pinellas county metropolitan planning organization meeting/2015/bpa… · fdot new travel lane...

Web Address: www.pinellascounty.org/mpo Like Us on Facebook

Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 310 Court Street, 2nd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756 (727) 464-8250 Fax (727) 464-8212

BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) MEETING

MONDAY MAY 18, 2015

8:30 A.M.

PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM – 1ST FLOOR

310 COURT STREET CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756

AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 20, 2015 3. MPO ACTIONS – MAY 13, 2015 4. FDOT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN (PSAP) UPDATE 5. FDOT NEW TRAVEL LANE WIDTHS AND BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE WIDTHS 6. STATE OF SYSTEM (SOS) REPORT 2014 7. ELECTRIC BICYCLES 8. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM – PROJECT RANKING CRITERIA 9. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AGENCY REPORTS

10. OTHER BUSINESS A. Bylaws Update

B. Membership C. Correspondence, Publications, Articles of Interest D. Suggestions for Future Agenda Topics E. Other

11. ADJOURNMENT h:\users\trans\webupload\BPACAgenda5-18-15.docx

NEXT BPAC MEETING – JUNE 15, 2015

Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability, or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact the Office of Human Rights, 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, Suite 300, Clearwater, Florida 33756; [(727) 464-4062 (V/TDD)] at least seven days prior to the meeting.

http://www.pinellascounty.org/mpo

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pinellas-County-Metropolitan-Planning-Organization/186097844773247

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pinellas-County-Metropolitan-Planning-Organization/186097844773247

BPAC: 5/18/15

BPAC – ITEM 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The meeting summary for the April 20, 2015 meeting is attached for review and approval. ATTACHMENTS: BPAC Meeting Summary – April 20, 2015 ACTION: Approval of Meeting Summary

PINELLAS COUNTY BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY

APRIL 20, 2015 The following is a summary of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) held on April 20, 2015 in the Pinellas County Planning Department Conference Room, First Floor, 310 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. BPAC Members Present Geri Raja, Vice Chair South County Citizens Representative Becky Afonso North County Citizen Representative, Oldsmar Lynn Bosco At Large Citizen Representative Megan Carmichael Department of Health - Pinellas Charlene Cobb Sunstar Paramedics Chris Cochran PSTA Kimberly Cooper St. Petersburg Citizen Representative Lucas Cruse St. Petersburg Transportation Manager Win Dermody Clearwater Citizen Representative Deputy Noel Dunham, Jr. Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Edward Z. Hawkes Dunedin Citizen Representative Richard Hartman (for Julie Bond) CUTR Chip Haynes Clearwater Citizen Representative Steve Lasky At Large Citizen Representative Felicia Leonard City of Clearwater Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Charles Martin At Large Citizen Representative Ron Rasmussen Pinellas Park Citizen Representative Annette Sala At Large Citizen Representative Michael Siebel At Large Citizen Representative Bert Valery Citizen Representative Beach Community Sarah Ward Interim MPO Executive Director Jim Wedlake Citizen Representative – Seminole Georgia Wildrick Largo Citizen Representative Robert Yunk At Large Citizen Representative BPAC Members Absent Brian Smith, Chairman At Large Citizen Representative Robert Davis Pinellas County Public Works Holly DeSha Largo Citizen Representative Alex English TBARTA Tom Ferraro North County Citizen Representative Lyle Fowler Pinellas County Parks & Conservation Resources (PCR) Byron Hall Pinellas Park/Mid-County Citizen Representative Paul Kurtz At Large Citizen Representative Chris Lauber St. Petersburg Citizen Representative Tom McGinty School System Representative Others Present Joseph Callahan Citizen Scott Daniels Pinellas Trails, Inc. Debra Hampell HDR, Inc. Gina Harvey Pinellas County Public Works Steve Kinner Clearwater Citizen Lori Marable (via teleconference) FDOT Nancy McKibben Pinellas County Public Works Engineering Ray Raja Citizen Marlin Register HDR, Inc. Project Manager Tom Washburn Pinellas County Public Works Al Bartolotta MPO Staff Rodney Chatman MPO Staff Alicia Parinello MPO Staff Sarah Perch MPO Staff Susan Miller MPO Staff Anne Funicello MPO Staff

BPAC MEETING MINUTES April 20, 2015

Page 2

1. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS

Vice Chairman Geri Raja, Tierra Verde/St. Petersburg Citizen Representative, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. As Chairman Smith was out of town, Vice Chair Raja handled the meeting. Introductions were provided by those in attendance.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MARCH 16, 2015

The BPAC approved the meeting summary of the March 16, 2015 meeting as provided in the agenda packet. 3. MPO ACTIONS – April 8, 2015

Ms. Sarah Ward, MPO Interim Executive Director, reviewed the actions of interest from the April 8, 2015 meeting with the Committee. She briefly explained the MPO held public hearings for amendments to the Bike/Ped Plan in Oldsmar, the unincorporated area of Joe’s Creek, and a few bike/shared-use lanes in St. Petersburg. The MPO also received presentations regarding Economic Development, the Florida Transportation Plan and Strategic Intermodal System, and the FDOT Express Bus/Tampa Bay Express. The MPO agreed to discuss the policy on the transportation project lists for State and Federal Funding at the workshop tentatively scheduled for September. Additional information was provided regarding Gandy Boulevard and U.S. Highway 19, and two recommendations from the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) were approved. Ms. Ward also announced that Pinellas County would be submitting a new TIGER application to complete the Trail Loop.

4. SAN MARTIN BOULEVARD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Ms. Nancy McKibben, Pinellas County Public Works Engineering project manager, introduced representatives from HDR Inc., who proceeded with a comprehensive presentation regarding the PD&E Study for a new bridge at San Martin Boulevard in northeast St. Petersburg. Since the existing bridge is functionally obsolete, a new bridge needs to be designed with pedestrian facilities as well as trail accommodations to complete one of the gaps for the Pinellas Trail Loop. As part of the PD&E, this phase of the project will determine whether the trail alignment should be designed on the north or south side of the structure. BPAC members provided numerous comments to the consultant and project manager, including a reduced vehicular speed limit, buffered bike lanes, crosswalks, improved sight lines and reduced impacts on environmentally sensitive ecosystems, such as mangroves, wildlife, etc.

5. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM – PROJECT RANKING CRITERIA AND COMPLETION OF

CURRENT APPLICATIONS

Ms. Ward introduced the Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program with a brief overview. MPO staff Al Bartolotta presented information regarding the program criteria, project priority lists, program review and funding schedule, Safe Routes to School (SRTS) projects, and regional projects.

6. PROJECT UPDATES

During a quick review of the project update chart, the BPAC noted several on-going projects, such as the Duke Energy Florida Trail expansion, the Coast-to-Coast Trail connectors, the Orange Street overpass, the Honeymoon Island Trail and signalization at the Curlew Road/Pinellas Trail intersection. Members also discussed the Courtney Campbell Trail construction and ribbon-cutting ceremony, and the lack of sufficient on-road bicycle facilities at Missouri Avenue and Rosery Road. Additional information was requested regarding the Orange Street overpass.

BPAC MEETING MINUTES April 20, 2015

Page 3

The Committee then discussed background information regarding the pedestrian crosswalks on Gulf Boulevard in Indian Rocks Beach, after which a recommendation was passed (with two opposing votes) to support crosswalks connecting beach access areas at non-signalized intersections. The recommendation will be sent to the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) for review.

7. NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Ed Hawkes, Dunedin Citizen Representative, requested a presentation regarding the Orange Street overpass. Ms. Lynn Bosco, At Large Citizen Representative, discussed a future trail connection from the Duke Energy Florida Trail west of U.S. Highway 19 to the Courtney Campbell Trail. Ms. Kimberly Cooper, St. Petersburg Citizen Representative, suggested additional safety and security at transit stops.

8. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Access to Transit Study

Ms. Sarah Perch, MPO staff, provided an update on the FDOT Access to Transit Study currently being conducted by Tindale Oliver and Associates (TOA). Several locations were identified in Pinellas for the study, including locations with multiple bicycle/pedestrian incidents. Members were encouraged to complete an online survey at http://www.tampabaytrafficsafety.com/D7BPAT/SitePages/pubMap.aspx.

B. U.S. 19 Corridor Study Update

Ms. Perch also provided a brief update regarding the U.S. Highway 19 Corridor Study. She relayed that bicycle/pedestrian counts were being collected at transit stops along U.S. 19, and a website was being developed for the project. Additional information will be provided when available.

C. Agency Reports

There were no updates, questions or comments regarding agency reports at the meeting. D. Membership

The BPAC agreed to defer amending its Bylaws until the May 18, 2015 meeting. This item will be brought back to the BPAC for additional discussion at that time.

E. Correspondence, Publications, Articles of Interest

There were no additional comments regarding the correspondence, publications, or articles of interest that were provided in the agenda packet.

F. Other

Vice Chair Raja asked if there were any announcements. Mr. Lucas Cruse, St. Petersburg Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator, announced that the mayor would be participating in a Bike to Work Day ride on May 15, 2015. There were additional questions regarding construction signs near the Tyrone Mall on the Pinellas Trail. The signs have since been removed as the project was delayed.

8. ADJOURNMENT

Vice Chair Raja adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m. The next meeting is scheduled for May 18, 2015. h:\users\cendocs\min\BPACmin 4-20-15.docx

http://www.tampabaytrafficsafety.com/D7BPAT/SitePages/pubMap.aspx

BPAC: 5/18/15

BPAC – ITEM 3. MPO ACTIONS – MAY 13, 2015 The May 13, 2015 Newsletter/Action Sheet will be provided at the meeting. A member of the MPO staff will review actions taken by the MPO at the May meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Newsletter/Action Sheet – May 13, 2015 (provided at the meeting) ACTION: None required, informational item

BPAC: 5/18/15

BPAC – ITEM 4.

FDOT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN (PSAP) UPDATE Approved by the MPO on September 9, 2009, the countywide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) was developed through a partnership with agencies at all levels, from the 24 municipalities in Pinellas County, State and Federal stakeholders, to the local transit agency, PSTA, the public school system, and also with citizen input through the MPO advisory committees. The PSAP recommended a 3-E Approach to reduce pedestrian crashes involving Engineering, Education and Enforcement. FDOT staff worked with MPO and Pinellas County to identify several initiatives targeting both motorist and pedestrian behavior, locate high-crash corridors and support from law enforcement and local jurisdictions. The final document is available online at www.pinellascounty.org/mpo/docs/Pinellas%20PSAP%20Final%20Report%20083109.pdf. FDOT has agreed to update the PSAP with the assistance of Demian Miller from Tindale Oliver. The MPO advisory committees will have an opportunity to provide feedback for the updated report. Information will be provided at the meeting. ATTACHMENT: None ACTION: None required, informational item

http://www.pinellascounty.org/mpo/docs/Pinellas%20PSAP%20Final%20Report%20083109.pdf

BPAC: 5/18/15

BPAC – ITEM 5.

FDOT NEW TRAVEL LANE WIDTHS AND BUFFERED BICYCLE LANE WIDTHS In November 2014, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved new standard designs for urban arterial lane widths and options for bicycle lanes in Florida. The FDOT revised its Plans Preparation Manual (PPM) with the new criteria for roadway travel lanes with a divided typical section in or within one mile of an urban area and with a design speed of 45 mph or less. The new standard for urban arterial travel lane width is eleven feet. Seven foot Buffered Bicycle Lanes are the new standard for marked bike lanes. This policy was implemented January 1, 2015.

Stephen Benson, FDOT District 7 Bicycle Pedestrian Safety Specialist, will present information regarding the new design criteria and standards to the BPAC. ATTACHMENT: FDOT Roadway Design Bulletin 15-01 ACTION: None required, informational item

RICK SCOTT GOVERNOR

Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 ANANTH PRASAD

SECRETARY

ROADWAY DESIGN BULLETIN 15-01

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

COPIES:

SUBJECT:

REQUIREMENTS

January 1, 2015

All Users of the Florida Department of Transportation Plans Preparation Manual . , /J J /

Michael Shepard, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer~~ Brian Blanchard, Tom Byron, Duane Brautigam, David Sadler, Tim Lattner, Mark Wilson, Trey Tillander, Bruce Dana, John Krause, Robert, Robertson, Gregory Schiess, Nick Finch (FHW A), Sara Cattau, District Directors of Transportation Operations, District Directors of Transportation Development, District Design Engineers, District Roadway Design Engineers, District Construction Engineers, District Geotechnical Engineers, District Structures Design Engineers

Implementation - Plans Preparation Manual January 1, 2015 Edition

The January 1, 2015 Update includes:

1. The January 2015 Revisions to the Plans Preparation Manual (PPM), Volume 1, January 2014 (Topic No. 625-000-007).

2. The January 2015 Revisions to the PPM, Volume 2, January 2014 (Topic No. 625-000-008).

The major changes in design requirements are to be implemented as follows:

Volume 1, Chapters 2, 8, 21, and 25: Volume 2 Chapter 6 Exhibits -Typical Sections Urban Arterial Lane Width and Bicycle Lane Options

These Chapters were revised to modify criteria for Urban Arterial Travel Lane Width and Bicycle Lanes. Eleven foot travel lanes are the new standard for roadways with a divided typical section in or within one mile of an urban area and with a Design Speed of 45 mph or less. Seven foot Buffered Bicycle Lanes are the new standard for marked bike lanes.

www.dot.state.fl.us

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/

plndf40

Highlight

Roadway Design Bulletin 15-01 Implementation of January 1, 2015 PPM Updates Page 2 of 10

www.dot.state.fl.us

Chapter 2 - Design Geometrics and Criteria: Tables 2.1.1 Lane Widths, 2.1.2 Other Lane Widths, and Tables 2.3.2 and 2.3.4 are revised to note the new vehicle and bicycle lane width criteria. Chapter 8 - Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities: Table 8.1.1 On-Street Bicycle Facilities and Section 8.4 were revised to clarify the new bicycle lane width criteria. Chapter 21 - Transportation Design for Livable Communities: Table 21.1 Lane Widths, revise note 3 to require a minimum of 7 foot wide bicycle lanes adjacent to on-street parking. Chapter 25 - Design Criteria for RRR Projects: Table 25.4.5.1 Lane and Shoulder Widths for Rural Multilane Roadways was revised to allow 11 foot lanes for divided roadways with a Design Speed of 45 mph or less within one mile of an urban area. Section 25.4.19.2 note 1 was revised to be consistent with the new lane width criteria. Volume 2 Chapter 6 Exhibits – Typical Sections were revised to be consistent with the new vehicle and bicycle lane width criteria. IMPLEMENTATION:

These changes supersede Roadway Design Bulletin 14-17 and are currently in effect except as noted below. Therefore, Roadway Design Bulletin 14-17 is void as of January 1, 2015.

Design build projects for which the final RFP was released before November 18, 2015 (the publication date of Roadway Design Bulletin 14-17) are exempt from these requirements unless otherwise directed by the District.

Volume 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.5.1 Hydroplaning Analysis

This section was added to outline a new process for analyzing hydroplaning risk, using a software tool developed by FDOT and University of South Florida, called HP.

