Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization

Transcription

1 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 310 Court Street, 2 nd Floor, Clearwater, Florida (727) Fax (727) TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING WEDNESDAY APRIL 27, :00 P.M. PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM FIRST FLOOR 310 COURT STREET CLEARWATER, FLORIDA CALL TO ORDER AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF NEWSLETTER/ACTION SHEET MARCH 23, FY 2015/16 FY 2019/20 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AMENDMENTS 4. PASCO COUNTY WEST MARKET AREA PLAN 5. PSTA SYSTEM REDESIGN 6. COMPLETE STREETS PROGRAM 7. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM UPDATE AND PROJECT RANKING CRITERIA 8. U.S. 19/SR 55 STATUS UPDATE 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. SPOTLight Emphasis Area Updates B. Consultant Support through PPC/MPO for Planning Services C. TMA Leadership Group Update D. U.S. 19 Corridor Study Update E. Traffic Fatalities Map F. MPO Board Actions G. Tentative Future Agenda Topics 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. ADJOURNMENT NEXT TCC MEETING MAY 25, 2016 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, 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, Suite 300, Clearwater, Florida 33756; [(727) (V/TDD)] at least seven days prior to the meeting. Web Address: Like Us on Facebook

2 TCC ITEM 2. APPROVAL OF NEWSLETTER/ACTION SHEET MARCH 23, 2016 The newsletter/action sheet of the March 23, 2016 TCC meeting are attached for Committee review and approval. ATTACHMENT: TCC Newsletter/Action Sheet March 23, 2016 ACTION: TCC to approve the March Newsletter/Action Sheet TCC: 4/27/16

3 SUMMARY OF THE TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 23, 2016 The following is a summary of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization s Technical Coordinating Committee meeting held March 23, 2016 in the Planning Department Conference Room, First Floor, 310 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. Members Present Frances Leong Katie See Brent Hall Bennett Elbo Caroline Lanford Cory Martens Anthony Matonti Ajaya Satyal Cheryl Stacks Tom Whalen Bob Bray Michele Parisano Members Absent Joan Rice, Chair Heather Sobush, Vice Chair Miike Burke Tim Funderburk David Chase Rafal Cieslak Mark Ely Michael Frederick Lucy Fuller Ken Jacobs Michelle Orton Mike Taylor Chelsey Weldon Avera Wynne Others Present Brian Beaty Lori Marable Stephen Benson Felicia Donnelly Danny Taylor Whit Blanton Sarah Ward Linda Fisher Brett Burks Sarah Perch Chelsea Favero Rebecca Stysly, Recorder City of Largo City of Clearwater Pinellas County Office of Engineering and Technical Support City of Clearwater Engineering Pinellas County Planning City of Clearwater Traffic TBARTA Pinellas County Air Quality City of St. Petersburg Transportation and Parking City of St. Petersburg City of Pinellas Park Planning City of Oldsmar City of Dunedin Engineering PSTA Pinellas County School Board City of St. Petersburg Engineering and Capital Improvements City of Pinellas Park Stormwater and Transportation City of Largo City of Seminole City of St. Petersburg Engineering City of Dunedin Planning Department Pinellas County Public Works Traffic City of Tarpon Springs City of Gulfport St. Pete Beach Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council FDOT D7 FDOT D7 FDOT D7 City of Clearwater City of Indian Rocks Beach Pinellas County PPC/MPO Pinellas County MPO Pinellas County PPC Pinellas County PPC Pinellas County MPO Pinellas County MPO Pinellas County MPO TCC: 4/27/16

4 Technical Coordinating Committee Summary/Action Sheet March 23, CALL TO ORDER Paul Bertels, City of Clearwater, called the meeting to order in absence of the chairman. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the February 24, 2016 TCC meeting were approved as provided. 3. FY 2015/16 FY 2019/20 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AMENDMENTS There were no TIP amendments in March. 4. STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM (SIS) NEEDS PLAN UPDATE Presentation by Lori Marable, coordinator with FDOT District 7, provided an overview of the Strategic Intermodal System 2045 Multi-Modal Unfunded Needs Plan. Lori explained that the projects will be unconstrained needs and the plan is not prioritized. The project lists will be categorized as short term need (by 2025), medium term (2035), or long (2045). 5. MODIFICATION TO THE 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Chelsea Favero, MPO staff, gave an overview of the proposed modifications to the 2040 LRTP. The LRTP is intended to address all models of transportation. With the increasing focus on waterborne transportation in Pinellas County, as well as the conversations taking place in the community surrounding aerial propelled transit options, MPO staff is recommending the modifications to include references to these types of transit services, as they are currently not addressed in the adopted LRTP. Cheryl Stacks, City of St. Petersburg, asked that bike share also be included in the modified language as this is now being considered a transit service. MPO staff concurred with her suggestion and the TCC unanimously recommended the approval of the modification. 6. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS) PROGRAM UPDATE Presentation by Stephen Benson, from FDOT District Seven to update on the infrastructure changes to the program. Must undergo an application process with higher emphasis on hazardous walking conditions areas. One change added is high schools are now eligible to participate. Applications are scored and ranked and the agency must be LAP certified in order to be eligible. The deadline for FY18 is March 31, Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program Changes A. New TA Program Application Addendum Due May 1, 2016 Brian Beaty of FDOT explains in detail the changes to the TA program incorporated in a new TA Application Addendum. The addendum requires that project sponsors agree to bear all expenses in excess of the approved project phase cost as shown in the LAP agreement in addition to complying with The Uniform Act and enter into a maintenance agreement prior to design phase. Only complete applications will be processed, all incomplete applications will not be processed until all information has been received. The TA addendum includes a TA Checklist to help ensure the application is complete. B. Transportation Alternatives Program Prioritization Criteria Update Robert Feigel, MPO staff, gave a brief update on the process to update the prioritization criteria for TA projects. In 2015, a subcommittee of the TCC, as well as the MPO/PPC Board and the City of St. Petersburg, recommended changes to the prioritization criteria, which were reviewed and endorsed by the MPO advisory committees. MPO staff has begun meeting internally to discuss additional changes to the criteria that take into consideration the Complete Streets program, changes to other priority lists and funding sources, FDOT changes to TA applications and a performance based/outcome-driven Web Address: Friend Us on Facebook

