Pasco County Policy and Procedures Handbook - Final Report

2010 STATE OF THE SYSTEM REP

POLICY AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK

POLICY AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK Pasco County MPO:

Congestion Management Process

DRAFT April 2011


Pasco County MPO i April 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1-1 Causes of Congestions ........................................................................... 1-2 Federal Requirements ............................................................................ 1-3 CMP Policy and Procedures Handbook Overview ..................................... 1-6

Chapter 2: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW ....................... 2-1 Eight-Step Process ................................................................................ 2-1 CMP in Metropolitan Planning Process ..................................................... 2-3 Public Involvement Process .................................................................... 2-3 CMP Actions/Recommendations .............................................................. 2-5

Chapter 3: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................ 3-1 CMP Goals and Objectives ...................................................................... 3-1

Chapter 4: NETWORK IDENTIFICAION ........................................................... 4-1 Area of Application ................................................................................ 4-1 Transportation Network ......................................................................... 4-1 Chapter 5: DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES ............................. 5-1 Performance Measures .......................................................................... 5-2 Relationship of Performance Measures to the Goals and Objectives .......... 5-9

Chapter 6: SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN................................. 6-1

Chapter 7: CONGESTED CORRIDOR SELECTION AND CMP STRATEGIES ........ 7-1 Implementation ..................................................................................... 7-1 Congested Corridor Selection and Project Selection Process ..................... 7-1 Toolbox of Strategies ............................................................................. 7-9 Methodology for Establishing Multimodal Priorities ................................... 7-21 CMP Implementation Process ................................................................. 7-22 Methodology for Setting Priorities ........................................................... 7-24 Chapter 8: MONITOR STRATEGY EFFECTIVENESS .......................................... 8-1


Pasco County MPO ii April 2011

LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1 Relationship of Goals and Objectives to Performance Measures ................ 5-9 Table 6-1 System Performance Monitoring Plan ...................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2 Annual Update Analysis Structure ........................................................... 6-4 Table 7-1 Demand Management Strategies ............................................................ 7-7 Table 7-2 Operational Management Strategies ....................................................... 7-8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Causes of Congestion ............................................................................ 1-2 Figure 2-1 Federal Eight-Step Congestion Management Process .............................. 2-2 Figure 6-1 Annual Update Activities ........................................................................ 6-3 Figure 7-1 Corridor/Strategy Selection Process ........................................................ 7-4 Figure 7-2 Corridor Selection Review Process .......................................................... 7-5 Figure 7-3 Congestion Management Strategies ........................................................ 7-6 Figure 7-4 CMP Safety Strategy Matrix .................................................................... 7-19 Figure 7-5 CMP Project Prioritization Overview ........................................................ 7-23 Figure 7-6 CMP Prioritization Process ...................................................................... 7-25 LIST OF MAPS Map 4-1 Area of Application & Road Network ...................................................... 4-2 APPENDICES: Appendix 7A: Pasco County CMP Congested Corridors Selection Methodology ................. 7A-1 Appendix 7B: Pasco County CMP Strategy Solutions Matrix ............................................ 7B-1 Appendix 7C: Pasco County CMP Safety Solutions Matrix ............................................... 7C-1


Pasco County MPO 1-1 April 2011

CCHHAAPPTTEERR OONNEE IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

The Congestion Management Process (CMP) is a management system and process conducted by a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to improve traffic operations and safety through the use of either strategies that reduce travel demand or the implementation of operational improvements. As an MPO, the Pasco County MPO is required by the federal government to implement a CMP as part of their routine planning efforts. The public benefits from having a functional CMP in place since it can often improve travel conditions through the use of low cost improvements or strategies that can be implemented in a relatively short timeframe (within five to ten years) compared to more traditional capacity improvements such as adding additional travel lanes which can take over ten years to implement and cost significantly more. Projects identified through the CMP process may also be added to future updates of the Long Range Transportation Plan should they require a longer time timeframe to implement. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines the CMP as “a systematic approach collaboratively developed and implemented throughout a metropolitan region, that provides for the safe and effective management and operation of new and existing transportation facilities through the use of demand reduction and operational management strategies.” The CMP is required to be developed and implemented as an essential part of the metropolitan planning process in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). TMAs are defined as urbanized areas with a population over 200,000, or any area where designation as a TMA has been requested. This establishes the requirement for the Pasco County MPO to implement a CMP. The Congestion Management Process (CMP) has evolved from what was previously known as the Congestion Management System (CMS) or in the case of the Pasco MPO, the Mobility Management Process (MMS). The previous CMS/MMS process was documented in a prior report. The primary changes included in this updated CMP process include the identification of revised Goals and Objectives for the CMP and the development of matrix of CMP related strategies that would typically be considered when evaluating corridors. The Pasco County MPO implemented its first MMS in the mid 1990’s. Key highlights of the Pasco County MMS include:

Completion of a technical process undertaken each year to identify projects that are needed to reduce congestion and which are prioritized for funding in the County’s Capital Improvement element

Routine meetings by the Mobility Management Taskforce concurrent with the MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings

The purpose of this Policy and Procedures Handbook will be to document the CMP process. It is envisioned that this report will be updated with each Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) cycle. Accompanying this handbook, will be the CMP Annual State of the System, which will be an annual report that summarizes the performance of the existing transportation system as well prior performance, identifies congested corridors, and recommends specific improvements.

Conges

CAUSESThe procFigure 1congestio

Bsiro

TquthT

Wneva

Bco

Ptimso

Sirrorre

As shown

cause of incidents controlledimplemenbottleneckCMP updastudies osuggest thbottlenecktop two ca

stion Manag

S OF CONGcess of cong-1 shows ton. Six majo

Bottlenecks -ignals) causeoadway to ope

raffic incidenuarter of con

hat can causeransportation

Work zones -ecessary actiariety of strate

Bad weather ongestion and

oor traffic sme allocationource of cong

pecial evenregularities er locations whegular conges

n in Figure congestion

and bad wed, but policinted to cks. This naates due to

on the caushat local cauks and traffauses of con

agement Pro

ESTION gestion manthe results or causes of

- points where traffic to bacerate below it

nts - crashesgestion proble congestion

n Systems (IT

- for new roaivities, but theegies.

- cannot be d signal syste

signal timingn for a road gestion on ma

ts - cause either cause dhere there usstion problem

1-1, bottlenen nationally, eather. Bades and impontrol traffational data the lack of c

ses of conguses are likefic incidents ngestion.

rocess

nagement beof a nationcongestion

re the roadwack up; these ats adopted lev

s, stalled vehilems. The fand expediti

S) surveillanc

ad building ane amount of c

controlled, buems can adap

g - the faulty does not ma

ajor and mino

“spikes” in tdelay on dayually is none s.

ecks are thefollowed b

d weather caprovements fic incidenare widely

comprehensgestion. Tely to be sim

typically be

1-2

egins by unnal study prare identifie

ay narrows oare the largesvel of service

cles, debris ofocus of the Png incident r

ce is in place.

nd maintenancongestion ca

ut travelers cpt to improve

operation of atch the volumr streets.

traffic volumeys, times, or add to

e largest by traffic annot be

can be nts and

used in sive local he data ilar, with eing the

Bo

Cau

derstandingresented byed:

or regular trafst source of co standards.

on the road; thPasco CMP wresponse to c.

nce activities aused by thes

can be notifiesafety.

traffic signalsme on that r

es and chan

Sou

ttlenecks 40%

S

Figure 1-uses of Con

the causesy FHWA on

ffic demands ongestion an

hese incidentwill be the redclear incident

like filling pose actions ca

d of the pote

s or green/reroad; poor sig

nges in traff

rce: FHWA

pecial Events 5%

Pasco County

April

-1 ngestion

s of the prob the source

(typically at d typically ca

ts cause abouduction of cras where Intel

otholes; causean be reduced

ential for incre

ed lights whergnal timings

ic patterns;

Traffic Incidents25%

Poor Signal 5%

ty MPO

l 2011

blem. es of

traffic ause a

ut one ashes lligent

ed by d by a

eased

re the are a

these

Bad Weather 15%

Work Zones 10%

Timing



FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS The initial federal requirements for congestion management were introduced by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and were continued under the successor law, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The requirements guiding congestion management further evolved under the most recent federal transportation act, the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), passed into law in August 2005. One of the significant changes included in the most recent reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program, SAFETEA-LU, was the updated requirement for a “congestion management process” in TMAs, as opposed to a “congestion management system.” According to FHWA, the change in name is intended to be a substantive change in perspective and practice to address congestion management through a process that provides for effective management and operations, an enhanced linkage to the planning process based on cooperatively developed travel demand reduction and operational management strategies as well as capacity increases. Aside from the change in name, the CMP requirements are not expected to change substantially from the CMS requirements. The federal requirements for a CMP are summarized below. CMP in Transportation Management Areas (Section 450.320) - Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transportation Planning; Final Rule

a) The transportation planning process in a TMA shall address congestion management through a process that provides for safe and effective integrated management and operation of the multimodal transportation system.

Cooperatively developed and implemented

Travel reduction strategies

Operational management strategies

b) The CMP should result in multimodal system performance measures and strategies.

Acceptable levels of service may vary from area to area

Consider strategies that: I. Manage demand

II. Reduce single occupant vehicle travel III. Improve transportation system management and operations

Where general purpose lanes are determined to be appropriate, must give explicit consideration to features that facilitate future demand management strategies.



c) The CMP shall be developed, established, and implemented in coordination with Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and operations activities. The CMP shall include:

Methods to monitor and evaluate the performance of the multimodal transportation system I. Identify the causes of congestion

II. Identify and evaluate alternative strategies III. Provide information supporting the implementation of actions

Definitions of congestion management objectives and appropriate performance measures to assess the extent of congestion and support the evaluation of the effectiveness of strategies. Performance measures should be tailored to the specific needs of an area.

Establishment of a coordinated program for data collection and system performance monitoring to define the extent and duration of congestion. To the extent possible, this program should be coordinated with existing sources.

Identification and evaluation of the anticipated performance and expected

benefits of congestion management strategies that will contribute to the more effective use and improved safety of the existing and future transportation system. Examples of strategies to consider include:

I. Demand management measures, including growth management and

congestion pricing II. Traffic operational improvements

III. Public Transit improvements IV. Information Technology Services (ITS) technologies V. Where necessary, additional system capacity

Identification of an implementation schedule, implementation responsibilities, and possible funding sources for each strategy

Implementation of a process for periodic assessment of the effectiveness of implemented strategies. Results of this assessment shall be provided to decision makers and the public to provide guidance on the selection of effective strategies for future implementation.



d) TMA designated nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide may not program

Federal funds for any project that will result in a significant increase in the carrying capacity of Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs), with the exception of safety improvements or the elimination of bottlenecks (within the limits of the appropriate projects that can be implemented).

e) In TMAs designated nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide, the CMP shall

provide an appropriate analysis of reasonable (including multimodal) travel demand reduction and operational management strategies for a corridor in which a project with a significant increase in SOV capacity is proposed to move forward with Federal funds.

f) State laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to congestion management systems

or programs may constitute the congestion management process, if FHWA and FTA find that these are consistent with the intent of this process.



CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS POLICY AND PROCEDURES HANDBOOK OVERVIEW As mentioned previously, the Pasco County MPO is required by the federal government to implement a CMP as part of their routine planning efforts. This handbook outlines the policies and procedures that will ensure that the federal requirements are followed. Specific performance evaluation information on the Pasco County network is included in the accompanying Annual State of the System Report. This report will also identify congested corridors and recommend specific improvements and actual projects that can be implemented as the point of the CMP is to implement improvements that will help relieve congestion. This handbook is outlined to follow the eight step Congestion Management Process (based on federal guidelines). The main purpose of this handbook is to (1) Evaluate the transportation system and monitor progress, (2) Identify Congested Corridors and Select Corridors for Evaluation, (3) Evaluate corridors and potential strategies, and (4) Prioritize and program improvements. The report chapters found in this handbook are described in more detail below: Chapter 1, Introduction – The purpose of the Congestion Management Process (based on federal requirements), an introduction to the causes of congestion, and an overview of the handbook are provided.

Chapter 2, Congestion Management Process Overview – The eight step Congestion Management Process is described and a general overview of the process is provided as well as the update schedule for the Annual State of the System Report.

Chapter 3, Goals and Objectives – The remainder of the chapters in this handbook discuss specific steps from the eight step Congestion Management Process. The Goals and Objectives of the CMP are provided.

Chapter 4, Network Identification – A description of the area of application and transportation network used for the CMP process.

Chapter 5, Development of Performance Measures – A brief summary is provided of congestion related measures that can be used to monitor the effectiveness of the CMP.

Chapter 6, System Performance Monitoring Plan – This chapter describes how to evaluate and monitor the system, identify congested corridors and select corridors for evaluation, evaluate corridors and potential strategies (described in Chapter 7), prioritize and program improvements.

Chapter 7, Congested Corridor Selection and CMP Strategies – This chapter describes how congested corridors were identified and strategies that can be used to reduce congestion and different strategies that can be used to improve identified congested corridors.

Chapter 8, Monitor Strategy Effectiveness – This chapter describes monitoring of strategies implemented as well as information that can be found in the Annual State of the System.



CCHHAAPPTTEERR TTWWOO CCOONNGGEESSTTIIOONN MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPRROOCCEESSSS OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW

Maintenance of a CMP is a requirement for all Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) under Florida law and for MPOs in TMAs under Federal law. Consistent with the guidance from the Final Rule on the CMP for Transportation Management Areas (Section 450.320), as presented earlier in this report, the intent of the CMP Update is to “address congestion management through a process that provides for safe and effective integrated management and operation of the multimodal transportation system.” EIGHT-STEP PROCESS Under the federal guidelines, the CMS was described as a seven step process; with the addition of a new “first step,” the CMS has evolved into a Congestion Management Process or CMP, an eight-step process, as summarized below.

1. Develop Congestion Management Objectives – Objectives should be identified that help to accomplish the congestion management goals (Addressed in Chapter 3).

2. Identify Area of Application – The CMP must cover a well-defined application area (Addressed in Chapter 4).

3. Define System/Network of Interest – The CMP must define the transportation network that will be evaluated (Addressed in Chapter 4).

4. Develop Performance Measures – The CMP must define the measures by which it will monitor and measure congestion (Addressed in Chapter 5).

5. Institute System Performance Monitoring Plan – There must be a regularly-scheduled performance monitoring plan for assessing the state of the transportation network and evaluating the status of congestion (Addressed in Chapter 6).

6. Identify Congestion/Evaluate Strategies – There must be a toolbox for selecting congestion mitigation strategies and evaluating potential benefits and congested locations are identified in this step of the Pasco CMP (Addressed in Chapter 7)..

7. Implement Selected Strategies/Manage System – There must be a plan for implementing the CMP as part of the regional transportation planning process (Addressed in Chapter 7).

