A high-level transportation network analysis within the Gibsonton area that tested various combinations of roadway capacity and intersection improvements to see which has the greatest potential to improve transportation network deficiencies.
GIBSONTON AREA N E T WO R K A N A LY S I S
Summary Report
Prepared by: HDR
On behalf of:
March 4, 2021
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
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.
Summary Report
b
CONTENTS
1. Overview......................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study............................................................................................. 1 Context Summary ......................................................................................... 1 Modeling Methods & Results ..................................................................... 1 Recommendations......................................................................................... 2 2. Analysis Methodology................................................................ 4 3. Context & Existing Conditions................................................. 7 Existing Population/Employment & Projected Growth .................... 7 Crash & Safety Analysis...............................................................................14 Existing Network Performance................................................................20 4. Network Alternatives Analysis...............................................29 Improvement Projects ................................................................................29 Alternative Sets .............................................................................................32 Network Performance of Each Alternative Set ..................................36 Overall Summary of Performance ..........................................................55 5. Recommendations ....................................................................63
i
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
This page intentionally blank.
Summary Report
ii
1. OVERVIEW
2040 in the Gibsonton area is anticipated to result in moderate changes in population and employment density. The increased residential growth will occur along the US 301 corridor, generally within the area between I-75, Gibsonton Drive, Symmes Road, and Balm Riverview Road. Increased residential growth is also expected in the area between Symmes Road and Nundy Avenue and I-75 and US 41. However, the population density is expected to remain low, as the entire study area remains under 10 persons per acre. Increased employment density is anticipated to be limited, primarily occurring north of Riverview Drive along the western side of US 301. The major north-south arterials within the study area are US 41 and US 301, while the only major east-west arterial is Gibsonton Drive. These three roadways carry the majority of traffic within and through the study area, and the majority of crashes and congestion are concentrated at intersections along these corridors. Due to the limited secondary roadway network, vehicles are unable to adequately disperse through the network, favoring the high capacity major arterials over low capacity collectors and local roads. 1.3 Modeling Methods & Results Using Aimsun traffic analysis software, the project team developed a series of traffic models for the study area. An initial model, called the Existing plus Committed (E+C) Model was developed to show roadway conditions and operations adjusted to account for committed and funded projects. This model provided a starting point for understanding network performance characteristics, defining potential improvement alternatives, and completing comparisons between the various sets of improvement alternatives. The E+C Model run resulted in the identification of several important issues and deficiencies, including bottleneck locations with particularly high volume-to-capacity ratios and high intersection delays. During the AM peak period, high volumes of vehicles attempt to traverse the
1.1 Purpose of Study The Gibsonton Area Network Analysis Study is a high-level transportation network analysis undertaken by Hillsborough County to identify and assess potential improvements within the Gibsonton area. The study team tested various combinations of roadway capacity and intersection improvements to see which has the potential to improve transportation network deficiencies in the greater Gibsonton area. The network approach to this study is different from other corridor or intersection specific studies, in that the performance of improvements or alternative sets was evaluated for a larger study area. Some longer term projects were also considered, but the focus of this study is on evaluating the network-wide impacts or benefits of shorter-term projects. As shown in Figure 1, the study area included corridors and intersections extending from the area around US 41 to the west, Riverview Drive to the north, US 301 to the east, and Symmes Road to the south. As shown in Figure 2, the model developed for this study builds upon the model that was created for the Alternatives to Lithia-Pinecrest RoadWidening Traffic Analysis Study that was completed in early 2020. During the study, the effectiveness of potential combinations of improvements within the study area to address deficiencies was compared against each other and the existing conditions. The comparative analysis resulted in the identification of improvement projects that could advance into more detailed phases of engineering and design. 1.2 Context Summary Existing population and employment densities within the study area are low, with the majority of the TAZs having less than five residents or employees per acre. Based on the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM v8.2) socio-economic data projections, growth between 2020 and
1
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
Improvement Project 2. Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) at I-75/Gibsonton Drive. Provide a DDI at the I-75/Gibsonton Drive interchange. Converts the existing northbound I-75 ramp terminal from unsignalized to a two-phase signal. (FDOT Project Status: Design is scheduled for 2025) Improvement Project 7. US 301/Symmes Road Intersection Operational Improvements. Provides signal timing update to improve the delay of the minor approaches on Symmes Road, while encouraging the northbound through movement. Improvement Project 8. US 41 Widening from Kracker Ave to SR 676. Widen US 41 from four to six lanes from Kracker Avenue to SR 676. (FDOT Project Status: PD&E study complete; design not yet underway) Improvement Project 9. Combine Mathog Road and Alafia Trace Boulevard intersections on Gibsonton Drive. Combine Mathog Road and Alafia Trace Boulevard into one intersection. Provide necessary geometric and signal timing changes. Improvement Project 10. Gibsonton Drive Widening from I-75 to US 301. Widen Gibsonton Drive from four to six lanes from I-75 to US 301. Improvement Project 11. Balm Riverview Road/Boyette Road Intersection Operational Improvements. Provides signal timing update to improve the delay of the minor approaches. The combination of these improvement projects under the recommended alternative set provides additional capacity on some of the network’s most utilized roadways, while also forming a new connection between them. It is recommended that these individual improvement projects be evaluated in greater detail.
