlew Interchange project was the next U.S 19 project on the list and possibly Gandy would be ready, although there may be some right of way issues. The former MPO Chair has now asked why Gandy was ahead of U.S. 19. That was based on the Board s request to get the Gateway Express. This all needs to be a part of the larger discussion of transit. Ms. Ward said that she believes the crash data information needs to be provided to the MPO Board. We now have the new U.S. 19 segments that were added with the adoption of the 24 LRTP plan, which prompted further review and we now have the transit discussion and if that should be added. Chairman Dicus said that we have nothing here that helps us with our problem in the County and with transit as part of the strategy for congestion management. Ms. Ward said that PSTA wants transit on the list because they need buses. If you widen the roads and have transit on the roadways, one would think it would benefit transit and help with transit travel speeds. Ms. Ward said that PSTA s need is buses at this point and that is why they want it on the STP list. Chairman Dicus said we can rank these projects against each other, but it seems like projects are missing and asked how is this part of the countywide congestion management program to improve mobility in the County. For example, the Greenlight plan showed rail for East Bay Drive. Ms. Ward said that remains the vision and the desire. She agreed that this list does not do for transit what was hoped but that was the failure of the Greenlight referendum for the most part. She said that we are now prioritizing what we have the resources to fund, the cost feasible projects, with a parallel effort to bring more funding to the area. Mr. Bertels said that many of the people on the TCC have no idea how the projects got on the list vs. ones that are not. Why are some arterials on here and others not? What made them special to get them on the list in the first place? Ms. Ward said that maybe the Committee needs a work session to explain how this started over 25 years ago with the first plan in Ms. Sobush said that would answer why there was a need then and if that is the same today. Mr. Beaty said that the list involves the selection of socioeconomic data and a whole host of factors that the MPO just went through with the major LRTP update. The information is fed into a model which determines where the need is in terms of capacity and is a large influence on what projects make it on the priority list. Mr. Beaty said that this list is not meant to deal with congestion

8 TCC MEETING SUMMARY February 25, 215 Page 6 management and there is separate priority list for that program. Ms. Ward said that the TCC approved the Congestion Management List and it is in the TIP. She said that she wants to make sure all the TCC members are comfortable with the decision making going forward and if they would like to workshop this item that can be done. Mr. Bertels said that no criticism is intended. We are looking at changing the criteria for prioritizing road projects on the STP list and now there is discussion to add buses. The trail community will also want a slice of the funding as well. Chairman Dicus said that they want to prioritize across those three areas road capacity, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian/trails and prioritize them together. Ms. Ward said that other MPO s do allocate among the multimodal categories. She said that if this is the desire of the TCC, staff can provide the additional information so the Committee knows where the funds are currently allocated. Mr. Beaty said that it is clear to him that the TCC wants to have is an understanding of the revenues in the program and a word in how to spend those dollars. Hillsborough County has one massive list with all their eggs in one basket. Mr. Beaty explained that the Surface Transportation Program (STP) is the entire universe of money - the urban attributable funds or the TMA funds are the ones the MPOs must prioritize. They are flexible and can be used for almost anything. Mr. Beaty said that when all the projects are on one list, it becomes a challenge to prioritize them because you are comparing apples and oranges. If you take what has been planned for and approved in the cost feasible plan and reassign the dollars to a trail or local street project, those funds are flexible but it is done at the expense of what has already been committed to in the cost feasible plan. Ms. Sobush said that the MPO priority list does open the door to other funding options and why PSTA wants to get on the list. PSTA wants to be on the list for bus replacement dollars because they can maintain their system not grow their system. Mr. Talhouk said that he did not see how you could have one list and have all the different criteria. There seems to be logic to prioritizing within specific categories. Ms. Leonard suggested possibly having a list that indicates what funds a project is eligible for. Projects could be eligible in a number of different categories. Mr. Beaty said that the department does that during their gaming process. The work program works against the priority list to blend the dollars to totally fund projects and we will continue to do that. It is important that the FDOT has a clear list of prioritized projects. Chairman Dicus said that there appeared to be consensus among the members that we are recommending that in the MPO Board s consideration of reprioritizing this STP list that it also be taken into consideration the balance of funding towards these and other projects and how they could be prioritized together. The Chairman said that it will be the Committee s goal to make a recommendation and motion to the MPO at the next meeting. Ms. Stacks suggested that a group meet separately in this regard because it will be a big conversation and she would not want to shortchange it. Ms. Ward said that if the Committee wants to do that, she would suggest they meet just prior to the March meeting. In the meantime she said that staff would send the link to the financial resources document that was used in the LRTP. Staff will again send the project tables included in the adopted plan so the members can see how the funds are currently allocated, and what the implications may be if changes are made. Ms. Ward noted that the FDOT is expecting the priorities no later than August this year. Usually the Board takes action at the September MPO meeting and it is transmitted in October; however, that needs to be advanced because the Legislative session will be starting early in 216. It may be as early as May or June. The TCC will also need to look at the TA list as well. F. Policy on the Use of STP Funds Ms. Favero noted that the STP funds are allocated to the urbanized area that is made up of Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. For the LRTP, it was decided to divide the funding based on TMA population. For Pinellas there is about $12.4 million per year in year of expenditure dollars. Ms. Favero said that that the adopted TIP indicates an average of $14 million per year; however, FDOT can put money on a high priority project they want to fund, but would not be based on population. She said that a specific dollar amount per year cannot be guaranteed. Ms. Favero said that there is a set aside of between $1 and 5 million annually for CMP and safety. In the adopted TIP, there is currently $34 Million on the Gateway Expressway, $4 million on Gandy and $27.9 million on U.S 19 (S.R. 58 Northside Drive segment). There are also dollars in the outer years on the U.S. 19 project. In the LRTP, there is about $22 million on the Roosevelt project, just over $1 million on design for the northern segment of U.S. 19, and just under $6 million on Gandy from 4 th Street to the Gandy Bridge.

9 TCC MEETING SUMMARY February 25, 215 Page 7 In response to Mr. Talhouk asking what the bucket of money is for this reprioritization and this exercise, Ms. Favero said that on the TMA side it is about $12.4 million. Ms. Sobush said this is how you program it in the LRTP to make it cost feasible, but in reality only the Five Year Work Program has the funds allocated so FDOT could allocate different percentages to these projects. Ms. Favero said that is the case. Mr. Beaty said that there is another thing to remember when reprioritizing the TMA dollars. The more TMA dollars the MPO has to come to the table with, the more leverage they have to get higher total amounts, for example, the Gateway Expressway. $34 million was committed by the Pinellas MPO and the governor became involved and FDOT was able to get a total of $3 million. Mr. Beaty said that if all TMA funding is depleted on local projects, there will be less money to ask for dollars for larger projects such as U.S. 19 or Gateway. The more dollars available from the local government, the more interest it generates in Tallahassee. Ms. Favero reviewed what the 18 MPOs in the state do with regard to allocation of TMA dollars. She noted that 2 have a specific annual percentage, only 2 use the TMA dollars for roads and the remaining MPOs divided the dollars among the different modes. In response to Chairman Dicus asking about PSTA wanting to be on the STP list for the funding of buses, Ms. Sobush said that the PSTA Board had a long discussion about STP and talked about the letter that would be sent to the MPO. They will be discussing this more and she would not expect the PSTA Board to send the formal request to the MPO Board until at least the end of next month. Ms. Sobush said that PSTA would like to see the STP Priority List become a multimodal list and that the MPO would adopt such a list or include transit on the STP list. In response to Mr. Bertels asking if PSTA would be raising the ad valorem tax, Ms. Sobush said that is on the table, including increasing their fares, seeking additional kind of revenue sources, the gas tax, rebuilding their fleet to extend its life, and other administrative or operating efficiencies to save dollars. PSTA is also looking at whether the Board will cut services or policies to maintain service with our current budget and incrementally make improvements such as BRT type projects, express service projects or other pilot projects for premium service. Mr. Bertels also asked if replacement of buses would be the only thing that PSTA would want on the STP list, Ms. Sobush said that if PSTA is able to maintain its current budget they can fund operations, but would have an annual capital gap. That is why they are discussing bus replacements now. From an MPO multimodal perspective, they would want to look at other transit projects in the future such as intermodal facilities, premium transit services and capital improvements associated with them. Ms. Stacks said that this is complicated and with the timeframe we have she worries it will open a big can of worms that we cannot put a lid on. She suggested that possibly the easier solution may be to go with a percentage of the annual allocation and then for next year s priorities there would be more time for discussion. Mr. Beaty said that FDOT would expect to see projects on the priority list. A percentage is too vague. As a policy measure, the MPO Board could commit to that, but money cannot be boxed. It would have to be a project not just a category. Ms. Sobush said that she agrees with Ms. Stacks that two months is ambitious. She thinks that in the upcoming months PSTA will have more information to bring forward and timing is a challenge. She appreciates all of the points that were made and realize they need to know what PSTA s priorities are. Mr. Bertels said that he hoped that the PSTA Board would be able to decide what they need to do as soon as possible. Mr. Beaty said that one of the suggestions, if expanded, might meet everyone s agenda. It would be to add a PSTA project to the STP list to garner some of the TMA dollars. The Committee could accept recommendations for any mode that they feel is of importance. For example, Mr. Beaty said that a pedestrian overpass would be $3 million or $4 million dollars. That would get the project on the fringe of the funding category. If it is a true need and the Committee would support it, it could be added to the TMA, STP list. That would be an approach instead of unzipping the entire process. Mr. Bertels said this could give us some breathing room. If it is on the list it is mixed in with all the others and prioritized. Ms. Stacks said that any of the trail projects are $2 million or $3 million. Do we want to limit it to just transit? BPAC has requested that this item come to them at their next meeting. Ms. Ward said that the Chairman Dicus asked if there should be a separate meeting to discuss this further before the next TCC meeting. Mr. Talhouk said he thought it could be handled at the meeting based on this discussion.

10 TCC MEETING SUMMARY February 25, 215 Page 8 Mr. Bertels made a motion that the PSTA s request for bus purchases as a project be placed on the STP list for consideration and prioritization at the next TCC meeting. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Favero said that she would coordinate with the Chairman to determine if the meeting should start early based on the items that will need to be addressed. G. Proposed Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan Amendments This item was postponed until the next meeting due to time constraints. H. Transportation Alternatives Program Applications for Regional Prioritization This item was postponed until the next meeting due to time constraints. 5. OTHER BUSINESS A. Committee Membership B. Other Information regarding membership was provided under this item. There were no questions or comments under this item. 6. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Traffic Fatalities Map The Traffic Fatalities Map was included in the packet. B. MPO Board Actions The MPO Newsletter Action Sheet was included in the packet. C. Tentative Future Agenda Topics Topics that will come to the TCC over the next couple of months were noted under this item. 7. ADJOURNMENT It was noted that the next TCC meeting would be held on March 25, 215. The meeting was adjourned at 4:3 p.m. h\users\cendocs\min\tcc docx

11 TCC ITEM 3. FY 214/15 FY 218/19 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AMENDMENT At the time of agenda preparation, there were no requests for TIP Amendments. If the need for a TIP amendment(s) arises following the distribution of the agenda packet, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will present the proposed amendment(s) under this agenda item. ATTACHMENTS: Any proposed TIP amendment forms will be provided at the meeting ACTION: As deemed appropriate based on discussion TCC: 3/25/15

12 TCC ITEM 4. POLICY ON THE PRIORTY LIST OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FOR STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING The adopted priority list of transportation projects has been utilized to direct the funds allocated through the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and for the purpose of pursuing other State and federal funds. Traditionally, this priority list has been primarily used for major roadway improvements, although it may also be used to seek funding for multi-modal improvements including bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit investments. The priority list was modified in September 214 to add management, operations and safety programs for the State Highway System. With pending revenue shortfalls for transit, PSTA has verbally requested that the MPO consider including bus replacements on its priority list, with a formal request from the PSTA Board expected soon. After discussion by the MPO in February, it was decided the item would be brought back to the advisory committees for further review. At last month s meeting, the TCC expressed interest in adding bus replacements to the priority list, but wanted more information from MPO staff before making a final recommendation. At the March meeting of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, a motion was approved requesting that the MPO make the priority list of transportation projects multimodal, allowing for the addition of bicycle, pedestrian and transit projects. For this item, MPO staff will give an overview of the various revenue sources available for transportation projects, current and anticipated STP revenue, how other projects may be impacted by opening this funding source to multimodal projects, and how other MPOs across the state are managing their STP funding allocations. The intent of this item is to provide the MPO Board with a recommendation from the advisory committees on the inclusion of multimodal projects on the prioritized list of transportation projects. ATTACHMENT: Transportation Mode Eligibility by Revenue Source ACTION: As deemed appropriate, based on discussion TCC: 3/25/15

13 Transportation Mode Eligibility by Revenue Source Source Funding Type Mode Total Amount Available Road Construction Transit Bike/Ped Operational Improvements (22-24) Federal Transportation Management Area X X X X $259,16,152 Federal Transportation Alternatives X $5,245,364 State Strategic Intermodal System/Florida Interstate Highway System X $39,591,47 State Other Arterial X X $652,15, State Transportation Regional Incentive Program X X X $9,38,82 PSTA All Sources X $2,384,787,854 County Constitutional Fuel Tax (2 ) X X County County Fuel Tax (1 ) X X X County 9th Cent Fuel Tax (1 )* X X X X Local Transportation Impact Fees X X X Local 6-Cent 1st Local Option Fuel Tax X X X X Local Penny for Pinellas X X X X N/A 5-Cent 2nd Local Option Fuel Tax** X X X *While authorized by statute to be used for any mode, Pinellas County currently allocates 1% of this revenue source to ITS/ATMS projects. **Pinellas County does not currently collect this revenue source.

