plant city multi-modal transportation needs plan...plant city multi-modal transportation needs plan...

Plant City Multi-Modal Transportation Needs Plan

Hillsborough County

Metropolitan Planning Organization 601 E. Kennedy, 18th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602-5117

813/272-5940 FAX NO: 813/272-6258

October 2000

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

PLANT CITY MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS PLAN

Acceptance Date: October 2000


HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

Commissioner Richard Glorioso, City of Plant City, Chairman

Commissioner Ben Wacksman, Hillsborough County, Vice Chairman

Mayor Fran Barford City of Temple Terrace

Ms. Dottie Berger The Planning Commission

Ms. Kimberlee DeBosier Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority

Mayor Dick Greco City of Tampa

Mr. Kenneth A. Hartmann Florida Department of Transportation

Councilman Shawn Harrison City of Tampa

Mr. Louis Miller Hillsborough County Aviation Authority

Commissioner Jim Norman Hillsborough County

Councilwoman Linda Saul-Sena City of Tampa

Commissioner Thomas Scott Hillsborough County

Mr. Ed Turanchik Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority

Mr. George Williamson Tampa Port Authority

Lucilla L. Ayer, AICP

Executive Director


i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................................................v

Roadway Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................v Public Transit Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................... vii Congestion Management Strategies ..................................................................................................................................... viii Pedestrian Mobility Considerations...................................................................................................................................... viii Bicycle Mobility Considerations ............................................................................................................................................ ix

CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Why Update the Plan?................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Study Area................................................................................................................................................................... 1-2

CHAPTER 2.0 ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 2-2

2.1 Existing Travel Conditions ......................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Programmed Roadway Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Constraints to Future Improvements........................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Alternative Future Networks....................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4.1 The "Do Nothing" Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.4.2 Adopted 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan............................................................................................. 2-2 2.4.3 2020 “Loop” Alternative................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.4.4 Roadway Improvement Priorities ................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.5 Balancing the Mobility of Freight and People ............................................................................................................ 2-2 2.5.1 Truck Traffic ................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.5.2 Railroad Crossings .......................................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.6 Funding Sources.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.7 Roadway Recommendations....................................................................................................................................... 2-2


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page CHAPTER 3.0 PUBLIC TRANSIT..................................................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.1 Existing Service .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1 Bus Service ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 Transportation Disadvantaged Service ........................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Jobs Access Plan ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Proposed Circulator Service........................................................................................................................................ 3-2

3.3.1 Community Outreach ...................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.1.1 Employer Survey and Interviews...................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.1.2 Household Survey............................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.1.3 Community Workshops .................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3.2 Proposed Transit System................................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.2.1 Transit System Costs and Revenue................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.2.2 ADA Paratransit Service .................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.4 Long-Term Transit Plans ............................................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.4.1 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan ........................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4.2 Connecting Service to Lakeland ..................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.5 Public Transit Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 3-2 CHAPTER 4.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .................................................................................................... 4-2

4.1 Ridesharing ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.1.1 Carpooling....................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2 Vanpooling...................................................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Bay Area Commuter Services, Inc.............................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3 Transportation Systems Management ......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.1 Intersection Improvements.............................................................................................................................. 4-2


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

4.4 Intelligent Transportation Systems ............................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.4.1 Traffic Signal Control (TSC) .......................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4.2 Incident Management (IM) ............................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.4.3 Emergency Management Services (EMS) ...................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4.4 Traveler Information Systems (TIS) ............................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4.5 Highway Rail Interface (HRI)......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.5 Recommended Congestion Management Strategies................................................................................................... 4-2 CHAPTER 5.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................. 5-2

5.1 Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee .................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2 Pedestrian Mobility ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 Planned Sidewalk Improvements.................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Pedestrian Needs Identification ...................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.2.1 Hillsborough County MPO Pedestrian System Needs Assessment ................................................. 5-2 5.2.2.2 Access to Transit Service ................................................................................................................. 5-2 5.2.2.3 Community Expressed Needs........................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2.4 Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................................. 5-2 5.2.2.5 Priority Pedestrian Needs ................................................................................................................. 5-2

5.2.3 Pedestrian Safety through Education, Enforcement, and Encouragement...................................................... 5-2 5.2.4 Potential Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................. 5-2 5.2.5 Pedestrian Mobility Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Bicycle Mobility ......................................................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.3.1 Hillsborough County Comprehensive Bicycle Plan ....................................................................................... 5-2 5.3.2 Bicycle Facility Needs .................................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.3.3 Cost Estimates................................................................................................................................................. 5-2 5.3.4 Priority Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 5-12 5.3.5 Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................ 5-12 5.3.6 Existing State and Local Policies.................................................................................................................. 5-12 5.3.7 Bicycle Mobility Recommendations............................................................................................................. 5-13


iv

APPENDIX (Under Separate Cover)

A1 ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY NETWORK TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS A2 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES A3 PROPOSED TRANSIT CIRCULATOR SERVICE – SUMMARY OF EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS A4 ROADWAY INTERACTION HAZARD SCORE AND LATENT DEMAND SCORE IN THE PLANT

CITY STUDY AREA


v

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Constrained Roadways ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-5 2 Roadway Improvement Priorities ........................................................................................................................................... 2-12 3 HARTline Route 28X – Seffner/Dover Express Departures to Downtown Tampa ................................................................. 3-1 4 HARTline Route 28X – Seffner/Dover Express Arrivals from Downtown Tampa................................................................. 3-2 5 Revenue Sources for the Proposed Transit Service ................................................................................................................ 3-10 6 Community Expressed Sidewalk Needs ................................................................................................................................... 5-5 7 Sidewalk Improvement Priorities ............................................................................................................................................. 5-7 8 Bicycle Facility Improvement Priorities................................................................................................................................. 5-12

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 City of Plant City, Florida......................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Results of Employer Interviews................................................................................................................................................ 3-4 3 Transit Stated Usage ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-5 4 Transit Service Stated Trip Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 3-6 5 Percentage Responding They Would Use Transit at Given Fare ............................................................................................. 3-7


vi

LIST OF MAPS

Map Page

1 2015 Future Land Use............................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 2 Existing Level of Service.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 3 Roadway Improvements Scheduled in Five Year Jurisdictional Work Programs.................................................................... 2-3 4 Constrained Roadways ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-6 5 2020 Existing Plus Committed Network Traffic Projections ................................................................................................... 2-7 6 Traffic Impact of Planned Improvements in the Adopted 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan.......................................... 2-9 7 Traffic Impact of Improvements included in the 2020 "Loop" Alternative ........................................................................... 2-11 8 Freight Mobility...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-14 9 Recommended Roadway Improvement Needs ....................................................................................................................... 2-18 10 Proposed Plant City Circulator Bus Service ............................................................................................................................. 3-8 11 Pedestrian System 2020 Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 5-4 12 Existing, Planned and Priority Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................... 5-11


vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In February 1993, the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission in cooperation with the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the City of Plant City developed the Plant City Multi-Modal Transportation Needs Plan. This Plan recommended achievable activities to maintain and improve the mobility of people and goods in Plant City in a safe and efficient manner, including measures to:

• Improve traffic circulation in Plant City,

• Decrease unnecessary vehicular traffic through the downtown,

• Increase pedestrian and bicycle mobility, and

• Provide alternatives to single occupant vehicles.

Since the completion of the Plan, economic changes, new studies, and community issues have influenced the long-range transportation needs in Plant City. New commercial and residential developments have created increased travel demand on Plant City’s

transportation system. Several transportation studies have been initiated and/or completed since the development of the Plan in 1993.

In addition, the following issues have been identified by local community and planning professionals that affect the mobility of people and goods within Plant City.

• Neighborhood access around rail lines,

• Excess downtown vehicular traffic,

• Truck traffic in downtown,

• Transportation disadvantaged needs,

• Connectivity and continuity of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and

• Goods movement needs of industrial development areas.

In response to the changing land use and transportation picture in Plant City, the City of Plant City has requested the assistance of the Hillsborough County MPO to update the Plant City Multi-Modal Transportation Needs Plan prepared in 1993.

This study evaluates transportation mobility within Plant City for all modes of transportation including roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel. Based on this analysis, specific recommendations are provided to assist the City of Plant City address its transportation mobility needs today and in the future.

The study focuses on Plant City and an area beyond the existing jurisdictional limits. The study boundaries are Knights-Griffin Road (CR 582) to the north, Trapnell Road to the south, Branch Forbes Road to the west, and the Hillsborough-Polk County Line to the east.

Roadway Recommendations

Today, Plant City’s roadway network, as a whole, operates at an acceptable level of service. However, projected traffic growth will create congested travel conditions in many areas of the city. Priority roadway improvements were developed based on the impact of the proposed projects on the traffic circulation within the city, the traffic relief provided to the city’s downtown core, the accessibility provided to destinations, and the estimated cost to

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

viii

implement the needed improvements. The resulting roadway priorities and the estimated improvement costs are listed in the table below.

Frequent train and truck traffic contributes to travel delays in Plant City’s downtown. Trucks share the roads with personal automobiles, and their size and weight affects driver and pedestrian mobility and safety. Reducing unnecessary vehicular traffic, especially truck traffic, can create a pedestrian-friendly, walkable environ-ment in the downtown. In addition to the roadway widening projects listed below, the following traffic control strategies can improve the mobility of truck traffic through the city.

• Install proper signage and pavement markings at the future Alexander Street Extension and Sam Allen Road intersection to redirect truck traffic heading southbound on SR 39. Trucks should be redirected to bypass the central city via Sam Allen Road and Park Road to south SR 39.

• Install proper signage and pavement markings at SR 39 and Alexander Street to redirect trucks traveling northbound to I-4 and to areas north of Plant City. Trucks should be redirected to bypass the central city via Jim Johnson Road, Park Road, and Sam Allen Road to north SR 39.

• Install signage on I-4, both east and west of SR 39, directing truck traffic to access SR 39 south of I-4 via Park Road.

• Improve the turning radius on the southeast corner and construct an auxiliary lane on the northbound approach to the intersection of Alexander Street and SR 39. The existing radius is insufficient for truckers navigating a northbound right-turn onto Alexander Street. The estimated construction cost of this improvement is $66,700.

• Improve the turning radius on the southwest corner; construct a deceleration lane on the eastbound approach, and an acceleration lane on the southbound exit from the intersection of Sam Allen Road and Park Road. This improvement would facilitate vehicular mobility, especially truck traffic, through the intersection. The estimated con-struction cost of this improvement is $105,800. If the improvement is implemented concurrent with the widening of Park Road between I-4 and Sam Allen Road, the acceleration lane will not be needed.

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

Roadway From To Improvement Estimated

Cost Alexander St. Ext. I-4 SR 39 New 4 Lane $74,150,000Park Road I-4 Sam Allen Road 2 to 4 Lanes $ 2,282,000Trapnell Road Old Mulberry Road County Line Road New 2 Lane $1,191,600Sam Allen Road Alexander St Ext. Park Road 2 to 4 Lanes $5,060,100

Rice Road Ext. Coronet Road Wiggins Road New 2 Lane (ROW for 4 Lanes) $6,831,200

Jim Johnson Rd Ext. Jim Johnson Road Trapnell Road New 4 Lane $4,587,900Trapnell Road SR 39 Jim Johnson Rd Ext. 2 to 4 Lanes $2,778,300


ix

As the city continues to grow, vehicular traffic and delays at the railroad crossings will increase. Recent railroad crossing closures have improved the speed of trains moving through Plant City, but at the cost of redirecting vehicular traffic to railroad crossings at Alexander and Wheeler Streets. This is contributing to significant traffic congestion on these streets. Plant City should work with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and CSX Transportation (CSXT) to evaluate the impacts of the recent railroad crossing closures on the traffic and pedestrian mobility in the city, and to identify strategies that could reduce traffic congestion in the downtown core. Consideration should be given to re-opening one or more of the crossings. In addition, the city should work with the MPO and FDOT to secure funding for the development of a linear park with dedicated pedestrian crossings to improve mobility in Plant City.

Public Transit Recommendations

Public transportation can play an important role in reducing traffic congestion. Efficient, effective, and safe transit service can complement

other travel modes and contribute positively to the social, environmental, and aesthetic elements of Plant City.

In October 1999, Plant City was awarded a $1 million Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant to fund the capital and operating expenses for a fixed route public transportation system within the city – a three year demonstration project.

Plant City and HARTline in cooperation with the Greater Plant City Chamber of Commerce initiated a study to design a transit system that effectively serves the residential community and businesses with available and projected funding sources.

The study included extensive com-munity efforts to gauge public support and to use their input to assist with the design of the transit system. The proposed transit route structure was developed based on the results of the household transportation survey; employer surveys and interviews; comments from community work-shops; and the location of work, shopping, and recreation areas.

The Plant City Commission in the fall of 2000 will consider implementation of the proposed local transit system. The following recommendations are provided should the city decide to proceed with implementation of the local transit system.

• Work with HARTline to implement a public information campaign within Plant City for the new local circulator service and the express bus service to Brandon and Tampa.

• Work with HARTline to provide for bus shelters along the local circulator route. The location of these shelters should be based on an “On-Off Boarding Survey” and other ridership data obtained from surveys of the proposed system.

• Work with the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD) to extend its service (Citrus Connection) into Plant City providing public transportation into Lakeland. This will require coordination with HARTline, LAMTD, Hillsborough County MPO, Polk County TPO, and the FDOT Districts I and VII to identify funding sources to implement the transit service.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

x

Congestion Management Strategies

There are measures that the city can institute to maintain mobility without costly capital improvements to the road network. The following congestion management strategies are recom-mended to improve the efficiency of the existing transportation system without requiring major new construction.

• Work with Bay Area Commuter Services, Inc., to expand ride-sharing programs for city residents and businesses.

• Continue to work with the Hillsborough County MPO to identify funds to study and implement needed intersection improvements.

Pedestrian Mobility Considerations

Transportation improvements that provide for bicycle and pedestrian mobility needs are gaining increasing consideration as part of both the state and local transportation system. While sidewalk maintenance is an important part of the city’s efforts to improve the

safety and mobility of pedestrians, providing new sidewalks is also an important element of improving the walking environment within Plant City.