A cost effective design preference for widening roadway sections is to slope all lanes in the same direction to minimize drainage infrastructure. Designers may implement any of the eight (8) standard pavement cross slopes shown on revised Figure 2.1.1 in Section 2.1.5 of the Plans Preparation Manual. If the widening design uses a differing pavement cross slope section, then a Design Variation is required and a hydroplaning analysis should be performed.

IMPLEMENTATION:

These changes supersede Roadway Design Bulletin 14-09 and are currently in effect. Therefore, Roadway Design Bulletin 14-09 is void as of January 1, 2015.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/Bulletin/default.shtm


plndf40

Highlight

plndf40

Highlight


www.dot.state.fl.us

Volume 1, Chapters 2, 7, 8, 21, 23, 25 and Volume 2, Chapters 2 and 26: Change in Terminology: “Horizontal Clearance” revised to “Lateral Offset”

These sections were revised to change all references from “horizontal clearance” to “lateral offset” that refer to roadside obstructions to be consistent with current AASHTO terminology.

IMPLEMENTATION:

These changes are effective on all applicable projects beginning design on or after January 1, 2015 and on all projects still in the design phase where implementation will not adversely impact production schedules.

Volume 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.7 Sight Distance:

This section was revised to note the criteria used for sight distance calculations. The AASHTO Green book is referred to for decision sight distance considerations.

IMPLEMENTATION:

These changes are effective on all applicable projects beginning design on or after January 1, 2015.

Volume 1, Chapters 2 and 8, Bridge Fencing for Pedestrian Railing:

Section 2.12, Figures 2.12.11 and 2.12.12: These figures were revised to clarify guidance on when to use each type of fencing on bridges with pedestrian facilities.

Section 8.7.1: This section was revised to refer to Chapter 2, Figures 2.12.11 and 2.12.12 for typical fencing on bridges with pedestrian facilities.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.3 Roadside Ditches:

This section was revised to note the use of V-bottom ditches requires approval from the District Drainage Engineer.

IMPLEMENTATION:



www.dot.state.fl.us

Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1 Canal Hazards: This section was revised to explain requirements for shielding canal hazards, and when a benefit cost analysis is needed.

IMPLEMENTATION:

These changes are effective on all applicable projects beginning design on or after January 1, 2015. Volume 1, Chapter 4 and Chapter 25 W-Beam Guardrail Mounting Height Implementation and Additional Requirements for Guardrail Systems

These Chapters were revised to be consistent with a new policy for installation of standard W-beam guardrail on the State Highway System. All new W-beam guardrail installations are to be mounted at 2'-1” to the center of beam, as noted in the Revisions to Design Standards, Index 400 series and Roadway Design Bulletin 14-05. PPM Chapter 4 revisions note revised minimum offsets for W-beam guardrail at the new mounting height and revised curb-barrier combinations. Chapter 25 revisions include guidance on requirements for upgrading and replacing existing guardrail with 1’-9” mounting height.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 7, Table 7.3.4 Underdeck Lighting: This section was revised to require wall mount fixtures for underdeck lighting, for safety and maintenance reasons. Pendant lighting is no longer permitted.

IMPLEMENTATION:

These changes are effective on all applicable projects beginning design on or after January 1, 2015 and on all projects still in the design phase where implementation will not adversely impact production schedules. Volume 1, Chapter 8, Section 8.8 Pedestrian/Bicycle Railing Height: This section was revised to specify conditions requiring a railing height exceeding 42 inches. The higher railing height is changed from 54” to 48”. IMPLEMENTATION:





www.dot.state.fl.us

Volume 1, Chapter 8, Sections 8.10 and 8.10.3 Public Transit Facilities: This chapter was revised to add references to new guidance on the design of public transit facilities. Section 8.10: A reference was added to a new AASHTO Publication on geometric design of Transit Facilities. Section 8.10.3: This section was added, referring to a new FDOT publication with guidance on typical sections for exclusive transit running ways.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 10. Section 10.7 Single Post Median Barrier Mounted Sign Support

This section was revised to inform designers of revised requirements for the use of single post median barrier mounted sign supports in work zones. When the requirements of Index 600 cannot be met for post mounted signs and barrier or traffic railing exists, temporary signs per Design Standards

Index 11871 are required.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 10, Section 10.8.1, Item Number 3, Type C Steady-Burn Lights

This section was revised to indicate a change in the Department’s policy. This policy requires Barrier Delineators to be used instead of Type C Steady-Burn Lights on top of temporary barrier walls.

IMPLEMENTATION:





www.dot.state.fl.us

Volume 1, Chapter 10.12.4.1, Pedestrian Longitudinal Channelizing Devices in Work Zones

This section was revised to inform designers of requirements for pedestrian traffic control. A Longitudinal Channelization Device (LCD) is a new type of channelizing device used to channelize traffic in the work zone. Whenever pedestrians are detoured, at an intersection, mid block, onto a temporary walkway, etc., designers shall detail the pedestrian way in the Temporary Traffic Control Plans.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 10, Section 10.12.13 Temporary Highway Lighting

This section was revised to modify existing policy and design criteria for the use of temporary roadway lighting. The modifications in this section shall be followed to determine how temporary highway lighting is to be installed. Furthermore, the language written in this section establishes a standard policy for the design and usage of temporary roadway lighting that is attached to permanent or temporary barriers/traffic railings.

The usage limitations provided in this modified policy are intended to restrict overuse of temporary, barrier mounted roadway lighting and instead encourage the use of other temporary roadway lighting solutions. The design criteria is intended to preserve the crashworthiness of the Type K Temporary Concrete Barriers and to provide an appropriate design for the temporary light poles and support brackets.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 10, Section 10.12.9 Detours, Diversions and Lane Shifts: The definition of “Special Detour” and associated pay item was revised, to be consistent with Estimates Bulletin 14-06. This section notes revised requirements for pay items used with Special Detours. IMPLEMENTATION:





www.dot.state.fl.us

Volume 1, Chapter 12 Right of Way

This section was revised to establish a policy to use license agreements as the default method for harmonization of driveway connections and removal of roadway features found to be outside of the right of way. The inconsistent use of temporary construction easements and license agreements prevents the establishment of realistic state-wide production and performance measures for the use of license agreements and increases the cost of construction products.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 19.2 Sealing of Contract Plans/Record Set & Volume 2, Chapter 3, Section 3.8 Governing Standards and Specifications These sections were revised to inform designers of the new Developmental Design Standards (DDS) process. DDSs will no longer contain project specific information in the title block and will not be signed and sealed for project-specific use by the department.

The original DDS process as implemented by the archived Structures Design Bulletin C10-03 and Roadway Design Bulletin 10-06 required the FDOT originator of the DDS to sign and seal each of the DDS for project specific use. This element of the original process has proven to be inefficient because it required the FDOT originator to become intimately involved in all aspects of the project affected by the use of the DDS. The new process eliminates the need for plans production coordination between the consultant/District and the DDS originator on electronic plans delivery.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 21, Table 21.3 Lateral Offset to Trees: This Table has revised criteria for locating trees in the median, making criteria for offsets in median match the distances from the outside curb.