network to areas of high employment outside of the network; in the PM peak period, these vehicles return from these outside employment centers and again must travel through the study area. These vehicles have limited options to traverse north-south and east-west through the study area due to the poor interconnectivity of local roadways and capacity constraints along major arterials. Based on the initial modeling, the project team worked with County staff to understand factors contributing to problem areas and define potential improvement strategies. Consultation with County staff resulted in the identification of a number of potential improvement projects, which were subsequently combined into three different alternative sets. These alternative sets were developed to provide the greatest mobility of vehicles within and through the study area. Performance measures used during the evaluation included volume to capacity (V/C) ratios, intersection delay, and travel time comparisons along the study area’s major roadways. 1.4 Recommendations Of the three alternative sets tested as part of this study, Alternative 3 provided significant V/C improvements, while reducing the delay experienced at intersections with the highest volumes. Of the 11 projects included in the three alternative sets, the seven improvement projects shown in Figure 1 are recommended for further analysis for potential implementation. These were identified as having the greatest potential to improve overall network-wide performance in the AM and PM peak periods, without having to acquire substantial right of way for large scale widening projects. The seven recommended projects are as follows: Improvement Project 1. Cone Grove Road Connection to Riverview Lakes Lane. Provide a connection between Cone Grove Road to Riverview Lakes Lane, as well as a northbound left-turn to Cone Grove Road from US 301.
Summary Report
2
Figure 1. Network Alternatives Analysis Study Area Map & Recommended Projects
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1. Cone Grove Road Connection to Riverview Lakes Lane 2. Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) at I-75/Gibsonton Drive 7. US 301/Symmes Road Intersection Operational Improvements 8. US 41 Widening - Kracker Ave to SR 676 9. Combine Mathog Road and Alafia Trace Boulevard intersections on Gibsonton Drive 10. Gibsonton Drive Widening - I-75 to US 301 11. Balm Riverview Road/Boyette Road Intersection Operational Improvement
RIVERVIEW DR
PARK DR
RIVERVIEW DR
9
10
8
Alafia River
2
41
BOYETTE RD
11
1
1
GIBSONTON DR
NUNDY AVE
CONE GROVE RD
PALM AVE
7
SYMMES RD
Gibsonton Study Area
Significant Roadways
1 Miles ¯
0
0.5
3
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA 2. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
area. This was done so the recommended alternatives developed for the Lithia-Pinecrest area could be seamlessly integrated into the Gibsonton study area analysis, with no rework needed. The original model was developed by running the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM v8.2) using Cube software. (Note: This version was used because TBRPM v9.0 was not available when the analysis was initiated.) Cube output includes link and node shapefiles and OD matrices. The link and node shapefiles are imported into Aimsun. This allows the Aimsun model to use the same basic roadway network, roadway attributes, centroid, and OD data as the TBRPM. Using a larger model area (see Figure 3) impacts the results to and potential impacts within a larger network than modeling just within the Gibsonton Study Area. 2. Run a macroscopic Aimsun model and compare volume results to the Cube output. If the R2 value (a statistical measure of variance) is at least 0.90, the subarea network was created. A similar R2 comparison was performed for the subarea. 3. Once the modeling limits were selected, Hillsborough County provided traffic counts, signal timings, and funded or committed projects within the study area. Calibrate the model by adjusting section and turn parameters to make the AM and PM Aimsun volumes match the count data. When the majority of turning movement volumes matched between these two sources, the OD matrices and path assignments were finalized. These OD matrices and paths became the starting point for all alternative set models. However, intersection turning movement volumes may vary between models, due to the dynamic nature of the Aimsun model. 4. Update intersection and roadway geometries, along with intersection control types, to create an Existing plus Committed (E+C) Model, which was used as the starting point for all the alternative sets that were analyzed.
