FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING

Transcription

1 . 2-Year Cost Feasible Plan.1 Financial Resources The costs of transportation maintenance and improvements typically exceed available financial resources or funding. Therefore, to make the best use of available funding, it is necessary to develop a realistic financially constrained transportation plan. A cost-feasible plan also provides the context for strategies to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system. The Metropolitan Planning Rule, published by the U.. Department of transportation, outlines the federal requirements for a cost-feasible transportation plan. An excerpt is provided below: Metropolitan Planning Rule The Plan shall include a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments with already available and projected sources of revenue. The financial plan shall compare the estimated revenue from existing and proposed funding sources that can reasonably be expected to be available for transportation uses, and the estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the total (existing plus planned) transportation system over the period of the plan. The 2030 TRIP includes the following related policy. Policy 2.1: The Transportation Improvement Plan shall include a financial plan that identifies the revenue required for the operation and maintenance of the existing transportation system and demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments with available and projected revenue. A. The financial plan shall include a projection of revenue available for transportation uses from existing and proposed revenue sources. B. The financial plan shall compare projected revenues and the estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the existing plus planned transportation system. To prepare a financially constrained plan, an analysis was conducted to determine what funds will be available to implement capacity-related transportation improvements and strategies. Transportation revenue was forecasted for the years Funding for the years is already programmed as part of state and local work programs, and this funding has been committed to existing projects. The 2030 TRIP is a financially constrained plan that is sometimes referred to as the 2030 Cost Feasible Plan. Federal, state and local funding sources will be used to implement the proposed transportation improvements and strategies. To provide a like comparison of available revenue and project cost estimates, the revenue forecasts and cost estimates are both expressed in Year 200 dollars. FEDERAL AND TATE FUNDIN The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District One prepared a 2030 forecast of federal and state funds for metropolitan planning organizations to use in the development of long range plans. This 2030 revenue forecast is based upon the new federal transportation authorization act (afe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act Legacy for Users) and current investment policies. The FDOT forecasts revenue for capacity programs and noncapacity programs. Capacity programs include each major FDOT program that expands the capacity of existing transportation systems. Non-capacity programs include the remaining FDOT programs that are designed to support, operate and maintain the state transportation system. The non-capacity programs include safety, resurfacing, bridge, product support, operations and maintenance, and administration. The 2030 Revenue Forecast includes an adequate set-aside of funds for the operation and maintenance of the existing and planned transportation system. The remaining funds are available for capacity-related improvements and provide the basis for the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan. Federal and state funds are available for the following capacity programs: trategic Intermodal ystem The trategic Intermodal ystem (I) is a transportation system that is comprised of statewide and regionally significant facilities. Chapter 8. Regional Transportation ystem includes a description and map of I facilities in Polk County. In recent years, the FDOT has pursued an investment policy that favors an investment in I facilities. As a matter of policy, the Department will allocate percent of capacity funds to projects on the I and Emerging I facilities, with the exception of funds attributable to urbanized areas over 200,000 population (XU funds) and funds allocated for the Transit Program. To mitigate the impact on the Other Arterials Programs, allocations supporting this policy will transition from about 2 percent in fiscal year to percent in fiscal year 2011 based on current estimates of revenues. I funds are not allocated according to a fair share formula, but rather, funds are allocated to projects on a needs basis. Therefore, future I funding is facility-specific. Funding is allocated to projects under the FDOT s I Cost Feasible Plan. The FDOT s 202 I Cost Feasible Plan was used to identify anticipated funding for I projects in Polk County, and this project funding is reflected in the revenue forecast for the TPO s Transportation Improvement Plan. Other Arterials The FDOT s 2030 Revenue Forecast includes funding for Other Arterials. This refers to arterial roads on the tate Highway ystem that are not a part of the I. As noted earlier, the FDOT is pursuing an investment policy that reflects less funding for Other Arterials. Congestion Management Congestion Management Projects are intended to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system. Historically, the Polk TPO has set-aside or boxed Congestion Management funds in establishing priorities for the use of federal and state transportation funds. The 2030 Plan includes an expanded definition of Congestion Management Projects. The intended use of these funds is outlined as follows: Policy 2030 Transportation Improvement Plan

2 2.2: The financial plan shall include a set-aside of projected available federalstate funds for Congestion Management Projects that are intended to maximize the safety and efficiency of the existing transportation system. Congestion Management Projects are defined to include the listed improvements. Intersection Projects: Traffic signalization and geometric improvements. upplement local funding for improvements at the intersection of state and countycity roads; upplement Resurfacing Projects: upplement funding on FDOT resurfacing projects to include pedestrianbicycle facilities, lighting and other multimodal or safety features; Transit Projects: Operating subsidies, Intelligent Transportation ystem (IT) projects or provision of passenger amenities, e.g., shelters or benches; afety Projects: Perform corridor studies for those corridors identified as High Crash Corridors for bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular crashes. Implement recommended corridor treatments to improve safety. Fund other safety projects as identified; and trategic Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects: Construct candidate pedestrian and bicycle facilities from the 2030 TRIP Transportation Needs Plan. Congestion Management funds are set-aside or allocated off the top from the Other Arterials Program. Transportation Enhancements The federal transportation funding authorization act, AFETEA-LU, includes a separate funding allocation for Transportation Enhancement Projects. Eligible activities under this program include non-traditional transportation improvements such as the construction of pedestrianbicycle facilities, multi-use trails and streetscaping projects. Transit The FDOT provides funding for transit operating and capital assistance projects. This financial assistance (state funds) is reflected in the FDOT s 2030 Revenue Forecast. In addition to these state funds, the Federal Transit Administration provides operating and capital assistance for public transportation projects. LOCAL FUNDIN County and city transportation projects are typically supported by local gas taxes, road impact fees, and other local revenue. These local projects, however, may also be eligible for federalaid funding if the subject county or city road is functionally classified as a Rural Major Collector Road or higher. Local funding sources for the 2030 TRIP include the following: 1 Mill for Roads In fall 200, the Polk County Board of County Commissioners enacted a 1 Mill for Roads property tax to support a new 10- Year Community Investment Program. In addition to increased funding for the maintenance of the existing road system, this 1 Mill will provide additional funding for capacity road projects. In general, this source of funding was targeted for road improvements needed to address existing or projected short-term level-of-service deficiencies on county roads. It is intended to address the existing infrastructure gap. Road Impact Fees In 200, the Polk County Board of County Commissioners completed an updated Transportation Impact Fee tudy. The updated study supported the enactment of a revised impact fee ordinance with an increased fee schedule. Like the 1 mill property tax, the increased transportation impact fees are being used to support a 10-Year Community Investment Program that includes the expenditure of $1. Billion for capacity-related road projects. The road impact fees are targeted for road improvements that are needed as a result of new growth. These fees are collected in five separate benefit districts. North Ridge Community Redevelopment Agency The Polk County Board of County Commissioners has established the North Ridge Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to address transportation blight in northeast Polk County. Tax increment financing will be used to construct transportation improvements that are intended to improve road access to the subject properties. These improvements will also complement the existing state and county road network in the area. The CRA revenue must be used for improvements located within the CRA boundary. This chapter includes a map of the North Ridge CRA. Table.1 provides a summary of county revenue that is forecasted to be available for capacity projects. Funding is projected to be available beyond the 10-Year Community Investment Program beyond 201. This table does not include the referenced CRA funding. Table.1 County Revenue Forecast For Capacity Projects (Millions, 200 $) Revenue ource Transportation Impact Fees $813,93 $28,8 District A $99,22 $29,01 District B $, $1, District C $ $12,122 District D $10,3 $,81 District E $12,213 $2,319 1 Mill For Transportation $292,3 $1,12 Total Projected $1,10,0 $329, Transportation Improvement Plan

