Introduction The purpose of Subtask 1 of the SR 54/56 Project Concept Development (PCD) Study is to identify and summarize the goals and proposed operations for transit corridor improvements as depicted in the adopted 2009 Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA) Master Plan. Subsequent subtasks will further identify specific alternatives and evaluate their costs, benefits, impacts and feasibility for potential advancement to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Alternatives Analysis (AA) and Preliminary Engineering (PE) processes to qualify for federal funding. Project Need The purpose of the SR 54/56 Project Concept Development Study is to evaluate a broad range of multi-modal transportation alternatives for the corridor that provide not only mobility-oriented benefits, but also economic development, environmental, and other benefits as well. Just north of the Pasco/Hillsborough County line, the SR 54/56 corridor is a four lane, divided roadway, and the predominant east-west connection in Pasco County connecting five of the County s major north-south thoroughfares, including US 19, the Suncoast Parkway, US 41, I-75, and Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. The County s Future Land Use Plan includes the SR 54/56 corridor as the centerpiece of the Gateway Opportunity Market Area a portion of the county dedicated to economic development and focused on multi-modal transportation access. The County s plans for SR 54/56 include eleven market nodes, encompassing four major market nodes of intense development along the corridor. Automobile traffic on SR 54/56 is only expected to increase as Pasco County s strategic future land use plan focuses new development along the corridor, including several approved Developments of Regional Impact (DRI s). Providing modal options for east-west travel in Pasco County on SR 54/56 has the potential to decrease greenhouse gas emissions through reduced vehicular congestion and vehicle miles travelled, and to spur compact transitoriented development along the corridor. The purpose of the SR 54/56 Project Concept Development Study is to evaluate multi-modal options for east-west mobility along the SR 54/56 corridor which has been constrained to six general use lanes by the county s LRTP. Page 1
Stakeholder Coordination Our initial effort was to review the proposed TBARTA Master Plan improvements for the SR 54/56 corridor and interview TBARTA staff, their consultant Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., Pasco County Planning/Growth Management Staff and FDOT D7 staff to determine goals, connectivity, access objectives and potential operations. The TBARTA Master Plan identifies improvements for a Mid-Term Regional Network (year 2035) and a Long-Term Regional Network (year 2050), see attachments. For the SR 54/56 corridor these improvements are depicted as Express Bus: Managed Lane with limits of US 19 to Bruce B. Downs (BBD) Boulevard for the mid-term Network and US 19 to US 301 in Zephryhills for the Long-Term Network. In both cases the service headways are noted as Every 15-30 Minutes in Peak Hour. Jacobs Engineering Group Interview Following is a summary of the consultant team meeting with the Jacobs staff responsible for assembling the TBARTA Master Plan: Managed lanes is intended to represent new lanes that would be tolled for at least some users, likely non-transit non-carpool traffic, and would operate at higher speeds (increased level of service) than the general use lanes. Possibilities include tolled lanes and high occupancy tolled (HOT) lanes, among others. Mixed traffic is intended to represent existing lanes that are used by general traffic, carpools and buses alike and are not tolled. The Pasco County MPO recognizes that the term managed lanes (Exhibit 1) means that some users will be required to pay tolls. Page 2
Active Traffic Management: The next stop in Congestion Management FHWA, July 2007. Pasco County indicated via informal coordination that they are concerned with the traffic operations of the US 41 intersection with SR 54. In order to be consistent with TBARTA Master Plan work, future corridor studies will likely need to use the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Model, aka the super regional model for traffic projections and modeling evaluations. Jacobs staff will provide the traffic model output used for the SR 54/56 TBARTA Master Plan study. This information shows the general location of stations and toll collection limits. The exact locations were not identified in the TBARTA Master Plan. Doug Uden, Pasco County MPO, indicated to Jacobs a preference for backage roads similar to those being implemented incrementally along US 301 in the area of the Walmart between Zephyrhills and Dade City. Jacobs indicated that Pasco County believes new Example of bus operating in managed lane. lanes on SR 54/56 between the North Suncoast Corridor and I-75 need to be elevated. This is indicated by the black outline on the blue Express Bus: Managed Lane line on the Master Plan map. Jacobs staff agreed to provide the unit costs for the transit components they used along with shape files showing the general station locations along SR 54/56. Page 3
