I-75 AT S.R. 50 AREA - Hernando County, FL | Home

I-75 AT S.R. 50 AREA CIRCULATION PLAN STUDY

Prepared for:

Hernando County Metropolitan Planning Organization

Prepared by:

Tindale‐Oliver and Associates, Inc.

April 24, 2013 COPR

122074‐04.12

I‐75/SR 50 Area Circulation Plan Study Page ES‐1 Tindale‐Oliver and Associates, Inc. April, 2013

Executive Summary The Hernando County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) undertook a traffic circulation study for the area surrounding the I‐75 at SR 50 interchange in eastern Hernando County to identify long‐term circulation needs and to identify shorter‐term improvements, compatible with the long‐term needs, to be coordinated with planned Florida DOT changes to SR 50. The study area and recommended circulation plan are illustrated in Figure ES‐1. The study was undertaken from the perspective of a build‐out analysis of the area surrounding the I‐75/SR 50 interchange, taking into consideration proposed development plans and assumptions of potential development on land where specific developments have not been proposed. The adopted Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Planning Model (TBRPM) was the technical foundation of the study. The study provided for interaction with interested parties through two project progress meetings. Opportunity for public comment was provided at these meetings. Findings and recommendations of the study are:

An element of the FDOT changes to SR 50 is the closure of the existing median opening on SR 50 at Windermere Rd./Bronson Blvd., just east of I‐75, and the relocation of the existing traffic signal there to a location eastward ‐‐ to Sherman Hills Blvd. When the signal was installed, it was understood by the involved parties that it was a temporary installation and that it would be relocated at a later date. Realignment of where Sherman Hills Blvd. intersects SR 50 eastward is recommended as the logical location for this signal, and right‐of‐way to accommodate the realignment has been dedicated to Hernando County.

Hernando County should move forward with preliminary design studies to identify right‐of‐way needs for links A and B (including the realignment of Sherman Hills Blvd.) of the circulation plan (as depicted on Figure ES‐1) and implement these segments in conjunction with the Florida DOT’s planned improvements. The preliminary design studies will identify more exact alignments, traffic operational requirements, storm‐water treatment strategies, and pond requirements so that right‐of‐way needs can be identified and land developments adjacent to the roadways can be planned compatibly with the circulation plan.

If implemented in coordination with the FDOT’s SR 50 improvements, the realignment of Sherman Hills Blvd. can also facilitate the relocation of the traffic signal from Windemere Rd./Bronson Blvd. in one step, thereby avoiding additional costs.

The location that presents the most costly long‐term traffic circulation challenge in the study area is the I‐75/SR 50 interchange.


The recommended circulation plan provides for two potential locations to the south of SR 50 at which east‐west traffic can cross from one side of I‐75 to the other, resulting in a 30 percent reduction of traffic on SR 50. Reduced traffic volumes can defer the need for costly interchange improvements, and the additional crossing locations provide for alternative routes for traffic circulation, which is advantageous for alternate modes of mobility and reduced dependence on SR 50.

The potential for I‐75 crossing locations should be reviewed with FDOT.

Hernando County should adopt the enclosed circulation plan into its long‐range transportation plan to increase the likelihood of its ultimate implementation.

As individual land parcels are developed, implement elements of the circulation plan in conjunction with development approvals to provide improved circulation and access.


Figure ES‐1: Study Area and Corridor Locations

I‐75/SR 50 Area Circulation Plan Study Page i Tindale‐Oliver and Associates, Inc. April, 2013

I-75 AT S.R. 50 AREA

CIRCULATION PLAN STUDY

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Approach .............................................................................................................................. 3 Growth Forecast ............................................................................................................................ 4 Travel Demand Estimates .............................................................................................................. 5 Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 5

List of Figures 1. Proposed Improvements to I‐75 and SR 50 ............................................................................. 2 2. Study Area and Initial Circulation Plan .................................................................................... 3 3. Trend Growth and TBRPM/PD&E Study Volume Estimates .................................................... 6 4. Recommended Circulation Plan ............................................................................................... 8

List of Tables 1. Summary of Growth Estimates ................................................................................................. 4

Appendices A. 2007 “I‐75/SR 50 PDD” Road Plan and Resolution ........................................................... A‐1 B. Socio‐Economic Data Forecast ......................................................................................... B‐1 C. Network Alternative Testing Results ............................................................................... C‐1 D. Planning Road Cost Estimate ........................................................................................... D‐1

I‐75/SR 50 Area Circulation Plan Study Page 1 Tindale‐Oliver and Associates, Inc. April, 2013