5 04/27/16 Page 2 planning process. MPO staff will bring any additional recommended changes to the TCC at an upcoming meeting. 8. GENERAL PLANNING CONSULTANT SELECTION Chelsea Favero, MPO staff, gave a brief overview of the process used by the MPO/PPC to select General Planning Consultants for upcoming planning activities. 6 consultants were offered contracts for a period of two years, with two additional 2-year optional extensions. Ms. Favero highlighted relevant work of each consultant, and informed the committee that the MPO/PPC would be making the consultants available to local governments for their own planning projects, should the local governments wish to use them. This would be done via interlocal agreement with the MPO/PPC. 9. ST. PETERSBURG BICYCLE PARKING Cheryl Stacks, City of St. Petersburg staff, gave an overview of the changes the City of St. Petersburg made to its Code to require bicycle parking in all new developments. She highlighted how the multifamily development in the downtown area was integrating secure bicycle parking for its residents and some of the options available to developers with constrained sites. 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. SPOTLight Emphasis Area Updates Staff gave a brief update on the SPOTLight Emphasis Areas and distributed copies of 2-page summaries for each area. B. U.S. 19 Study Update Staff gave a brief update on the U.S. 19 Study, informing the committee that work continues to wrap up the study and develop a final report. The final report would be brought to the committee at a future meeting. C. Traffic Fatalities Map A map of the Traffic Fatalities for 2016 was provided. D. MPO Board Actions A summary of the MPO Board Actions from the March 9, 2016 meeting was provided. E. Tentative Future Agenda Topics Staff gave an update on tentative future agenda topics for the committees. 11. OTHER BUSINESS Paul Bertels recognized Bob Bray, City of Pinellas Park, for his years of service to the community and to this committee, noting that this would be Bob s last meeting given his upcoming retirement. 12. ADJOURNMENT

6 TCC ITEM 3. FY 2015/16 FY 2019/20 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AMENDMENTS The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is proposing a TIP amendment to the FY 2015/ /20 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) has received its FFY 2016 allocation of FTA Section 5339 funding of $1.4 million. The grant funds provide capital funding to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and/or related equipment and facilities. The STIP/TIP Amendment is needed to satisfy plan consistency requirements, and to receive federal authorization of the funds. The funding source is the FTA Section 5339, Bus and Bus Facilities Program. ATTACHMENT: ACTION: TIP amendment form TCC to recommend approval of TIP amendment TCC: 4/27/16

7 The preparation of this report has 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 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(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. Transportation Improvement Program Amendment STIP Amendment Number: FY2015/ /20 ** This STIP is in an MPO Area ** TIP Page Number: Attached ** This STIP is Administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ** On Wednesday, May 11, 2016, the Pinellas MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization amended the Transportation Improvement Program that was developed and adopted in compliance with Title 23 and Title 49 in a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process as a condition to the receipt of federal assistance. By signature below, the MPO representative certifies that the TIP amendment was adopted by the MPO Board as documented in the supporting attachments. This amendment will be subsequently incorporated into the MPOs TIP for public disclosure. The amendment does not adversely impact the air quality conformity or financial constraints of the STIP. The STIP Amendment is consistent with the Adopted Long Range Transportation Plan. (Page Number:TABLE 5-12, Pg %-31) This document has not been approved Metropolitan Planning Organization Chairman or Designee Pinellas MPO This document has not been approved Federal Aid Management Manager or Designee STIP amendment criteria: A - The change adds new individual projects to the current STIP This document has not been approved FDOT District Representative or Designee District 07 This document has not been approved Federal Authorization An air conformity determination must be made by the MPO on amended projects within the non-attainment or maintenance areas E - The MPO is not in an air quality non-attainment or maintenance area. Project Name PSTA SECTION 5339 CAPITAL ACTIVITIES Status ITEM Ver Description Fund Phase < FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 > FY 2020 All Years Original STIP Proposed Project G1 PSTA SECTION 5339 CAPITAL ACTIVITIES PSTA FTA SECTION 5339; BUS/BUS FACILITIES PROGRAM MANAGED BY PINELLAS COUNTY FTA CAP 1,439, ,446, ,885, Funding Source After Change Funding Source Balance Before Change 1,439, ,446, ,885, Funding Source Balance After Change Net Change to Funding Source -1,439, ,446, ,885, Proposed Project Before Change Proposed Project After Change 1,439, ,446, ,885, Net Change to Project 1,439, ,446, ,885, Net Change to Funding Source -1,439, ,446, ,885, Net Change to Proposed Project 1,439, ,446, ,885, Net Change to STIP The development of this application has 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 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The reports generated from this application do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

8 TCC ITEM 4. PASCO COUNTY WEST MARKET AREA PLAN In 2010, Pasco County embarked on a multi-year process to develop the West Market Area Plan, focusing on the coastal and inland areas along U.S. Highway 19 and Little Road. This area is also known as The Harbors. Adopted in 2013, the Plan examined redevelopment and infill opportunities, identified land use, infrastructure and economic development strategies. The Plan also created an implementation mechanism for the area that included a focus on transforming U.S. Highway 19 into a pedestrian-friendly roadway. With the adoption of the 2040 LRTP, the Pasco County MPO removed the planned capacity improvements to U.S. Highway 19 that included the construction of interchanges along the corridor. Instead, Pasco County is moving forward with plans to examine alternative transportation and land use solutions for the area. A representative from Pasco County will give a presentation on the West Market Area Plan. ATTACHMENT: ACTION: None None required; informational item only TCC: 4/27/16

