City of St. Petersburg Planning & Visioning Commission October 11, 2011

Transcription

1 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Speakers Bureau City of St. Petersburg Planning & Visioning Commission October 11, 2011

2 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Project Purpose A study identifying transit options to improve Pinellas County s and the Tampa Bay Area s quality of life. The study findings will be a blueprint for transit service (such as fast bus or rail) connecting major residential, employment and other activity centers in Pinellas County and into Hillsborough County via the Howard Frankland Bridge.

3 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Project Goals Maximize economic development opportunities Pursue transit improvements supported by the public Encourage sustainability through land use initiatives Provide local connections within Pinellas County and efficient regional connections Attract new transit markets

4 Group One Recommended Studies/Projects Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Study Area Study Area Connections Clearwater Largo Greater Gateway Pinellas Park St. Petersburg Hillsborough County (via the Howard Frankland Bridge)

5 Group One Recommended Studies/Projects Where Does the Alternatives Analysis Fit Into Constructing a Major Transit Project? An Alternatives Analysis examines all transportation options. It identifies the best connections between key destinations = a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The LPA is a local discussion to answer the following questions: Where will the new transit go? What type of transit technology will be used? How much will the new transit cost?

6 Group One Recommended Studies/Projects How are Decisions Made?

7 Step-by-Step Decision-Making More Routes Screen One Dec 2010 Jan 2011 Less Detail Screen Two Spring 2011 We Are Here Fewer Routes Screen Three Summer 2011 Fall 2011 Winter 2012 More Detai l

8 Preliminary Corridor Options Gulf to Bay Blvd. Alt. US 19/Missouri Ave. East Bay/West Bay Drive Roosevelt Blvd. Ulmerton Rd. Bryan Dairy Rd./118 th Ave. N CSX Freight Corridor I 275 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. St./9 th Street 4 th St. North Central Ave. 6 th Ave. South 28 th St. North 16 th St. North 142 nd Ave. N 126 th Ave. N US th Street N 66 th Street N Howard Frankland Bridge Study Area

9 Screen One Evaluation East-West Trunklines RECOMMENDATION: To advance to Screen Two East/West Bay Drive Ulmerton Road 118 th Ave North

10 Screen One Evaluation North-South Trunklines RECOMMENDATION: To advance to Screen Two 28th Street North Interstate 275 4th Street North

11 Screen Two East-West Recommendation: East Bay/West Bay Drive Strong technical performance Few properties affected Greatest access to community assets Preferred by agencies, stakeholders, public

12 Screen Two North-South Recommendation: I-275/Pinellas Park Hybrid Strong technical performance Few properties affected Increased economic development opportunities Combination of I 275 & 28 th Street preferred by agencies, stakeholders, public

13 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Screen Three Analysis We examined: Feasibility of Design Alternatives What type of system technology (bus or rail?)

14 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Screen Three Analysis Design Alternatives: Does it solve a problem identified from the Build Alternative? Is it a less costly option than the Build Alternative? Does it support a different transit technology than the Build Alternative?

15 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Screen Three Analysis Design Alternatives: Preferred 1 st Ave. North/1 st Ave. South Loop Design Alternative 1 st Ave. South/2 nd Ave. South Loop

16 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Screen Three Analysis Design Alternatives: Preferred CSX Freight Corridor & Interstate 275 Design Alternative Interstate 275/1 st Ave. South & 22 nd St. North/CSX Freight Corr.

17 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Screen Three Analysis Design Alternatives: Preferred Interstate 275, 62 nd Ave. North, Haines Rd., US 19, Gandy Blvd., 28 th St. North, New Facility Design Alternative Interstate 275

18 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Screen Three Analysis Design Alternatives: Preferred Gandy Blvd., 28 th St. North, New Facility, Interstate 275, Roosevelt Blvd. Design Alternative 28 th St. North

19 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Screen Three Analysis Design Alternatives: Preferred Roosevelt Blvd. Design Alternative 49 th St. North & Ulmerton Rd.

20 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Screen Three Analysis Design Alternatives: Preferred CSX Freight Corridor Design Alternative Court Street & Alt. US 19

21 Planning and Developing TOD Stations will evolve over time Remain flexible as long as possible Timing, amount, and type of development driven by: Market forces Jurisdictions level of investment in station area Development incentives and public private partnerships Quality and perceptions of the transit service Timing of station area planning efforts

22 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Screen Three Analysis

23 Technology Comparison Travel Times Two Least Performing Technologies: Commuter Rail Bus Rapid Transit in Partially Mixed Traffic

24 Technology Comparison Vehicle Costs and Life Cycle Costs Least Performing Technology: Commuter Rail

25 Technology Comparison Bus Rapid Transit in exclusive lane and mixed traffic Preliminary comparison to the TSM: o 5% increase in ridership o 18% faster travel time o 46% more costly per mile used

26 Technology Comparison Commuter Rail Preliminary comparison to the TSM: o 75% increase in ridership o 33% faster travel time 172% more costly per mile used

27 Technology Comparison Commuter Rail 150% More right of way than Light Rail 197% More Noise and Vibration impacts than Light Rail

28 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Screen Three Analysis Technology Recommendation Remove BRT in Partially Mixed Traffic and Commuter Rail from LPA Consideration Technologies May be Considered for Phasing or Supporting Services Advance BRT in Exclusive Lane and Light Rail to Final Screen Cost versus Benefit Comparison in November and December Charlotte, NC Eugene, OR

29 Public Outreach Number of Events (To Date) 56 Events Number of Participants (To Date) 14,931 Attendees Continued Outreach Through January

30 Survey Webpage Scrollable Informational Graphic History & context of study Process and study area Project partners Current status Clickable links Interactive Map of Pinellas County 5 layers to turn on and off Zoom in and out Additional features will be added as the study progresses

31 Survey Results Which transit investment do you think would be better for Pinellas County? General Public Rail Investment Public 71% AP/Stakeholders 91% Fast Bus Investment Public 10% AP/Stakeholders 9% Limited Transit Investment Public 10% AP/Stakeholders 0% No New Transit Investment Public 8% AP/Stakeholders 0% 1,135 public responses 22 Agency Partner (AP)/Stakeholder responses Agency Partners & Stakeholders

32 Pinellas Alternatives Analysis Final Screen Analysis We are examining: What type of system technology (bus or rail?) Balance investment vs. benefit Project phasing, steps to reach the ultimate vision Draft Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)

33 Stay Connected Join the Mailing List Join a Stakeholder Committee Send a Comment Take the SURVEY! Twitter/PinellasOnTrack Facebook/PinellasOnTrack YouTube/PinellasOnTrack

34 Thank you! Pinellas Alternatives Analysis