Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Workshop

Transcription

1 Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Workshop Representing the MPOs in Pasco, Pinellas, & Hillsborough Counties Friday, September 5, 2014 Atkins Conference Room 4030 West Boy Scout Blvd, 6th Floor Tampa, Florida AGENDA Meeting Objectives: Review progress towards adoption of TMA regional priority recommendations Decide whether additional actions are needed Review major transportation issues and developments the TMA Leadership Group will need to consider in developing 2015 recommendations Discuss 2015 workplan Develop recommendations for use of Transportation Alternatives funding 9:30 Welcome and Introductions 10:30 Break Summary of Sixth Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Workshop (Summary Attached) Review Member MPO Action on TMA Leadership Group Recommendations Review action taken by each member MPO Discuss whether additional action is needed Review Major Regional Transportation Developments Expected for 2015 Greenlight Pinellas Hillsborough County Policy Leadership Group on Transportation for Economic Development S.R. 54/56 Corridor FDOT/District 7 TBARTA Master Plan update with Regional LRTP Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board Joint Meetings/Initiatives Other 10:45 Identify and Discuss TMA 2015 Workplan Components Support and staffing Discussion topics and meeting sequence 11:30 Review Candidate Projects for Transportation Alternatives Program Funding (Spreadsheet Attached) 12:00 Other Updates 12:30 Adjourn

2 Veterans Exwy 4030 West Boy Scout Blvd Courtney Campbell Cswy I-275

3 WORKSHOP SUMMARY Prepared by Hal Beardall & Rafael Montalvo, Facilitation Team Facilitating Consensus Solutions, Supporting Collaborative Action. The Florida State University

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 I. INTRODUCTION... 4 II. SUMMARY OF THE PREVIOUS (FIFTH) WORKSHOP... 4 III. DISCUSSION OF TMA PROFILE REVISIONS... 5 IV. REVIEW OF INITIAL COMMENTS FROM EACH MPO ON THE DRAFT EVALUATION MATRIX AND CANDIDATE PRIORITY LIST... 6 V. DEVELOPMENT OF TMA LEADERSHIP GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS... 7 FDOT PRESENTATON ON DISTRICT 7 PREFERENCES ON PRIORITIES... 7 DISCUSSION TO CLARIFY FDOT PREFERENCES ON PRIORITIES... 7 DISCUSSION TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS... 7 RECOMMENDATIONS... 9 MOVING FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATIONS FORWARD... 9 VI. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION APPENDIX A LIST OF PARTICIPANTS APPENDIX B AGENDA APPENDIX C EVALUATION SUMMARY th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The sixth workshop of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group was held on Friday, June 6, 2014 in Tampa. The principal objectives of the workshop were to: Receive initial comments from each MPO on the proposed draft evaluation criteria, matrix and candidate project list Review and revise, as needed, draft criteria, matrix and candidate project list for 2014 Review and discuss FDOT District 7 priorities Develop TMA Leadership Group recommendations on priority projects Board members and staff from each member Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) participated (Hillsborough County, Pasco County and Pinellas County MPOs). Florida Department of Transportation District 7 staff, as well as staff of the Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Authority participated. Participants began by reviewing a summary of Workshop 5, and refinements to the TMA profile first presented at Workshop 4. Participants next reviewed comments from each MPO on the draft criteria, candidate projects, and prioritization circulated by the Leadership Group after Workshop 5, and a presentation on FDOT District 7 priorities. For the remainder of the meeting, participants focused developing recommendations on priority projects to the member MPOs. In developing recommendations, they began with the draft priority list based on the criteria and candidate projects lists developed in earlier meetings of the Leadership Group, considered the comments from each MPO and FDOT preferences, and modified the list to reflect considerations of logical sequence among projects, and distinctions between projects already funded for construction, and others. At the end of the meeting, participants discussed next steps and possible TMA Leadership Group activities and discussion for Participants agreed on the following priorities as recommendations to member MPOs. Construction Already Funded Howard Frankland Bridge - Bridge Replacement with Transit and Express Lanes 118 Ave. Expressway - Gateway Express New Starts Funding Greenlight Pinellas - Premium Transit Service (Supported by Leadership Group) Construction Not Yet Funded SR 60 - Interchange Modification I-275 from SR 60 to Downtown - Interstate Express with Express Bus Westshore Intermodal Center - Intermodal Center I-275 from Gateway area to Howard Frankland Bridge - Interstate Express with Express Bus I-4 from downtown to east of I-75 - Interstate Express with Express Bus TIA Connection to Westshore Intermodal Center - Transit Connection 6th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