The alternatives analysis process included several steps to compare the network performance of improvement options within the Gibsonton area. The analysis used Aimsun simulation and forecasting software calibrated to represent existing traffic conditions using existing regional traffic model data, intersection traffic counts, and signal timings. Aimsun is a unique software because of its ability to analyze the performance of roadway networks under existing or potential improvements. Analysis can be performed at either the large-scale regional level or smaller intersection and corridor level. The Aimsun software allows multiple projects to be added or removed depending on the alternative to be tested. These tests can be performed and results processed and evaluated quickly. The benefit of Aimsun for this type of study is that it combines two scales of modeling, regional model inputs (macroscopic) with intersection or corridor model inputs (microscopic), to create a hybrid model (mesoscopic) that offers a variety of analysis techniques. Aimsun macroscopic modeling operates similar to Cube modeling, utilizing Origin-Destination (OD) matrices and link parameters in determining routing information. Aimsun microsimulation operates similar to Vissim microsimulation, utilizing traffic control features and car-following and lane changing models. These models allow for interaction between vehicles and can show model animation. Mesoscopic modeling, or hybrid models, combines the individual vehicle modeling found in microsimulation with the higher level, regional modeling performed in macrosimulation. As described below and summarized in Figure 2, the study team employed the following process to complete the modeling effort: 1. Use the model developed for the Alternatives to Lithia-Pinecrest Road Widening Traffic Analysis Study as the base model for the Gibsonton
Summary Report
4
Figure 2. Traffic Modeling Process
INPUT
CALIBRATED MODEL DEVELOPMENT (AIMSUN)
ALT SET MODEL(S)
OUTPUTS
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
MACRO » Import Link/Node Shapefiles
CUBE » Link Shapefile » Node Shapefile » OD Matrices
» V/C maps* » Volume & V/C Comparisons* » Path Travel Times* » Network Performance
» Run MacroWith OD Data » Create Model Network
ALT SETS » E+C (Base Model)
» Speed » Delay
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY » Signal Timing » Count Data » List Of Funded/
» Alt 1 » Alt 2 » Alt 3
MICRO » Geometry Updates » Import Signal Timing » Volume Development
* Included in this report
Committed Projects For E+C Model
MESO » Calibration
- Make Section/Turn Changes » Compare Model Outputs To County Synchro Volumes
5. Perform mesoscopic modeling on the E+C Model (results in Section 3.3). Another feature of Aimsun mesoscopic modeling that was used in this analysis is dynamic assignment, which allows the traffic to reroute at specified intervals to better mimic how drivers act in the real world.
6. Use the E+C Model as the base to code in projects for each of the three alternatives sets modeling. Compare the results of the three alternative sets to the E+C Model results (see Section 4 for results).
5
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
Figure 3. Gibsonton Area Traffic Modeling Limits
E LUMSDEN RD
BLOOMINGDALE AVE
41
RIVERVIEW DR
FISHHAWK
BOYETTE RD
GIBSONTON DR
SYMMES RD
Lithia Pinecrest Study Area Gibsonton Study Area Combined Modeling Limits
2 Miles ¯
0
1
Summary Report
6
3. CONTEXT & EXISTING CONDITIONS Development in the Gibsonton area and the communities to the south and east has resulted in increased traffic volumes, traffic congestion, and travel safety issues along corridors within the study area. Growth within and to the south and east of the study area has contributed to increases in peak period travel along US 301, Gibsonton Drive, Symmes Road, and US 41 corridors to and from regional employment centers northwest and north of the study area. To support efforts to identify potential transportation improvements for the study, evaluations of population and employment projections as well as safety and crash data was undertaken. Summaries of these analyses follow. 3.1 Existing Population/Employment & Projected Growth The projected population and employment growth in the Gibsonton area is anticipated to result in moderate changes in population and employment density. To understand the potential for increased demand on the area’s roadways, the study team evaluated the existing population and employment estimates for 2020 and 2040 projections from the TBRPM v8.2. (The 2040 projections were used to align with the traffic model origin/destination data that was used to develop the Aimsun model because the 2045 estimates were not available at the onset of the analysis.) In 2020, the study area is anticipated to have approximately 107,782 residents and 24,595 employees. By 2040, the area is anticipated to grow to 146,266 residents and 35,163 employees. Overall, the area is anticipated to see a 36 percent increase in residents and a 43 percent increase in employees from 2020 to 2040.