Priority pedestrian needs were developed based on the priority assigned in the MPO Pedestrian Needs Assessment, the sidewalk needs expressed by the community, the accessibility of pedestrians to future transit stops and shelters, and the estimated cost to implement the needed improvements. The resulting sidewalk improvement priorities are listed in the following table.

SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

Priority Roadway From To Length (miles)

MPO Needs Assessment

Priority

Transit Access

Public Comment

Estimated Construction

Cost 1 Baker Street Alexander Street Whitehall Street 0.31 1 ✔ ✔ 74,0592 Alabama Street Evers Street SR 39 0.07 1 ✔ 17,2173 Alabama Street Maryland Avenue Park Road 0.25 1 ✔ 59,8474 Alsobrook Street Maryland Avenue Park Road 0.25 1 ✔ 59,8475 Grant Street Evers Street SR 39 0.13 1 ✔ 31,3986 Alexander Street Timberlane Drive Sammonds Road 0.81 3/4 ✔ ✔ 193,7247 Alexander Street SR 39 Jim Johnson Road 1.05 3 ✔ ✔ 251,5088 Park Road Alsobrook Street US 92 0.81 1 ✔ 193,7249 Mud Lake Road Alexander Street Paddocks Drive 0.29 5 ✔ ✔ 69,917

10 Grant Street* Gibbs Street Tyler Street 0.08 3 ✔ 19,251* Plant City recently tried to construct a sidewalk here. There is insufficient right-of-way and the homeowner elected not to provide the easement. MPO Needs Assessment Priority: 1=High Priority; 5=Low Priority Note: These segments do not have sidewalks on either side of the road.


xi

The Hillsborough County Pedestrian System Needs Assessment prioritizes several pedestrian safety improvement programs based on the benefits gained and the cost to implement each program. The city should implement one or more of the following safety improvement programs that are listed in priority order in terms of benefit to cost ratio.

• Pedestrian awareness information provided in traffic reports

• School and community traffic safety awareness programs and presentations

• Information displays

• Pedestrian traffic safety education • Creation of citizen watch groups • Creation of parent/neighborhood

safety programs • Increase law enforcement and

reporting

Bicycle Mobility Considerations

Providing a safe, interconnected system of bicycle facilities can reduce traffic congestion and improve the quality of life of a community. Priority bicycle facilities were developed based on the Interaction Hazard Score (IHS) and Latent Demand Scores (LDS) assigned

for each facility in the Comprehensive Bicycle Plan, connectivity to existing bicycle facilities, and the estimated cost to implement the needed improve-ments. The IHS represents how comfortable (safe) a cyclist feels riding on a roadway. The lower the score, the more comfortable a cyclist feels. The LDS represents the probability of cyclists using the roadway segment if there were no impedance from motor vehicles. Higher scores represent higher demand for cyclists. The re-sulting bicycle facility improvement priorities are listed in the table below. Four-foot paved shoulders with proper signing and pavement markings are

BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

Priority Roadway From To IHS LDS Cost Estimate

1 Frontage Road North SR 39 East of SR 39 4 6 $12,2562 Frontage Road South SR 39 East of SR 39 7 6 $12,2563 Woodrow Wilson Blvd CSX Railroad Crossing US 92 3 7 $66,3994 Sammonds Road SR 574 Woodrow Wilson Blvd 9 4 $87,4325 Alabama Street Evers Street Park Road 5 9 $137,0276 Evers Street Grant Street Alabama Street 7 9 $61,9407 Grant Street Alexander Street Evers Street 7 7 $109,3418 Sam Allen Road SR 39 East of SR 39 7 1 $12,2569 Wilder Road US 92 Frontage Road South 1 2 $138,271

10 Sam Allen Road Branch Forbes Road SR 39 4 1 $424,40311 Thonotosassa Road Baker Street Branch Forbes Road 8 7 $403,45812 Woodrow Wilson Blvd US 92 Thonotosassa Road 3 7 $33,01313 Branch Forbes Road Thonotosassa Road Sam Allen Road 12 0 $60,69814 Sydney Road Branch Forbes Road Airport Road 4 0 $368,137

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xii

recommended for these roadways.

The following additional strategies are recommended to improve bicycle safety and mobility within Plant City.

• An appointment by Plant City to fill its seat on the Hillsborough County MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) is encouraged. This will give the City of Plant City a voice in prioritizing needed pedestrian and bicycle facilities within Hillsborough County.

• Policies should be established to include bicycle and pedestrian improvements as a standard part of all new, major reconstruction roadway designs. For improve-ment projects on State and County roadways, the city should coordinate with the appropriate implementing agency to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are considered.

• Land Development Regulations should be revised to include provisions for bicycle parking and storage facilities that are sheltered, accessible, convenient, and secure at major destinations, including

shopping areas, and employment and recreation centers, to encourage more bicyclists.

• Bicycle education and safety programs are an important part of traffic safety. It is recommended that bicycle safety education be incorporated into the school curriculum for elementary school children through high school. Driver's education classes should emphasize the skills and importance of motorist safety when sharing the roadway with bicyclists.

• Traffic safety bicycle rodeos emphasize traffic safety skills to children and other bicyclists. It is recommended that law enforcement agencies work with the BPAC as an information resource on how to stage a rodeo in Plant City.


1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Plant City is the hub of eastern Hillsborough County (Figure 1). Incorporated in 1885, Plant City has grown over the past 115 years to its present size of 26 square miles. Its economy is based on agriculture and

diversified manufacturing. Over 90 manufacturing, distribution and warehouse facilities are located within the city. The predominant residential land use is single family. Plant City seeks an efficient transportation network that preserves the fabric and character of the community.

The estimated 1999 population for Plant City is 27,430. This represents a 2.1 percent average annual growth rate since 1990 – a higher growth rate than Hillsborough County as a whole. Over the next 20 years, Plant City is projected to continue to grow faster than Hillsborough County. The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission estimates the 2020 population for Plant City to be 38,200.

The City of Plant City’s employment base is also growing. Favorable geography and comparatively low labor and land development costs have made Plant City a desirable location for the distribution and manufacturing sectors in response to one of the fastest growing regions in the country. The projected 2020 employment for the City of Plant City is approximately 20,370.

Plant City's shift to a desirable residential community as well as a distribution center for West Central Florida is the result of strong economic leadership. The projected growth of Plant City’s population and economy

FIGURE 1

CITY OF PLANT CITY, FLORIDA

CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-2

will place a demand on the transportation network resulting in the need for future improvements. The Future Land Use Map for the City of Plant City is shown on Map 1.

1.1 Why Update the Plan? • In February 1993, the Hillsborough

County City-County Planning Commission in cooperation with the Hillsborough County MPO and the City of Plant City developed the Plant City Multi-Modal Transportation Needs Plan. This Plan recommended achievable activities to maintain and improve the mobility of people and goods in Plant City in a safe and efficient manner, including measures to:

• Improve traffic circulation in Plant City,

• Decrease unnecessary vehicular traffic through the downtown,

• Increase pedestrian and bicycle mobility, and

• Provide alternatives to single occupant vehicles.

Since the completion of the Plan, economic changes, new studies, and community issues have influenced the long-range transportation needs in Plant City. New commercial and residential developments have created increased travel demand on Plant

City’s transportation system. Several transportation studies have been initiated and/or completed since the development of the Plan in 1993. These include the following studies:

• Access Management Plan for SR 39 South (Ongoing)

• SR 39/Alexander Street PD&E Study (Ongoing)

• Plant City Transit Circulator Proposal (Ongoing)

• Jobs Access Plan for Hillsborough County (Ongoing)

• Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (May 2000)

• City of Plant City Comprehensive Plan (May 1999)

• 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan (November 1998)

• Hillsborough County Pedestrian Needs Assessment (November 1998)

• Hillsborough Mobility Major Investment Study (March 1998)

• Hillsborough County Truck Route Plan (January 1995)

• Hillsborough County Bicycle Plan (April 1994)

Two Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) that contribute to the employment growth in Plant City are Consolidated Minerals, located in the southeast quadrant of Park Road and US 92, and Walden Woods Industrial Park, located in the southwest quadrant of Alexander Street and Jim Johnson Road. Both developments contain a mixture of commercial, office, and industrial uses.

Another older industrial complex on the southwest part of the city attracts passenger car and truck traffic to the area. More than 20 industrial businesses are located in the area bound by Turkey Creek Road, Martin Luther King Boulevard, Woodrow Wilson Boulevard, and Sydney Road.


1-3

EVE

RS S

T

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

I-4

TRAPNELL RD

FOR

BES

RD

SR 39

PAR

K R

D

SAM ALLEN RD

RICE RD

US HWY 92

SYDNEY RD

AIRPORT RD

ALE

XAN

DER

ST

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

TUR

KEY

CR

EEK

RD

WILD

ER

RD

BAKER ST

CORONET RDM L KING BLVD

THONOTOSASSA RD

MU

D LA

KE R

D

MEDULLA RDN

WH

EELER

ST

ALABAMA ST

SAMMONDS RD

JIM JO

HN

SON

RD

ALEX

AND

ER

ST E

XT

ALSOBROOK ST

OLD

MU

LBER

RY

JAP TU

CKE

R R

D

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

PARK RD EXTENSION

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N B

LVD

M L KING BLVD

SR

39

THONOTOSASSA RD

US HWY 92

DATA SOURCES: Basemap, roads, water from Hil lsborough CountyEngineering Services. Parcel lines and data from Hillsborough CountyProperty Appraiser. Wetlands from SWFWMD, Significant WildlifeHabitat from Planning and Development Management basedon satellite imagery. Only Wetlands greater than 40 acres depicted.REPRODUCTION: This sheet may not be reproduced in part or full forsale to anyone without specific approval of the Hil lsborough CountyCity-County Planning Commission.ACCURACY: It is intended that theaccuracy of the base map comply with U.S. national map accuracystandards. However, such accuracy is not guaranteed by theHillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. This map isfor illustrative purposes only. For the most current data andinformation, see the appropriate source.

Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\pcflu.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

MAP 1

PLANT CITY MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION

NEEDS PLAN

2015 FUTURE LAND USE

e

Plant City Land UseCOMMERCIAL (20 DU/ACRE, FAR.35)DOWNTOWN CORERESIDENTIAL - 20 (20 DU/ACRE, FAR.35)INDUSTRIAL (FAR.50)RESIDENTIAL - 6 (6 DU/ACRE, FAR.25)RESIDENTIAL - 12 (12 DU/ACRE, FAR.35)MAJOR PUBLIC / SEMI PUBLICMAJOR RECREATION AND OPEN SPACERESIDENTIAL - 4 (4 DU/ACRE)WATERFUTURE ROADSEXISTING ROADS

CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-4

In addition, the following issues have been identified by local community and planning professionals that affect the mobility of people and goods within Plant City.

• Neighborhood access around rail lines,

• Excess downtown vehicular traffic,

• Truck traffic in downtown,

• Transportation disadvantaged needs,

• Connectivity and continuity of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and

• Goods movement needs of industrial development areas.

In response to the changing land use and transportation picture in Plant City, the City of Plant City has requested the assistance of the Hillsborough County MPO to update the Plant City Multi-Modal Transportation Needs Plan prepared in 1993.

1.2 Study Area

This study focuses on Plant City and an area beyond the existing jurisdictional limits. The study boundaries are Knights-Griffin Road (CR 582) to the north, Trapnell Road to the south, Branch Forbes Road to the west, and the Hillsborough-Polk County Line to the east.


2-1

2.0 ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 Existing Travel Conditions

Today, Plant City's roadway network, as a whole, operates at an acceptable level of service. The operating conditions on several streets in the downtown core including Wheeler, Collins, and Evers Streets are beginning to deteriorate due to the increase in daily traffic. The daily operating conditions on the roadway network in the study area are shown on Map 2, Existing Level of Service.

Wheeler Street is the only roadway in the city where the daily operating conditions have deteriorated to an unacceptable level of service (LOS F). Level of Service F is characterized by a breakdown in traffic flow. However, these level of service calculations do not consider the impact of train movements on local traffic. During those times of the day when trains are traversing the city, the operational conditions of the roadway network are further degraded.

The existing traffic volumes on the current transportation network in the city are shown in Appendix A1.

2.2 Programmed Roadway Improvements

In response to the growth of regional and local traffic projected to occur over the next five years, state and local governments have programmed improvement projects in or near the city that will impact future travel conditions. These projects are sum-marized below and shown on Map 3.

(1) Alexander Street between Baker Street (US 92) and I-4

The Florida Department of Trans-portation is currently in the design phase for roadway improvements to Alexander Street between Baker Street (US 92) and I-4. This segment is approximately one mile in length and involves expanding the existing two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided facility. The project includes four-foot paved shoulders and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. The right-of-way acquisition

is scheduled for fiscal year 2001/02 with an estimated cost of $4.1 million, and construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2003/04 with an estimated cost of $5.2 million.

(2) County Line Road between I-4 and Medulla Road

• Drane Field Road to Medulla Road

Construction is underway to widen County Line Road between Drane Field Road and Medulla Road, approx-imately 1.0 mile in length, from two to four lanes. This improvement is being funded through a Polk County intermodal grant and the FDOT.

• CR 542 to I-4

Polk County is widening County Line Road between CR 542 and I-4 from two to four lanes using funds from its Economic Development Fund. This segment is approximately 0.5 mile in length and is scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2000/01.