14 TCC ITEM 5. PRIORITIZATION OF ROADWAY PROJECTS At their February meeting, the MPO Board received an overview of the criteria used to prioritize the Cost Feasible roadway projects in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the resulting priority list of projects. There was some discussion regarding the fact that a segment of Gandy Blvd. ranked higher than a segment of US 19, despite the safety concerns along the US 19 corridor. It was noted that safety should be at the forefront of the MPO s planning efforts and some concern that all of the criteria received equal weighting in the prioritization process. It was also expressed that since US 19 has been under construction for such a long period of time, an effort should be made to finish the corridor as soon as possible and this should also perhaps impact the ranking of the projects. As the MPO will soon be updating the priority listing of projects for state and federal funding, the MPO Board asked that the TCC take another look at the prioritization criteria for the roadway projects in the Cost Feasible LRTP and reconsider the weighting of the criteria. At the February meeting, the TCC received an overview of the criteria used to rank the roadway projects but wanted more information on the inclusion of other modes on the priority list before making a final recommendation to the Board. MPO staff will bring forward information on the inclusion of other modes and the criteria initially used to rank the roadway projects and seek input from the TCC on any changes, as deemed appropriate. ATTACHMENT: Prioritized List of Cost Feasible Roadway Projects in the 24 Long Range Transportation Plan ACTION: As deemed appropriate, based on discussion TCC: 3/25/15

15 Project Rank Facility From To Existing Need Present Day Cost Funding Status US 19 (SR 55) N/A Boy Scout Rd. Overpass N. of SR 58 Northside Dr. 6D + 2AUX 6P $53,827,61 X ROW 216, 217; CST 22 1 SR 694 (Gandy Blvd.) US 19 (SR 55) E I 275 6D 6D + E $22,, X* ROW fully funded in Prioritized List of Cost Feasible Roadway Projects in the 24 Long Range Transportation Plan US 19 (SR 55) Curlew Interchange Northside Drive N. of CR 95 6D + 2AUX 6P $1,32, X Design Underway SIS Facility Project Included in Last LRTP Project included in MPO STP Priority List Completes a Gap in the Network Prioritization Criteria Design Funded Improves Access to Intermodal Facilities Serves Existing or Future Activity Center Part of the SIS CMP SWEEP Score of 1 or Greater** Corridor Contains At Least One of the Top 25 High Crash Intersections Corridor Includes Planned Premium Transit Service Total Score SR 686 (Roosevelt Boulevard) Stage 3 of 6 W. of I 275 Interchange SR 686 (Roosevelt Blvd.) W. of 9th Street NA 4P $11,647, Design Underway US 19 (SR 55) Tampa and Nebraska Interchanges North of CR 95 N. of Nebraska Ave. 6D+2AUX 6P $111,724,8 X PE 217 US 19 (SR 55) Alderman Interchange N. of Nebraska Ave. S. of Timberlane Rd. 6D+2AUX 6P $179,52, X PE US 19 (SR 55) Klosterman Interchange S. of Timberlane Rd. South of Lake Street 6D+2AUX 6P $171,494,4 X PE I 275 Express Lanes Pinellas County Line Gandy Blvd. 6/8F 6/8F + 2AUX $8,76, X US 19 (SR 55) 9 Tarpon Interchange South of Lake Street Pinellas Trail 6D+2AUX 6P $142,348,8 X SR 694 (Gandy Blvd.) East of SR 687 (4th Street N.) West end of Gandy Br. 4D 4P $5,, X *Being removed from the SIS with completion of the Gateway Express Project. ** CMP SWEEP Score calculated as follows: Formula Congestion Factor = DOC x V/C Crash Factor = Three year crash totals/3, then divide this number by the length of corridor Weighted Score = Assuming Congestion Factor at 6% weight and Crash Factor at 4% weight: Congestion Factor x 1.6 plus Crash Factor x 1.4 = Score

16 TCC ITEM 6. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PROJECT PRIORITIZATION The MPO staff from Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties worked together in 214 to develop the attached TMA-TA priority list in accordance with the Moving Ahead for Progress for the 21st Century (MAP 21) legislation and FDOT guidance. A second, local TA priority list for Pinellas County is also attached and includes information regarding the status of the TA projects. This local TA priority list is used to add projects to the TMA-TA priority list as funding becomes available. The annual transmittal of priority lists to FDOT will occur two months earlier this year as the Legislature is meeting two months earlier than normal in 216. As a result, the annual adoption of priority lists will be reviewed by the MPO advisory committees in May this year instead of in August. The MPO will adopt the priority lists in June. The adopted TA Program priority list will be transmitted to FDOT in July. The FDOT will then utilize the adopted priority list in the development of their five-year work program for the next fiscal year. As the regional list was being compiled in 214, it was understood by the MPOs that regional criteria would be developed this year and utilized to prepare the next TMA-TA priority list. However, the TMA MPOs have since agreed to utilize their respective project selection and prioritization processes to determine which projects will be included on the TMA-TA priority list. This will ensure that the TMA-TA list will reflect the priorities of the individual MPOs as well as those of the region. Based on a review of the current projects on the Pinellas County priority list, the applications for many of them are still incomplete, meaning they do not include all the required documentation. In order to allow opportunities for other qualified projects to receive TA funding, staff is requesting that the applications for all projects on the current priority list for Pinellas County be completed by the sponsoring local governments by May 31 this year. Projects without completed applications after this date will be subject to removal from the list. The current priority list for the County (see attached) also includes three new projects numbered 33 that were submitted in 214. The three new projects need to be ranked using the MPO s existing process. The MPO s existing TA project criteria was last applied in 21. As these criteria are nearly five years old, the MPO is recommending that a TCC subcommittee be formed to review the criteria and recommend any modifications as deemed appropriate. The subcommittee will also be asked to rank the three new 214 projects according to the revised criteria. After the updated criteria is reviewed and updated/revised as necessary, the three projects will be scored and ranked in priority order. It should be noted that the projects will remain behind those submitted in prior years. The updated criteria will also be utilized for any new project applications. New applications seeking TA funding and ranking on the priority list will be accepted between September 215 and February 26, 216. The attached timeline for the TA Program provides the schedule for the completion of current applications, ranking of the 214 projects and the acceptance of new applications. ATTACHMENTS: TMA-TA Priority List ACTIONS: Local TA Priority List Status Table TA Program 215/16 Timeline 1. Recommendation regarding the deadline for incomplete TA applications 2. Assign subcommittee to update TA project ranking criteria and rank the three new 214 projects TCC: 3/25/15

17 Tampa Bay TMA Transportation Alternatives Program Priorities Note: Available Funding Funding targets are illustrative and used to establish a reasonable list of projects for each county in the TMA. FY 18 FY 19 Available funding for FY 18 and FY 19 was provided by FDOT District 7. $1,44,252 $3,111,996 Pasco County Target $58, $748, Project Total 1 2th St Sidewalk (CR 54 to Henry Road) $82, 2 Safe Routes to Schools Mittye P. Lock Elementary (Wiggins Road Sidewalk) $216, Cypress Elementary School (Sweet Bay Court Sidewalk) $85, Chasco Elementary School (Galen Wilson Flashing sings and marked crosswalk) $54, Cox Elementary School (17th Street Sidewalk / Main St Sidewalk) $77,4 Stuart Middle School (1th St Sidewalk) $87,6 3 Massachusetts Avenue Sidewalk (Congress St to downtown New Port Richey) $175,2 Pinellas County Target $1.4 $1.5 million Project Total 4 Safe Routes to Schools City of St. Petersburg's Sexton Elementary School sidewalk project (19th St N from 38th Ave N to 52nd Ave N) $46,4 5 City of Largo's West Bay Dr Pinellas Trail Gateway project (intersection of West Bay Dr and 12th St SW) $45, 6 City of Oldsmar's Oldsmar Trail Phase 6 Extension (along Douglas Rd between Racetrack Rd and Tampa Rd) $42, 7 City of Belleair Bluffs' West Bay Dr Crosswalks (West Bay Dr between Bluff View Dr and Indian Rocks Rd) $31, 8 Pinellas County's 62nd Ave N Sidewalk Project (62nd St N to 55th St N) $292,4 Hillsborough County Target $1.9 $2. million Project Total 9 Safe Routes to Schools Stowers Elem. & Barrington Middle (Boyette Rd Sidewalk) $155, Summerfield Elementary (Big Bend Rd and Heritage Green Sidewalk) $164, Frost Elementary (Camden Field Pkwy Sidewalk) $72, Eisenhower Middle (Old Big Bend Rd Sidewalk) $227, Cypress Creek Elem. & Shields Middle (19th Ave NE Sidewalk) $17, Nelson Elementary $83, Riverview Elementary $112, 1 Columbus Drive Complete Street from Nebraska Ave to 14th Street $655, 11 Floribraska Ave Complete Street from Florida Ave to Nebraska Ave $518, Pasco County Target $58, $748, Project Total 12 Marine Parkway Sidewalk (U.S. 19 to Grand Blvd New Port Richey) $152, 13 Grand Blvd Sidewalk ( Massachusetts Ave to U.S. 19 New Port Richey) $2,65 14 River Gulf Road Sidewalk only (Grand Blvd to Bayview St via U.S. 19 river bridge underpass Port Richey) $11, Pinellas County Target $1.4 $1.5 million Project Total 15 City of St. Petersburg's Bayway South Trail Connection $1,1, 16 City of Dunedin's Michigan Blvd Multi Use Trail (Pinellas Trail to CR 1) $426,5 17 City of St. Petersburg's School Crossing Enhancement Project $35, th St walk/bike safety improvements 19 Rome Ave walk/bike safety improvements Hillsborough County Target $1.9 $2. million Project Total $77, PE $442, CST $213, PE $1,223, CST Final TA Prioirties 1/7/214

18 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# Sexton Elementary School sidewalk along 19 th St N from 38 th Ave N to 52 nd Ave N A 4 City of St. Petersburg 1 Adoption Year Status CST scheduled/funded in the TIP for FY 218/19 Oldsmar Trails - Phase II (Tampa Rd to R.E. Olds Park) CST completed City of Oldsmar Oldsmar Trails - Phase III (R.E. Olds Park to Cypress CST completed Forest Park) Oldsmar Trails - Phase V (Sheffield Park to Curlew Rd) CST completed 2 City of St. Petersburg Treasure Island Causeway/Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail Connection (linking the west end of Treasure Lane to the existing Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail) City of Largo 4 City of St. Petersburg Phase I - Eastern trail and wayfinding signage Phase II - providing a separated path on Central Ave at Causeway Isles from the east end of Causeway Blvd N to the west end of Causeway Blvd N Citywide Sidewalk and Trails Initiative (Adrian Ave and Gladys St) Bayway Trail North - Phase II (Gulf Intercoastal Drawbridge to SR 682/Pinellas Bayway) CST deferred from FY 214/15 to 217/18 to coordinate with the City's project schedule DGN underway DGN will be completed in June CST underway Page 1

19 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority 5 City of St. Petersburg Adoption Year Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# Status Walter Fuller Park (Connection to Fred Marquis Pinellas CST underway Trail from Walter Fuller Park at 26th Ave N to the Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail at 22nd Ave N) 6 Pinellas County Hercules Ave/Greenbriar Blvd Sidewalk - Phase I (Sunset Point Rd to Belcher Rd) CST scheduled/funded in the TIP for FY 215/16 7 City of St. Petersburg Bicycle Facilities - 3th Ave N (Dr Martin Luther King Jr St N to 58th St N) 8 Pinellas County Hercules Ave/Greenbriar Blvd Sidewalk - Phase II (Sherwood St to Sunset Point Rd) 9 Pinellas County Park Blvd/CR 694 ADA Ramp and Sidewalk Improvements (Starkey Rd to 66th St N) CST scheduled/funded in the TIP for FY 215/ CST scheduled/funded in the TIP for FY 217/ CST scheduled/funded in the TIP for FY 216/17 1 City of St. Petersburg 11 City of St. Petersburg 12 City of St. Petersburg Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail Extension Landscaping (Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail at Central Avenue W to Bayshore Dr) Bicycle Facilities - Phase II (Bayshore Dr SE from the Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail to Dali Blvd/5th Ave S to 1st Ave S) Pedestrian Crosswalk Enhancement - Rectangular LED Rapid Flashing Beacons (multiple locations) CST underway DGN underway. CST scheduled/funded in the TIP for FY 214/ CST underway Page 2

20 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority Adoption Year Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# Status 13 Pinellas County Keene Rd (CR 1) ADA Ramp and Sidewalk DGN underway Improvements (Main St/SR 58 to Curlew Rd/SR 586) 14 Pinellas County Haines Bayshore Rd Sidewalk (US 19 to Sunrise Blvd) CST scheduled/funded in the TIP for FY 215/16 15 City of Clearwater Druid Trail (Progress Energy Trail to Glen Oaks Park) CST scheduled/funded in TIP for FY 216/17 16 FDOT / Pinellas County MPO Courtney Campbell Causeway Recreational Trail (Bayshore Blvd to the Pinellas/Hillsborough County line) Bayshore Blvd to E of Tampa Bay Bridge # CST underway E of Bridge #138 to Pinellas/Hillsborough County line CST underway 17 5 City of Largo West Bay Dr Pinellas Trail Gateway (intersection of West Bay Dr and 12th St SW) Currently ranked number 5 on the Tampa Bay TMA-TA Program Priorities list. FDOT has this project on hold pending LAP certification by the City of Largo. Page 3

21 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority 18 6 City of Oldsmar Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# Oldsmar Trail Phase 6 Extension (along Douglas Rd between Racetrack Rd and Tampa Rd) Adoption Year Status CST scheduled/funded in the TIP for FY 218/ City of St. Petersburg Bayway South Trail Connection (within the City of St Pete and ending at Madonna Blvd) Phase I - North end of Boca Ciega Bridge to SR 682 (54th Ave S) Phase II - South end of Boca Ciega Bridge to the City limits south of Madonna Blvd Currently ranked number 15 on the Tampa Bay TMA- TA Program Priorities list. Revised application for Phase II received but incomplete. FDOT needs the City to submit a LAP letter and clearer copy of ROW documentation. 19 City of St. Petersburg North Bay Trail Extension (Patica Rd and San Martin Blvd between 83rd Ave NE and Gandy Blvd) Phase I - 83rd Ave N to Progress Energy Trail Phase II - North of the Progress Energy Trail to Gandy Blvd FDOT feasibility determination underway 2 16 City of Dunedin Michigan Blvd Multi-Use Trail (Pinellas Trail to CR 1) CST scheduled/funded in the TIP for FY 218/19 Page 4

