A holistic look at the travel patterns of residents of southern Hillsborough County along with the development pattern and transportation network serving them. This interactive flipbook is created with FlippingBook, a service for streaming PDFs online. No download, no waiting. Open and start reading right away!
Summary Report CUTR-2019-12
South County Integrated Mobility Solutions and Investment Strategy: Phase 1
Summary Report
Prepared For Hillsborough County, Florida
Prepared By USF Center for Urban Transportation Research
December 2019
2019
Accommodation Statement
In accordance with the requirements of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), Hillsborough County will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities. Persons with disabilities who need an accommodation for this document should email the Hillsborough County ADA Officer or call (813) 276- 8401; TTY: 7-1-1.
i
Project Team
Matthew Lewis, AICP, Project Manager Kristine M. Williams, AICP, Principal Investigator Robert Bertini, PhD, PE, Co-Principal Investigator Tia Boyd
Yaye Keita, PhD David Lamb, PhD Chanyoung Lee, PhD
Disclaimer
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Hillsborough County.
ii
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 II. Growth and Development ................................................................................................. 3 III. Common Themes............................................................................................................ 13 IV. Travel Time and Congestion............................................................................................ 16 V. Accessibility and Mode Choice......................................................................................... 21 VI. Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................ 29 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 29 Improve Quality of Life with Placemaking .............................................................30 Continue to Develop Mobility Hubs.......................................................................31 Implement Network and Complete Streets Strategies.............................................32 Coordinate Plans and Studies ..............................................................................33 References .......................................................................................................................... 34
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. South County project study area ..................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. South County projected population and employment growth 2010-2040..................... 3 Figure 3. Job growth by sector in the South County study area..................................................... 4 Figure 4. Potential job growth in key economic spaces ................................................................. 5 Figure 5. Hillsborough County proposed activity centers .............................................................. 6 Figure 6. Activity centers in Hillsborough County .......................................................................... 6 Figure 7. Destinations and connecting corridors............................................................................ 8 Figure 8. South County future land use map ................................................................................ 10 Figure 9. South County building permit activity 2011-2018......................................................... 11 Figure 10. Sites with development and redevelopment potential............................................... 12 Figure 11. Freight and land use compatibility analysis................................................................. 14 Figure 12. User-reported traffic congestion ................................................................................. 17 Figure 13. Location map for zones................................................................................................ 18 Figure 14. Average trip time and length ....................................................................................... 20 Figure 15. Walking accessibility and potential index. ................................................................... 22 Figure 16. Cycling accessibility and potential index. .................................................................... 23 Figure 17. South Coast Greenway trail alignment project area ................................................... 24 Figure 18. Existing transit network ............................................................................................... 25 Figure 19: Proposed mobility hubs for SouthShore transit study. ............................................... 26 Figure 20. Transit coverage and accessibility index...................................................................... 27
List of Tables
Table 1. South County Population and Employment (2010 – 2040) .............................................. 3 Table 2. Trip Distribution by Trip Purpose .................................................................................... 18
iv
I. Introduction
This report summarizes findings from an assessment of transportation and land use conditions in South Hillsborough County. The purpose of this study is to identify baseline conditions for the development of an integrated mobility strategy for South County. The study area is generally bounded by the Alafia River to the north, Tampa Bay to the west, and the Urban Service Area (USA) to the south and east, including those land uses categorized as Residential Planned-2 (RP- 2). It includes seven community plans that contain the unincorporated communities of Gibsonton, Riverview, Apollo Beach, Ruskin, Sun City Center, Wimauma, and Balm (Figure 1).
Figure 1. South County project study area
1
The assessment was documented in three technical memoranda:
Technical Memorandum 1: Review of Plans and Studies established the status of current planning activities and identified similarities, conflicts, and common themes. Data were obtained from more than 30 documents from numerous agencies, including Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Port Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority (TBARTA), and Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART). This data was supplemented by agency interviews to verify the accuracy of findings and determine the status of planning activities. Technical Memorandum 2: Land Use and Transportation Conditions assessed baseline transportation and land use conditions in the South County region of unincorporated Hillsborough County as a foundation for developing integrated land use and transportation mobility solutions. Activity areas were identified and categorized and an origin-destination (OD) analysis was conducted using Streetlight Data. Technical Memorandum 3: Travel Patterns and Conditions evaluated multimodal accessibility in South County as it relates to walking, biking, and transit use. Various accessibility measures were estimated. In-depth inventories of safety issues and multimodal gaps and barriers of selected communities were also evaluated. The report assessed County access management and corridor management policies. Each technical memoranda detail the data, methods, and complete findings summarized in this document. These documents are referenced throughout this report to support the information contained herein. The analysis identified several key findings relevant to transportation and land use conditions in the study area. These findings are grouped into four categories: growth and development, common themes, travel time and congestion, and accessibility and mode choice. The conclusions and recommendations address the overarching needs and provide the impetus for an integrated mobility strategy in South County. The integrated mobility strategy will ultimately be used to create a set of financially feasible development scenarios for South Hillsborough County.