I-75 AT S.R. 50 AREA CIRCULATION PLAN STUDY

Introduction Various developments have been proposed in the area surrounding the I‐75 and S.R. 50 interchange in Eastern Hernando County. As the area develops, early agreement is needed on the location and character of new and/or enhanced future transportation facilities and services to serve the area. Early planning for transportation corridors allows severe congestion to be moderated, provides for convenient circulation to occur, and provides for alternative routing around potential bottleneck points. Once a circulation plan is established, developments can be designed to accommodate and to take advantage of the transportation facilities, neighborhood‐serving land uses can be strategically located, and subdivisions can be designed to protect sensitive land uses from the negative effects of intrusive traffic. The Florida DOT is in the process of planning and implementing improvements to I‐75 and SR 50. Project Development and Environment (PD&E) studies have been completed for planned widening of I‐75 (to 6 or 8 lanes), and for widening of SR 50 to six lanes in this area. The long‐term planning assessment reflected in the approved PD&E study for I‐75 is that a northbound I‐75 to westbound S.R. 50 fly‐over ramp will be needed(1). In the intervening time, however, a single‐point urban interchange will be provided. The PD&E study for S.R. 50 improvements proposes widening S.R. 50 to six lanes, relocating the existing traffic signal at Bronson Blvd./Windmere Rd. further eastward to either the existing or the proposed Sherman Hills Blvd. location, closure of the existing median openings at Nature Coast Blvd. and Bronson Blvd./Windermere Rd., and eliminating the northbound and southbound through and left turn movements at the Parkland Av. median opening. Figure 1 illustrates these proposed changes. The FDOT improvements are scheduled to commence in late 2014 or 2015. The specific issues of interest addressed in this study are:

evaluation of a circulation plan proposed through individual developments addressing the local and collector roads to the north as south of SR 50, and

the need for constructing elements of that circulation plan to respond to the above proposed changes to SR 50 median and signalization changes.

Elements of the proposed circulation plan are illustrated in Figure 2. 1. Florida Department of Transportation, District 7, “Traffic Technical Memorandum, I‐75 (SR 93) PD&E Study

from North of SR 52 to South of CR 476B”, June, 2007


Figure 1: Proposed Improvements to I‐75 and SR 50


Figure 2: Study Area and Initial Circulation Plan


An area circulation plan was undertaken in 2007. The “I‐75/SR 50 PDD Study“ proposed elements of a similar circulation plan, but without the benefit of the FDOT studies. That study resulted in the adoption of a 50 percent surcharge on the prevailing transportation impact fee for development in the PDD district to finance the plan. The plan developed in the 2007 study and adopting resolution are provided in Appendix A.

Study Approach The geographic scope of the study is illustrated in Figure 2. The study road network extended from Lockhart Rd. on the west to Kettering Rd. on the east, and approximately one‐half mile to the north and up to two miles south of SR 50. For evaluating future year travel demands, a larger “traffic‐shed” area was also addressed, as also illustrated in Figure 2. An estimated “build‐out” planning horizon was used for the traffic‐shed area, and the adopted 2035 growth projections for all other areas of the Tampa Bay Regional (Transportation) Planning Model (TBRPM) were used. These projections were developed in coordination with the MPO staff and interested landowners. Appendix B provides a traffic analysis zone map and tables documenting the assumptions on which the land use data for each traffic analysis zone was based. In many cases, the existing TBRPM traffic analysis zones were divided to create more realistic loadings to the planned road network.

Growth Assumptions Table 1 summarizes the growth forecasts for the study area “traffic‐shed”. The total number of dwellings assumed in the build‐out traffic‐shed area is 13,074, only five percent greater than the number of dwellings assumed in the current 2035 transportation plan. Growth in employment was to 17,604, nine percent greater than the number of employees previously incorporated into the MPO’s 2035 transportation plan. In addition, employment was shifted from the service sector to retail and industrial employment. The adopted 2035 forecast on which the current transportation plan is based assumed 28 percent of the employees would be in the service sector, whereas the updated data indicated only seven percent. These changes

Table 1: Summary of Growth Forecast Employment

ScenarioResidential

DUTransient

DU IndustrialRegional

CommercialLocal

CommercialRegional Service

Local Service

2006 802 315 2,296 17 488 265 131

2035 Adopted MPO Plan 12,510 435 7,540 2,560 1,606 2,768 1,708

2050 "Build‐Out" 13,074 524 9,422 3,441 3,362 612 767


resulted in a 40 percent increase in trip generation in the traffic‐shed area, from 202,969 to 283,177. The resulting daily trip generation rate per acre of land in the 3.34 square‐mile study area varies from 10 to 500, and averages 132. This trip generation density is comparable to sub‐urban areas where street networks are usually designed with arterial and collector roads on one‐quarter to one‐mile spacing. Additional opportunities to cross interstates are typically provided more frequently in urban and suburban areas than in what is now a relatively undeveloped area of Hernando County. In suburban areas of Tampa, for example, where daily trip generation per acre in the 50 to 125 range is common, opportunities to cross I‐275 are provided at 0.4‐mile spacing, on average. The next crossing locations to the north and south of SR 50 are approximately 3.5 miles away. Additional crossings allow traffic circulation to occur at multiple locations rather than forcing traffic to be concentrated at, and dependent upon, the Interstate interchanges. It is salient that the Pasco County MPO recently approved an east‐west underpass connection for Ossie Murphy Road just north of the I‐75/SR 52 interchange. A specific adjustment that was made to the growth projections adjacent to the study area was the removal of a 3,000 student high school in the area on the southwest quadrant of SR 50 and US 98 (TAZ 2627). This change had the effect of reducing traffic on SR 50 to the east of Lockhart Rd. from approximately 62,500 vehicles per day (vpd) to 49,200 vpd.

Travel Demand Estimates The TBRPM was applied to two alternative road networks. Maps of the networks, indicating the number of lanes and future peak‐season daily traffic volumes are provided in Appendix C. The first alternative considered a circulation plan that served land uses in each of their respective quadrants of the study area, but did not consider new opportunities to cross from one side of I‐75 to the other. Since the most difficult network issue identified in the first network alternative was extremely high traffic volumes in the interchange of I‐75 and SR 50, the second added three opportunities to cross I‐75, one to the north of SR 50, and two to the south. Tables summarizing the model output daily traffic volumes, adjustments to estimate AADT, and comparison of volumes to roadway service volumes (capacity), by road segment are also provided in Appendix C.