22 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# 2 Pinellas County Park St/Starkey Rd Sidewalk Project (Tyrone Blvd N to East Bay Dr) Phase I - Tyrone Blvd to Bryan Dairy Rd Phase II - Bryan Dairy Rd to East Bay Dr Adoption Year Status Application resubmittal received but incomplete. FDOT requires ROW 21 documentation, LAP letter, typciacl section and public involvmeent description for 21 the application to be considered to be complete City of Belleair Bluffs West Bay Dr Crosswalk (West Bay Dr between Bluff View Dr and Indian Rocks Rd) FDOT has determined this project to be feasible. It is currently ranked number 7 on the Tampa Bay TMA-TA Program Priorities list. 21 City of St. Petersburg 22 City of Dunedin 71st St N Trail - Pinellas Trail Connector (Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail to 38th Ave) 21 Application resubmittal received but incomplete. San Christopher Multi-Use Trail (Pinellas Trail to CR 1) Application complete and project is feasible. Page 5

23 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# Status 23 8 Pinellas County 62nd Ave N Sidewalk Project (62nd St N to 55th St N) 21 Currently ranked number 8 on the Tampa Bay TMA-TA Program Priorities list. Application resubmittal received but incomplete. FDOT requires ROW documentation, typical section, public involvement description and a LAP letter for application. Adoption Year 24 City of St. Petersburg Central Ave Corridor Complete Streets (Dr Martin Luther King Jr St to the western city limits) Phase I - Streetscape Improvements (31st St to 58th St) Phase II - Streetscape Improvements (34th St to 58th St) 21 Application complete and both phases of the project are feasible. 25 City of Oldsmar Tampa Rd/SR 584 Trail Overpass (intersection of SR 584/Tampa Rd and St Petersburg Dr) 21 Additional review required by FDOT. Page 6

24 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# Bike Lane Improvements (1st Ave N from Dr Martin Luther King Jr St N to 66th St N and 1st Ave S from Dr Martin Luther King Jr St S to Pasadena Ave S) 26 City of St. Petersburg Adoption Year Status 21 Revised application received but incomplete. FDOT requires a clearer copy of ROW documentation, demonstration of public support/involvement, a LAP letter and demonstration of a safety issue. 27 Pinellas County 42nd Ave N Sidewalk Project (46th St N to 35th St N) 21 Application resubmittal received but incomplete. FDOT requires a LAP letter, demonstration of public support through outreach in the neighborhood, a clearer copy of ROW documetation and demonstration of a safety issue. Page 7

25 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# School Crossing Enhancements (various locations) City of St. Petersburg 29 City of St. Petersburg North Bay Trail and Skyway Trail Hardscape Enhancements (various locations along the Skyway Trail) Adoption Year Status 21 Application Complete. Currently ranked number 17 on the Tampa Bay TMA- TA Program Priorities list. 21 Application received and under review. 3 City of St. Petersburg 9th Avenue North Complete Streets (9th Ave N from 66th St to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr St) 21 Application resubmittal received but incomplete. FDOT requires a clearer copy of ROW documentation, demonstration of public support/involvement, a LAP letter and documentation of a safety issue. 31 City of St. Petersburg Gandy Boulevard Sidewalk Connections (various locations near Gandy Blvd from 16th St N to Brighton Bay) 21 Application resubmittal received but considered incomplete. FDOT requires a LAP letter and a clearer copy of ROW documentation. Page 8

26 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# 18th Avenue South Complete Street (4th Street S to 34th St S) 32 City of St. Petersburg Adoption Year Status 21 Appliation resubmittal received but considered incomplete. FDOT requires a LAP letter, demonstration of public support and a clearer copy of ROW documentation. 32 City of St. Petersburg St Pete City Trails Priority Sidewalks (between 31st St S and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr St) 21 Application received but considered incomplete. FDOT requires a LAP letter and a clear copy of ROW documentation. 33 City of Clearwater Courtney Campbell Causeway Recreational Trail Overpass (SR 6/Gulf-to-Bay Blvd) at Bayshore Blvd 214 Appliction received but considered incomplete. FDOT requires a LAP letter, ROW documentation, engineer's estimate and application signature by the City Manager Page 9

27 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# 33 Pinellas County Pinellas Bayway Trail Segment (East Shores Blvd to Tierra Verde Bridge) Adoption Year Status 214 Application received but considered incomplete. FDOT requires a LAP letter and a clear copy of ROW documentation. 33 Multi-Use Trails - Phase 1 (existing Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail Spur Connection/55th St S/Beach Blvd S from Jersey Ave S to 28th Ave S) 214 City of Gulfport Multi-Use Trails - Phase 2 (existing Skyway Trail Connection to 47th St S/Del Rio Way S) Multi-Use Trails - Phase 3 (31st Ave S from Tifton Dr S to 54th St S/Shore Blvd S) Applications received but considered incomplete. FDOT requires an engineer's estimate, typical section, public involvement description, LAP letter and a clear copy of ROW documentation. Multi-Use Trails - Phase 4 (Shore Blvd S from 54th St S to 58th St S) 214 Multi-Use Trails - Phase 5 (58th St S from Shore Blvd S to 28th Ave S) 214 Page 1

28 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority 34 City of Largo Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# Citywide Sidewalk and Trails Initiative (Lake Ave to Alt Keene Rd) 34 Pinellas County Progress Energy Trail (North Connection) (Chesnut Sr Park to Old Coachman Road/Ream Wilson Trail) Adoption Year Status 21 Project added to the end of the priority list in 21 for the purpose of qualifying for other funding sources. 21 Project added to the end of the priority list in 21 for the purpose of qualifying for other funding sources. 34 Pinellas County Progress Energy Trail (South Connection) (aproximately Belleair Rd to 83rd Ave) 21 Project added to the end of the priority list in 21 for the purpose of qualifying for other funding sources. Page 11

29 PINELLAS COUNTY MPO FY 214/15-218/19 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (TA) PROGRAM PRIORITY LIST STATUS REPORT MPO Priority TMA Priority Jurisdiction Project Description FPN# Adoption Year Status 1) Projects numbered as 34 were added to the list for the purpose of qualifying for other potential funding sources. 3) Phase V was added to the Oldsmar Trail project pursuant to MPO action regarding the 26 priority list on September 13, 26. 4) The term "Bicycle Facilities" may include bicycle paths, trails and/or lanes. 5) FPN = financial project number; PE = preliminary engineering; CST = construction; DGN = design; ROW = Right-of-Way Acquisition; LAP = Local Agency Program 6) The Transportation Enhancement (TE) Program was eliminated and replaced by the Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program under the Moving Ahead for Progress for the 21st Century (MAP-21) legislation passed in 212. All unfunded projects on the TA Program priority list have been re-submitted on the new TA Program application because the eligibility criteria in the TE Program was changed by the TA Program. The deadline for re-submitting projects on the new TA Program application was July 1, ) Project A was at the top of the SRTS priority list before the program was combined with the Transportation Enhancements (TE) Program and placed under the TA Program pursuant to MAP 21. This project was added to the top of the TA Program priority list by the MPO at its June 12, 213 meeting in order to maintain funding eligibility. 8) Although landscaping projects are not eligible for funding under the TA Program, project number 1 (Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail Extension Landscaping) was fully funded in FY 212/13 using Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds before they expired on June 3, ) Sections of project number 11 (Bicycle Facilities - Phase II) described in the FDOT Work Program in Section 3 of the Pinellas County MPO's Transportaiton Improvement Program (TIP) were not included in this table. 4th Ave S from 1st St SE to Dr. Martin Luther King Dr. St S; 8th St S from 1st Ave N to Dr. Martin Luther King Dr. St S; and 1st St N from 1st Ave N to 5th Ave N have been completed and SR 687 (4th St N) from SR 694 (Gandy Blvd) to I-275 (SR 93) and SR 686 (Roosevelt Blvd) from 28th St N to N of Gandy Blvd will be completed by another funding source. 1) At its June 11, 214 meeting, the MPO allowed local jurisdictions to add new TA projects to the bottom of the priority list and also allowed project substitutions and modifications. 11) Shaded projects are on the TMA-TA Priority List. This local TA priority list is used to add projects to the TMA-TA priority list as funding becomes available. Although both TA priority lists are included in the FY 214/15-218/19 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the TMA-TA priority list is the official list used by FDOT to fund TA projects. Page 12

30 Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program Timeline for 215/216 Actions 1) TCC reviews/approves May 29, 215 deadline for completion of TA applications and forms subcommittee to update ranking and scoring criteria and recommend priority order of the three unranked 214 projects* 2) TCC reviews/approves ranking and scoring criteria and priority order of 214 projects recommended by subcommittee 3) MPO advisory committees review/approve updated criteria and proposed ranking of the 214 projects Date/Date Range March 25, 215 March April 11, 215 April 215 4) MPO approves deadline for completion of TA applications April 8, 215 5) MPO reviews/approves proposed criteria and ranking of 214 projects May 13, 215 6) MPO advisory committees review/approve Surface Transportation Program (STP) and TMA-TA priority lists as well as updated Pinellas County TA priority list 7) Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership Group Review of TMA-TA Priority List 8) MPO reviews/approves recommended STP, Pinellas County TA and TMA-TA priority lists 9) Transmit adopted priority lists to FDOT (deadline for transmittal moved from October 1 to August 1) 1) TCC to recommend MPO authorization of acceptance of new 215 applications for Pinellas County TA Priority List 11) MPO authorizes acceptance of new applications for Pinellas County TA Priority List May 215 June 5, 215 June 1, 215 June 215 August 215 September ) Anticipated deadline for submittal of new TA applications February 28, ) 215 TA applicants present projects to MPO advisory committees. Committees review, score and rank new TA projects and recommend updated Pinellas County priority list to MPO March April ) MPO reviews/approves updated priority list April May ) FDOT makes eligibility/feasibility determinations of new TA applications May June ) MPO advisory committees review/approve STP and TMA-TA priority lists as well as updated Pinellas County TA priority list 17) Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership Group Review of TMA-TA Priority List August 216 September ) MPO reviews/approves recommended STP, Pinellas County TA and TMA- September 216 TA priority lists 19) Transmit adopted priority lists to FDOT September 216 * Three new TA projects added to the priority list in 214 were added to the bottom of the list unranked, because it was expected at that time that TMA-TA criteria would subsequently be developed and that projects from Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough counties would all be ranked according to the new TMA criteria. Regional ranking and scoring criteria were not developed, however, because the consensus was to use existing local TA Program priority lists in the development of the regional TMA-TA priority list as already ranked by each county. The criteria last used to rank Pinellas County s TA projects is nearly five years old. Therefore, given that the regional ranking criteria was not developed as anticipated, ranking and scoring criteria for the three 214 and subsequent TA projects need to be updated and approved by the MPO.

31 TCC ITEM 7. BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS The cities of Oldsmar and St. Petersburg as well as Pinellas County staff have requested amendments to the Facilities Element of the MPO Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan. At their meeting on February 23, the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) approved the proposed amendments with some modifications. They recommended the Joe s Creek Trail extend further east from Joe s Creek Greenway Park to US Highway 19 and that the St. Petersburg amendments include a planned bike lane on 9 th Avenue North from 66 th Street to 58 th Street. The proposed amendments with the changes recommended by the BPAC are described below. Oldsmar o Addition of planned overpass at State Road 58 and State Street which is on the MPO s current list of projects prioritized for Transportation Alternative Program funding. o Removal of planned trail from Sheffield Park to Curlew Road. This planned trail is no longer included on the Oldsmar Master Trails Plan. The planned trail route was intended to utilize Bayside Boulevard, which currently provides a viable option for bicyclists to travel between Curlew Road and Sheffield Park. This is a local street with posted speeds of 25 mph and wide lane widths. o Removal of Forest Lakes Trail from the Pinellas/Hillsborough County Line to Pine Avenue. This is also intended to reflect the City s Master Trails Plan. There are existing bicycle accommodations along the parallel section of Forest Lakes Boulevard. Bike lanes currently exist on Forest Lakes Boulevard from the Pinellas/Hillsborough County Line to State Road 584. Pinellas County (Unincorporated) o Addition of Joe s Creek Trail from 34 th Street to 54 th Avenue North. This proposed trail alignment would include a portion of the existing trail at Joe s Creek Greenway Park. The project supports the County s plans to increase mobility options in the Lealman area, which has been identified in the 213 Pinellas County Impact of Poverty Report as an At-Risk zone where high concentrations of people living at or below the Federal Poverty Level reside. St. Petersburg o Addition of bike lanes on 9 th Avenue North from 66 th Street to 58 th Street. This is intended to provide a connection between the existing bike lane on 9 th Avenue North that currently terminates at 66 th Street with a planned bike lane on 58 th Street. o Addition of bike or shared use lanes on Central Avenue from 34 th Street to Park Street. The City is identifying this section of Central Avenue for bike lanes in the City Trails Program. The intent is to meet existing and anticipated demand for bicyclists to use this corridor for access to the adjacent businesses. o Addition of bike or shared use lanes on 22 nd Avenue South from 37 th Street to 49 th Street. The City is considering shared lane markings or bike lanes for this road section depending on the design of the planned reconstruction of the corridor from 34 th Street to 58 th Street. ATTACHMENTS: Map of Proposed Oldsmar Amendments Map of Proposed Pinellas County Amendments Map of Proposed St. Petersburg Amendments ACTION: Approve proposed amendments to the Facilities Element of the MPO Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan TCC: 3/25/15

32 OakleafBd Racetrack Rd Pinellas County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Trails and Bike Lanes Curlew Rd Commerce Bd Pine Ave SR 584 Douglas Rd E HayesRd Remove Remove (planned trail) Add (overpass) Forest Lakes Bd SR 58 S ME St PetersburgDr State St 5 Park Bd Bayview Bd SR 58 Lafayette Bd Sh oredr McMullen Booth Rd Shore Dr LEGEND Existing5 Bike Lane Safety Harbor Phillippe Pkwy Proposed Bike Lane Existing Community Trail Proposed Community Trail Planning Sector Enterprise Rd Proposed Amendment - Oldsmar Trails 2/23/15