CHAPTER 2.0 ROADWAY CONSIDERATIONS

2-2

EVE

RS S

T

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

I-4

TRAPNELL RD

FOR

BES

RD

SR 39

PAR

K R

D

SAM ALLEN RD

RICE RD

US HWY 92

SYDNEY RD

AIRPORT RD

ALE

XAN

DER

ST

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

TUR

KEY

CR

EEK

RD

WILD

ER

RD

BAKER ST


THONOTOSASSA RD

MU

D LA

KE R

D

MEDULLA RD

N W

HE

ELER S

T

ALABAMA ST

SAMMONDS RD

JIM JO

HN

SON

RD

ALEX

AND

ER

ST E

XT

ALSOBROOK ST

OLD

MU

LBER

RY

JAP TU

CKE

R R

D

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

PARK RD EXTENSION

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N B

LVD

M L KING BLVD

SR

39

THONOTOSASSA RD

US HWY 92

DATA SOURCES: Basemap, roads, water from Hillsborough CountyEngineering Services. Parcel lines and data f rom Hillsborough CountyProperty Appraiser. Wetlands from SWFWMD, Significant WildlifeHabitat from Planning and Development Management basedon satellite imagery. Only Wetlands greater than 40 acres depicted.REPRODUCTION: This sheet may not be reproduced in part or full forsale to anyone without specific approval of the Hillsborough CountyCity-County Planning Commission.ACCURACY: It is intended that theaccuracy of the base map comply with U.S. national map accuracystandards. However, such accuracy is not guaranteed by theHillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. This map isfor illustrative purposes only. For the most current data andinformation, see the appropriate source.

Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\pcaltlos.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

e

MAP 2

PLANT CITY MULTI-MODALTRANSPORTATION

NEEDS PLAN

EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE(YEAR 2000)

JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIESHILLSBOROUGH COUNTYPLANT CITYFUTUREEXISTING

ABCDEF


2-3

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

US HWY 92

THONOTOSASSA RD

SR 39

M L KING BLVD

WO

ODR

OW

WILSO

N BLVD

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RDPARK RD EXTENSION

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

JAP TU

CKER

RD

OLD

MU

LBER

RY

ALSOBROOK ST

ALEX AND

ER ST EX

T

JIM JO

HNS

ON

RD

SAMMONDS RD

ALABAMA ST

N W

HEE

LER S

T

MEDULLA RD

MUD

LAKE R

D

THONOTOSASSA RD

M L KING BLVD

CORONET RD

BAKER ST

WILD

ER R

D

TUR

KEY

CRE

EK R

D

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

ALEXAN

DER

STAIRPORT RD

SYDNEY RD

US HWY 92

RICE RD

SAM ALLEN RD

PARK

RD

SR 39

FOR

BES R

D

TRAPNELL RD

I-4

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

EVER

S ST

DATA SOURCES: Basemap, roads, water from Hillsborough CountyEngineering Services. Parcel lines and data from Hillsborough CountyProperty Appraiser. Wetlands from SWFWMD, Significant WildlifeHabitat from Planning and Development Management basedon satellite imagery. Only Wetlands greater than 40 acres depicted.REPRODUCTION: This sheet may not be reproduced in part or full forsale to anyone without specific approval of the Hillsborough CountyCity-County Planning Commission.ACCURACY: It is intended that theaccuracy of the base map comply with U.S. national map accuracystandards. However, such accuracy is not guaranteed by theHillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. This map isfor illustrat ive purposes only. For the most current data andinformation, see the appropriate source.

Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\new\tipquick.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

MAP 3


NEEDS PLAN

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTSSCHEDULED IN FIVE YEAR

JURISDICTIONAL WORKPROGRAMS

FUTUREEXISTING

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

PLANT CITY

PD&E PROJECTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY PROJECTS

CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

e


2-4

• Medulla Road south to the realignment of Medulla Road

Polk County is also widening County Line Road between Medulla Road and the future Medulla Road realignment from two to four lanes. This segment is approximately 0.23 mile in length and is scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2003/04.

(3) I-4 and Alexander Street Interchange

FDOT has scheduled an interchange improvement on I-4 at Alexander Street. This improvement will provide an additional westbound on-ramp to the heavily traveled and recently widened I-4. This improvement will influence travel patterns on both Alexander Street and the other roadways with direct access to I-4.

Right-of-way acquisition for this improvement is underway and construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2003/04. The estimated costs for right-of-way acquisition and construction are $580,000 and $1 million, respectively.

(4) Alexander Street Extension between I-4 and SR 39

FDOT is conducting a Project Develop-ment and Environment (PD&E) Study for 13.5 miles of SR 39 from I-4 north to US 301. A focus of this study is to identify the best alignment for a proposed extension of Alexander Street. The PD&E Study includes the following recommended improve-ments:

• Extending Alexander Street 1.5 miles northward as a four-lane divided facility to connect with SR 39 in the vicinity of Joe McIntosh Road;

• Realigning SR 39 north of Sam Allen Road to curve westward and intersect with the Alexander Street Extension as a “T” intersection.

The project design is scheduled for fiscal year 2000/01 with an estimated cost of $810,000, and right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2002/03 with a cost of $20.5 million. Construction is not funded in the adopted FDOT Five-Year Work Program.

(5) Park Road from I-4 to Sam Allen Road

Park Road from I-4 to Sam Allen Road is currently a two-lane facility approximately 0.8 mile in length. FDOT has programmed funds to study expanding this section of Park Road to a four-lane divided facility. This improvement will complement other improvements to provide a high capacity alternative route around the downtown core of Plant City.

The PD&E Study for this roadway expansion project is funded in the FDOT's Adopted Five-Year Work Program in fiscal year 2001/02 with an estimated cost of $600,000.

2.3 Constraints to Future Improvements

Some roadways may warrant capacity improvements due to future travel demand, but cannot be widened due to physical, economic, or social factors. Therefore, identifying constraints to widening these roadways is an important consideration for developing a community action plan for future


2-5

transportation improvements. A roadway can be classified as constrained based on its impact to the environment, neighborhoods, and historic areas, as well as due to policy and/or economic considerations.

Table 1 lists the roadways in the Plant City area that are either currently classified as constrained or have been proposed by the City of Plant City for inclusion on the Constrained Roadways list. These roadways are also shown on Map 4.

2.4 Alternative Future Networks

2.4.1 The "Do Nothing" Alternative

If Plant City continues to grow at its current rate, the projected vehicular traffic would create congested travel conditions in many areas of the city. To estimate travel conditions in Plant City in twenty years, a “do nothing” alternative was tested. The “do nothing” or “existing plus committed”

alternative estimates future travel

conditions in the city for the year 2020 if no additional roadway improvements other than those currently identified in the Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program are implemented. This evaluation forms a baseline for comparing and analyzing other transportation improvement alterna-tives.

Map 5 shows the estimated traffic expressed in Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on the roadways in Plant City under this alternative. Appendix A1 lists the projected traffic volumes for each roadway in this alternative.

2.4.2 Adopted 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan

The Hillsborough County MPO Adopted 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan estimates travel conditions in Plant City in the year 2020. This alternative includes the existing plus committed transportation network along with the following two additional improvements.

TABLE 1

CONSTRAINED ROADWAYS

Roadway From To Constraint Sam Allen Road McIntosh Road SR 39 Policy Wheeler Street US 92 I-4 Historic Area / ROW Park Road US 92 I-4 Policy Knights-Griffin Rd McIntosh Road SR 39 Policy Baker Street* Thonotosassa Rd. S. Park Road Historic Area / ROW Reynolds Street* Thonotosassa Rd. S. US 92 Historic Area / ROW Thonotosassa Rd* Baker Street Reynolds Street Historic Area / ROW Collins Street* US 92 Alabama Street Historic Area / ROW

* The City of Plant City proposes these facilities for inclusion on the Constrained Roadways list.


2-6

US HWY 92

THONOTOSASSA RD

SR

39

M L KING BLVD

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N B

LVD

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RDPARK RD EXTENSION

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

JAP TU

CKE

R R

D

OLD

MU

LBER

RY

ALSOBROOK ST

ALEX

AND

ER

ST E

XT

JIM JO

HN

SON

RD

SAMMONDS RD

ALABAMA ST

N W

HE

ELER S

T

MEDULLA RD

MU

D LA

KE R

D

THONOTOSASSA RD

M L KING BLVD

CORONET RD

BAKER ST

WILD

ER

RD

TUR

KEY

CR

EEK

RD

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

ALE

XAN

DER

STAIRPORT RD

SYDNEY RD

US HWY 92

RICE RD

SAM ALLEN RD

PAR

K R

D

SR 39

FOR

BES

RD

TRAPNELL RD

I-4

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

EVE

RS S

T

DATA SOURCES: Basemap, roads, water f rom Hillsborough CountyEngineering Services. Parcel lines and data from Hillsborough CountyProperty Appraiser. Wetlands from SWFWMD, Significant WildlifeHabitat from Planning and Development Management basedon satellite imagery. Only Wetlands greater than 40 acres depicted.REPRODUCTION: This sheet may not be reproduced in part or full forsale to anyone without specific approval of the Hillsborough CountyCity-County Planning Commission.ACCURACY: It is intended that theaccuracy of the base map comply with U.S. national map accuracystandards. However, such accuracy is not guaranteed by theHillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. This map isfor illustrat ive purposes only. For the most current data andinformation, see the appropriate source.

Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\new\pccons.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

(Right of Way)CONSTRAINED ROADS

(Policy)CONSTRAINED ROADS

EXISTINGFUTUREPLANT CITYHILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES

MAP 4


NEEDS PLAN

CONSTRAINED ROADS

e

CONSTRAINED ROADS(Proposed)


2-7


Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\new\aadteplusc.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

3297

I-4

TRAPNELL RD

FOR

BES RD

SR 3 9

PAR

K RD

SAM ALLEN RD

RICE RD

US HWY 92

SYDNEY RD

AIRPORT RD

ALE

XAND

ER ST

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

TUR

KEY

CR

EEK

RD

WILDE

R RD

BAKER ST


THONOTOSASSA RD

MU

D LAK

E RD

MEDULLA RD

N WH

EELER

STEV

ERS S

T

ALABAMA ST

JIM JO

HN

SON

RD

ALSOBROOK ST

OLD

MU

LBER

RY

JAP TUC

KER RD

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

PARK RD EXTENSION

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N B

LVD

SR 39

THONOTOSASSA RD

US HWY 92

WILDE

R RD

14647

7967

9646

5378

7419

5436 4847

3184

3965

124482

5582

5977

8522

4504

3638 3604

1788

4700

2074

7601

5844

4759

7274

7328

14357

25307

7887

4309 138319

5556

16195

134946

18454

4426

7729

3271

8808

2679

14782

13475

8329

25667

55216192

7615

21051

10623

15221

10038

9899

15472

2582

4502

8309

2761

1784

11787

5735

16341

14108

2857618843

11996

16225

28822

18967

24885

112018

13715

13187

39193899

8368

9256

14 6 59

4320

11094

8063297

11660 7160

2264

140 94

14477

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

e

PLANT CITYHILLSBOROUGH COUNTY


246 2020 AADT

MAP 5


NEEDS PLAN

EXISTING PLUS COMMITTEDNETWORK TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS

(AADT)

EXISTING NUMBER OF LANES1 LANE

4 LANES6 LANES

2 LANES

COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN WITH A DASHED LINE

-


2-8

• A four-lane Alexander Street Extension from I-4 to SR 39, and

• A four-lane Park Road from I-4 to Sam Allen Road.

The impact of these transportation improvements on Plant City’s roadway network by the year 2020 is shown on Map 6. This graphic depicts the projected increase or decrease in traffic on the roadway network resulting from the implementation of the above-listed improvements. The benefits include reduced traffic in the city’s downtown core and enhanced access to the Interstate system. The Alexander Street Extension and Park Road improve-ments provide traffic relief to N. Wheeler Street and SR 39 south of I-4. The Alexander Street project also enhances vehicular access to I-4, which should reduce traffic congestion on Thonotosassa Road. Appendix A1 lists the projected traffic volumes for each roadway in this alternative.

While the travel demand model is a good planning tool to estimate the impact of transportation improvements for passenger cars, it currently does not predict truck traffic well. The Alexander Street Extension and Park

Road improvement projects should provide additional benefits by reducing the truck traffic in the downtown core and improving the mobility of trucks traversing the city.

2.4.3 2020 “Loop” Alternative

The 2020 “Loop” alternative was evaluated to estimate travel conditions on Plant City’s roadway network in the year 2020. This alternative estimates mobility within the city if the following roadway improvements were im-plemented in addition to those included in the adopted 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. This analysis provides a tool to prioritize future roadway improvements in Plant City based on the projected impact of the project on future traffic.

The following additional roadway improvements were tested in this alternative. The itemized cost estimates for each roadway im-provement are shown below and included in Appendix A2.

(1) Rice Road Extension from Coronet Road to Wiggins Road


2-9

This roadway segment is approximately 1.7 miles in length. This proposed two-lane improvement would provide an alternative east-west connection between Lakeland (and the Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport) and Plant City. It relieves traffic on US 92 and provides access to proposed new developments on the west side of Lakeland. The estimated construction cost (for a two-lane roadway) and right-of-way acquisition cost (for future expansion to four lanes) is $6,831,200.

(2) Sam Allen Road from the Alexander Street Extension to Park Road

This proposed roadway improvement, approximately 1.8 miles in length, widens Sam Allen Road between the future Alexander Street Extension to Park Road from two to four lanes. This proposed expansion project would improve mobility for passenger cars and trucks traveling north and south to bypass Plant City’s downtown area. The estimated cost for construction and right-of-way acquisition is $5,060,100.


2-10


Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\new\aadtadopted.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

I-4

TRAPNELL RD

FOR

BES

RD

SR 39

PAR

K R

D

SAM ALLEN RD

RICE RD

US HWY 92

SYDNEY RD

AIRPORT RD

ALE

XAN

DER

ST

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

TUR

KEY

CR

EEK

RD

WILD

ER

RD

BAKER ST


THONOTOSASSA RD

MU

D LA

KE R

D

MEDULLA RD

N W

HE

ELER S

TE

VER

S ST

ALABAMA ST

JIM JO

HN

SON

RD

ALSOBROOK ST

OLD

MU

LBER

RY

JAP TU

CKE

R R

D

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

PARK RD EXTENSION

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N B

LVD

SR

39

THONOTOSASSA RD

US HWY 92

WILD

ER

RD

-5

91

271

72 7756 69

21

-223

919

-11

450

1268

-23

-44

782

-259

-356

-109

116

161

-4835

-2344

-132

728

2152 7

3148

-93

216

-56

-154

-300

157

184 74

969

-1387

300

2607

297

-540

2748

3663

129 45

-399

700378

391

243238

621

899

245

323384

1003

-355

-834

-1746-283

-950

1172

-347-1811

815

-1080

190

775

36

-8906

-928

-138

-196

-15

2219

1286

0

157

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

e



246 TRAFFIC DIFFERENCE WHEN COMPARED TO E+C NETWORK


4 LANES6 LANES

2 LANES

DASHED LINES REPRESENT NUMBER OF LANES FOR COMMITTED AND PROPOSED FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

MAP 6


NEEDS PLAN

TRAFFIC IMPACT OF PLANNEDIMPROVEMENTS IN THE

ADOPTED 2020 LONG RANGETRANSPORTATION PLAN

(AADT)


2-11

(3) Jim Johnson Road Extension south to Trapnell Road

This proposed roadway improvement extends Jim Johnson Road as a new four-lane roadway from its current north-south alignment to Trapnell Road. This improvement, approx-imately 1.1 miles in length, runs adjacent to a CSX railroad line. It provides an alternative route for truck traffic to bypass local traffic within the core area of Plant City. The estimated cost for construction and right-of-way acquisition is $4,587,900.