8. Monitor Strategy Effectiveness – The strategies must be regularly monitored to gauge the effectiveness (Addressed in Chapter 8).

Figure 2-1 illustrates the Federal eight-step congestion management process. Each step of the congestion management process is covered in specific detail throughout the rest of the chapters of this handbook. As identified above, specific chapters cover each of the eight steps. Also, the flowchart describes the planning activity where each step is addressed. For example, Steps 1 – 4 are typically only updated four to five years with the LRTP Update whereas other steps are updated more regularly. In addition, Figure 7-1 displays more details on the specific CMP process that the Pasco County MPO is using.



Figure 2-1

Federal Eight-Step Congestion Management Process

The Policy and Procedures Handbook outlines all eight steps of the federal process. and primarily addresses Steps 1-4, while the State of the System Report primarily covers Steps 5-8.



CMP IN METROPOLITAN PLANNING PROCESS The CMP is a working tool that needs to be effectively integrated into the MPO’s project prioritization process, Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), and Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The objectives-driven, performance-based CMP starts with the monitoring and evaluation of current conditions to identify where congestion exists. Based on the identified goals and objectives and the established performance measures of the CMP, this evaluation leads to the identification of potential mitigation strategies, implementation of appropriate strategies and the development of a monitoring plan. The outputs of the CMP, such as identified congested corridors/locations and their recommended mitigation measures then proceed through the CMP process where they are evaluated and projects or programs are selected for implementation. The projects or programs that are identified for implementation through the CMP are then moved into project development and programmed into the TIP for funding and implementation. The implemented projects are then monitored to evaluate the strategy effectiveness on a systemwide basis. In Pasco County, CMP projects are typically funded using boxed funds identified in the LRTP along with other local revenues. This allows the MPO to annually add the most important strategies for implementation and expand funding levels to address local needs. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS The purpose of the CMP public involvement activities is to provide the public with information on congestion monitoring activities that are in place in Pasco County at this time and planned improvements to mitigate congestion. Significant progress has been made in Pasco County toward identifying congested corridors and alternative transportation improvement strategies to alleviate congestion and enhance the mobility of persons and goods. As recent federal regulations warrant involvement of the public during all key stages of transportation projects, it is important to involve the public in all key stages of transportation improvement projects within and beyond the CMP. Otherwise, lack of public support and awareness may adversely impact the success of any potential transportation project. Therefore, the proposed CMP improvement projects/strategies will be presented to the citizens of Pasco County at various public involvement activities. The CMP public involvement process includes various activities to inform public and gather input, and was integrated with the 2035 LRTP public involvement activities conducted throughout the LRTP planning process. The key elements of the LRTP public involvement process include:

meetings with the Congestion Management Task Force (CMP Task Force)

meetings with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

meetings with the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

coordination with Freight Goods Movement Stakeholders

presentations to MPO Board



information dissemination through various MPO public involvement opportunities such as postings to the Website and newsletters

The MPO’s CMP Task Force serves as the advisory group for the CMP update. The list below reflects the member jurisdictions/agencies in the Task Force.

Pasco County

Dade City

City of New Port Richey

City of Port Richey

City of Zephyrhills

Pasco County Public Transit

Florida DOT District 7

Pasco County School Board

Other stakeholders may be included on the Task Force as the need merits such as CSX Railroad, goods movement representatives, community traffic safety teams (CTST), etc. Typically these additional members would serve on an ad hoc basis to address specific issues.

The Pasco County CMP Task Force typically convenes as the Technical Advisory Committee

(TAC) for the MPO. This ensures that CMP related issues are routinely addressed as an ongoing activity of the MPO. A key contribution of the Pasco County CMP Task Force is to identify, track, and evaluate potential congestion or safety related issues on the roadway network. The MPO has a long history of using a spreadsheet to track issues identified and the status and responsible party for resolving these issues as well as identifying potential projects/solutions. This has been a beneficial activity and will remain a part of the Pasco CMP process. This will allow congestion and safety issues to be identified and addressed which may not be otherwise identified through the formal screening process used by the CMP.



CMP ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS A list of recommendations and actions is presented to enhance the congestion management process and become more efficient in the overall MPO planning process. The actions/recommendations presented below will be reviewed and considered by MPO staff and the Pasco County Congestion Management Plan Task Force for implementation as necessary.

Update the CMP Policy and Procedures Handbook (CMP Steps 1 to 4) on a four to five-year cycle consistent with the update cycle of the LRTP. It is anticipated that the LRTP update cycle will go to a four-year cycle in anticipation of the non-attainment status for air quality. Timing of the completion of CMP updates in advance of finalizing the LRTP updates would benefit integration of CMP strategies into the LRTP.

Develop an Annual State of the System Report to track effectiveness of the implemented strategies, to the extent possible, and to evaluate trends and conditions for the multi-modal transportation system in the CMP study area. The annual CMP State of the System Report will include steps 5 through 8 of the CMP process which includes:

o Step 5: Performance Monitoring o Step 6: Identify Congestion and Evaluate Strategies o Step 7: Implement Selected Strategies o Step 8: Monitor Strategy Effectiveness (Combined with Step 5)

Enhance coordination with agencies participating in the CMP by framing desirable strategy types and defining roles in implementation. This is essential, as most congestion and mobility strategies are formulated and implemented by other agencies.

Projects from the CMP process may identify projects for inclusion in the LRTP either through the four-year update cycle or through plan amendments.

Identify and implement data collection recommendations on collecting key congestion data as well as closing any data gaps identified in this CMP.

Perform outreach and education efforts to inform interested parties and stakeholders. These may include:

o Maintain a CMP Website on the MPO Website. o Develop a brochure and/or newsletter on the CMP and its benefits.

Continue monitoring changes to federal CMP regulations and modify/update CMP to reflect new requirements.



The general schedule for the development of the annual CMP State of the System Report is provided below (refer to Figure 6-1 and Table 6-2 for more information). This is a flexible schedule that can changed from year to year as circumstances dictate. For example, certain congested corridors may be identified one year, however, these corridors may not be evaluated further until the year for specific improvements/projects.”

o January to May Update of roadway inventory data to support LOS analysis Calculation of Non-Highway System wide Performance Monitoring (Public

Transportation, Bicycle, Pedestrian, TDM, etc.) Produce growth rates on county roadways using county traffic counts and

perform initial LOS analysis (existing conditions +1 year and existing + 5 years)*

Produce preliminary growth rates on state roadways using older state traffic counts and perform initial LOS analysis (existing conditions and existing + 5 years)*

o May CMP Task Force meeting to review and identify potential operational

issues that would not be identified through the technical screening process

Coordinate with goods movement stakeholders and providers to identify related needs (Note: May occur earlier)

o May to June Receive FDOT traffic counts Produce updated growth rates on state roadways using state traffic

counts and perform initial LOS analysis (existing conditions and existing + 5 years)

Screen corridors (existing conditions and existing + 5 years) Select corridors for evaluation

o July Report to CMP Task Force and CAC the results of the corridor screening

and selection Report to the CMP Task Force and CAC the results from the Non-

Highway System wide Performance Monitoring (Public Transportation, Bicycle, Pedestrian, TDM, etc.)



o July to August Identify strategies to be considered on selected corridors Evaluate strategies where appropriate and make improvement or

program recommendations for implementation Report to the CMP Task Force and CAC the recommended strategies for

implementation

o September to October Finalize technical recommendations on strategy implementation Program improvement recommendations in the County CIE and identify

other priority projects or programs for the TIP Finalize performance monitoring summary Obtain endorsement from the CMP Task Force and CAC on the

programmed projects in the CIE and priority projects or programs for the TIP

Adopt the CMP Project Priority List through a Public Hearing of the MPO Board

o October to November Finalize the CMP Annual State of the System Report

*Note: Since FDOT state roadway traffic counts for the prior are typically released in May or June of the following

year, it is necessary to use preliminary state traffic count data that is a year older for the preliminary analysis. Once the FDOT state roadway traffic count data is provided, growth rates and their associated traffic volumes are used to update the LOS analysis.





CCHHAAPPTTEERR TTHHRREEEE GGOOAALLSS AANNDD OOBBJJEECCTTIIVVEESS

A series of CMP goals and objectives are developed to guide the process of monitoring congestion and improving the mobility of persons and goods in Pasco County. These were compiled based on CMP goals and objectives used by other communities in Florida and other states that would also be appropriate for Pasco County.

The goals and objectives are presented below. These CMP goal and objectives will be used as a tool for selecting strategies and performance measures for strategy monitoring and evaluation. The CMP goals and objectives are and will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the MPO’s 2035 LRTP, which was updated and adopted in 2009.

CMP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

GOAL #1: Integrate Congestion Management Process and its Improvements into the

Long Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program and help guide Land-use Policies and Land Development Regulations

Objective 1.1 Incorporate projects identified through the CMP in the Five-Year

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Objective 1.2 Develop land-use policies and land development regulations that

support public transit, ridesharing, walking, and bicycling, especially for travel to work.

GOAL #2: Develop, maintain, and expand bicycle, pedestrian, and multi-use trail facilities for efficient and safe movement of people.

Objective 2.1 Coordinate transit services with bicycle, pedestrian, and multi-

use trail improvement projects. Objective 2.2 Provide for pedestrian, multi-use trail, transit, and bicycle

facilities to encourage employees to use these facilities to get to work.



GOAL #3: Improve and increase transit as a viable transportation alternative.

Objective 3.1 Improve transit service in congested corridors by increasing service in congested corridors with existing service and implementing service in congested corridors currently not served by transit.

Objective 3.2 Develop multimodal strategies that reduce dependency on the

single occupant vehicle (SOV). Objective 3.3 Establish park-and-ride facilities and provide transit connections

to park-and-ride facilities and carpool lots. Objective 3.4 Increase efficiency of transit system through the use of

appropriate new and advanced technologies that are feasible. GOAL #4: Identify and Implement Strategies to Mitigate Congestion and Improve the Safety and Mobility of People and Goods and Maintain the Region’s Air

Quality

Objective 4.1 Identify and implement congestion management strategies to enhance the existing transportation system and relieve congestion, improve safety, and improve mobility of persons and goods, where large capital improvements may not be necessary.

Objective 4.2 Encourage using demand management and/or operations management strategies to solve congestion problems before adding capacity through general purpose lanes or new roadways where these strategies may eliminate the need to construct additional lanes.

Objective 4.3 Increase the efficiency of the transportation system through the

use of low-cost Transportation Demand Management (TDM) alternatives such as carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, and flexible work hours.

Objective 4.4 Improve the mobility of people and goods by using strategies in

advanced technologies such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).



CCHHAAPPTTEERR FFOOUURR NNEETTWWOORRKK IIDDEENNTTIIFFIICCAATTIIOONN

This chapter of the CMP component presents an overview of the geographic area of application and the transportation network for the Pasco County CMP AREA OF APPLICATION The CMP area of application includes the transportation system that needs to be evaluated and monitored and where congestion management policies and procedures need to be applied. The geographic area of application for this CMP Update consists of Pasco County in its entirety. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Consistent with federal guidelines, Pasco County CMP covers a multimodal transportation network. In addition to evaluating congestion on the roadway network, the Pasco County CMP Update evaluates transit, bicycle/pedestrian/trail, and freight movement networks within its designated area of application. The CMP roadway network is described below. Roadway Network The Pasco County CMP roadway network includes all functionally classified roadways included in the adopted LRTP and/or the existing plus committed (E+C) five year road network (typically the existing condition plus five years). For example, Map 4-1 illustrates the existing plus committed roadway network at the time that this handbook was developed and includes roadways through 2014. This represents the study area and network for the Pasco County MPO CMP. Chapter 7 provides further information on congested corridors and strategies.

Gulfof

Mexico

){ AÀ

!"b$

!"b$

?í?í ?í

?ï

?ï

)p

)p

)v

)v

){

+¹

?â

AÌ

+¹

POLK

CO

UN

TYPO

LK C

OU

NTY

H E R N A N D O C O U N T YH E R N A N D O C O U N T Y

P I N E L L A S C O U N T YP I N E L L A S C O U N T Y H I L L S B O R O U G H C O U N T YH I L L S B O R O U G H C O U N T Y

SUM

TER

CO

UN

TYSU

MTE

R C

OU

NTY

?ï

BAILLIE'S BLUFF RD

DENTON

HUDSON AVE

DARBY

C.R.

1 (LI

TTLE

RD)

PASC

O RD

HILLS CO. RD

HICK

S

MOOG

C.R. 578 (ST. JOE RD)

C.R.

577 (

CURL

EY R

D)

S.R. 5

81

STARKEY

SHAD

Y HILL

S RD

FIVAY

C.R. 5

4 (E)

HAYS

20TH

ST

HALE

C.R. 578 (COUNTY LINE RD)

C.R.

41 (F

T KIN

G HW

Y)OSCE

OLA

MADI

SON

U.S.

301 (

GALL

BLVD

)

EAST

RD

COLL

IER P

KWY

WIRE

RD

C.R. 41 (BLANTON RD)

TROUBLE CR RD

LITTL

E RD

EXT

CHANCEY RD

TRINITY BLVD

C.R. 35A (OLD LAKELAND HWY)

RIDGE RD

C.R. 575 (TRILBY RD)

NEW YORK

DECUBELLIS

JOHNSTON RD

C.R.

581 (

BELL

AMY B

ROTH

ERS)

C.R.

583 (

EHRE

N CU

TOFF

)

C.R. 595 (GRAND BLVD) C.R.

77 (B

)(ROW

AN)

CONG

RESS

C AVE

JASMINE DR

MAIN ST

POWE

R LIN

E ROA

D

C.R. 587 (MOONLAKE)

EMBASSY

KITTEN TRAILS

7TH ST

CHAN

CEY (

Z.EAS

T)

C.R.

579 (

HAND

CART

)

COLO

NY R

DC.R. 52A (CLINTON AVE)

C.R. 587 (RIDGE)

SCHA

RBER

C.R. 587 (MASS)

C.R.

577 (

LAKE

IOLA

DR)

LAKE PATIENCE

PINES PKWY

CECIELIA

MENTMORE

PLATHEEILAND BLVD

SUNL

AKE

BLVD

COAT

S RD

SOUTH AVE

ANCLOTE BLVD

WELLS RD

C.R.

581

MITCHELL BLVD

MANSFIELD

FOX HOLLOW DR

GEIGER

GULF TRACE

RAMS

EY

CENTRAL AVE

PERRINE RANCH

C.R.

579 (

MORR

IS BR

IDGE

RD)

DAIR

Y RD

OLD

DIXIE

SAN MIGUEL

BOYE

TTE R

D

CECIELIA (E)

CRYS

TAL S

PRIN

GS

SOFT

WIND

LN

STONE RD

BELL LAKE RD

C.R. 595 (ARIPEKA)

C.R.

579 (

EILA

ND BL

VD)

LOCK ST

LEONARD RD

ALT U.S.19

LIVIN

GSTO

N

C.R. 530 (OTTIS ALLEN RD)

C.R.