6 Sixth Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Friday, June 6, :30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. FACILITATORS WORKSHOP SUMMARY I. Introduction The sixth workshop of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group was held on Friday, June 6, 2014 in Tampa. The principal objectives of the workshop were to: Receive initial comments from each MPO on the proposed draft evaluation criteria, matrix and candidate project list Review and revise, as needed, draft criteria, matrix and candidate project list for 2014 Review and discuss FDOT District 7 priorities Develop TMA Leadership Group recommendations on priority projects Board members and staff from each member Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) participated (Hillsborough County, Pasco County and Pinellas County MPOs). Florida Department of Transportation District 7 staff, as well as staff of the Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Authority participated. Participants initially reviewed a summary of Workshop 5, and refinements to the TMA profile first presented at Workshop 4. Participants next reviewed comments from each MPO on the draft criteria, candidate projects, and prioritization circulated by the Leadership Group after Workshop 5, and a presentation on FDOT District 7 priorities. For the remainder of the meeting, participants focused developing recommendations on priority projects to the member MPOs. In developing recommendations, they began with the draft priority list based on the criteria and candidate projects lists developed in earlier meetings of the Leadership Group, considered the comments from each MPO and FDOT preferences, and modified the list to reflect considerations of logical sequence among projects, and distinctions between projects already funded for construction, and others. II. Summary of the Previous (Fifth) Workshop The fifth workshop of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group was held on Friday, April 4, 2014 in Tampa. The principal objectives of the workshop were to: Adopt TMA structure and process Review, refine and adopt project prioritization matrix based on criteria developed at fourth workshop Review and revise, as needed, draft list of candidate TMA priority projects for 2014 Review initial application of prioritization matrix to candidate projects Board members and staff from each member Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) participated (Hillsborough County, Pasco County and Pinellas County MPOs). Florida 6th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

7 Department of Transportation District 7 staff, as well as staff of the Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Authority and the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority also participated. Participants began by reviewing a summary of Workshop 4, and refinements to the TMA profile first presented at Workshop 3. They then reviewed and adopted, with minor revisions, the draft structure and process document for the TMA Leadership Group. Participants next reviewed and refined draft prioritization criteria and a list of potential priority projects, both developed by staff based on TMA Leadership Group discussion at Workshops 3 & 4. Participants concluded by reviewing and discussing the preliminary application of the criteria to the candidate projects. Key conclusions of the discussion included the following: It will be important that the Leadership Group develop a "vision" and a list of priority projects. The "vision" should explain in simple English - rather than planning terms - what the priority projects are (for example "x road and y transit project") and why they are important (for example "because they connect our region's major economic centers"). Staff will develop a draft and circulate it for review before the next meeting. The list of priority projects should describe the TMA's highest priority projects in transportation planning terms -- by segment or however the project is described in current MPO or FDOT plans. Leadership Group members are comfortable that the projects highlighted by the preliminary application of the draft criteria to the candidate projects are indeed high priorities. These priorities may fall into funded and unfunded categories. The list may be added to or reordered slightly to reflect the criteria and candidate list modifications discussed during this meeting. A list reflecting the application of these modifications will be circulated before the next meeting. The list of priority projects should be used flexibly. The Leadership Group recognizes that a variety of considerations, including funding availability and unforeseen opportunities, may influence which priority projects are implemented first. Executive Directors of the participating MPOs should brief their members on Leadership Group progress, and solicit comment from their members, using the draft "vision" and preliminary list of priority projects, revised if necessary, to reflect criteria and candidate list modifications resulting from discussion at this meeting. It should be made clear that these materials are still in development, and do not yet constitute draft Leadership Group recommendations. III. Discussion of TMA Profile Revisions 6th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