An alternative to this improvement includes four-laning Jap Tucker Road with a smoother connection to Jim Johnson Road. This should be considered as part of any future corridor study.

(4) Trapnell Road (SR 39 to Jim Johnson Road Extension)

This proposed roadway improvement, approximately 1.0 mile in length, widens Trapnell Road from SR 39 to the Jim Johnson Extension from two to four lanes. This improvement complements the Jim Johnson Extension by providing improved

mobility for truckers to bypass Plant City’s downtown area. The estimated cost for construction and right-of-way acquisition is $2,778,300.

(5) Trapnell Road Extension (Old Mulberry Road east to County Line Road)

This proposed roadway improvement extends Trapnell Road approximately 0.5 mile as a new two-lane roadway from Old Mulberry Road east to County Line Road. It enhances access to developments along County Line Road and to Lakeland. The estimated cost for construction and right-of-way acquisition is $1,191,600.

The traffic impact for the roadways within Plant City under the 2020 “Loop” Alternative is shown in Map 7. It depicts the projected increase or decrease in traffic on the roadway network resulting from implementation of the above-listed improvements when compared to the “do nothing” alternative. These improvements further reduce traffic in the City’s downtown core, provide enhanced access to Lakeland, and improve mobility for passenger cars and trucks.

Appendix A1 lists the projected traffic volumes for each roadway in this alternative.

2.4.4 Roadway Improvement Priorities

Roadway improvement priorities were developed based on the impact of the proposed projects on the traffic circulation within the city, the traffic relief provided to the city’s downtown core, the accessibility provided to destinations, and the estimated cost to implement the needed improvements. The resulting roadway priorities are listed in Table 2.

2.5 Balancing the Mobility of Freight and People

The efficient movement of freight is an important function of a transportation system and is vital to the economic vitality of Plant City. Trucks are an important means of sustaining the community by delivering products to stores for purchase; transporting raw materials and finished products for industries; hauling materials for the construction of roads, schools,


2-12



246 TRAFFIC DIFFERENCE WHENCOMPARED TO E+C NETWORK

MAP 7


NEEDS PLAN

TRAFFIC IMPACT OF IMPROVEMENTSINCLUDED IN THE 2020 "LOOP"

ALTERNATIVE(AADT)


4 LANES6 LANES

2 LANES

DASHED LINES REPRESENT NUMBER OF LANES FOR COMMITTED AND PROPOSED FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS


Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\new\aadtloop.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

I-4

TRAPNELL RD

FOR

BES RD

SR 3 9

PAR

K RD

SAM ALLEN RD

RICE RD

US HWY 92

SYDNEY RD

AIRPORT RD

ALEXA

NDE

R S

T

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

TUR

KEY

CR

EEK

RD

WILD

ER R

D

BAKER ST


THONOTOSASSA RD

MU

D LAK

E RD

MEDULLA RD

N WH

EE

LER S

TE

VER

S S

T

ALABAMA ST

SAMMONDS RD

JIM JO

HNS

ON

RD

ALSOBROOK ST

OLD

MU

LBE

RRY

JAP TU

CKE

R R

D

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

PARK RD EXTENSION

CO

UNTY

LIN

E R

D

WOO

DR

OW

WILSO

N BLVD

SR 39

THONOTOSASSA RD

US HWY 92

WILDE

R R

D

970

17

-870

-9

45

-165

-274

384

96

-324

-96

47

567

14

3442

-104

-400

-235

229

-2213

55422023 2

125

-2684

-1160

-220

968

-40

24

879

-1444

-2511

-502

143-162

-2739

-5097

687-479 111

1383

122 71

-472

-5989

-26

-20

3741

5500

530

232

330

546

350

-1445

291

7543

-368

69-625

-3735

-668

-494

-413

-185

3

-942

-2107

-675

2690

-5124

669640

-9 24 2

-960

-31

-599

-41

495

11823

8289

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

e


2-13

TABLE 2 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

Roadway From To Improvement Estimated Cost

Alexander St. Ext. I-4 SR 39 New 4 Lane $74,150,000Park Road I-4 Sam Allen Road 2 to 4 Lanes $2,282,000Trapnell Road Old Mulberry Road County Line Road New 2 Lane $1,191,600Sam Allen Road Alexander St Ext. Park Road 2 to 4 Lanes $5,060,100Rice Road Ext. Coronet Road Wiggins Road New 2 Lane (ROW for 4 Lanes) $6,831,200Jim Johnson Rd Ext. Jim Johnson Road Trapnell Road New 4 Lane $4,587,900Trapnell Road SR 39 Jim Johnson Rd Ext. 2 to 4 Lanes $2,778,300

businesses, and homes; and other important functions. Providing a safe, well planned transportation system to efficiently move goods and services while preserving personal mobility is becoming an increasingly significant transportation concern as the city continues to grow. Frequent train and truck traffic has contributed to travel delays in Plant City’s downtown. Trucks share the roads with personal automobiles, and their size and weight affects driver and pedestrian mobility and safety. Reducing unnecessary vehicular traffic, especially truck traffic, can create a pedestrian-friendly, walk-able environment in the downtown.

2.5.1 Truck Traffic

In January 1995, the Hillsborough County Truck Route Plan became effective. It was later amended in March 1998 and again in August 1999. The Plan identifies an interconnected system of roadways that can be used to transport goods throughout the County. Single unit trucks with three or more axles and non-passenger combination vehicles are regulated by the Plan. All regulated trucks must use the system of designated truck routes identified on the Plan.

Plant City is committed to preserving the historic, small-town character of its downtown.


2-14

The Truck Route Plan applies to all roadways within the unincorporated Hillsborough County. State and federal roadways are also identified in the Plan. The authority of local governments to regulate the type of traffic on roadways does not extend to state and federal roads. The Plan does not apply to any roads under the jurisdiction of Plant City. The city does not currently have any restrictions for truck traffic on local roads.

Map 8 shows the designated truck routes, active railroads, industrial areas, and the existing truck volumes in Plant City.

FDOT is currently implementing roadway improvements to Alexander Street between US 92 and I-4 and to the Alexander Street Extension between I-4 and SR 39. These improvements will create a major north-south corridor through Plant City via Alexander Street for both automobiles and trucks. The following factors will contribute to increased traffic congestion on Alexander Street between SR 39 (south of Plant City) and SR 39 (north of I-4):

• The proposed roadway improve-ments to Alexander Street will provide greater accessibility to I-4,

• New residential developments along Alexander Street will create additional local traffic, and

• The railroad crossing closures near downtown have redirected traffic to Alexander Street.

Additional truck traffic on Alexander Street will contribute to additional traffic congestion. Strategies should be considered to minimize truck traffic in the corridor.

Plant City has initiated discussions with the FDOT concerning the redesignation of Alexander Street to a state roadway, and the redesignation of Collins and Wheeler Streets (between Jim Johnson Road and the Alexander Street Extension) to a local roadway. This transfer of ownership agreement would occur after the Alexander Street Extension roadway improvements are complete. The FDOT has recently reclassified Alexander Street from a collector to an arterial roadway as an initial step to a future ownership transfer agreement with the city. If Alexander Street does become a state roadway, the city, in cooperation with the FDOT, should consider the

following traffic control strategies to redirect truck traffic off of Alexander Street and improve the mobility of truck traffic through the city.

• Install proper signage and pavement markings at the future Alexander Street Extension and Sam Allen Road intersection to redirect truck traffic heading southbound on SR 39. Trucks should be redirected to bypass the central city via Sam Allen Road and Park Road to south SR 39.

• Install proper signage and pavement markings at SR 39 and Alexander Street to redirect trucks traveling northbound to I-4 and to areas north of Plant City. Trucks should be redirected to bypass the central city via Jim Johnson Road, Park Road and Sam Allen Road to north SR 39.


• Improve the turning radius on the southeast corner and construct an auxiliary lane on the northbound approach to the intersection of


2-15

MAP 8


NEEDS PLAN

FREIGHT MOBILITY

DATA SOURCES: Basemap, roads, water f rom Hillsborough CountyEngineering Services. Parcel lines and data from Hillsborough CountyProperty Appraiser. Wetlands from SWFWMD, Significant WildlifeHabitat from Planning and Development Management basedon satellite imagery. Only Wetlands greater than 40 acres depicted.REPRODUCTION: This sheet may not be reproduced in part or full forsale to anyone without specific approval of the Hillsborough CountyCity-County Planning Commission.ACCURACY: It is intended that theaccuracy of the base map comply with U.S. national map accuracystandards. However, such accuracy is not guaranteed by theHillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. This map isfor illustrative purposes only. For the most current data andinformation, see the appropriate source.

Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\new\industrial.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIESHILLSBOROUGH COUNTYPLANT CITY

EXISTING INDUSTRIALAREAS

DESIGNATED TRUCKROUTES

ACTIVE RAILROADS

EXISTING TRUCK VOLUMES

#

#

###

##

# ###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#E

VER

S ST

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

I-4

TRAPNELL RD

FOR

BES

RD

SR 39

PAR

K R

D

SAM ALLEN RD

RICE RD

US HWY 92

SYDNEY RD

AIRPORT RD

ALE

XAN

DER

ST

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

TUR

KEY

CR

EEK

RD

WILD

ER

RD

BAKER ST


THONOTOSASSA RD

MU

D LA

KE R

D

MEDULLA RD

N W

HE

ELER S

T

ALABAMA ST

SAMMONDS RD

JIM JO

HN

SON

RD

ALEX

AND

ER

ST E

XT

ALSOBROOK ST

OLD

MU

LBER

RY

JAP TU

CKE

R R

D

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

PARK RD EXTENSION

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N B

LVD

M L KING BLVD

SR

39

THONOTOSASSA RD

US HWY 92

966

1441

427

495455

509

1111

723

492

552

606

962

1248

11542

2068

232

2744

176

1600

3293

273"S LI

NE"

"A LINE"

FUTUREEXISTING

#


2-16

Alexander Street and SR 39. The existing radius is insufficient for truckers navigating a northbound right-turn onto Alexander Street. The estimated construction cost of this improvement is $66,700.

• Improve the turning radius on the southwest corner and construct a deceleration lane on the eastbound approach and an acceleration lane on the southbound exit from the intersection of Sam Allen Road and Park Road. This improvement would facilitate vehicular mobility, especially truck traffic, through the intersection. The estimated construction cost of this improvement is $105,800. If the improvement is implemented concurrent with the widening of Park Road between I-4 and Sam Allen Road, the acceleration lane will not be needed.

2.5.2 Railroad Crossings

The railroads are an important part of the city's economy. Manufacturing and industrial facilities in the area can transport their goods by rail throughout the region at competitive costs. The railroads have contributed to the area’s

success in becoming a major distribution hub for the region.

There are two CSXT rail lines traversing Plant City - the "A" Line and the "S" Line. The "A" line is used to transport freight and is also used by Amtrak to carry passengers between Tampa and Jacksonville. The "S" line, which also runs between Tampa and Jacksonville, is used for transporting freight only. The active railroad lines in the study area are shown on Map 8.

The railroads, while important to the city's economy, have also contributed to traffic delays. The location of the rail lines, the frequency of train movements, and the duration of trains obstructing the railroad crossings all contribute to traffic congestion in Plant City. Excessive vehicle delay at the railroad crossings and traffic blockages within the downtown are frequent in Plant City. These train movements also hinder the mobility of emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks, police cars, and ambulances.

In the fall of 1999, Plant City in conjunction with CSXT and FDOT completed a switch relocation project to improve the railroad track and

switch along the “A” and “S” Lines. The improvements allowed trains to increase their travel speeds around the downtown curve from the previous maximum of 8 miles per hour to approximately 20 miles per hour.

Recently, the City of Plant City entered into a three-party agreement with CSXT and FDOT to close several railroad crossings within Plant City. The purpose of the closings was to further increase the speed of trains through the downtown area and to create a linear park along the railroad corridors. Over the past year, the following seven railroad crossings have been closed:

• Ohio Street

• Herring Street

• Davis Street (A line)

• Howard Street (A line)

• Walker Street (A line)

• Franklin Street (S line)

• Daniels Street (S line)

The closing of these crossings has improved the speed of trains moving through Plant City, but at the cost of redirecting vehicular traffic to the


2-17

remaining railroad crossings at Wheeler and Alexander Streets. This is contributing to significant traffic congestion on these streets. In addition, the lack of dedicated railroad pedestrian crossings is isolating the residential neighborhoods from the downtown area, as well as the industrial and commercial establishments on Martin Luther King Boulevard.

As the city continues to grow, vehicular traffic and delays at the railroad crossings will increase. Plant City should work with the FDOT and CSXT to evaluate the impacts of the recent

railroad crossing closures on traffic and pedestrian mobility in the city, and to identify strategies that could improve traffic congestion in the downtown core. Consideration should be given to re-opening one or more of the crossings. In addition, the city should work with the FDOT to secure funding for the

development of a linear park with dedicated pedestrian crossings to improve pedestrian mobility in the area.

2.6 Funding Sources

The Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds within the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) can be used to implement the identified priority roadway improvements. These improvements, however, must compete for funding with other transportation improvement projects throughout Hillsborough County. Local funding sources from

Plant City and Hillsborough County may be needed to implement these roadway improvements.