9 PSTA SYSTEM REDESIGN TCC ITEM 5. In early 2015, PSTA embarked on a customer focused redesign of services in concert with the 2013 Community Bus Plan and in light of fiscal constraints. Staff developed a multi-phase plan approach to systematically examine every route in the entire PSTA network to improve efficiencies and delivery of service to customers. This became the Customer Oriented System Redesign element of the PSTA Path Forward Strategic Plans. In Phase 1 of the System Redesign, PSTA examined underperforming routes and made service adjustments that were implemented in October In Phase 2, the bus network in Downtown St. Petersburg was redesigned from a hub to grid system and service was increased on select routes. PSTA completed a robust public engagement and public information outreach effort both before and after the changes in Phases 1 and 2. As part of Phase 3, which is currently underway, PSTA will examine and make recommendations for the remainder of the PSTA network. Work for this phase includes: o o o Technical review of Community Bus Plan recommendations Update of data used in performance analysis, as well as new data collection as needed Extensive public outreach including engagement and information phases o Two Phase Implementation (October 2016 and February 2017) PSTA staff will present the Phase 3 process and draft proposals for the routes that will be included in the October 2016 service adjustment. ATTACHMENT: PowerPoint Presentation on PSTA System Redesign ACTION: None required; informational item TCC: 4/27/16

10 October 2016 Service Improvements Phase 3 System Redesign Technical Coordinating Committee April 27, 2016 Citizens Advisory Committee April 28, 2016 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) St. Petersburg, Florida

11 Goals of the 2013 Bus Plan Wide scale community engagement Tell us what do you want Mold the bus network to better serve the economy and needs of our community Create a thoughtful, phased plan to suit a variety of funding scenarios Comprehensive plan development designed to maximize previous efforts 1

12 May 2015 Strategic Direction Financial Stewardship 5-year Balanced Budget Process Increased Revenues Decreased Expenses Sustainable Capital Program Service Redesign Incremental Expansion

13 Where Are We Going? Budget/System Efficiencies Allow for Small Increasesin services over time. Original 10-Phase Plan Now 3-Phase Plan: 1. October 2015 Inefficient Routes Eliminated 2. February 2016 Downtown St. Pete Grid Network 3. Efficiency Improvements throughout County a. October 2016 North and Mid-County b. February 2017 South and Mid-County Additional Improvements to Follow: Central Avenue BRT/ Downtown St. Pete Circulation Clearwater Beach-TIA Express

14 Where Are We Going? By 2017 Some New Revenue Bus Plan Principles Will Be Achieved: Increase frequencies to 15 minutes or better on Core and Frequent Local routes Create efficient grid network that maximizes resources and service delivery Improve overall span of service Improve weekend service coverage

15 October 2016 System-wide Streamlining Remove underutilized deviations Bus-Stop Consolidation: speed operations/save hours Reinvestment of saved hours or new investment Evening and Weekend Service Expansions Overcrowded Routes require additional buses Specific Proposals: Split long routes such as 62 (Belcher/Safety Harbor) Redesign Jolley Trolley Coastal with segments of Route 66 for single 7-day service Retain or expand routes with highest demand

16 Example: Route 62 6

17 Example: Route 62 Safety Harbor 7

18 Route 62: Service and Performance Route 62 Ridership by Month FY 2014 FY 2015 Service Span Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday 5am 8:30pm 6:45am 7:30pm No Service Headway Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday 60 minutes minutes No Service 2015 Statistics 2015 Metric Rank (out of 41) FY 2015 Ridership 199, Passenger/ revenue mile Passenger/ revenue hour Cost Recovery 24.02% 34 Final Combined Score points 35 8

19 Route 62: Rider Patterns Transfer Affinities 9

20 Route 62: Rider Patterns 10

21 System Proposal for October

22 Early Engagement April June, 2016: Internal meetings for feedback from Transportation employees (Drivers, Supervisors, CSR s etc.) on proposed changes 1. Safety Security and Training 2. Executive Review 3. Operators, Supervisors, Customer Service Focus Groups Meetings with City/County staff Internal Workshops : Operators, Customer Service Public Workshops/Hearings Web/Social Media engagement 12

23 Initial City/County Staff Outreach Dunedin Safety Harbor Clearwater St. Petersburg Oldsmar Tarpon Springs Pinellas Planning Seminole Largo Pinellas Park 4/12/169:30 am 4/13/168:30 am 4/14/1611:00 am 4/18/161:30 pm 4/19/161:00 pm 4/19/169:00 am 4/20/163:00 pm Pending Pending Pending 13

24 Public Workshops Workshops: 5/10/16, 5:30-7:00 PM Oldsmar Library, TECO Hall 5/11/16, 6:00-7:30 PM Dunedin, Hale Senior Center 5/12/16, 6:00-7:30 PM Tarpon Springs Recreation Center 5/14/16 9:30-11:00 AM PSTA Auditorium 6/7/16* 5:30-7:30 PM Clearwater East Library (Drew St.) 6/21/16* 5:00-6:30 PM PSTA *Workshop and hearing (if needed) 14