2
II. Growth and Development
South County, the southern part of unincorporated Hillsborough County, is the fastest growing area in the County. Population and employment growth in South County is expected to continue well into the future. Table 1 includes population and employment projections for the study area from Plan Hillsborough traffic analysis zone (TAZ) data retrieved in 2018. The projections indicate that total jobs in the study area will increase from 43,185 to 106,757 (147% increase) between 2010 and 2040 and that the 2010 population of 182,893 will increase to 347,698 by 2040. This projected increase is comparable to the 2017 population of the entire city of Tampa (385,430). Figure 2 shows the forecasted rate of population and employment growth by TAZ in the study area from 2010 to 2040.
Table 1. South County Population and Employment (2010 – 2040)
Total Change
Projected Totals
South County Study Area
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2010- 2040
Population Employment
182,893 209,581 247,117 279,637 300,592 324,266 347,698 164,805
43,185
51,174
64,863
70,273
78,346
85,929
106,757 63,572
Source: Plan Hillsborough, TAZ data
Figure 2. South County projected population and employment growth 2010-2040
3
Figure 3 shows growth by job sector as identified by Plan Hillsborough. Service jobs, which include educational, medical, and professional services, accounted for 51 percent of total jobs in 2010 and are expected to account for 53 percent of total jobs by 2040. Additionally, in 2010 the number of commercial jobs (10,950) (retail, restaurants, and other similar jobs) only slightly surpassed the number of industrial jobs (10,285). By 2020, it is projected that there will be more industrial jobs than commercial jobs.
Figure 3. Job growth by sector in the South County study area Source: Plan Hillsborough
Employment clusters and other activity centers are being established in South County to accommodate the needs of the growing population. It is expected that these employment clusters/activity centers will reduce the need for residents to travel long distances outside of South County for employment. Existing plans and studies consistently show that Sun City Center/Ruskin and the Apollo Beach/Port Redwing areas are key economic spaces that will experience the most growth in jobs (see Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6). For example, the area in the vicinity of the Amazon Fulfilment Center has industrial entitlements offering the potential for expansion. Furthermore, Port Redwing has initiated an $18-million expansion plan estimated to provide 5,765 jobs and avoid 59 million truck miles once completed.
4
Figure 4. Potential job growth in key economic spaces Source: Hillsborough MPO, State of the System (2019)
5
Figure 5. Hillsborough County proposed activity centers Source: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission - Evaluation & Appraisal Report Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, 2007
Figure 6. Activity centers in Hillsborough County Source: TBARTA Regional Transportation Master Plan: Activity Centers and Travel Markets Technical Memorandum, 2015 In addition to the activity centers identified in current plans and studies, other destinations were identified by this study. These destinations are identified based on employment, population, and land-use characteristics. Five development patterns were identified for the areas of activity:
6
Compact Urban: A physical pattern of towns and cities where public streets form an interconnected network that surrounds traditional city blocks. Connected Suburban: A post-war physical pattern that replaces traditional gridded city blocks with irregular blocks while maintaining a connected network of public streets that are spaced at quarter-mile intervals. Modern Suburban: A late 20 th -century suburban pattern that groups large superblocks and single-purpose pods into master-planned communities that are physically separated from adjoining communities. Most jobs, shopping, and entertainment can be reached on wide arterial roads or expressways.
Industrial: Major industrial areas that impact corridors.
Parks/Recreation: Destinations including parks and state parks.
The dominant land use pattern for these areas of activity in the study area is Modern Suburban, which emphasizes large superblocks or single-purpose destinations that are physically separated from adjoining residential areas. These destinations are primarily auto-oriented and challenging for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to navigate. Most of these destinations are located near the I-75 interchanges or at the intersection of major roadways in the study area, such as US 41, US 301, Big Bend Road, Boyette Road, Gibsonton Drive, and SR 674/Sun City Center Boulevard/College Avenue. Figure 7 shows an overview map of the destinations and connecting corridors.
7
Figure 7. Destinations and connecting corridors Source: Hillsborough County, U.S. Census Bureau
8
Although these areas of activity provide localized employment opportunities for residents, land use in South County continues to be dominated by single-family residential development. Additionally, the Future Land Use (FLU) Element of the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan designates a large percentage of the study area for low- to medium-density single-family residential uses. These land-use characteristics are indicators of high levels of automobile dependence – a finding that is further reinforced by traffic analysis in subsequent sections of this report.
Most permits issued between 2011 and 2018 were single-family residential (98%) with 86 percent of all permits issued being for single- family detached residences.