2.7 Roadway Recommendations

1. The City of Plant City should work with the FDOT, Hillsborough County, and the Hillsborough County MPO to secure funding to implement the priority roadway improvements listed in Table 2. Inclusion of these improvements in a Long Range Transportation Plan or Transportation Improvement Program will require an air quality conformity analysis.

2. The city, in cooperation with the FDOT, should consider the following traffic control strategies to redirect truck traffic off of Alexander Street and improve the mobility of truck traffic through the city.

• Install proper signage and pavement markings at the future Alexander Street Extension and Sam Allen Road intersection to redirect truck traffic heading southbound on SR 39. Trucks


2-18

should be redirected to bypass the central city via Sam Allen Road and Park Road to south SR 39.

• Install proper signage and pavement markings at SR 39 and Alexander Street to redirect trucks traveling northbound to I-4 and to areas north of Plant City. Trucks should be redirected to bypass the central city via Jim Johnson Road, Park Road, and Sam Allen Road to north SR 39.


• Improve the turning radius on the southeast corner and construct an auxiliary lane on the northbound approach to the intersection of Alexander Street and SR 39. The existing radius is insufficient for truckers navigating a northbound right-turn onto Alexander Street. The estimated construction cost of this improvement is $66,700.

• Improve the turning radius on the southwest corner, construct a deceleration lane on the eastbound approach, and an acceleration lane on the southbound exit from the intersection of Sam Allen Road and Park Road. This improvement would facilitate vehicular mobility, especially truck traffic, through the intersection. The estimated construction cost of this improvement is $105,800. If the improvement is implemented concurrent with the widening of Park Road between I-4 and Sam Allen Road, the acceleration lane will not be needed.

3. As the city continues to grow, vehicular traffic and delays at the railroad crossings will increase. Recent railroad crossing closures have improved the speed of trains moving through Plant City, but at the cost of redirecting vehicular traffic to railroad crossings at Alexander and Wheeler Streets. This is contributing to significant traffic congestion on these streets.

Plant City should work with the FDOT and CSXT to evaluate the impacts of

the recent railroad crossing closures on traffic and pedestrian mobility in the city, and to identify strategies that could improve traffic congestion in the downtown core. Consideration should be given to reopening one or more of the crossings. In addition, the city should work with the FDOT to secure funding for the development of a linear park with dedicated pedestrian crossings to improve mobility in Plant City.


2-20

#

EV

ERS

ST

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

I-4

TRAPNELL RD

FOR

BES

RD

SR 3 9

PA

RK

RD

SAM ALLEN RD

RICE RD

US HWY 92

SYDNEY RD

AIRPORT RD

ALE

XA

ND

ER

ST

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

TU

RK

EY C

REE

K R

D

WILD

ER

RD

BAKER ST


THONOTOSASSA RD

MU

D LAK

E R

D

MEDULLA RD

N W

HE

ELE

R S

T

ALABAMA ST

SAMMONDS RD

JIM JO

HN

SO

N R

D

ALE

XA

ND

ER

ST

EX

T

ALSOBROOK ST

OLD

MU

LBE

RR

Y

JAP TU

CK

ER

RD

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

PARK RD EXTENSION

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N B

LVD

M L KING BLVD

SR

39

THONOTOSASSA RD

US HWY 92

#


Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\new\pcrecommended.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

TWO LANE FACILITIES

FOUR LANE FACILITIES

EXISTINGFUTURE



MAP 9


NEEDS PLAN

RECOMMENDED ROADWAYIMPROVEMENT NEEDS

e

# INTERSECTIONIMPROVEMENTS


3-1

3.0 PUBLIC TRANSIT

Population and employment pro-jections for the year 2020 suggest that increased travel demand will outpace the city’s ability to fund all of the needed improvements to its roadway network. Providing transportation cap-acity through roadway improvements alone will impact the community's environmental, neighborhood, and fiscal assets. In the future, the city should not rely on the single-occupant vehicle as the exclusive mode of transportation.

Public transportation can play an important role in reducing traffic congestion. Efficient, effective, and safe transit service can complement other travel modes and contribute positively to the social, environmental, and aesthetic elements of Plant City. This chapter examines the role of public transportation for Plant City.

3.1 Existing Service

3.1.1 Bus Service

Currently, Plant City does not have fixed-route scheduled transit service within the city limits. The Hills-borough Area Regional Transit Authority (HARTline) extends express bus service to Branch Forbes Road, just outside of the city limits, on Route 28X.

Route 28X, the Seffner/Dover Express, carries transit patrons between Branch Forbes Road and Downtown Tampa.

This route makes four stops, commencing at Branch Forbes Road and US 92. This route has three departures in the morning and two arrivals in the evening. All buses on this route are wheelchair accessible and have bicycle racks. Tables 3 and 4 list the departures and arrivals for Route 28X, respectively.

Between October 1999 and May 2000, the average monthly ridership on Route 28X for both directions was 1,738 passengers. This express bus service provides connecting service to HARTline Route 38 serving em-ployment and shopping destinations in Brandon, including Brandon Town Center and Brandon Hospital.

TABLE 3 HARTLINE ROUTE 28X - SEFFNER/DOVER EXPRESS

DEPARTURES TO DOWNTOWN TAMPA

Inbound to Downtown Tampa Arriving Westside Marion Street

Marion Street Transit Parkway

Forbes Rd @ US 92

Dover @ IGA

North Grove Shopping Cntr

Freewill Church Park-

and-Ride

Northern Terminal

Fort Brooke Station

6:24 AM 6:30 AM 6:40 AM 6:47 AM 7:14 AM 7:20 AM 6:46 AM 6:58 AM 7:05 AM 7:13 AM 7:43 AM 7:50 AM 7:11 AM 7:18 AM 7:30 AM 7:38 AM 8:13 AM 8:20 AM

Effective September 19, 1999.

CHAPTER 3.0 PUBLIC TRANSIT

3-2

3.1.2 Transportation Disadvantaged Service

The simple task of shopping for food or going to the doctor is difficult without proper transportation. Transportation is the key to providing opportunities for daily living and avoiding loneliness and isolation. The chief barrier to programs for the elderly, disabled, and economically disadvantaged is transportation.

Specialized Transportation, or door-to-door van service provided on an advanced-reservation basis, is available throughout the area for individuals classified as "transportation dis-advantaged.”

Current Florida Statutes define “transportation disadvantaged” as:

"those persons who because of physical or mental disability, income status, or age or who for other reasons are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, social activities, or other life-sustaining activities, or children who are handicapped or high-risk or at-risk …."

According to the Hillsborough County Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, 1997 – 2002, the estimated current transportation disadvantaged population in Hillsborough County is 78,979 or about eight percent of the total population. The plan notes that Plant City “has a significant elderly, disabled and economically dis-advantaged population who currently has no access to public transportation, thus making simple tasks such as shopping for food or going to the doctor, difficult. All eligible clients, therefore must be transported utilizing costly door-to-door transportation disadvantaged services.” Another observation from the plan is that Plant City has the highest concentration of trip origins and destinations offered by the Community Transportation Co-ordinator (CTC) outside of HARTline’s existing transit service area.

The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners, acting through the County Administrator, is the designated coordinator for the Trans-portation Disadvantaged Program. The coordinator serves as the centralized provider or broker of specialized transportation in Hillsborough County.

TABLE 4 HARTLINE ROUTE 28X - SEFFNER/DOVER EXPRESS

ARRIVALS FROM DOWNTOWN TAMPA

Marion Street Transit Parkway

Departing from Downtown Tampa Boarding Eastside Marion Street

Washington Station

Northern Terminal

Freewill Church Park-and-Ride

North Grove Shopping Cntr

Dover @ IGA

Forbes Rd @ US 92

4:40 PM 4:47 PM 5:03 PM 5:11 PM 5:23 PM 5:28 PM 5:15 PM 5:22 PM 5:38 PM 5:46 PM 5:58 PM 6:03 PM

Effective September 19, 1999.


3-3

The program uses two operators, Share-a-Van and MMG (Yellow Cab and United Cab). Both are currently used in Plant City to provide transportation to medical, social service, shopping, and other destinations.

3.2 Jobs Access Plan

In October 1999, the Hillsborough County MPO, as part of the development of a Jobs Access Plan, initiated a study to evaluate the accessibility of jobs and job training by transit-dependant individuals. The Steering Committee created to guide the development of the plan adopted the following mission statement:

“Public and private partners will develop a plan to provide and expand transportation services that increase access to training and employment opportunities for transit dependent individuals.”

The study identified geographical areas throughout Hillsborough County that contained employment opportunities and the availability of transportation

serving these areas. The results of this study indicate that job accessibility is an area of concern within Plant City. This is primarily due to a significant disabled or low-income population within the city, the availability of businesses that have entry level jobs, and the lack of public transportation service providing access to these jobs. This study is still underway and is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2000.

3.3 Proposed Circulator Service

In October 1999, Plant City was awarded a $1 million Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant to fund the capital and operating expenses for a fixed route public transportation system within the city. The goal of this 3-year demonstration project is to help reduce congestion and improve air quality by providing alternative transportation to single occupant vehicles. The project was initially spearheaded by the Coalition for a Healthy East County Community, a group of civic leaders and social service agencies, to examine transit options for Plant City.

Plant City and HARTline in cooperation with the Greater Plant City Chamber of Commerce developed a Public Transit Action Plan to identify the parameters for implementation of a transit system that effectively serves the residential community and businesses with available and projected funding sources. The Plan includes the operational provisions, transit routes, and the estimated costs and revenues for a proposed local bus circulator system, and identifies funding mechanisms for continuation and expansion of the transit service.

3.3.1 Community Outreach

The study included extensive community efforts to gauge public interest and identified trip-making characteristics of potential transit riders to assist with the design of the transit system. The public involvement program included a household survey, an employer survey and interviews with local businesses, and six public workshops.


3-4

3.3.1.1 Employer Survey and Interviews

In November and December 1999, an Employer Transportation Needs Survey was completed by 56 members of the Plant City Chamber of Commerce to assist in designing a transit system that effectively services businesses in Plant City. The surveys requested infor-mation about the number of employees, shifts of operation, and areas where employees resided.

In June 2000, interviews were held with 25 employers within the city limits to measure support for public transportation from local businesses. The benefits and disadvantages obtained from these interviews are summarized in Figure 2. A full summary of the interviews is included in Appendix A3.

Perceived Benefits of Local Transit System

• Provides greater accessibility to

jobs, shopping, services, and recreation - Will improve employee attendance and customer patronage

• Enables employers to hire

qualified applicants who do not have their own transportation

• Enhances the community image –

and provides transportation for tourists

• Provides opportunity to focus

developments along routes • Helps lure businesses to the

community • Greater access for transportation

dependent

• Reduces congestion and improves air quality

Perceived Disadvantages of Local Transit System

• Most employees and customers

have their own vehicles and will continue to use them

• Not affordable for low-income citizens

• Financial constraints to continuing the service after the grant expires in three years

• Does not provide access to industrial areas

• Driving behind buses is not desirable – buses cause traffic delays

FIGURE 2 RESULTS OF EMPLOYER INTERVIEWS


3-5

The employers were also asked if they were willing to provide financial support for the local transit system. Of the 25 employers interviewed, 5 indicated that they would provide financial support, 6 indicated that they probably would, 11 needed to discuss this with other colleagues, and only 3 said that they would not support a local transit system. Suggested funding sources to supplement ridership revenues and grants include the following:

• Sales Tax,

• Increased Occupational Licenses Fees,

• City’s General Revenues,

• Millage Rate Increase,

• Business Assessment or Tax,

• Ad Valorem Taxes, and

• Advertising on Buses.

3.3.1.2 Household Survey

In February 2000, a household survey was mailed with the residential water bill to approximately 10,000 customers in Plant City. The city received 1,734

valid responses to the survey. Additionally, 273 surveys were deemed invalid because an address was not given or the respondent lived outside of Plant City.

To gauge potential ridership of a local public transit system, the survey asked household members if they would use the bus service. Figure 3 below shows that 59 percent (1016) of the valid responses indicated that they would use the local circulator system.

Transit Stated Usage (1734 Valid Responses)

59%

41%

Would Ride Transit System

Would Not Ride TransitSystem

FIGURE 3 TRANSIT USAGE


3-6

Those respondents who indicated they would use the transit system were asked what type of trips they would make with the public transit service. Figure 4 summarizes the responses to this question. Over 65 percent indicated that they would use the local circulator service for shopping or going to the doctor, 33 percent indicated that they would use the service for their commute to work, and 15 percent responded that they would use the bus service for their trips to school. This information is valuable in designing a transit system that meets the needs of the community.

The household survey also asked what the maximum dollar amount the respondent would be willing to pay for a one-way bus trip. Figure 5 summarizes the responses to this question. Of the 1,016 respondents who indicated that they would use the transit system, 79 percent would pay 50¢ for the service, 51 percent would pay 75¢ for the service, and 37 percent would pay $1.00.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Trip Purpose

DoctorShoppingBankWorkMovieRecreationSchool

FIGURE 4 TRANSIT SERVICE STATED TRIP PURPOSE


3-7

3.3.1.3 Community Workshops

Six public workshops were held at locations within the city to receive and respond to comments provided by the community participants. The com-munity workshops provided valuable input to assist in the transit system route design and scheduling.

Information received from the workshop participants included the following:

• Estimated weekly usage,

• Main destinations,

• How they would access the proposed transit system, and

• When they would use the transit service.

3.3.2 Proposed Transit System

The proposed transit route structure, shown in Map 10, was developed based on the results of the household transportation survey, employer surveys and interviews; comments from community workshops; and the location of work, shopping, and recreation places. The proposed initial route structure could be modified based on future ridership and transit system analyses.

The Plant City Commission, in the fall of 2000, will consider implementation of the proposed local transit system. If the City Commission decides to implement the transit system, service is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2001.