8 Rick MacAuly of the Pinellas MPO reviewed revisions to the TMA profile made in response to member comments at Workshops 5. He noted that the revised profile will be available shortly on the websites of all three participating MPOs. IV. Review of Initial Comments from Each MPO on the Draft Evaluation Matrix and Candidate Priority List Between TMA Leadership group meetings 5 and 6, staff for each MPO briefed either committees or the full membership of their MPO on emerging Leadership Group conclusions. Staff then reported comments and or questions from breifings to the Leadership Group. Key points of the briefings are presented below. Hillsborough MPO Hillsborough MPO staff briefed the Hillsborough MPO's Technical Advisory Committee. (A briefing was scheduled for the full MPO, but was not presented because of time constraints at the MPO meeting.) Committee members offered questions and suggested consideration of the following: a New Tampa east-west Road (I-75 to I-275) Express Bus a Gandy Corridor Connection Pinellas MPO Pinellas MPO staff briefed the full MPO, and offered the following characterization of the ensuing discussion. No specific recommendations were offered after the briefing. MPO members offered questions about funded projects, consideration for freight, and intermodal facilities. They noted that the criteria addressed intermodal connections but not facilities. Pasco Pasco MPO staff briefed the full MPO, and offered the following characterization of the ensuing discussion. Members had no specific questions about criteria or projects. The main questions were about how the list will be used -- whether for DOT programing or to pursue opportunity dollars. The Pasco MPO members recognize the importance of the regional commuting patterns, and the need to give direction to FDOT. Additional Discussion What is the TIA Westshore Transit Connection or Intermodal Center? A consolidated rental car facility? 6th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

9 If you don't have the connectivity to various modes (i.e. the airport), you don't have anything... What from Hillsborough will connect to Westshore if we don't have the managed list? The Intermodal Center and the Transit Connection should be one project. Make the intermodal center and the CONRAC one project. We may never have rail transit to Multi-modal center, but we will have some sort of connection. It may be rubber-tire. Multi-modal center and CONRAC are not the same thing. Multi-modal center is a connector -- you need to have something to connect to. V. Development of TMA Leadership Group Recommendations FDOT Presentation on District 7 Preferences on Priorities Lee Royal presented FDOT preferences regarding regional priorities. She focused on priority projects and particularly highlighted the need for certain projects to be completed in order for others to begin construction or operate effectively. Here presentation is available separately from FDOT district 7. Discussion to Clarify FDOT Preferences on Priorities Adding lanes to I-4 and I-75? Adding express lanes in each direction, then a 2nd in each direction. Concerned about early termination of BRT lanes before reaching the commuter shed in Wesley Chapel and New Tampa - would like to see lanes extended further north. Take it up to State Rd 54 and extend in the future. Discussion to Develop Recommendations I would put 118th first; Howard Frankland next; SR 60/I-275 Interchange; then Intermodal Center along with piece from Westshore to downtown - need that order to build to something and make the connections. So the SR 60/I-275 Interchange is the top unfunded project on both the FDOT and Leadership Group lists? Yes. We may want to separate the funded projects from the unfunded. Many of the projects will move forward at the same time in different stages - but we still need them listed in a logical order that makes them possible. I-275 east follows the Intermodal Center in the list above - I-275 from SR 60 to North. Can the TMA have priorities that are not FDOT priorities? If we are trying to focus on opportunity for state funds? Yes, though it works better if we speak with one voice. Do not agree we are talking BRT but rather about express buses - a commuter express bus system. That is different in terms of the limited number of connections. What about non-state projects - what is FDOT's position on Greenlight? 6th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