IMPLEMENTATION:





www.dot.state.fl.us

Volume 1, Chapter 23. Section 23.5 Design Safety Analysis Updates

Item “y” of the Design Exception documentation requirements was revised, adding a third method for benefit/cost analysis, using the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) tools. Crash costs have also been updated.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 25, Section 25.4.24.3 Bridge Railing

This section was revised due to the need to address pedestrian railings on existing bridges. The revisions to the sections address the following: bridges with existing continuous post and beam traffic railings that met the three criteria and are not being retrofitted as traffic railings; bullet-type railings, pedestrian railings, and fences that have been installed incorrectly on traffic railings located between the shoulder and the sidewalk; old bullet railings that do not have crashworthy end treatments and/or rail splices; and other non-crashworthy and non-traffic railing mounted pedestrian railings not in compliance with the lateral offset requirement in Table 2.11.9, Lateral Offset to

Other Roadside Obstacles.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 26, Bridge Project Development: This Chapter was revised to update the definitions of Category 1 and 2 Structures, and requirements for independent peer reviews for Category 2 Structures.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 31 Geosynthetic Design This Chapter was revised to implement changes to the method for specifying geosynthetic materials in the Plans. All geosynthetic materials have been removed from Indexes 501 and 199 and will be




www.dot.state.fl.us

listed on the Approved Products List (APL) in January 2015. Chapter 31 now refers to the APL for product details, instead of Index 501.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 1, Chapter 32 Noise Walls and Perimeter Walls

This chapter was revised to assure that the use and costs of perimeter walls are consistent across the state. The revisions now convey more accurately the guidelines that have been developed containing the processes and design methodologies to be used when considering the use of perimeter walls. It is important to note, there is no change to any existing noise wall policy, procedure, or process other than consistency in terminology.

IMPLEMENTATION:


Volume 2, Chapter 9, Section 9.4 and Exhibit GN-1 General Notes: This section and plan sheet was renamed from “General Notes” to “Project Notes”, to emphasize that only project notes specific to a project should be used. The number of project notes on example GN-1 was reduced.

IMPLEMENTATION:

These changes are effective on all applicable projects beginning design on or after January 1, 2015 and on all projects still in the design phase where implementation will not adversely impact production schedules. GENERAL

All other changes in the January 1, 2015 Plans Preparation Manual update package primarily consist of minor editing, updated references, clarification and/or error corrections and are effective immediately.




www.dot.state.fl.us

Should you have any questions, please contact this office at (850) 414-4283.

MS/sf

BPAC: 5/18/15

BPAC – ITEM 6. STATE OF SYSTEM (SOS) REPORT 2014 The State of the System Report (SOS) provides a biennial snapshot of transportation trends and conditions, generally using 2013 data collected from a variety of resources, including MPO, Federal, State and local agencies. Contents of the SOS includes usage and crash data related to roads, transit, sidewalks, trails and bike lanes, formatted in tables, maps, and graphs. A major function of the SOS Report is to identify projects for inclusion in the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Additionally, the SOS is the foundation for the Congestion Management Process (CMP), which is a systematic approach that provides for safe and effective integrated management and operation of the multimodal transportation system. Priority corridors and roadway segments identified in this report may become the top candidates for new projects, contingent upon the funding made available to the MPO and its State and local partners. It is anticipated that the MPO Board will receive and approve the report on July 8, 2015. A member of the MPO staff will provide a Power Point presentation regarding the SOS report.

ATTACHMENTS: None ACTION: None required, information item

BPAC: 5/18/15

BPAC – ITEM 7.

ELECTRIC BICYCLES The Pinellas County Parks and Conservation Resources (PCR) Department staff has reported multiple incidents from staff and Pinellas Trail users regarding an increasing number of electric bicycles on the Trail. Although use of electric bicycles is specifically prohibited by PCR, and posted as such, use of electric bikes on the Trail is reaching a new level of prominence. Laws and regulations for bicycles and electric bicycles vary from state to state. Basically, a bicycle is defined as a non-motorized vehicle propelled by human power. An electric bicycle, or e-bike, is categorized to include a bicycle powered with an electric motor. E-bikes have been available for purchase at local bicycle shops. In addition, it is common to convert a human-powered bicycle to an e-bike using an electric bicycle conversion kit. PCR has requested feedback from the BPAC on the use of electric bicycles on the Pinellas Trail. ATTACHMENTS: None ACTION: None required, informational item

BPAC: 5/18/15

BPAC – ITEM 8.

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM – PROJECT RANKING CRITERIA The MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes a regional and local project priority list for the allocation of Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program funding authorized through the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP 21) Act. These funds are utilized in Pinellas County for bicycle, pedestrian and school safety projects. The TA Program and the Surface Transportation Program (STP) project priority lists are scheduled for review by the MPO in June. The MPO-approved lists are utilized by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 7 Office to develop their five year Work Program. At their April 20 meeting, the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) approved the recommendations of a TA subcommittee that included representatives of the TCC, CAC and BPAC. The subcommittee recommendations, which resulted from their meeting on April 6, are listed below. With the exception of number 2, the recommendations were also approved by the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) in April and are scheduled for MPO approval at their May 13 meeting.

1. Approve May 31, 2015 deadline for completing outstanding project applications. If the deadline is not met and the applicant is continuing to work with FDOT to complete the application, the project will remain on the list with a note that completion of the application is “in progress.” If the application is not completed or in progress, the associated project will be removed from the priority list.

2. Continue to use the 2010 ranking criteria and scoring system with the following exceptions: a. Change the range of points allotted for each category from 0-4 to 0-5; b. Change the description of the “Local Commitment” category to “Matching Funds and/or Community Support”; c. Change description of “Consistency with LRTP” category to “Consistency with Long Range Transportation Plan

(LRTP) and Countywide Plan”. 3. Rank the 2014 projects at the same time the next group of project applications are reviewed by the advisory

committees pending approval by the MPO to accept new applications in September, 2015. The 2014 projects will be ranked higher than any new projects accepted in 2015 or later.

4. Do not allow substitutions of TA projects in the future as were approved by the MPO in 2014. Regarding number 2, MPO staff proposed additional revisions to the ranking criteria following the BPAC meeting to provide more detail to the categories. This was intended to foster more consistency in the application of the criteria by the different committees participating in the evaluation process. TCC and CAC actions on the ranking criteria are scheduled for May 27 and 28, respectively. ATTACHMENTS: Transportation Alternatives Project Ranking Criteria with Proposed TA Subcommittee and MPO Staff Changes ACTION: Approve ranking criteria with proposed changes

1

Transportation Alternatives (TA) Project Ranking Criteria With Proposed TA Subcommittee and MPO Staff Changes

April 22, 2015

Shown below are the criteria utilized by the MPO advisory committees in 2010 for scoring and ranking Transportation Enhancement Program project applications with changes recommend by the TA Subcommittee on April 6, 2015 and subsequent changes proposed by MPO staff. Changes recommended by the subcommittee are shaded. Also included in the subcommittee recommendations was to change the total points assigned to each category from 4 to 5. The criteria are intended for use in the ranking of Transportation Alternative (TA) project applications received in 2014 and later.

Community Benefit: Will Impact of the project improve/enhance on the neighborhood and/or community's quality of life afforded by the surrounding neighborhood or community. (e.g. enhances or demonstrates the potential to produce positive impact on the neighborhood's vitality and/or economy, improves safety, scenic resources [beautification, education] within neighborhood, etc.)? 1) Destination - Project provides access to major destination point (e.g., major

employer, park, city hall/courthouse, shopping mall, recreational/sports facility, museum, library, hospital, school, transit terminal, airport). [0-1 point]

2) Safety - Project addresses a safety concern or improves safety of existing condition affecting pedestrians or bicyclists. [0-1 point]

3) Environment – Project preserves/protects environmentally sensitive lands or provides air quality benefit. [0-1 point]

4) Low income/at-risk – Project serves a low-income/at-risk neighborhood as identified by latest Census data. [0-1 point]

5) Education – Project provides educational benefit. [0-1 point]

Countywide Benefit: Will the The extent to which the proposed project provides County-wide benefit beyond those enjoyed within provided to the community. (e.g. enhances or demonstrates opportunity to enhance County's overall economic vitality; project will benefit and/or be accessible to citizens and visitors on a Countywide basis)? 1) Trip Destination – Project provides access to regional destination point (e.g.,

major shopping mall, regional employment center, county or state park, St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, museum, sports stadium, college). [0-1 point]