If HARTline becomes the operator, four ADA-accessible 15-passenger vans or 25-passenger buses will be furnished to provide two bi-directional circulator routes in Plant City - an east line and a west line. Transfers between the east and west lines will be provided at a proposed transfer station at the old railroad depot near McCall Park - a

0

20

40

60

80

100

$2.00 $1.50 $1.25 $1.00 $0.75 $0.50 $0.25

Perc

ent

FIGURE 5 PERCENTAGE RESPONDING THEY WOULD

USE TRANSIT AT GIVEN FARE


3-8

MAP 10


NEEDS PLAN

PROPOSEDPLANT CITY CIRCULATOR

BUS SERVICE


Map Printed: August 29,2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\new\pchartline.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

Data from Hartline

EASTERN ROUTE

WESTERN ROUTE

WORK TRIP DEVIATION

EMPLOYMENT GENERATORS

TRIP GENERATORS#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S#S

#S

#S #S

#S

#S#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S#S

#S#S#S #S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S#S#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S #S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

EVE

RS S

T

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

I-4

TRAPNELL RD

FOR

BES

RD

SR 39

PAR

K R

D

SAM ALLEN RD

RICE RD

US HWY 92

SYDNEY RD

AIRPORT RD

ALE

XAN

DER

ST

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

TUR

KEY

CR

EEK

RD

WILD

ER

RD

BAKER ST


THONOTOSASSA RD

MU

D LA

KE R

D

MEDULLA RD

N W

HE

ELER S

T

ALABAMA ST

SAMMONDS RD

JIM JO

HN

SON

RD

ALEX

AND

ER

ST E

XT

ALSOBROOK ST

OLD

MU

LBER

RY

JAP TU

CKE

R R

D

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

PARK RD EXTENSION

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RD

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N B

LVD

M L KING BLVD

SR

39

THONOTOSASSA RD

US HWY 92

ROUTE 28X PROPOSEDEXTENSION


3-9

centralized pedestrian-friendly location in downtown with shelters already in place. The proposed service schedule is from 6AM to 8PM during weekdays and Saturday with one-hour service frequencies in each direction.

The local circulator system would provide access to HARTline’s service area by extending Express Route 28X from Branch Forbes Road to a proposed park-n-ride lot on Alexander Street, south of I-4. This site, approximately four acres, is currently a Department of Environmental Pro-tection surplus property that is being used by the FDOT as a maintenance

yard. HARTline is currently working

with the city to enter into an interlocal agreement for the joint development of this site.

While there are several existing shelters already in place along the transit routes, additional shelter locations will enhance passenger comfort. Additional shelter locations should be determined through ridership surveys after the transit service has commenced.

The Plant City Commission will be responsible for adopting a fare structure for the transit services. The proposed fare structure that will be presented for their consideration will likely be

similar to HARTline’s existing bus fares.

3.3.2.1 Transit System

Costs and Revenue

According to the Public Transit Action Plan, the estimated annual operating cost for the proposed transit service is $517,250. These costs are dependent on the City of Plant City providing

a facility to store, fuel, and maintain the buses.

In addition to the $1,000,000 CMAQ grant awarded to the city, several additional revenue sources have been identified by the city and HARTline to operate the local transit service.

Initially, small buses are being considered for the proposed local transit service. Fifteen-passenger vans, as shown above, could be replaced with larger buses if ridership warrants.


3-10

Table 5 below lists these funding sources and the proposed allocations between fiscal years 2001 and 2003.

3.3.2.2 ADA Paratransit Service

If transit service becomes available in the city, complimentary ADA para-transit service will be required to serve people who are disabled and cannot use the regular bus system. The service area of this program encompasses three-quarters of a mile around the proposed local transit system. The estimated cost for ADA compliance is $20,000 annually according to the City of Plant City Public Transit Action Plan.

3.4 Long-Term Transit Plans

3.4.1 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan

The Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan, adopted in November 1998, emphasizes improving public transportation in Hillsborough County. The following features of this plan affect future public transit service within the City of Plant City:

• A commuter rail system serving Tampa, the City of Plant City, and Lakeland with 30-minute service during the peak periods and 60-minute service during the off-peak periods.

• A rail transit station and park-and-ride facility located near the existing railroad depot, near McCall Park, in downtown Plant City.

• A bus system serving the City of Plant City and oriented to the rail station.

3.4.2 Connecting Service to Lakeland

The Citrus Connection in Polk County

TABLE 5 REVENUE SOURCES FOR THE PROPOSED TRANSIT SERVICE

Revenue Source FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 Total

CMAQ Grant 414,000 293,000 293,000 1,000,000Job Access Grant 39,200 39,200 39,200 117,600Rider Fares 99,150 137,500 137,500 374,150General Revenues 0 0 60,000 60,000TOTAL $552,350 $469,700 $529,700 $1,551,750 Source: Public Transit Action Plan, City of Plant City


3-11

has expressed an interest in extending its service into Plant City to provide a convenient connection for transit passengers with HARTline service. This opportunity, if carried forward, would provide public transportation between Lakeland, Plant City, Tampa, and as far as Pinellas County. A logical transfer point for the Citrus Connection and HARTline service is the proposed park-n-ride lot on Alexander Street south of I-4. This would give Plant City transit patrons access to work, shopping, and recreation destinations in nearby Lakeland. It also provides Lakeland transit patrons access to HARTline’s express bus service to the proposed local circulator service in Plant City and to downtown Tampa via Route 28X.

Funding for the required capital and operating expenses for this service is the main hurdle. Since Plant City is not in the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD) taxing district,

extending transit service into Plant City would have to be provided with funding sources that are not part of the normal taxing base. This could include state funds, such as a State Corridor Grant or local ad valorem funds.

Funding and other issues would need to be coordinated regionally with Plant City, HARTline, LAMTD, Hills-borough County MPO, Polk County TPO, and the FDOT Districts I and VII.

The Polk County TPO’s transit subcommittee of the Technical Advisory Committee has begun to evaluate the need for transit system planning on a regional level. The I-4 and US 92 corridors between Tampa and Orlando are a focus of this effort.

3.5 Public Transit Recommendations

The following recommendations are provided should the city decide to proceed with implementation of the local transit system described in this report.

1. Work with HARTline to implement a public information campaign within Plant City for the new local circulator service and the express bus service to Brandon and Tampa.

2. Work with HARTline to provide for bus shelters along the local circulator route. The location of these shelters should be based on an “On-Off Boarding Survey” and other ridership data obtained from surveys of the proposed system.

3. Work with the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District to extend their service (Citrus Connection) into Plant City providing public transportation into Lakeland. This will require coordination with HARTline, LAMTD, Hillsborough County MPO, Polk County TPO, and the FDOT Districts I and VII to identify funding sources to implement the transit service.


4-1

4.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Although the road network around the city generally functions at an acceptable level of service, there are measures that the city can institute to maintain mobility without costly capital improvements to the road network. Transportation demand management strategies, if properly applied, will preserve roadway capacity with minimal costs when compared to major road improvements.

In its broadest sense, transportation demand management is any action or set of actions intended to influence the intensity, timing, and spatial dis-tribution of transportation demand for the purpose of reducing the impact of traffic. Such actions can include providing alternative transportation modes or services to drivers, providing incentives to travel on these modes at non-congested hours, and incorporating growth management and traffic impact policies into local development decisions. Available evidence suggests that well-conceived and aggressively

promoted demand reduction programs can reduce peak period traffic by as much as ten percent.

Many commuters in Plant City travel long distances to get to employment centers in Tampa, Lakeland, and points beyond. According to the 1990 United States Census, it takes at least 25 minutes to travel to work for one-third of all city workers. Driving to work has become stressful and costly to many commuters. Ridesharing can be an attractive alternative to Plant City

commuters, particularly in view of the peak-hour traffic congestion on I-4.

4.1 Ridesharing

Ridesharing is two or more persons traveling by any mode of trans-portation, including but not limited to carpooling, vanpooling, and public transit. The most familiar form of ridesharing refers to the commuter work trip, although it can also be used for school trips, recreation, and shopping.

Ridesharing Benefits to Employees

• Saves out-of-pocket commuting costs such as parking, gas, auto maintenance, and

insurance.

• Reduces hidden commuting costs such as wear-and-tear, depreciation, and financing of a new or used automobile.

• Reduces travel times.

• Allows more productive use of commuting time for business or personal reasons.

• Reduces stress, tension, and fatigue of the solo commuter in congested traffic.

CHAPTER 4.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

4-2

According to the 1990 United States Census, 13 percent of Plant City workers carpooled to work. A total of 1,008 persons participated in two-person carpools and 352 persons participated in carpools of three or more persons.

4.1.1 Carpooling

Carpooling involves the use of an employee's private vehicle to carry one to five fellow employees to work, either using one car and sharing expenses or rotating vehicle use so that no money changes hands.

4.1.2 Vanpooling

Vanpooling is people sharing a van, generally to the same place of employment. Driving is performed by one or more of the employees, and the fixed and operating costs are paid by the passengers through monthly fares. Bay Area Commuter Services, Inc. manages the local Bay Area Vanpool Program which provides vans to the groups.

4.2 Bay Area Commuter Services, Inc.

Bay Area Commuter Services, Inc. (BACS), is a private, non-profit organization that helps individuals, businesses, and governments work together to implement commuting solutions in the region. It provides a regional ride-matching service to identify potential car- and van-poolers with others that live and work in the same area. BACS can assist city residents and businesses start ride-sharing programs at no charge. They can be reached at (813) 282-8200 or (800) 998-RIDE.

4.3 Transportation Systems Management

Transportation System Management (TSM) has the overall objective of improving the efficiency of the existing transportation system without requiring major new construction. TSM emphasizes low cost improvements to the transportation system through measures such as intersection improvements, optimal traffic signal timing, information signs, and turn prohibitions. TSM focuses on

achieving greater operating efficiency from the existing transportation system.

4.3.1 Intersection Improvements

Traffic operational improvements can improve the safety and flow of vehicles and pedestrians through an inter-section. These improvements include installing stop signs, traffic signs, and traffic signals; improving intersection geometry with new turning lanes and/or wider turning radii; improving vehicle channelization; and traffic signal timing/phasing modifications.

Inefficient intersection operations can significantly impede traffic flow. Relatively low-cost intersection improvements can be an effective way to defer costly roadway widening. While intersection operational analyses are not part of this study, conversations with city staff have suggested that the following intersections are in need of operational improvements:

• Turkey Creek Road and Sydney Road – Motorists, especially truckers, experience problems navigating a northbound right turn onto Turkey Creek Road.


4-3

• Turkey Creek Road and Airport Road – This intersection requires a southbound left-turn lane to improve the operating efficiency.

• Alexander Street and Reynolds Street – An eastbound right-turn lane on Reynolds Street is needed.

• Alexander Street and Baker Street – A westbound left-turn lane on Baker Street is needed.

• Alexander Street and Martin Luther King – A northbound right-turn lane on Alexander Street is needed.

• Alexander Street and SR 39 – Eastbound and westbound dual left-turn lanes are needed on Alexander Street. In addition, the turning radii appears to be insufficient for truckers navigating an eastbound right-turn onto Alexander Street.

Plant City should consider improving intersections as an interim measure to major roadway widening. Both the intersection improvements and the ridesharing programs are eligible for Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. To qualify for CMAQ funds,

a demonstration of emissions reduction is required.

4.4 Intelligent Transportation Systems

An Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) is the application of advanced sensor, computer, electronics, com-munication technologies, and strategies in an integrated manner to increase the effectiveness of the operation of the entire surface transportation system. The Hillsborough County MPO’s 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan identifies several ITS strategies that can increase the safety and efficiency of the transportation system within Plant City.

4.4.1 Traffic Signal Control (TSC)

Traffic signals can operate as either “isolated” under independent control or as part of a “coordinated” system. A coordinated traffic control system uses sensors and communication lines to measure and report traffic flow patterns to a traffic control computer. The computer analyzes the traffic patterns and then sets the optimum traffic signal timings to accommodate the traffic pattern.

Plant City has not been able to provide full time, fully-trained traffic operations staff for its closed loop system due to budget constraints. Monitoring and operation of the system are accomplished from the District 7 FDOT office via a dial-up connection to the field masters in Plant City.

4.4.2 Incident Management (IM)

Incident Management involves the coordinated pre-planned use of sensors, video cameras, and computers to identify traffic blockage caused by accidents or hazardous material spills. It also provides motorists with information and direction until the incident is cleared. Human detection strategies include motorist aid call boxes, courtesy patrol vehicles, and aerial surveillance to report incidents. The important elements of Incident Management are timely detection and determination of the nature of the incident for accurate and speedy response of personnel and equipment to deal with the particular problem.

4.4.3 Emergency Management Services (EMS)

The two elements of emergency management are:

CHAPTER 4.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

4-4

• Emergency notification for personal security, and

• Emergency vehicle management to reduce the time it takes emergency vehicles to respond to an incident.

Emergency notification provides for user initiated distress signals for incidents like mechanical breakdowns or carjackings. When activated by an incident, automatic collision notifica-tion transmits information regarding location, nature, and severity of the crash to emergency personnel.

Primary users of emergency vehicle management are police, fire, and medical units employing the fleet management capabilities, route guidance, and signal priority and/or preemption for their emergency vehicles. Fleet management identifies emergency vehicle locations and helps dispatchers send the units that can most quickly reach an incident site. Route guidance then directs the emergency vehicles to an incident location, while signal priority optimizes the traffic signal timing along an emergency vehicle’s route.

4.4.4 Traveler Information Systems (TIS)

Traveler Information Services advise motorists of travel conditions so that the driver can take appropriate action to maintain efficiency and safety of travel. Traveler Information Systems allow the driver to make informed decisions such as continuing on a planned route, or diverting to an alternate route or transportation mode to avoid delays.

Visual and audio techniques are used to convey traveler information. Visual techniques include signals, static signs, changeable message signs, portable signs, pavement markings, and lane-use control. In-vehicle navigation and route guidance is an evolving technology currently being offered by some car manufacturers. Audio tech-niques include commercial television or radio, cellular telephones, citizen band radios, special Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), and the audio component of in-vehicle information, navigation, and route guidance.

