9/9 FRI 2:45 | Tampa Bay Regional Strategic Freight Plan
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

9/9 FRI 2:45 | Tampa Bay Regional Strategic Freight Plan

on

  • 693 views

Danny Lamb ...

Danny Lamb
Frank Kalpakis
Robert Cursey
Alex Bell

The Florida Department of Transportation, District Seven has developed a strategic plan for freight mobility in the Tampa Bay region to support economic development and capitalize on the
new trade environment that includes the growth of the region as a distribution hub, the expansion of the Panama Canal, and the eventual opening of free trade with Cuba. The Strategic Freight
Plan includes a policy framework to guide the identification of investment strategies and roadway design that support the primary corridor function and are compatible with the land uses and
associated activities within travel corridors in the region.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
693
Views on SlideShare
693
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

9/9 FRI 2:45 | Tampa Bay Regional Strategic Freight Plan Presentation Transcript

  • 1.
  • 2. www.tampabayfreight.com
  • 3. Why are we doing this study?
    Freight mobility, safety and operations
    Economic development
    Position region for funding opportunities
  • 4. Why are we doing this study?
    Trucks are everywhere
    Trucks are not going away
    Truck traffic is increasing
  • 5. Florida Average Daily Truck Traffic
  • 6. Why are we doing this study?
    Trucks contribute to congestion and reduced mobility for all
  • 7. Why are we doing this study?
    However…
    …trucks have unique operating characteristics and needs.
    Addressing these needs will improve mobility for both trucks and autos.
  • 8. Wide Turns
    SR 54 and US 301, Zephyrhills
  • 9. Major Intersection USA
  • 10. Signal Timing Series
    US 301 and Progress Blvd/Bloomingdale Ave, Tampa
  • 11. Signal Timing Series
    US 301 at Causeway Blvd, Tampa
    7
  • 12. Insufficient Turn Lane Length
    Thru Lane
    Begin Aux Turn Lane
    Blocked Thru Lane Northbound 50th at Causeway Blvd.
  • 13. Blocking Traffic
  • 14. Slow Acceleration
  • 15. Why are we doing this study?
    Congestion costs are rising
  • 16. Average Cost per Hour of Delay
    Source:
    Texas Transportation Institute
    Texas A&M University
  • 17. Why are we doing this study?
    Support economic development
    Attract new businesses to region
    Support port and rail investments
    Capitalize on new trade environment
    Growth of region as a distribution hub
    Panama Canal expansion
    Free trade with Cuba
  • 18. Regional Freight Related Employment
    13,000 businesses
    218,000 jobs
    $7.3 Billion in annual payroll
    Includes Transportation/Warehousing, Manufacturing, and Wholesale Trades
    Source: Info USA; BEBR (2009)
  • 19. Source:
    Freight Analysis Framework 3.1 (2009)
    Tampa Bay Metropolitan Area
    Moving More Than You Think
    Regionally more than 308.1 million tons of cargo valued at $215 billion originates, terminates or passes through the Tampa Bay region annually
    Trucks transport over 70% of the total tonnage
    All other modes depend on trucks at some point in the goods movement process
  • 20. Freight Transportation and Economic Development Policy
    Federal reauthorization expected to strengthen emphasis on freight transport
    Expanded and dedicated funding sources
    Partnerships and collaboration
  • 21. Study Emphasis
    Accessibility to Freight Activity Centers
    System mobility
    Roadway operating conditions
    Freight and commuter conflicts
    Freight and land use compatibility
    Identify priority freight investments
  • 22. Initial Study Efforts
    Freight Activity Centers
    Freight Corridors
    Freight Hot Spots
    Freight Corridor and Sub Area Study Guidelines
    Web site
  • 23. Regional Freight Activity Centers
    Manufacturing and distribution areas
    Seaports
    Airports
    Railroad hubs
  • 24. Freight Network Components
    Regional Freight Activity Centers
    26
  • 25. Freight Transportation System
    Freight Activity Centers
  • 26. Freight Transportation System
    Freight Activity Centers
    Strategic Trade Corridors
  • 27. Freight Transportation System
    Freight Activity Centers
    Strategic Trade Corridors
    Regional Freight Mobility Corridors