25 Final Outreach Public Information July September Development of training and public engagement materials Internal training for Operators, Customer Service and Ambassadors Week prior to service change: September 25 th -October 4 th, 2016: Staff outreach to riders with booklets at major transfer facilities (34th Layby, Clearwater (Park St), Countryside Mall, Gateway Mall) Outreach will include three-hour ambassador shifts, which will be staggered throughout the day and week to ensure maximum exposure to majority of riders On-board Ambassadors, if needed 15

26 Successful Public Outreach 16

27 System Proposal for October

28 Phase 3 System Improvements October 2016 February 2017 Route 4 Route 67 Route 5 CAT (no change) Route 9 (new) Route 16 (new) Route 19 Route 59 Route 60 (no change) Route 61 Route 62 Route 65 (new) Route 66/JTNC Route 74 Route 76 (no change) Route 78 (no change) Oldsmar/ Tampa Connector Dunedin/PH Connector JT Safety Harbor Route 7 (no change) Route 11 Route 14 Route 15 (no change) Route 18 Route 19 Route 20 Route 2 Route 22 (no change) Route 23 Route 32 Route 38 Route 52 Route 58 Route 68 (no change) Route 73 (no change) Route 75 Route 79 Route 90 Route 97 Route 98 Route 444 SCBT (no change) 18

29 PROPOSED COMPLETE STREETS PROGRAM TCC ITEM 6. The unified MPO/PPC has been tasked by the state legislature to coordinate land use and transportation planning in Pinellas County. One way to enhance this coordination is to incentivize transportation investments in a way that can serve as a catalyst for transformative land use changes, particularly through the implementation of complete streets projects. At the December committee meeting, MPO staff gave a broad overview of how a complete streets program might function in Pinellas County. Since that time, staff has further refined the approach, including the consideration of comments from FDOT. Staff will provide an overview of the proposed complete streets program and seek comment from committee members. ATTACHMENT: Matching Incentive Program for Complete Streets Planning and Implementation ACTION: Review and Comment TCC: 4/27/16

30 Matching Incentive Program for Complete Streets Planning and Implementation Every public right of way should be planned, designed, constructed, reconstructed, operated and maintained for people of all ages and abilities and to provide for the safety and mobility of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit riders, freight carriers, emergency responders and adjacent land users. The Pinellas County MPO/PPC is committed to considering the needs of all users of the roadway during all phases of project development and has created a matching incentive program to encourage the implementation of Complete Streets projects that help to reinforce desired land use and redevelopment activities that meet criteria identified in the adopted Countywide Land Use Plan. With the unification of the MPO/PPC, the joint organization has been tasked by the state legislature to integrate transportation and land use planning countywide. One method to help accomplish this task is through the implementation of a Complete Streets program. The intent of this program is to promote transportation improvements that serve as a catalyst for transformative change along a corridor or within an activity center. The MPO/PPC is seeking to fund projects that meet the intent of this program and can document how the receipt of funding will incent or complement private sector investment. Only projects that demonstrate how they meet this intent will be considered. Eligible Program Applicants: Pinellas County government, or any municipal government located within Pinellas County, is eligible to receive funding. If applying for project design or construction funding, the applicant must have Local Agency Program (LAP) certification or provide documentation showing an agreement to partner with a LAP certified agency to complete the project. Projects on either state or local roadways are eligible for funding, but project implementation must be consistent with federal processes. 1

31 Incentive Amount: Up to $100,000 in Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding will be made available annually for concept planning and/or design of complete streets projects. Project proposals for concept planning and/or design will be added to the STP priority list for funding in FY2017/18. Up to $1 million in STP funding will be made available annually for the construction of complete streets projects. Proposals for complete streets construction projects will be added to the STP priority in FY2018/19 for funding in the fifth year of the state work program (e.g. 2023/24). In recognition of the four to five year timeframe between concept planning/design and construction, additional funds may be made available to project sponsors once construction funds are awarded to refresh designs plans. Technical Assistance: The cornerstone of this program is technical assistance. The MPO/PPC is committed to assisting local governments with the development and submittal of successful applications. Should you have any questions regarding the application or need assistance in locating pertinent data for submittal, please feel free to contact us at: (727) In addition, the MPO/PPC will be hosting a technical assistance workshop to answer questions and to further demonstrate the types of projects this program is intended to fund (date/time TBD). Matching Funds: The most competitive applications will be those that provide local matching funds of at least 25% of the total project cost. Both hard and soft/in kind matches are acceptable, but applications that provide hard matching funds will be deemed most competitive. For soft/in kind matching funds, documentation verifying expended funds must be provided. Photo courtesy of the City of St. Petersburg. Eligible Projects: This program is intended to facilitate the implementation of Complete Streets projects countywide. Funding will be made available for any of the three options described below. The project application must clearly indicate which option the applicant is seeking funding for and also demonstrate how the intent of this program is met by the project. Option 1: Concept Planning Option 2: Project Design Option 3: Project Construction 2

32 Components of a Complete Street Project design elements may include, but not be limited to, the construction/installation of the following: Sidewalks; Lighting; Bicycle lanes, both with and without a buffer; Transit shelters; Florida Friendly landscaping, including street trees; Use of raised medians for traffic safety, traffic flow and pedestrian refuge; Adequate buffer areas for pedestrian safety, utility placement, drainage and landscaping; Appropriately sized lanes for bicycles, cars, trucks and emergency vehicles; On street parking; Signage; Mid block pedestrian crossings; Marked and/or signalized crosswalks; Green Street/Low Impact Development infrastructure; or Bicycle parking. It is understood that each project will be unique to the context of the corridor and that not all components listed above will be appropriate in all places. The listing is provided as an example of components that may be expected in a successful complete streets project. As this program is intended to advance desired transportation AND land use design, all applications must include a land use component, demonstrating how the project will complement the surrounding land uses and provide for successful redevelopment. Project Selection MPO/PPC staff will identify the deadline for the submission of applications for this program. Upon receipt of applications, the MPO/PPC staff will review each received application against the benefits and costs of each, while ensuring geographic equity throughout the process. MPO/PPC staff will make a recommendation to the Planners Advisory Committee, Technical Coordinating Committee, and Citizen s Advisory Committee before presenting to the MPO/PPC Board for final approval. Details on what is required to be submitted for each project type are listed on the following pages. 3