3 The 2030 TRIP includes transportation projects and strategies supported by federal, state and local funding. Table.2 provides a forecast summary of these funds through the year The revenue forecast corresponds to the two phases for the 2030 Plan Phase 1 ( ) and Phase 2 ( ). The funds available between FY 200 FY 2010 are already programmed towards existing projects. Table.2 Estimated Federal, tate and Local Funds for Capacity Programs ( Millions $) Capacity Programs trategic Intermodal ystem (200 $) Phase I FY Phase 2 FY Total $21.8 $21.8 Other Arterials (200 $) $3. $1. $1.3 Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) Congestion Management $1. $10. $2.2 Enhancements (200 $) $3. $3.3 $.0 Project Type Intersection Projects upplement Resurfacing Projects Transit Projects afety Projects Description Table.3 Congestion Management $ Million Traffic signalization and geometric improvements. upplement local funding for improvements at the intersection of state and countycity roads. upplement funding on FDOT resurfacing projects to include pedestrianbicycle facilities, lighting and other multi-modal or safety features. Operating ubsidies; Intelligent Transportation ystem (IT) Projects; or Provision of Passenger Amenities, e.g., helters and Benches. Perform corridor studies for those corridors identified as High Crash Corridors for bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular crashes. Implement recommended corridor treatments to improve safety. Fund other safety projects as identified. A. Highway Emphasis Investment Option B. Multi-Modal Emphasis C. Non-Motorized Emphasis $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $0,000 $0,000 $00,000 $00,000 $0,000 $0,000 Transit (tate only) (200 $) $.9 $0.3 $9.2 1 Mill for Roads 1 (200 $) $292.8 $1. $33. County Impact Fees 1 (200 $) $81.0 $28.9 $1,101.9 North Ridge CRA (200 $) $200.0 $200.0 Total $1,89. $. $2,1.8 1 Phase 1 includes funding from Congestion Management funds are set-aside from the Other Arterial Program as a matter of policy. As part of the 2030 plan update, the TPO considered the following Alternate Investment Options : Option A. Highway Emphasis; Option B. Multi-Modal Emphasis; and Option C. Non-Motorized Emphasis. These Investment Options are based on a proposed $ Million set-aside of Congestion Management funds as outlined in Table.3. trategic Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Construct candidate pedestrian and bicycle facilities from the 2030 Needs Plan. Upon the completion of the 2030 TRIP Transportation Needs Plan, the Polk TPO solicited public comment on the three investment options. The Base Investment for the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan consisted of the projects funded outside the Other Arterials Program. The TPO then identified Congestion Management and Multi-Use Trail Projects that could be funded under Options A C. These projects were identified based upon their priority ranking from the 2030 Needs Analyses. Based upon public comment and committee recommendations, the TPO Board selected Investment Option C. Non-Motorized Emphasis as the basis for the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan. The associated revenue forecast (Table.2) was used to identify financially feasible projects for the Adopted 2030 Transportation Improvement Plan. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 The following tables show the 2030 revenue forecast under the three investment options and the remaining funding available for Other Arterials after funds are set-aside for Congestion Management or Multi-Use Trail Projects Transportation Improvement Plan