579 (

PROS

PECT

RD)

DARLINGTON

ASBEL

GREE

NSLO

PE

C.R.

587 (

GUNN

HWY

)

S.R. 52 (MERIDAN)

MITCHELL RANCH

OVERPASS RD EXT

OAKSTEAD BLVD

BAILLE

NEW

RIVE

R RD

CHRISTIAN RD

S.R. 54

S.R. 56

HILLS CO. RD

C.R. 54 (E)

U.S. 41Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc.

Planning and Engineering

Pasco County2009 CMP

G:\119067-01.08_PascoLRTP_ScopeA\Maps\2009\CMP Updated: August 18, 2010 (JRS)

ZEPHYRHILLS INSETZEPHYRHILLS INSET

±0 1 2 3 4Miles

Map 4-1

Area of Application &Roadway Network

2014 CMP Roadway Network

DRAFT



CCHHAAPPTTEERR FFIIVVEE DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT OOFF PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE MMEEAASSUURREESS

Performance measures are used as tools to measure and monitor the effectiveness of the transportation system in the CMP. They assist in identifying and tracking as areas progress in monitoring congestion. However, these measures are dependent upon the transportation network and the availability of data. They are typically used to measure the extent and severity of congestion and for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the implemented strategies. As identified by FHWA, a set of good performance measures are:

quantifiable data that is simple to present and interpret and has professional credibility:

describes existing conditions, can be used to identify problems and to predict changes;

can be calculated easily and with existing field data, techniques available for estimating the measure, achieves consistent results;

applies to multiple modes, meaningful at varying scales and settings.



PERFORMANCE MEASURES The performance measures for the Pasco County CMP were selected to address the existing conditions for Pasco County’s multi-modal transportation network. The measures are also in compliance with the federal direction of using measures that covers multi-modal network. The measures are organized into five major categories. These five categories are roadway, public transit, bicycle/pedestrian/multi-use trail facility, TDM, and goods movement. These CMP performance measures are listed below.

These performance measures were identified based on numerous monitoring activities currently conducted and/or planned by various local and state agencies for Pasco County. Detailed descriptions of each of these measures, together with an explanation of how the required data are or will be collected, are presented below.

Roadway Performance Measures

Percent of VMT and Roadway Miles by LOS Type

V/C and V/MSV Ratio Public Transit Performance Measures

Average Service Frequency and Number of Routes

Passenger Trips (Annual Ridership)

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trail Facility Performance Measures

Percent of Congested Roadway Centerline Miles with Bicycle Facilities

Percent of Congested Roadway Centerline Miles with Sidewalk Facilities

Miles of Multi-Use Trails

Goods Movement Performance Measures

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Below LOS Standard on Designated Truck Routes

Number of Crashes Involving Heavy Vehicles Safety Performance Measures

Total Crashes

Number of Crashes by Safety Emphasis Area (At intersection, vulnerable users, lane departure, and aggressive driving)

Transportation Demand Management

Available information on vanpools/carpools.



Roadway Performance Measures Percent of Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and Roadway Miles Below the Adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standard This measure summarize the proportion of vehicle miles of travel and roadway miles below the adopted level of service standard to help quantify the level of congestion within the county.

Data Collection/Availability – The County collects traffic volume and capacity data and performs LOS analysis on an annual basis for various planning purposes. The County publishes the data into Geographic Information System (GIS) shape files, spreadsheets, and reports once the data are finalized.

V/C Ratio and V/MSV Ratio The volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio is used as the major tool in measuring roadway conditions and is a measure of the amount of traffic on a given roadway in relation to the amount of traffic the roadway was designed to handle. The volume to maximum service volume (V/MSV) is used to measure the amount of traffic on a roadway in relation to the adopted acceptable amount of traffic the roadway should be able to handle.

Data Collection/Availability – As mentioned above, the County collects traffic volume and capacity data and performs LOS analysis on an annual basis for various planning purposes. The County publishes the data into Geographic Information System (GIS) shape files, spreadsheets, and reports once the data are

finalized.



Public Transit Performance Measures Average Service Frequency and Number of Routes This measure summarizes the number of routes in Pasco County (fixed-route local bus service), including the average service frequency.

Data Collection/Availability – The Pasco County Public Transportation (PCPT) maintains databases of various transit service and operational data including route networks. This data is typically available in a Geographic Information System (GIS) or spreadsheet formats and used regularly for PCPT service planning purposes.

Passenger Trips (Annual Ridership) Annual ridership summarizes the total number of un-linked passenger trips from all transit

routes that operates in the CMP application area in Pasco County. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination.

Data Collection/Availability – The ridership data is considered one of the key performance indicators for any transit systems, and are collected regularly. PCPT ridership data maintained and summarized in various transit and related documents

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour summarizes the total number of un-linked passenger trips from all transit routes that operates in the CMP application area in Pasco County divided by the total revenue hours. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination. The total revenue hours are provided by PCPT.

Data Collection/Availability – PCPT regularly collects this data, which are reported in various day-to-day operations reports and annual reports such as the National Transit Database (NTD).



Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trail Facility Performance Measures Percent of Congested CMP Roadway Centerline Miles with Bicycle Facilities

This measure identifies the proportion of congested CMP centerline miles, where some type of bicycle facility exists, as defined by the respective planning agencies. Some communities consider paved shoulders and wide curb lanes to be bicycle facilities, with the exception of interstates and toll facilities.

Data Collection/Availability – The data are regularly collected and maintained by Pasco County and summarized in various local plans.

Percent of Congested CMP Roadway Centerline Miles with Sidewalk Facilities The proportion of congested CMP roadway network centerline miles on which a sidewalk is available is measured.

Data Collection/Availability – The data are collected together with the bicycle facility data in Pasco County and summarized in various plans.

Miles of Multi-Use Trails This measure summarizes the total number of miles of multi-use trail facilities in Pasco County. Multi-use trail facilities usually are off-street facilities designated for the exclusive use of non-motorized travel. They may be used by pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users, joggers, and other non-motorized users.

Data Collection/Availability – This data also are collected and maintained with bicycle and sidewalk facility data in Pasco County.



Goods Movement Performance Measures Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Below LOS Standard on Designated Truck Routes Measures the total vehicle miles of travel below the adopted LOS standard in Pasco County on designated truck routes. Designated truck routes from the latest LRTP will be used. The VMT for a roadway segment is calculated by multiplying the AADT of that segment by the length of the segment in miles.

Data Collection/Availability – The VMT performance data is updated annually by the MPO.

Safety Performance Measures Each year, nearly 3,000 fatalities and 17,000 severe injuries occur on roadways just in Florida. Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death of persons ages 4 to 24. Reducing congestion is important to the public, but safety is even more important. Thus, CMP efforts include both congestion and safety considerations.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to address the Safety Emphasis Areas of the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan in their planning efforts. This often is performed as part of the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Planning efforts, but it is difficult to forecast crashes long into the future, and addressing existing safety issues should not be delayed. Including safety countermeasures is an important part of the Congestion Management Process. Preventing a crash can lead to a congestion reduction, but more severe crashes often take longer to clear. The Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan identifies four “Safety Emphasis Areas” described in greater detail below.

Total Crashes Includes total crashes, which includes total crashes in the four safety emphasis areas (described below) as well as crashes not part of the four safety emphasis areas. Considered a measure of non-recurring congestion, this measure uses data that are widely available through the many local and state agencies that track these data on an ongoing basis throughout the CMP application area.

Data Collection/Availability – Crash data in Pasco County is collected through various law enforcement agencies including the Florida Highway Patrol, Pasco County Sheriff’s Department, and the police departments of major cities in Pasco County.



Number of Crashes by Safety Emphasis Area (At intersection, vulnerable users, lane departure, and aggressive driving) The crashes at intersections and roadway segments are used as an indicator of congestion. Considered a measure of non-recurring congestion, this measure uses data that are widely available through the many local and state agencies that track these data on an ongoing basis throughout the CMP application area.


The safety emphasis areas are defined below:

Number of Crashes involving Heavy Vehicles The crashes involving heavy vehicles. Considered a measure of non-recurring congestion that is often more significant when it involves heavy vehicles, this measure uses data that are widely available through the many local and state agencies that track these data on an ongoing basis throughout the CMP application area.


Vulnerable Users Crashes involving

pedestrians, bicyclists, or motorcyclists who are more

vulnerable to severe injuries or death.

Aggressive Driving Crashes that include

impaired driving, reckless driving, or other crash

types that often result in more serious crashes.

Intersection Intersections are planned conflict points and provide the greatest exposure for crashes to occur. These are also locations where mitigation activities may

yield the greatest benefit.

Lane Departures Crashes that include head-on collissions, run-off-the-

road crashes and sideswipe crashes that

typically result in serious injuries.



TDM Performance Measures Number of Registered Carpools or Vanpools TDM Performance Measures could include the annual number of registered carpools and vanpools in CMP application area. A carpool is defined as a group of two or more people who commute to work or other destinations together in a private vehicle, while a vanpool is typically a prearranged group of 5 to 15 people who share their commute to work.

Data Collection/Availability – Currently, Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA)(Formally BACS), through a contracted operator, provides vanpool/carpool services in Pasco County and neighboring areas. TBARTA maintains data on registered carpool/vanpool users to see what carpools and vanpools are available to them.



RELATIONSHIP OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Table 5-1 illustrates an example of the relationship between the performance measures identified above and the Goals and Objectives for the Congestion Management Process.

Table 5-1 Relationship of Goals and Objectives to Performance Measures

Safety TDM

Per

cent

of

VM

T a

nd R

oadw

ay M

iles

Bel

ow t

he A

dopt

ed L

evel

of

Ser

vice

S

tand

ard

Vol

ume

to C

apac

ity (

V/C

Rat

io)

Vol

ume

to M

axim

um S

ervi

ce R

atio

(V

/MS

V)

Pas

seng

er T

rips

per

Rev

enue

Hou

r

Pas

seng

er T

rips

(Ann

ual R

ider

ship

)

Ave

rage

Ser

vice

Fre

quen

cy a

nd N

umbe

rof

Rou

tes

Per

cent

of

Con

gest

ed C

MP

Roa

dway

C

ente

rline

Mile

s w

ith B

icyc

le F

acili

ties

Per

cent

of

Con

gest

ed C

MP

Roa

dway

C

ente

rline

Mile

s w

ith S

idew

alk

Fac

ilitie

s

Mile

s of

Mul

ti-U

se T

rails

Num

ber

of C

rash

es b

y S

afet

y E

mph

asis

Are

a (a

t in

ters

ectio

n, v

ulne

rabl

e us

ers,

la

ne d

epar

ture

and

agg

ress

ive

driv

ing

Num

ber

of R

egis

tere

d C

arpo

ols

or

Van

pool

s

Tru

ck V

ehic

le M

iles

(VM

T)

Tra

vele

d B

elow

LO

S S

tand

ard

***N

umbe

r of

Cra

shes

Inv

olvi

ng H

eavy

V

ehic

les

(Rep

ort

ed w

ith

Saf

ety

in

Sta

te o

f S

yste

m R

epo

rt)

Objective 1.1 - Incorporate projects identified through the CMP in the Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). p p p a a a _ _ _ G ü n GObjective 1.2 - Develop land-use policies and land development regulations that support public transit, ridesharing, walking, and bicycling, especially for travel to work.

p p p a a a _ _ _ ü

Objective 2.1 - Coordinate transit services with bicycle, pedestrian, and multi-use trail improvement projects. a a a _ _ _ GObjective 2.2 - Provide for pedestrian, multi-use trail, transit, and bicycle facilities to encourage employees to use these facilities to get to work. a a a _ _ _ G

Objective 3.1 - Improve transit service in congested corridors by increasing service in congested corridors with existing service and implementing service in congested corridors currently not served by transit.

a a a

Objective 3.2 - Develop multimodal strategies that reduce dependency on the single occupant vehicle (SOV). p p p a a a _ _ _Objective 3.3 - Establish park-and-ride facilities and provide transit connections to park-and-ride facilities and carpool lots. a a a üObjective 3.4 - Increase efficiency of transit system through the use of appropriate new and advanced technologies that are feasible. a a a

Objective 4.1 - Identify and implement congestion management strategies to enhance the existing transportation system and relieve congestion, improve safety, and improve mobility of persons and goods, where large capital improvements may not be necessary.

p p p a a a _ _ _ G ü n G

Objective 4.2 - Encourage using demand management and/or operations management strategies to solve congestion problems before adding capacity through general purpose lanes or new roadways where these strategies may eliminate the need to construct additional lanes.

p p p a a a _ _ _ G ü n G

Objective 4.3 - Increase the efficiency of the transportation system through the use of low-cost Transportation Demand Management (TDM) alternatives such as carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, and flexible work hours.

p p p ü

Objective 4.4 - Improve the mobility of people and goods by using strategies in advanced technologies such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). p p p a a a G n G

TDM: Travel Demand Management

Roadway

Goal 1: Integrate Congestion Management Process and its Improvements into the Long Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program and help guide Land-use Policies and Land Development Regulations

Goal 2: Develop, maintain, and expand bicycle, pedestrian, and multi-use trail facilities for efficient and safe movement of people.

Goal 3: Improve and increase transit as a viable transportation alternative.

Goal 4: Identify and Implement Strategies to Mitigate Congestion and Improve the Safety and Mobility of People and Goods and Maintain the Region’s Air Quality

Performance MeasuresGoals & Objectives

Bike/Ped TrailPublic Transportation Goods Movement



CCHHAAPPTTEERR SSIIXX SSYYSSTTEEMM PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG PPLLAANN

The FHWA identifies congestion monitoring is just one of the several aspects of transportation system performance that leads to more effective investment decisions for transportation improvements. Safety, physical condition, environmental quality, economic development, quality of life, and customer satisfaction are among the aspects of performance that also require monitoring. The Final Rule on Metropolitan Transportation Planning identifies the requirement for “a coordinated program for data collection and system performance monitoring to assess the extent of congestion, to contribute in determining the causes of congestion, and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented actions.” In addition, it also indicates that “to the extent possible, this data collection program should be coordinated with existing data sources and coordinated with operations managers in the metropolitan area.” As a result, the goal of the Pasco County CMP system monitoring plan, as presented in Table 6- 1, is to develop an ongoing system of monitoring and reporting that relies primarily on data already collected or planned to be collected in the county.

The components of the monitoring plan include roadways, public transit, bicycle/pedestrian/trail, TDM, and goods movement where:

Roadways are monitored through annual LOS analysis using traffic counts and other related data constantly collected throughout the region.

Crashes are monitored to help measure non-recurring congestion.

Transit performance is monitored continuously through various operating and capital plans.

Bicycle/pedestrian/trail data are also monitored and updated in various city and county databases.

TDM-related data monitoring is done primarily by the TBARTA Commuter Assistance Program, which maintains an array of databases and coordinates programs to find alternatives for single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips in Pasco County and other counties in Tampa Bay area.