While the study area is anticipated to experience growth over the next 20 years, the study team wanted to better understand the locations where the new residents and employees are expected to change between 2020 and 2040. For each of the TAZs within the study area, the change in population and employment density between 2020 and 2040 was calculated. As shown in Figures 4 and 6, the 2020 employment and population densities within the study area are low, with the majority of the TAZs having less than five residents or employees per acre. Population and employment densities are expected to grow modestly by 2040. As shown on Figures 5 and 7, the increased residential growth will occur along the US 301 corridor, generally within the area between I-75, Gibsonton Drive, Symmes Road and Balm Riverview Road. Increased density is also anticipated north of Symmes Road between US 41 and I-75. However, the population density is expected to remain low, as the entire study area remains under 10 persons per acre. Increased employment density is anticipated to be limited, primarily occurring north of Riverview Drive along the western side of US 301 just north of the study limits. The majority of the study area will have less than five employees per acre in 2040. Based on the anticipated low population and employment densities over the next 20 years, the Gibsonton area will result in a continued reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and congestion will most likely continue to occur on the study area’s roadways. Given the low population and employment density, options for transit solutions are also limited.
7
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
Figure 4. Population Density by TAZ, 2020
PARK DR
Alafia River
GIBSONTON DR
CONE GROVE RD
Population Per Acre (2020)
NUNDY AVE
41
0 - 5 5 - 10
PALM AVE
10 - 20 20 - 40 40+
SYMMES
1 Miles ¯
0
0.5
Source: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM)
Summary Report
8
Figure 5. Population Density by TAZ, 2040
PARK DR
Alafia River
GIBSONTON DR
CONE GROVE RD
Population Per Acre (2040)
NUNDY AVE
41
0 - 5 5 - 10
PALM AVE
10 - 20 20 - 40 40+
SYMMES
1 Miles ¯
0
0.5
Source: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM)
9
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
Figure 6. Employment Density by TAZ, 2020
PARK DR
Alafia River
GIBSONTON DR
CONE GROVE RD
Employees Per Acre (2020)
NUNDY AVE
41
0 - 5 5 - 10
PALM AVE
10 - 20 20 - 40 40+
SYMMES
1 Miles ¯
0
0.5
Source: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM)
Summary Report
10
Figure 7. Employment Density by TAZ, 2040
PARK DR
Alafia River
GIBSONTON DR
CONE GROVE RD
Employees Per Acre (2040)
NUNDY AVE
41
0 - 5 5 - 10
PALM AVE
10 - 20 20 - 40 40+
SYMMES
1 Miles ¯
0
0.5
Source: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM)
11
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
Figure 8. New Residents by TAZ, 2020 to 2040
PARK DR
Alafia River
GIBSONTON DR
CONE GROVE RD
Change in Population Per Acre (2020 to 2040)
NUNDY AVE
41
PALM AVE
0 - 2 2 - 5 5 - 10 10+
SYMMES
1 Miles ¯
0
0.5
Source: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM)
Summary Report
12
Figure 9. New Employees by TAZ, 2020 to 2040
PARK DR
Alafia River
GIBSONTON DR
CONE GROVE RD
Change in Employees Per Acre (2020 to 2040)
NUNDY AVE
41
PALM AVE
0 - 2 2 - 5 5 - 10 10+
SYMMES
1 Miles ¯
0
0.5
Source: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (TBRPM)
13
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA 3.2 Crash & Safety Analysis
proposed safety improvements rather than projects that would increase capacity. To determine specific problem locations, the study team evaluated CDMS crash data collected from 2014 to 2018 (see Figures 11 and 12). Key observations: Within the study area, Gibsonton Drive/Boyette Road between I-75 and Balm Riverview Road, is identified as one of the County’s top high crash corridors. Gibsonton Drive/Boyette Road, between I-75 and Balm Riverview Road, is a high crash area during both AM and PM peak period. The US 301 and I-75 intersections with Gibsonton Drive have high crash occurrences in both the AM and PM periods. Several intersections along Gibsonton Drive and US 301 have high crash occurrences in the PM period. US 41, I-75 and US 301 have higher rates of crashes in the PM period compared to the AM period. US 41 intersections with Riverview Drive, Gibsonton Drive and Symmes Road have high crash occurrences during the PM period. CRASH LOCATION BY TYPE The study team also used the CDMS crash data from 2014 to 2018 to evaluate the types of crashes and where they occurred within the study area. Figures 13 and 14 show crash locations by type for AM and PM peak periods. Key observations in the AM peak period: A high frequency of rear end crashes occurred along Gibsonton Drive between Prevatt Street and US 301, and along US 301, I-75 and US 41.