33 62nd St 66th St Belcher Rd Park St 28th St 34th St 37th St 49th St 58th St 35th St 4th St 46th St Pinellas County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Trails and Bike Lanes LEGEND Existing Bike Lane Proposed Bike Lane 7th Ave Haines Rd I-275 Existing Community Trail Proposed Community Trail WestchesterBd 62nd Ave N 58th Ave N 54th Ave N 43rd St 46th Ave N Joe s Creek Trail 38th Ave N Proposed Amendment - Joe s Creek Trail Joe s Creek Greenway Park to 54th Avenue North 3/5/15

34 Pinellas County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Trails and Bike Lanes Park St 66th St N 49th St N Pinellas Tyrone Blvd Trail Central Ave 13th Ave N 9th Ave N 5th Ave S 34th St 5th Ave N 1st Ave N 1st Ave S Gulfport Bd LEGEND Existing Bike Lane Proposed Bike/Shared Use Lane Existing Community Trail Proposed Community Trail Trail Overpass 58th St N 15th Ave S 22nd Ave S 52nd St 18th Ave S 37th St N 31st St Proposed Amendment - Addition of Bike/Shared Use Lanes 9th Avenue North, 66th Street to 58th Street Central Avenue, Park Street to 34th Street 22nd Avenue South, 37th Street to 49th Street 3/5/15

35 TCC ITEM CRASH REPORT The Pinellas County MPO provides countywide transportation crash data to the public as well as other public agencies on an ongoing basis. This includes the production of the MPO Crash Data Report, which provides information and analysis of crash trends and locations. This information is used for various purposes, including transportation safety studies and projects, prioritization of roadway improvements, targeted law enforcement activities, and design plans for road construction projects. MPO staff is providing the draft report to the TCC for input, additions, and corrections from the committee prior to finalizing the document. Once all comments are received, the report will be brought back to the TCC for final approval. ATTACHMENTS: Draft 214 Crash Data Report (MPO website only) Draft 214 Crash Data Report Appendices (MPO website only) ACTION: Review and Comment on the 214 Crash Data Report TCC: 3/25/15

36 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 214 Crash Report Data Year 213

37 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization s 214 Crash Data Report Councilman Jim Kennedy Chairman Commissioner John Morroni Vice Chairman Vice Mayor Doreen Hock-DiPolito Treasurer Commissioner Joanne Cookie Kennedy Secretary Mayor Sandra Bradbury Commissioner Dave Eggers Vice-Mayor Cliff Merz Councilman Michael Smith Councilwoman Darden Rice Mayor Julie Ward Bujalski Commissioner Kevin Piccarreto Commissioner John Tornga Sarah E. Ward Interim MPO Executive Director Paul Steinman (Non-voting Advisor) District VII Secretary, FDOT District Seven This project has been developed in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal and state nondiscrimination authorities. Neither FDOT nor this project will deny the benefits of, exclude from participation in, or subject to discrimination anyone on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, or family status. Funding for this report may have been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 55 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 14(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 1

38 Page intentionally left blank 2

39 PINELLAS COUNTY About this Report This document presents information describing traffic crashes and fatalities that occurred in Pinellas County in the years It also provides selected crash, injury, and fatality data for the state of Florida in order to frame the statistics in the proper context. The purpose of this report is to provide crash information for use by local governments, transportation planners, law enforcement agencies, consultants, traffic engineers and the general public to assist in the planning and/or programming of transportation-related safety projects, long-range transportation forecasting and targeted law enforcement activities. This report represents data submitted to the Pinellas County Crash Data Management System (CDMS) and are presented in two basic formats: basic data plus trend analyses covering a three-year period, and detailed data findings in program areas listed below. It is intended that, with this information, Pinellas County will be better able to understand the trends in terms of crash types, contributing factors, demographic groups, times, and locations associated with crashes, injuries, and fatalities over these three years. The material is organized into the following major sections: Basic Data and Trend Analyses Fatalities Vulnerable Road Users Teen Drivers (ages 15-19) Aging Road Users (ages 65 and above) Distracted Drivers Aggressive Driving Lane Departures Speeding Crashes by Type and Location Intersections Crashes along Gulf Boulevard Countermeasures to Reduce Pedestrian Crashes The population data contained in this report reflect the U.S. Census Bureau s Estimates found at which were available as of January 215. These data sources are subject to revision over time, resulting in small differences when comparing statistics generated at different times. The main link to the Census data sources used is: The population data used in this year s report came from 211 to 213 intercensal estimates, as opposed to vintage data. It is important to acknowledge that the information contained in this report may be slightly different from data reported to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 3

40 (DHSMV). The DHSMV publishes the Official Annual Traffic Crash Facts statistics and the crashes contained in that document must meet the reporting requirement criteria contained in Section (1)(a) of the Florida Statutes. Conditions requiring reporting to DHSMV per Section (1)(a), F.S. are as follows: Motor vehicle crashes resulting in death or personal injury, or Motor vehicle crashes in which one or more of the following conditions occur: - Leaving the scene involving damage to an attended vehicle or property (Section (1), F.S.); - Driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances or controlled substances, or with an unlawful blood alcohol level (Section , F.S.); - Rendered a vehicle inoperable to a degree that required a wrecker to remove it from the scene of the crash; or - Involved a commercial motor vehicle. Effective July 1, 212, Section , F.S. was amended to require all law enforcement agencies to report additional crash data to the DHSMV. While the 212 crash data for the state of Florida may appear to reflect an increase in crashes, the statutory change resulted in more crash reports being received for inclusion and analysis. These changes have resulted in an increase in the number of reported crashes, vehicles involved and persons involved and should not be taken as an indicator of a significant increase in crashes statewide compared to 211. Furthermore, effective January 1, 211, the Florida DHSMV mandated the use of a new Florida Traffic Crash Form which is used by law enforcement officials to document the conditions surrounding traffic crash incidents. The new form, HSMV 91S, has been utilized for all crashes that occurred on or after that date. The new Florida Traffic Crash Form included 33 new fields and approximately 52 new attributes. The new fields provide additional information on safety equipment, commercial vehicles, and crash conditions. In addition, the new form provides more detailed information about the driver, passenger, and non-motorist characteristics. Given the change in reporting formats that occurred in 211, the bulk of the data contained in this report uses 211 as a baseline for data analysis. 4

41 TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFINITIONS... 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BASIC DATA AND TREND ANALYSES FATALITIES VULNERABLE ROAD USERS TEEN DRIVERS (AGES 15-19) AGING ROAD USERS (AGES 65 AND ABOVE)... 3 DISTRACTED DRIVERS AGGRESSIVE DRIVERS LANE DEPARTURES... 4 IMPAIRED DRIVING SPEEDING CRASHES BY TYPE AND LOCATION INTERSECTIONS CRASHES ALONG GULF BOULEVARD COUNTERMEASURES FOR PEDESTRIANS CRASHES CONCLUSION APPENDIX A

42 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Total Number of Fatalities in Pinellas County and Florida, Figure 2. Total Number of Crashes in Pinellas County and Florida, Figure 3. Total Number of Injuries in Pinellas County and Florida, Figure 4. Total Number of Fatalities in Pinellas County and Florida, Figure 5. Population-Based Fatality Rate for Pinellas County and Florida, Figure 6. Fatalities by Month for Pinellas County, Figure 7. Fatalities by Day of the Week for Pinellas County, Figure 8. Percent of Bicycle Crashes by Jurisdiction, Figure 9. Pedestrian Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities in Pinellas County, Figure 1. Percent of Pedestrian Crashes by Jurisdiction, Figure 11. Percent of Teen Driver Impact Type, Figure 12. Percent of Aging Road User Crash Contributing Cause, Figure 13. Aging Road User Month Summary, Figure 14. Aging Road User Day of the Week Summary, Figure 15. Percent of Distracted Driver Crash Impact Type, Figure 16. Type of Distraction Summary, Figure 17. Aggressive Driver Month Summary, Figure 18. Aggressive Driver Day of the Week Summary, Figure 19. Lane Departure Month Summary, Figure 2. Lane Departure Day of the Week Summary, Figure 21. Impaired Driver Month Summary, Figure 22. Impaired Driver Day of the Week Summary, Figure 23. Speeding Month Summary, Figure 24. Speeding Day of Week Summary, Figure 25. Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities along Gulf Blvd. by Year, Figure 26. Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities along Gulf Blvd. by Month, Figure 27. Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities along Gulf Blvd. by Day of Week, Figure 28. Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities along Gulf Blvd. by Time of Day,

43 LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 2. Fatal Crash Locations, Map 3. Bicycle Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 4. Pedestrian Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 5. Motorcyclist Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 6. Teen Driver Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 7. Aging Road User Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 8. Distracted Driver Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 9. Aggressive Driving Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 1. Lane Departure Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 11. Impaired Driving Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 12. Speeding Fatality, Injury, and Crash Locations, Map 13. Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities along Gulf Blvd.,

44 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Pinellas County Basic Fatality Data, Table 2. Florida Basic Fatality Data, Table 3. Pinellas County Motorcycle Crash Data, Table 4. Florida Motorcycle Crash Data, Table 5. Pinellas County Teen Driver Crash Data, Table 6. Florida Teen Driver Crash Data, Table 7. Pinellas County Aging Road User Crash Data, Table 8. Distracted Driver Crash Data, Table 9. Aggressive Driving Crash Data Table 1. Lane Departure Crash Data Table 11. Impaired Driver Crash Data Table 12. Speeding Crash Data Table 13. Crash Location on Roadway, Table 14. Crash Location Relation to Junction Summary, Table 15. Top 4 Intersections, Crashes Table 16. Top 4 Intersections, Fatalities Table 17. Top 4 Intersections, Bicycle Crashes Table 18. Top 4 Intersections, Pedestrian Crashes Table 19. Top 4 Intersections, Motorcycle Crashes Table 2. Hot Spot Intersections for Vulnerable Users

45 DEFINITIONS Aggressive Driver - A crash involving a driver who; failed to yield right-of-way, failed to keep in the proper lane, followed too closely, ran a red light, ran a stop sign, passed improperly, exceeded the posted speed limit, disregarded other road markings, operated a motor vehicle in an erratic or reckless manner, or who disregarded other traffic signage. Angle (manner of impact) - A crash where two vehicles impact at an angle. For example, the left front of one vehicle impacts the side of another vehicle. Bicycle - Every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 2 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. Bicyclist - A driver who operates and controls the motion of a bicycle. Contributing Causes - Actions of the driver leading up to a crash. Crash Rate - Number of traffic crashes per 1, residents. Crosswalk - (a) That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway, measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway. (b) Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Disregard Traffic Control Device - An at fault driver that ignored a Traffic Control Device: Red Light or Stop Sign. Distraction - Determination that the occupant who is in actual physical control of a vehicle had his/her attention diverted from driving. Driver - Any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a roadway or who is exercising control of a vehicle or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle. Electronic Distraction - Any crash where the driver is determined to have been using a cell phone, navigation system, DVD player or other electronic device while operating a motor vehicle. Fatality - Any injury that results in death within a 3 day period after the crash occurred. Impairment or Impaired - Any person who is suspected of drug or alcohol use or is under the influence of medication(s). Improper Crossing - Crossing a roadway against the rules. 9

46 Injury or Injury Crash - A crash in which at least one person was injured and no one was killed. Lane Departure - Any crash where the driver s vehicle impacted a utility pole, light support, traffic sign/signal support, tree, mailbox, guardrail, fence, ditch, culvert, concrete traffic barrier, cable barrier, bridge rail, bridge pier or support. This definition also includes any vehicle sideswipe or rollover. Long Form - Crash report prepared by a law enforcement officer when a crash involves injury, death, or criminal offense. Motor Vehicle - Any self-propelled vehicle not operated upon rails or guideway, but not including any bicycle, motorized scooter, electric personal assistive mobility device, or moped. Motorcycle - Any motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider, designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, but excluding a tractor or a moped. Passenger - A person who is an occupant of a vehicle, other than the driver. Pedestrian - An individual involved in a crash who was not occupying a motor vehicle, bicycle or other mobile conveyance. Right-of-Way - The right of one vehicle or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian approaching under such circumstances of direction, speed, and proximity as to give rise to danger of collision unless one grants precedence to the other. Scooter - Any vehicle not having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider, designed to travel on not more than three wheels, and not capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed greater than 3 miles per hour on level ground. Short Form - Refers to a simple abbreviated crash report, typically used in minor crashes, mostly collected prior 12/31/21. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) - A statewide, data-driven plan developed by the Florida Department of Transportation that addresses the 4 E s of safety engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency response. The eight emphasis areas for the SHSP are as follows: 1)Aggressive Driving; 2) Intersection Crashes; 3) Vulnerable Road Users (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists); 4) Lane Departure Crashes; 5) Impaired Driving; 6) At-Risk Drivers (aging road users and teens); 7) Distracted Driving; and 8) Traffic Data. Vulnerable Road Users - Pedestrians, bicyclists or motorcyclists. 1