The Master Plan assumes that the Supporting Network improvements are in place before the Master plan improvements. The Supporting Network improvements encompass an approximate 500% increase in background bus service according to the Master Plan. The western terminus of the Express Bus: Managed Lane improvements identified for the SR 54/56 corridor is US 19. The exact location along US 19 has not been determined, though there was a strong desire by the County to provide service all the way to Port Richey. Tying into North Pinellas wasn t a critical issue. Preliminary modeling performed by TBARTA indicated that much of the travel in the corridor is long distance rather than local. The specific character, alignment, and configuration for managed lanes consideration would be determined later through an Alternatives Analysis study. The TBARTA Master Plan was produced at a regional systems planning level with more specific corridor detail to be determined later. Ali Atefi, Pasco County MPO staff, has indicated to Jacobs that Pasco County wants both 2 lane and 4 lane tolled/managed lane options to be evaluated. Joint TBARTA/FDOT Interview The consultant team met with Mr. Bob Clifford, TBARTA Executive Director and FDOT D7 staff to learn their perspectives on the Master Plan improvements for the SR 54/56 corridor. Following is a summary of this discussion: Mr. Clifford noted that the major goal of this Project Concept Development (PCD) Study from TBARTA s point of view is to complete an alternatives analysis that will position this project to better compete for future federal funding. Mr. Clifford noted that new proposed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements combine the alternatives analysis and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) efforts; however this SR 54/56 PCD Study would be a Pre- NEPA project, but able to roll over into a traditional AA/NEPA project later. This SR 54/56 PCD Study is initially to be conducted as a conceptual planning study, but may evolve into or be used in a future NEPA study. Pasco County is currently using Tindale - Oliver and Associates (TOA) to complete their LRTP update and has taken the position that they want light rail studied in the SR 54/56 corridor. The County has designated the SR 54/56 corridor as an urbanized corridor (action taken at August 13, 2009 MPO meeting.) Managed lanes could be considered in some, but not all, areas of the SR 54/56 corridor. Pasco County would like to see elevated toll lanes in the SR 54/56 corridor between the North Suncoast Expressway and I-75. Florida s Turnpike Enterprise Page 4
(FTE) previously evaluated toll lanes in this corridor and found them to be not feasible. One component of this study will be to update, or refresh, this analysis to determine if this is still a valid outcome. Pasco County has approved huge amounts of development along the SR 54/56 corridor and considers it the primary east/west urbanized development corridor in the future. Transfer of Development forecasts will be needed from Pasco County (Tindale Oliver study). Mr. Gao, (FDOT) and Mr. Clifford noted that existing drainage along the corridor is very tight (lateral ditches) and the 250 ft R-O-W is set for the 6-lane section there is no available extra drainage capacity in the typical section to accommodate additional lanes. Mr. Clifford noted that floodplain compensation will be as significant as the drainage issue along the SR 54/56 corridor. Pasco County Interview The consultant team and FDOT D7 staff met with Pasco County staff to determine how they envisioned the corridor developing and the transit alternatives that could best serve these development plans while maintaining consistency with the TBARTA Master Plan. Main points are summarized below: The Pasco County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is concerned that the TBARTA Master Plan does not account for all of the development the County plans for the region. This is because the County is adopting a new Proposed Market Area land use plan (see attachment) that was not in place when the TBARTA Master Plan was developed. Some Pasco BOCC members want to evaluate light rail in the SR 54 corridor in addition to the Managed Lanes with Express Bus concept currently identified in the adopted Master Plan. They would like to see a wide range of alternatives evaluated including BRT and BRT light as well. BRT Light is shown in the proposed Pasco County LRTP, not the currently adopted LRTP. Pasco County may ask TBARTA to change the adopted Master Plan as it relates to the SR 54/56 Light rail example Page 5
corridor pending the outcome of this PCD study. They noted that the SR 54/56 corridor is one of very few corridors included in the TBARTA Master Plan that is entirely contained within one county and is 30 plus miles long. Pasco s position is that this fact allows Pasco to control the alternatives in the SR 54/56 corridor with little influence from other counties. Light rail should first be developed into Pasco County in a north-south direction via the Bruce B. Downs (BBD) Boulevard corridor, then develop the east-west light rail connections to it. Pasco would like the current PCD study area extended east beyond the current terminus at BBD to US 301. D7 has indicated that the current eastern project terminus at BBD will remain. Pasco County s land use and development patterns will be guided by the recently ULI Study