10 FDOT supports it as an important addition - but it needs local initiative to get it going for funding. Putting it on the list still allows for state support moving forward. FDOT supports Greenlight, the but locals will need to determine which portions to move forward with and when before the state commits funds to support it. We are using the term BRT but it may not say what we really mean. Maybe we should move to "express buses tied to the interstate." We should avoid suggesting that this will be on an arterial. The issue of timing is not included in the TMA matrix list. Timing is one important foundation for priority. Greenlight is different from the other projects on the list. I agree we need funded and unfunded lists. We may need a third list for Greenlight given the unique nature of the project. The Pinellas MPO requested that the other two MPOs express support for or endorse Greenlight - did they? Greenlight has express and BRT bus portions. We have a plan with dates for moving forward and can point to when it will need state and federal funding. Is everyone okay with putting funded and unfunded projects on separate lists? Okay. Then the Westshore Intermodal becomes second on the TMA unfunded list. Move it to the spot before the express lane - they need to dance together. Can we combine the Intermodal Center and the TIA Transit Connection? I think the order is: I-275/SR 60 interchange; I-275 from SR 60 to North Blvd/downtown ; Westshore Intermodal : I-275 to Howard Frankland (4th street to Gandy). This moves the Westshore Intermodal Center up the matrix list to provide something to connect to. It is a matter of timing to make projects connect. It needs to be funded and started - and it is also a P3 attractor. I-274 from Gandy to Gateway area to Howard Frankland connects to Greenlight. Can we proactively support the projects as a package? Having them all as priorities allows FDOT to package them. It is the same set of projects from the TMA priority list in a slightly different order that takes account of timing. We moved Greenlight up and highlighted it in a separate color, but would it be one of FDOT's top P3 incentives? No. We are reinforcing the bridge structure to allow decking to be added later. Greenlight is not a P3 project. But it will need funding beyond the referendum. We can say it is prioritized for New Starts program funding, not P3 funding. The P3 will build the express lanes and Intermodal Center. Greenlight will need funding from New Starts program following the referendum. A key part of P3 is that the project generates revenue to attract private sector investment - Greenlight does not do that. So the TIA Transit Connector is number six on the list? 6th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

11 Would Greenlight follow the list of six? When the referendum passes, it will need to move forward. I do not want to leave the impression that it follows the list of six in terms of timing. We would be looking at different pot of money. There is no New Starts funding in the other projects requested. Everyone at the table expressed support for the list, based on the TMA process with adjustments for timing and sequencing of projects. I have a concern about combining the TIA Connector and the Westshore Intermodal Center. Intermodal as one project. Does that assume FDOT funding for the TIA Connector if that is a P3? We need to make it number 6 on the list, not part of the Westshore Intermodal project. The TIA Connector has not yet been defined as a needed project at this point, and feasibility has not been determined. No, but we will need to define how we will move from Intermodal center to the airport and establish it is needed. Recommendations After the preceding discussion, all participants agreed on the following list of recommended regional priorities. Construction Already Funded Howard Frankland Bridge - Bridge Replacement with Transit and Express Lanes 118 Ave. Expressway - Gateway Express New Starts Funding Greenlight Pinellas - Premium Transit Service (Supported by Leadership Group) Construction Not Yet Funded SR 60 - Interchange Modification I-275 from SR 60 to Downtown - Interstate Express with Express Bus Westshore Intermodal Center - Intermodal Center I-275 from Gateway area to Howard Frankland Bridge - Interstate Express with Express Bus I-4 from downtown to east of I-75 - Interstate Express with Express Bus TIA Connection to Westshore Intermodal Center - Transit Connection Moving Forward the Recommendations Forward Participants discussed the topic of how do to take the recommendations back to the individual MPOs and what action the MPOs are likely to take on the recommendations. Hillsborough - We agree with FDOT that these are our regional priorities and will ask our board to endorse them as our top regional priorities. Purpose of this process is to make ourselves stronger as a region and speak with one voice. In order to take advantage of the "one-voice" opportunity, all three MPOs need to agree and send a letter to FDOT D-7 secretary saying we approved the list. 6th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