33 CONCEPT PLANNING AND DESIGN PROJECTS Minimum Screening Criteria: Applications must meet the minimum criteria below to be considered for funding. Any project that does not meet BOTH criteria listed below will not be evaluated. 1. Application must include a letter or resolution from the applicant s elected Board, documenting community support for the project. 2. Application must demonstrate how the project will be a catalyst for transformative change. Project Information Applications will be competitively evaluated. Include the information described below with your application. Those most competitive applications will be those that best demonstrate how the proposed project will help transform the surrounding area. 1. Describe the project location. Include specific information on the project limits, jurisdiction of roadway and abutting properties, land use characteristics of abutting properties and any unique characteristics of the roadway (serves local/regional travel, serves a major activity center, part of a community redevelopment agency, etc.). 2. Provide information on the existing conditions of the project location, including the following information: a. Provide detailed information on existing sidewalks along the corridor (e.g., gaps exist on both sides of the corridor, 100% coverage on both sides of the corridor, sidewalks along one side of corridor, etc.). b. Provide detailed information on existing bicycle facilities along the corridor (e.g., bike lanes present along the corridor, adjacent multiuse trail along the corridor, etc.) c. Are there sidewalks and/or bicycle facilities along an adjacent roadway segment that truncate at the project limits? d. Are there documented safety concerns along the corridor (e.g. high crash rate, high number of crashes involving vulnerable users, etc.)? Please note, the MPO is available to provide assistance in compiling this data to support your application. e. Is there transit service along the corridor? f. Does the project corridor provide direct access to, or is it located within, an Activity Center or Multimodal Corridor, as designated on the PPC Transit Oriented Vision Map? g. Is the project segment within an adopted CRA? 4

34 h. Does the project corridor contain existing street lighting? i. Is the project corridor within a recognized low income, disadvantaged or Environmental Justice area? Describe. 3. Provide documentation of the local match being provided by the applicant. 4. If applying for design funding, has a concept plan been completed? If so, please provide documentation. 5. If applying for design funding, describe how the project will serve all modes of travel. 6. If applying for design funding, describe any barriers to connecting low income communities with activity centers that exist along the project limits, and how the proposed project will address them. 7. If applying for design funding, describe how the project will account for access management strategies? 8. Describe the local planning requirements that make the area surrounding the project corridor supportive of multimodal transportation improvements. For example, does the local land use plan encourage mixed use development? Does the local land development code require buildings to be located adjacent to the ROW line or enable reduced surface parking? Does the local plan ensure local road connectivity? Please refer to the Planning and Urban Design Principles in the PPC Countywide Plan for more examples of desired local planning requirements ( 9. Provide a project schedule to highlight the anticipated timeline for completion of the concept planning/design project. In addition, it is expected that these projects will move forward for implementation/construction. Also include a proposed timeline for the ultimate implementation/construction of the project. 5

35 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Minimum Screening Criteria: Applications must meet the minimum criteria below to be considered for funding. Any project that does not meet ALL 5 criteria listed below will not be evaluated. 1. Application must include a letter or resolution from the applicant s elected Board, documenting community support for the project. 2. Project must provide/improve accommodations for multiple modes of travel. 3. Application must demonstrate how the project will be a catalyst for transformative change. 4. Applicant is LAP certified, or provides documentation of an agreement with a LAP certified agency to complete construction. 5. Documentation of design plans at 60% complete and that 100% of ROW has been acquired. Project Information Applications will be competitively evaluated. Provide the information described below with your application. Those most competitive applications will be those that successfully demonstrate how the proposed project will help transform the surrounding area. 1. Describe the project location. Include specific information on the project limits, jurisdiction of roadway and abutting properties, land use characteristics of abutting properties and any unique characteristics of the roadway (serves local/regional travel, serves a major activity center, etc.). 2. Provide information on the proposed improvements that will be provided by the project, including the following information: a. Provide detailed information on pedestrian accommodations being added/enhanced with the project. b. Provide detailed information on bicycle facilities being added/enhanced with the project. c. Are there sidewalks and/or bicycle facilities along an adjacent roadway segment that truncate at the project limits? d. Describe the existing and proposed transit service along the corridor. e. Describe how the project will provide accommodations for transit riders along the corridor. 6

36 f. Are there documented safety concerns along the corridor (e.g. high crash rate, high number of crashes involving vulnerable users, etc.)? How will the project improve safety for all users? g. Does the project corridor provide direct access to an Activity Center or Multimodal Corridor, as designated on the PPC Transit Oriented Vision Map? h. Is the project segment located within a designated Activity Center or Multimodal Corridor, as designated on the PPC Transit Oriented Vision Map? i. Is the project segment within an adopted CRA? j. Will the project add/enhance street lighting along the project corridor? k. Is the project corridor within a recognized low income, disadvantaged or Environmental Justice area? Describe. l. Describe the access management strategies that will be included as a component of this project. 3. Provide documentation of the local match being provided by the applicant. 4. Describe how this project will overcome a barrier connecting low income communities with activity centers. 5. Describe the local planning requirements that make the area surrounding the project corridor supportive of multimodal transportation improvements. For example, does the local land use plan encourage mixed use development? Does the local land development code require buildings to be located adjacent to the ROW line or enable reduced surface parking? Does the local plan ensure local road connectivity? Please refer to the Planning and Urban Design Principles in the PPC Countywide Plan for more examples of desired local planning requirements ( 6. Provide a project schedule to highlight the anticipated timeline to complete the project. 7