4 Table. Option A. Highway Emphasis (Millions$) Capacity Programs trategic Intermodal ystem (200 $) Phase I FY Phase 2 FYs Total $21.8 $21.8 Other Arterials (200 $) $33. $31. $.3 Congestion Management $0 $0 $80 Multi-Use Trails $0 $0 $0 TRIP (200 $) $1. $10. $2.2 Enhancements (200 $) $3. $3.3 $.0 Transit (tate only) (200 $) $.9 $0.3 $9.2 1 Mill for Roads 1 (200 $) $292.8 $1. $33. County Impact Fees 1 (200 $) $81.0 $28.9 $1,101.9 North Ridge CRA (200 $) $200.0 $200.0 Total $1,89. $. $2,1.8 Table. Option B. Multi-Modal Emphasis (Millions$) Capacity Programs trategic Intermodal ystem (200 $) Phase I FY Phase 2 FYs Total $21.8 $21.8 Other Arterials (200 $) $33. $31. $.3 Congestion Management $0 $0 $80 Multi-Use Trails $0 $0 $0 TRIP (200 $) $1. $10. $2.2 Enhancements (200 $) $3. $3.3 $.0 Transit (tate only) (200 $) $.9 $0.3 $9.2 1 Mill for Roads 1 (200 $) $292.8 $1. $33. County Impact Fees 1 (200 $) $81.0 $28.9 $1,101.9 North Ridge CRA (200 $) $200.0 $200.0 Total $1,89. $. $2,1.8 Table. Option C. Non-Motorized Emphasis (Millions$) Capacity Programs trategic Intermodal ystem (200 $) Phase I FY Phase 2 FYs Total $21.8 $21.8 Other Arterials (200 $) $23. $21. $.3 Congestion Management $0 $0 $80 Multi-Use Trails $10 $10 $20 TRIP (200 $) $1. $10. $2.2 Enhancements (200 $) $3. $3.3 $.0 Transit (tate only) (200 $) $.9 $0.3 $9.2 1 Mill for Roads 1 (200 $) $292.8 $1. $33. County Impact Fees 1 (200 $) $81.0 $28.9 $1,101.9 North Ridge CRA (200 $) $200.0 $200.0 Total $1,89. $. $2,1.8.2 Project Evaluation Criteria As described, a highway needs analysis was conducted to determine the need for capacity related road improvements through the year 2030 new or widened roads. The highway projects contained in the 2030 TRIP Transportation Needs Plan are candidates for funding under the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan. Only a portion of the identified highway needs can be constructed within available funding. As such, it is important to select those projects that provide the greatest benefit with the least community and environmental impacts. One tool used to select projects for the 2030 TRIP was a set of Project Evaluation Criteria. The Project Evaluation Criteria as described herein were applied as part of three-tier analysis of the candidate road projects. The analysis consisted of the following: Tier 1 Fatal Flaws Projects were screened to eliminate those with significant community and environmental impacts. Tier 2 hort Range Need Projects identified as needed prior to 2020 were given a higher priority and evaluated as candidates Phase One. Tier 3 AFETEA-LU Planning Factors Projects were assessed relative to planning factors established by afe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (AFETEA-LU), e.g., increase safety of transportation system. If a project was identified as having fatal flaw under the Tier 1 analysis, it was eliminated from further consideration. Those projects that passed the Tier 1 screening were evaluated under Tiers 2 and 3. The candidate projects were able to receive a numerical score up to 100 bases on the associated evaluation criteria. Table.8 lists the Highway Project Evaluation Criteria. The scoring for each criterion is identified along with the relative weight assigned to each measure..3 Efficient Transportation Decision-Making In the fall of 1999, Florida was selected as a pilot state by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for developing and implementing a streamlined planning and project development process. In response, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and other federal, state and local agencies committed to evaluating Florida s transportation planning and project development and environmental processes and identified ways to make the process more efficient. As a result, the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Process was developed which creates a link between land use, transportation and environmental resource planning through early agency involvement. The purpose of this review is to identify and avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects. These reviews are applied to major transportation improvement projects, which may include roadway widening, new roadways, rail transit systems and bridge replacement projects on the state highway system. This Transportation Improvement Plan

5 effort is expected to improve decisions and greatly reduce the time, effort and cost in transportation decision making. Key features of the ETDM Process include: Early and continuous involvement from the agencies and community citizens in decision making; Early identification of avoidance, minimization of mitigation requirements; Linkages between land use, transportation and environmental protection or preservation efforts; Early project approvals for less complex projects; and Maximized use of electronic technology for coordination to minimize paper trails. ENVIRONMENTAL CREENIN TOOL (ET) The Environmental creening Tool (ET) is an internet accessible eographic Information ystem (I) application that provides the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO s) with information about environmental, social, and land use considerations that could influence how transportation projects are developed and implemented. The ET allows the reviewer to analyze the potential effects of candidate transportation projects on natural, cultural and community resources and communicate the evaluation results. These analyses are conducted for the early identification of environmental and community issues that could influence the priority, alignment andor design features of candidate transportation projects. The tool also provides an evaluation of potential direct and indirect effects for candidate transportation projects. The ET is an internet accessible application that provides tools to do the following: Input and update information about transportation projects; Perform standardized analyses; ather and report comments about potential project effects; and Analyze the effects of proposed projects on the human and natural environment. Evaluation of Projects in the 2030 TRIP An extensive evaluation of candidate road projects for inclusion into the 2030 TRIP was performed by analyzing the project locations relative to the locations of the environmental and community resources. Calculating the acreage of wetlands and the number of known historical and archaeological sites within a defined buffer area or within defined community boundaries is an example of one type of analysis performed. The following is a list of I layers which were used in this process: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Community, ConservationPreservation Areas, Contaminated ites, Demographics, Economic, Floodplains, Historic & Archaeological ites, Infrastructure, Existing Land Use, Future Land Use, Mobility, Recreation Areas, Relocation, afety, econdary and Cumulative Effects, ection (f) Potential, ocial, ociocultural Effects, pecial Designations, Water Quality and Quantity, Wetlands, and Wildlife and Habitat. The process for evaluating potential effects of transportation projects to natural, cultural, and community resources was based on the degree of effect if may have (directly or indirectly) to the natural, cultural and community resources. Direct project effects are changes in the community that occur as a result of a new road project such as the displacement of a business. Indirect effects occur over time and may extend beyond the community. An indirect effect may be the result of a roadway widening project from to lanes which would increase the capacity consequently causing overpopulation and the need to increase development. Degree of Effect The purpose of the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process is to identify and avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to the community andor natural resources. As a result the projects that are considered major transportation improvement projects, such as roadway widening or new roadways on the state highway system, are required to undergo the ETDM process. In addition to these federal guidelines, the Transportation Planning Organization staff analyzed every project within the county that was considered a potential candidate for the 2030 TRIP. After the evaluation of potential project effects to natural, cultural and community resources was performed, a degree of effect for each issue was determined. Each project was carefully considered for adverse and beneficial effects that were then ranked on a scale of 0 to. A summary of these effects are listed below: MinimumNone () Project has minimum adverse effect on the affected community andor natural resources. Little or no mitigation is needed. Moderate (3) Natural, cultural andor community resources are affected by the proposed project but avoidance and minimization measures are available. ome mitigation is needed Transportation Improvement Plan