Findings and Recommendations Noteworthy observations are:

At build‐out, traffic volumes on the order of 100,000 vehicles per day are forecasted on each leg of the interchange of I‐75 and SR 50. These volumes are very heavy for a six‐lane arterial road. Even with the FDOT long‐range planned improvements, congestion will result. In addition, SR 50 is the only location in the area where traffic can cross from one side of I‐75 to the other, and traffic seeking to enter and exit from I‐75 must also use this location. To alleviate future congestion, to reduce the severity if an incident


should temporarily close some lanes under I‐75, and to defer the need for more costly improvements and hindrance to property access on SR 50, the County should pursue opportunities to develop additional crossings between the east and west sides of I‐75 at other locations. Potential I‐75 crossings should be jointly pursued with FDOT. Initial testing of additional crossings resulted in daily traffic reductions on SR 50 of approximately 30 to 35 percent, adjacent to I‐75.

The traffic volume forecasts for I‐75 and SR 50 that are incorporated into the TBRPM and FDOT PD&E studies bear discussion. Figure 3 illustrates the past 12 years of traffic counts, a trendline reflecting the past 12 years of recorded counts, and the forecasts of the MPO/FDOT in 2030 and 2035, where available. (The I‐75 PD&E study used a horizon year of 2030, the SR 50 PD&E study used a horizon year of 2035.) The growth trend over the past 15 years at traffic count stations surrounding the interchange of I‐75 and SR 50 indicate a growth rate of only one to two percent per year, but the design traffic forecasts for I‐75 incorporate a six percent per year growth rate, and the growth rates on SR 50 incorporate 12 to 15 percent per year growth rates. While these higher growth expectations may have been expected in 2007 (before the recent economic

Figure 3: Trend Growth and TBRPM/PD&E Study Volume Estimates

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

AADT

YearSources: 2010 Florida Traffic Information CD, FDOT I‐75 (SR 93) PD&E Study, June,

2007

AADT TrendI‐75 North of SR 50

Counts

Trend

I‐75 PD&E Forecast

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

AADT

YearSources: 2010 Florida Traffic Information, FDOT I‐75 (SR 93) PD&E Study, June, 2007,

FDOT SR 50 (Cortez Boulevard) PD&E Study, November, 2011.

AADT TrendSR 50 West of I‐75

Counts

Trend


SR 50 PD&E Forecast

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

AADT

YearSources: 2010 Florida Traffic Information, FDOT I‐75 (SR 93) PD&E Study, June, 2007

AADT TrendI‐75 South of SR 50

Counts

Trend


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

AADT

YearSources: 2010 Florida Traffic Information, FDOT I‐75 (SR 93) PD&E Study, June, 2007,

FDOT SR 50 (Cortez Boulevard) PD&E Study, November, 2011.

AADT TrendSR 50 East of I‐75

Counts

Trend


SR 50 PD&E Forecast


recession), the forecasts result in traffic volume estimates by 2030 that double to more than quadruple the current daily traffic volumes. The volume forecasts of this study make use of the same growth forecasts, but it is reasonable to acknowledge that these growth forecasts depend on both local growth and regional traffic growth that may not occur as originally thought. Thus, the interim improvements may have service lives greater than estimated, and that the need for elements of the local circulation plan may not materialize as quickly as initially anticipated.

Figure 4 illustrates the generalized recommendations regarding needed number of lanes for the local circulation system. Two lanes will suffice for most roads, but in some cases

Figure 4: Recommended Circulation Plan


four lanes will be needed. The more significant number of lanes are generally needed where some of the busier roads approach SR 50, and serve as major land access roads

that collect traffic and convey it to SR 50. In the alternative 1 test, it appears that some

traffic used the reverse‐frontage roads to avoid congestion on SR 50, resulting in traffic volumes that border on the need for four lanes. In alternative test 2, the connection of Cracker Crossing over I‐75 to Nature Coast Blvd. attracted enough traffic to require four‐lanes. Two lanes proved to be adequate for the other two crossings included in the network test. A crossing north of SR 50 only attracted 3,000 vehicles per day, making it of little value; therefore, this crossing was eliminated from the study recommendations.

The circulation plan illustrated in Figure 4 is recommended for inclusion in the Hernando County MPO’s Long‐Range Transportation Plan, and Hernando County’s Comprehensive Plan Traffic Circulation Element. This Plan includes provision of two potential crossings over I‐75 to the south of SR 50.

Generalized planning cost estimates for the network plan are provided in Appendix D. The total estimated plan network cost for construction of an additional 20.1 lane‐miles of roadway, including land value, design, construction and bridges, is estimated to be on the order of $39 million. However, development contribution for some of the network improvements is anticipated.

Elements of the local circulation system are associated with specific developments. The realignment of Sherman Hills Blvd. is associated with the development of it’s adjacent parcel, and the construction of Sunrise Blvd. to the south of SR 50 is associated with the Sunrise Development of Regional Impact. Other elements of the circulation plan should be implemented as adjacent lands are developed.

Most elements of the proposed circulation plan need not be implemented in the immediate future since SR 50 will continue to allow U‐turns to facilitate access to the existing local street system. However, one exception to this generalization might be the realignment of Sherman Hills Blvd. and the westward access road to it, identified in Figure 4 as segments “A” and “B”.