The majority of crashes within the Gibsonton area are rear-end crashes. They are concentrated along Gibsonton Drive/Boyette Road, I-75, US 41 and US 301. This is not surprising given the area has a limited secondary roadway network forcing motorists to travel on these major arterials that carry the bulk of the volume. In addition, portions of these roadways allow for higher speeds followed by sudden and abrupt stops due to long queuing at intersections, contributing to high frequencies of rear-end crashes. CRASH HOT SPOTS Plan Hillsborough’s Vision Zero Plan was prepared in 2017 by the Hillsborough MPO, in partnership with Hillsborough County; the Cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City; and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in support of reduced fatalities and serious injuries on roadways. Figure 10 shows Hillsborough County’s top 20 corridors and crash spots with the highest number of severe injury crashes per mile between 2014 and 2018. The top 20 corridors with severe injury crashes are represented by black lines along the roads. The Gibsonton Drive/Boyette Road from I-75 to Balm Riverview Road segment ranks 2nd on the Top 20 Severe Crash Corridors identified in the Safe Streets Now, Vision Zero, Action Plan. There’s an ongoing effort by the Hillsborough MPO, conducting a Speed Management Study. Based on the Managing Speed on Hillsborough’s High Injury Network study draft the top 20 High Injury Network (HIN) corridors were assessed with regards to posted speed and context class and found that the posted speed on the Gibsonton Drive/Boyette Road from I-75 to Balm Riverview Road segment was 10 MPH over national practice. The study also developed a top 20 priority matrix, where the Gibsonton Drive/Boyette Road segment scored medium priority. In addition to the speed management study, a Vision Zero Corridor study on Gibsonton Drive was recently completed that
Summary Report
14
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
4567
HIGH CRASH SPOTS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
4567
)v
)¥
F
%&g(
S CREEK BLVD
!"b$
4567
?â
VAN DYKE RD
COUNTY LINE R
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
COUNTY LINE R
AÌ
ORTHD
4567
HIGH CRASH SPOTS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
4567
)v
)v
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
)¥
F
HIGH CRASH SPOTS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGEND
4567
4567
%&g(
!"b$ Figure 10. Hillsborough County Vision Zero Top 20 Corridors & High Crash Spots S CREEK BLVD )¥ D BEARSS AVE
4567
KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD
?â
VISION ZERO TOP 20 HIGH INJURY NETWORK DESIGNATED (2012 - 2016)
VAN DYKE RD
FLETCHER AVE
%&g(
GUNN
S CREEK BLVD
!"b$
MAIN ST
4567
)v 4567
FOWLER AVE
4567
AÌ
ORTHD
High : 150 - 200
SEVERE INURY CRASHES 2014 - 2018
)¥
TEMPLE TERRACE
THONOTOSASSA RD
?â
BOUGAINVILLEA AVE
!"`$
Low : 1 - 60
)v
N
4567
LEGEND
BUSCH BLVD
TEMPLE TERRACE HWY
BEARSS AVE
4567
WATERS AVE
)z
D
%&g(
4567
CITY LIMIT COUNTY BOUNDARY MAJOR ROADS AIRPORTS BAY & WATER CREEKS, STREAMS, RIVERS PIN LLAS COUNTY TEMPLE TERRACE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANT CITY TAMPA
!"`$
KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD
VISION ZERO TOP 20 HIGH INJURY NETWORK DESIGNATED (2012 - 2016)
FLETCHER AVE SLIGH AVE
GUNN
HANNA AVE
)z
MAIN ST
4567
FOWLER AVE
)z
4567
A¿
High : 150 - 200
SEVERE INURY CRASHES 2014 - 2018
)¥
TEMPLE TERRACE
THONOTOSASSA RD
OSBORNE AVE
BOUGAINVILLEA AVE
PLANT CITY
TAMPA
!"`$
Low : 1 - 60
)v
N
LAKE AVE
BUSCH BLVD
TEMPLE TERRACE HWY
LEGEND
?ò
4567
WATERS AVE
R
COL U
SYDNEY RD
TRAPNELL RD
)z
!"`$
%&g(
!"b$
4567
CITY LIMIT COUNTY BOUNDARY MAJOR ROADS AIRPORTS BAY & WATER CREEKS, STREAMS, RIVERS PINELLAS COUNTY TEMPLE TERRACE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANT CITY TAMPA
!"`$
OUT BLVD
7TH
D
?ò
WINDHORST RD
SLIGH AVE
CYPRESS ST
SR 60 / ADAM
KNIGHTS GRIFFIN RD
?â
?ò
HANNA AVE
)¥
)z
VISION ZERO TOP 20 HIGH INJURY NETWORK DESIGNATED (2012 - 2016)
ENNEDY BLVD / SR 60
FLETCHER AVE
%&g(
)z
?ò
AZEELE ST
)v
SWANN AVE
SR 60 / BRANDON BLVD
A¿
OSBORNE AVE
?ò
PLANT CITY
TAMPA MAIN ST
D EN RD
CAUSEWAY BL
LAKE AVE
FOWLER AVE
?ò
4567
COL U 4567
4567
R
SYDNEY RD
TRAPNELL RD
!"`$
DURANT RD
High : 150 - 200
SEVERE INURY CRASHES 2014 - 2018
!"b$
?ò Old Tampa Bay