4.4.5 Highway Rail Interface (HRI)

The ITS infrastructure for Highway Rail Interface provides additional warning of an oncoming train to drivers. Many of the accidents

associated with rail/highway crossings are due to the impatience of motorists driving around crossing gates. Such behavior can be modified using ITS technologies, such as photo-enforce-ment of crossing gates and more comprehensive and consistent warning systems to improve driver trust and observance of the rail/highway crossing controls.

4.5 Recommended Congestion Management Strategies

1. Work with Bay Area Commuter Services, Inc., to expand ride-sharing programs for city residents and businesses.

2. Continue to work with the Hillsborough County MPO to identify funds to study and implement needed intersection improvements.


5-1

5.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS

Transportation improvements that provide for bicycle and pedestrian mobility needs are gaining increasing consideration as part of both the state and local transportation system. Increased health, economic, and environ-mental concerns have led to an increase in the number of people who walk and bicycle to work, shopping, recreation, and other destinations. Grow-ing traffic congestion has forced local officials to reexamine their priorities for land development and alternative transportation modes. Additionally, the federal government, the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) requires metropolitan areas to implement plans that will reduce the number of single occupant vehicles.

Two-thirds of all urban trips are estimated to be less than five miles, which is indicative of the potential demand for non-motorized travel. Constructing pedestrian facilities and improving roadways to facilitate bicycle travel provide more than an alternative commuting mode – it im-proves the aesthetic appearance and quality of life of a community.

Bicycling and walking are two forms of commuting that improve personal health, do not pollute the air, and can reduce vehicular traffic congestion.

5.1 Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee

The Hillsborough County MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Com-mittee (BPAC) is the focal point of bicycle and pedestrian interests and concerns throughout Hillsborough County. Its function is to advise Hillsborough County, the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization on matters concerning bicycle and pedestrian mobility. The MPO endorses members of the BPAC, and each jurisdiction has a seat on the Committee, which meets monthly. Plant City has a designated seat and is encouraged to actively participate on the BPAC to provide for and promote a safe community-wide bicycle and pedestrian system, that serves the travel needs of its residents and visitors.

5.2 Pedestrian Mobility

The focus of the city’s sidewalk program has been on repair and maintenance rather than new construction. Recently, the city has allocated over $100,000 each year in its capital improvement budget for sidewalk maintenance. Maintenance

CHAPTER 5.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CONSIDERATIONS

5-2

needs are determined primarily from observations by staff and from citizen complaints. The provision of new sidewalks is usually the responsibility of the developer, especially in the case of new subdivision developments.

While sidewalk maintenance is an important part of the city’s efforts to improve the safety and mobility of pedestrians, providing new sidewalks is also an important element of improving the walking environment within Plant City.

This section describes the methodology to evaluate pedestrian mobility within the study area and provides recommendations to assist the city with providing future sidewalk infra-structure in response to these needs.

5.2.1 Planned Sidewalk Improvements

The only sidewalk improvement project with committed funding scheduled in the next five years in Plant City is listed below:

• Alexander Street between Baker Street (US 92) and I-4

FDOT is currently in the design phase for roadway improvements to Alexander Street between Baker Street (US 92) and I-4. The project includes the installation of four-foot paved shoulders and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2003/04.

Plant City has also applied for STP Enhancement funds through the MPO to construct the following additional sidewalks:

• Alexander Street from East Timberlane Drive to SR 39

This sidewalk improvement project includes the construction of a sidewalk on the south side of Alexander Street. This sidewalk provides connectivity to existing sidewalks on SR 39 and serves the Lake Walden Square Shopping Center and the Walden Woods Shopping Center at the corner of Alexander Street and SR 39. It also serves the proposed YMCA development on the south side of

Alexander Street between Maki Road and Mud Lake Road.

• Maryland Avenue from Cherry Street to South Frontage Road

This sidewalk improvement in-cludes the construction of sidewalks on the east and west sides of Maryland Avenue.

5.2.2 Pedestrian Needs Identification

Since the development of the MPO’s Pedestrian System Needs Assessment, new pedestrian attractions, including the proposed local transit system, influence the priority of future pedestrian needs within the city. The following considerations were evaluated to identify priority pedestrian needs and to promote pedestrian mobility within Plant City:

• The pedestrian system priority levels included in the Pedestrian System 2020 Needs Assessment,

• Access to transit service,

• Expressed community needs, and

• The estimated sidewalk improvement cost.


5-3

5.2.2.1 Hillsborough County MPO Pedestrian System Needs Assessment

The Hillsborough County MPO Pedestrian System Needs Assessment provides guidance to the city by prioritizing needed pedestrian facilities on the major roadway network within Plant City. Adopted in November 1998, the Pedestrian System Needs Assessment establishes the blueprint for pedestrian facility construction and program development. The goals, objectives, and policies of this plan create a focus for the vision:

A community-wide pedestrian system, integrated with the traffic circulation network serving the travel and recreation needs of the residents and visitors of Hillsborough County.

The Pedestrian System Needs Assessment defines an Action Plan consisting of four implementation programs - each designed to fulfill a specific goal of the planning effort. The On-Road Program seeks to provide a county-wide sidewalk network, the Off-Road Program continues the

development of the trail system, the Safety Improvement Program targets heightening the awareness of the rights and responsibilities of motorists and pedestrians, and the Mode-Shift Program details methods to increase non-motorized travel. Both the mode shift and safety improvement programs recommend educational programs for the users of the road network.

The On-Road Program further recommends specific, prioritized improvements to the collector and arterial road network. The priorities are based on factors such as sidewalk connectivity and pedestrian accessibility to schools, activity centers, and parks. The priorities also consider factors that describe the condition of the walking environment, such as the distance of the sidewalk to the roadway and the vehicle speed on the adjacent roadway.

Map 11 shows existing sidewalks on the major roadway network and the priority pedestrian improvement needs identified in the Pedestrian System Needs Assessment. The existing sidewalks are based on having a sidewalk on at least one side of the roadway.

Dead-end sidewalks such as this one on Robin Drive are deterrents to walking. A safe interconnected sidewalk system improves the quality of life in a community.


5-4

#

##

#

#####

### # #

# #

## #

###

#

#

#

å

å

å

åå å å

å

å

å

å

å

å

×

××

×

×

×

××

×

×

US HWY 92

THONOTOSASSA RD

SR

39

M L KING BLVD

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N B

LVD

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RDPARK RD EXTENSION

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

JAP TU

CKE

R R

D

OLD

MU

LBER

RY

ALSOBROOK ST

ALEX

AND

ER

ST E

XT

JIM JO

HN

SON

RD

SAMMONDS RD

ALABAMA ST

N W

HE

ELER S

T

MEDULLA RD

MU

D LA

KE R

D

THONOTOSASSA RD

M L KING BLVD

CORONET RD

BAKER ST

WILD

ER

RD

TUR

KEY

CR

EEK

RD

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

ALE

XAN

DER

STAIRPORT RD

SYDNEY RD

US HWY 92

RICE RD

SAM ALLEN RD

PAR

K R

D

SR 39

FOR

BES

RD

TRAPNELL RD

I-4

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

EVE

RS S

T


Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\new\pcbikeped.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

MAP 11


NEEDS PLAN

PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMNEEDS ASSESSMENT*

e

* Sidewalk on at lease one side of the roadwaycovering at a minimum of eighty percent of the link.

FUTUREEXISTING

# PARKS# FUTURE PARK'N'RIDESå SCHOOLS× ACTIVITY CENTERS

PRIORITY LEVEL IIPRIORITY LEVEL IIIPRIORITY LEVEL IVPRIORITY LEVEL V

EXISTING FACILITIESPLANNED FACILITIES

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTYPLANT CITY

PRIORITY LEVEL I


5-5

5.2.2.2 Access to Transit Service

The evaluation of pedestrian needs included a field investigation to determine the availability of existing sidewalks along the proposed local transit routes. The existing sidewalks were inventoried and mapped to identify gaps in the sidewalk network on the proposed transit network.

The major pedestrian attractions within the study area, such as schools, activity centers, and parks, were mapped. The pedestrian accessibility to these attractions was determined by evaluating the availability of the existing sidewalk infrastructure pro-viding access to these places.

5.2.2.3 Community Expressed Needs

Another information source used to prioritize pedestrian facilities within the city is community expressed needs. The city staff inventories all public requests for sidewalk improvements throughout the city.

During the past three years, city staff has received many requests for sidewalk improvements. These requests are listed in Table 6.

5.2.2.4 Cost Estimates

Cost estimates were prepared for each potential sidewalk improvement project. The estimates include the cost to construct five-foot concrete sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Right-of-way acquisition costs are not included. The itemized estimates for each sidewalk improvement is included in Appendix A2. It should be noted that the costs would be less if the city opted to provide a sidewalk on one side

of the roadway.

5.2.2.5 Priority Pedestrian Needs

Priority pedestrian needs were developed based on the priority assigned in the MPO Pedestrian Needs Assessment, the sidewalk needs expressed by the community, the accessibility of pedestrians to future transit stops and shelters, and the estimated cost to implement the needed improvements. For the major roadway network in the city, emphasis was placed on having a sidewalk on at least one side of the street. For the street network serving the proposed transit system, having sidewalks on both sides

TABLE 6 COMMUNITY EXPRESSED SIDEWALK NEEDS

Priority Roadway From To Side of Street

1 Alexander Street E. Timberlane Drive Martin Luther King Blvd East and West 2 Alexander Street E. Timberlane Drive SR 39 Intermittent sidewalk West and South 3 Alexander Street SR 39 Walden Lake Apts. North and South 4 Baker Street Alexander Street Whitehall Street North and South 5 Maryland Avenue Calhoun Street Cherry Street East and West 6 Cherry Street Maryland Avenue Park Road North and South 7 Calhoun Street Wheeler Street Park Road North and South 8 Garden Street Alexander Street Franklin Street North and South 9 W. Reynolds Street Walter Drive Seminole Lake Blvd North and South

10 Mud Lake Road Alexander Street Paddocks of Walden Lake East and West 11 Wilder Road S. Frontage Road US 92 West (Sansone Park) 12 Shannon Avenue S. Frontage Road Cherry Street East and West


5-6

of the street was desirable. The resulting pedestrian improvement priorities are listed in Table 7.

5.2.3 Pedestrian Safety through Education, Enforcement, and Encouragement

Recent crash data involving pedestrians and motor vehicles suggest that pedestrian safety within the city is a concern. Between May 1998 and May 2000, 39 pedestrians have been involved in a collision with a motor vehicle in Plant City according to accident records of the Plant City Police Department. Many of the physical constraints to walking can be alleviated through design, engineering, or construction and facilities maintenance activities. But along with physical improvements, attitudes and associated behaviors can also be changed to improve pedestrian safety.

Properly designed education programs that stress the benefits of walking, emphasize safe behavior, and focus on the rights and responsibilities of each group can positively influence pedestrian and driver behavior. Introducing traffic safety education within the school system and including pedestrian concerns in driver education

programs and on drivers license exams are examples of ways to accomplish such objectives.

Enforcement of pedestrian laws and regulations can also influence behavior. Many pedestrians disregard street crossing signals and motorists often violate pedestrian rights. These pedestrian and driving habits may be common because people believe that they are unlikely to be cited for such violations. The FDOT offers training courses locally to educate law enforcement personnel on pedestrian safety and the importance of enforcing traffic violations relating to the safety of pedestrians.

Public information campaigns designed to reach motorists to remind them of their responsibility to watch out for, and yield to, pedestrians also stimulate public awareness of pedestrian activity. Activities could include information displays or the development and distribution of pedestrian safety information.

5.2.4 Potential Funding Sources

There are federal funding sources within the Transportation Equity Act

for the 21st Century (TEA-21) that can be used to implement the identified priority sidewalk facilities and pedestrian safety and educational programs discussed in this report. These include the following funding sources:

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program, and

• Surface Transportation Program (STP) Enhancement Funds.

Plant City has used STP Enhancement funds in the past to implement needed sidewalk improvements. It is recommended that the city apply to the MPO for funds to implement the recommended sidewalk improvements and pedestrian safety improvement programs listed in this study. There are limitations to the use of STP Enhancement funds. For example, the funds may not be used for imple-mentation of a sidewalk improvement if the new sidewalk is a secondary component of a larger project (i.e., drainage improvements along the same roadway).


5-7

TABLE 7

SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

Priority Roadway From To Length (miles)

MPO Needs Assessment

Priority

Transit Access

Public Comment

Estimated Construction Cost

1 Baker Street Alexander Street Whitehall Street 0.31 1 ✔ ✔ 74,0592 Alabama Street Evers Street SR 39 0.07 1 ✔ 17,2173 Alabama Street Maryland Avenue Park Road 0.25 1 ✔ 59,8474 Alsobrook Street Maryland Avenue Park Road 0.25 1 ✔ 59,8475 Grant Street Evers Street SR 39 0.13 1 ✔ 31,3986 Alexander Street Timberlane Drive Sammonds Road 0.81 3/4 ✔ ✔ 193,7247 Alexander Street SR 39 Jim Johnson Road 1.05 3 ✔ ✔ 251,5088 Park Road Alsobrook Street US 92 0.81 1 ✔ 193,7249 Mud Lake Road Alexander Street Paddocks Drive 0.29 5 ✔ ✔ 69,917

10 Grant Street* Gibbs Street Tyler Street 0.08 3 ✔ 19,25111 Woodrow Wilson Reynolds Street US 92 0.33 5 ✔ 79,09812 Calhoun Street Wheeler Avenue Park Road 1.29 ✔ ✔ 309,28213 US 92 Walter Drive Woodrow Wilson 0.74 3 ✔ 177,44914 Park Road SR 39 Alsobrook Street 1.65 1 395,48615 Wilder Road US 92 S Frontage Road 1.14 5 ✔ 272,82616 Garden Street Alexander Street Franklin Street 0.29 ✔ ✔ 69,91717 Franklin Street US 92 Saunders Street 0.46 ✔ 110,52718 S Frontage Road SR 39 East of SR 39 0.10 1 24,32119 N Frontage Road SR 39 East of SR 39 0.10 1 24,32120 Cherry Street Maryland Avenue Park Road 0.25 ✔ ✔ 59,84721 Maryland Avenue Calhoun Street Cherry Street 0.25 ✔ ✔ 59,84722 W Reynolds Street Walter Drive Seminole Lake Blvd 0.25 ✔ ✔ 59,84723 Warnell Street Alabama Street ML King Blvd 0.25 ✔ 59,84724 Woodrow Wilson Airport Rd Reynolds Ave 0.70 3/4 167,36725 Thonotosassa Road I-4 US 92 0.95 3 228,12026 Jim Johnson Road Park Road Alexander Street 0.69 3 165,30427 SR 39 I-4 Sam Allen Road 0.89 1 212,97528 Gordon Street Calhoun Street S Frontage Road 1.00 ✔ 239,36129 Shannon Avenue S Frontage Road Cherry Street 0.73 ✔ 175,37230 Sammonds Road SR 574 Alexander Street 1.25 1/3 299,184

* Plant City recently tried to construct a sidewalk here. There is insufficient right-of-way and the homeowner elected not to provide the easement. MPO Needs Assessment Priority: 1=High Priority; 5=Low Priority Note: These segments do not have sidewalks on either side of the road.