Hernando County should advance the planning process for segments A and B into route alignment studies and/or design. This work will identify more exact alignments, traffic operational requirements, right‐of‐way needs, stormwater treatment strategies, and pond requirements so that land developments adjacent to the roadways can be coordinated. Consistent with the currently scheduled SR 50 improvement, design and construction of segment “B” should be pursued quickly as the design‐build services for improvements to SR 50 are to commence in late 2014 or 2015 (schedule as of the initiation date of this study). Estimated budgets for these activities are summarized below:


*Right‐of‐Way for segment B, the Sherman Hills realignment, has already been dedicated to Hernando County.

The above recommendations are consistent with guidance provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Proposed Recommended Practice “Planning Urban Roadway Systems” (2) – specifically the objectives of:

providing adequate capacity for expected travel demands,

providing a network at a scale suitable for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel,

providing for routing alternatives for normal daily traffic flow as well as incident management purposes, and

developing networks with more frequently spaced roadways rather than relying on sparse networks of wide arterials.

2. Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Planning Urban Roadway Systems – An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice”, 2011.

Segment From/To Design ROW Const/CEI/Cont Total

A Windmere to Sheman Hills $40,300 $33,818 $387,500 $461,618

B Segment A to SR 50 $22,491 $0* $466,263 $488,754

Appendix A

2007 “I‐75/SR 50 PDD Study” Resolution and Road Plan

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

Appendix B

Socio‐Economic Data Forecast

2618

2629

2494

2630

2623

2626

2628

2624 2625

2493

2602

2605

2491

2604

I-75

CORTEZ BLVD

LO

CK

HA

RT

RD

CR

OO

M R

I TA

L R

D

I 75

OF

F R

AM

P N

B

Figure A-1Original TAZ Structure $

TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC.1000 NORTH ASHLEY DR, SUITE 400

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602(813) 224-8862

KE

TT

ER

ING

RD

RE

MIN

GT

ON

RD

OLD TRILBY RD

B-1

I-75

/ S

R 5

0 A

rea

Cir

cula

tio

n S

tud

yCo

mpa

rison

of Z

data

TB

RP

M

TA

ZO

rig

inal

203

5 L

RT

P Z

dat

aR

es (

DU

)T

r D

UIn

d E

mp

Reg

C

omm

E

mp

Loca

l C

omm

E

mp

Reg

Svc

E

mp

Loca

l Svc

E

mp

2494

NW

Qua

dran

t I-7

5/SR

50

1019

737

515

431

687

459

2605

Hic

kory

Hill

800

045

9045

2353

2609

Hic

kory

Hill

100

058

00

00

2618

NE

Qua

dran

t I-7

5/SR

50

950

188

6035

017

530

216

0

2623

SW Q

uadr

ant I

-75

/ SR

50

050

275

321

165

397

62

2624

Sunr

ise+

1,20

00

102

634

550

899

546

2625

Sunr

ise+

800

016

430

020

030

020

0

2626

E of

Ket

terin

g20

00

4,80

035

040

150

25

2628

S of

262

3 (W

est s

ide

of I-

75)

1,30

00

180

00

00

2629

S of

Sun

rise

2,40

00

140

00

0

2630

S of

Sun

rise

700

046

80

00

203

2631

S of

262

9 (to

Pas

co C

o Li

ne)

1,25

00

1,27

00

010

0

2632

S of

263

0 (to

Pas

co C

o Li

ne)

2,00

00

450

00

0

11,7

1043

57,

518

2,56

01,

606

2,76

81,

708

% o

f sub

area

tota

l em

ploy

men

t:47

%16

%10

%17

%11

%

TB

RP

M

TA

ZP

rop

ose

d I-

75 /

SR

50

Stu

dy

Zd

ata

Res

(D

U)

Tr

DU

Ind

Em

p

Reg

C

omm

E

mp

Loca

l C

omm

E

mp

Reg

Svc

E

mp

Loca

l Svc

E

mp

2494

NW

Qua

dran

t I-7

5/SR

50

225

153

073

872

10

0

2605

Hic

kory

Hill

1,80

00

00

00

0

2609

Hic

kory

Hill

00

00

00

0

2618

NE

Qua

dran

t I-7

5/SR

50

1,05

223

80

700

684

00

2623

SW Q

uadr

ant I

-75

/ SR

50

825

5875

099

797

455

971

2

2624

Sunr

ise+

2,60

70

046

044

90

0

2625

Sunr

ise+

501

750

326

318

4355

2626

E of

Ket

terin

g0

07,

335

220

215

00

2628

S of

262

3 (W

est s

ide

of I-

75)

503

00

00

00

2629

S of

Sun

rise

1,51

20

00

00

0

2630

S of

Sun

rise

1,80

00

00

00

0

2631

S of

262

9 (to

Pas

co C

o Li

ne)

1,25

00

1,27

00

010

0

2632

S of

263

0 (to

Pas

co C

o Li

ne)

2,00

00

450

00

0

14,0

7452

49,

400

3,44

13,

362

612

767

B-2

2631

2494

2632

2626

2640

2628

2493

2620

2618

2602

2605

2659

2491

2661

2664

2641

2638

2672

2604

2678

2660

2677

2674

2636

2644

2679

2645

2655

2680

2663

2675

2668

2665 2666

2643

2676

2654

2658

2662

26522673

26392637

2656

2669

265026492647

2657

2642

2667

2646

26532671

2651

2670

2648

I-75

CORTEZ BLVD

LO

CK

HA

RT

RD

CR

OO

M R

I TA

L R

D

Figure A-2Modified TAZ Structure $

TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC.1000 NORTH ASHLEY DR, SUITE 400

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602(813) 224-8862

KE

TT

ER

ING

RD

RE

MIN

GT

ON

RD

OLD TRILBY RD

B-3

I-75 / SR 50 Area Circulation StudySummary of Land Uses Units of Development Zdata Units 62% 38% 56% 44% <- reg v local mix

1 1 0.8 61% 39% 62% 38% <- dev units to zdata

Area

"Parent" TAZ TAZ Key Owner(s)

Res (DU)

Hotel/ Motel

Ind (k.s.f.)