)¥
TEMPLE TERRACE
OUT BLVD
THONOTOSASSA RD
7TH
WINDHORST RD
BOUGAINVILLEA AVE
CYPRESS ST
SR 60 / ADAM
BLOOMINGDALE AVE
?â
?ò
!"`$
)¥
Low : 1 - 60
N
ENNEDY BLVD / SR 60
4567
%&g(
?ò
AZEELE ST
)v
SWANN AVE
SR 60 / BRANDON BLVD
BUSCH BLVD
TEMPLE TERRACE HWY
?ò
D EN RD
CAUSEWAY BL
)z
RIVERVIEW DR
CITY LIMIT COUNTY BOUNDARY MAJOR ROADS AIRPORTS BAY & WATER CREEKS, STREAMS, RIVERS PINELLAS COUNTY TEMPLE TERRACE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PLANT CITY TAMPA CORRIDORS: Vision Zero Top 20 High Crash Network 2012 - 2016. HEAT LAYER: CDMS High Crash Spots 2014 - 2018 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS: Updated by plan amendment. Effective to present. URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. Effective to Present. MAJOR ROADS: Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan. See Adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plan for specific improvements. ACCURACY: It is intended that the accuracy of the base map comply with U.S. map accuracy standards. However, such accuracy is not guaranteed by the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commisiion. REPRODUCTION: This sheet may not be reproduced in part or full for sale to anyone without specific approval of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. Date: 3/22/2019 Path: G:\gisr ot\Projects\Roger\Cr sh Data\Vision_Zero_2019\2019_Vision_Zero_Top_20_Corridors.mxd Author: Mathier · 4.5 6 Miles LOCATOR MAP AND REFERENCE INFORMATION Hillsborough County, Florida SEVERE INURY CRASHES = CRITICALLY INJURERD AND FATALITIES
!"`$
4567
FISH HAWK BLVD
BOYETTE RD
4567
4567
Hillsborough Bay
DURANT RD
GIBSONTON DR
Old Tampa Bay
)¥
H AVE
BLOOMINGDALE AVE SYMMES RD
HANNA AVE
)z
4567
RHODINE RD
A¿
P
)v
TR
E
RNE AVE
RIVERVIEW DR
!"b$
FISH HAWK BLVD PLANT CITY
BOYETTE RD
4567
Hillsborough Bay
GIBSONTON DR
IG BEND RD
)¥
LAKE AVE
SEVERE INURY CRASHES = CRITICALLY INJURERD AND FATALITIES
4567 Gibsonton Study Area
SYMMES RD
BLVD
SYDNEY RD
TRAPNELL RD
!"`$
!"b$
LOCATOR MAP AND REFERENCE INFORMATION
4567
RHODINE RD
CR 672
7TH
WINDHORST RD
P
)v
TR
E
Tampa Bay
!"b$
SR 60 / ADAM
?â
)¥
19TH AVE NW
19TH AVE N
IG BEND RD
?ò
)v
SR 60 / BRANDON BLVD
Hillsborough County, Florida
LL POINT RD
BLVD
4567
AÛ
4567
?ò
AÛ
CR 672
SR 674
D EN RD
CAUSEWAY BL
)¥
4567
Tampa Bay
CORRIDORS: Vision Zero Top 20 High Crash Network 2012 - 2016. HEAT LAYER: CDMS High Crash Spots 2014 - 2018 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS: Updated by plan amendment. Effective to present. URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. Effective to Present. MAJOR ROADS: Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan. See Adopted MPO Long Range Transportation Plan for specific improvements. ACCURACY: It is intended that the accuracy of the base map comply with U.S. map accuracy standards. However, such accuracy is not guaranteed by the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commisiion. REPRODUCTION: This sheet may not be reproduced in part or full for sale to anyone without specific approval of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. Date: 3/22/2019 Path: G:\gisroot\Projects\Roger\Crash Data\Vision_Zero_2019\2019_Vision_Zero_Top_20_Corridors.mxd Author: Mathier · 1.5 3 4.5 6 0.75 Miles 0 1.5 3 0.75
4567
19TH AVE NW
19TH AVE NE
4567
!"b$
DURANT RD
4567
)v
LL POINT RD
AÛ
BLOOMINGDALE AVE
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
PlanHillsborough.org
AÛ
SR 674
)¥
4567
4567
0 Source: Plan Hillsborough, Vision Zero Action Plan http://www.planhillsborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019_ Vision_Zero_Top_20_Corridors.pdf
!"b$
4567
)v
RIVERVIEW DR
15
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
PlanHillsborough.org
FISH HAWK BLVD
BOYETTE RD
4567
sborough Bay
GIBSONTON DR
)¥
SEVERE INURY CRASHES = CRITICALLY INJURERD AND FATALITIES
SYMMES RD
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
Figure 11. Study Area Crash Hotspots, AM Peak Period, 2014-2018
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
PARK DR
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
Alafia River
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
GIBSONTON DR
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
CONE GROVE RD
NUNDY AVE
Crash Density (2014 to 2018) AM Peak Period (7-9am)
!