47 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pinellas County is a peninsula that is bordered by the Gulf of Mexico to the west and Tampa Bay to the east. Pinellas County is Florida's second smallest county in land mass encompassing 24 municipalities. It is 38 miles long and 15 miles wide at its broadest point with its land area covering approximately 264 square miles. Historically, the majority of Pinellas County s development occurred post-world War II which resulted in suburban-style development with small and somewhat dispersed centers for commercial, industrial, residential uses. These dispersed centers of activity were connected by a network of surface streets that were originally designed for local motor vehicle travel but these streets have been modified over time to accommodate a greater number of motor vehicles while also providing mobility for a growing number of pedestrians and bicyclists. Geographically, Pinellas County is subdivided by several east-west and north-south arterial streets interconnecting it to Hillsborough County to the east, Pasco County to the north, and Manatee County to the south. One major freeway corridor (I-275) serves both interstate and regional travel needs within the county, while providing access to Manatee County to the south via the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, and Hillsborough County to the east via the Howard Frankland Bridge. The US 19 corridor is the primary regional north-south arterial facility providing mobility to and from east-west arterial streets while interconnecting with Pasco County to the north and Manatee County to the south via the Sunshine Skyway Bridge. Due to the presence of Tampa Bay to the east, the Gulf of Mexico to the west, and Lake Tarpon to the north, uniform distribution of local and regional surface street travel by motor vehicle is limited. In addition, the county s transportation network has become more diversified by the increasing presence of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails that provide an alternative means of travel for commuting or recreational purposes. The combination of these variables when added to the Tampa Bay area climate that encourages outdoor activities makes a strong case for embracing a holistic and coordinated approach to traffic crash management to close current gaps between the need to move large volumes of traffic while also providing a safe environment for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. It is within this context that we analyze the crash data for Pinellas County. Traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities have a major impact on the safety and well being of motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists using the transportation system. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 213 approximately 32,719 people were killed and nearly 2.3 million were injured in crashes across the nation 1. In the state of Florida, over 2,4 people were killed and over 212, injured 2. In Pinellas County, 8 people were killed and over 4,5 were injured. There are a wide range of factors that contribute to crashes and fatalities and these incidences and their causes are Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, accessed January 21, 215, Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, accessed January 21, 215, 11

48 tracked and analyzed utilizing the CDMS. The CDMS was created in 28 by the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Currently, Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc. is under contract to provide data maintenance, database management, crash location analysis and other technical support services for the CDMS. The following information summarizes a few key points contained in the 213 data: Total Deaths. Traffic crash fatalities have declined for the second year in a row. For 213, 8 traffic crash fatalities were reported to the CDMS. Overall, there were 34.96% fewer fatalities in 213 than in 211. Pinellas County fatalities as a percentage of overall fatalities in the state of Florida have experienced a 4% decline since 211. [See Figure 1 for trends in total deaths in Pinellas County and Florida.] Total Crashes. For the third year in a row, the number of traffic crashes has increased. For 213, 24,622 traffic crashes were reported to the CDMS. Unfortunately, there is little indication of any slowing of this upward trend. Overall, there were 65.3% more total crashes in 213 than in 211. Pinellas County crashes as a percentage of overall crashes in the state of Florida have experienced an increase of 18.99% since 211. [See Figure 2 for trends in total crashes in Pinellas County and Florida.] Total Injuries. Traffic crash injuries have declined after experiencing a slight increase in 212. For 213, 4,52 traffic crash injuries were reported to the CDMS. Overall, there were 16.86% fewer injuries in 213 than in 211. Pinellas County injuries as a percentage of overall injuries in the state of Florida have experienced a 28.52% decline since 211. [See Figure 3 for trends in total injuries in Pinellas County and Florida] Population. Population in Pinellas County increased by 1.27% since 211 while fatalities decreased by 34.96%. The combination of an increase in population and a decrease in fatalities resulted in a population-based death rate (deaths per 1, residents) that was 3.77% lower in 213 than in 211. It is also important to note that Pinellas County only accounted for 3.3% of the state s fatalities in 213 and that figure has declined by 4% since 211. Pedestrian Crashes. Of the total crashes in 213, 2.35% involved pedestrians (a decrease from 212 s total of 2.96%). There were 578 crashes involving pedestrians in 213 and 15.7% occurred at the Top 4 intersections which is a decline from the prior year s statistics. 12% of the pedestrian crashes involved some form of impairment (e.g. drugs, alcohol, and/or medication) and 1% of those occurred at the Top 4 intersections. 23% of pedestrian crashes were angle crashes, which is an increase over the 212 data. Bicycle Crashes. Of the total crashes in 213, 2.2% involved bicyclists, which is a decrease over 212 s data. There were 546 crashes involving bicyclists in 213, 18.3% occurred at the Top 4 intersections, which is an increase since % of bicycle crashes were due to some form of impairment (e.g. drugs, alcohol, and/or 12

49 medication). 57.5% of bicycle crashes were angle crashes. 3.8% of bicycle crashes involved aggressive driving. 1% of bicycle crashes involved lane departures and 2.3% occurred at intersections. Motorcycle Crashes. Of the total crashes in 213, 2.5% involved motorcyclists. There were 619 motorcycle crashes and 17% of those occurred at the Top 4 intersections. 9.2% of motorcycle crashes were due to some form of impairment (e.g. drugs, alcohol, and/or medication). 27% of motorcycle crashes were angle crashes. 3.9% of motorcycle crashes involved aggressive driving. 18.6% of motorcycle crashes involved lane departures and 17% of these crash types occurred at intersections. Distracted Driving. In 213, there were 3 distracted driving fatalities, which is a decrease over the 212 and 211 numbers. The number of fatalities in 213 (3) represents a 5% decrease, compared to the 212 number (6). In 211, 4.8% of all fatalities in Pinellas County involved distracted drivers, increasing to 5.6% in 212, and decreasing to 3.7% in 213. Driver inattention (691) accounted for more crashes than electronic communications-cell phone, etc. (142), other electronic devicenavigation device, DVD player, etc. (63), and texting (13) combined. Teen Driving (ages 15-19). In 213, there were 4 such fatalities, which is an increase over the 212 number of teen driver fatalities, but a decrease over the 211 number of teen driver fatalities. The number of fatalities in 213 (4) represents a 3% increase, compared to the 212 number (1). However, a rate of decline is shown when comparing 211 to 213 teen driver fatalities (a 33.33% decrease). Aging Road Users (ages 65 and above). Overall, aging road user-involved crashes accounted for 15.35% of total crashes in Pinellas County, decreasing from 19.83% in 211 and 18.83% in 212. An analysis of the aging road user involved driver contributing cause data reveals that a vast majority (39.72%) of these types of crashes were due to the driver operating the motor vehicle in a careless or negligent manner Aggressive Drivers. The data shows that annual aggressive driving-related crashes in the County increased from 3,762 in 211 to 5,444 in 213. On the other hand, total injuries have declined during the time period by 11.39% to 926 injuries in 213. Also, aggressive driving-related fatalities decreased for the second year in a row. The 213 number of aggressive driving-related fatalities (14) has declined by 61.76% since 211. When the driver was found to be at fault, the following were the most frequent contributing causes; careless driving, failed to yield right-of-way, improper backing, and other contributing actions. The trends described in this Executive Summary for fatalities, crashes and injuries are displayed in the figures that follow. A map is also provided that identifies the locations of all fatalities, crashes and injuries that occurred in the 213 reporting period. 13

50 Number of Injuries Number of Crashes Number of Fatalities Figure 1. Total Number of Fatalities in Pinellas County and Florida, Pinellas County Total Fatalities State of Florida Total Fatalities Figure 2. Total Number of Crashes in Pinellas County and Florida, Pinellas County Total Crashes State of Florida Total Crashes Figure 3. Total Number of Injuries in Pinellas County and Florida, Pinellas County Total Injuries State of Florida Total Injuries 14

51 MAP 1. FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

52 BASIC DATA AND TREND ANALYSES About this Section This Section contains basic information about the motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian crashes that occurred in Pinellas County from 211 through 213. It is organized according to the following topics: Total Fatalities Vulnerable Road User Crashes Teen Drivers (ages 15-19) Aging Road Users (ages 65 and over) Crashes Involving Distracted Drivers Aggressive Driving Lane Departure Crashes Speeding-Related Crashes Crashes by Type and Location Intersections Crashes Along Gulf Boulevard Countermeasures for Pedestrian Crashes Each of these subsections includes a three-year data table for the County, showing the number of annual crashes, along with fatality, crash, and injury rates: per 1, population. The table also shows the percentage of total incidents in the County accounted for by each category and the County s percentage of all such incidents in Florida, if the data is available. 16

53 Numbero f Fatalities Total Fatalities Table 1 contains basic data on Pinellas County fatalities from 211 through 213. It shows that annual traffic fatalities in the County decreased from 123 in 211 to 8 in 213. This represents a 34.96% decline in deaths since 211. During this period, population showed a small increase (1.27%) and as a result of the combination of these changes, the population-based fatality rate (expressed as the number of deaths per 1, population) declined by 35.79%. TABLE 1. PINELLAS COUNTY BASIC FATALITY DATA, % Change Total Fatalities % Population 917, , , % Population Rate* % Percent of State Fatalities 5.5% 4.4% 3.3% -4.% Percent of State Population 4.81% 4.77% 4.75% -1.25% *Fatality Rate per 1, population The data in Table 1 also shows that, in 213 Pinellas County accounted for 4.75% of the population in Florida; and 3.3% of Florida s fatalities. Pinellas County s percentage of the state s population did not change appreciably during this three-year period (-1.25%), but the County s percent of the state s fatalities declined by 4%. A comparison of 213 Pinellas County data with the state of Florida data (Table 2) indicates that Pinellas County s average populationbased fatality rate (8.61 per 1, residents) was significantly lower than the Florida rate (12.34). TABLE 2. FLORIDA BASIC FATALITY DATA, % Change Total Fatalities 2,214 2,431 2, % Population 19,57,542 19,317,568 19,552,86 2.6% Population Rate* % *Fatality Rate per 1, population Figure 4 shows total deaths for Pinellas County and Florida for each year during the report period. Figure 4. Total Number of Fatalities in Pinellas County and Florida, Year Pinellas County Total Fatalities State of Florida Total Fatalities 17

54 Number of Fatalities Fatality Rate Figure 5 shows population-based fatality rate (fatalities per 1, residents) for Pinellas County and Florida for each year during the report period. Figure 5. Population-Based Fatality Rate for Pinellas County and Florida, Year Pinellas County Fatality Rate State of Florida Fatality Rate In 213, more than 23% of all fatal traffic crashes in Pinellas County occurred equally in January and July, followed by 2.5% equally in March and September. The majority of the fatal crashes in 213 were between June and September, and 13 of the 18 fatal crashes that occurred on Fridays took place at or around 9: p.m. Fridays accounted for 23% of fatalities while Saturdays averaged 17%. Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday each averaged about 15% of fatal traffic crashes. While only 18% of all 213 traffic crashes happened at night, 6% of those crashes involved a fatality. Figure 6. Fatalities by Month for Pinellas County, Month 18

55 Number of Fatalities Figure 7. Fatalities by Day of the Week for Pinellas County, Day of the Week 19

56 MAP 2. FATAL CRASH LOCATIONS, 213 2

57 Vulnerable Road User Crashes Vulnerable Road User crashes are defined as crashes involving bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists. The Florida Department of Transportation s (FDOT) Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) requires greater focus on these crash types by providing local and state agencies with the data, skills, and tools to identify effective safety countermeasures in the 4 E s (engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency response); making strategic safety investments and focusing resources where opportunities for safety improvements are greatest for vulnerable road users; and establishing mobility strategies consistent with safety for these users. The challenges presented by vulnerable road users may be similar, but the solutions are often unique to a specific user type. In the following sections bicyclists and pedestrians will be discussed together and motorcyclists will be discussed separately. Between 211 and 213, there were 1,67 bicycle crashes on Pinellas County roads and highways. Bicycle fatalities and injuries have declined from 355 in 211 to 36 in 213. The majority (77%) of bicycle crashes occurred on the roadway; in 36% of bicycle crashes there was no contributing action made by the driver while 28% of bicycle crashes were due to the driver failing to yield the right-of-way. The five jurisdictions within Pinellas County with the highest number of bicycle crashes during 213 were: Clearwater, Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg, and unincorporated County. These areas represented 88 percent of bicycle crashes in 213 (Figure 8) while also containing over 81 percent of the total population. Between 211 and 213, there were 1,544 pedestrian crashes in Pinellas County and 1,159 injuries. Pedestrian fatalities and injuries declined from 491 in 212 to 41 in 213 as shown in Figure 9. Most of the fatal and injury pedestrian crashes occurred in the winter months with a peak during January and February. In 213, a majority (55%) of the pedestrian fatalities and injuries occurred when pedestrians did not cross roadways at an intersection. The five jurisdictions within Pinellas County with the highest number of pedestrian crashes during 213 were: Clearwater, Largo, Pinellas Park, St. Petersburg, and unincorporated County. These areas represented 88 percent of pedestrian crashes in 213 (Figure 1) while also containing over 81 percent of the total population. Figure 8. Percent of Bicycle Crashes by Jurisdiction, 213 4% 3% 2% 1% % 29% 27% 11% 9% 12% % % 3% 1% 1% 1% % % % 2% % 2% % *Jurisdictions showing % of crashes had bicycle crash percentages between.1% and.49% which were rounded down by the spreadsheet. 21

58 Belleair Beach Belleair Bluffs Clearwater Dunedin Gulfport Indian Rocks Beach Kenneth City Largo Madeira Beach North Redington Oldsmar Pinellas Park Redington Beach Safety Harbor Seminole South Pasadena St. Pete Beach St. Petersburg Tarpon Springs Unincorporated Number Figure 9. Pedestrian Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities in Pinellas County, Year Crashes Injuries Fatalities Figure 1. Percent of Pedestrian Crashes by Jurisdiction, % 2% 15% 1% 5% % 23% 24% 15% 12% 8% 3% 1% % 1% 1% 1% 1% % 1% % 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% *Jurisdictions showing % of crashes had pedestrian crash percentages between.1% and.49% which were rounded down by the spreadsheet. 22