Retail (k.s.f.)

Office (k.s.f.) Res (DU) Tr DU Ind Emp

Reg Comm Emp

Local Comm Emp

Reg Svc Emp

Local Svc Emp

1 2494 2636 Michael Jun 120 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2494 2637 Lakdawala, Militello 0 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 192 187 0 0

3 2494 2638 HR Hernando 105 0 0 542 0 105 0 0 546 534 0 0

4 2494 2639 Hampton & Holiday Inn 0 153 0 0 0 0 153 0 0 0 0 0

5 2618 2640 Sherman Hills 360 0 0 0 0 360 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 2618 2641 Ridge Manor West (west side) 150 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 2618 2642 Library & Ridge Manor West 89 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 2618 2643 Pallardy 135 0 0 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 2618 2644 East side of Sherman Hills & Ridge Manor West 168 0 0 0 0 168 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 2618 2645 Specialty Restaurants MF 150 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 2618 2646 Quality Inn & Commercial 0 121 0 48 0 0 121 0 48 47 0 0

12 2618 2647 Days Inn & Hill Family 0 117 0 162 0 0 117 0 163 159 0 0

13 2618 2648 Hill Family 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 19 19 0 0

14 2618 2649 Publix 0 0 0 133 0 0 0 0 134 131 0 0

15 2618 2650 Specialty Restaurant Commercial 0 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 192 187 0 0

16 2618 2651 Whitehurst 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 0 144 140 0 0

17 2624 2652 Sunrise Commercial Plaza W (Cracker Barrel & Racetrack) 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 125 122 0 0

18 2624 2653 Sunrise Commercial Plaza E (McDonalds & Wendy's) 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 105 103 0 0

19 2624 2654 Sunrise Plaza, Beth & Wendy and Suntrust Bank 0 0 0 228 0 0 0 0 230 225 0 0

20 2625 2655 Sunrise DRI 0 75 0 323 0 0 75 0 326 318 0 0

21 2624 2656 Sunrise DRI 300 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 2624 2657 Sunrise DRI 300 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 2625 2658 Sunrise DRI 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 43 55

24 2624 2659 Sunrise DRI 501 0 0 0 0 501 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 2624 2660 Sunrise DRI 501 0 0 0 0 501 0 0 0 0 0 0

26 2625 2661 Sunrise DRI 501 0 0 0 0 501 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 2624 2662 Sunrise DRI 501 0 0 0 0 501 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 2624 2663 Sunrise DRI 504 0 0 0 0 504 0 0 0 0 0 0

29 2629 2664 Sunrise DRI 504 0 0 0 0 504 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 2629 2665 Sunrise DRI 504 0 0 0 0 504 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 2629 2666 Sunrise DRI 504 0 0 0 0 504 0 0 0 0 0 0

32 2623 2667 URADCO 0 0 0 143 48 0 0 0 144 140 43 55

33 2623 2668 Crispi, others 0 0 0 238 48 0 0 0 240 234 43 55

34 2623 2669 Melton 0 0 0 238 0 0 0 0 240 234 0 0

35 2623 2670 Melton 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 0 144 140 0 0

36 2623 2671 Cortez Crossings Commercial & Burger King 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 38 37 0 0

37 2623 2672 Crispi 375 0 0 0 95 375 0 0 0 0 86 110

38 2623 2673 Melton 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 129 164

39 2623 2674 Melton 0 0 360 0 285 0 0 450 0 0 258 329

40 2623 2675 Cortez Crossings Industrial/Commercial 0 58 240 190 0 0 58 300 192 187 0 0

41 2623 2676 Melton 150 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 2623 2677 Dog Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

43 2623 2678 Melton 300 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0

44 2628 2679 Trilby Crossing west 180 0 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 0 0

45 2628 2680 Tribly Crossing east 323 0 0 0 0 323 0 0 0 0 0 0

A 2626 2681 DBSI Commercial 0 0 0 219 0 0 0 0 220 215 0 0

B 2626 2682 DBSI Industrial 0 0 1,716 0 0 0 0 2145 0 0 0 0

C 2626 2683 Walmart/DBSI South 0 0 4,152 0 0 0 0 5190 0 0 0 0

D 2630 2684 Residential south of Sunrise DRI 1,800 0 0 0 0 1800 0 0 0 0 0 0

E 2605 2685 Hickory Hill/Residential south of Trilby Crossing 1,800 0 0 0 0 1800 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals: 10,824 524 6,468 3,411 665 10,824 524 8,085 3,441 3,362 602 767