! £ ¤ 41 ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
PALM AVE
!
!
!
High Low
! !
! £ ¤ 301
!
!
!
!
!
SYMMES
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Crash Location
1 Miles ¯
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
0
0.5
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Source: CDMS
!
!
!
Summary Report
16
Figure 12. Study Area Crash Hotspots, PM Peak Period, 2014-2018
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
PARK DR
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
Alafia River
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
GIBSONTON DR
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
Crash Density (2014 to 2018) PM Peak Period (4-6pm)
CONE GROVE RD
NUNDY AVE
!
! £ ¤ 41 ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
PALM AVE
!
!
High Low
!
!
! £ ¤ 301 !
!
!
SYMMES
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1 Miles ¯
Crash Location
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
0
0.5
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Source: CDMS
!
17
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
Figure 13. Study Area Crash Location by Types, AM Peak Period, 2014-2018
!
!
!
!
! "
!
!
"
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
PARK DR
"
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
! !
!
!
!
"
! !
!
Alafia River
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! "
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
GIBSONTON DR
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! "
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CONE GROVE RD
Crash Types (2014 to 2018) AM Peak Period (7-9am)
! ! !
NUNDY AVE
!
!
!
!
! ! ! 41
!
!
! !
!
PALM AVE
!
Bike & Pedestrian
"
! !
!
Left Turn Sideswipe Rear End
!
!
!
!
!
SYMMES
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! "
!
!
!
!
!
! ! " "
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
"
!
1 Miles ¯
!
! !
!
"
!
!
0
0.5
"
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
Source: CDMS
Summary Report
18
Figure 14. Study Area Crash Location by Types, PM Peak Period, 2014-2018
! ! ! ! ! ! ! " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
PARK DR
! !
!
! !
!
"
!
!
!
"
"
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Alafia River
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "
!
!
!
!
! "
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! "
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! "
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
GIBSONTON DR
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! "
!
"
!
!
!
!
!
CONE GROVE RD
Crash Types (2014 to 2018) PM Peak Period (4-6pm)
! ! ! 41 ! ! ! !
NUNDY AVE
!
! "
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
PALM AVE
! ! !
Bike & Pedestrian
"
Left Turn Sideswipe Rear End
!
!
!
! ! !
SYMMES
! ! ! ! ! ! ! "
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
1 Miles ¯
!
! !
!
"
!
!
!
0
0.5
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
Source: CDMS
19
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
Table 1.
Funded/Committed Projects Included in E+C Model
Sideswipes crashes occurred along Gibsonton Drive, US 41 and I-75. Left turn crashes occurred along Gibsonton Drive. Pedestrian and bicycle crashes dispersed throughout the area with multiple crash occurrences along US 301, and at the Boyette Road/ McMullen Road intersection. In the PM peak period: A high frequency of rear end crashes occurred on Gibsonton Drive between I-75 and US 301, and along US 301, I-75 and US 41. Sideswipes crashes occurred along I-75 and US 301. Left turn crashes occurred along Gibsonton Drive/Boyette Road and US 301. Pedestrian and bicycle crashes dispersed throughout the area with multiple crash occurrences along Gibsonton Drive/Boyette Road. 3.3 Existing Network Performance The initial Aimsun model was developed using the existing roadway network along with funded or committed projects. The funded or committed projects that were included are shown in Table 1 and Figure 15. The performance results of the E+C Model were analyzed to illustrate how vehicles move through the network and isolate congestion hot spots by peak travel period. Volume to capacity (V/C) ratios were determined for each of the major roadways within the study area in the AM and PM peak periods (see Figures 16 and 17). As shown in Table 2, intersection approach and overall intersection delays were also calculated for all major intersections within the network. Figures 18 and 19 show the delay for each intersection approach in the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. Figure 20 shows overall intersection delay in the AM and PM peak periods.