6 ubstantial (1) Project has substantial adverse effects on the natural, cultural andor community resources. Project will need substantial mitigation. Fatal Flaw (0) Project will have significant environmental cost or involve significant adverse effects on adjacent community. hould the project be deemed fatally flawed it would not advance into the 2030 TRIP. After the projects were ranked additional feasibility screenings were performed. However if the project was deemed fatally flawed then the project did not proceed to the next eligibility phase. If the project was not deemed a fatal flaw then a cost feasible analysis was performed on the project. Environmental Mitigation While every effort is made to avoid environmental impacts, new roads and road widening projects impacts natural systems. In fact, some transportation projects have been significantly delayed or stopped due to adverse environmental impacts. In developing the 2030 TRIP, the TPO identified sensitive ecological areas and systems and evaluated candidate transportation projects as part of a preliminary environmental assessment to gauge their impacts. Projects with negative impacts receive less consideration, or if their impacts are too great, are not considered at all as part of the cost feasible plan. In cases where adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive areas are unavoidable, the function and integrity of the system should be protected and adverse impacts mitigated. As explained earlier, the ETDM Process was developed to serve as a link between land use, transportation and environmental resource planning through early agency involvement. This process allows for environmental agencies to comment on planned road projects contained in the long range transportation plan on a project by project basis. Perhaps by expanding the role of the ETDM Process, environmental agencies could be consulted to provide input regarding target areas for mitigation efforts, as well as activities that could maintain and even enhance the environmental impacts associated with a new or improved road. Another possibility is designing projects that can enhance environmental features locally instead of providing mitigation at an off-site location. For example, a project that impacts a lake or river may be able to assist in efforts to protect water quality by enhancing an existing effort by an environmental agency to treat runoff flowing into the water body. Additionally, a road widening project that includes the widening of a bridge over a rivergreenway corridor could be modified to provide for a suitable wildlife crossing to decrease wildlife mortality. These are just a few examples of projects that could enhance local environmental efforts. Polk County contains many significant environmentally sensitive areas that warrant protection and careful consideration in mitigating the impacts of a road project. These areas contain many rare and endangered plants and animals, some of which are endemic to Polk County or Central Florida. These areas include the following: Wales Ridge; reen wamp; Peace Riveraddle Creek Corridor Kissimmee RiverChain of s Corridor; and Bombing Range Ridge.. Environmental Justice Areas Title VI of the 19 Civil Rights Act (2 U..C. 2000D-1) states that, No person in the United tates shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. The President s Executive Order 128 on Environmental Justice further amplifies Title VI by providing that each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. It is primarily about fairness toward the disadvantaged and often addresses the elimination of racial and ethnic minorities from decision-making. To parents living in a neighborhood with a lot of bus service, environmental justice might mean converting buses from diesel to natural gas, reducing their children s exposure to air pollution, Environmental justice to a non-english speaking neighborhood might mean having bilingual staff and community leaders running a public meeting. To low-income workers relying on bus service in downtown, environmental justice might mean that a city increases the frequency of bus service. Environmental justice is more than a set of legal and regulatory obligations. Properly implemented, environmental justice principles and procedures improve all levels of transportation decision-making. This approach will: Make better transportation decisions that meet the needs of all people. Design transportation facilities that fit into unique communities. Enhance the public involvement process. Provide minority and low-income populations with opportunities to learn about transportation. IDENTIFYIN TRADITIONALLY UNDERERVED AREA Demographic data was analyzed to allow the Polk TPO to respond appropriately to federal direction on racial and income discrimination during development of the 2030 TRIP. The results of the demographic analysis were used to identify geographic areas in the county with high minority and lowincome populations (Table. Traditionally Underserved Neighborhoods Areas) so that their needs can be addressed, and the benefits and burdens of transportation investments can be fairly distributed. With this information, we can better evaluate and improve our public involvement process to eliminate communication barriers and engage minority and Transportation Improvement Plan

7 low-income populations. For the purposes of this analysis, traditionally underserved areas are defined as: Areas with minority populations, which exceed 0% of the Census Block roup; and Areas with an annual median household income less than or equal to $28,829 (80% of the Polk County median income). As part of our public outreach program, the TPO has been actively targeting the traditionally underserved populations. As part of the Central Polk Travel tudy, the TPO conducted focus groups in areas, such as Florence Villa, Inwood, Eloise, and Wahneta, to help assess the transportation needs of area residents.. Traffic afety High Crash Corridors pecial consideration was given to candidate projects that are located within or contained segments of the bicycle or pedestrian high crash corridors that are presented in Table.3. In addition, the relative safety of each proposed road improvement segment was evaluated by calculating a safety ratio that compared the crash rate of the candidate road to the average crash rates that occur on similar road types across the state. Road segments with safety ratios greater than 1.0, or those with a higher than average crash rate, were given additional weight when prioritizing the candidate projects included on the transportation needs list.. trategic Intermodal ystem As referenced earlier, trategic Intermodal ystem (I) projects are funded on a needs basis. Funds are allocated to specific projects based on statewide needs. The TPO reviewed the FDOT s 202 I Cost Feasible Plan to identify anticipated funding for I projects in Polk County. The following projects are funded ( ) under the I Cost Feasible Plan: -lane widening of U 2 from tate Road 0 (Cypress ardens Blvd) to CR ; -lane widening of U 2 from north of Interstate to the CoL; and the -lane widening of U from Old Bartow-Eagle Road to tate 0 (Winterlake Road). The listed projects are reflected in the TPO s 2030 TRIP. In addition to these projects, the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan also includes several proposed toll facilities that are an existing part or an extension of the I in Polk County. These projects, assumed to be funded through toll revenue, include the following: express toll lanes on Intestate (widen to 10 lanes); -laning of Polk Parkway from CR (Old Dixie Highway) to Interstate ; new Polk Parkway interchanges at Pace Road and apwaybraddock Road; and the Central Polk Parkway (new lane freeway) between tate Road 0 and the existing Polk Parkway. Chapter includes a map of the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan Highway Projects. The referenced projects are depicted on this map.. Highway Projects Upon the completion of the 2030 TRIP Transportation Needs Plan, the TPO evaluated the identified the highway needs as candidate projects for inclusion in the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan. The Project Evaluation Criteria are detailed in ection.2. The application of the evaluation criteria was one method used to select projects for the 2030 Plan. This process enabled staff to rank the various projects according to their associated value and benefit. Table.9 provides a list of the highway projects included in the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan. This table includes a project description, total cost, and funding category for the respective projects. Chapter also includes a map entitled 2030 Highway Needs Funding Categories. This map illustrates the highway needs by funding category. Like the trategic Intermodal ystem, some highway needs are funded under specific programs. The Polk County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) prepared a 10-Year Community Investment Program during the course of the 2030 plan update. The road capacity projects funded under this program with a new 1 mill property tax are included in the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan. The Plan also includes projects funded with tax increment financing through the North Ridge Community Redevelopment Agency. As noted in ection.1 Financial Resources, the Polk County BoCC approved a significant increase in road impact fees during 200. These fees, levied countywide, can be used for state, county or city road improvements. Polk County identified new road impact fee projects to be funded through the year 201 under its 10-Year Community Investment Program. These projects were selected in large part using information from the 2030 TRIP, e.g., candidate project rankings. The 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan is consistent with the County s 10-Year Community Investment Program (1 Mill and Road Impact Fee Projects). The TPO evaluated the remainder of the highway needs for funding under the tate s Other Arterial Program and the remainder of the forecasted road impact fees (beyond the year 201). The ranked highway needs (after application of evaluation criteria) were considered for inclusion in the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan based on available funding. As part of this process, it was necessary to identify highway needs by road impact fee district, since fees must be spent in the same district where they are collected. The 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan Highway Projects Map depicts the 2030 highway needs according to the following categories: Committed Road Improvements FY ; Funded Road Improvements FY ; Funded Road Improvements FY ; and Unfunded Road Improvements..8 Intersection Projects The TPO selected Investment Option C. Non-Motorized Emphasis as the basis for the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan Transportation Improvement Plan