Sunrise DRI Subtotals: 4,620 75 0 323 48 4,620 75 0 326 318 43 55

Melton Subtotals: 450 0 360 380 428 450 0 450 383 375 387 493

TBRPM 2035 Hernando Totals: 151,598 916 29,045 17,841 14,603 42,083 18,004

TBRPM Subarea Totals: 11,710 435 7,518 2,560 1,606 2,768 1,708

Regional/Local Split: 39% 38%

B-4

Appendix C

Network Alternative Testing Results In this appendix, worksheets and maps associated with each alternative are identified by using page numbers in the format C‐xx‐yy, where xx corresponds to the scenario and yy is the page number within the scenario. The scenarios are numbered as follows:

1. Alternative 1 2. Alternative 2

Alternative 1

Long

‐Term Volum

e Estim

ates

On: From/To

2035 M

odel

Volume

2035 AADT

Estimate

K100

D

(NB/EB)

Pk Hr

Total V

ol

(NB/EB)

Pk Hr

Total V

ol

(SB/W

B)

One‐

Way

Lanes

Needed

LOS Std

Needed

Road

Type

Daily Svc

Vol(1

)

SR 50: W. of Lockhart

60,000

57,600

0.091

0.490

2,568

2,673

3D

6D

59,900

SR 50: Lockhart to Drive 1

62,000

59,520

0.091

0.490

2,654

2,762

3D

6D

59,900

SR 50: Drive 1 to Drive 2

68,300

65,568

0.091

0.490

2,924

3,043

3D

8D

80,100

SR 50: Drive 2 to Nature Coast Bl.

80,200

76,992

0.091

0.490

3,433

3,573

4D

8D

80,100

SR 50: Nature Coast Bl. to I‐75

106,000

101,760

0.091

0.490

4,537

4,723

5D

10D

100,000

SR 50: I‐75 to W

indmere/Bronson

102,000

97,920

0.091

0.550

4,901

4,010

5D

10D

100,000

SR 50: Windmere/Bronson to Parkland

75,500

72,480

0.091

0.550

3,628

2,968

4D

8D

80,100

SR 50: Parkland Av to Sherman

Hills

72,000

69,120

0.091

0.550

3,459

2,830

4D

8D

80,100

SR 50: Sherman

Hills to Sunrise Bl

72,000

69,120

0.091

0.550

3,459

2,830

4D

8D

80,100

SR 50: Sunrise Bl to Kettering Rd

62,000

59,520

0.091

0.550

2,979

2,437

3D

6D

59,900

SR 50: E of Kettering Rd.

46,800

44,928

0.091

0.550

2,249

1,840

2D

6D

59,900

Lockhart S of SR

50

5,000

4,800

0.091

0.565

247

190

1D

2U

8,200

Drive 1 S of SR

50

15,200

14,592

0.091

0.565

750

578

1D

2D

12,000

Drive 1 N

of SR

50

16,500

15,840

0.091

0.500

721

721

1D

2D

12,000

Drive 2 S of SR

50

16,300

15,648

0.091

0.565

805

619

1D

2D

12,000

Drive 2 N

of SR

50

6,300

6,048

0.091

0.500

275

275

1D

2U

8,200

Nature Coast S of SR

50

14,000

13,440

0.091

0.565

691

532

1D

2D

12,000

Nature Coast N of SR

50

13,000

12,480

0.091

0.500

568

568

1D

2D

12,000

I‐75 S of SR

50

109,624

105,239

0.091

0.560

5,363

4,214

6C

8F

123,500

I‐75 N

of SR

50

88,354

84,820

0.091

0.560

4,322

3,396

5C

6F

93,000

Windermere/Bronson S of SR

50

12,600

12,096

0.091

0.500

550

550

1D

2D

12,000

Windermere/Bronson N

of SR

50

19,200

18,432

0.091

0.565

948

730

1D

2D

12,000

Parkland S of SR

50

5,800

5,568

0.091

0.435

220

286

1D

2U

8,200

Parkland N

of SR

50

1,700

1,632

0.091

0.500

74

74

1D

2U

8,200

Sherman

Hills S of SR

50

6,000

5,760

0.091

0.500

262

262

1D

2U

8,200

Sherman

Hills N of SR

50

2,000

1,920

0.091

0.565

99

76

1D

2U

8,200

Sunrise S of SR

50

21,800

20,928

0.091

0.435

828

1,076

1D

4D

23,900

Sunrise N

of SR

50

6,800

6,528

0.091

0.565

336

258

1D

2U

8,200

Kettering S of SR

50

22,800

21,888

0.091

0.565

1,125

866

1D

4D

23,900

Kettering N of SR

50

4,300

4,128

0.091

0.565

212

163

1D

2U

8,200

Capa

city value

s based

on the follo

wing:

Road

Type

Daily

Capacity

No Lanes

Sat

Flow/

Lane

G:C

phf

% turns

k

2D

12,000

21850

0.35

0.925

0.35

0.09

2U

8,200

21480

0.3

0.925

0.35

0.09

4D

23,900

41850

0.35

0.925

0.35

0.09

6D

59,900

FDOT Gen

eralized

Annual Average Daily Capacity table, 2012 Q/LOS Handbook

6F

93,000

FDOT Gen

eralized


8D

80,100

FDOT Gen

eralized


8F

123,500

FDOT Gen

eralized


10D

100,125

FDOT Gen

eralized


C-1-1

C-1-2

C-1-3

C-1-4

Alternative 2

Long

‐Term Volum

e Estim

ates

On: From/To

2035 M

odel

Volume

2035 AADT

Estimate

K100

D

(NB/EB)