59 MAP 3. BICYCLE FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

60 MAP 4. PEDESTRIAN FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

61 Table 3 shows that the number of motorcyclist deaths in Pinellas County has declined from a high of 28 in 211 to a low of 16 in 213. The 213 level (16 fatalities) was 42.86% lower than the 211 level. On the other hand, the population-based crash rate is at its highest level (66.63 per 1, residents) of the reporting period. Compared with the prior two years, the 213 motorcycle crash rate represents a 12.93% increase (Table 3). The average motorcycle crash rate in Florida (213) was per 1, residents, which is the highest rate for this three-year period (Table 4). As a percentage of total motorcycle crashes in Florida, Pinellas County accounted for about 6.28% in 211, and the percentage has remained relatively constant in 213 to 6.39%. The percentage of Pinellas County crashes declined in 212 to its lowest (5.3%) before increasing in 213. The change in motorcycle crashes in Pinellas County as a percentage of motorcycle crashes in Florida has slightly increased by 1.75% from 211 to 213. TABLE 3. PINELLAS COUNTY MOTORCYCLE CRASH DATA, % Change Total Crashes % Total Injuries % Total Fatalities % Population 917, , , % Population Crash Rate* % Percent of State Crashes 6.28% 5.3% 6.39% 1.75% Percent of State Population 4.81% 4.77% 4.75% -1.25% *Crash Rate per 1, population TABLE 4. FLORIDA MOTORCYCLE CRASH DATA, % Change Total Crashes 8,621 9,384 9, % Population 19,57,542 19,317,568 19,552,86 2.6% Population Crash Rate* % *Crash Rate per 1, population 25

62 MAP 5. MOTORCYCLIST FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

63 Teen Drivers (15-19) Table 5 indicates the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities from Pinellas County crashes involving a driver between 15 and 19 years of age. In 213, there were 4 such fatalities, which is an increase over the 212 number of teen driver fatalities, but a decrease over the 211 number of teen driver fatalities. The number of fatalities in 213 (4) represents a 3% increase, compared to the 212 number (1). However, a rate of decline is shown when comparing 211 to 213 teen driver fatalities (a 33.33% decrease). In 211, 4.8% of all fatalities in Pinellas County involved teen drivers, increasing to 5.% in 213. Teen driver-involved fatalities in Pinellas County represented 6.5% of all such deaths across Florida in 211 and increased 7.% in 213. Overall, these data indicate that teen driver-involved fatalities have decreased in Pinellas County, while also declining across the state from 91 fatalities in 211 to 57 fatalities in 213. The population-based crash rate for teen drivers increased from crashes per 1, residents in 211 to in 213, a 59.12% increase. Over the entire three-year period, the average population-based crash rate for teen drivers in Pinellas County was crashes per 1, residents which is a higher rate than across Florida (17.53). Finally, an analysis of the teen driver-involved impact type reveals that a vast majority of these types of crashes involve a front-to-rear collision which may indicate driver distraction as a root cause (Figure 11). TABLE 5. PINELLAS COUNTY TEEN DRIVER CRASH DATA, % Change Total Crashes 1,616 1,87 2, % Total Injuries % Total Fatalities % Population 917, , , % Population Crash Rate* % Percent of State Crashes 5.74% 5.26% 7.2% 25.44% Percent of State Population 4.81% 4.77% 4.75% -1.25% *Crash Rate per 1, population 27

64 Percent of Impact Type TABLE 6. FLORIDA TEEN DRIVER CRASH DATA, % Change Total Crashes 28,176 34,314 36, % Population 19,57,542 19,317,568 19,552,86 2.6% Population Crash Rate* % *Crash Rate per 1, population Figure 11. Percent of Teen Driver Impact Type, % 4.% 3.% 2.% 1.%.% 24.49% 2.73% 4.31% 1.56% 7.6% 11.25%.65% 1.42% 1.% Impact Type 28

65 MAP 6. TEEN DRIVER FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

66 Driver Contributing Cause Aging Road Users (65 and above) Table 7 shows the numbers and rates of crashes, injuries, and fatalities in traffic crashes involving drivers ages 65 and above in Pinellas County. Data for similar crashes for the state of Florida cannot be used as a comparative baseline because the aging road user data contained in the Florida Traffic Crash Facts includes statistics for users age 7 and above. Table 7 shows that there were 16 aging road user fatalities in Pinellas County in 211, increasing to 2 in 213. The change in older driver fatalities, as measured from 211 to 213 (+25%) was greater than the 1.27% increase in population during the report period. Pinellas County s population-based crash rate increased from (crashes per 1, population) in 211 to 47. crashes in 213 (+26.34%). Overall, aging road userinvolved crashes accounted for 15.35% of total crashes in Pinellas County, decreasing from 19.83% in 211 and 18.83% in 212. Finally, an analysis of the aging road user involved driver contributing cause data reveals that a vast majority (39.72%) of these types of crashes were due to the driver operating the motor vehicle in a careless or negligent manner (Figure 12). TABLE 7. PINELLAS COUNTY AGING ROAD USER CRASH DATA, % Change Total Crashes 2,954 3,391 3, % Total Injuries 1, , % Total Fatalities % Population 917, , , % Population Crash Rate* % Percent of State Population 4.81% 4.77% 4.75% -1.25% *Crash Rate per 1, population Figure 12. Percent of Aging Road User Crash Contributing Cause, 213 Wrong Side of Wrong Way Ran Stop Sign Ran off Roadway Other Contributing Actions Operated MV in Careless or Negligent Manner No Contributing Action Improper Passing Followed too Closely Failed to Keep in Proper Lane Drove Too Fast for Conditions Disregarded Other Road Marking.36%.13% 1.37% 2.68%.68%.13%.45% 5.94% 4.75% 2.24%.63% 7.2% 3.1% 2.65%.8%.45%.8%.3% 14.87% 12.73% 39.72% % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% Percent of Crashes 3

67 January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Number As Figure 13 shows, for Pinellas County, the months with the highest number of fatal crashes involving drivers ages 65 and above were February (4 fatalities, 2.% of the total) and March (5 fatalities, 25.% of the total). For crashes involving drivers ages 65 and above, the months of March (716 crashes, 9.12% of the total), October (741 crashes, 9.44% of the total), November (71 crashes, 8.93% of the total), and December (77 crashes, 9.1% of the total) had the highest totals. Injury crashes involving drivers age 65 and above saw October (135 injury crashes, 1.25% of the total), January (126 injury crashes, 9.57% of the total), February (12 injury crashes, 9.11% of the total), and March (129 injury crashes, 9.79% of the total) with the highest number of incidents. Figure 14 contains a breakdown of total crashes, injuries, and fatalities by the day of the week for aging road users. The day of the week with the highest number of fatal crashes involving drivers ages 65 and above in Pinellas County was Saturday (6 fatalities, 3.% of total). Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday each experienced 3 crashes each which equals 15.% of the total fatal crashes. Total crashes were mostly distributed between Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday which accounted for over 45% of the total number. Injury crashes also were mostly distributed between Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday which accounted for over 45% of the total number. The 3-hour window in which the most fatal crashes involving drivers ages 65 and older was 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. (5 crashes, 25% of the total). A much smaller proportion of crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving drivers ages 65 and older occurred earlier than 6 a.m. or later than 9 p.m. Figure 13. Aging Road User Month Summary, Fatalities Injuries Crashes Month 31

68 Total Number Figure 14. Aging Road User Day of the Week Summary, Fatalities Injuries Crashes Day of the Week 32

69 MAP 7. AGING ROAD USER FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

70 Impact Type Distracted Driving As of 211, the Florida Traffic Crash Form added data fields to identify distracted driving as a contributing factor in a crash. Furthermore, NHTSA has identified distracted driving as a prominent challenge for local and national safety strategists. Distracted drivers are being tracked under the drivers contributing cause, which includes operating a motor vehicle in a careless or neglected manner, failing to yield right of way, speeding, or disregarding a traffic light or sign. This list of causes can be analyzed to ultimately identify solutions for reducing traffic crashes due to driver distraction. For example, in 213 approximately 19.37% of total traffic crashes were caused by driver distraction. Table 8 includes the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities from Pinellas County crashes involving a distracted driver. In 213, there were 3 such fatalities, which is a decrease over the 212 and 211 numbers. The number of fatalities in 213 (3) represents a 5% decrease, compared to the 212 number (6). In 211, 4.8% of all fatalities in Pinellas County involved distracted drivers, increasing to 5.6% in 212, and decreasing to 3.7% in 213. The population-based crash rate increased from crashes per 1, residents in 211 to in 213, a 74.78% increase. Finally, an analysis of the distracted driver-involved impact type reveals that a majority (53.36%) of these types of crashes involve a front-to-rear collision which may indicate driver distraction as the root cause (Figure 15). TABLE 8. DISTRACTED DRIVER CRASH DATA, % Change Total Crashes 1,16 1,557 2, % Total Injuries % Total Fatalities % Population 917, , , % Population Crash Rate* % *Crash Rate per 1, population Figure 15. Percent of Distracted Driver Crash Impact Type, 213 Unknown Sideswipe, Same Direction Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Rear to Side Rear to Rear Other, Explain in Narrative No Data Front to Rear Front to Front Angle 1.61% 6.2% 1.5% 1.22%.8% 14.13%.6% 2.98% 18.59% 53.36% % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Percentage of Total 34

71 Total Number As seen in Figure 16, the overwhelming cause of distracted driver crashes during the report period was driver inattention. In 213, driver inattention (691) accounted for more crashes than electronic communications-cell phone, etc. (142), other electronic device-navigation device, DVD player, etc. (63), and texting (13) combined. While there is a lot of attention given to don t text while driving campaigns, the data indicates that there is a larger problem with driver focus and other types of distractions that are occurring inside and outside of the vehicle. Figure 16. Type of Distraction Summary, Type of Distraction 35

72 MAP 8. DISTRACTED DRIVER FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

73 Aggressive Driving Table 9 contains basic data on Pinellas County aggressive driving-related crashes from 211 through 213. As stated earlier in the report, aggressive driving-related crashes are crashes involving a driver who; failed to yield right-of-way, failed to keep in the proper lane, followed too closely, ran a red light, ran a stop sign, passed improperly, exceeded the posted speed limit, disregarded other road markings, operated a motor vehicle in an erratic or reckless manner, or who disregarded other traffic signage. The data shows that annual aggressive driving-related crashes in the County increased from 3,762 in 211 to 5,444 in 213. This represents a 44.71% increase since 211. During this period, population showed a small increase (1.27%) and as a result of the combination of these variables, the population-based crash rate (expressed as the number of aggressive driving-related crashes per 1, population) increased by 42.84%. On the other hand, total injuries have declined during the time period by 11.39% to 926 injuries in 213. Also, aggressive driving-related fatalities decreased for the second year in a row. The 213 number of aggressive driving-related fatalities (14) has declined by 61.76% since 211. TABLE 9. AGGRESSIVE DRIVING CRASH DATA % Change Total Crashes 3,762 4,191 5, % Total Injuries 1, % Total Fatalities % Population 917, , , % Population Crash Rate* % *Crash Rate per 1, population As Figure 17 shows, for Pinellas County, the month with the highest number of fatal crashes involving aggressive drivers was February (3, 21.43% of the total). For crashes involving aggressive drivers, the months of March (51, 9.2% of the total), May (53, 9.24% of the total), and December (512, 9.4% of the total) had the highest totals. The data also indicates a lack of statistical significance in the number of crashes for 213 due to the fact that 9 of the 12 months had between 441 and 512 crashes. Injury crashes involving aggressive drivers saw March (96, 1.37% of the total), October (86, 9.29% of the total), and December (87, 9.4% of the total) with the highest number of incidents. Figure 18 contains a breakdown of total crashes, injuries, and fatalities by the day of the week for aggressive drivers. The days of the week with the highest number of fatal crashes involving aggressive drivers in Pinellas County was Monday (3, 21.43% of the total) and Tuesday (3, 21.43% of the total). Total crashes were somewhat evenly distributed between Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday with each day accounting for between 14.77% and 16.72% of the total number. Injury crashes also were mostly distributed between Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday which accounted for over 51% of the total number. Lastly, the 3-hour window in which the most fatal, injury, and total crashes involving aggressive drivers was during the 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. (1,148 crashes, 222 injuries, 3 fatalities) timeframe. 37

74 Figure 17. Aggressive Driver Month Summary, Crashes Injuries Fatalities Figure 18. Aggressive Driver Day of the Week Summary, Fatalities Injuries Crashes 38

75 MAP 9. AGGRESSIVE DRIVING FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

76 LANE DEPARTURES Lane departure crashes are frequently severe and account for a growing number of roadway fatalities across the country. In 211, there were 15,37 fatal roadway departure crashes resulting in 16,948 fatalities, which was 51 percent of the fatal crashes in the United States 3. A lane departure crash is defined as a non-intersection crash which occurs after a vehicle crosses an edge line or a center line, or otherwise leaves the traveled way. Table 1 contains basic data on Pinellas County lane departure crashes from 211 through 213. The data shows that lane departure crashes in the County increased from 3,157 in 211 to 4,494 in 213. This represents a 42.35% increase since 211. During this period, population showed a small increase (1.27%) and as a result of the combination of these variables, the population-based crash rate (expressed as the number of lane departure crashes per 1, population) increased by 4.51%. On the other hand, total injuries have declined during the report period by 18.42% to 474 injuries in 213. Also, lane departure fatalities decreased for the second year in a row. The 213 number of lane departure fatalities (14) has declined by 36.36% since 211. As Figure 19 shows, for Pinellas County, the month with the highest number of fatalities involving lane departure crashes was July (5 fatalities, 35.71% of the total). For crashes involving lane departures, the months of July (399 crashes, 8.88% of the total) and October (393 crashes, 8.74% of the total) had the highest totals. The data also indicates a lack of statistical significance in the number of crashes by month due to the fact that 1 of the 12 months had between 372 and 399 crashes. Injury crashes involving lane departures saw March (75, 11.1% of the total) and January (66, 9.69% of the total) with the highest number of incidents. Figure 2 contains a breakdown of total crashes, injuries, and fatalities by the day of the week for lane departure crashes. The day of the week with the highest number of fatal crashes involving lane departure crashes in Pinellas County was Saturday (4 fatalities, 28.57% of the total). Total crashes were somewhat evenly distributed between throughout the week with Friday accounting for 15.89% of the total number. Injury crashes also were mostly distributed between Wednesday and Saturday which accounted for over 34% of the total number. The 3-hour window in which the most fatalities (6) occurred was the 9 p.m. to 12 a.m. timeframe. The most total crashes (9,512) and injuries (141) involving lane departure crashes was during the 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. timeframe. 3 Roadway Departure Safety, Federal Highway Administration, accessed January 21, 215, 4