8 This investment option includes an annual $ Million set-aside for Congestion Management projects. Of this annual amount, $1 Million is targeted for intersection projects. Between the years , $20 Million will be targeted for intersection improvements as part of the referenced set-aside of funds. Intersection improvements may also be funded with Congestion Management funds targeted for resurfacing or safety projects. The intersection projects listed in Table.10 will be funded through the use of Congestion Management funds and other local revenue as available. Polk County s 10- Year Community Program also includes a funding allocation for intersection projects, and many of the candidate projects are on county roads..9 Public Transit ervices The Polk Regional Transportation Organization (RTO) was created in 200 to improve the coordination of existing transit services and lead the transition to a new countywide transit system. In August 200, the RTO Board adopted the following strategy for the creation of a regional transportation authority. Request the Florida Legislature to create a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) under Chapter 33, Florida tatutes. The RTA will be responsible for providing or coordinating countywide transit services with a overning Board that includes appropriate countywide representation. Funding: Enable the RTA to accept funding from other entities to provide service and consider the contribution of startup fees from member jurisdictions to aid in the transition to a new authority. Authorize (subject to voter referendum) the RTA to levy the Charter County Transit ystem urtax, an ad valorem tax, a license tag fee or other revenue sources to provide a long-term stable source of funding. In consultation with member jurisdictions, the RTA will select an appropriate funding source(s), e.g., sales tax or ad valorem tax, to meet future revenue needs and sponsor a referendum to enact the selected tax measure. Transition to the RTA: The RTA will replace the existing Regional Transportation Organization (RTO) and the Winter Haven Area Transit (WHAT) Policy Board. The land Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD) will continue as a taxing authority until a replacement tax is secured as part of a countywide transit system. The LAMTD is created through county ordinance, and the Polk County Board of County Commissioners will be asked to consider installing the new RTA Board as the governing board for LAMTD. LAMTD and County resources (personnel, equipment and facilities) will be transferred to the new RTA. The RTA will establish appropriate provisions to ensure that existing local assets continue to benefit those local areas. Provision of ervice Until a countywide funding source is secured, the RTA will accept funds from local governments and agencies to provide transit services. The RTA will serve as a contractor for the LAMTD and for local governmentfunded services such as Winter Haven Area Transit. The RTA may contract with other agencies, e.g., LYNX, to provide service in distant areas of Polk County. With the 2010 Census, the land and Winter Haven Urbanized Areas are both expected to have a population in excess of 200,000. As a result, Polk County will experience a reduction in the amount of federal transit operating assistance funds. One major impetus for the creation of the Regional Transportation Authority is the need for a long-term dedicated source of transit funding. As transit operations continue to expand in Polk County, there will be an increased need to rely on local funding for transit, especially for operations. The revenue forecast in ection.1 includes projected state funding for transit operating and capital assistance projects, and Polk County will receive Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds in addition to these state funds. The proposed legislation for the Regional Transit Authority includes the authority to levy a local sales tax or property tax subject voter referendum. The proposed transit projects in Table.11 will be funded through the Regional Transit Authority with a combination of federal, state and local funding. Additional background information on the Regional Transportation Authority and anticipated funding is contained in the Countywide Transit tudy. A copy of this tudy is included as a Technical Appendix. As part of the 2030 Needs Plan, the TPO has identified the need for Bus top Improvements. These improvements include passenger amenities such as transit shelters and benches, as well as, improvements needed to improve access to bus stops. The annual set-aside of Congestion Management funds includes funds targeted for Transit Projects. These funds will be used to implement the identified bus stop improvements or to provide operating assistance for transit service development. Funds will be allocated according to established priorities, and the TPO will evaluate and prioritize candidate projects on a continuing basis..10 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects In adopting the 2030 TRIP, the TPO selected an investment option with a non-motorized emphasis as the basis for the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan. This investment option includes an annual set-aside of $ Million for congestion management projects between 2011 and Pursuant to this annual setaside, $1 Million has been targeted for strategic bicycle and pedestrian facilities identified in the 2030 TRIP Transportation Needs Plan. trategic bicycle and pedestrian projects may also be funded through congestion management funds allocated for resurfacing projects on the state highway system, as well as, safety projects. The 2030 TRIP Transportation Needs Plan will be the basis for projects that are recommended for funding by the TPO. The TPO will evaluate and prioritize candidate projects on a continuing basis Transportation Improvement Plan

9 In addition to the Congestion Management funds that have been allocated, candidate bicycle and pedestrian projects may also be funded through local sources, particularly projects that are not a part of the state highway system..11 Multi-Use Trail Projects As part of the non-motorized investment option referenced earlier, the TPO has targeted $1 Million annually for multi-use trail projects between 2011 and Multi-use trail projects that have been identified in the 2030 TRIP Transportation Needs Plan will be the basis for projects that are recommended for funding by the TPO. In addition to the $1 Million set-aside identified in the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan for multi-use trail projects, there are many federal, state and local source for the acquisition, design and construction of multi-use trails..12 Intelligent Transportation ystem Projects The TPO will seek regional funding to prepare the proposed Regional Incident Management Plan and the related construction of dynamic route guidance signs. tate and local funding has been earmarked for the implementation of the Polk County Advanced Traffic Management ystem. The new Regional Transportation Authority will be the responsible agency for the Pilot Project for Transit ignal Priority and the Advanced Transit Management for Countywide Transit ervices. Table.12 provides a list of cost feasible IT projects Cost Feasible Plan Tables.9 through.12 and the following maps provide a summary of the 2030 TRIP Cost Feasible Plan Transportation Improvement Plan