The FLU Element designates approximately 16 percent of land for mixed-use development. The mixed-use development areas are predominantly located on the western side of the study area along I-75 (Figure 8). Two developments of regional impact (DRIs), Waterset and Southbend, are located in this area, just south of Big Bend Road. These DRIs are described as mixed-use and while the Master Development Plans for these projects designate
some areas for mixed-use development, they contain larger areas for other single-use development types. Due to their predominantly single-use composition, these DRIs are better described as multi-use development projects with designated areas for mixed-use development. Even with mechanisms to diversify land use and encourage mixed-use development, there has been an increase in single-family dwelling units over time. A total of 4,570 single-family permits were issued in 2018 – more than triple the number of single-family permits (1,294) issued in 2011. Most permits issued between 2011 and 2018 were single-family (98%) with 86 percent of all permits issued being for single-family detached residences (see Figure 9). Despite the amount of existing or approved development, there remains a considerable amount of development and redevelopment potential. A total of 6,686 parcels (14,346 acres) have development potential and 1,498 parcels (6,594 acres) have redevelopment potential (see Technical Memo 2 for methodology). These parcels, particularly those designated as mixed-use in the FLU Element, provide opportunities to develop mixed-use centers that encourage economic development and support mobility.
9
Figure 8. South County future land use map
10
Figure 9. South County building permit activity 2011-2018
11
Figure 10. Sites with development and redevelopment potential
12
III. Common Themes
A variety of efforts are underway in South County to address transportation needs, support economic development, and expand modal options. These efforts are summarized in Technical Memorandum 1: Review of Plans and Studies, which details relevant plans and studies of numerous agencies, including Hillsborough County, the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Port Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority (TBARTA), and Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART).
Hillsborough County began preparing community plans in 1998 for more specific planning relative to the growing needs of unincorporated communities in the County. Community plans in the study area include those for Ruskin, Riverview, Apollo Beach, Wimauma, Gibsonton, Sun City Center, and Balm. Each of the communities have distinct identities, visions, and transportation needs outlined in their plans.
Many of the community plans identified a desire for a more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly
environment, a town center, and improved transit service.
The similarities, conflicts, and common themes identified in the community plans and other relevant documents include:
1. Many of the community plans identified a desire for a more pedestrian- and bicycle- friendly environment, a town center, and improved transit service.
Potential Conflicts:
Some roadways included in town center visions are major regional through traffic routes not conducive to town center and Main Street treatments with high levels of pedestrian and bicycle activity. Examples are US 301 and Big Bend Road (Riverview) and US 41 (Ruskin). “ Complete streets ” designs that accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users were not evident among the roadway studies reviewed. Existing areas of activity, street network configurations, and planned densities are auto-oriented and generally not currently aligned with the type and location of town centers that are expressed in community plans and visions. Additional master planning and form-based codes are an opportunity to advance these visions.
2. Several community plans noted growth in truck traffic on major routes as an area of concern. Potential Conflicts:
13
The expansion of Port Redwing, construction of the Amazon Fulfilment Center, and designation of a freight logistics zone in the study area indicate a potential for growth in truck volumes in the study area. This growth corresponds with projections for significant job growth in the industrial sector in South County. The population in South County is also projected to grow rapidly; therefore, measures may be needed to balance the increasing demand for goods movement and the desire for livable and walkable town centers as expressed in the community plans. Designated truck routes (other than I-75) include US 41, US 301, SR 674, Big Bend Road, Gibsonton Drive, Symmes Road, Rhodine Road, Balm Riverview Road, Balm Wimauma Road, and CR 672. These routes traverse some of the town centers and pedestrian villages identified in the community plans (e.g., Gibsonton, Ruskin, Wimauma, Riverview, Balm). A freight and land use compatibility analysis was conducted by FDOT District 7 as a part of the Tampa Bay Regional Strategic Freight Plan to examine potential conflicts between freight movement and livability in the Tampa Bay Area. South County neighborhoods were generally identified as having moderate to low conflicts between freight and livable community areas. The segment of US 41 south of Port Redwing in Apollo Beach had the most potential for such conflicts (Figure 12). Options identified in the analysis include shifting town center expansion off of US 41 or other major truck routes and onto interior or lower volume roadways.