2) Inter-jurisdictional – Project allows for bicycle/pedestrian travel between two or more jurisdictions. [0-2 points]

3) Inter-county – Project allows for bicycle/pedestrian travel between Pinellas and neighboring county. [0-2 points]

2

Connectivity Value: Will the proposed project provide an Opportunity to improve/enhance intermodal connection. (e.g. promotes or enhances access to public transit service, facilities/amenities, pedestrian ways, bikeways and waterways within and through adjoining jurisdictions)? 1) Transit – Provides access to bus stop or transit terminal [0-2 points] 2) Other Bike/Ped facility – Provides connection to existing sidewalk, bike lane or

trail [0-1 point] 3) Airport – Provides access to airport [0-1 point] 4) Waterway – Provides access to sea port, cruise or ferry service [0-1 point] Conforms with the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Countywide Plan. : Does the proposed project conform with the MPO's LRTP which aims to create an intermodal transportation network that preserves the existing transportation infrastructure, enhances the region's economic competitiveness and improves travel choices to ensure connectivity and mobility? The LRTP considers all principal modes of transportation as an integrated system including highways, public transportation, bikeways, pedestrian facilities, and primary activity centers or intermodal hubs that connect these modes? 1) Closing Gap –Closes existing gap in trail, bike lane or sidewalk network [0-2

points] 2) Targeted employment area – Provides for bicycling or walking to be a viable

mobility choice within or to targeted employment area as designated on Countywide Plan. [0-1 point]

3) Activity Center - Provides for bicycling or walking to be viable mobility choice within or to activity center as designated on Countywide Plan. [0-1 point]

4) Multi-modal Corridor - Provides for bicycling or walking to be viable mobility choice along multi-modal corridor as designated on Countywide Plan. [0-1 point]

Local Commitment Matching Funds and/or Community Support : Does the proposed project show funding/other commitment, and/or community support (e.g. local matching share of project cost; known public support; history of sponsor's ability to follow through/carry out agreed role during project implementation/completion, etc.)?

1) Funding Commitment – Sponsoring jurisdiction is providing a local funding match

for the project. [0-2 points] 2) In-kind Support – Sponsoring jurisdiction is providing in-kind support for the

project. [0-1 point] 3) Community Support – Documentation provided showing support for the projected

from citizens in affected neighborhood(s). [0-2 points]

BPAC: 5/18/15

BPAC – ITEM 9. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AGENCY REPORTS Law enforcement and agency representatives may provide updated information at this time regarding projects and initiatives that address bicycle, pedestrian and/or trail facilities, accommodations, and/or policies. ATTACHMENTS: None ACTION: As deemed appropriate based on discussion

BPAC: 5/18/15

BPAC – ITEM 10. A. – E. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Bylaws Update

The BPAC previously discussed amending the committee bylaws in an effort to provide improved countywide membership. Based on comments provided by members, the MPO staff recommended reallocating the vacancy for a Pinellas Park/Mid County representative to allow for additional representation from the beach community. This change, as well as several other corrections, is shown on Page 2, Section 3. of the BPAC Bylaws. Under Section 3.A.1., the number of members shown for Pinellas Park and Mid County has been changed from (3) to (2) and for Beach Communities from (1) to (2). Under Section 3.A.2, staff requested that the Department of Environment and Infrastructure (DEI) be changed to the Pinellas County Public Works Department. In that same paragraph, an additional change was to add the City of Largo to the list which was inadvertently deleted from the list when last amended. These changes are shown in strike thru underline format. At the March meeting, the BPAC approved the changes as noted above; however, following that meeting a question was raised by the Chair. Since he was unable to attend the April meeting, this item was deferred until the May meeting. Mr. Smith felt that it may be difficult to find a beach representative and suggested increasing the At Large category instead of the Beach Communities category. The purpose of this item is for the Committee to consider possible changes or reinforce the changes it previously approved to the Bylaws.

ATTACHMENTS: BPAC Bylaws ACTION: Committee to consider possible changes or reinforce the changes it previously approved

B. Membership

Currently, the BPAC Membership List shows one opening on the Committee for a Pinellas Park/Mid County representative. However, that will change based on action taken by the Committee with respect to the above item. Vacancies for Law Enforcement representatives from Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Largo and Pinellas Park remain open. ATTACHMENTS: BPAC Membership List – April 2015 ACTION: None required, informational item

C. Correspondence, Publications, Articles of Interest

“5 Best Bike Paths in Florida…” imakenews.com, March 12, 2015 “Bike Lane on Indian Rocks Road is Years Away,” tampabay.com, April 29, 2015 “Best Practices, Safe Steps-Pasos Seguros,” Alliance for Aging, Miami, FL, 2015 “Pinellas, Pasco Bike Trails to be Linked as Part of Coast-to-Coast Connector,” tbo.com, May 5, 2015

D. Suggestions for Future Agenda Topics This item is provided to allow Committee members to suggest topics for future BPAC Agendas.

ATTACHMENTS: None ACTION: Members to make suggestions for future agenda topics

E. Other If any member has other business to discuss, they may address it under this item.

BYLAWS OF THE PINELLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Adopted: March 12, 2014 Amended: April 9, 2014 Amended: April 8, 2015

Formatted: Font: Bold

- 1 -

BYLAWS OF THE PINELLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE SECTION 1: NAME The name of this committee shall be the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, effective March 12, 2014. SECTION 2: PURPOSE The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) shall serve the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) on an advisory basis. In order to assist the BPAC to perform its functions and responsibilities, the MPO shall provide appropriate staff support. All official actions of the BPAC must be confirmed by the MPO. The functions and responsibilities of the BPAC shall include, but not be limited to, the following major areas:

Bikeways and Pedestrian Planning

• Assist the MPO in the development and updating of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for Pinellas County.

• Propose policies for the development of bikeway and pedestrian systems.

Plan Review

• Annually review the bicycle and pedestrian plan and proposed amendments.

• Review the countywide Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for appropriate consideration of

bikeway and pedestrian facilities.

Plan Implementation

• Recommend bikeway and pedestrian priorities to the MPO in support of the plan for inclusion in State, County, or local capital improvements programs and projects.

• Through the MPO, urge County and local jurisdictions to implement design and construction

standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Education

• Identify bicycle and pedestrian concerns and present them to the MPO.

- 2 -

• Assist in the promotion of bicycling and walking, enforcement of bicycle and pedestrian rules and regulations, and safety programs.

• Assist in the dissemination of general bicycle and pedestrian information to organizations and

citizens throughout the County.

Coordination

• Assist communities in the County with the development of bikeway and pedestrian facilities.

• Provide a forum for the discussion of bikeway and pedestrian concerns and interests.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety

• Evaluate existing roadway conditions and designs with the idea of recommending safer bicyclist and pedestrian provisions.

• Promote a safer roadway environment for bicycles and pedestrians.

SECTION 3: MEMBERSHIP, COMPOSITION, APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATIONS, AND TERMS A. The BPAC shall be composed of as many as twenty-three (23) appointed persons, ten (10) technical

members and potentially twelve (12) law enforcement members confirmed by the MPO at regular session.