  • 28. Freight Transportation System
    Freight Activity Centers
    Strategic Trade Corridors
    Regional Freight Mobility Corridors
    Local Truck Routes
  • 29. Freight Transportation System
    Freight Activity Centers
    Strategic Trade Corridors
    Regional Freight Mobility Corridors
    Local Truck Routes
    26
  • 30. Goods Movement Advisory Committee
    FDOT Districts 7 and 1
    MPOs
    Local government
    Public Works
    Economic Development
    Intermodal entities
    Trucking/shipping community
  • 31. Transportation Providers Committee
    Adhoc Committee
    Share challenges and opportunities
    Insights on current conditions and issues
    Identify traffic operational issues
    Provide unique perspective
  • 32. Freight Needs Assessment Sources
  • 33. Freight Needs Assessment Sources
    Intermodal entities
    Local governments
    White Papers
  • 34. Freight Needs Assessment Sources
    LRTP Needs Assessment
    Strategic Intermodal System Needs
  • 35. Freight Needs Assessment Sources
    Port of Tampa
    Tampa International Airport
    St. Petersburg/Clearwater Airport
    Hernando Regional Airport
  • 36. Freight Needs Assessment Sources
    Separated grade crossings
    Intermodal access improvements
  • 37. Freight Needs Assessment Sources
    Conducted interviews at terminals
    Distributed surveys to Publix, Walmart, others
    Identified Freight Hot Spots
  • 38. Freight Needs Assessment Sources
    263 segments
    Identified freight operational issues
  • 39. Freight Needs Assessment Sources
  • 40. Strategic Freight Plan
    Integrated and connected regional freight network
    Regional freight priorities
    Implementation plan
    Long-term infrastructure improvements
    Short-term operational strategies
    Economic, transportation and land use policy framework
  • 41. Strategic Freight Plan Schedule
  • 42. Strategic Plan Goal Statement
    Provide a safe, secure,effective and efficient freight transportation system that fosters the economic vitality and livability of the Tampa Bay Region
  • 43. Freight Objectives
    Improve safety conditions on the freight transportation system
    Improve accessibility and connectivity for freight transport to designated freight activity centers
    Improve mobility conditions and the overall performance of the freight transportation system
    Improve the security of the freight transportation system, balancing the need for efficient and reliable goods movement
  • 44. Improve safety, accessibility, and mobility conditions where the freight and passenger transportation systems interact
    Minimize impacts to ecosystems and communities that are impacted by the freight transportation system
    Maximize the freight transportation system's contribution to the economic competitiveness of the region and its communities
    Implement regional and local coordination of plans and policies that encourage an integrated approach to freight and livability issues
    Freight Compatibility Objectives
  • 45. Types of Freight Strategies
  • 46. Freight Strategy Evaluation Process
  • 47. Corridor-Based Evaluation Criteria
  • 48. Freight Hot Spot Evaluation Criteria
  • 49. Performance Criteria Weighting
  • 50. Objective 1: Improve safety conditions
    Performance Criteria:
    % truck crashes / % truck traffic
    Supporting Data:
    State and local crash statistics
    Projected traffic on 2014 loaded road network
  • 51. Example Segment: Chancey Rd. - 20th St. Ext. to Alston Ave. Ext.
    /= Example segment
    X= Crash incidents
    X= Crashes on segment
    Total crashes: 5 (all at same node)
    Truck crashes: 3
    Percent truck crashes (C): 60%
    Percent truck traffic (T): 7.97%
    Ratio C/T: 7.53
  • 52. Objective 2: Improve freight accessibility
    Performance Criteria:
    Intensity of FAC(s) served by project
    Emerging or existing FAC
    Facility provides access from FAC to limited access highway
    Supporting Data:
    Designated Freight Activity Centers
  • 53. Example Segment: Chancey Rd. - 20th St. Ext. to Alston Ave. Ext.
    .= FAC boundary
    Intensity of FAC: Medium
    Emerging or existing FAC: Emerging
    Connection to limited access highway: No
  • 54. Objective 3: Improve freight mobility and reliability
    Performance Criteria:
    Future congested to free flow speed ratio