77 TABLE 1. LANE DEPARTURE CRASH DATA % Change Total Crashes 3,157 3,576 4, % Total Injuries % Total Fatalities % Population 917, , , % Population Crash Rate* % *Crash Rate per 1, population Figure 19. Lane Departure Month Summary, Crashes Injuries Fatalities Figure 2. Lane Departure Day of the Week Summary, Fatalities Injuries Crashes 41

78 MAP 1. LANE DEPARTURE FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

79 IMPAIRED DRIVING Impaired driving-related crashes are crashes involving a driver who is suspected of being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication. The impaired driver data contained in the Pinellas County CDMS is slightly different than the data collected and published in Florida s Official Traffic Crash Statistics. The state statistics separate the data between confirmed or suspected alcohol or drug-related crashes while the data reported to the CDMS classifies any crash where the driver is suspected of using drugs and/or alcohol as an impaired crash. Table 11 contains basic data on Pinellas County impaired driving-related crashes from 211 through 213. The data shows that annual impaired driver-related crashes in the County decreased from 1,16 in 211 to 1,33 in 213. This represents a 1.95% decrease since 211. During this period, population showed a small increase (1.27%) and as a result of the combination of these variables, the population-based crash rate (expressed as the number of aggressive driving-related crashes per 1, population) decreased by 12.1%. Furthermore, total injuries have declined during the report period by 25.% to 243 injuries in 213. Also, impaired driving-related fatalities have decreased substantially after a slight increase in 212. The 213 number of impaired driving-related fatalities (15) has declined by 62.5% since 211. Impaired driver crashes accounted for 4.2% of total crashes in Pinellas County which is a 46.8% decrease since 211. TABLE 11. IMPAIRED DRIVER CRASH DATA % Change Total Crashes 1,16 1,232 1, % Total Injuries % Total Fatalities % Population 917, , , % Population Crash Rate* % Percent of Pinellas County Crashes 7.79% 6.84% 4.2% -46.8% *Crash Rate per 1, population As Figure 21 shows, for Pinellas County, the months with the highest number of fatalities involving impaired drivers was January (3 fatalities, 2.% of the total) and March (3, 2.% of the total). For crashes involving impaired drivers, the months of March (98 crashes, 9.49% of the total) and April (1 crashes, 9.68% of the total) had the highest totals. The data also indicates a significant drop in the number of crashes in July (68) although the reason for this change is unclear. Injury crashes involving impaired drivers saw March (28 injuries, 11.52% of the total) with the highest number of incidents. Figure 22 contains a breakdown of total crashes, injuries, and fatalities by the day of the week for impaired driver crashes. The day of the week with the highest number of fatal crashes involving impaired drivers in Pinellas County was Friday (7 fatalities, 46.67% of the total). Total crashes were heavily skewed between Friday, Saturday, and Sunday which accounted for 43

80 54.89% of the total number. Injury crashes were also mostly distributed between Friday, Saturday, and Sunday which accounted for over 52% of the total number. The 3-hour window in which the most fatalities (9) occurred was the 9 p.m. to 12 a.m. timeframe. The most total crashes (172) and injuries (69) involving impaired drivers was also during the 9 p.m. to 12 a.m. timeframe. Figure 21. Impaired Driver Month Summary, Crashes Injuries Fatalities Figure 22. Impaired Driver Day of the Week Summary, Crashes Injuries Fatalities 44

81 MAP 11. IMPAIRED DRIVING FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

82 SPEEDING A speeding-related crash is defined as one that occurred where a driver was charged with a speeding-related offense or where an officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor. Table 12 shows that speeding-related crashes in Pinellas County steadily decreased each year between 211 (12) and 213 (7). The count in 213 represents a 31.37% decrease over the 211 baseline year. The population-based crash rate also showed annual decreases over the three-year period, with the 213 rate (7.53) representing a 32.28% decrease compared to the 211 rate. The proportion of speeding-related crashes to total crashes in the County also decreased over the reporting period. TABLE 12. SPEEDING CRASH DATA % Change Total Crashes % Total Injuries % Total Fatalities % Population 917, , , % Population Crash Rate* % Percent of Pinellas County Crashes.68%.49%.28% % *Crash Rate per 1, population As seen in Figure 23, the months with the greatest number of speeding-related crashes in Pinellas County were January (9 crashes, 12.86% of total) and December (8 crashes, 11.43% of total). For 213, there were only 3 speeding-related fatalities and these occurred in July (1) and August (2). Injury crashes involving speeding were evenly distributed throughout the year with the exception of May where no injury crashes occurred. Looking at Pinellas County s speeding-related crashes by day as depicted in Figure 24, the greatest number occurred on Saturday (16 crashes, 22.86%), followed by Sunday (12 crashes, 17.14%), and then Wednesday (11 crashes, 15.71% of the total). The 3-hour window in which the most total crashes (14) and injuries (7) involving speeding was during the 12 a.m. to 3 a.m. timeframe. 46

83 Figure 23. Speeding Month Summary, Crashes Injuries Fatalities Figure 24. Speeding Day of Week Summary, Crashes Injuries Fatalities 47

84 MAP 12. SPEEDING FATALITY, INJURY AND CRASH LOCATIONS,

85 CRASHES BY TYPE AND LOCATION Crashes by Vehicle Type The crash data provides information regarding the first vehicle type involved in a crash. For 213, the data reveals the following information for crashes by vehicle type; passenger car (1,469 or nearly 42.5%), sport utility vehicle (3,248 or 13.2%), pickup truck (2,36 or 9.6%). Data is also collected for other types of vehicles such as all terrain vehicle (ATV s), cargo van (1, lbs or 4,536 kg or less), medium/heavy trucks (more than 1, lbs or 4,536 kg), moped, motorcycle, other light trucks (1, lbs or 4,536 kg or less), passenger van, and others not specified in a category. Crashes by Location The following two tables include data that can be analyzed for possible roadway changes or upgrades to improve safety for all modes of travel. For example, approximately 63% of traffic crashes occur in the roadway travel lanes and the remaining 37% happen off-road, e.g., on the shoulder, in a median or parking lot. TABLE 13. CRASH LOCATION ON ROADWAY, 213 Crashes Fatalities Injuries Peds Bike Motorcycle Vul. Agg. Lane At User Driver Departure Intersection Gore 2 1 In 1, Parking Lane or Zone Median Off 1, Roadway On 15, , ,335 4,549 2,452 2,511 Roadway Outside of Rightof-Way Roadside Separator Shoulder Unknown 4,

86 TABLE 14. CRASH LOCATION RELATION TO JUNCTION SUMMARY, 213 Crashes Fatalities Injuries Peds Bike Motorcycle Vul. Agg. Lane At User Driver Departure Intersection Acc./Dec. 5 Lane Crossover Driveway Entrance/Exit Ramp Intersection 2, , , ,589 Intersection- 1, Related Non- 9, , ,716 2,33 Junction Other Railway Grade Crossing Shared-Use Path or Trail Through Roadway Unknown 9, ,641 1,379 5

87 INTERSECTIONS Nearly 29 percent of the statewide traffic fatalities, which occurred between 26 to 21, were at or within 25 feet of signalized or unsignalized intersections 4. In response to these crash types being identified as an emphasis area in the 212 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the CDMS data is further analyzed to evaluate and rank intersections based on the occurrence of traffic crashes. This section provides a summary and analysis of the Top 4 High Crash locations by total crashes for intersections on the Pinellas County road network. These locations include all crashes (crash, injury, fatality) recorded during the report period. This information is used to determine the appropriate programmatic approaches to apply strategies and countermeasures to address the identified prevailing safety challenges. The following crash types were evaluated in the development of the Top 4 intersections portion of this report: Total Crashes Fatalities Bicycles Pedestrians Motorcycles Distracted Driving 4 Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan,

88 Total Crashes As displayed in Table 15, the Top 4 high crash intersections based on total number of crashes reveal a significant number of roadways, some of which include multiple intersections, are responsible for a large number of traffic incidences. For example, fifteen intersections are located along U.S. Highway 19, six intersections are located along I-275; and three intersections are located along State Road 6 (Gulf to Bay Boulevard). As shown, a total of 14 intersection locations have 2 or more crashes. Overall, a total of 7,621 crashes were recorded at the Top 4 intersections. Analysis of the 4 high crash intersections shows that there were a total of 47 fatal crashes and 1,446 injury crashes. The most common type of crash at these intersections was an angle crash (24.6%). TABLE 15. TOP 4 INTERSECTIONS, CRASHES No. Facility Total Crashes Total Injuries Total Fatalities 1 US Tampa Rd US Curlew Rd th St. N. Bridge US Alderman Rd Gandy Blvd US 38 th Ave. N nd Ave. N US Nebraska Ave Seminole Park Blvd th Ave. N SR 34 th St. N Roosevelt Blvd SR S. Belcher Rd US Gulf to Bay US Main St SR 49 th St. N East Bay Starkey CR Bryan Dairy SR Forest Lakes th Ave. S th Roosevelt Blvd Starkey Park Blvd SR McMullen Booth Rd US Drew St US Hammock Pine Blvd US Belleair Rd US Klosterman Rd SR Bayside Bridge US Ulmerton SR Keene Rd East Belcher US Enterprise US 62 nd Ave. N US East Bay Dr SR Belcher th Park Blvd USA Ulmerton Tyrone Park St. N SR 54 th Ave. N SR 66 th St. N

89 Fatalities Table 16 displays the Top 4 intersections based on total number of fatal crashes from that occurred on the Pinellas County road network. The data shows that the largest number of fatal crashes occurred on I-275, with three of the top five also occurring on the I-275 corridor. Other high fatality corridors include; U.S. Alternate 19 (8 fatalities) and U.S. Highway 19 (8 fatalities). 51% of the total fatalities for 213 occurred at top 4 intersections. The data also revealed that 3.9% of fatalities at the Top 4 intersections were due to driver impairment, 49% of vulnerable road user fatalities occurred at top 4 intersections, 31% of fatal crashes were angle crashes at top 4 intersections, and 18% of fatal crashes at the top 4 intersections were identified as lane departure crashes. TABLE 16. TOP 4 INTERSECTIONS, FATALITIES No. Facility Total Fatalities 1 22 nd Ave. N. 4 2 Roosevelt Blvd. 4 3 Memorial Island Way 3 4 US San Fernando Blvd. N. 3 5 Gandy Blvd. 3 6 US Brighton Bay Blvd. NE 2 7 USA Turner St. 2 8 Belcher Sunset Point Rd. 2 9 US 1 st Ave. S. 2 1 Indian Rocks Anglers Lane 2 11 Belcher Cleveland St US Alderman Rd Central 31 st St. S Walnut St. Coffee Pot Blvd. NE 2 15 Gulf Gulf Winds Dr SR 31 st St. S SR Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. St SR 49 th St. N Betty Fairmont St. 2 2 US 19 Hammock Pine Blvd th St. S th Ave. Park St nd Ave. 22 nd St US Bryan Dairy Rd Belleair Belcher Rd USA Meres Blvd Sunshine Skyway 2 28 SR Sunset Blvd East Bay 36 th St. SE 2 3 USA 94 th St. N Gulf 59 th Ave th St. 7 th Ave. N Tall Pines th Pl Main Belcher Rd SR 78 th Ave. N Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. th Ave. N USA 119 th Ave. N USA 127 th Pl th St. Roosevelt 1 4 N. Myrtle Drew St. 1 53

90 Bicycles As indicated on the bicycle crash map, a total of 8 fatal crashes involving bicyclists occurred on the Pinellas County road network during the three-year time period. The largest number of bicycle crashes occurred at the US 19/38 th Ave. N. intersection (Table 17). Overall, the total number of bicycle crashes over the three-year period was 18. TABLE 17. TOP 4 INTERSECTIONS, BICYCLE CRASHES No. Facility Total Crashes 1 US 38 th Ave. N US 62 nd Ave. N th St. Park Blvd. N. 7 4 SR 49 th St. N. 7 5 US 5 th Ave. N. 6 6 US Central Ave. 6 7 East Bay Starkey Rd. 6 8 CR Bryan Dairy Rd. 5 9 US Curlew Rd. 5 1 SR 118 th Ave. N SR 46 th Ave. N US Sunset Point Rd th St. 5 th Ave. N SR Forest Lakes Blvd Gandy Blvd SR S. Belcher Rd SR 38 th Ave. N Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 49 th Ave US 3 th Ave. N. 4 2 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 22 nd Ave. S CR 7 th Ave. N CR Belcher Rd US 22 nd Ave. S SR Countryside Blvd th St. 38 th Ave. N Starkey Park Blvd th 1 st Ave Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 5 th Ave. N st Ave. 31 st St. S. 3 3 SR 68 th Ave. N N. Belcher Sunset Point Rd Pinellas Court St th Ave. 49 th St th St. Park Blvd. N Seminole Park Blvd SR 78 th Ave. N USA 122 nd Ave. N Pinellas 22 nd Ave. N US Main St. 3 4 SR S. Lake Dr. 3 54

91 Pedestrians A total of 15 fatal crashes involving pedestrians occurred at the Top 4 intersections during the three-year time period. The largest number of pedestrian crashes occurred at the East Bay Drive/Starkey Road intersection (Table 18). Overall, the total number of pedestrian crashes over the three-year period was 188. It is also important to note that 15.7% of pedestrian crashes occurred at top 4 intersections and 1% of the pedestrian crashes involved some form of impairment at the top 4 intersections. TABLE 18. TOP 4 INTERSECTIONS, PEDESTRIAN CRASHES No. Facility Total Crashes 1 East Bay Starkey Rd Central 22 nd St. N. 7 3 SR 54 th Ave. N. 7 4 SR 49 th St. N th St. 5 th Ave. N th St. Park Blvd. N. 6 7 SR S. Belcher Rd. 6 8 USA Ulmerton Rd. 6 9 USA Jasper St. 5 1 US Tampa Rd East Bay Country Club Dr US Main St th Ave. Haines Rd Starkey Park Blvd. N East Bay S. Belcher Rd th St. 22 nd Ave. N US 66 th St. N SR 58 th St. N Pasadena Majestic Way 4 2 US 66 th Ave. N US 38 th Ave. N US 78 th Ave. N th St. 38 th Ave. N SR 118 th Ave. N US Citrus Dr th Ave. 28 th St. N N. Missouri East Bay Dr SR Keene Rd Belcher Park Blvd. N. 4 3 US Ulmerton Rd Nursery S. Belcher Rd SR Bayview Ave CR 7 th Ave. N USA Lakeview Rd SR S. Belcher Rd SR S. Acturas Ave USA Turner St SR 12 nd Ave. N th Ave. 64 th St. N. 3 4 CR 48 th Ave. N. 3 55