Figure 11. Freight and land use compatibility analysis Source: FDOT D7 - Tampa Bay Regional Strategic Freight Plan: An Investment Strategy for Freight Mobility and Economic Prosperity in Tampa Bay, 2012
14
3. Several plans and studies identify growing congestion as a significant concern in South County. Extensive investments are being made to address roadway capacity issues, including several new roadways, widening of existing roadways, and intersection and interchange projects. The MPO is also currently collaborating with HART on a major transit study (SouthShore Transit Study) to expand transit service in South County. Potential Conflicts: Existing and proposed development in the study area is relatively low density and characterized by a limited network of east-west and north-south roadways and low levels of street network connectivity – conditions that exacerbate vehicular congestion and delay and reduce the efficiency of transit service. The lack of alternate routes funnels the majority of vehicular trips onto only a few major roadways, leading to congestion and delay at intersections and interchanges and reducing overall travel time reliability. Commuters and buses must travel in congested conditions on a limited number of roadways. Incidents, such as crashes or poor weather, can easily cause the system to fail and result in long delays.
15
IV. Travel Time and Congestion
The study area is intersected by eight major roadways that form the primary roadway network serving the South County area. Major east-west corridors in the study area are Gibsonton Drive/Boyette Road, Symmes Road, Big Bend Road/Old Big Bend Road, 19 th Avenue NE, and State Road 674/College Boulevard/Sun City Center Boulevard. Major north-south corridors in the study area are US-41, I-75, and US-301. Single occupancy vehicle dependence is evident in South County where, according to 2013- 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, more than 80 percent of commuters drive to work alone. Wimauma is the only exception to this trend; approximately 70% of Wimauma commuters drive alone and more than 20% carpool. Wimauma also has the highest proportions
of households with income below poverty level (50% or more). Generally, the median income in the study area is between $50,000 and $74,999. Residents of Apollo Beach (10%) and Sun City Center (9.4%) were most likely to work at home, and also have the highest median age in South County of 45 years and 72 years respectively. Much of the trip making in these areas was also internal to the community.
Single occupancy vehicle dependence is evident in South County, where more than 80 percent of commuters drive to work alone. Only 1.5% or fewer use public transportation.
The Hillsborough MPO 2018 State of the System Report uses a map of user-reported traffic congestion to show congestion hotspots during the morning peak hours for commuters (between 6 am – 9 am) (Figure 12). Hotspots (shown in purple) in the study area are most visible along US 41, I-75, Gibsonton Drive/Boyette Road, and Big Bend Road. The limited number of alternative north/south and east/west routes contributes to peak hour congestion at the intersections and interchanges with these major thoroughfares.
16
Figure 12. User-reported traffic congestion Source: Hillsborough MPO, State of the System (2019)
Despite peak hour congestion, most trip making occurs within the study area. An origin-destination (OD) analysis of South County (see Figure 13) reveals that 77 percent of all trips in the study area are internal to South County and more than 25 percent of these trips start and end in the same zone. Much of the trip making activity (36%) occurs between 10 am and 3 pm. Within this timeframe, travel at 10 am accounts for a little more than 6 percent of all trips, lunch (generally at 11 am, 12 pm or 1
Most trips in the study area are internal (77%) and more than 25 percent of these trips start and end in the same zone.
pm) accounts for approximately 7 percent of all trips. Travel at 3 pm accounts for almost 8 percent of all trip making activity ─ the highest percentage of trips in a given time period.
17
Figure 13. Location map for zones Source: Hillsborough County, U.S. Census Bureau
Table 2 shows the distribution of trips by trip purpose. About 47 percent of all trips within the study area involve commuting between home and non-work destinations, 35 percent of trips involve travel between non-work destinations, and 17 percent involve commuting between home and work. About 43 percent of trips leaving the study area involve travel between home and non-work locations, 32 percent involve trips between non-work destinations, and about 25 percent involve commuting between home and work. During the morning peak travel period (6 am to 10 am) work-related trips leaving the study area increase, accounting for up to 35 percent of these trips.
Table 2. Trip Distribution by Trip Purpose
Trips
Home-Based-Work Home-Based-Other Not Home-Based
All Trips
20% 17% 25%
45% 47% 43%
35% 37% 32%
All Trips Within All Trips Leaving
Source: StreetlightData, Inc.
18
ACS data shows that the average travel time for commuters in South County exceeds the Hillsborough County average of 27.3 minutes. The Riverview and Fishhawk zones have the highest percentage of residents with a commute time between 30 and 59 minutes (60% - 80%). Small areas of Sun City, Wimauma (Rural), and Gibsonton have a high proportion of persons with commute times less than 30 minutes (60% to 80%). This difference in commute times may be attributable to a community’s proximity to major north-south routes, such as US 41, I-75, and US 301, and overall trip length for commuters. The number of individuals telecommuting versus commuting and the number of people carpooling versus driving alone may also contribute to these differences. Although more than a quarter of personal trips start and end in the same zone, the average travel time compared to average trip length is relatively high. Figure 14 shows the average travel time and average trip length for the study area. In Apollo Beach, for example, the average trip length is 1.9 miles and takes approximately 18 minutes. Another example is the Fishhawk area, which has longer trip lengths and higher travel times than the rest of the study area. Average trips from Fishhawk to surrounding zones or gates are between 5.5 miles and 26 miles and take between 25 and 50 minutes. Circuity of the local network and a lack of alternate routes are likely contributing factors to longer trips lengths in these areas. More information about data and methods for the OD analysis and final results for all study area zones can be found in Technical Memorandum 2: Land Use and Transportation Conditions.