37 TCC ITEM 7. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM UPDATE AND PROJECT RANKING CRITERIA All but four of the projects currently listed on the TA Program priority list were evaluated and ranked by the MPO advisory committees, including the CAC, prior to the annual adoption of the list by the MPO Board in 2006, 2007 and The remaining four projects were added to the list without undergoing a review and ranking process in 2013 and The 2013 project was a Safe Routes to School submittal by the City of St. Petersburg for the Sexton Elementary School sidewalk. The project was inserted at the top of the TA priority list and is scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2018/19. The 2014 projects have not been ranked and are all listed as number 31 following the projects from the prior years. To rank the 2006, 2007 and 2010 project applications, the advisory committees utilized criteria that addressed four subject areas. These included community benefit, countywide benefit, connectivity value, conformance with the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and local commitment. The MPO was scheduled to authorize the acceptance of new TA project applications in September, In anticipation of the need to rank new project applications along with the 2014 projects, the TCC was asked to review and consider updating the ranking criteria at their March, 2015 meeting. The TCC formed a TA Program Subcommittee to perform this task. The Subcommittee, which included representatives from the CAC and Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) as well as the TCC, convened on April 6, 2015 and recommended some minor changes to the criteria. Following the subcommittee meeting, additional changes were recommended by MPO, Pinellas Planning Council and City of St. Petersburg staff. These proposed modifications as shown on the attachment were subsequently placed on hold in order to provide the newly unified MPO/PPC Board with an opportunity to review the process of prioritizing major projects. The Board began discussion of this at their September 21, 2015 visioning session. Proposals affecting the prioritization of major projects will be presented to the advisory committees in the coming months. Although this effort is not directly addressing the TA Program, it will likely affect the scale of projects that will be considered for future TA priority lists. The proposed ranking criteria more closely aligns the procedure for evaluating TA Program applications with the goals and objectives of the Long Range Transportation Plan and Countywide Plan. Therefore, although the effort to review the prioritization of major projects is still in process, it would be appropriate to update the TA Program ranking criteria at this time. ATTACHMENT: Draft TA Program Application Ranking Criteria ACTION: Review and approve ranking criteria TCC: 4/27/16

38 Transportation Alternatives (TA) Project Ranking Criteria With Changes Proposed by MPO, Pinellas Planning Council and City of St. Petersburg Staff May 18, 2015 Shown below are the criteria utilized by the MPO advisory committees in 2010 for scoring and ranking Transportation Enhancement Program project applications with changes recommend by the TA Subcommittee on April 6, 2015 and subsequent changes proposed by MPO staff on April 22. It also includes proposed revisions submitted by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) on April 24 and by the City of St. Petersburg on May 12. Changes recommended by the subcommittee are shaded in gray. Revisions proposed by the PPC and St. Petersburg are in yellow and green, respectively. Also included in the subcommittee recommendations was a proposal to change the total points assigned to each category from 4 to 5. The criteria are intended for use in the ranking of Transportation Alternative (TA) project applications received in 2014 and later. Community Benefit: Will Impact of the project improve/enhance on the neighborhood and/or community's quality of life afforded by in the surrounding neighborhood or community. (e.g. enhances or demonstrates the potential to produce positive impact on the neighborhood's vitality and/or economy, improves safety, scenic resources [beautification, education] within neighborhood, etc.)? (Up to 5 points). 1) Destination - Project provides access to a neighborhood or community shopping center, major destination point (e.g., major employer, park, city hall/courthouse, shopping mall, recreational/sports facility, museum, library, hospital, school, transit terminal, airport). [0-1 point] 2) Safety - Project addresses a safety concern or improves safety of existing condition affecting pedestrians or bicyclists. [0-1 point] 3) Environment Project preserves/protects environmentally sensitive lands or provides air quality benefit. [0-1 point] [moved to countywide benefit category] 4) Low income/at-risk Project serves a low-income/at-risk neighborhood as identified by latest Census data. [0-1 point] 5) Education Project provides educational benefits. [0-1 point] Countywide Benefit: Will the The extent to which the proposed project provides County-wide benefit beyond those enjoyed within that provided to the community. (e.g. enhances or demonstrates opportunity to enhance County's overall economic vitality; project will benefit and/or be accessible to citizens and visitors on a Countywide basis)? (Up to 5 points). 1) Trip Destination Project provides access to a regional destination point (e.g., major shopping mall, regional employment center, county or state park, St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, major museum, sports stadium, college). [0-2 points] 1