Significant goods movement corridors are evaluated to address mobility needs of the goods movement providers.

The Pasco County MPO CMP will make use of an Annual State of the System Report to document the performance of the transportation system as described in more detail in Chapter 8 of this report.



Table 6-1

System Performance Monitoring Plan

Performance Measure

Monitoring Activity Responsible

Agency Frequency of

Evaluation Current Status

Geographic Area Covered

Percent of Miles/VMT by LOS Type, V/C Ratio, V/MSV Ratio

Level of Service Analysis

Pasco County MPO/Cities/

FDOT Annually Ongoing Pasco County

Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour, Passenger Trips, Number of Routes & Service

National Transportation

Database Report/Transit

Development Plan

Pasco County MPO/PCPT

Monthly/ Annually

Ongoing Pasco County

Percent Congested Miles on Ped. and Bike facilities, and Miles of Trail Facilities

Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trail Plans, LRTP and

Databases

Pasco County MPO

Annually Ongoing Pasco County

Percent of VMT on Designated Truck Route Corridors on congested roadways

Roadway Databases and LRTP

Pasco County MPO/FDOT


Crash Frequency (By Safety Emphasis Area or Involving Heavy Trucks), Total Crashes, total crashes involving heavy vehicles

Crash Data Analysis Pasco County Public Works


Number of Registered Carpools or Vanpools

Annual Reports and Interim Summaries by

TBARTA TBARTA

Monthly/ Annually

Ongoing Pasco County

The Pasco County MPO, as part of the system monitoring plan, will update the State of the System Report annually. Each year the MPO will develop a preliminary congestion map early in the year and a final congestion map towards the end of the year. The process is summarized below and an example is provided in Figure 6-1. Table 6-2 goes into more detail on the networks developed for the annual update.

Between January and June preliminary existing and five year networks (i.e. in 2011 these networks would be 2012 and 2016) will be developed using the most recent County counts and the latest available FDOT counts, which will be behind the County counts (i.e. 2011 or older County counts and 2009 FDOT counts). These networks will be used to create a preliminary congestion map.

Between July and November final existing and five year networks (i.e. 2012 and 2016) will be developed once the latest FDOT counts have been received (i.e. 2011 County counts and 2010 FDOT counts). These networks will be used to create a final congestion map.



Figure 6-1 Annual Update Activities



Th

e le

tte

rs (

i.e. (

A),

(B

) in

dic

ate

th

e v

ers

ion

of

ea

ch n

etw

ork

.

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

Ne

two

rk N

am

e2

00

9 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

(A)

20

10

Cri

tica

l/Ne

ar

Cri

tica

l (A

)2

01

1 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

(A

)2

01

2 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

(A

)2

01

3 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

(A

)C

ou

nts

Us

ed

20

08

Co

un

ty2

00

9 C

ou

nty

20

10

Co

un

ty2

01

1 C

ou

nty

20

12

Co

un

ty2

00

7 F

DO

T2

00

7 F

DO

T2

00

8 F

DO

T2

00

9 F

DO

T2

01

0 F

DO

TA

ss

um

ed

Im

pro

ve

me

nts

Exi

stin

g C

on

diti

on

s1

ye

ar

imp

rove

me

nts

1 y

ea

r im

pro

vem

en

ts1

ye

ar

imp

rove

me

nts

So

urc

e N

etw

ork

20

09

Cri

tica

l/Ne

ar

Cri

tica

l2

01

0 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

20

11

Cri

tica

l/Ne

ar

Cri

tica

l2

01

2 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

Oth

er

Ne

two

rk N

am

e2

01

3 C

IE (

A)

20

14

CIE

(

A)

20

15

CIE

(

A )

20

16

CIE

(

A)

20

17

CIE

(

A)

Co

un

ts U

se

d2

00

8 C

ou

nty

(G

row

n 5

ye

ars

)2

00

9 C

ou

nty

(G

row

n 5

ye

ars

)2

01

0 C

ou

nty

(G

row

n 5

ye

ars

)2

01

1 C

ou

nty

(G

row

n 5

ye

ars

)2

01

2 C

ou

nty

(G

row

n 5

ye

ars

)2

00

7 F

DO

T (

Gro

wn

6 y

ea

rs)

20

08

FD

OT

(G

row

n 6

ye

ars

)2

00

9 F

DO

T (

Gro

wn

6 y

ea

rs)

20

09

FD

OT

(G

row

n 7

ye

ars

)2

01

0 F

DO

T (

Gro

wn

7 y

ea

rs)

As

su

me

d I

mp

rov

em

en

ts2

01

3 C

IE (

E+

C 5

ye

ar

imp

rmts

)2

01

4 C

IE (

E+

C 5

ye

ar

imp

rmts

)2

01

5 C

IE (

E+

C 5

ye

ar

imp

rmts

)2

01

6 C

IE (

E+

C 5

ye

ar

imp

rmts

)S

ou

rce

Ne

two

rk2

01

3 C

IE (

ap

pro

ved

)2

01

4 C

IE (

LR

TP

)2

01

5 C

IE2

01

6 C

IEO

the

r

Ne

two

rk N

am

e2

00

9 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

(B)

20

10

Cri

tica

l/Ne

ar

Cri

tica

l (B

)2

01

1 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

(B)

20

12

Cri

tica

l/Ne

ar

Cri

tica

l (B

)2

01

3 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

(B

)C

ou

nts

Us

ed

20

08

Co

un

ty2

00

9 C

ou

nty

20

10

Co

un

ty2

01

1 C

ou

nty

20

12

Co

un

ty2

00

7 F

DO

T2

00

8 F

DO

T2

00

9 F

DO

T2

01

0 F

DO

T2

01

1 F

DO

TA

ss

um

ed

Im

pro

ve

me

nts

Exi

stin

g C

on

diti

on

s1

ye

ar

imp

rove

me

nts

1 y

ea

r im

pro

vem

en

ts1

ye

ar

imp

rove

me

nts

So

urc

e N

etw

ork

20

09

Cri

tica

l/Ne

ar

Cri

tica

l2

01

0 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

20

11

Cri

tica

l/Ne

ar

Cri

tica

l2

01

2 C

ritic

al/N

ea

r C

ritic

al

Oth

er

Ne

two

rk N

am

e2

01

3 C

IE

(B

)2

01

4 C

IE

(B

)2

01

5 C

IE (

B2

01

6 C

IE

(B

)2

01

7 C

IE

(B

)C

ou

nts

Us

ed

20

08

Co

un

ty (

Gro

wn

5 y

ea

rs)

20

09

Co

un

ty (

Gro

wn

5 y

ea

rs)

20

10

Co

un

ty (

Gro

wn

5 y

ea

rs)

20

11

Co

un

ty (

Gro

wn

5 y

ea

rs)

20

12

Co

un

ty (

Gro

wn

5 y

ea

rs)

20

07

FD

OT

(G

row

n 6

ye

ars

)2

00

8 F

DO

T (

Gro

wn

6 y

ea

rs)

20

09

FD

OT

(G

row

n 6

ye

ars

)2

01

0 F

DO

T (

Gro

wn

6

yea

rs)

20

11

FD

OT

(G

row

n 6

ye

ars

)A

ss

um

ed

Im

pro

ve

me

nts

20

13

CIE

(E

+C

5 y

ea

r im

prm

ts)

20

15

CIE

(E

+C

5 y

ea

r im

prm

ts)

20

16

CIE

(E

+C

5 y

ea

r im

prm

ts)

20

17

CIE

(E

+C

5 y

ea

r im

prm

ts)

So

urc

e N

etw

ork

20

13

CIE

(a

pp

rove

d)

20

15

CIE

(p

revi

ou

s ye

ar)

20

15

CIE

20

16

CIE

Oth

er

No

te:

1.

To

co

nd

uct

th

e a

nn

ua

l up

da

te o

f th

e C

MP

an

d t

o s

up

po

rt o

the

r M

PO

act

iviti

es,

it is

ne

cess

ary

to

co

nd

uct

mu

ltip

le "

Exi

stin

g"

an

d 5

ye

ar

"Co

mm

itte

d"

an

aly

sis

ea

ch y

ea

r.

Th

is is

du

e in

pa

rt t

o t

he

tim

efr

am

e w

he

n F

DO

T t

raff

ic c

ou

nts

are

re

lea

sed

an

d t

he

fa

ct t

ha

t a

n a

na

lysi

s m

ust

be

co

nd

uct

ed

ea

rly

in t

he

ye

ar

to id

en

tify

po

ten

tially

co

ng

est

ed

c

orr

ido

rs w

hic

h m

ay

req

uir

e a

n im

pro

vem

en

t to

be

ad

de

d t

o t

he

CIE

/TIP

wh

ich

are

no

t fin

aliz

ed

an

d a

pp

rove

d u

ntil

a d

ate

in t

he

ye

ar.

2

. C

ells

sh

ad

ed

in y

ello

w r

ep

rese

nt

the

an

aly

sis

for

the

initi

al s

tate

of

the

sys

tem

re

po

rt c

om

ple

ted

as

pa

rt o

f th

e 2

03

5 L

RT

P.

Th

e g

ree

n (

con

ge

ste

d c

orr

ido

r id

en

tific

atio

n)

a

nd

blu

e (

pe

rfo

rma

nce

eva

lua

tion

) sh

ad

ed

ce

lls r

ep

rese

nt

the

file

s u

sed

fo

r th

e f

irst

up

da

te o

f th

e s

tate

of

the

Sys

tem

Re

po

rt t

o b

e C

om

ple

ted

in la

te 2

01

0.

Up

da

te Y

ea

r

Use

d t

o d

eve

lop

th

e C

ritic

al a

nd

Ne

ar

Cri

tica

l Ro

ad

wa

y F

aci

litie

s

Use

d t

o d

eve

lop

th

e C

ritic

al a

nd

Ne

ar

Cri

tica

l Ro

ad

wa

y F

aci

litie

s

Use

d t

o d

em

on

stra

te t

ha

t C

IE m

ee

ts t

he

ad

op

ted

LO

S S

tan

da

rds

Preliminary (Existing) Final (Existing)Preliminary (Five Year)

January - June July - November

Corridor Screening Performance Monitoring and Effectiveness

Final (Five Year)

Tab

le 6

-2

An

nu

al U

pd

ate

An

alys

is S

tru

ctu

re



CCHHAAPPTTEERR SSEEVVEENN CCOONNGGEESSTTEEDD CCOORRRRIIDDOORR SSEELLEECCTTIIOONN AANNDD CCOONNGGEESSTTIIOONN

MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT SSTTRRAATTEEGGIIEESS

IMPLEMENTATION This section summarizes the implementation and management of the CMP strategies. This includes the process for selecting corridors and projects for implementation in the future as well as an implementation schedule, implementation responsibilities, costs, and possible funding sources for each strategy currently proposed for implementation.

CONGESTED CORRIDOR SELECTION AND PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS The purpose of the CMP is to come up with real projects. The CMP process involves selecting congested corridors that will undergo detailed evaluation for identifying potential projects/programs that can be potentially implemented on the corridors. The process follows three phases (an overview illustration is provided in Figure 7-1, which provides more details on the Pasco CMP process, in addition to what is shown in the Federal 8 Step process): Identify Corridor Locations for Additional Analysis (Phase 1) Annual monitoring efforts are used to review the level of service on the roadway network to identify recurring congestion. Roadways that are congested today or forecasted to be congested in five years are considered for review through the CMP screening process. Corridors are identified as being “not congested”, “approaching congestion or congested”, or “extremely congested” as summarized below (additional detail is provided in Appendix 7A).

Not Congested (currently or in five years without improvements) - The corridors in this category are not anticipated to operate below their adopted level of service standards in either the existing conditions or after committed improvements in the five year program are implemented.

Approaching Congestion or Congested – The corridors that are approaching congestion or are minimally congestion based on one of the following three criteria: (these are the corridors where projects may have the greatest impact):

o Approaching Congestion - This includes corridors that are not congested but has segments that have traffic volumes that are consume more than 90% of the roadway’s capacity at the adopted level of service standard with either the existing conditions or forecasted five year condition without improvement.

o Congested Today - This includes existing corridors with traffic volumes that exceed the adopted level of service standard that do not exceed the physical capacity of the roadway

o Congestion in 5 Years - This includes corridors forecasted in five years to have traffic volumes that exceed the adopted level of service standard that do not



exceed the physical capacity of the roadway.

Extremely Congested - This category includes roadways in the Existing + Committed (E+C) five year network that have forecast volumes that are greater than the physical capacity (typically occurs when using detailed analysis and the volume to capacity ratio is 1.08 or greater) of the roadway and are considered severely congested.

Crash data management systems are also used to identify corridors or intersections with a high frequency of crashes that result in non recurring congestion. Safety improvements not only reduce the potential harm to persons in our communities but also can reduce congestion. Generally non-congested corridors do not need to be addressed by the CMP; however the other two categories will typically require one or more congestion relieving strategies (project, mobility improving program, etc.). Extremely congested corridors will typically require either capacity improvements or a shift to other mobility strategies that rely significantly on public transportation or reductions in travel demand. In some cases, extremely congested corridors may respond favorably to the implementation of operational improvements and these would be considered on a case by case basis where appropriate. The corridors approaching congestion or congested typically represent the corridors that will be most responsive to CMP improvement strategies. In addition to identifying corridors and locations with congestion using LOS, the CAC/TAC, including Goods movement stakeholders, will identify congested problem areas in the CMP/MMS spreadsheet. The Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) will also be consulted on corridors with safety issues and potential improvements and this input is inserted into and tracked in the CMP/MMS spreadsheet. These corridors will be brought to the CMP Task Force will select corridors and safety locations for further review. These corridors are specifically identified for additional analysis by using the four step process outlined in Figure 7-2. The steps are:

1. Is there is a project in the five year work program, 2. Is there a long term concurrency project (LTCP), 3. Are there congested corridors that do not have a project in the five year work program or

a LTCP, and 4. Are there corridors approaching congestion where improvements can be identified.

CMP and Safety Strategy Screening (Phase 2) Once congested corridors are selected for review, they are screened to identify mitigation strategies appropriate to reduce congestion or improve safety to reduce crashes. The Congestion Mitigation Process Strategy Matrix (found in Appendix 7B) is used to address recurring congestion, and the Safety Mitigation Strategy Matrix (found in Appendix 7C) is used to address non-recurring congestion. The matrix includes strategies in five Tiers as identified in the Pasco County CMP Strategy Toolbox. The Congestion Mitigation Process Strategy Matrix typically is used in a workshop setting to quickly review a corridor, and the Safety Mitigation Strategy Matrix is applied based on a review of crash data.



Once the roadways are categorized based on the three previous criteria (Approaching Congestion, Congested, and Extremely Congested), they are further grouped into two different types of corridors:

Mobility Corridors - These include corridors that are identified as Premium Transit Corridors as identified in either the Comprehensive Plan or the adopted Long Range Transportation Plan. These corridors represent locations where Pasco County or the MPO has identified that premium public transportation is a key factor in addressing mobility needs in these corridors.