19
Figure 14. Average trip time and length
20
V. Accessibility and Mode Choice
Accessibility of South County neighborhoods and destinations for walking, cycling, and transit modes was evaluated in the study area using indices of accessibility relative to conditions within the region and in-depth inventories of selected areas. The complete accessibility analysis and inventories for Apollo Beach, Gibsonton, Sun City Center, and Riverview can be found in Technical Memorandum 3: Travel Patterns and Conditions. The indices represent both accessibility and potential, which are defined as follows: Accessibility accounts for the availability of existing infrastructure to support these transportation modes and is addressed by incorporating factors such as sidewalk length, bicycle lane length, roadway network density, travel times, and barriers (e.g., major high-speed roadways, water, etc.) Potential is a function of both the relative population in an area and the number of services that can be reached within a reasonable distance using the identified transportation mode.
Barriers to walking and cycling were widespread and included water coverage, major roadways, railroads, gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network, and deficiencies in existing sidewalks, bike lanes, and crosswalks. Poor access to nearby sidewalks, long walking distances to bus stops, long travel times when using transit, and limited amenities at transit stops (e.g., lack of bus shelters, paved landings, or seating) were
Barriers to walking and cycling were widespread. Poor access to nearby sidewalks, long walking distances to bus stops, long travel times when using transit, and limited amenities at transit stops were common conditions.
common conditions in the study area. These conditions adversely impact a transit user ’ s experience, limit accessibility for persons with disabilities, and discourage transit use by individuals who have the option to travel by car. Many areas of South County exhibited a sparse, circuitous and/or disconnected local street network, and lack adequate infrastructure to support walking and biking. Figure 15 presents walking accessibility potential in the study area. Neighborhoods such as Fishhawk, Riverview, and Sun City Center show a higher potential for walking, cycling, and transit use than other areas of South County. The older neighborhoods of Gibsonton, Ruskin, and Wimauma are more represented in the moderate category. Balm is most represented in the low category, as is much of the study area beyond the areas of activity. Most of the study area has only low to moderate walking potential.
21
Figure 15. Walking accessibility and potential index. The range of cycling accessibility is presented in Figure 16. Pockets of high cycling accessibility are identified in the north portion of the study area. More rural areas, including most of Balm and a large portion of Wimauma, are represented in the low category. Some cells with high cycling accessibility are scattered throughout the study area, although Fishhawk and Sun City Center have the largest contiguous areas. Most of the study area has low to moderate cycling
22
potential. This is likely because of a lack of bike lanes in many locations and/or an absence of any services that connect to those bike lanes and sidewalks. The addition of local roads for cycling improves accessibility in areas such as Ruskin and Apollo Beach. Sun City Center has the highest potential because of its higher network density, sidewalks, and services within a mile of these areas.
Figure 16. Cycling accessibility and potential index. The multimodal accessibility analysis revealed that areas with the highest walking and cycling potential tended to be disconnected. This limits the potential for longer distance cycling trips.
23
US 41, US 301, and I-75 split the study area into thirds along the north and south and are significant barriers to east-west travel. Major barriers to north-south travel are Sun City Center Boulevard/East College Avenue in the southern part of the study area, and Gibsonton Drive between US 41 and US 301 in the northern part of the study area.
A new shared-use trail connecting the South Coast Greenway Trail with the Tampa Bypass Canal Trail has been prioritized by Hillsborough County and Hillsborough MPO. The connector is expected to provide additional mobility for the communities it intersects, including Gibsonton (Figure 17). The southern sector will extend from Symmes Road to Riverview Drive and includes Gibsonton, Bullfrog Creek, and the Alafia River.
Areas with higher cycling accessibility tend to be disconnected. This limits the potential for longer distance cycling trips.
Figure 17. South Coast Greenway trail alignment project area Source: Hillsborough MPO & Hillsborough County - South Coast Greenway Trail Alignment Study, 2018 HART has four routes that serve South County (Figure 18): 1) Local bus Route 31 operates on weekdays and has starting and ending points at the Amazon Warehouse in Ruskin and the Westfield Brandon Mall in Brandon. 2) Limited express bus route 75LX operates on Tuesdays and Thursdays and has starting and ending points at Kings Point in Sun City Center and the Westfield Brandon Mall in Brandon.