The voting membership will be as follows:

1. As many as twenty-three (23) members confirmed by the MPO for their areas:

St. Petersburg/Gulfport/South Pasadena/Tierra Verde 3 Clearwater Area 3 Dunedin Area 1 Pinellas Park and Mid County 3 2 Largo Area 2 North County Area (Tarpon Springs/Palm Harbor/Ozona/Oldsmar/Safety Harbor) 2 At Large 7 Seminole Area 1 Beach Communities 1 2

2. As many as ten (10) technical members recommended by the MPO Board to include a

representatives from the Pinellas County Department of Environment & Infrastructure (DEI) Public Works Department; the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA); the cities of Clearwater ,and St. Petersburg and Largo; the Pinellas County School System; the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA); Pinellas County Health Department; Center for Urban

Formatted: Strikethrough




- 3 -

Transportation Research, and Sunstar Paramedics. "Technical Member" is defined as a person who possesses either academic, practical, or both types of special knowledge related to the profession of traffic engineering, public works, parks operations, or other recognized technical disciplines applicable to the work of the BPAC.

3. One (1) Pinellas County Sheriff's Department representative and one (1) representative from each of

the various municipal police departments totaling as many as twelve (12) are invited to serve as voting members of the BPAC.

The non-voting technical support membership will be as follows:

The FDOT and Pinellas County Parks & Conservation Resources representatives will be considered as non-voting technical support.

B. Each voting member shall have an equal vote. C. If a representative moves out of the area they represent, that representative may serve until the end of

the current year, at which time their replacement will be appointed. If the former representative wishes to continue serving on the BPAC, they may serve as an "At Large" representative after appointment by the MPO if one or more of the "At Large" memberships is vacant.

D. Terms of appointment shall be until member resignation or until membership is withdrawn by the MPO. A

member having three or more consecutive absences or five or more absences during a twelve-month period shall require reconfirmation by the MPO or membership shall be terminated. BPAC member attendance will be reviewed on a continuing basis.

SECTION 4: OFFICERS AND DUTIES The BPAC shall have two officers, the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, who shall be voting members. A. Officer elections shall take place at the last regularly-scheduled meeting of each calendar year. Any

member may nominate a voting member to be an officer. Such nominations shall not be made without agreement of the nominee(s) to serve, if elected.

B. All elections shall be by the majority vote of BPAC members present, except write-in votes may be

accepted by MPO staff prior to the meeting at which the election will be held. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall hold office until their successors are elected.

C. The Chairperson shall:

1. Preside at and conduct all meetings.

2. Approve BPAC correspondence and information releases.

3. Approve the agenda, with any modifications, prior to any scheduled meeting.

- 4 -

4. Serve as a liaison between the BPAC and the MPO whenever the need arises.

5. Cancel or postpone a regular or special meeting if circumstances warrant it and, if necessary, set a new date, time, and place for the meeting.

D. The Chairperson may create subcommittees and task teams and appoint their chairpersons and

members. E. The Vice Chairperson shall, during the absence or inability of the Chairperson to serve, have and

exercise all the duties and powers of the Chairperson. The Vice Chairperson shall also perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Chairperson.

F. If both the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson are absent from a meeting, a temporary Chairperson shall

be provided by majority vote of the members present. G. Any vacancy in office created by resignation or replacement of an officer shall be filled by a majority vote

of members present at the next regular meeting. The officer so elected shall fill the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacant office.

SECTION 5: MEETINGS A. The business year for the BPAC will run from January through December of each calendar year. The

BPAC shall conduct regular monthly meetings at a date, time, and place acceptable to a majority of the membership. Due to certain holidays, summer vacation schedules, and possible schedule conflicts, several meetings during the calendar year will be cancelled. A seven (7) day notice shall be given for any such changes to the regular meeting schedule.

B. The Chairperson may call emergency or special meetings when deemed necessary. Emergency or

special meetings may be called with a minimum of one (1) day notice, indicating the reason for the meeting. The notice for emergency or special meetings may be conducted by means of electronic communication.

C. MPO staff shall prepare agendas prior to all meetings. Hard copies of the agendas, including the

minutes of the previous meeting, should be sent to the members approximately five (5) days prior to any regular meeting. The members will also receive, via e-mail, a link that will allow them to view the agenda, reports, studies, or other Committee notices on the MPO website. Members may place items on the agenda with approval of the Chairperson.

D. An item requiring action may be brought before the BPAC by any member with the Chairperson's

approval, even though it is not on the agenda. The Chairperson shall decide if action is to be taken at that meeting or at a subsequent meeting.

E. A quorum shall consist of one-third of the appointed voting membership and shall be required for

conduct of all official business. A majority of those present shall be necessary to decide an issue before the Committee.

- 5 -

F. All meetings will be open to the public. Public participation shall be allowed at the discretion of the

Chairperson. SECTION 7: MPO CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY A. Conflicts of Interest

1. Voting Conflicts If a member of the BPAC declares a voting conflict pursuant to Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes on a matter before the MPO or its advisory committees, that member may no longer participate in that matter before the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization and local government board that has a member of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization on it, or any other committee of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning organization. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “participate” means any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the member of the MPO or its advisory committee or at the member’s direction. In the event a member has a conflict of interest, they are required to complete Form 8B – Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and Other Local Public Officers and turn it into MPO staff for insertion in the minutes of the meeting where said conflict existed, in compliance with Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.

2. Lobbying Policy Lobbying of evaluation committee members, MPO staff, or elected officials regarding Requests for Proposals, Requests for Qualifications, bids, or contracts during the pendency of bid protest by the bidder/proposer/ protestor, or any member of the bidder’s/proposer’s/protestor’s staff, an agent of the bidder/proposer/protestor, or any person employed by the legal entity affiliated with or representing an organization that is responding to the Requests for Proposal, Requests for Qualification, bid or contract, or has a pending bid protest is strictly prohibited either upon advertisement or on a date established by the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and shall be prohibited until either an award is final or the protest is finally resolved by the MPO Board or Executive Director, provided, however, nothing herein shall prohibit a prospective bidder/proposer from contacting the MPO staff to address situations such as clarification and/or questions related to the procurement process. For purposes of this provision, lobbying activities shall include but not be limited to influencing or attempting to influence action or non-action in connection with any Requests for Proposals, Requests for Qualifications, bid or contract through direct or indirect oral or written communication or an attempt to obtain goodwill of persons and/or entities specified in this provision. Such action may cause any Requests for Proposals, Requests for Qualifications, bid, or contract to be rejected.

- 6 -

SECTION 8: AMENDMENTS These Bylaws may be amended by the MPO based on a recommendation and affirmative vote of a majority of the voting members of the BPAC, provided a copy of the proposed amendment(s) shall have been sent to every member at least seven (7) days before it is to be voted on. All proposed amendments shall be voted on at regular meetings; however, MPO staff may accept write-in votes prior to the meeting. H:\users\cendocs\MPO\BPAC BylawsAdopted 3-12-14 Amended 4-9-14.docx; Amended 4-8-15

May, 2015

BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP LIST Voting St. Petersburg Area (St. Pete/Gulfport/So Pasadena/Tierra Verde)

1. Chris Lauber (07/09/08) 2. Kimberly Cooper (10/13/99) 3. Geri Raja (VC) (09/09/09)

Clearwater Area 4. Chip Haynes (04/13/11) 5. Robert Yunk (02/09/05) 6. Win Dermody (03/12/14)

Dunedin Area 7. Ed Hawkes (11/18/98)

Pinellas Park and Mid-County 8. Ronald Rasmussen (12/13/06) 9. Byron Virgil Hall, Jr., (12/13/06) 10. -----VACANT----- ( / / )

Largo Area 11. Holly DeSha (01/14/15) 12. Georgia Wildrick (08/16/06)

North County Area (Tarpon Springs/Palm Harbor/Ozona/Oldsmar/Safety Harbor) 13. Tom Ferraro (04/09/03) 14. Becky Afonso (10/08/14)