Final Report, 2008 approved 2008 Urban Land Institute (ULI) Study Final Report, which is available on the County s website. Market Areas I and II are proposed to be the urban service area boundaries and they plan to build their mobility plan and mobility fees around this. They are required by statute to develop these boundaries by 2010 and they then have 2 years to put the mobility plan and fees in place. The BOCC wants this is happen earlier than 2010. Pasco wants to diverge from the bedroom community concept and keep more trips internal to the county. Their new Market Area plan is much more transit oriented development (TOD) driven. Pasco County s new strategic plan focuses growth in Market Area II around the SR 54 corridor (see attachments). The area of SR 54 between the Suncoast Expressway and I-75 is envisioned to become downtown Pasco and has the densest development pattern. They referenced Denver and Charlotte models for this type of development.pasco County is assuming any lanes along SR 54 greater than 6 lanes will be elevated. This means that a 10 lane SR 54 corridor would consist of 6 at grade general use lanes and 4 elevated managed lanes. Page 6
BRT Stop Concept Pasco County would like us to adjust the land uses in this model based on their newly adopted Market Area plan. Pasco County recently contracted with IBI Group, a multi-disciplinary consulting group that offers TOD expertise in the following areas: Urban Land, Facilities/Structures, Transportation Networks and Systems Technology. Pasco County s LRTP currently calls for a BRT Light concept for the SR 54 corridor which consists of branded buses with queue jump lanes and ITS pre-emptions at signalized intersections. Pasco County would like the PCD study to reevaluate the toll feasibility of this corridor rather than take for granted the Florida Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) study s conclusion that the corridor could not sustain a tolled expressway. The County noted that FDOT plans call for intermittent grade separated interchanges at main cross streets along SR 54. Pasco County noted that the only grade separation under consideration is at US 41. They would like to see a continuous elevated concept evaluated. FDOT Interview Elevated express lanes study area. Florida s Turnpike Enterprise SR 54 Elevated Express Lanes Preliminary Feasibility Study, November 2007. The SR 54/56 PCD Study team then met with FDOT D7 staff to determine the direction of the PCD Study and discuss the recent land use changes proposed by Pasco County and to what extent their desire to evaluate light rail and elevated toll lanes would be accommodated. The key issues that were discussed were as follows: FDOT D7 acknowledges that Pasco County land uses and development plans are changing, particularly in the SR 54/56 corridor, and that these changes will be accommodated in the traffic modeling efforts in the SR 54/56 PCD Study. Page 7
The PCD Study will only consider the FTE s toll feasibility study for the purpose of reevaluating traffic loads on this potential toll facility using Pasco County s new land uses. The RS&H Team will perform the traffic modeling required for the SR 54/56 PCD Study using URS staff; to effectively provide a peer review of the modeling done as part of the TBARTA Master Plan. The SR54/56 PCD Study will perform the traffic modeling necessary to determine if light rail is feasible in the SR 54/56 corridor in the first tier of evaluation efforts before carrying light rail further in any alternatives evaluations. Goals and Proposed Operations The outcome of this series of meetings and coordination with FDOT D7, TBARTA and Pasco County as the primary stakeholders led to agreement on the following study goals: Number of lanes and facility types to be evaluated. Transit mode alternatives to include Express Bus, BRT Light, BRT and Light Rail. The SR 54/56 corridor will be analyzed as a six lane divided arterial consistent with the Pasco County LRTP with additional managed lanes as identified by the TBARTA Master Plan including queue jump lanes. An alternative of two managed lanes and an alternative of four managed lanes. Evaluate at-grade and grade separated alternatives for managed lane alternatives. Managed lanes will be separated from the general use lanes and tolled using open road tolling (ORT) collection. Toll Collections In recent years, roadway corridor expansion has been negatively impacted by increasing construction costs, limited right-of-way, and environmental and societal impacts. The approach of addressing mobility needs and travel options has shifted to a combination of capacity expansion with travel demand management and improved Page 8