12 Pinellas staff will take these to our board for endorsement. We should transmit them to District 7 as regional priorities. We must speak with one voice and request support for Greenlight too with a letter. MPO support for the list also supports Greenlight. We should start letter with a thank you for funding the Howard Frankland Bridge and improvements to I-275 and SR 60. Pasco staff will express support to our board and highlight the benefits to Pasco commuters. Our board recognizes regional movement and interaction. FDOT believes this is a good way to proceed. We still have to establish need for the TIA Connector. Moving it to number 6 keeps it from tying up priorities 1-5. Pinellas would still like resolutions of endorsement for Greenlight from the other two MPOs. Pasco will agenda the item at their next meeting, coordinating with staff from the other MPOs for presentation. The full Hillsborough MPO will likely support the resolution, but it may not be unanimous. Do those members have a concern about it? Not with project itself but a few feel they should not interject themselves into another county's referendum, especially if it involves a tax. VI. Concluding Discussion The facilitators noted that much of the work done by the TMA Leadership Group during 2014 had to do with developing a process and expectations for the group and its role. They noted that the group could use that work as a starting point for its deliberations in 2015, and would therefore be able to focus more quickly on priorities and other substantive discussions. They noted that the focus of the September meeting would be on any additional steps needed to move the recommendations forward, and on developing and agreeing on a workplan for th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

13 Appendix A List of Participants NAME ORGANIZATION Ray Chiaramonte Hillsborough MPO Lee Royal FDOT District 7 Brian Beatty FDOT Michele Ogilvie Hillsborough MPO Councilman Jim Kennedy Pinellas MPO Councilwoman Doreen DiPolito Pinellas MPO Commissioner Karen Seel Chair, Pinellas MPO Councilwoman Lisa Montelione Hillsborough MPO Richard Gehring Pasco MPO/Planning Carolyn Kuntz Pinellas MPO Beth Alden Hillsborough MPO Jared Scheider Tindale Oliver Chris Weber Westshore Alliance Christina Kopp TBARTA Bob Clifford TBARTA Shakira Crandol FHWA Ali Atefi Pasco County MPO Jim Edwards Pasco MPO Charles White Hillsborough Public Works Chelsea Favero Pinellas MPO Alicia Parinello Pinellas MPO Chris Cochran PSTA Sarah Ward Pinellas MPO Scott Pringle Jacobs Ming Gao FDOT District 7 Debbie Hunt FDOT District 7 Commissioner Sandra Murman Hillborough County MPO Gina Evans Tampa International Airport Commissioner Mark Sharpe Chair, Hillsborough MPO Linda Ferraro Hillsborough MPO Rick MacAuley Pinellas MPO Hal Beardall FCRC Consensus Center Rafael Montalvo FCRC Consensus Center 6th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

14 Appendix B Agenda 6th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

15 Appendix C Evaluation Summary INSTRUCTIONS: Please Use a 0 to 10 Rating Scale Where a 0 Means Totally Disagree and a 10 Means Totally Agree. Please Place Your Numeric Rating in the Space to the Left of Each Question. 1. Please assess the meeting The background information was very useful The handouts were very useful. 10 The objectives were stated at the outset of the meeting. 10 Overall, the objectives of the meetings were fully achieved. 2. Do you agree that each of the following meeting objectives was achieved? 9.20 Review, refine as necessary and adopt TMA structure and process 9.17 Continue development of project prioritization criteria 9.43 Begin identification of TMA priority projects for Please tell us how well the Facilitator helped the participants engage in the meeting. 10 The Facilitator made sure the concerns of all members were heard The Facilitator helped us arrange our time well The members followed the direction of the Facilitator. 4. Please tell us your level of satisfaction with the meeting? 9.57 Overall, I am very satisfied with the meeting. 10 I was very satisfied with the services provided by the Facilitator I am satisfied with the outcome of the meeting. 5. Please tell us how well the next steps were communicated? 9.29 I know what the next steps following this meeting will be I know who is responsible for the next steps. 6. What did you like best about the meeting? Agreed on a "one voice" document with priorities. Face-to-face discussion at the same table. Focused. We came to resolution on some very key issues and priorities for the region. We are making progress. 7. How could the meeting have been improved? Good the way it is. 8. Do you have any other comments that you would like to add? We are very interested in your comments. Please use the back of this page if more space is needed. Thank you very much for getting us somewhere! Very much appreciated! Pleased with "many with one voice" statement. 6th Meeting of the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group, June 6,