5-8

5.2.5 Pedestrian Mobility Recommendations

1. The City of Plant City should implement the priority sidewalk improvement projects listed in Table 7 as funding becomes available. In addition to allocating local funds, the City should work with the Hillsborough County MPO to identify and prioritize other funds to implement these improvements.

2. The Hillsborough County Ped-estrian System Needs Assessment prioritizes several pedestrian safety improvement programs based on the benefits gained and the cost to implement each program. The city should implement one or more of the following safety improvement programs that are listed in priority order in terms of benefit to cost ratio.

• Pedestrian awareness information provided in traffic reports,

• School and community traffic safety awareness programs and presentations,

• Information display,

• Pedestrian traffic safety education,

• Creation of citizen watch groups,

• Creation of parent/neighborhood safety programs, and

• Increase of law enforcement and reporting.

5.3 Bicycle Mobility

Providing a safe, interconnected system of bicycle facilities can reduce traffic congestion and improve the quality of life of a community. Recent crash data from the Plant City Police Department suggests that there are opportunities to improve the safety and mobility of bicyclists within Plant City. Between May 1998 and May 2000, 28 bicyclists have been involved in a collision with a motor vehicle in Plant City. The right mix of strategies can also encourage more bicycle travel and reduce traffic congestion.

5.3.1 Hillsborough County Comprehensive Bicycle Plan

The Hillsborough County Compre-hensive Bicycle Plan provides guidance to Plant City by prioritizing needed bicycle facilities on the major roadway network within the city. The primary goal of this plan is to continually integrate bicycle transportation into the existing transportation network. This requires providing safe facilities which support the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation, as well as a form of recreation.

An interconnected system of bicycle facilities in Plant City can improve the safety of bicyclists.


5-9

Accomplishing this goal requires a mixture of engineering design, education of cyclists and motorists, law enforcement, and encouragement pro-grams. The plan outlines programs and establishes prioritization processes that can be used to address the bicycling issues facing Plant City and Hillsborough County. It is based on the four major program areas:

• The On-Road Program seeks to provide a county-wide bikeway system that is integrated with other transportation modes.

• The Off-Road Program continues the development of an off-road trail system that enhances and extends the on-road system.

• The Safety Improvement Program targets heightening the awareness of bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians of their rights and responsibilities for bicycle safety, and for sharing both on-road and off-road facilities.

• The Mode-Shift Program seeks to increase the use of bicycles for all travel purposes.

5.3.2 Bicycle Facility Needs

The Hillsborough County Compre-hensive Bicycle Plan developed Interaction Hazard and Latent Demand Scores for each roadway segment throughout the county as a means of prioritizing bicycle facility needs. The Interaction Hazard Score (IHS) represents how comfortable (safe) a

cyclist feels riding on a roadway. It considers factors such as the average daily vehicle traffic, number of travel lanes, speed limit, width of outside lane, pavement condition, street parking, curb cut frequency, and presence of shoulders. The Latent Demand Score (LDS) represents the probability of cyclists using the roadway segment if there were no impedance from motor vehicles. The distance to attractions such as work, school, recreation, and shopping are taken into account in this calculation. The roadway IHS and LDS for the major roadway network within the study area is included in Appendix A4.

The Interaction Hazard and Latent Demand Scores are used as a tool for planners and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee to prioritize the location of future bicycle facilities throughout the county with the goal of providing a safe, county-wide bikeway system that is integrated with other transportation modes.

The Hillsborough County Compre-hensive Bicycle Plan identifies the following priority corridors to improve the connectivity of the bicycle facility network in the Plant City area:

The Comprehensive Bicycle Plan’s vision is to:

“…enhance the overall livability of the county, improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and foster economic gain, this plan seeks to make the county a place where riding a bicycle is a safe, convenient, enjoyable, and accepted mode of travel…”


5-10

Access to parks and other attractions was considered in prioritizing bicycle facility improvements.

• Woodrow Wilson Boulevard (US 92 to Thonotosassa Road),

• Thonotosassa Road (Baker Street to Branch Forbes Road),

• Branch Forbes Road (Thonotosassa Road to Sam Allen Road),

• Sam Allen Road (Branch Forbes Road to SR 39), and

• Sydney Road (Branch Forbes Road to Airport Road).

The Interaction Hazard and Latent Demand Scores for all roadways were reviewed to identify additional opportunities to improve bicycle mobility and safety within Plant City. The corridors were reviewed to identify those that provided the greatest access to attractions such as work, recreation and shopping, with the least number of hazards such as heavy traffic congestion, traffic speed and others. Providing connectivity to existing on-road bicycle facilities and providing an

east-west route through the city was a focus of this analysis. The following additional seg-ments were identified as priority corridors as a result of this analysis:

• Frontage Road South (SR 39 to east of SR 39),

• Frontage Road North (SR 39 to east of SR 39),

• Sammonds Road (SR 574 to Woodrow Wilson

Boulevard),

• Grant Street (Alexander Street to Evers Street),

• Alabama Street (Evers Street to Park Road),

• Evers Street (Grant Street to Alabama Street),

• Wilder Road (US 92 to Frontage Road South),

• Sam Allen Road (SR 39 to east of SR 39), and

• Woodrow Wilson Boulevard (CSX Railroad Crossing to US 92).

Map 12 shows existing, planned, and priority bicycle facilities within the study area.

5.3.3 Cost Estimates

Cost estimates were prepared for the priority on-road bicycle facility corridors recommended in the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan and the additional corridors identified to provide improved mobility for bicyclists within Plant City. The estimates include the cost to construct 4-foot paved shoulders on both sides of the roadway with appropriate signing and pavement marking. Costs for needed right-of-way are not included in the estimates. The itemized estimates for each bicycle facility improvement is included in Appendix A2.


5-11

US HWY 92

THONOTOSASSA RD

SR

39

M L KING BLVD

WO

OD

RO

W W

ILSO

N B

LVD

CO

UN

TY L

INE

RDPARK RD EXTENSION

CHARLIE GRIFFIN RD

JAP TU

CKE

R R

D

OLD

MU

LBER

RY

ALSOBROOK ST

ALEX

AND

ER

ST E

XT

JIM JO

HN

SON

RD

SAMMONDS RD

ALABAMA ST

N W

HE

ELER S

T

MEDULLA RD

MU

D LA

KE R

D

THONOTOSASSA RD

M L KING BLVD

CORONET RD

BAKER ST

WILD

ER

RD

TUR

K EY

CR

EEK

RD

I-4 FRONTAGE RD (N)

ALE

XAN

DER

STAIRPORT RD

SYDNEY RD

US HWY 92

RICE RD

SAM ALLEN RD

PAR

K R

D

SR 39

FOR

BES

RD

TRAPNELL RD

I-4

KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD

EVE

RS S

T


Map Printed: August 29, 2000Author: Michael RowickiProject: l:\tran_mpo\gis\plant_city\new\pcbikeped.apr

N

EW

S

8000 0 8000 Feet

e

PRIORITY ON-ROAD FACILITYFROM THE MPO'S 2020 LRTP

EXISTING 4 FT PAVED SHOULDER/BIKE LANE

BICYCLE FACILITIES

EXISTINGFUTUREPLANT CITYHILLSBOROUGH COUNTY


MAP 12


NEEDS PLAN

EXISTING, PLANNED AND PRIORITYBICYCLE FACILITIES

PLANNED ON-ROAD FACILITY

RECOMMENDED ON-ROADFACILITY FROM THE PLANTCITY NEEDS PLAN


5-12

5.3.4 Priority Bicycle Facilities

Priority bicycle facilities were developed based on the Interaction Hazard Scores and Latent Demand Scores assigned for each facility in the Comprehensive Bicycle Plan, connectivity to existing bicycle facilities, and the estimated cost to implement the needed improvements. The resulting bicycle facility improvement priorities are listed in Table 8.

5.3.5 Potential Funding Sources

The following funding sources within the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) can be used to implement the identified priority bicycle facilities:

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program (including bicycle lanes and secure storage facilities), and

Surface Transportation Program (STP) Program.

In addition, Hillsborough County’s Bike Lanes for Rural Roads Fund provides $250,000 each year to add paved shoulders on rural roadways.

This is a potential funding source for bicycle facilities on county roads in the Plant City area.

5.3.6 Existing State and Local Policies

Federal, state, and local officials are recognizing that there is a great potential for diverting auto trips to bicycle trips. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that two-thirds of all urban trips are less than five miles - an easy distance for most

TABLE 8 BICYCLE FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

Priority Roadway From To IHS LDS Construction

Cost Estimate

1 Frontage Road North SR 39 East of SR 39 4 6 $12,256 2 Frontage Road South SR 39 East of SR 39 7 6 $12,256 3 Woodrow Wilson Blvd CSX Railroad Crossing US 92 3 7 $66,399 4 Sammonds Road SR 574 Woodrow Wilson Blvd 9 4 $87,432 5 Alabama Street Evers Street Park Road 5 9 $137,027 6 Evers Street Grant Street Alabama Street 7 9 $61,940 7 Grant Street Alexander Street Evers Street 7 7 $109,341 8 Sam Allen Road SR 39 East of SR 39 7 1 $12,256 9 Wilder Road US 92 Frontage Road South 1 2 $138,271

10 Sam Allen Road Branch Forbes Road SR 39 4 1 $424,403 11 Thonotosassa Road Baker Street Branch Forbes Road 8 7 $403,458 12 Woodrow Wilson Blvd US 92 Thonotosassa Road 3 7 $33,013 13 Branch Forbes Road Thonotosassa Road Sam Allen Road 12 0 $60,698 14 Sydney Road Branch Forbes Road Airport Road 4 0 $368,137

1. Interaction Hazard Score (IHS) represents how comfortable a cyclist feels riding on a roadway. The lower the score,

the more comfortable a cyclist feels. 2. Latent Demand Score (LDS) represents the probability of cyclists using the roadway segment if there were no

impedance from motor vehicles. Higher scores represent higher demand for cyclists. 3. Cost estimate does not include right-of-way, if needed.


5-13

cyclists. Employers can also encourage bicycling as an alternative trans-portation mode. Installing showers at the workplace, providing employee lockers, and arranging for indoor bicycle parking are incentives for employees to bike to work. Development regulations can give property owners incentives to provide such amenities.

Because most of the major thoroughfares in and around the city are either county or state roads, it is important to understand the FDOT and Hillsborough County policies con-cerning bicycle facilities. For state roadways, the FDOT currently has a policy to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the design of roadway projects. This policy gives special emphasis to the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in and within one mile of urban areas. It generally provides for the construction of bicycle lanes (4 feet minimum) or wide curb lanes (14 feet minimum) to accommodate bicyclists in conjunction with other planned roadway improvements. In rural areas, the FDOT's policy is to provide a minimum five-foot paved shoulder to facilitate both bicycle and pedestrian travel. However, the FDOT is constrained in

some cases from providing additional width for bicyclists in built up areas because of insufficient right-of-way or associated high land costs. In these cases, a convenient parallel route for bicyclists should be provided. In rural areas, those projects with low anticipated bicycle travel are reviewed on a case by case basis.

Hillsborough County's policy is to provide bicycle facilities on all Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and developer projects as part of the standard roadway design, except when the cost of the bicycle facility exceeds six percent of the combined construction and right-of-way costs for the project. In these cases, the project is brought before the Board of County Commissioners for a case-by-case determination.

5.3.7 Bicycle Mobility Recommendations

The following strategies are recom-mended to improve bicycle safety and mobility within Plant City.

1. Plant City should implement the priority bicycle facility improve-ment projects listed in Table 8, as

funding becomes available. The city should work closely with Hillsborough County and the FDOT to implement improve-ments on county and state roads respectively. Four-foot paved shoulders with proper signing and pavement markings are recom-mended for these roadways. The city should also work with the Hillsborough County MPO to identify and prioritize funds to implement these improvements.

2. An appointment by Plant City to fill its seat on the Hillsborough County MPO BPAC is en-couraged. This will give the City of Plant City a voice in prioritizing needed pedestrian and bicycle facilities within Hillsborough County.

3. Policies should be established to include bicycle and pedestrian improvements as a standard part of all new, major reconstruction roadway designs. For improve-ment projects on State and County roadways, the city should

coordinate with the appropriate implementing agency to ensure


5-14

that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are considered.

4. Land Development Regulations should be revised to include provisions for bicycle parking and storage facilities that are sheltered, accessible, convenient, and secure at major destinations, including shopping areas, and employment and recreation centers, to encourage more bicyclists.

5. Bicycle education and safety programs are an important part of traffic safety. It is recommended that bicycle safety education be incorporated into the school curriculum for elementary school children through high school. Driver's education classes should emphasize the skills and importance of motorists’ safety involved in sharing the roadway with bicyclists.

6. Traffic safety bicycle rodeos emphasize traffic safety skills to children and other bicyclists. It is recommended that law enforce-ment agencies work with the BPAC as an information resource

on how to stage a rodeo in Plant City.

plant city multi-modal transportation needs plan...plant city multi-modal transportation needs plan...

Documents