39 2) Inter-jurisdictional Project allows for bicycle/pedestrian travel between two or more jurisdictions. [0-2 point] 3) Inter-county Project allows for bicycle/pedestrian travel between Pinellas and neighboring county. [0-2 points] 4) Environment Project preserves/protects environmentally sensitive lands or provides air quality benefit. St. Petersburg comment regarding #3 penalizes communities not located adjacent to neighboring County. Connectivity Value: Will the proposed project provide an Opportunity to improve/enhance intermodal connection or contribute to a network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (Up to 5 points). (e.g. promotes or enhances access to public transit service, facilities/amenities, pedestrian ways, bikeways and waterways within and through adjoining jurisdictions)? 1) Transit Provides access to a bus stop or transit terminal [0-2 points] 2) Other Bike/Ped facility Provides connection to an existing sidewalk, bike lane or trail [0-1 point] 3) Airport Provides access to an airport [0-1 point] 4) Waterway Provides access to a sea port, cruise or ferry service [0-1 point] Conforms with the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Countywide Plan. : Does The extent to which the proposed project conforms with the MPO's LRTP which aims to create an intermodal transportation network that preserves the existing transportation infrastructure, enhances the region's economic competitiveness and improves travel choices to ensure connectivity and mobility.? The LRTP considers all principal modes of transportation as an integrated system including highways, public transportation, bikeways, pedestrian facilities, and primary activity centers or intermodal hubs that connect these modes? Does the proposed project conform with the Countywide Plan by improving multimodal transportation facilities in centers and corridors where the highest concentrations of population and jobs are planned? (Up to 5 points). 1) Closing Gap Closes an existing gap in the trail, bike lane or sidewalk network [0-2 points] 2) Targeted employment area Center Provides for bicycling or walking to be a viable mobility choice within or to a targeted employment area center as designated on identified in the Countywide Plan. [0-1 point] 3) Activity Center - Provides for bicycling or walking to be a viable mobility choice within or to an activity center as designated on identified in the Countywide Plan. [0-1 point] 4) Multimodal Corridor - Provides for bicycling or walking to be a viable mobility choice along a multimodal corridor as designated on identified in the Countywide Plan. [0-1 point] 2

40 St. Petersburg comments. Regarding #1 Considered in previous category. Regarding category Seems that each of these are already covered in the categories above. Should be: conform? yes +5, - no +0. Local Commitment Matching Funds and/or Community Support : Does the proposed project show funding/other commitment, and/or community support (e.g. local matching share of project cost; known public support; history of sponsor's ability to follow through/carry out agreed role during project implementation/completion, etc.)? (Up to 5 points). St. Petersburg comment Use language recommended by subcommittee. 1) Funding Commitment Sponsoring jurisdiction is providing a local funding match for the project. [0-2 points] 2) In-kind Support Sponsoring jurisdiction is providing in-kind support for the project. [0-1 point] 3) Community Support Documentation provided showing support for the projected from citizens in affected neighborhood(s). [0-2 points] 3

41 US 19/SR 55 STATUS UPDATE U.S. HIGHWAY 19 CORRIDOR STUDY PRESENTATION TCC ITEM 8. The MPO Board identified U.S. Highway 19 as one of three Strategic Planning and Operations Topics (known as SPOTlight) as the focus of the agency's work program for the next two years. The MPO is participating in and cosponsoring a study with FDOT to address bicycle and pedestrian safety and access to transit on the U.S. 19 corridor. The U.S. 19 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Transit Corridor Study identifies opportunities and strategies to improve transit access and crossings for the existing and proposed conditions along U.S. Highway 19. The study uses a data driven approach to determine what improvements are needed. Staff from Tindale Oliver and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will give a joint presentation on U.S. Highway 19 that will include an overview of the U.S. 19 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Transit Corridor Study and provide an update on the status of upcoming U.S. 19 road construction projects in the northern section of U.S. 19. ATTACHMENT: None ACTION: None required; informational item TCC: 4/27/16

42 TCC ITEM 9. A. G. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. SPOTLight Emphasis Area Updates Staff will provide a brief update on the status of the activities related to the three SPOTLight Emphasis Areas. ATTACHMENT: ACTION: None None required; informational item B. Consultant Support through PPC/MPO for Planning Services Staff will provide a brief update on the steps local governments will need to take to secure consultant support through the PPC/MPO for planning support services. ATTACHMENT: Steps for Local Governments Seeking Consultant Support through PPC/MPO for Planning Services ACTION: None required; informational item C. TMA Leadership Group Update Staff will provide a brief update on the activities of the TMA Leadership Group. ATTACHMENT: Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Meeting Agenda, April 8, 2015 ACTION: None required; informational item D. U.S. 19 Corridor Study Update Staff will provide a brief update on the status of the U.S. 19 Corridor Study. ATTACHMENT: None ACTION: None required; informational item E. Traffic Fatalities Map As previously indicated, staff will provide the updated Traffic Fatalities Map each month. ATTACHMENT: Traffic Fatalities Map through April 4, 2016 ACTION: None required; informational item F. MPO Board Actions The April 13, 2016 MPO Newsletter/Action Sheet is attached. ATTACHMENT: MPO Newsletter/Action Sheet April 13, 2016 ACTION: None required; informational item TCC: 4/27/16

43 TCC ITEM 9. CONT. G. Tentative Future Agenda Topics The following topics are tentatively scheduled to appear as items on future TCC agenda: Prioritization Criteria for Transportation Projects Adoption of the 2016/ /2021 TIP Park Blvd. Corridor Study SPOTLight Emphasis Area Updates (standing) TMA Leadership Group Updates (standing) TCC: 4/27/16

44 Steps for Local Governments Seeking Consultant Support through PPC/MPO for Planning Services 1. Local governments/agencies shall contact the PPC/MPO staff, listed below, to provide an outline or brief description of the scope of the project(s) in which they are seeking consultant support. The project must fall under the PPC/MPO s general planning services, listed on Attachment A. The local government may express interest in a particular consultant. 2. The PPC/MPO shall coordinate with the local government to determine which consultants may be a good fit for the project based on availability and type of work. The local government shall meet with the PPC/MPO to discuss details. 3. The PPC/MPO shall provide the appropriate consulting firm or firms contact information for the local government to directly request a detailed scope of work and fee estimate. 4. The local government shall provide the PPC/MPO with the agreed-upon fee estimate, official scope of work and schedule for it to be added into the local government s interlocal agreement with the PPC/MPO. 5. Once the interlocal agreement is executed (or amended) with the scope and fee information, the PPC/MPO shall issue a notice to proceed which will allow the local government to work directly with the consultant on technical aspects of the project. 6. The PPC/MPO shall provide the administrative role for the project (invoice collection, payments, etc.) between the consultant and local government. All invoices shall be accompanied by a progress report with specific project deliverables identified. The PPC/MPO shall have established a modest administrative fee within the interlocal agreement with the local government to cover administrative responsibilities that will be paid by the local government to the PPC/MPO. This will be in addition to the fee paid to the consultant for project work. The local government will be responsible for paying the administrative fee. PPC/MPO Contacts: Alicia Parinello, aparinello@pinellascounty.org and Sarah Perch, sperch@pinellascounty.org Page 1 of 4