92 Motorcycles Table 19 displays the Top 4 intersections based on the total number of motorcycle crashes from that occurred on the Pinellas County road network. The data shows that the largest number of motorcycle crashes occurred on US 19 at Curlew and Tampa Roads, with four of the top five high crash locations occurring on the US 19 corridor as well. The other high motorcycle crash corridor was I-275 (24 crashes). 17% of the motorcycle crashes occurred at top 4 intersections. TABLE 19. TOP 4 INTERSECTIONS, MOTORCYCLE CRASHES No. Facility Total Crashes 1 US Curlew Rd. 1 2 US Tampa Rd. 1 3 US Nebraska Ave. 9 4 US Bryan Dairy 8 5 Roosevelt Blvd. 8 6 CR Bryan Dairy Rd. 8 7 Drew N. Belcher Rd. 6 8 East Bay Starkey Rd. 6 9 Blind Pass 93 rd Ave th St. 5 th Ave. N Gandy Blvd SR 34 th St. N SR Courtney Campbell Causeway 6 14 US 38 th Ave. N th Ave. S US Brighton Bay Blvd. NE 5 17 SR S. Highland Ave SR 43 rd St. N Belcher Park Blvd. N th St. Park Blvd. N SR 38 th Ave. N th St. 38 th Ave. N USA 12 nd Ave. N US Ulmerton Rd Starkey Park Blvd. N nd Ave. N CR 46 th Ave. N Seminole Park Blvd Memorial Island Way 4 3 CR Lake Blvd Pasadena Ave. 66 th St. N CR 25 th Ave. N US 62 nd Ave. N I US San Fernando Blvd SR 54 th Ave. N Central 31 st St. S N. Missouri East Bay Dr th St. Park Blvd. N. 4 4 US Unknown

93 Hot Spot Intersections for Vulnerable Users The Top 4 intersection locations were further analyzed to assess the potential for clustering of high crash locations based on crash incidences involving vulnerable users. A crash Hot Spot or cluster is a small area where groups of crashes involving different vulnerable road users (bicycle, pedestrian, and/or motorcycle) occur. As opposed to a single vulnerable user, a Hot Spot listed in this section involves multiple bicycle, pedestrian, and/or motorcycle user crashes at different points in time over the length of the report period. Table 2 shows the types of vulnerable user crashes that have occurred at intersections on the Pinellas County road network. These intersections should be studied further for a more in-depth technical analysis of intersection operating conditions and potential countermeasures with the goal of reducing the occurrence of crashes involving vulnerable users. TABLE 2. HOT SPOT INTERSECTIONS FOR VULNERABLE USERS Facility Bicycle Crashes Pedestrian Crashes Motorcycle Crashes US Curlew Rd. X X US Tampa Rd. X X SR 38 th Ave. N. X X US Ulmerton Road X X Starkey Park Blvd. X X US 62 nd Ave. N. X X SR 54 th Ave. N. X X East Bay Starkey Rd. X X X Gandy Blvd. X X US 38 th Ave. N. X X N. Missouri East Bay Dr. X X 49 th St. Park Blvd. N. X X CR 7 th Ave. N. X X US Main St. X X 57

94 CRASHES REPORTED ALONG GULF BOULEVARD Gulf Boulevard has been selected for further traffic crash analysis due to its close proximity to the beaches, high rates of pedestrian and bicycle activity, and high concentration of touristoriented uses. The crash data analyzed for this corridor is used to uncover any crash trends that may be happening along this popular stretch of roadway. Several safety initiatives, including WalkWise Key to Safety cards and the Gulf Boulevard Beautification Project program, have been instituted in this area with the goal of reducing pedestrian crashes, injuries, and fatalities. The WalkWise Key to Safety card is an insert the same size as a room key which allows hotels along Gulf Boulevard to distribute them to guests during check-in. The goal of this insert is to educate and inform tourists regarding pedestrian safety through the WalkWise tips. The tips include; Walk without distraction wait to text or talk on cell phones Always follow the Walk/DON T Walk signals use pedestrian push buttons at crossings Look left, right and left again before crossing Know your surroundings Wear bright colors be seen night and day Impaired walking can be dangerous Stay on sidewalks walk facing traffic and use crosswalks Expect the unexpected walk defensively The Gulf Boulevard Beautification Project program encompasses 11 beach communities and includes a manual that provides guidance on strategies to make the corridor consistent with common amenities and streetscape improvements. Analysis of the crashes that occur along this corridor can help the county, cities, and FDOT develop projects that will enhance safety features, reduce visual distractions, and improve wayfinding signage while keeping an attractive roadway experience as safe as possible. Figures 25, 26, 27 and 28 show the crash incidences over the past 3 years along the corridor and how the reported crash numbers reflect crashes happening during certain Months, Days of the Week, and Time of Day. These trends show when this corridor is more vulnerable to accidents, allowing beach communities to educate, enforce and enhance areas that are identified. 58

95 Figure 25. Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities along Gulf Blvd. by Year, Crashes Injuries Fatalities Figure 26. Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities along Gulf Blvd. by Month, Crashes Injuries Fatalities Figure 27. Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities along Gulf Blvd. by Day of Week, Crashes Injuries Fatalities 59

96 Figure 28. Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities along Gulf Blvd. by Time of Day, Crashes Injuries Fatalities Some other stats that were charted in the queried report in the appendix are as follows: Of the 834 crashes analyzed throughout this corridor, 25% had resulted in a reported injury, and just less than 1% resulted in a fatality. The 2 to 24 year old age group had the highest number of crashes averaged over the past 3 years. Almost 2% of the crashes along this corridor involved impairment. 16% of the traffic crashes involved a vulnerable user. 5% of the fatalities happened at the Top 4 intersections along this corridor. 44% of the crashes along this corridor were front to rear crashes, while 17% were angle crashes. Restraint, Lightning, or Weather had very low impact on the cause of the crashes along this corridor. 6

97 MAP 13. CRASHES, INJURIES, AND FATALITIES ALONG GULF BLVD.,

98 PEDESTRIAN CRASH COUNTERMEASURES As pedestrian crashes typically result in injuries, this section aims to identify countermeasures that will reduce the occurrence and severity of crashes involving pedestrians. Pedestrian crashes occur both at signalized intersections and at mid-block. Crashes involving turning traffic at signalized intersections could be prevented by eliminating the potential for vehiclepedestrian conflicts. At locations with high pedestrian volumes, prohibiting right turns on red could be an easy strategy to minimize pedestrian conflicts involving right-turning vehicles. At intersections with high right-turning traffic and pedestrian volumes, a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) could improve pedestrian safety. The LPI, also known as Pedestrian Head Start or Delayed Vehicle Green provides the Walk signal for additional 3-5 seconds before the adjacent through movement phase. This strategy gives pedestrians a head start while crossing the intersection, reducing conflicts between pedestrians in the crosswalk and the right-turning vehicles. It also makes the pedestrians more visible. Pedestrian crashes involving left-turning vehicles could be reduced by providing either a protected left-turn phase or an exclusive protected pedestrian signal. Several pedestrian crashes occur when the pedestrian attempted to cross a roadway at mid-block and was struck by approaching traffic. These types of pedestrian crashes could be prevented by providing properly signed and marked mid-block crossings at logical locations, improving roadway lighting, and providing curb extensions. At locations where pedestrians are expected to cross multi-lane roads with high travel speeds and heavy traffic, the following countermeasures could be effective in reducing pedestrian crash frequency and severity: ensure curb ramps are provided to make crossing easier for all pedestrians, install lighting along the corridor, require pedestrians to cross the roadway at logical, designated crossing locations such as crosswalks, and install traffic calming measures, such as providing speed bumps, lane narrowing, roundabouts, etc. County-wide education campaigns on the laws pertaining to pedestrians and the safety benefits of using pedestrian facilities such as crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian refuge islands could improve pedestrian safety. Furthermore, extensive driver education campaigns that focus on driver compliance with pedestrian right-of-way laws and stricter enforcement could prevent the crashes that were due to driver error. Research has found that undivided roadway segments experience a greater number of pedestrian crashes compared to the locations with raised medians. Raised medians act as pedestrian refuge areas, providing an opportunity for pedestrians to pause while crossing multiple lanes of traffic. Therefore, constructing raised medians is an effective countermeasure on multi-lane corridors with high traffic volumes. In addition to the construction of raised medians, County-wide pedestrian education campaigns focusing on the safety benefits of raised medians could discourage pedestrians from crossing multiple travel lanes without stopping and waiting for sufficient gaps to cross. 62

99 Sidewalks not only encourage walking but also significantly improve pedestrian safety. At locations with no sidewalks, pedestrians are forced to walk along the edge of the roadway, increasing the potential for pedestrian crashes. Sidewalks should be provided along all roadways, where technically feasible, or at a minimum paved shoulder, on both sides of the road. Reductions in vehicle speeds can also have a very significant influence on pedestrian crashes and injuries. Pedestrians suffer much more serious injuries when struck by high-speed vehicles than when struck by vehicles going more slowly. Also, many pedestrian crashes would be prevented entirely had the vehicles been traveling more slowly, since driver and pedestrian would have had more time to perceive the risk and react. Programs should be considered to lower overall vehicle speeds in areas where pedestrians and vehicles commonly share the roadway. Key elements to such programs can include regulation (speed limits), signage, public information, education, enforcement, and engineering modifications. CONCLUSION Traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities have a major impact on the safety and well being of motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists using the Pinellas County transportation system. The crash data reported to the CDMS indicates that a high percentage of crashes are caused by younger drivers between the ages of 2 to 29 that are impaired due to their use of drugs, alcohol or medication. Distracted driving crashes occurred most often with persons between the ages of 15 to 34. Of the fatal traffic crashes; driver impairment, disregarding traffic control devices, and intersection crashes played a role in more than half of all traffic fatalities in Pinellas County in 213. Younger drivers between the ages of 25 to 29 accounted for the highest number of crashes and 3% of those involved an impaired driver. Most of the traffic fatalities (63%) also involved vulnerable road users which is an increase from 212. Pedestrians made up more than half (51%) of the fatalities of all vulnerable road users in 213. Lastly, CDMS statistics indicate that the most significant cause of crashes for all users is drivers operating their vehicles in a careless or negligent manner. It is imperative that local governments, transportation planners, law enforcement agencies, traffic engineers and the general public continue to find ways to reduce traffic crashes through the planning and/or programming of transportation-related safety projects, long-range transportation forecasting, targeted law enforcement activities, and public education initiatives. It is only by these means that Pinellas County will be able to consistently reduce its incidences of traffic crashes and provide a safer transportation system for all users. 63

100 APPENDIX A 64

101 TCC ITEM 9. A. C. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Traffic Fatalities Map As previously indicated, staff will provide the updated Traffic Fatalities Map each month. ATTACHMENTS: Traffic Fatalities Map Thru March 3, 215 ACTION: None required, informational item B. MPO Board Actions The March 11, 215 Newsletter/Action Sheet is attached. Committee Membership At its March 11, 215 meeting, the MPO Board appointed Scott Swearengen as the County Planning Department Representative on the TCC and Gordon Beardslee as the Alternate. ATTACHMENTS: MPO Newsletter/Action Sheet March 11, 215 ACTION: TCC Membership List None required, informational item C. Tentative Future Agenda Topics The following topics are tentatively scheduled to appear as items on future TCC agendas: Update on the Countywide Land Use Plan Update on County Road Projects Public Participation Plan Evaluation Overview of the Regional Freight Plan Complete Streets Policy U.S. 19 Corridor Study Update (ongoing updates) TCC: 3/25/15

102 66TH ST N BELCHER RD Pinellas County Major Road Network ALT US 19 PINELLAS AVE 19 KEYSTONE RD TRINITY BLVD EAST LAKE RD Pasco County Gulf of Mexico YEAR 215 (thru March 3rd) Locations of Reported TRAFFIC FATALITIES GULF BLVD PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE MOTORCYCLE AUTO-VEHICLE MEDICAL INDIAN ROCKS RD VONN RD ALT US 19 SEMINOLE BLVD (includes other small modes) HIGHLAND AVE CR 1 STARKEY RD TAMPA RD SUNSET POINT RD 54TH AVE N (traffic related but medical condition caused death) ALDERMAN RD SR 58 MAIN ST DREW ST NOTE: Graphic not an official representation, based upon initial reporting, subject to change upon verification. GULF-TO-BAY BLVD PARK ST BELCHER RD SR 688 ULMERTON RD PARK BLVD PASADENA AVE CURLEW RD MCMULLEN BOOTH RD SR 686 US 19 82ND AVE N 7TH AVE N 54TH AVE N 58TH ST S BAYSIDE BRIDGE 38TH AVE N 49TH ST N SR 584 TAMPA RD COURTNEY CAMPBELL CSWY 22ND AVE N 5TH AVE N 1ST AVE N 22ND AVE S US 19 34TH ST S 28TH ST N 28TH ST N I TH ST N I-275 DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST N 54TH AVE S Hillsborough County Old Tampa Bay 275 4TH ST N 62ND AVE S SKYWAY BRIDGE I-275 HOWARD FRANKLAND BRIDGE GANDY BLVD Tampa Bay Prepared by the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 31 Court Street Clearwater, Fl Ph WDH Project GIS File fatals15 Parent GIS File fatals15 Depicting GIS File - fatals15 Joined File - none ³