At Large Area 15. Paul Kurtz (12/11/13) 16. Mike Siebel (03/14/12) 17. Brian Smith (Chairman) (12/12/12) 18. Lynn Bosco (11/14/12) 19. Steve Lasky (11/14/12) 20. Charles Martin (04/08/09) 21. Annette Sala (03/12/14)

Seminole Area 22. Jim Wedlake (05/12/10)

Beach Communities 23. Bert Valery (10/1983-10/1998) (reappointed 07/10/02)

Technical Support 1. County Department of Environment and Infrastructure (Robert Davis) 2. County Parks and Conservation Resources (Lyle Fowler – primary, Kathy Swain – alternate) 3. PSTA Chris Cochran (Chris Cochran – primary; Heather Sobush– alternate) 4. City of Clearwater (Felicia Leonard) 5. City of St. Petersburg (Lucas Cruse as representative and Cheryl Stacks as alternate) 6. Pinellas County School System (Tom McGinty) 7. TBARTA (Alex English – primary) 8. Pinellas County Health Department (Megan Carmichael) 9. CUTR (Julie Bond) 10. Sunstar Paramedics (Charlene Cobb, Community Outreach Coordinator) Sheriff's Office /Police/Law Enforcement Representatives 1. Pinellas Park Police Dept. 2. St Petersburg Police Dept. 3. Largo Police Dept. 4. Sheriff’s Office (Noel Dunham) 5. Clearwater Police Dept. Non-Voting Technical Support

Lori Marable (FDOT) *Dates signify appointment

5 BEST BIKE PATHS IN FLORIDA

THE GREATEST RECREATIONAL FLORIDA TRAIL SECTIONS TO RIDE

Article from eNews and Specials from Bert Smith Subaru

(http://www.imakenews.com/bertsmithsubaru/e_article003138658.cfm?x=bpdmkcy,bCRG7W0Q)

March 12, 2015 Did you know that May is National Bike Month? Celebrate by exploring some of the top bike paths in Florida. Cyclists love these leisurely, paved paths, whether a laid-back trail or a path abounding with scenic views or even wildlife. No matter which you choose, it’s time to dust off the old Schwinn and head to one of these awe-inspiring Floridian bike paths: Shark Valley Trail Take in the views of the Everglades on this 15-mile paved loop. But that’s not the only view you’ll see — birds, turtles, otters, and even alligators will all be within your reach as you pedal through the vast open spaces of Shark Valley. The smooth surface of the trail makes for relaxed biking (or walking, if that’s more your style), and there are even bits of dry land to stop for a picnic lunch (so be sure bring along some of your favorite snacks). To learn more, visit http://www.nps.gov/ever/index.htm. Sanibel Island Bike Trails With more than 20 miles of paved biking trails, from Rabbit Road Trail to Dixie Beach Road, and Wildlife Drive, which is a 4.3-mile limestone road that goes through the J.N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge. If you’re looking for something to do after your biking trip, you’re in luck: All trails lead to various restaurants, stores and beaches. If you’re unsure of which trail to bike on in Sanibel Island, head to the Sanibel Visitors Center, where they have biking brochures. Learn more about this paved trail at http://www.sanibeltrails.com/sanibel-bike-paths.aspx. Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail Stretching from St. Petersburg to Tarpon Springs, the urban Pinellas Trail is nearly 40 miles long, including eight overpasses at intersections. The surface is paved asphalt to make biking a breeze for cyclists, as well as walkers, joggers and skaters alike. The trail brings in about 100,000 people monthly and is also a noted member of the Rail-Trail Hall of Fame (criteria for the Hall of Fame takes into account how scenic it is, how much use it gets, its trailside amenities and more). For a guide to the Pinellas Trail, check out http://www.pinellascounty.org/trailgd. Van Fleet State Trail Spanning 29.2 miles, this enthralling rural rail-trail goes through an old Seaboard Air Line Railroad right-of-way through the Green Swamp, which is Florida’s aquifer’s headwater. It has just one curve and zero hills to make for carefree biking for all. As you’re riding, be on the lookout for wildlife such as gophers, bobcats, deer, armadillos, alligators and more. Also, make sure to take in the surrounding landscapes such as the river swamp, bottomland forest, pine flatwoods, former citrus lands and cattle ranches. Learn more at www.floridastateparks.org/trail/Van-Fleet. Withlacoochee State Trail

It’s what experienced bikers have been waiting for: the longest paved rail trail in the state of Florida. Spanning 46 miles, the Withlacoochee State Trail ventures through many small towns of Florida as well as the Withlacoochee State Forest and other natural areas. Once a railroad track, Withlacoochee State Trail was converted into a paved recreational trail. From Owensboro to Citrus Springs, you’ll be able to stop for food and drinks along the way. Just some of the trailheads include Owensboro Trailhead, Trilby Trailhead, Ridge Manor Trailhead, Silver Lake Campground, Townsen Lake Regional Park, Istachatta, Floral City and others. Find more information at www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/guide/regions/crossflorida/trails/with_state.htm.

Whichever bike path you choose, bikers and cyclists alike will enjoy all of what Florida has to offer. Plan your adventure today.

This article is presented by Bert Smith Subaru in Saint Petersburg, FL.

www.imakenews.com/bertsmithsubaru/e_article003138658.cfm

BIKE LANE ON INDIAN ROCKS ROAD IS YEARS AWAY

by Lorrie Lykins, Times Correspondent April 29, 2015

Overall, Pinellas County has great pedestrian sidewalk and/or bicycle lanes for the major roadways except for Indian Rocks Road in Largo from West Bay Drive on the north end to Walsingham Road on the south end. This is the only high-traffic road that does not have a dedicated bicycle lane or pedestrian sidewalk. Is there a plan in the near future to build a continuous sidewalk or bike lane or both? There are plans to add dedicated bike lanes to Indian Rocks Road, but not for several years. An improvement of the corridor has long been on the planning list of projects to be funded by proceeds from Penny for Pinellas, which began in 1990 as a sales tax program created as an alternative to funding such projects with property taxes. The current list of projects covers a 10-year period from 2010 to 2020, but the recession affected the amount of money projected to be generated by the one-percent sales tax, which led to the need for amendments to the projects and timelines. Countywide projects that have been or will be funded by Penny for Pinellas money include a wide range, among them is the installation of mast arm traffic signals, hurricane preparedness, bridge rehabilitation, railroad crossing improvements, a school sidewalk program, road resurfacing and intersection improvements, expansion of the Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail, environmental restoration and preservation (for example, projects at Brooker Creek and Weedon Island preserves), and storm water and drainage improvements. The most current project list, last updated in 2011, includes improvements that will include Indian Rocks Road, but it is farther down the priority list, which means, according to a county spokesperson, we won't see that project under way until after 2020. Review the list and read more about Penny for Pinellas at www.pinellascounty.org/penny/current.htm Barricade watch

• In Indian Shores, a yearlong project to improve sewer mains under the Intracoastal Waterway began two weeks ago. Motorists and residents should be prepared for drilling and major construction activity in and around the intersection of Egret Lane and 86th Avenue N. The project is scheduled to be done by next March. Correction The new Dunkin' Donuts at the corner of Bay Pines Boulevard and 100th Way is in unincorporated Pinellas County. The Dr. Delay column on April 24 listed an incorrect jurisdiction.

© 2015 Tampa Bay Times

www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/roads/bike-lane-on-indian-rocks-road-is-years-away/2227497

HOME | Resources & Publications | SafeSteps-PasosSeguros

Best Practices

Program Title: Safe Steps-Pasos Seguros

Organization/agency/company: Alliance for Aging, Miami, FL

In 2011, the Alliance for Aging in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties developed an elder pedestrian public awareness and education safety program, Safe Steps-Pasos Seguros. The Alliance had become aware of some alarming pedestrian statistics in their local community. The 2011 Transportation for America report Dangerous by Design listed the Miami region as the fourth most dangerous area in the nation for pedestrians and noted that the state of Florida had the seventh highest average in annual pedestrian fatalities of people 65 and older. Miami-Dade County also had the highest number of older adult pedestrian crashes in the state: 25 deaths and 178 injuries. Armed with these statistics and a desire to make their community a safer place for aging adults, the Alliance developed Safe Steps-Pasos Seguros.