    Future truck volume
    Facility type served by project
    Supporting Data:
    Traffic projections on 2014 road network
    Designated freight corridors and truck routes
  • 55. Example Segment: Chancey Rd. - 20th St. Ext. to Alston Ave. Ext.
    /= 2014 loaded highway network
    /= Selected model links
    / = Regional freight mobility corridor (RFMC)
    / = Truck route
    Future congested to free flow speed ratio: 0.8566
    Future truck volume: 968
    Facility type: RFMC
  • 56. Objective 4: Improve travel conditions where freight and commuters interact
    Performance Criteria:
    % future truck traffic
    Supporting Data:
    Traffic projections on 2014 road network
  • 57. Example Segment: Chancey Rd. - 20th St. Ext. to Alston Ave. Ext.
    /= 2014 loaded highway network
    /= selected model links
    % future truck traffic: 7.97%
  • 58. Objective 5: Minimize impacts to communities
    Performance Criteria:
    % of project in livability/freight conflict areas
    Supporting Data:
    Livability/freight compatibility analysis
  • 59. Livability and freight compatibility analysis
    Livability
    H
    M
    L
    L M H
    Freight Activity
  • 60. Example Segment: Chancey Rd. - 20th St. Ext. to Alston Ave. Ext.
    .= Livability/freight conflict areas
    % of project in livability/freight conflict areas: 5.58%
  • 61. Objective 6: Maximize economic competiveness
    Performance Criteria:
    Future industrial employment served by project
    Supporting Data:
    2035 industrial employment
  • 62. Example Segment: Chancey Rd. - 20th St. Ext. to Alston Ave. Ext.
    .= Selected TAZs
    Industrial employment in project area: 5,376
  • 63. % Truck Crashes/% Truck Traffic: 7.53
    Intensity of FAC: Medium
    Tenure of FAC: Emerging
    Limited Access Highway Connection: No
    Future congested to free flow speed ratio: 0.8566
    Future truck volume: 968
    Facility type: RFMC
    % future truck traffic: 7.97%
    % of project in livability/freight conflict areas: 5.58%
    Industrial employment in project area: 5,376
    PROJECT RANK: 112
    Performance Evaluation Summary for Chancey Road
  • 64. Performance Evaluation Summary for Chancey Road
    Segment Rank - 112
  • 65. Policy Framework - Approach
    Develop a policy framework for freight planning that supports the economic and quality of life goals for the region
    Understand the nature and geography of urban form and freight activities
    Identify where freight activity conflicts with land uses and associated activities
    Identify freight-specific projects and roadway design guidance that considers corridor function and corridor land use
  • 66. Implementation Strategy Considerations
    Freight facility functionality
    Freight and land use compatibility
    Shared users of corridor
    Corridor capacity and operational issues
  • 67. Freight Facility Types
    Limited Access Facilities
    Regional Freight Mobility Corridors
    Other Designated Truck Routes
    Freight Activity Center Streets
  • 68. Freight Roadway Network Functions
    Mobility
    Smooth, efficient traffic flow
    High travel speeds
    Connectivity
    Links Freight Activity Centers to Strategic Trade Corridors
    Links between Freight Activity Centers, where warranted
    Circulation
    Local movements and distribution
    Access
    Efficient access to destinations
  • 69. Freight Facility Type and Function
    P = Primary S = Secondary L = Limited
  • 70. Policy Framework
    Community Oriented Area
    Diverse Activity Area
    Livability
    Strategies and policies address conflicts between freight movements and livability concerns and are sensitive to local contexts
    Strategies and policies emphasize livability (pedestrian, bicycle, car movements)
    High
    Medium
    Freight Oriented Area
    Strategies and policies emphasize redevelopment, restoration/conservation, or other future land use goals
    Strategies and policies emphasize freight movements
    Low Activity Area
    Low
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Freight Activity
  • 71. Livability Areas
    Station Areas
    Livable Future Land Uses
    Secondary Activity Centers
    Tier 1 Regional Anchors
    Tier 2/3 Regional Anchors
    Primary Activity Centers
    Community Redevelopment Areas
    High Livability Areas
    Medium Livability Areas