Non-Mobility Corridors (Non-Designated Corridors) - These include all other major roadways included in the existing plus committed five year (E+C) five year road network.

Project and Program Identification and Implementation (Phase 3) The congestion or safety mitigation strategies that are identified as having the greatest potential benefit are then evaluated in greater detail based on committee or technical recommendations. During this phase, additional analysis of potential projects and programs is undertaken to identify the specific improvement, implementation issues, and costs. “Programs” such as demand-reducing programs or policy changes are evaluated to identify recommended action items. Recommendations then are made for the projects or programs to be implemented. This may result in a near-immediate refocusing of existing resources, such as existing rideshare programs or local maintenance crews where possible, programming improvements in the local agency capital improvement programs or transportation improvement program, or using boxed funds controlled by the MPO, and finally may be identified as candidate projects for implementation in future Long Range Transportation Plans.



Figure 7-1 Corridor/Strategy Selection Process

Phase 1: Identify Corridors and Locations for Additional Analysis (covers Step 5 of the Federal 8 Step Process)

Phase 2: CMP and Safety Strategy Screening (covers Step 6) Phase 3: Project/Program Identification and Implementation (covers Step 7)

CMP Task Force Review and Recommendations to select congested corridors and safety locations for further

review

1.6

Priority Safety Location (Roads and Intersections)

2.3 Evaluate with Safety Matrix

2.4

Recommended Strategies by Location

2.5

Recommended Strategies by Location

2.5 CMP Task Force Review and Recommendations

3.1

Conceptual Improvement Development and Costing

3.2

Prioritize Specific Strategies and Projects

3.3

CMP Task Force Review and Recommendations

3.4

Implement Strategies (Funding and Development)

3.5

Recurring

Non‐ Recurring

Roadway LOS Volume/Capacity Analysis

1.1

Crash Locations1.3 Corridors and Intersections

with High Crash Frequency (Safety Issues)

1.4

Recurring Congestion

Non‐Recurring Congestion

CTST/Safety Stakeholder Review and Recommendations

1.5

Candidate, CIP/TIP, and/or

LRTP projects

3.6

CAC/TAC and Goods Movement Stakeholder

Review and Recommendations

1.5

Congested Roadways and Intersections

1.2

CMP/MMS Spreadsheet

1.5

CMP Task Force Review and Recommendations to select congested corridors and safety locations for further

review

1.6

Evaluation CMP Strategy Matrix (Mobility and Non‐Mobility

Corridors)

2.2

Technical Analy sis

Stakeholder

Involvement

Technical Analy sis

Resurfacing projects1.7

Priority Congested Corridors and Intersections

2.1

See Figure 7‐2



The critical part of the Corridor/Strategy Selection process shown in Figure 7-1 is the corridor selection review process. Figure 7-2 goes in more detail on the process used in selecting corridors for additional analysis for the purpose of identifying good candidate projects/programs. This process involves four review steps: (Step 1: Review the 5 year Work Program, Step 2: Review Long Term Concurrency Projects, Step 3: Review Congested Corridors, Step 4: Review Corridors Approaching Congestion).

Figure 7-2

Corridor Selection Review Process

Step 1 Review 5 Year

Work Program

Step 2 Review Long

Term Concurrency Projects (LTCP)

Step 3 Review

Congested Corri‐dors

Step 4 Review Corridors

Approaching Congestion

Steps Process

For congested corridors in the existing or existing + committed networks is there a project in the five year work program?

The first step is to determine whether congested corridors have a project in the five year work program. If there is not a project in the five year work program then Step 2 will be reviewed.

Is there a project in the LTCP?

If a congested corridor does not have a project in the five year plan it will be

reviewed to determine if there is a long term concurrency project (10 or 15 year) (LTCP) on the corridor. These are projects that cannot be fully funded in the five year work program. It may be possible for certain CMP projects to be implemented earlier on these

roadways to alleviate operational issues at specific locations.

Are there congested corridors in the existing or existing + committed networks that do not have a project in the five year work program or LTCP?

If congested corridors that are deficient do not have a project in the five year work program (Step 1) or LTCP (Step 2), these corridors should be reviewed for CMP projects. This is typically not the case in Pasco County as congested corridors are typically either funded in the five year work program or as a LTCP.

Are there corridors approaching congestion in the existing + committed network that can reviewed for improvements?

Finally, roadways that are approaching congestion are reviewed for possible corridor selection. These roadways represent the “sweat” spot as these may be conducive to CMP projects such that they will significantly delay the roadways

from becoming congested or the need for more costly improvements.

Year 1 2 3 4 5

Project A

Project B

5 Year Work Program

CMP Applicability?

No

Yes

Long Term Concurrency Projects (10 or 15 year) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Project C

Project D

12

13

14

15

10 Year 15 Year

Yes, If appropriate

Yes, If applicable



Congestion Management Strategies This section of the CMP Update identifies and evaluates the strategies intended for mitigating existing and future congestion in the Pasco County roadway network. A Toolbox of Strategies is presented to help policy makers and planners in effectively using these congestion reduction strategies. For MPOs with more than 200,000 people within their planning areas, SAFETEA-LU requires that the MPO “shall address congestion management … through the use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies.” In addition, the Final Rule on Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning published on February 14, 2007, states that “development of a congestion management process should result in multimodal system performance measures and strategies that can be reflected in the metropolitan transportation plan and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).” A full range of potential strategies has been identified for the Pasco County in its multimodal CMP network. These strategies can be grouped into the following broad categories as presented in Figure 7-3.

Figure 7-3 Congestion Management Strategies

In addition, Tables 7-1 and 7-2 summarize the demand and operational management strategies included in the Pasco County CMP toolbox of strategies, which is presented later in detail. A full range of demand and operational management strategies are identified in these tables for Pasco County to assist in its efforts to mitigating existing and future congestion.



Table 7-1 Demand Management Strategies



Table 7-2 Operational Management Strategies



TOOLBOX OF STRATEGIES The CMP utilizes a strategy toolbox, known as the Congestion Mitigation Matrix, with multiple tiers of strategies to support the congestion strategy or strategies for congested corridors. Following an approach used by other MPOs and promoted by FHWA, the toolbox of congestion mitigation strategies is arranged so that the measures at the top take precedence over those at the bottom. The toolbox/Congestion Mitigation Matrix is presented below as well as in Appendix 7B.

Pasco CMP Toolbox of Strategies

The “top-down” approach promotes the growing sentiment in today’s transportation planning arena and follows FHWA’s clear direction to consider all available solutions before recommending additional roadway capacity. The Pasco County CMP toolbox of strategies is presented in detail in the remainder of this section.

Tier 1: Strategies to Reduce Person Trips or Vehicle Miles Traveled

Tier 2: Strategies to Shift Automobile Trips to Other Modes

Tier 3: Strategies to Shift Trips from SOV to HOV Auto/Van

Tier 5: Strategies to Add Capacity

Tier 4: Strategies to Improve Roadway Operations



Transportation Demand Management Strategies These strategies are used to reduce the use of single occupant motor vehicles, as the overall objective of TDM is to reduce the miles traveled by automobile. The following TDM strategies, not in any particular order, are available for consideration in the toolbox to potentially reduce travel in the peak hours. Strategies include:

Congestion Pricing: Congestion pricing can be implemented statically or dynamically. Static congestion pricing requires that tolls are higher during traditional peak periods. Dynamic congestion pricing allows toll rates to vary depending upon actual traffic conditions. The more congested the road, the higher the cost to travel on the road. Dynamic congestion pricing works best when coupled with real-time information on the availability of other routes.

Alternative Work Hours: There are three main variations: staggered hours, flex-time, and compressed work weeks. Staggered hours require employees in different work groups to start at different times to spread out their arrival/departure times. Flex-time allows employees to arrive and leave outside of the traditional commute period. Compressed work weeks involve reducing the number of days per week worked while increasing the number of hours worked per day.

Telecommuting: Telecommuting policies allow employees to work at home or a regional telecommute center instead of going into the office, all the time or only one or more days per week.

Guaranteed Ride Home Programs: These programs provide a safety net to those people who carpool or use transit to work so that they can get to their destination if unexpected work demands or an emergency arises.

Alternative Mode Marketing and Education: Providing education on alternative modes of transportation can be an effective way of increasing demand for alternative modes. This strategy can include mapping Websites that compute directions and travel times for multiple modes of travel.

Safe Routes to Schools Program: This federally-funded program provides 100 percent funding to communities to invest in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure surrounding schools.

Preferential or Free Parking for HOVs: This program provides an incentive for

employees to carpool with preferred of free-of-charge parking for HOVs.

Tier 1: Strategies to Reduce Person Trips or Vehicle Miles Traveled



Land Use/Growth Management Strategies The strategies in this category include policies and regulations that would decrease the total number of auto trips and trip lengths while promoting transit and non-motorized transportation options. These strategies include the following.

Negotiated Demand Management Agreements: As a condition of development approval, local governments require the private sector to contribute to traffic mitigation agreements. The agreements typically set a traffic reduction goal (often expressed as a minimum level of ridesharing participation or a stipulated reduction in the number of automobile trips).

Trip Reduction Ordinance: These ordinances use a locality’s regulatory authority to

limit trip generation from a development. They spread the burden of reducing trip generation among existing and future developments better than Negotiated Demand Management Agreements.

Infill developments: This strategy takes advantage of infrastructure that already

exists, rather than building new infrastructure on the fringes of the urban area.

Transit Oriented Developments: This strategy clusters housing units and/or businesses near transit stations in walkable communities. By providing convenient access to alternative modes, auto dependence can be reduced.

Design Guidelines for Pedestrian-Oriented Development: Maximum block lengths,

building setback restrictions, and streetscape enhancements are examples of design guidelines that can be codified in zoning ordinances to encourage pedestrian activity.

Mixed-Use Development: This strategy allows many trips to be made without

automobiles. People can walk to restaurants and services rather than use their vehicles.



Public Transit Strategies Two types of strategies, capital improvements and operating improvements, are used to enhance the attractiveness of public transit services to shift auto trips to transit. Transit capital improvements generally modernize the transit systems and improve their efficiency; operating improvements make transit more accessible and attractive. The following strategies are included in the toolbox for consideration.

Transit Capacity Expansion: This strategy adds new vehicles to expand transit services.

Increasing Bus Route Coverage or Frequencies: This strategy provides better

accessibility to transit to a greater share of the population. Increasing frequency makes transit more attractive to use.

Implementing Premium Transit: Premium transit such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

best serves dense urban centers where travelers can walk to their destinations. Premium transit from suburban areas can sometimes be enhanced by providing park-and-ride lots.

Providing Real-Time Information on Transit Routes: Providing real-time

information on bus progress either at bus stops, terminals, and/or personal wireless devices makes bus travel more attractive.

Reducing Transit Fares: This relatively easy-to-implement strategy encourages

additional transit use, to the extent that high fares are a real barrier to transit. However, due to the direct financial impact on the transit system operating budgets, reductions in selected fare categories may be a more feasible strategy to implement.

Provide Exclusive Bus Right-Of-Way: Exclusive right-of-way includes bus ways,

bus-only lanes, and bus bypass ramps. This strategy is applied to freeways and major highways that have routes with high ridership.

Tier 2: Strategies to Shift Automobile Trips to Other Modes



Non-Motorized Transportation Strategies Non-motorized strategies include bicycle, pedestrian, and trail facility improvements that encourage non-motorized modes of transportation instead of single-occupant vehicle trips. The following strategies are included.

New Sidewalk Connections: Increasing sidewalk connectivity encourages pedestrian traffic for short trips.

Designated Bicycle Lanes on Local Streets: Enhancing the visibility of bicycle

facilities increases the perception of safety. In many cases, bicycle lanes can be added to existing roadways through restriping.

Improved Bicycle Facilities at Transit Stations and Other Trip Destinations:

Bicycle racks and bicycle lockers at transit stations and other trip destinations increase security. Additional amenities such as locker rooms with showers at workplaces provide further incentives for using bicycles.

Improved Safety of Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Maintaining lighting,

signage, striping, traffic control devices, and pavement quality and installing curb cuts, curb extensions, median refuges, and raised crosswalks can increase bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Exclusive Non-Motorized ROW: Abandoned rail rights-of-way and existing parkland

can be used for medium- to long-distance bicycle trails, improving safety and reducing travel times.

Complete Streets: Routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable

safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit Element that may be found on a complete street include sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), special bus lanes, comfortable and accessible transit stops, frequent crossing opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, and more.



Tier 3: Strategies to Shift Trips from Single-Occupancy

Vehicles (SOV) to High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOV)

Transportation Demand Management Strategies The following TDM strategies are recommended to encourage HOV use.

Ridesharing (Carpools & Vanpools): In ridesharing programs, participants are matched with potential candidates for sharing rides. This is typically arranged/encouraged through employers or transportation management agencies, which provide ride-matching services. These programs are more effective if combined with HOV lanes, parking management, guaranteed ride home policies, and employer-based incentive programs.

High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: This increases corridor capacity and provides an incentive for single-occupant drivers to shift to ridesharing. These lanes are most effective as part of a comprehensive effort to encourage HOVs, including publicity, outreach, park-and-ride lots, rideshare matching services, and employer incentives.

Park-and-Ride Lots: These lots can be used in conjunction with HOV lanes and/or express bus services. They are particularly helpful when coupled with other commute alternatives such as carpool/vanpool programs, transit, and/or HOV lanes.

Employer-Landlord Parking Agreements: Employers can negotiate leases so that

they pay only for parking spaces used by employees. In turn, employers can pass along parking savings by purchasing transit passes or reimbursing non-driving employees with the cash equivalent of a parking space.

Parking Management: This strategy reduces the instance of free parking to encourage other modes of transportation. Options include reducing the minimum number of parking spaces required per development, increasing the share of parking spaces for HOVs, introducing or raising parking fees, providing cash-out options for employees not using subsidized parking spaces, and expanding parking at transit stations or park-and-ride lots.

Managed Lanes: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines managed lanes as highway facilities or a set of lanes in which operational strategies are implemented and managed (in real time) in response to changing conditions. Examples of managed lanes may include the following: high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes with tolls that vary based on demand; exclusive bus-only lanes; HOV and clean air and/or energy-efficient vehicle lanes; and HOV lanes that could be changed into HOT lanes in response to changing levels of traffic and roadway conditions.



Intelligent transportation Systems (ITS) Strategies The strategies in ITS use new and emerging technologies to mitigate congestion while improving safety and environmental impacts. Typically, these systems are made up of many components, including sensors, electronic signs, cameras, controls, and communication technologies. ITS strategies are sets of components working together to provide information and allow greater control of the operation of the transportation system. The following strategies are included in the toolbox.

Dynamic Messaging: Dynamic messaging uses changeable message signs to warn motorists of downstream queues; it provides travel time estimates, alternate route information, and information on special events, weather, or accidents.

Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS): ATIS provide an extensive amount

of data to travelers, such as real-time speed estimates on the Web or over wireless devices and transit vehicle schedule progress. It also provides information on alternative route options.

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM): This strategy, built on an ITS platform,

provides for the coordination of the individual network operations between parallel facilities creating an interconnected system. A coordinated effort between networks along a corridor can effectively manage the total capacity in a way that will result in reduced congestion.

Transit Signal Priority (TSP): This strategy uses technology located onboard transit

vehicles or at signalized intersections to temporarily extend green time, allowing the transit vehicle to proceed without stopping at a red light.

Tier 4: Strategies to Improve Roadway Operations



Transportation Systems Management Strategies Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies identify operational improvements to enhance the capacity of the existing system. These strategies typically are used together with ITS technologies to better manage and operate existing transportation facilities. The following strategies are included in the toolbox.

Traffic Signal Coordination: Signals can be pre-timed and isolated, pre-timed and synchronized, actuated by events (such as the arrival of a vehicle, pedestrian, bus or emergency vehicle), set to adopt one of several pre-defined phasing plans based on current traffic conditions, or set to calculate an optimal phasing plan based on current conditions.

Channelization: This strategy is used to optimize the flow of traffic for making left or

right turns usually using concrete islands or pavement markings.

Intersection Improvements: Intersections can be widened and lanes restriped to increase intersection capacity and safety. This may include auxiliary turn lanes (right or left) and widened shoulders.

Bottleneck Removal: This strategy removes or corrects short, isolated, and temporary

lane reductions, substandard design elements, and other physical limitations that form a capacity constraint that results in a traffic bottleneck.

Vehicle Use Limitations and Restrictions: This strategy includes all-day or selected

time-of-day restrictions of vehicles, typically trucks, to increase roadway capacity.

Improved Signage: Improving or removing signage to clearly communicate location and direction information can improve traffic flow.

Geometric Improvements for Transit: This strategy includes providing for transit stop

locations that do not affect the flow of traffic, improve sight lines, and improve merging and diverging of buses and cars.

Intermodal Enhancements: Coordinating modes makes movement from one mode to

the other easier. These enhancements typically includes schedule modification to reduce layover time or increase the opportunity for transfers, creation of multi-modal facilities, informational kiosks, and improved amenities at transfer locations.

Goods Movement Management: This strategy restricts delivery or pickup of goods in

certain areas to reduce congestion.



Incident Management Strategies Freeway Incident Detection and Management Systems: This strategy addresses

primarily non-recurring congestion, typically includes video monitoring and dispatch systems, and may also include roving service patrol vehicles.

Access Management Strategies Access Management Policies: This strategy includes adoption of policies to regulate

driveways and limit curb cuts and/or policies that require continuity of sidewalk, bicycle, and trail networks.

Corridor Preservation/Management Strategies

Corridor Preservation: This strategy includes implementing, where applicable, land acquisition techniques such as full title purchases of future rights-of-way and purchase of easements to plan proactively in anticipation of future roadway capacity demands.

Corridor Management: This strategy is applicable primarily in moderate- to high-density areas and includes strategies to manage corridor rights-of-way. The strategies range from land-use regulations to landowner agreements such as subdivision reservations, which are mandatory dedications of portions of subdivided lots that lie in the future right-of-way.

Strategies to add capacity are the most costly and least desirable strategies and should be considered as last resort methods for reducing congestion. As the strategy of cities trying to “build” themselves out of congestion has not provided the intended results, capacity-adding strategies should be applied after determining the demand and operational management strategies identified earlier are not feasible solutions. The key strategy is to increase the capacity of congested roadways through additional general purpose travel lanes.

Increase the capacity of congested roadways through additional general purpose travel lanes

Tier 5: Strategies to Add Capacity



CMP Safety Mitigation Matrix The Pasco CMP process also includes a “CMP Safety Mitigation Matrix” for use in streamlining the identification of potential safety issues identified in the identification of congested corridors by making use of crash data produced by the County’s Crash Data Management System (CDMS). This system produces maps and reports by crash type or cause which and be used to identify safety issues on the major roadway network for both congested and non-congested roadways. Reducing the number of crashes that occur on major roadways can reduce non-reoccurring congestion. While the delay incurred resulting from crashes cannot be easily determined, it is a significant contribution of delay on major roadways. To support the integration of crash reduction as a means to reduce non-reoccurring congestion, a CMP Safety Mitigation Matrix was developed. The CMP Safety Migration Matrix is provided in Figure 7-4. This Matrix is similar to the CMP Strategy Matrix in that it should be used screen and identify potential strategies that would reduce congestion caused by specific crash types. The Matrix identifies the most common crash types and the typical strategies that could be implemented to improve safety and reduce these crashes. Special consideration is also given to relating these crashes to the four “Safety Emphasis Areas identified in the State of Florida Strategic Highway Safety Plan. In most cases additional detailed study will be required to identify the specific safety strategy or strategies to be implemented for a specific location.



Figure 7-4: CMP Safety Strategies Matrix



Project and Program Identification As mentioned previously, once corridors have been evaluated using the congestion management strategies matrix and safety matrix, potential projects or programs will be evaluated or identified in additional detail sufficient for those projects to be prioritized for implementation using the prioritization process identified in the remainder of this section. This additional level of evaluation will be dependent on the strategy being considered and the level of detail needed to move the project or program forward. In some cases this will require detail engineering analysis and planning level cost estimates and in other cases this will involve identifying issues that existing TDM or other ongoing activities need to address. Attention is directed to the fact that some improvements identified in the strategy matrix may require more than one year to evaluate and as a result may be considered for prioritization in subsequent years of the TIP development process. The Annual State of the System report will detail the projects or programs considered for implementation and the status of those evaluations. The purpose of this step is to identify projects that can be funded or prioritized for implementation.



METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING MULTIMODAL PRIORITIES Once projects and transportation programs have been identified on congested corridors or by the CMP Task Force, they are prioritized for funding on an annual basis. The CMP organizes congestion management and mobility improvement projects into five major categories, including:

intersection improvements transit projects sidewalk projects bicycle facility/multi-use trail projects travel demand management (TDM) strategies

This section identifies the process for the prioritization of multimodal projects, especially project improvements involving transit facilities and services, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, trails, and TDM strategies to manage travel demand.



CMP IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS As illustrated in Figure 7-5, the CMP Implementation Process for the Pasco County MPO involves three basic steps, each of which is described below.

Step 1: Identify and Prioritize Projects within each Category – A methodology is provided for identifying projects and establishing priorities within each of the categories of the CMP. These methodologies are summarized later in this section.

Step 2: Pursue and Allocate Funding to each of the CMP Categories – Available funding will likely come from money set aside by the MPO to support CMP projects on an annual basis. In addition, the Florida Department of Transportation Enhancements program funds sidewalk and bicycle facility improvements. Other sources also may be identified to fund lower cost, short-term transportation improvements. Using the prioritized lists of projects developed for each category in Step 1, the MPO and the CMP Task Force can allocate existing funding to projects and pursue new funding sources for projects as deemed appropriate.

Step 3: Implement Projects as Funding is Obtained and Allocated – Once projects are identified and prioritized within each category (Step 1) and funding has been identified, pursued, and allocated to the appropriate category (Step 2), projects can be implemented as funding is obtained and allocated to projects in order of priority.



Figure 7-5: CMP Project Prioritization Overview

Intersections & Transit Sidewalks Bicycle/Trails TDM

STEP 1

Identify and prioritize projects within the CMP categories.

STEP 2

Pursue and allocate funding to each of the CMP categories.

STEP 3

Implement projects as funding is obtained and allocated.



METHODOLOGY FOR SETTING PRIORITIES Figure 7-6 illustrates the methodology for establishing priorities within each of the five categories of transportation improvements identified and included in the CMP for the Pasco County MPO. A sixth category, roadway priorities, also is reflected in the figure but is beyond the scope of the CMP since it reflects high-cost roadway capacity expansion priorities established in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and enumerated in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). A description of the six categories is provided in this section.



Figure 7-6: CMP Prioritization Process

Step 1

Roadway Priorities

Roadways

Roadway expansion priorities are established as part of the MPO's Long

Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which is updated every three years. Roadways are not evaluated in the

Intersection Priorities

Congestion

Rank intersections by projected congestion in f ive years. Assign scores for high (5), medium (3), and low (1). Congestion is

estimated by dividing approach volumes by the number of approach lanes.

Step 1

Travel Demand Mgmt (TDM) Priorities

TDM Strategies

Develop/update list of TDM projects based on input f rom the MMS Task Force, the Citizens

Advisory Committee, citizens of Pasco County, as well as the TDM projects identif ied in the

MPO's LRTP.

Step 2

Safety

Rank intersections by the number of total crashes for the past three years (high to low). Assign scores for high (5), medium

(3) ,

Step 3

Regional Significance

Rank intersections based on their signif icance in supporting regional mobility. Assign scores for high (5), medium (3), and

low (1).

Step 5


Sum the scores f rom Steps 1 through 4 and rank the intersections f rom high to low.

Transit Priorities

Step 1

Transit Development Plan

Develop/update list transit projects f rom the latest update of the 5-Year Transit

Development Plan (TDP) and add projects based on input f rom the MMS

Task Force, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and citizens of Pasco County (include both service and

inf rastructure improvements).

Step 4

Transit Project Priorities

Adjust list of transit project priorities based on the results of Steps 2 and 3.

Sidewalk Priorities

Step 1List bike/pedestrian improvements by the level of connectivity within county

and regionally using the following criteria.

1. Rank projects in the adopted LRTP for their potential for High (H), Medium (M), or Low (L) level of connectivity.2. Assign scores: H = 3, M = 2, L = 1,

Sidewalk Projects

Develop/update list of candidate sidewalk projects based on input f rom

the MMS Task Force, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the citizens of

Pasco County.

Bicycle Facility/Trail Priorities

Step 1

Bicycle/Trail Projects

Develop/update list of candidate bicycle facility and trail projects based on the Long Range Transportation Plan and input f rom the MMS Task Force, the

Citizens Advisory Committee, and the citizens of Pasco County.

Step 2List trail improvements by the level of

connectivity within county and regionally using the following criteria.

1. Rank projects for their potential for High (H), Medium (M), or Low (L) level

of connectivity.2. Assign scores: H = 3, M = 2, L = 1,

and rank projects by the score received.

Bicycle/Trail Criteria

Assign scores to each bicycle facility and trail project for the following

criteria:

addresses safety issueprovides continuity

provides access to schoolprovides access to bus stop

provides access to major activity center

supports traditional neighborhood

Step 4

Right-of-Way Availability

Rank intersections according to the availability of right-of -way for future

intersection capacity expansion. Assign scores for high (5), medium (3), and low (1).

Step 3

Congestion

Assign a bonus score of 5 points to transit projects that are located along

congested corridors, as projected 5 years into the future.

Step 2

Sidewalk Criteria

Assign scores to each sidewalk project for the following criteria:





Assign 3 points for each criterion met

Step 3

Sidewalk Project Priorities

Sum the scores f rom Step 2 and rank the sidewalk projects f rom high to low.

Step 3

Bicycle/Trail Project Priorities

Sum the scores f rom Step 2 and rank the bicycle/trail projects f rom high to low.

Step 2

Programmed Improvements

Assign a bonus scoe of 7 points if funded in the 5-year TDP, 5 points if listed as

unfunded in the 5-year TDP, 3 points if in the interim LRTP, 1 point if in the LRTP.

Step 2


Assign a score of 5 points if in the interim LRTP and 3 points if in the

LRTP beyond the interim plan.

Step 3

TDM Project Priorities

Rank the TDM projects f rom high to low based on the scores assigned

in Step 2.

Step 1

Roadway Priorities

Roadways




Congestion



Step 1


TDM Strategies



MPO's LRTP.

Step 2

Safety


(3) ,

Step 3



low (1).

Step 5



Transit Priorities

Step 1






Step 4



Sidewalk Priorities




Sidewalk Projects



Pasco County.


Step 1











criteria:





Step 4




Step 3

Congestion



Step 2

Sidewalk Criteria







Step 3



Step 3



Step 2




Step 2




Step 3



in Step 2.

Step 1

Roadway Priorities

Roadways




Congestion



Step 1


TDM Strategies



MPO's LRTP.

Step 2

Safety


(3) ,

Step 3



low (1).

Step 5



Transit Priorities

Step 1






Step 4



Sidewalk Priorities




Sidewalk Projects



Pasco County.


Step 1











criteria:





Step 4




Step 3

Congestion



Step 2

Sidewalk Criteria







Step 3



Step 3



Step 2




Step 2




Step 3



in Step 2.

Step 1

Roadway Priorities

Roadways




Congestion



Step 1


TDM Strategies



MPO's LRTP.

Step 2

Safety


(3) ,

Step 3



low (1).

Step 5



Transit Priorities

Step 1






Step 4



Sidewalk Priorities




Sidewalk Projects



Pasco County.


Step 1











criteria:





Step 4




Step 3

Congestion



Step 2

Sidewalk Criteria







Step 3



Step 3



Step 2




Step 2




Step 3



in Step 2.



Roadway Priorities Roadway capacity expansion project prioritization occurs as part of the MPO’s long-range transportation planning process. The LRTP is updated every three years and includes significant efforts to identify, evaluate, and prioritize capacity-related projects. The results of this LRTP corridor evaluation are used by MPO staff to guide the development of an annual list of project priorities. These roadway expansion projects are generally high-cost, long-term capital investments and not considered part of the short-term, lower-cost investments associated with the CMP.

Intersection Priorities Intersections are identified and evaluated using four primary criteria: congestion, safety, regional significance, and right-of-way availability. Each intersection receives one of three possible scores for each criterion (high-5, medium-3, or low-1). The intersection scores are then summed and ranked from high to low to reflect intersection priorities from a technical perspective. Guidance for measuring the four criteria is provided below.

Congestion – To facilitate a relative comparison of congestion, the approach volumes entering an intersection are summed and divided by the number of lanes approaching the intersection. The result is an average volume per lane that can then be compared to other intersections. The intersections are ranked from high to low according to the average volume per lane, with the highest 1/3 receiving a score of 5, the next 1/3 receiving a score of 3, and the lowest 1/3 receiving a score of 1. This analysis is conducted for planned network and projected traffic volumes five years in the future.

Safety – Crashes are totaled for intersections over the past three years. Intersections are ranked from high to low based on the total number of crashes over the three-year period. Similar to congestion, the highest 1/3 receive a score of 5, the next 1/3 receive a score of 3, and the lowest 1/3 receive a score of 1.

Regional Significance – Intersections are assigned scores to reflect the relative regional significance. Scores of 5 (high), 3 (medium), and 1 (low) are selected by the analyst according to knowledge and judgment of the intersection and its regional significance.