45 Attachment A PPC/MPO SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Purpose The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), collectively referred to as PPC/MPO, require the services of consultants to provide support to professional planning services for the PPC, MPO and local government jurisdictions. The MPO receives grant funding from the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) details the work the MPO performs with this grant funding and is the basis for work conducted under MPO tasks. The PPC has an established budget that may be used to develop work assignments or augment those performed for the MPO to address land use and transportation together. In addition to the mandated land use and transportation planning functions, the PPC/MPO is focused on the integration of land use and transportation planning. The unified organization has identified three Pinellas Strategic Planning and Operations and Topics (SPOTlight) for : US 19 Corridor, Beach Access and the Gateway/Mid-County area. The next section outlines services that may be assigned to Consultant(s) under one or more general planning consultant contracts for the PPC/MPO or participating local governments. 2. Services The PPC/MPO has five general planning sub areas that require the support of general planning consultants including multimodal transportation planning and analysis, economic analysis, communications and public involvement, urban design, and land use/redevelopment. The general planning services that support the PPC/MPO s land use and transportation planning functions, and are necessary to support all five sub areas include, but are not necessarily limited to: SPOTlight area planning Program development Public participation Land use and socioeconomic data Transportation system monitoring and database management Financial resources and legislation monitoring Systems planning Congestion management, safety and operations Public transportation planning Transportation disadvantaged planning Bicycle and pedestrian planning Local government technical assistance Corridor planning The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Scenario planning Environmental planning, including air quality Regional planning Growth management and comprehensive planning Redevelopment planning and regulation Countywide Land Use Plan support Research, best practices and case studies Page 2 of 4

46 Descriptions of the sub area(s) for which the CONSULANT has been awarded are listed below: A. Multimodal Transportation Planning and Analysis The following lists anticipated planning efforts related to multimodal transportation planning and analysis. This includes, but is not limited to: Modeling and Simulation Bicycle and Pedestrian Activities Transit Service and Operations Transit Capital Facilities Transportation Disadvantaged Data Collection, Development and Management Access Management Mobility and Demand Management Parking and Circulation Intelligent Transportation Systems Waterborne Transportation Feasibility Studies Complete Streets Resilience and Sustainability Safety Assessments Freight Analysis Corridor Studies B. Economic Analysis The following lists anticipated economic analysis efforts, which includes, but are not limited to: Market Studies or Analysis Property or Facility Valuation Fiscal Impact Analysis Public-Private Partnerships Development Finance and Joint Development Economic Modeling Cost-Benefit Analysis Financial Analysis Financial/Scenario Planning C. Communications and Public Involvement Communication and public involvement support may include, but is not limited to: Community Outreach, Engagement and Facilitation Graphic Design and Visualization Writing, Editing and Digital Publication Digital and Thematic Storytelling Website Design and Maintenance Market and Survey Research Page 3 of 4

47 Public and Media Relations D. Urban Design Urban Design efforts may include, but are not limited to: Site and Area Master Plans Corridor and Streetscape Design Visualization/Illustrations Wayfinding and Signage Parking Open Space and Public Realm E. Land Use and Redevelopment Land Use and Redevelopment efforts may include, but are not limited to: Comprehensive, Activity Center & Multimodal Corridor Plans Land Development Codes Station Area Plans/Transit Oriented Development Interlocal Agreements Land Use Analysis Growth Management and Comprehensive Planning Page 4 of 4

48 Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership Group Representing the MPOs in Pasco, Pinellas, & Hillsborough Counties Friday, April 8, :00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority 3201 Scherer Drive, St. Petersburg, Florida Meeting Objectives: Review and comment on draft Regional Premium Transit Study scope Report on Transit Referenda from around the country Possible revisions to TMA Leadership Group Major Project Priorities Initial discussion of TA, SUNTrail and CCC Regional Multi-Use Trail priorities Provide updates on legislative issues affecting the TMA, as needed Confirm clarifications to Operating Procedures, and process for MPO endorsement of TMA actions 9:00 Welcome and introductions Summary of February 5, 2016 Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Workshop 9:15 Regional Premium Transit Study Draft Scope HART Representative Review draft scope Discuss and provide input 10:00 Transit referenda around the country Jason Jordan, Government Affairs Director, American Planning Association 11:00 Break 11:15 Initial discussion of refinements to 2016 TMA Leadership Group priorities Review criteria and project ranking matrix (as a starting point for discussion) Discuss possible changes Review proposed TA, SUNTrail and CCC Regional Multi-Use Trail Priorities Updates Status of clarifications to TMA Leadership Group Operating Procedures agreed at February meeting Review revised 2016 TMA Workplan Spring Break Traffic Discussion Legislative updates as desired by members Next Steps 12:00 Adjourn

49 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 2016 (thru April 4th) 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) OTHER (traffic related but no crash report imminent) ALDERMAN RD SR 580 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 70TH 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 310 Court Street Clearwater, Fl Ph WDH Project GIS File fatals16 Parent GIS File fatals16 Depicting GIS File - fatals16 Joined File - none ³