10 Table. Traditionally Underserved Neighborhoods Areas Neighborhoods Block roup Total Population Percent Minority Median HH Income Planning Area hore Acres ,8 9% $13,9 West Parker treet % $18,38 West North Wire % $22,0 West North Bonnet % $2,389 West Kathleen % $2,000 West Winston % $22,0 West Jewel Avenue ,33 % $2,13 West Webster Park North ,2 88% $21,383 West Pinehurst ,32 99% $19,2 West Watson % $9,8 West Paul A. Diggs % $21,20 West Webster Park outh % $23,0 West John Cox % $2,39 West Mulberry Heights, Kingsford % $1,8 West Caribbean Cove ,20 82% $22, North Olive Park ,81 % $2,1 North Marella Terrace ,010 1% $19,88 North Inwood ,0 0% $19,20 East Conine Heights % $18,8 East Florence Villa ,8 92% $19,93 East Asbury Park ,93 % $2,10 East Lincoln Park, Avondale ,13 9% $22,3 East Wahneta Eloise ,31 0% $22,39 East 992 9% $1,9 East Highland Park % $2, outh Bradley Junction % $21,818 outh Transportation Improvement Plan

11 Table.8 Highway Project Evaluation Criteria 2030 Transportation Improvement Plan

12 Table.9 Cost-Feasible Highway Projects Project Name From To Description New Lanes Cost ($1,000) Funding Category 101 U 2 Cypress ardens Blvd (R 0) Dundee Rd (R 2) Widen to Lanes 2 $30,803 I 108 U 2 Dunson Rd Ronald Reagan Pkwy (CR ) Widen to Lanes 2 $8,31 I 110 U 2 Ronald Reagan Pkwy (CR ) CoL Widen to Lanes 2 $3,9 I Bartow Rd (U ) R 0 Old BartowEagle Road Widen to Lanes 2 $8,01 I 103 U 2 Dundee Rd (R 2) CR Widen to Lanes 2 $0,9 I ubtotal $21,8 3 I- Hillsborough CoL Osceola CoL Widen to 10 Lanes (Express) $03,88 Toll Polk County Pkwy Auburndale Hwy (U 92) I- Widen to Lanes 2 $,1 Toll Polk County Pkwy apway RdBraddock Rd. New Interchange 0 $3,0 Toll Polk County Pkwy Pace Rd New Interchange 0 $22,0 Toll 1 Central Polk Pkwy Polk County Pkwy R 0 New Lanes $22,18 Toll ubtotal $83,01 10 U 192 U 1 Rochelle Avenue Widen to Lanes 2 $13,929 tateimpact Fee 11 R 9 Extension R (Recker Highway) Derby Avenue New 2 Lanes 2 $11,88 tateimpact Fee 12 R 3 (N- Route) West Pipkin Rd R 2 (Drane Field Rd) New Lanes $0,92 tateimpact Fee 1 Central Ave Elbert DrDundee Rd (R 1st t (R 9) Buckeye Loop Rd Widen to 3 Lanes 2 $20,2 2) tateimpact Fee 2 Dundee Rd (R 2) Buckeye Loop Rd U 2 Widen to Lanes 2 $3,28 tateimpact Fee Lucerne Park Rd (R ) U 2 30th t Widen to Lanes 2 $31,93 tateimpact Fee 9 U 192 U 192 (Hinson Ave) Osceola CoL Widen to Lanes 2 $100,10 tateimpact Fee Bartow Rd (U ) In-Town Bypass Edgewood Dr Widen to Lanes 2 $28,21 tateimpact Fee Bartow Rd (U ) Edgewood Dr Polk County Pkwy, N of Widen to Lanes 2 $,99 tateimpact Fee New Tampa Hwy (U 92) Hillsborough CoL Wabash Ave Widen to Lanes 2 $0, tateimpact Fee 9 U 192 (Hinson Ave) 10th t 1th t Widen to Lanes 2 $,83 tateimpact Fee 3 Bartow Northern Connector U 1 R 0 New Lanes $22,08 tateimpact Fee 2 Bartow Northern Connector Bartow Rd (U ) U 1 New Lanes $2,100 tateimpact Fee 9 Buckeye Loop Rd Dundee Rd (R 2) 1st t (R 9) Widen to 3 Lanes 1 $1,3 LocalImpact Fee 11 Burns Ave (CR 1A) Buck Moore Rd, N (CR 1B) Mammoth rove Rd Widen to Lanes 2 $12,290 LocalImpact Fee 10 Burns Ave (CR 1A) Tower Blvd, N Buck Moore Rd, N (CR 1B) Widen to Lanes 2 $8,10 LocalImpact Fee 82 Ronald Reagan Pkwy (CR ) * U 2 Wilson Rd Widen to Lanes 2 $0,10 LocalImpact Fee 8 Recker Hwy pirit Rd2nd t Thornhill Rd Widen to Lanes 2 $32,00 LocalImpact Fee 8 Berkley Rd (CR ) Pace Rd R 33 Widen to Lanes 2 $29,310 LocalImpact Fee 8 Old Polk City Rd ocrum Loop Rd Walt Williams Rd Widen to Lanes 2 $2,802 LocalImpact Fee 9 Old Polk City Rd Walt Willams Rd R 33 Widen to Lanes 2 $39,0 LocalImpact Fee 80 Reynolds Rd Winterlake Rd (R 0) Fish Hatchery Rd Extension Widen to Lanes 2 $2,838 LocalImpact Fee 38 apway Rd Extension Polk Pkwy apway Berkley Rd New 2 Lanes 2 $,138 LocalImpact Fee 1 Holly Hill Rd CR 1 CR (Bay t) New 2 Lanes 2 $2, LocalImpact Fee 2 Holly Hill Rd CR (Bay t) Ernie Caldwell Boulevard New 2 Lanes 2 $,330 LocalImpact Fee 22 CR U 2 U 192 Widen to Lanes 2 $19,22 LocalImpact Fee Power Line Rd Extension Marion Rd Cypress Pkwy (CR 80) New 2 Lanes 2 $20,110 LocalImpact Fee Transportation Improvement Plan