16 Tampa Bay TMA Transportation Alternatives Program Priorities DRAFT Available Funding FY 18 $1,044,252 FY 19 $3,111,996 Pasco County Target $580,000 - $748, th St Sidewalk (CR 54 to Henry Road) $82,000 2 Safe Routes to Schools Mittye P. Lock Elementary (Wiggins Road Sidewalk) $216,000 Cypress Elementary School (Sweet Bay Court Sidewalk) $85,000 Chasco Elementary School (Galen Wilson Flashing sings and marked crosswalk) $54,000 Cox Elementary School (17th Street Sidewalk / Main St Sidewalk) $77,400 Stuart Middle School (10th St Sidewalk) $87,600 3 Massachusetts Avenue Sidewalk (Congress St to downtown New Port Richey) $175,200 Pinellas County Target $1.4 - $1.5 million 3 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) $406,400 4 City of Largo's West Bay Dr Pinellas Trail Gateway project (intersection of West Bay Dr and 12th St SW) $450,000 5 City of Oldsmar's Oldsmar Trail Phase 6 Extension (along Douglas Rd between Racetrack Rd and Tampa Rd) $420,000 City of Belleair Bluffs' West Bay Dr Crosswalks (West Bay Dr 6 between Bluff View Dr and Indian Rocks Rd) $31,000 7 Pinellas County's 62nd Ave N Sidewalk Project (62nd St N to 55th St N) $292,400 Hillsborough County Target $1.9 - $2.0 million Project Total 8 Safe Routes to Schools Stowers Elem. & Barrington Middle (Boyette Rd Sidewalk) $155,000 Summerfield Elementary (Big Bend Rd and Heritage Green Sidewalk) $164,000 Frost Elementary (Camden Field Pkwy Sidewalk) $72,000 Eisenhower Middle (Old Big Bend Rd Sidewalk) $227,000 Cypress Creek Elem. & Shields Middle (19th Ave NE Sidewalk) $170,000 Nelson Elementary $83,000 Riverview Elementary $112,000 9 Columbus Drive Complete Street from Nebraska Ave to 14th Street $655, Floribraska Ave Complete Street from Florida Ave to Nebraska Ave $518, TBD 12 TBD 13 TBD Pasco County Target $580,000 - $748,000 Pinellas County Target $1.4 - $1.5 million 15 City of St. Petersburg's Bayway South Trail Connection $ 1,100, City of Dunedin's Michigan Blvd Multi-Use Trail (Pinellas Trail to CR 1) $426, City of St. Petersburg's School Crossing Enhancement Project $35,875 Hillsborough County Target $1.9 - $2.0 million $77,000 PE 18 46th St walk/bike safety improvements $442,000 CST $213,000 PE 19 Rome Ave walk/bike safety improvements $1,223,000 CST 20 Waters Avenue Sidewalk from Sheldon Rd to Pinehurst Dr $280,000 PE * - Funding targets are illustrative and used to establish a reasonable list of projects for each county in the TMA. ** - Available funding for FY 18 and FY 19 was provided by FDOT District 7.

17 Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area (TMA) Leadership 2014 Meeting Calendar Staff Support Group Meetings TMA Leadership Meetings January 3 and 17 February 7 March 7 and 21 April 4 May 2 and 16 June 6 August 1 and 15 September 5 October 3 and 17 November 7 1:30 pm 9:30 am Via Conference Call Atkins Conference Room 6 th Floor 4030 West Boy Scout Blvd, Tampa