Pk Hr

Total V

ol

(NB/EB)

Pk Hr

Total V

ol

(SB/W

B)

One‐

Way

Lanes

Needed

LOS Std

Needed

Road

Type

Daily Svc

Vol(1

)

SR50:W.ofLockhart

65,129

62,500

0.091

0.490

2,787

2,901

3D

6D

59,900

SR 50: W. of Lockhart

65,129

62,500

0.091

0.490

2,787

2,901

3D

6D

59,900

SR 50: Lockhart to Drive 1

60,250

57,800

0.091

0.490

2,577

2,682

3D

6D

59,900

SR 50: Drive 1 to Drive 2

55,390

53,200

0.091

0.490

2,372

2,469

3D

8D

80,100

SR 50: Drive 2 to Nature Coast Bl.

64,500

61,900

0.091

0.490

2,760

2,873

3D

8D

80,100

SR 50: Nature Coast Bl. to I‐75

74,970

72,000

0.091

0.490

3,210

3,342

4D

10D

100,000

SR 50: I‐75 to W

indmere/Bronson

67,730

65,000

0.091

0.550

3,253

2,662

4D

10D

100,000

SR 50: Windmere/Bronson to Parkland

62,750

60,200

0.091

0.550

3,013

2,465

3D

8D

80,100

SR 50: Parkland Av to Sherman

Hills

63,060

60,500

0.091

0.550

3,028

2,477

3D

8D

80,100

SR50

Sherman

Hillsto

Sunrise

Bl

60520

58100

0091

0550

2908

2379

3D

8D

80100

SR 50: Sherman

Hills to Sunrise Bl

60,520

58,100

0.091

0.550

2,908

2,379

3D

8D

80,100

SR 50: Sunrise Bl to Kettering Rd

56,720

54,500

0.091

0.550

2,728

2,232

3D

6D

59,900

SR 50: E of Kettering Rd.

51,510

49,400

0.091

0.550

2,472

2,023

3D

6D

59,900

Lockhart S of SR

50

7,760

7,400

0.091

0.565

380

293

1D

2U

8,200

Drive 1 S of SR

50

16,710

16,000

0.091

0.565

823

633

1D

2D

12,000

Drive 1 N

of SR

50

14,949

14,400

0.091

0.500

655

655

1D

2D

12,000

Drive 2 S of SR

50

10,550

10,100

0.091

0.565

519

400

1D

2D

12,000

Drive 2 N

of SR

50

680

700

0.091

0.500

32

32

1D

2U

8,200

Nature Coast S of SR

50

10,540

10,100

0.091

0.565

519

400

1D

2D

12,000

Nature Coast N of SR

50

7,310

7,000

0.091

0.500

319

319

0D

2D

12,000

I‐75 S of SR

50

109,450

105,100

0.091

0.560

5,356

4,208

6C

8F

123,500

I‐75 N

of SR

50

88,255

84,700

0.091

0.560

4,316

3,391

5C

6F

93,000

Windermere/Bronson S of SR

50

7,730

7,400

0.091

0.500

337

337

0D

2D

12,000

Windermere/Bronson N

of SR

50

4,580

4,400

0.091

0.565

226

174

0D

2D

12,000

Parkland S of SR

50

2,800

2,700

0.091

0.435

107

139

1D

2U

8,200

,,

,

Parkland N

of SR

50

5,865

5,600

0.091

0.500

255

255

1D

2U

8,200

Sherman

Hills S of SR

50

6,000

5,800

0.091

0.500

264

264

1D

2U

8,200

Sherman

Hills N of SR

50

2,000

1,900

0.091

0.565

98

75

1D

2U

8,200

Sunrise S of SR

50

17,580

16,900

0.091

0.435

669

869

1D

4D

23,900

Sunrise N

of SR

50

2,870

2,800

0.091

0.565

144

111

1D

2U

8,200

Kettering S of SR

50

15,450

14,800

0.091

0.565

761

586

1D

4D

23,900

Kettering N of SR

50

4,970

4,800

0.091

0.565

247

190

0D

2U

8,200

Buckner

OverI75

27310

26200

0091

0565

1347

1037

1D

4D

23900

Buckner Over I‐75

27,310

26,200

0.091

0.565

1,347

1,037

1D

4D

23,900

Nature Trail/Sunrise M

idway over I‐75(2)

17,982

17,300

0.091

0.565

889

685

1D

2U

17,800

1. Capacity values based

on the following:

Road

Type

Daily

Cap

acity

No Lan

es

Sat

Flow/

Lane

G:C

phf

% turns

k

2D

12,000

21850

0.35

0.925

0.35

0.09

2U

8,200

21480

0.3

0.925

0.35

0.09

4D

23,900

41850

0.35

0.925

0.35

0.09

6D

59,900

FDOT Gen

eralized


6F

93,000

FDOT Gen

eralized


8D

80,100

FDOT Gen

eralized


8F

123,500

FDOT Gen

eralized


10D

100,125

FDOT Gen

eralized

Annual Average Daily Capacity table, 2012 Q/LOS Ha ndbook

2. Capacity value based

on assumption of no nearby signals.

C-2-1

C-2-2

C-2-3

C-2-4

Appendix D

Planning Road Cost Estimates

D-1

Florida Department of Transportation RICK SCOlT GOVERNOR

11201 North McKinley Drive Tampa, Florida 33612

ANANTH PRASAD, P.E.