transit with other forms of ridesharing. The managed lanes concept is one such approach that combines these elements within a highway corridor. The federal SAFETEA-LU initiative also encourages implementation and evaluation of value pricing pilot projects to manage congestion on highways through tolling and other pricing mechanisms. The SR 54/56 PCD Study assumes managed lanes with variable congestion pricing, which means the toll amount fluctuates with increased congestion on the managed lanes so that a minimum predetermined level of service (operating speed) will be maintained at all times on the managed lanes. A minimum toll amount will be established to enter the managed lanes and the toll amount increases with traffic demand to maintain the minimum operating Toll road level of service on the managed lanes. This ensures the managed lanes user an advantage in operation speed and travel time as opposed to the general use lanes in the corridor. The toll schedule will vary by vehicle type, level of congestion, and other factors to make sure that the managed lanes remain uncongested. All public transit vehicles and emergency services vehicles will be allowed to use the managed lanes at no cost. The purpose of these toll exemptions is to create a competitive advantage over vehicular traffic and in the case of emergency vehicles, to promote public safety. This will provide an opportunity for enhanced express bus service to operate within the managed lanes along the SR 54/56 corridor as envisioned in the TBARTA Master Plan. All tolls will be collected electronically using vehicle-mounted transponders, which are read by overhead scanners at the entrance to the facility and again at locations along the corridor. To maximize the efficiency and use of the facility, it is envisioned that the toll collection system be incorporated into the existing SunPass scheme. Transit and other vehicles accessing the managed lanes at no cost could use a designated lane to bypass automated toll equipment, or the transit/emergency vehicle fleets can be assigned transponders. Compliance would be accomplished through the involvement of law enforcement in combination with automated enforcement techniques in keeping with new advances in technology. The compliance would involve transponder verification (automatic debit for registered users), remote collection techniques (fines), and general enforcement using basic traffic maintenance techniques (on-sight ticketing). Page 9
Summary The consultant team will further develop the ten alternatives shown below and further described in Table 1 for analyses and evaluations in later subtasks: 1. BRT Light in general use lanes with queue jumps. Queue jump lanes are at grade with signal priority. We will evaluate queue jump configurations developed by HART for their Nebraska Avenue/Fletcher Avenue BRT study as well as configurations developed in Osceola County and determine the best application for the SR 54/56 corridor. 2. Express Bus in general use lanes with queue jumps. Queue jump lanes are at grade with signal priority. We will evaluate queue jump configurations developed by HART for their Nebraska Avenue/Fletcher Avenue BRT study as well as configurations developed in Osceola County and determine the best application for the SR 54/56 corridor. 3. Express Bus/Managed Lane Option 1 2 lanes at grade. The managed lanes are new lanes in the median in addition to the existing/planned six (6) general use lanes on the SR 54/56 corridor. Public transit vehicles will utilize the managed lanes at no cost while all other vehicles will be charged based on variable congestion pricing designed to maintain a minimum pre-determined level of service. 4. Express Bus/Managed Lane Option 2 2 lanes grade separated. The managed lanes are new lanes in the median in addition to the existing/planned six (6) general use lanes on the SR 54/56 corridor. These will be grade separated (elevated) from the Suncoast Expressway to I-75 with individual grade separations at major intersections from the Suncoast Expressway to US 19. Public transit vehicles will utilize the managed lanes at no cost while all other vehicles will be charged based on variable congestion pricing designed to maintain a minimum pre-determined level of service. Page 10
5. Express Bus/Managed Lane Option 3 4 lanes at grade. The managed lanes are new lanes in the median in addition to the existing/planned six (6) general use lanes on the SR 54/56 corridor. Public transit vehicles will utilize the managed lanes at no cost while all other vehicles will be charged based on variable congestion pricing designed to maintain a minimum pre-determined level of service. 6. Express Bus/Managed Lane Option 4 4 lanes grade separated. The managed lanes are new lanes in the median in addition to the existing/planned six (6) general use lanes on the SR 54/56 corridor. These will be grade separated (elevated) from the Suncoast Expressway to I-75 with individual grade separations at major intersections from the Suncoast Expressway to US 19. Public transit vehicles will utilize the managed lanes at no cost while all other vehicles will be charged based on variable congestion pricing designed to maintain a minimum pre-determined level of service. 7. Light Rail on dedicated guideway. We will evaluate five (5) variations on this alternative: at grade in the median, elevated in the median, at grade with frontage roads outside the shoulder, elevated outside the shoulder, and on new backage alignment. 8. BRT on dedicated guideway. We will evaluate five (5) variations on this alternative: at grade in the median, elevated in the median, at grade with frontage roads outside the shoulder, elevated outside the shoulder, and on new backage alignment. 9. Light Rail on dedicated guideway with managed lanes. This consists of alternatives 3 and 7 combined. 10. BRT on dedicated guideway with managed lanes. This consists of alternatives 3 and 8 combined. Page 11