Funding from the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Safety Administration provided initial support for a multi-pronged approach. The Safe Steps-Pasos Seguros program currently includes pedestrian safety workshops for older adults, training for older adults and community members to conduct their own workshops (a train-the-trainer model), televised public service announcements in both English and Spanish, and outreach to local decision makers to raise awareness about pedestrian dangers and solutions needed.

The program is based on an evidence-based pedestrian safety program developed by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. The hour long workshops use principles of adult education to engage seniors in conversations about pedestrian safety and the walkability of their local community. The workshops are structured to encourage discussions about common dangers, making safe choices, and identifying and reporting problems in their local community (such as inoperable lights, insufficient crosswalk timing, and walking hazards like broken sidewalks).

Translation of workshop materials into Spanish, as noted by Marsha Jenakovich, Safe Steps-Pasos Seguros Director, was a critical step in reaching older adults in Miami-Dade, where 67% are Hispanic and 42% have limited English proficiency. Florida International University provided translation support for the Spanish materials, and in 2014, all program materials were also translated into Haitian Creole.

Presentations are held in senior centers, meal sites, elder housing locations, public libraries and other locations where older adults congregate, such as medical/wellness centers and churches. The program has evolved since its inception in 2011. In the first year, the local CBS affiliate donated the cost of filming and producing four public service announcements—in both English and Spanish—that address elder pedestrian safety. These PSAs are shown on a number of stations throughout South Florida and the Keys.

In the second year, the program worked with Virginia Dize at the National Center on Senior Transportation to create a summary report on elder pedestrian safety in Miami-Dade County and a Policy Agenda that identifies opportunities to improve elder pedestrian safety at the local, county, state, and national levels. Train-the-trainer workshops were also added in the second year to prepare older adult peer leaders to offer workshop sessions in their community. The train-the-trainer presentations have also been conducted for local police departments and at national conferences. Train-the-trainer participants receive a copy of the PowerPoint presentation in English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole and a Facilitator’s Handbook, as well as information to help peer trainers identify local statistics for their own communities.

In 2014, Safe Steps-Pasos Seguros incorporated a community policy outreach component by offering presentations to the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization and local elected officials. These presentations educate participants about the problems facing older pedestrians, highlight local statistics and “hot spots,” and engage them in exploring evidence-based public policy changes that could lead to improvements. This effort ensures that community leaders have the information they need to help move the elder pedestrian safety agenda forward.

Safe Steps-Pasos Seguros is in its 4th year of operation with continued funding from the Florida Department of Transportation. Over 80 workshops have been held with more than 2,200 older adults participating. The Alliance has trained representatives from 6 local police departments and 4 older adult community members to give the workshops. In 2014, 9 people representing 5 states (FL, GA, NC, AL, KY) and the District of Columbia were trained to give the workshop in their home communities. Safe Steps-Pasos Seguros is the recipient of a 2013 Aging Achievement Award from the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.

For additional information about the Safe Steps-Pasos Seguros, contact Marsha Jenakovich at [email protected].

© 2012 National Center on Senior Transportation. All Rights Reserved.

http://seniortransportation.net/ResourcesPublications/SafeStepsPasosSeguros.aspx

PINELLAS, PASCO BIKE TRAILS TO BE LINKED AS PART OF COAST-

TO-COAST CONNECTOR

by Josh Boatwright, Tribune staff May 5, 2015

ST. PETERSBURG — One of the first steps in completing an ambitious 275-mile cycling trail from St. Petersburg to Titusville is a project that will link more than 100 miles of bike paths stretching from Pinellas County to Hernando County.

A 7-mile gap between the Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail and the Starkey Boulevard Trail in southern Pasco County is the first of about a half-dozen projects planned by state officials to finish the statewide Coast-to-Coast Connector Trail.

A portion of about $15 million from last year’s Department of Transportation Trust Fund is paying for design and construction of the new trail length, one of a half-dozen gaps in an existing network of trails across Central Florida.

Construction is set to begin during the next year on the Pinellas side, but officials in Pasco are finalizing design plans for a section of the path that will go through a densely developed section of the county.

The completed trail will take riders from the northern terminus of the Pinellas Trail in Tarpon Springs through the wetland forests of Brooker Creek Preserve before linking with the Starkey Boulevard Trail, the Starkey Wilderness Trail, and finally, the 42-mile Suncoast Parkway Trail, which runs all the way to northern Hernando County.

When the link is finished, Tampa Bay area cyclists will have access to the longest continuous trail in Florida.

“It’s been a line on the map for probably about 20 years,” said Brian Smith, a former director of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization and now vice chairman of Florida Greenways and Trails Foundation.

“You’re going through preserves, you’re going through downtowns — downtown St. Pete, downtown Tarpon Springs — and then Brooker Creek Preserve is nothing but gopher turtles and cows,” he said.

Momentum has been building in the past couple of years for filling about 70 miles of gaps in a network of trails that stretch roughly east to west across Central Florida.

Although Gov. Rick Scott vetoed a $50 million transportation fund appropriation two years ago to complete the Coast to Coast Connector, support for the project has remained strong, especially from powerful legislators in districts along the proposed bike path such as Senate President Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, and Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater.

Last year’s state budget included enough money to finish a handful of trail segments in nine counties, which will fully fund the planning and construction of the Pinellas-Pasco link.

The Legislature also shifted state policy last year to allow money from the state’s Department of Transportation Trust Fund to be used for pedestrian paths rather than just traditional road projects.

“Trails weren’t specifically spelled out in state law as being an eligible funding option for the trust fund,” said Ken Bryan of the Florida office of the Rails to Trails Conservancy.

This year’s Senate budget puts aside enough transportation funding to complete the connector over the next several years and other trail projects throughout the state, Bryan said.

That money is generated by new vehicle registration charges and state real estate fees that go toward protecting natural habitat approved in the Amendment 1 ballot initiative last November, he said.

“We have strong supporters in good positions. We haven’t had that in the past,” Bryan said, noting that critics have questioned using transportation funds for cycling trails in the past.

“It’s kind of a spreading fire.”

The connector is expected to generate significant tourism and local business for the towns and cities it passes through as evidenced by a boom in places such as downtown Dunedin, which has been thriving since the Pinellas Trail opened in 1991.

DOT officials hope to complete the entire connector within the next four years.

Construction on the Pinellas extension is expected to be completed by next year, followed by the remaining gap in Pasco in 2017.

“Once the Coast to Coast is complete, we think it will be an international draw, especially from the Scandinavian countries and Germany because they do a lot of bike tourism,” said Allen Howell, a bicycle and pedestrian planner for Pasco County.

The Pinellas-Pasco link is among the first to receive state funding because local agencies already had plans on the books for it.

Originally built with the county’s “Penny for Pinellas” sales tax money, the Pinellas Trail long has been considered a model for recreational trails across Florida and local leaders have been plotting its connection to other Tampa Bay area trails for years, Smith says.

“You can argue for the money and the rest, but you also need to be ready when the money comes available,” Smith said. http://tbo.com/pinellas-county/pinellas-pasco-bike-trails-to-be-linked-as-part-of-275-mile-coast-to-coast-path-20150504/

pinellas county metropolitan planning organization meeting/2015/bpa… · fdot new travel lane...

Documents