Right-of-Way Availability – A review of right-of-way availability is critical to determining the feasibility of future intersection improvements. Intersections are assigned a score of 5, 3, or 1 to reflect the degree to which right-of-way is available for expansion of the intersection.



Transit Priorities The first step in establishing transit priorities is to identify transit projects from the latest major update of the Five-Year Transit Development Plan (TDP) and add additional projects to the list based on input from the CMP Task Force, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and citizen of Pasco County. A major update of the five-year TDP is prepared every three years. Transit projects may take the form of service improvements (frequency, hours of service, etc.) or infrastructure investments (buses, shelters, etc.).

Scores are assigned to the transit projects consistent with programmed priorities, including:

Funded project in the TDP (7 points) Unfunded project in the TDP (5 points) Funded project in the Interim LRTP (3 points) Funded project in the LRTP beyond the interim plan (1 point)

The next step is to assign a bonus score of 5 points to each transit project that is located along a congested corridor, as projected five years into the future. The list of transit projects is then updated to reflect these bonus points and the projects are prioritized based on the total number of points from high to low.

Sidewalk Priorities Prior to establishing sidewalk priorities, a list of candidate sidewalk projects is developed based on input from the CMP Task Force, the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and the citizens of Pasco County. Candidate sidewalk projects are measured based on the extent to which the following criteria are met.

addresses safety issue (3 points) provides continuity (3 points) provides access to school (3 points) provides access to bus stop (3 points) provides access to major activity center (3 points) support traditional neighborhood (Dade City, Transit Oriented Development,

Traditional Neighborhood Development, etc.) (3 points) A sidewalk project is assigned 3 points for each criterion that is met, meaning that each project has the potential of being assigned 18 points. The scores are summed and the sidewalk projects are then ranked from high to low.



Bicycle Facility and Multi-Use Trail Priorities Similar to the process for establishing sidewalk priorities, a list of candidate bicycle and multi-use trail projects is developed based on input from the CMP Task Force, the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and the citizens of Pasco County. Candidate projects are measured based on the extent to which the following criteria are met.

addresses safety issue (3 points) provides continuity (3 points) provides access to school (3 points) provides access to bus stop (3 points) provides access to major activity center (3 points) support traditional neighborhood (Dade City, Transit Oriented Development,

Traditional Neighborhood Development, etc.) (3 points) A bicycle/multi-use trail project is assigned 3 points for each criterion that is met, meaning that each project has the potential of being assigned 18 points. The scores are summed and the sidewalk projects are then ranked from high to low.

Travel Demand Management (TDM) TDM strategies attempt to reduce peak period automobile trips by increasing the number of people in each vehicle or by influencing the time of, or need to, travel. TDM solutions rely on incentives, or disincentives, to change travel behavior. The term TDM encompasses both the alternatives to driving alone and the strategies that encourage the use of other modes of travel. Examples of TDM strategies include vanpooling, carpooling, flex-time, and staggered work hours, among others.

Candidate projects are identified based on input from the CMP Task Force, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the citizens of Pasco County, as well as the TDM projects identified in the MPO’s LRTP. At this time, the priorities for TDM projects are determined by what is programmed in the LRTP, which is updated every three years. A TDM project programmed in the Interim LRTP is assigned a score of 5 points, while a TDM project programmed beyond the Interim LRTP is assigned a score of 3 points.




Pasco County MPO 8- April 2011

1

CCHHAAPPTTEERR EEIIGGHHTT MMOONNIITTOORR SSTTRRAATTEEGGYY EEFFFFEECCTTIIVVEENNEESSSS

Introduction The FHWA guidelines call for CMPs to include provisions to monitor the performance of strategies implemented to address congestion. Regulations require “a process for periodic assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented strategies, in terms of the area’s established performance measures.” This step of the process helps determine whether operational or policy adjustments are needed to make the current strategies work better and provides information about how various strategies work in order to implement future approaches within the CMP study area. Data collection and performance monitoring are ongoing with the various periodic assessments of roadway, transit, bicycle/pedestrian/trail, freight network performance in Pasco County. However, this CMP also identifies the need for a process that supports an annual tracking of the effectiveness of the implemented congestion mitigation strategies and the multi-modal transportation system as a whole. This annual process is described in detail below.

Annual State of the System Report As a key tool in the Pasco County CMP, an Annual State of the System Report will be developed in the interim years until the next CMP update. This report will track the effectiveness of the implemented strategies, to the extent possible with the available project level data, and conditions of the multi-modal transportation system as a whole. The same set of quantifiable performance measures established for the Pasco County CMP as described in Chapter 6 of this report will be used to measure system performance at corridor and system levels. The measures that will be utilized in the Annual State of the System Report on Pasco County CMP include:

Roadway Performance Measures including percent of roadway miles and VMT by LOS Type as well as roadway traffic volume to capacity and volume to maximum service volume ratios.

Public Transit Performance Measures including passenger trips per revenue hour, passenger trips, and the number of routes.

Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trail Facility Performance Measures including percent of congested CMP roadway centerline miles with bicycle facilities, percent of congested CMP roadway centerline miles with sidewalk facilities, and miles of multi-use trails

Goods Movement Performance Measures including the % of total VMT on truck routes on congested roadways.


Pasco County MPO 8- April 2011

2

Safety including Total Crashes, total crashes by Safety Emphasis Areas, Total Crashes Involving Heavy Vehicles. The commitment and schedule for preparing an Annual State

of the System Report will be determined by the Pasco County CMP Task Force.


Pasco County MPO 7A-1 April 2011

Appendix 7A

Pasco County CMP Congested Corridors Selection Methodology


Pasco County MPO 7A-2 April 2011

CONGESTED CORRIDORS & HOT SPOTS Various criteria that primarily use traffic volume and capacity are used to select and categorize the congested corridors in Pasco County. The methodology using these criteria to select congested corridors within the CMP application area is presented below. Thereafter, criteria used to identify congestion hot spots, i.e. intersections with recurring or non-recurring congestion, are also summarized. Selection Methodology This methodology summarizes the steps towards identifying the congested roadways for the Pasco County CMP. As indicated earlier, the CMP road network includes all existing and committed roadway segments as identified by the 2035 LRTP. The selection methodology consists of two main steps. First, five criteria are utilized to categorize the roadways into three sub-categories. The sub-categories and corresponding criteria are presented below.

Not Congested (currently or in five years without improvements) - The corridors in this category are selected based on applying the following criteria at road segment level:

Segment i maximum service volume

(i = 1,2,3,….n)

2009 or 2014 Segments with ( )

Not Congested Corridors

= Segment i volume

< Segment i maximum service volume x 0.90

Approaching Congestion or Congested – The corridors that are approaching congestion are analyzed at three levels. The criteria in each level of analysis are summarized below.

o Approaching Congestion - This includes corridors with segments that

meet the following criteria, which are currently congested or congested in five years without improvements.

Segment i maximum service volume

(i = 1,2,3,….n)

Corridors Approaching Congestion

=2009 or 2014

Segments with (>1.00 Segment i volume

) > 0.9

o Congested Today - As summarized below, this category uses two

criteria to identify the corridors that are congested today.

(i = 1,2,3,….n)

>( Segment i volume

)Corridors Congested Today

=2009 Segments

with1.08 > 1.00

Segment i capacity ( Segment i volume

) Segment i maximum service volume &

o Congested in 5 Years - The criteria is used for roadway conditions in

2014 to identify the future congested roadways, as summarized below.

(i = 1,2,3,….n)

) > 1.00 Segment i maximum service volume

Corridors Congested in 5 Years

=2014 Segments

with1.08 &

Segment i capacity>(

Segment i volume

) ( Segment i volume

Extremely Congested - This category includes roadways in the 2014 E+C network that meets the following criteria are considered severely congested.

(i = 1,2,3,….n)

Extremely Congested Corridors

=2009 or 2014

Segments with1.08

Segment i capacity( Segment i volume

) >

Once the roadways are categorized based on these criteria, they are further categorized into two broad types, including:

Mobility Corridors - These include Multi-Modal Transportation Districts (MMTD) corridors (corridors that are located in MMTDs) or Key Transit Corridors (corridors with 60-minute or less frequency transit service)

Non-Mobility Corridors - These include all other major roadways included in the 2014 existing plus committed (E+C) road network (as defined in the 2035 LRTP).


Pasco County MPO 7B-1 April 2011

Appendix 7B

Pasco County CMP Strategy Solutions Matrix


Pasco County MPO 7B-2 April 2011

Page�1�

High�Potential�Effectiveness��

Moderate�Potential�Effectiveness��

Low�Potential�Effectiveness��

Corridor�Dependent�

Tier� Strategy�#� Congestion�Mitigation�Strategy*�Demand��

Improvements�Operational��

Improvements�

�

1.01�

Congestion�Pricing:��Congestion�pricing�can�be�implemented�statically�or�dynamically.��Static�con�gestion�pricing�requires�that�tolls�are�higher�during�traditional�peak�periods.��Dynamic�congestion�pricing�allows�toll�rates�to�vary�depending�upon�actual�traffic�conditions.�The�more�congested�the�road,�the�higher�the�cost�to�travel�on�the�road.��Dynamic�congestion�pricing�works�best�when�cou�pled�with�real�time�information�on�the�availability�of�other�routes.��

1.02�

Alternative�Work�Hours:��There�are�three�main�variations:�staggered�hours,�flex�time,�and�com�pressed�work�weeks.��Staggered�hours�require�employees�in�different�work�groups�to�start�at�dif�ferent�times�to�spread�out�their�arrival/departure�times.�Flex�time�allows�employees�to�arrive�and�leave�outside�of�the�traditional�commute�period.��Compressed�work�weeks�involve�reducing�the�number�of�days�per�week�worked�while�increasing�the�number�of�hours�worked�per�day.��

1.03�

Telecommuting:��Telecommuting�policies�allow�employees�to�work�at�home�or�a�regional�telecom�mute�center�instead�of�going�into�the�office,�all�the�time�or�only�one�or�more�days�per�week.�

1.04�

Emergency�Ride�Home�Programs:�These�programs�provide�a�safety�net�to�those�people�who�car�pool�or�use�transit�to�work�so�that�they�can�get�to�their�destination�if�unexpected�work�demands�or�an�emergency�arises.�

1.05�

Alternative�Mode�Marketing�and�Education:� �Providing�education�on�alternative�modes�of�trans�

portation�can�be�an�effective�way�of�increasing�demand�for�alternative�modes.��This�strategy�can�

include�mapping�websites�that�compute�directions�and�travel�times�for�multiple�modes�of�travel.��

1.06�

Safe�Routes�to�Schools�Program:�This�federally�funded�program�provides�100�percent�funding�to�

communities�to�invest�in�pedestrian�and�bicycle�infrastructure�surrounding�schools.��

1.07�

Preferential�for�Free�Parking�for�HOVs:��This�program�provides�an�incentive�for�employees�to�car�pool�with�preferred�of�free�of�charge�parking�for�HOVs.��

1.08�

Negotiated�Demand�Management�Agreements:��As�a�condition�of�development�approval,�local�governments�require�the�private�sector�to�contribute�to�traffic�mitigation�agreements.��The�agree�ments�typically�set�a�traffic�reduction�goal�(often�expressed�as�a�minimum�level�of�ridesharing�par�ticipation�or�a�stipulated�reduction�in�the�number�of�automobile�trips).��

Short�Term/��Long�Term��

��

��Long�Term��

��

Short�term/Long�Term��

��


��

��Short�term/Long�Term��

��


��


��


��


Recommendations/Comments��

Non�Mobility�Corridor�

�Mobility��Corridor�

Tier�1:�

Strategies�to�Re

duce�Person�Trips�or�Veh

icle�M

iles�Traveled

�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Corridor:��Reviewer:��Date:�� Level�of�Potential�Development�

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

Congestion�Mitigation�Matrix�

Page�2�





Tier� Strategy�#� Congestion�Mitigation�Strategy*��

Mobility�Corridor�

�Non�Mobility��

Corridor�Recommendations/Comments�

Demand��Improvements�

Operational��Improvements�


�

1.09�

Trip�Reduction�Ordinance:��These�ordinances�use�a�locality’s�regulatory�authority�to�limit�trip�gen�eration�from�a�development.��They�spread�the�burden�of�reducing�trip�generation�among�existing�and�future�developments�better�than�Negotiated�Demand�Management�Agreements.��

��


1.10�

Infill�developments:� � �This� strategy�takes�advantage�of� infrastructure�that�already�exists,� rather�

than�building�new�infrastructure�on�the�fringes�of�the�urban�area.�

��

Short�term�

1.11�

Design�Guidelines�for�Pedestrian�Oriented�Development:��Maximum�block�lengths,�building�set�back�restrictions,�and�streetscape�enhancements�are�examples�of�design�guidelines�that�can�be�codified�in�zoning�ordinances�to�encourage�pedestrian�activity.��

��


1.12�

Mixed�Use�Development:��This�strategy�allows�many�trips�to�be�made�without�automobiles.��People�can�walk�to�restaurants�and�services�rather�than�use�their�vehicles.��

��


2.01�

Transit�Capacity�Expansion:��This�strategy�adds�new�vehicles�to�expand�transit�services.��


2.02�

Increasing�Bus�Route�Coverage�or�Frequencies:��This�strategy�provides�better�accessibility�to�transit�to�a�greater�share�of�the�population.��Increasing�frequency�makes�transit�more�attractive�to�use.��

��


2.03�

Implementing�Premium�Transit:��Premium�transit�such�as�Bus�Rapid�Transit�(BRT)�best�serves�dense�urban�centers�where�travelers�can�walk�to�their�destinations.��Premium�transit�from�subur�ban�areas�can�sometimes�be�enhanced�by�providing�park�and�ride�lots.��

��


2.04�

Providing�Real�Time�Information�on�Transit�Routes:��Providing�real�time�information�on�bus�pro�gress�either�at�bus�stops,�terminals,�and/or�personal�wireless�devices�makes�bus�travel�more��attractive.��

��


Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Tier�2:�

Strategies�to

�Shift�Autom

obile�Trips�to

�Other�M

odes�

Tier�1:�

Strategies�to

�Red

uce�Pe

rson

�Trips�or�Veh

icle�M

iles�

Traveled

Level�of�Potential�Development�

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

Page�3�





Level� Strategy�#� Congestion�Mitigation�Strategy*�Demand��


Improvements�

�

2.05�

Reducing�Transit�Fares:��This�relatively�easy�to�implement�strategy�encourages�additional�transit�use,�to�the�extent�that�high�fares�are�a�real�barrier�to�transit.�However,�due�to�the�direct�financial�impact�on�the�transit�system�operating�budgets,�reductions�in�selected�fare�categories�may�be�a�more�feasible�strategy�to�implement.��

2.06�

Provide�Exclusive�Bus�Right�Of�Way:��Exclusive�right�of�way�includes�bus�ways,�bus�only�lanes,�and�bus�bypass�ramps.�This�strategy�is�applied�to�freeways�and�major�highways�that�have�routes�with�high�ridership. �

2.07�

New�Sidewalk�Connections:�Increasing�sidewalk�connectivity�encourages�pedestrian�traffic�for�short�trips.�

2.08�

Designated�Bicycle�Lanes�on�Facilities�or�Routes:��Enhancing�the�visibility�of�bicycle�facilities�in�creases�the�perception�of�safety.��In�many�cases,�bicycle�lanes�can�be�added�to�existing�roadways�through�restriping.��

2.09�

Improved�Bicycle�Facilities�at�Transit�Stations�and�Other�Trip�Destinations:��Bicycle�racks�and�bicycle�lockers�at�transit�stations�and�other�trip�destinations�increase�security.��Additional�ameni�ties�such�as�locker�rooms�with�showers�at�workplaces�provide�further�incentives�for�using�bicycles. �

2.10�

Improved�Safety�of�Existing�Bicycle�and�Pedestrian�Facilities:��Maintaining�lighting,�signage,�striping,�traffic�control�devices,�and�pavement�quality�and�installing�curb�cuts,�curb�extensions,�median�refuges,�and�raised�crosswalks�can�increase�bicycle�and�pedestrian�safety. �

2.11�

Exclusive�Non�Motorized�ROW:��Abandoned�rail�rights�of�way�and�existing�parkland�can�be�used�for�medium��to�long�distance�bicycle�trails,�improving�safety�and�reducing�travel�times. �

2.12�

Intermodal� Enhancements:�Coordinating�modes�makes�movement� from�one�mode� to� the� other�

easier.� � These� enhancements� typically� includes� schedule�modification� to� reduce� layover� time� or�

increase�the�opportunity�for�transfers,�creation�of�multi�modal�facilities,�informational�kiosks,�and�

improved�amenities�at�transfer�locations.�


��

��Short�Term��

��


��

Short�Term/Long�Term��

��


��

Short�Term��

��


��


��

��Short�Term/Long�Term��


Non�Mobility��Corridor�

�Mobility�Corridor�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Tier�2:�

Strategies�to

�Shift�Autom

obile�Trips�to

�Other�M

odes�


LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

Page�4�





Level� Strategy�#� Congestion�Mitigation�Strategy*��







�

3.01�

Ridesharing�(Carpools�&�Vanpools):��In�ridesharing�programs,�participants�are�matched�with�po�

tential�candidates�for�sharing�rides.� �This�is�typically�arranged/encouraged�through�employers�or�

transportation�management�agencies,�which�provide�ride�matching�services.��These�programs�are�

more�effective�if�combined�with�HOV�lanes,�parking�management,�guaranteed�ride�home�policies,�

and�employer�based�incentive�programs.�

��

Long�term�

3.02�

High�Occupancy�Vehicle�Lanes:��This�increases�corridor�capacity�while�at�the�same�time�providing�

an�incentive�for�single�occupant�drivers�to�shift�to�ridesharing.��These�lanes�are�most�effective�as�

part� of� a� comprehensive� effort� to� encourage�HOVs,� including� publicity,� outreach,� park�and�ride�

lots,�rideshare�matching�services,�and�employer�incentives.�

��

Short�Term/�Long�Term��

3.03�

Park�and�Ride�Lots:��These�lots�can�be�used�in�conjunction�with�HOV�lanes�and/or�express�bus�ser�vices.��They�are�particularly�helpful�when�coupled�with�other�commute�alternatives�such�as�car�pool/vanpool�programs,�transit,�and/or�HOV�lanes.��

��


3.04�

Employer�Landlord�Parking�Agreements:��Employers�can�negotiate�leases�so�that�they�pay�only�for�parking�spaces�used�by�employees.��In�turn,�employers�can�pass�along�parking�savings�by�pur�chasing�transit�passes�or�reimbursing�non�driving�employees�with�the�cash�equivalent�of�a�parking�space.��

��


3.05�

Parking�Management:� � This� strategy� reduces� the� instance� of� free� parking� to� encourage� other�

modes�of� transportation.� �Options� include� reducing� the�minimum�number�of� parking� spaces� re�

quired�per�development,� increasing�the�share�of�parking�spaces� for�HOVs,� introducing�or� raising�

parking�fees,�providing�cash�out�options�for�employees�not�using�subsidized�parking�spaces,�and�

expanding�parking�at�transit�stations�or�park�and�ride�lots.�

��


3.06�

Managed�Lanes:� � �The�Federal�Highway�Administration�(FHWA)�defines�managed�lanes�as�high�

way�facilities�or�a�set�of�lanes�in�which�operational�strategies�are�implemented�and�managed�(in�

real�time)�in�response�to�changing�conditions.��Examples�of�managed�lanes�may�include�the�follow�

ing:� high�occupancy� toll� (HOT)� lanes� with� tolls� that� vary� based� on� demand;� exclusive� bus�only�

lanes;� HOV� and� clean� air� and/or� energy�efficient� vehicle� lanes;� and� HOV� lanes� that� could� be�

changed�into�HOT�lanes�in�response�to�changing�levels�of�traffic�and�roadway�conditions.�

��

Long�Term��

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Tier�3:�

Strategies�to

�Increase�Veh

icle�Occup

ancy�


LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

Page�5�





Level� Strategy�#� Congestion�Mitigation�Strategy*�Demand��


Improvements�

�

4.01�

Dynamic�Messaging:� �Dynamic�messaging�uses�changeable�message�signs� to�warn�motorists�of�

downstream�queues;�it�provides�travel�time�estimates,�alternate�route�information,�and�informa�

tion�on�special�events,�weather,�or�accidents.�

4.02�

Advanced� Traveler� Information� Systems� (ATIS):� �ATIS� provide� an� extensive� amount� of� data� to�

travelers,�such�as�real�time�speed�estimates�on�the�web�or�over�wireless�devices�and�transit�vehicle�

schedule�progress.��It�also�provides�information�on�alternative�route�options.��

4.03�

Integrated�Corridor�Management�(ICM):��This�strategy,�built�on�an�ITS�platform,�provides�for�the�

coordination�of�the�individual�network�operations�between�parallel�facilities�creating�an�intercon�

nected�system.� �A�coordinated�effort�between�networks�along�a�corridor�can�effectively�manage�

the�total�capacity�in�a�way�that�will�result�in�reduced�congestion.�

4.04�

Transit�Signal�Priority�(TSP):��This�strategy�uses�technology�located�onboard�transit�vehicles�or�at�

signalized�intersections�to�temporarily�extend�green�time,�allowing�the�transit�vehicle�to�proceed�

without�stopping�at�a�red�light.�

4.05�

Traffic�Signal�Coordination:��Signals�can�be�pre�timed�and�isolated,�pre�timed�and�synchronized,�

actuated�by�events�(such�as�the�arrival�of�a�vehicle,�pedestrian,�bus�or�emergency�vehicle),�set�to�

adopt�one�of�several�pre�defined�phasing�plans�based�on�current�traffic�conditions,�or�set�to�calcu�

late�an�optimal�phasing�plan�based�on�current�conditions.�

4.06�

Channelization:��This�strategy�is�used�to�optimize�the�flow�of�traffic�for�making�left�or�right�turns�

usually�using�concrete�islands�or�pavement�markings.�

4.07�

Intersection� Improvements:� � Intersections�can�be�widened�and� lanes�restriped�to� increase� inter�

section�capacity�and�safety.�This�may�include�auxiliary�turn�lanes�(right�or�left)�and�widened��

shoulders.�

4.08�

Bottleneck�Removal:��This�strategy�removes�or�corrects�short,�isolated,�and�temporary�lane�reduc�

tions,�substandard�design�elements,�and�other�physical�limitations�that�form�a�capacity�constraint�

that�results�in�a�traffic�bottleneck.�


��

��Short�Term/�Long�Term��

��


��


��

Short�Term�

��

Short�Term�



�

��



Non�Mobility��Corridor�

�Mobility�Corridor�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Tier�4:�

Strategies�to�Im

prove�Ro

adway�Ope

ration

s�


LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

Page�6�












�

4.09�

Vehicle�Use�Limitations�and�Restrictions:��This�strategy�includes�all�day�or�selected�time�of�day�re�strictions�of�vehicles,�typically�trucks,�to�increase�roadway�capacity.�

��


�

4.10�

Improved�Signage:� Improving�or� removing�signage�to�clearly�communicate� location�and�direction�information�can�improve�traffic�flow.�

�


4.11�

Geometric� Improvements� for� Transit:� � This� strategy� includes� providing� for� transit� stop� locations�that� do�not� affect� the� flow�of� traffic,� improve� sight� lines,� and� improve�merging�and�diverging�of�buses�and�cars.�

�


4.12�

Goods�Movement�Management:��This�strategy�restricts�delivery�or�pickup�of�goods�in�certain�areas�to�reduce�congestion.��

�


4.13�

Freeway� Incident� Detection� and�Management� Systems:� � This� strategy� addresses� primarily� non�recurring� congestion,� typically� includes� video�monitoring� and� dispatch� systems,� and�may� also� in�clude�roving�service�patrol�vehicles.�

�


4.14�

Access�Management�Policies:��This�strategy�includes�adoption�of�policies�to�regulate�driveways�and�limit�curb�cuts�and/or�policies�that�require�continuity�of�sidewalk,�bicycle,�and�trail�networks.�

�


4.15�

Corridor� Preservation:� � � This� strategy� includes� implementing,� where� applicable,� land� acquisition�techniques� such�as� full� title�purchases�of� future� rights�of�way�and�purchase�of�easements� to�plan�proactively�in�anticipation�of�future�roadway�capacity�demands.�

�


Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Tier�4:�


prove�Ro

adway�Ope

ration

s�


LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

Page�7�












�

4.16�

Corridor�Management:��This�strategy�is�applicable�primarily�in�moderate��to�high�density�areas�and�includes�strategies� to�manage�corridor� rights�of�way.� �The�strategies� range� from� land�use� regula�tions�to�landowner�agreements�such�as�subdivision�reservations,�which�are�mandatory�dedications�of�portions�of�subdivided�lots�that�lie�in�the�future�right�of�way.��

�

�Short�Term/Long�Term��

4.17�

Complete�Streets:�Routinely�design�and�operate�the�entire�right�of�way�to�enable�safe�access�for�all�users� including� pedestrians,� bicyclists,� motorists,� and� transit� Element� that� may� be� found� on� a��complete� street� include� sidewalks,� bike� lanes� (or� wide� paved� shoulders),� special� bus� lanes,��comfortable�and�accessible�transit�stops,�frequent�crossing�opportunities,�median�islands,�accessible�pedestrian�signals,�curb�extensions,�and�more.�

�


5.01�

Add� General� Purpose� Travel� Lanes:� Increase� the� capacity� of� congested� roadways� through� addi�tional�general�purpose�travel�lanes.�

�

��Long�Term�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Yes� No�

Comments:�

Tier�4:�


prove��

Road

way�Ope

ration

s�

Tier�5:�Strategies�

to�Add

�Cap

acity� Yes� No�

Comments:�


LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10

LOW

MED

IUM

HIGH

Existing

Not�Applicable

1

3

5

7

9

2

4

6

8

10


Pasco County MPO 7C-1 April 2011

Appendix 7C

Pasco County CMP Safety Solutions Matrix



Related Crash Types Countermeasure

Type

Frequency of Crash Type in

Corridor (Circle One)

Common Mitigation Recommended

Follow‐up

Angle and left turn crashes occurring at stopped controlled intersections.

Engineering

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Provide advance warning sign on approach to intersection. Double up on traffic control signs. Provide warning flashers. Evaluate for possible signalization.

Angle and left turn crashes occurring away from signalized intersections or divided highways.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Channelize to prohibit a specific movement. Close median to prohibit all movements.

Left turn crashes occurring at signalized intersections

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Install of protected left turn phasing at signalized intersections. Consider protected only left turn phasing.

Rear end and angle crashes at signalized intersections along east west corridors.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Install back plates or high visibility back plates on signalized intersections to increase signal head conspicuity (particularly along east‐west corridors).

Rear end crashes with injuries.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Provide advance signal warning sign at signalized intersections. Provide advance street name signs. Increase speed enforcement. Evaluate pavement friction.

Crashes that occur during nighttime hours.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Provide street lighting to increase road visibility at nighttime.

Crashes that occur during slippery or wet conditions.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Improve pavement friction through resurfacing or high‐friction overlays.

Crashes that involve a heavy truck vehicle type.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Provide adequate clearance for heavy truck's reduced stopping distance at signals or provide dilemma zone detection at signals. Provide passing lanes, and acceleration / deceleration lanes. Increase turn radius.

Crashes that involve a u‐turning vehicle.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Prohibit U‐turns at signalized intersection where there are conflicts with channelized right turns. Prohibit U‐turns along corridors where sight distance is inadequate or there are conflicts.

Crashes that involve left turning vehicles.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Provide turn lanes, increase left turn storage, provide positive offset.

Crashes that involve right turning vehicles.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Provide turn lanes, prohibit right turn on red, provide receiving lane for channelized right turn.

Crashes that occur at intersections that involve parked cars.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Prohibit parking near major intersections to increase driver/pedestrian visibility.

Crashes that involve pedestrians.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Provide countdown heads for signalized intersections, refuge islands for unsignalized crossings, sidewalks along road‐ways, consolidate driveways to decrease vehicle/pedestrian conflict points.

Crashes that involve bicyclists.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Provide countdown heads for signalized intersections, refuge islands for unsignalized crossings, bike lanes along road‐ways, consolidate driveways to decrease vehicle/bicyclist conflict points.

Crashes that involve motorcycles.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Evaluate pavement friction. Evaluate shoulders to ensure proper drainage. Increase speed enforcement

Crashes that occur at driveways away from signalized intersections.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Consolidate driveways to decrease vehicular conflict points. Provide raised medians.

Crashes that involve vehicles leaving the roadway and include single vehicle collisions with fixed objects.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Provide guardrail. Provide delineation along the curve and inverted profile pavement markings (or RPMs). Provide advance warning sign on approach to turns, particularly along rural roadways.

Crashes that occurred along a curved section of roadway.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Provide advance warning sign on approach to turns, particularly along rural roadways. Enhance signage. Provide solar flashing beacons on signs.

Crashes where drugs and/or alcohol was involved.

Enforcement

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Increase DUI enforcement.

Crashes that cite disregard of traffic control as a contributing cause.

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Increase red light running enforcement.

Crashes that involve a speeding vehicle (cited by officer)

N/A, LOW, MED, HIGH

Increase speed enforcement. Install post mounted speed feedback signs.

SH

SP

Ag

gre

ssiv

e D

rivi

ng

SH

SP

At

Inte

rsec

tio

n

SH

SP

Lan

e

Dep

artu

re

SH

SP

Vu

lner

able

U

ser

Safety Mitigation Strategies Corridor_______________________ From_______________________ To_______________________ Analyst__________________ Date_____________DRAFT



Documents

Pasco County Policy and Procedures Handbook - Final Report