24
3) South County FLEX route 571 is available on weekdays and provides both door-to-door service and regular circulator bus service, with designated stops near SR 674 in South Hillsborough County. Door-to-door service is available for customers who pre-book on the phone. 4) Route 24 LX serves Boyette Road and provides weekday express service to Downtown Tampa and South Tampa from the Fishhawk Sports Complex Park-N-Ride to Florida Keys Avenue.
Figure 18. Existing transit network Source: HART & Hillsborough MPO - SouthShore Transit Study Reevaluation, 2018
The 2018 SouthShore Transit Study Reevaluation covers six communities in the study area (Gibsonton, Riverview, Apollo Beach, Ruskin, Sun City Center, and Wimauma). Figure 19 identifies mobility hubs that will serve as focal points for transit connections. Planners are also exploring the potential to provide on-demand service (e.g. Uber, Lyft) for a subsidized fare for first/last-mile connections to a mobility hub. Park and ride lot locations are being identified, as well, including one at Gibsonton Drive and I-75 that ties into Fishhawk and the downtown route.
25
Figure 19: Proposed mobility hubs for SouthShore transit study. Source: HART & Hillsborough MPO - SouthShore Transit Study Reevaluation, 2018
Accessibility of areas with transit service is presented in Figure 20. This figure should be considered in conjunction with walking and transit times. The areas of high potential represent areas with existing HART bus stops and relatively dense residential population and services within less than a 30-minute walking distance of these stops. Only 30 percent of the study area is within a 30-minute walking distance of a bus stop.
The moderate potential category represents areas with the potential to be serviced by transit in light of the existing residential and service density and walking time to the nearest transit stop. They have a high residential density but are more than 30-minutes walking distance from existing stops and services. The low to no potential categories represent regions with very limited or no potential to be served by transit due to long walking times to the nearest transit stop, or relatively low residential and service densities. These categories are predominantly east of the study area.
Only 30 percent of the study area is within a 30-minute walking distance of a bus stop, only about 1.4 percent of the study area could reach the Marion Transit Center (MTC) within 1 hour and about one-third of the study area can reach MTC within 2 hours.
Considering the estimated walking time to the nearest HART stop, only about 1.4 percent of the study area could reach the Marion Transit Center (MTC) in downtown Tampa within 1 hour (including walking to the bus stop), and about one-third of the study area can reach MTC within 2 hours.
26
Figure 20. Transit coverage and accessibility index. More in-depth inventories were conducted for Apollo Beach, Gibsonton, Sun City Center, and Riverview to assess typical safety and mobility issues for multimodal transportation in South County. Common issues identified include a disconnected and circuitous network that increases trip lengths for all modes and discourages walking and biking. Gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network, and deficiencies in existing sidewalks, bike lanes, and crosswalks do not foster
27
a safe and comfortable environment for non-motorized travel. Poor access to sidewalks and limited amenities at transit stops including bus shelters, paved landings, and seating have a negative effect on transit users’ experience, limit accessibility for pe rsons with disabilities, and discourage transit use for individuals who have the option to travel using other modes.
28
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
This research was commissioned to provide a comprehensive understanding of mobility needs in South County. The analysis confirmed some known information about the area: it is experiencing rapid growth, is largely characterized by residential development, and single- occupancy vehicles are the primary mode of travel. Although the County Future Land Use Map designates large areas of South County for mixed-use development, approved development in these areas continues to be predominantly low- to medium-density single-family residential uses. The community plans identified a clear desire for livable communities, with town centers and a more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly environment and improved public transportation. Traffic congestion is a key concern, as are concerns about the potential for growth in truck traffic in certain areas. The analysis also provided some additional findings that fill several gaps in the understanding of mobility needs in South County. The origin-destination (OD) analysis indicates that most trips originating in South County are internal to the area, with residents circulating to and from nearby activity areas. The accessibility analysis identified numerous deficiencies and discontinuity in the bicycle and pedestrian network and revealed that most residents are more than a 30-minute walking distance from a transit stop. Travel time to the Marion Transit Center (MTC) in Downtown Tampa is typically 1 to 2 hours (including walking distances) in areas along the transit routes and up to 3 hours or more in areas outside of the transit routes. The inventory of multimodal infrastructure identified that the local street network is circuitous and disconnected in many areas, further compounding accessibility issues for all modes and increasing the number and length of trips. Nonresidential development in South County is largely suburban in nature and has occurred incrementally at intersections, near interchanges and along major routes, and except for a few planned communities, lacks integration with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Residents of the region would benefit greatly from more modal options and destinations for employment, shopping, socializing, and community services. Strong coordination between transportation and land use planning and decision-making is needed to accomplish this goal. Recommendations In light of these findings, several recommendations and complementary strategies have been identified for consideration by the County with regard to an integrated mobility strategy for South County. Generally, the recommendations call for establishing centers and mixed-use development, placemaking and livability strategies, updated and coordinated plans and studies, thoroughfare planning with complete streets strategies, and mobility hubs, as well as strategic public-private partnerships for transit. Improved coordination of land use and transportation in South Hillsborough County will require integration of internal and intergovernmental planning activities. A policy and regulatory framework that includes the following mobility planning concepts will provide a platform through which that integration can be achieved.