CIP
Intersection
Improvement
East Bay Rd/ Symmes Rd Intersection Fern Hill Dr/ Gibsonton Dr Intersection Riverview Dr/ US 301
69600314
Convert signalized intersection to a roundabout
Intersection geometry improvements, including triple left turns on the northbound approach and dual left turns on the westbound approach Intersection geometry improvements including dual left turns on the westbound approach
69600311
69645121
It should be noted that the delay information provided in these tables and figures are calculated based on mesoscopic analysis and should not be compared to delay results seen in microscopic analysis. This means that even though an intersection appears to be performing well using microsimulation standards, it may not be operating well in the context of the network. Delay should be looked at comparatively to the other intersections and approaches within the network. The E+C Model results show that due to the limited number of east- west and north-south corridors within the study area, drivers do not exhibit much variability in their travel patterns in the AM and PM perk periods. Dramatic growth is expected in the Ventana community located between I-75 and US 301, south of Gibsonton Drive. This area will see new construction of homes and schools, with drivers utilizing smaller roads with insufficient capacity, such as Symmes Road and Fern Hill Drive, to access the main corridors of Gibsonton Drive, US 301, and US 41. These main corridors experience heavy congestion from regional traffic commuting through the network.
Summary Report
20
Figure 15. Existing + Committed Projects
E+C PROJECTS East Bay Rd and
Symmes Rd Signalized Intersection Conversion to Roundabout
Fern Hill Dr and Gibsonton Dr Intersection Improvements Riverview Dr and
RIVERVIEW DR
US 301 Intersection Improvements
PARK DR
RIVERVIEW DR
Alafia River
41
BOYETTE RD
GIBSONTON DR
NUNDY AVE
CONE GROVE RD
PALM AVE
SYMMES RD
Gibsonton Study Area
Significant Roadways
1 Miles ¯
0
0.5
21
NE T WORK ANALYS I S GIBSONTON AREA
301, Gibsonton Drive, or Symmes Road. Corridors such as US 41, US 301, Gibsonton Drive, Symmes Road, and East Bay Road experience high V/C ratios, intersection delays along these corridors are relatively low. This can be attributed to several factors: - In the areas of high V/C ratios along Symmes Road and East Bay Road, the intersections are either minor street stop-controlled or roundabouts. The roundabouts are at locations where there is little interaction between conflicting movements, which allow for a better flow of vehicles through the intersection. This means that even though there is a high volume of vehicles utilizing Symmes Road and East Bay Road, the intersections that act as endpoints are able to accommodate the volume efficiently , without causing high delays at the intersections. - The signals along Gibsonton Drive, US 41, and US 301 are timed to provide high green time to the major approaches to minimize the delay experienced by the high volume through movements. While the minor approaches along these arterials experience high levels of delay , this does not adversely affect the overall intersection delay significantly, due to their low volumes. This creates a scenario where corridors that experience high volumes in one direction are able to manage the flow of vehicles. Problems begin to occur at locations when multiple high volume conflicting movements interact, such as at the northbound I-75 on ramp and the Gibsonton Drive/Fern Hill Drive intersection. Congestion observed under the existing signalized intersection configuration at the Symmes Rd/East Bay Rd intersection is largely addressed by the E+C roundabout improvement project.
Other key observations include: US 41 experiences heavy congestion in the northbound direction during the AM peak period and in the southbound direction during the PM peak period as commuters pass through the study area. The yield condition at the northbound I-75 on ramp for the westbound right direction creates high delay and queuing that propagates along Gibsonton Drive. This is exacerbated by the new triple northbound lefts at the Gibsonton Drive/Fern Hill Drive intersection, which allows more vehicles to fill up the available space between the westbound on ramp and the Gibsonton Drive/ Fern Hill Drive intersection. The heavy congestion along westbound Gibsonton Drive, causes drivers originating from south of the study area to access northbound I-75 via Symmes Road and East Bay Road and entering I-75 from eastbound Gibsonton Drive. Due to their limited capacity, Symmes Road and East Bay Road also experience heavy congestion in the AM peak period. In the PM peak period, eastbound Gibsonton Drive experiences heavy congestion as vehicles exit southbound I-75. East Bay Road and Symmes Road also experience some congestion in this time period, but not as severely as in the AM peak period; drivers tend to use Gibsonton Drive more in the PM peak period to access US 301. Balm Riverview Road experiences a small uneven split in traffic between the AM and PM peak periods . During the AM, more vehicles utilize northbound Balm Riverview Road north of Gibsonton Drive, especially as vehicles enter from neighborhoods along Balm Riverview Drive and Park Drive. However, in the PM peak period, this portion of Balm Riverview Road in the southbound direction does not experience the same level of congestion, as vehicles utilize US
Summary Report
22
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 Page 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 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog