Citizens Ray Chiaramonte, Ben Collier, Jim Flateau, Frank Havoer, Fred Krauer, Andy Padget, Georgianne Youngblood

Transcription

1 MOBILITY 2040: A Vision for the SR 54/56 Corridor Phase 1: Defining the Alternatives West Task Force Meeting Summary Tuesday, September 29, 2015 (5:30 pm 7:30 pm) Rasmussen College Room # Fernview Street, Land O Lakes, FL Task Force Members Present Donna Collier, Citizen-At-Large John Copeland, Pasco Alliance of Community Associations (PACA) Marilynn dechant, MPO Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Steve Henry, Traffic Engineer Susie Hoeller, Central Pasco/Land O Lakes Chamber of Commerce Ronald Hubbs, Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA) Bruce Mills, West Pasco Chamber of Commerce Kelly Miller, MPO CAC Sharon Ogborn, Pasco Fiasco Tom Ryan, Pasco Economic Development Council (EDC) & MPO CAC MPO/County Staff and Consultants Present Pasco County MPO: Ali Atefi, James Edwards, Manny Lajmiri, Mabel Risner Pasco County: Matt Armstrong, David Goldstein, Kris Hughes Florida Department of Transportation: Dan Santos Tindale Oliver: Bill Ball, Wally Blain Jacobs: Brandie Miklus Citizens Ray Chiaramonte, Ben Collier, Jim Flateau, Frank Havoer, Fred Krauer, Andy Padget, Georgianne Youngblood Call to Order, Meeting Overview James Edwards of the Pasco County MPO called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm. Introductions were made, and agenda topics were noted. Task Force Members introduced themselves and some offered comments on their interests and expectations for the Corridor Study. Key comments made during introductions are summarized below. Ms. Collier (extended turn lanes would be an immediate improvement along the corridor) Mr. Copeland (here to learn so he can pass on information to other members of PACA) Ms. dechant (has been active in Pasco County and the MPO CAC for years; she would like to see an improved transit system and at least a Bus Rapid Transit service on the corridor) Mr. Henry (traffic engineer that represents numerous developers along the corridor)

2 Ms. Hoeller (got involved through Pasco Fiasco, would like to see more speed limit enforcement on the SR 54 corridor) Mr. Hubbs (introduced himself) Bruce Mills (introduced himself) Ms. Miller (introduced herself) Ms. Ogborn (lives in Odessa and owns a business in New Port Richey) Mr. Ryan (commutes from Wesley Chapel to PEDC at SR 54/Suncoast Parkway and is concerned about the growing congestion along the corridor) David Goldstein of the Pasco County Attorney s Office reviewed the Government in the Sunshine requirements, meeting etiquette, and rules following Robert s Rules of Order. He advised attendees that discussion of current or future Task Force agendas items may occur only as part of publicly-noticed and scheduled Task Force meetings and noted that a common violation of the Sunshine Law occurs when sending s using Reply All. Mr. Ryan of the Pasco EDC and Ms. Collier (citizen) asked about the length of time the Sunshine requirements would remain in effect. Mr. Goldstein indicated that they will remain in effect any time the MPO Board convenes Task Force Meetings for this study. He also clarified that the business of the East Task Force and West Task Force is separate, so discussion at civic or other community-based meetings attended by members of the other task force does not violate Sunshine requirements. Mr. Edwards noted that a primary function of the MPO is to develop plans and long range concepts that are converted into priorities based on need, which are used by the MPO s implementing partners, such as FDOT, for implementing and constructing projects. The MPO s MOBILITY 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) reflects a policy-constrained 2040 Roadway Cost Affordable Plan and a 2040 Cost Affordable Transit Plan. MOBILITY 2040 did not identify the improvements to the SR 54/56 corridor, but did establish the need to develop a vision for the SR 54/56 corridor that is reflective of significant public engagement. Vision 54/56 includes a two-phase approach to carry out this recommendation, and the purpose of the West Task Force is to provide input and guidance in developing the vision and make recommendations to the MPO Board. Mr. Copeland of PACA asked about if the Pasco MPO is multi-county. Mr. Edwards provided background regarding the single-county structure of the Pasco MPO and neighboring MPOs and provided information on the regional partners and coordination that occurs with the Hillsborough and Pinellas MPOs specifically. Mr. Edwards noted the FDOT and Pasco County policy of constructing no more than six general-purpose lanes on major roads. Mr. Hubbs of CONA asked for additional information about this policy. Mr. Atefi indicated that more than six lanes can be considered if there is a specific special-use designation, such as express lanes or dedicated transit lanes. Mr. Mills of the West Pasco Chamber of Commerce asked for the reason for this policy. Mr. Atefi and Mr. Armstrong of Pasco County provided a description of the safety considerations and operational constraints that led to this policy decision.

3 Mr. Edwards stated that a Chair and Vice-Chair need to be selected for the Task Force and asked for volunteers for Chair. Kelly Miller indicated she would be willing to serve as Chair. Ronald Hubbs nomination of Kelly Miller for Chair was seconded by Marilynn dechant. With no other nominations, the motion passed unanimously in favor of Ms. Miller serving as Chair. Chair Miller then requested nominations for Vice Chair. Ronald Hubbs nomination of Tom Ryan for Vice-Chair was seconded by Bruce Mills. With no further nominations, the motion passed unanimously in favor of Mr. Ryan serving as Vice-Chair. Chair Miller presided over the remainder of the meeting. Presentations Ali Atefi of the Pasco County MPO gave a PowerPoint presentation that highlighted information on the corridor segments, existing hot spot locations, daily traffic volumes vs. capacity in east and west segments, and current transportation projects. He indicated that land use and traffic patterns were key components in these decisions and stressed that the operational issues along the SR 54/56 corridor are a result of the significant turning volumes at major intersections. He noted that 30% of the county-wide growth through the year 2040 is expected to occur within the SR 54/56 corridor. MOBILITY 2040 assumes that about 50-60% of approved developments will be built by the year 2040, meaning that even more growth is anticipated to occur beyond He noted to Task Force Members that they may contact him for further information if desired. Clarification of the approved development information was requested by Ms. dechant of the MPO CAC. Mr. Armstrong clarified that residential information is displayed as individual housing units and non-residential information is based on square feet of development. Task Force members discussed opportunities for preserving future corridors and the impact on future development. Mr. Goldstein indicated that Pasco County cannot stop landowners from selling or developing their land but the County s Comprehensive Plan includes a corridor preservation program and a vision roadway network map that identifies projected build-out improvements/corridors based on typical roadway widths and configurations. This information is used during the development review and approval process. Matt Armstrong of Pasco County made a presentation on Pasco County s Growth and Economic Development Objectives and the incorporation of transit-oriented development (TOD) principles into the Comprehensive Plan in an effort to address growth in the Gateway Crossings Market Area and pursue making the area more transit ready. A common question being asked is, What do people want to make them comfortable with building, living, and working in Pasco County? In support of economic development in Pasco County, Mr. Armstrong highlighted the desired characteristics sought by companies seeking Class A office space as they make their business location decisions. Mr. Edwards commented that 50% of the working population commutes to work in counties south of Pasco County each day. Mr. Armstrong said that today, Pasco County has seen growth in

4 residential and service-oriented land uses but not much in office space. This emphasizes the importance of designating Market Areas for future growth in recognition of their characteristics and the vision for each of these areas. During a discussion of mobility fees, Ms. dechant asked about the difference between impact fees and mobility fees. Staff clarified the purpose of mobility fees, the methodology behind the fee calculation, and the use of the mobility fees for multimodal projects. Committee members also asked for clarification regarding the connection between land use development and transportation infrastructure investments. Bill Ball of Tindale Oliver made a PowerPoint presentation on previous study efforts and SR 54/56 improvement alternatives. Mr. Atefi summarized the parallel alternatives outside the SR 54/56 Corridor, including the projected 2040 roadway volumes and capacity on SR 54/56 that resulted when parallel improvement alternatives were evaluated. Several questions and comments by attendees were addressed: Mr. Mills asked about the physical separation of express lanes from general-purpose travel lanes. Mr. Ball responded that for enforcement there would most likely be some type of physical barrier separating the lanes. Mr. Copeland asked for clarification of tolls on express lanes vs. high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Staff provided clarification that the both types are still used. The concepts presented in other studies included the operation of buses within the express lanes. During the discussion of the TBARTA/FDOT District 7 Concept Development Study, Mr. Henry (Traffic Engineer) asked about intersection conflicts with at-grade express lanes. Mr. Ball indicated that these conflicts as well as the circuitous travel patterns that were created resulted in the elimination of those concepts in the previous study. Task Force Members discussed current travel patterns and the heavy dependence on the automobile. Some members commented that the current auto-dependency would make transit and bus solutions impractical. Others noted changes that have occurred in places such as Texas where congestion became so bad that other options, such as express buses, have become much more feasible over time. There was discussion that transit along the SR 54/56 Corridor will not be feasible without north/south transit connections, especially given the significant commuting pattern from Pasco County to Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. A Task Force discussion occurred regarding changing demographics and lifestyles. Examples include the aging population needing mobility and millennials desiring to drive less. Transportation technology also was discussed, especially as it relates to forecasting transportation demand. Ms. Hoeller of the Central Pasco/Land O Lakes Chamber of Commerce) noted that technological advances are being made in the transportation industry and recommendations should consider the potential impact of technology on the transportation vision for SR 54/56. Mr. Copeland asked if there are local access/parallel connections planned that could carry the shopping/commercial trips instead of people using SR 54. Mr. Goldstein indicated that these

5 considerations are included to the extent possible and handled during the development agreement and approval process. Ms. Hoeller asked for a definition of BRT Light. Mr. Ball described this type of transit as premium bus service that operates in mixed traffic with no dedicated lane (frequent service, fewer stops, faster travel time, and other customer amenities that make the bus service more attractive). He also noted that this term is reflected on the handout of definitions for key transportation terms. Mr. Ball noted that moving forward with the Vision 54/56 Corridor Study, a no-build alternative should be considered by the Task Force to facilitate comparison with build alternatives. Mr. Ball concluded his presentation by noting other previously-completed studies, including one by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) in which the concept of regional travel patterns was discussed. He pointed out that the MPO conducted an analysis of the future 2040 traffic on SR 54/56 using the regional travel demand model that concluded that 63% of traffic on SR 54/56 had both an origin and a destination within Pasco County. Mr. Ryan commented on the 63% of traffic staying within Pasco County by noting that trips made within the county for shopping or recreational purposes would most likely be 3 5 miles in length. These shorter trips would most likely not take a tolled option. Public Comment Chair Miller asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Mr. Havoer commented on the challenge of funding any future projects by noting it as the question to be answered. Mr. Chiaramonte introduced himself as the TBARTA Executive Director and noted that the SR 54/56 Corridor is one of the top eight regional priorities adopted by TBARTA. He also noted that 49% of Pasco residents work outside the county, commenting that evaluating the use of SR 54/56 should be broad enough to consider commute trips and not just the local shopping trips. Mr. Hughes introduced himself as the new Planning and Development Administrator for Pasco County. He thanked the Task Force for their time and interest and stated that he looks forward to their recommendations. Adjourn Chair Miller requested a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hubbs made the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Copeland and passed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.