ACCESS MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (AMRC) PELICAN ROOM

11:00 AM. Location: Section: County: Speed Limit: Project ID: Project Manager: Typical Section: Access Class:

July 301h, 2014

SR SO & Nature Coast Blvd. 08070000 SR SO

Hernando 4S MPH on SR SO

411011-2

Amy Neidringbaus, P.E. Proposed 6-lane divided on SR SO

Class 3 on SR SO

Presenters: Mr. Don Lacey, Coastal Engineering Associates Mr. Marshall Rainey

SECRETARY

Applicant Request: Continuation of AMRC Meeting, Tabled June 2S1h, 2014

The applicant request is: Approved Disapproved Condilionally Approved / Tabled l l Comments: The Access Management Review Committee agrees to a temporary full median opening at Station 982+40 and to a temporary bi-directional median opening at Station 971+70 with the following conditions: See Attachment "A" for Conditions.

A ruling by the Access Management Review Comm1ttee (AMRC) only defines the number and type of access points and associated features that

may be permuted and is not the frnal action m your permit process. Comm1ttee approval . or other favorable ruling. generally means that the

property owner may develop plans complymg with the ruling and submit them within SIX months to the Department for permit processing.

Department pem1its personnel have the duties of checking the viability of the design plans in tenns of standards compliance and constructability

and of assuring that the plan substantially complies with the engineering drawings approved by the Committee. Committee approvals or rulings,

\\h1ch are at variance with Department rules or standards, are not binding rn the pcrmining process for more than one )'tar. Please submit a copy

ofth1s letter with your permit application.

ACCESS MANAGEMENT REVIEW COM'\-tlTTEE

With the above ruling 1: .., t _ , Ronald Chin, P.E. \ t:' 71 ( c:( (. ck :_ District Traffic Operatic~ Engineer

Ming Gao. P E. =:::::;;;;r ---..._ ~ ~· lntermodal Systems Dc,m~anage£:::2 -

R1chard Moss, P E. (0___ ~ ' District Design Engineer

www.dot.state.fl.us

Agree Disagree

[]

Date

~~~4--J I

~u r/3ofy

[)

ACCESS MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (AMRC) PELICAN ROOM

July 30th, 2014 Attachment "A"

Access Management Review Committee conditions:

I. The temporary full median opening at Station 982+40 will never be signalized.

2. The Florida Department of Transportation will decide when the temporary full median opening at Station 982+40 will be modified to a bi-directional median opening.

3. The Florida Department of Transportation will decide when the bi-directional median opening at Station 971 -r70 will be modified to a full median opening.

4. When a traffic signal is installed at the temporary bi-directional median opening at Station 971 + 70, the temporary full median opening at Station 982+40 will be modified to a bi-directional median opening.

5. When the department decides to modify the temporary full median opening at Station 982+40 to a bi-directional median opening, the proposed frontage roads on the north and south sides of SR 50 shall be constructed between Station 971 + 70 and Station 982+40.

6. The above conditions are to be incorporated into the 1-75/SR 50 PDD Area Plan by Resolution adopted by the Hernando County Board of County Commissioners.

7. In addition, the 1-75/SR 50 Frontage Road Plan adopted by the Hernando County MPO will also be incorporated into the I-75/SR 50 PDD Area Plan by Resolution adopted by the Hernando County Board of County Commissioners.

8. SR 50 is subject to the Hernando County frontage road ordinance land development regulations. Hernando County, in coordination with the department, shall enforce the above conditions and require the construction of frontage roads by the developer as required.

ACCESS MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE - SIGN IN :

NAM E

Ronald Chin, P.E.

Richard Moss, P.E. 1, I

Ming Gao, P.E. (/JA,~ '"

SR SO & Nature Coast Blvd.

STREET ADDRESS

11201 N. McKinley Drive



EMAIL/ PHONE

[email protected] 813-975-6178 richard. [email protected] 813-975-6030

[email protected] 813-975-6454

- --

Jim F. Scott, P.E. 11201 N. McKinley Drive I [email protected] .us - -------1-- . 813-975-6273

Marty Hernandez 11201 N. McKin ley Drive

John L. Foley 11201 N. McKinley Drive

Amy Neidringhaus, P.E. 11201 N. McKinley Drive

[email protected] 813-975-6483 [email protected] 813-975-6263

[email protected] 813-975-6169

Q(c.LOt\ ~(.e~,..h q~otf w.(/"'r-~ tJ;.(((;>t~, ctCA~tc(-<- C.'"1. .,...,ta 1------------I----L\!c.=...:c-o.'_..,ll"}bz.k I..Q > -~ I ~"'--....:::...../_1_\_J

G..·FF-8 GIA-S""t'At..- ~~ ... ~ 1 ._OM.

C,;L vfF f¥\4" tV (NG{, 4rc. (!(;;A(~ 3 S'-z.-- I~ <.r - q ~ z_.. 3

~,J~ L*L.t l.\ L'

- Df'nn, c /) ,\ ,, flcrna"ACtri;;74Pu P;;-;::7->""'t---~cs L 1

t.rv..y. Nr•oft.l"'C.'~''-' oi! D>T ~TATC . ~-~ .JJ

r ....... y NEIOelf'I(>IJJ\\1• tOuT t;;~-<1-,S-<..1<..~

Documents

I-75 AT S.R. 50 AREA - Hernando County, FL | Home