13 Project Name From To Description New Lanes Cost ($1,000) Funding Category 9 Tom Costine Rd Connector Tom Costine Rd (E of Ridgeglen Dr) Old Polk City Rd New 2 Lanes 2 $,9 LocalImpact Fee 118 Westside Blvd I- West ide County Line New 2 Lanes 2 $13,0 LocalImpact Fee 12 Overlook DriveCarl Floyd Road R 0 (Cypress ardens Blvd) Dundee 2 Widen to 3 Lanes 1 $19,30 LocalImpact Fee 13 Marigold Avenue Coyote Road CR80 Widen to Lanes 2 $2, LocalImpact Fee 132 Wilson Rd CR Osceola County Line Widen to Lanes 2 $12,21 LocalImpact Fee 130 Poinciana Parkway CR 2 Marigold Avenue Widen to Lanes 2 $,330 LocalImpact Fee 129 Marigold Avenue Poinciana Parkway Coyote Rd Widen to Lanes 2 $2, LocalImpact Fee 13 CR 2 ( Hatchineha Rd) R 1 Poinciana Highway Widen to Lanes 2 $8,13 LocalImpact Fee 31 Ewell Road County Line Road N- Route Extension (R 3) Widen to Lanes 2 $2,92 LocalImpact Fee 112 Wabash Ave Extension North-outh Route Ariana t New 2 Lanes 2 $31,0 LocalImpact Fee 113 Wabash Ave Ariana t New Tampa Hwy (U 92) Widen to Lanes 2 $11,108 LocalImpact Fee 11 Wabash Ave Memorial Blvd (U 92) 10th t Widen to Lanes 2 $,01 LocalImpact Fee 89 R 33 ocrum Loop Rd Old Polk City Rd Widen to Lanes 2 $83,913 LocalImpact Fee 13 CR 1A (Chalet uzanne Rd) U 2 R 1 Widen to Lanes 2 $20,1 LocalImpact Fee ubtotal $1,188, 23 CR 9A Berkley Rd (CR ) CR 9 Widen to Lanes 2 $19,0 1 Mill land Highlands Rd (CR 3B) CR 0A (Central Barn Rd) Miriam Dr Widen to Lanes 2 $1,00 1 Mill land Highlands Rd (CR 3B) Miriam Dr Polk Pkwy Widen to Lanes 2 $1, 1 Mill 88 pirit Rd U 1 Winterlake Rd (R 0), of Widen to Lanes 2 $0,9 1 Mill 21 County Line Road R 0 Pipkin Widen to Lanes 2 $28,92 1 Mill 123 Pipkin Road End of Medulla Rd. N Route Extension Widen to Lanes 2 $28,20 1 Mill 92 R 0 Extension U 1 Rifle Range Rd New Lanes $1,30 1 Mill 12 Thompson Nursery Road Extension R 0 Range Thompson Nursery Road New Lanes $,8 1 Mill 12 Thompson Nursery Road Thompson Nursery Road Extension U 2 Widen to Lanes 2 $3,38 1 Mill 131 Kathleen Rd (CR 3A) alloway Rd (CR 2A) Duff Rd Widen to Lanes 2 $28,8 1 Mill ubtotal $319,80 33 FDC rove Rd CR Holly Hill Barn Road New 2 Lanes 2 $21,83 North Ridge CRA FDC rove Rd Holly Hill Barn Road Ernie Caldwell Boulevard New 2 Lanes 2 $23,330 North Ridge CRA 0 reen wamp Trail Deen till Rd U 2 ( of U 192) New 2 Lanes 2 $,80 North Ridge CRA 8 I- Crossover Rd FDC rove Rd Deen till Rd New 2 Lanes 2 $, North Ridge CRA I- Crossover Rd West Bound Express Ramps 0 $19,000 North Ridge CRA 111 VPCCI- Connector Ernie Caldwell Boulevard I- New Lanes $20,0 North Ridge CRA VPCCI- Connector to Westside ext. I- East Bound Express Ramps 0 $19,000 North Ridge CRA Oakmont Rd Extension Ernie Caldwell Boulevard Oakmont Rd ( of CR ) New 2 Lanes 2 $12,20 North Ridge CRA 128 FDC rove Extension FDC rove Rd Home Run Blvd New 2 Lanes 2 $,12 North Ridge CRA Ernie Caldwell Blvd * FDC rove Rd U 192 New Lanes $9,880 North Ridge CRA ubtotal $30, Williams DRI E-W Collector (Pace Rd) R 33 Mount Olive Rd Extension New 2 Lanes $0,902 PrivateARRA Funds** rand Total $2,,80 * Indicates project received Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) funding. ** American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 2030 Transportation Improvement Plan