29
1) Designate town centers, Main Street areas, regional activity centers, neighborhood centers, and rural centers in the comprehensive plan. Build upon places identified for this purpose in community plans, as updated. 2) Adopt placemaking strategies and codes for each activity center typology. Set minimum densities and vertical mixed-use requirements for town center areas. 3) Implement incentives, such as waiving or reducing mobility fees in larger centers under certain conditions and tax increment financing to reinvest in needed infrastructure. Consider the feasibility of a transfer of development rights program to preserve rural areas and direct density into designated centers. 4) Adopt a thoroughfare plan with complete streets design guidelines and cross-sections to connect the region and its places. Establish design guidance based upon land use context, roadway function, and modal priority. Differentiate placemaking corridors and from corridors intended for through traffic movement. 5) Connect activity centers with surrounding neighborhoods via local street access, bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit service. Emphasize local street network connectivity in the development and subdivision review process, and require bicycle, pedestrian, and local street connections from areas of activity to surrounding residential areas. 6) Integrate mobility hubs into major centers that provide intermodal connections with the public transportation system and other non-auto modes, such as golf cart parking, bicycle parking or bikeshare, TNC drop off/pick-up locations (e.g., Uber, Lyft), and vanpools or local circulators.
Improve Quality of Life with Placemaking
Community plans in South County identify a desire for a sense of place in the form of town centers, Main Streets, and other focal community destinations. Although some of these destinations are identified, they could be further solidified by designating activity center locations on the future land use map. This approach may also improve community plan implementation and enhance the integration of community planning efforts into decision- making processes. Placemaking strategies such as complete streets, multi-use destinations, and form-based codes can create these destinations in South County communities. Placemaking strategies can be incorporated into the corridor preservation plan, ensuring a transportation network that supports existing and future development needs. Areas of activity and other identified destinations can be used to form the basis for activity center plans and develop strong regional and local activity centers. Strategic placemaking strategies have been found to support economic sustainability by encouraging reinvestment in existing communities. Using these strategies for town centers, Main Streets, activity centers, and other destinations increases the potential for job growth and diverse employment opportunities within each community. An increase in local employment density fortifies congestion mitigation efforts and other transportation investments. An improved jobs/housing balance helps to shorten commute lengths and better supports mobility options and network improvements.
30
The community plans, with varying levels of detail, identify where the communities envision these destinations. For example:
Apollo Beach proposes mixed-use town centers at Apollo Beach Boulevard and US 41, between US 41 and I-75, and other locations where appropriate. Riverview’s community plan identifies a downtown district at US 301 and Riverview Drive, although the area is currently developed with suburban commercial uses. Sun City Center proposes to create a town center in Sun City Center Plaza at SR 674. In Ruskin, Shell Point Road and US 41 are designated as Main Streets. The Gibsonton Community Plan indicates a desire to designate Gibsonton Drive as the community’s “Signature Corridor” and Main Street to encourage s mall scale business development. Plans for Wimauma identify SR 674 as the Community Main Street and key transportation corridor. Some of the proposed locations for town centers and Main Streets may need to be reconsidered, particularly where truck routes or major roadways create potential conflicts. In some instances, areas of activity have been identified in locations where town centers and Main Streets are proposed. In many of these areas existing land uses, street network configurations, and planned densities are not currently aligned with the type and location of town centers that are expressed in community plans and visions. Additional master planning and form-based codes are an opportunity to advance these visions. Many of the community plans were developed and updated between 2005 and 2013. Community plan updates are needed to address changes catalyzed by population growth and development, reflect the current needs and desires of community members, and leverage contemporary planning practice and emerging technology. The update process will require extensive community involvement, analysis, and planning. The updated plans should identify community visions and provide feasible strategies that are implementable in coordination with broader planning efforts.
Continue to Develop Mobility Hubs
The mobility hubs proposed in the SouthShore Transit Study relate to placemaking strategies by supporting existing/emerging areas of activity or serving as activity generators. Shared mobility services and other innovative technologies are proposed to address first-mile/last-mile connections that support transit use. Mobility hub strategies proposed by the SouthShore Transit Study should be explored further and implemented once feasible. They can also reinforce and connect with services offered by non-profit organizations, such as Enterprising Latina’s, private vanpool services, and other options that address the individualized needs of communities. Measures that increase transit ridership in South County should also be considered. Improvements may include increasing transit frequency and extending transit routes to areas with low coverage. As the population in South County continues to grow, and the desire for
31
mobility options increases, these transit improvements not only become increasingly necessary, but they also become more feasible.