  • 72. Freight Areas
    High Intensity FACs
    Medium Intensity FACs
    Low Intensity FACs
    Industrial/Commercial Future Land Uses
    High Truck Traffic (over 10%)
    Medium Truck Traffic (5-10%)
    Low Truck Traffic (3-5%)
    High Freight Areas
    Medium Freight Areas
    Low Freight Areas
  • 73. Livability and Freight Activity Overlay
    High Freight Areas
    Medium Freight Areas
    Low Freight Areas
    High Livability Areas
    Medium Livability Areas
    Livability
    H
    M
    L
    L M H
    Freight Activity
  • 74. Livability and Freight Activity Overlay - Corridors
    Livability
    H
    M
    L
    L M H
    Freight Activity
  • 75. Livability and Freight Activity Overlay
    Livability
    H
    M
    L
    L M H
    Freight Activity
  • 76. Roadway Design Guidance
    Resource that identifies unique design considerations for truck movements
    Provides engineers and planners guidance for employing design within various contexts
    Considers design strategies for different users of corridor and affect on freight transport
  • 77. Policy FrameworkDesign Guidance
    • Address conflicts between needs of different users
    • 78. Emphasize primary freight function
    • 79. Accommodate trucks
    • 80. Emphasize needs of non-freight users
    Livability
    High
    Medium
    • Accommodate different users
    • 81. Emphasize freight function
    • 82. Design for trucks
    • 83. Emphasize freight function
    Low
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Freight Activity
  • 84. Policy FrameworkDesign Guidelines
    • Address conflicts between needs of different users
    • 85. Emphasize primary freight function
    • 86. Accommodate trucks
    • 87. Emphasize needs of Non-freight users
    Community Oriented Area
    Diverse Activity Area
    Livability
    High
    Medium
    • Accommodate different users
    • 88. Emphasize freight function
    • 89. Design for trucks
    • 90. Emphasize freight function
    Low Activity Area
    Freight Oriented Area
    Low
    High
    Medium
    Low
    Freight Activity
  • 91. Roadway Design Guidance
    Primary Topics
    Lane widths
    Number of departure and receiving lanes
    Location of fixed objects
    Turning radii
    Tapered curbs
    Turn lane length
  • 92. Roadway Design Guidance
    Secondary Topics
    Medians
    Refuge islands
    Right turn corner islands
    Stop bar location
    Bicycle lanes
    Bulb-outs
  • 93. Regional Freight Mobility Corridors
    Strategy Guidance
    1 = Applicable; 2 = Somewhat applicable; 3 = Limited applicability
  • 94. Priority Freight Investments
    Capacity Projects
    US 41 from Madison Avenue to I-4
    Causeway Boulevard from Maritime Boulevard to east of US 41 CSX
    SR 60 from US 301 to Falkenburg Road
    I-275 from Himes Avenue to I-4
    Orient Road from SR 60 to I-4
    I-4 from I-4/Selmon Connector to County Line Road
    I-75 from US 301 to Fowler Avenue
  • 95. Priority Freight Investments
    Operational Improvements
    Hillsborough Avenue from Veterans Expressway to I-4
    Ulmerton Road from Starkey Road to I-275
    SR 686 (Roosevelt Boulevard) from Gandy Boulevard to Ulmerton Road
    SR 54 from Little Road to I-75
  • 96. Priority Freight Investments
    Capacity and Operations
    SR 50 from Lockhart Road to Hernando County Line
    US 301from I-75 to I-4
    SR 686 (Roosevelt Boulevard) from Ulmerton Road to 49th Street
    Madison Avenue from US 41 to US 301
    US 41 from Ayers Road to SR 50
    Big Bend Road from US 41 to US 301
  • 97. Priority Freight Investments
    Grade Separations
    SR 60 east of 50th Street over the Palmetto Main Line
    50th Street over the ‘S’ and ‘A’ Lines and Broadway Avenue
    Orient Road over the ‘A’ Line
    Causeway Boulevard over the Palmetto Main Line
    SR 50 east of US 301 over the ‘S’ Line
    SR 54 over the Brooksville Sub Line and US 41
  • 98. Priority Freight Investments
    CSX Intermodal Yard Access Plan
  • 99. Study Products
    Comprehensive database
    Strategic Freight Plan
    Collaborative process
    Internally
    MPOs
    Intermodal entities
    Private sector
  • 100. Coordination and Continuing Efforts
    Inform TBARTA Master Plan
    Integrate Polk, Manatee, and Sarasota
    Inform MPO and intermodal agency planning processes
  • 101. www.tampabayfreight.com