14 Table.10 Cost-Feasible Intersection Projects Road Intersection Proposed eometry Cost ($1,000) Funding ource Proposed ignalized Intersection Projects Commerce Point Drive (formerly AZ Park Road) U Extension of B Left-Turn Lane $20 tatecounty Dunson Road U 2 Fully operational signalized intersection and add a WB Right-Turn Lane $00 tatecounty Wilson Road CR 32 Dedicated NB LeftThruRight Lanes $00 County hepherd Road R 3 ( Florida Ave.) To be determined $1,20 tatecounty pirit Road U 1 To be determined $1,20 tatecounty CR 0 (Clubhouse Road) U Dual NB left-turn lanes, Dual EB left-turn lanes. $1,000 tatecounty R 2 (Airport Road) CR 2 (Old Tampa Highway) To be determined. $1,20 tatecounty Cypress ardens Blvd (R 0) Cypress ardens Road To be determined. $1,20 tatecounty Cypress ardens Blvd (R 0) CR 0 (Overlook Drive) Dual WB left-turn lanes $00 tatecounty Cypress ardens Blvd (R 0) U 1 To be determined $1,20 tatecounty Cypress ardens Blvd (R 0) 1st treet To be determined $1,20 tatecounty Cypress ardens Blvd (R 0) th treet To be determined $1,20 tatecounty R 3 (outh FL. Ave) choolhouse RoadFitzgerald Road To be determined. $1,20 tatecounty U 1 CR (nively Ave) To be determined. $1,20 tatecounty U 1 (th treet W) R To be determined. $1,20 tate Proposed Unsignalized Intersection Projects Bailey Road hepherd Road ignalize Intersection $180 County Banana Road U ignalize, Extension of NB Left-Turn Lane $30 tatecounty Bates Road U 192 Dedicated EB Left-Turn Lane, Dedicated EB Right-Turn Lane $00 tatecounty Bates Road U 2 Dedicated WB Left-Turn Lane, Dedicated WB Right-Turn Lane $00 tatecounty Carter Road CR 0A (Central Barn Road) Dedicated NB Right-Turn Lane, Dedicated NB Through Lane $00 County CR 0 (Overlook Drive) R 2 (Dundee Road) To be determined $1,20 tatecounty CR 3 (Rattlesnake Road) CR 0A (Eloise Loop Road) WB Left-Turn Lane, WB Right-Turn-Lane $00 County Florence Villa rove Road U 2 Dedicated WB Left-Turn Lane, Dedicated WB Right-Turn Lane $00 tatecounty Wilson Road CR (Ronald Regan Parkway) Dedicated B Right-Turn Lane, Dedicated B Left-Turn Lane $00 County West Ruby Drive Thompson Nursery Road ignalize, Dedicated B Right-Turn Lane, Dedicated B Left-Turn Lane, EB Right-Turn Lane $1,180 County West Pipkin Road Yates Road ignalization (Possible), EB Right-Turn Lane $80 County Old Bartow Eagle Road Crossover U 1 To be determined. $1,20 County Thornhill Road R (Recker Highway) To be determined. $1,20 tatecounty CR 3B (cott Road) Fitzgerald Road To be determined. $1,20 County Lynchburg Road U 92 To be determined. $1,20 tatecounty Lyle Parkway U To be determined. $1,20 tatecounty tadium Road Alfred Road To be determined. $1,20 County Marigold Ave Walnut treet To be determined. $1,20 County Transportation Improvement Plan

15 Road Intersection Proposed eometry Cost ($1,000) Funding ource R 1 (cenic Highway) Mtn. Cutoff Road ignalize, Add NB Left-Turn Lane and EB Right-Turn Lane $00 tatecounty R 1 (cenic Highway) CR 1A (Burns Avenue) ignalize Intersection $180 tatecounty Elsie Drive U 192 To be determined. $1,20 tatecounty Total Cost for Intersection Projects $32,90 Table.11 Cost-Feasible Transit Projects Project Description Capital Operating Total Funding ource East Polk Transit Maintenance Facility $1,910 0 $1,910 RTA Commuter ervices RTA Bus top Improvement Program $,00 0 $,00 RTA Intermodal Centers $,23 $,2 $10,809 RTA Existing Bus Routes: Improve ervice Hours & Frequencies $1,30 $,19 $8, RTA Enhance ervice on Core Bus Routes $3,80 $18,282 $22,02 RTA Add Bus Routes in High rowth Areas $,300 $0,00 $,000 RTA Implement Ride Request ervice in Rural Areas $ $12,210 $12,88 RTA Expand Door-to-Door ervice in Rural Areas $ $12,210 $12,88 RTA Bus Rapid Transit to High peed Rail tation $,21 $1,280 $21,01 RTA Express Bus ervice: Bartow to land $1,890 $12,210 $1,100 RTA unday ervice 0 $,8 $,8 RTA Regional Express Bus ervice in I- Corridor $3,10 $1,0 $19,800 RTA Express Bus ervice in Major Corridors $9,0 $32,90 $2,20 RTA Total $,8 $181,1 $22,02 RTA Table.12 Cost-Feasible IT Projects Project Description Capital Funding ource Regional Incident Management Plan $2,00 Regional Funding Construct Dynamic Route uidance igns $8,900 Regional Funding Polk County Advanced Traffic Management ystem $28,800 tatecounty Pilot Project for Transit ignal Priority TBD RTA Advanced Transit Management for Countywide Transit ervices $,00 RTA Total $, Transportation Improvement Plan

16 Chapter Maps Transportation Improvement Plan

17 This page left blank for pagination purposes Transportation Improvement Plan

18 Withlacoochee River Cost Feasible Plan - Highway Projects 3A LAND A PIERCE BRADLEY 30 Lak e Park er.-, 3B MULBERRY 9 0 0A Hanco ck POLK CITY 1 9 AUBURNDALE 0 EALE BARTOW Peace River FT. MEADE ALFRED WAHNETA 0.-, 1 2 WINTER HAVEN 2 0 Elo ise 0A ALTURA Buffum DAVENPORT HAINE CITY HAMILTON DUNDEE Crooked WALE 1A Clin ch 1 80 Mario n Pie rce HIHLAND PARK BABON PARK Reed y POINCIANA 2 FROTPROOF Rosalie Weohyaka pka 30 Tiger INDIAN ETATE 0 RIVER RANCH Kissimmee River Legend Committed Road Improvements FY to Lane Widening New Lane Road New Interchange Funded Road Improvements FY to 3 Lane Widening to Lane Widening New 2 Lane Road New Lane Road New Interchange Funded Road Improvements FY to 3 Lane Widening to Lane Widening New 2 Lane Road to 10 Lane Widening New 2 Lane Road New Lane Road New Interchange Unfunded Road Improvements FY Road Project Interchange ¹ Miles 1 2 Arbuckle ADOPTED June 21, 200

19 2030 Highway Needs Funding Categories ( 2 Withlac ooc he e River 33 ( ( ( 92., Legend 1 POLK CITY 3A., LAND ( ( WINTER HAVEN ( Hancock ( HAMILTON LocalImpact Fee Marion 1 Mill Property Tax North Ridge CRA 2 DUNDEE Other Map Features 0 ( Pierce Major Roads WALE 1A Hydrology Rosalie City Limits HIHLAND PARK ALTURA County Boundary Tiger BARTOW 0 0 WAHNETA 1 MULBERRY tateimpact Fee 1 Eloise 0A 0A Toll POINCIANA 0 EALE 3A B 0 HAINE CITY Interchanges I Parker 80 ALFRED 9 Roads 1 AUBURNDALE Funding Categories DAVENPORT 0 BABON PARK Pea PIERCE 0 ce R iv e r BRADLEY Buffum 1 30 Clinch ( 2 ( Reedy La 2 8 Miles er Riv ee ( RIVER RANCH FROTPROOF 0 m sim ¹ Kis INDIAN ETATE FT. MEADE 3 Weohyakapka Crooked ke Ar bu ck le ADOPTED December 8,