Implement Network and Complete Streets Strategies
Most of the planned projects identified in the TIP, CIP, and 5-year work program address roadway capacity needs in the study area. These capacity projects have the potential to temporarily ease congestion, but additional efforts are needed to improve network connectivity, particularly for major east-west connections, and develop areas that support multimodal transportation. In addition, enhanced complete streets design concepts were not observed in the projects reviewed. As the County continues to update its corridor plan, a more detailed thoroughfare plan is suggested to guide future thoroughfare planning and design. The plan should identify alternative complete streets cross-section designs based on roadway function and land use context (e.g., placemaking corridors versus through movement corridors), and integrate modal priority to emphasize design elements specific to the targeted modes. Access management standards should also be applied to implement block or connection spacing objectives. Update and assign the County access classifications to County arterial and collector roadways to reinforce the thoroughfare plan. The sparsity of the arterial and collector network in areas of South County is a concern in light of the extensive development already planned and approved in the area. Incorporate network spacing guidelines into the corridor plan. One-half mile spacings of 4-lane continuous streets ensure that residents can access a thoroughfare within ¼ mile. This spacing helps reduce congestion by distributing trips across the network and also supports walking, cycling, and transit use. Although an ideal grid is not feasible, due to waterways and other barriers, flexible application of network spacing guidelines forms an essential foundation for an effective thoroughfare plan. Examples of network improvements and complete streets strategies include, but are not limited to the following: Where possible, connect the local street network to provide more direct routes, shorten trip lengths, and encourage non-motorized travel. Construct sidewalks and bike lanes where gaps exist to provide a complete and interconnected network. Identify locations for protected bike lanes and protected bike intersections to encourage less experienced cyclists to use this mode for certain trips. Reduce trip length for non-motorized travel by providing direct access to services from residential areas at logical locations. Add buffers or additional space between sidewalks and the roadway, particularly on roadways with a high posted speed limit and high traffic volumes. In areas such as town centers, decrease the number or width of lanes and lower speed limits to control vehicular speeds and increase bicycle and pedestrian safety.
32
Reconfigure and repaint crosswalks where the existing conditions are not ideal and consider bulb-outs to shorten crossing distances at intersections. Provide safe mid-block crossing opportunities (e.g., pedestrian islands, RRFBs, etc.) at logical locations, such as transit stops, schools, or shopping centers. Provide continuous pedestrian access to transit stops. Provide amenities at transit stops that improve the experience of using transit, these amenities can include shelter or shade trees, seating, a paved or level landing area. Add shade trees along the walkways to protect pedestrians from the sun. The Greenways and Trails Plan Update provides opportunities to improve bicycle and pedestrian transportation in South County. Continue to expand and connect the greenways and trails network throughout the area. Identify opportunities for complete streets projects to connect to greenways and multiuse trails.
Coordinate Plans and Studies
The large geographic area of South County, coupled with the many agencies and departments that impact land use and transportation decisions, makes coordination a continuing challenge. The research team reviewed more than 30 plans and extensive capital improvement programs for the study, even as plan updates and new studies were initiated. Yet coordination of agency plans and studies, including the updates of the seven community plans, is essential to effectively address land use and mobility needs in South County. For example, several designated truck routes in freight plans traverse some of the town centers and pedestrian villages identified in the community plans (e.g., Gibsonton, Ruskin, Wimauma, Riverview, Balm). Many of the community plans identified the conflicts caused by these routes and stress the need to reduce or minimize the potential for conflict. Measures to balance the increasing demand for goods movement and the desire for more livable and walkable communities are needed. Examples include locating town centers and Main Streets away from current truck routes, using other modes or networks to move goods, or some combination. A clearly articulated policy and regulatory structure can form the basis for improved interagency coordination. More detailed mobility planning, with the components identified above, can then proceed with a focus on coordination of land use and transportation. Without coordination, community needs may not be met, projects may need to be reevaluated or redesigned, and policies may fail to reinforce the desired outcomes.
33
Page i Page ii Page iii Page iv Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22-23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54-55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58-59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72-73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92-93 Page 94-95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138-139 Page 140-141 Page 142-143 Page 144-145 Page 146-147 Page 148-149 Page 150-151 Page 152-153 Page 154-155 Page 156-157 Page 158-159 Page 160-161 Page 162-163 Page 164-165 Page 166-167 Page 168-169 Page 170-171 Page 172-173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178-179 Page 180-181 Page 182-183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 Page 207 Page 208 Page 209 Page 210 Page 211 Page 212 Page 213 Page 214 Page 215 Page 216-217 Page 218-219 Page 220 Page 221 Page 222 Page 223 Page 224 Page 225Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog