Road Safety Audit Report - SWFL Roadsswflroads.com/us41/completestreetscorridor/US 41 RSA Report_Final.pdfRoad Safety Audit Report US 41/Tamiami Trail from University Parkway to Whitfield

Road Safety Audit Report US 41/Tamiami Trail from

University Parkway to Whitfield Avenue

Section Number: 17020000; 13010000 Mile Post: 21.879 – 22.390; 0.000 – 1.570

City of Sarasota, Sarasota County, Manatee County

Prepared for:

Florida Department of Transportation – District One 801 North Broadway Avenue

Bartow, FL 33830-3809

Prepared by: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

225 East Robinson Street, Suite 450 Orlando, FL 32801

July 2017

US 41 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii | P a g e

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Corridor Characteristics................................................................................................................................ 4

Field Review Findings ................................................................................................................................... 5

Summary of Suggestions ......................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix A: Historical Crash Summary

US 41 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT INTRODUCTION

1 | P a g e

US 41 Road Safety Audit University Parkway to Whitfield Avenue

Field Review Dates June 14-15, 2017

Participants Deborah Chesna – Florida Department of Transportation, District 1 Vishaka Shiva Raman – Florida Department of Transportation, District 1 Trisha Hartzell – Florida Department of Transportation, District 1 Daniel Ohrenstein – City of Sarasota Itza Frisco – New College of Florida Alan Burr – New College of Florida Richard Lyttle – University of South Florida Pei-Sung Lin – University of South Florida-CUTR Steve Roberts – Manatee County Area Transit Nelson Galeano – Manatee County Susan Montgomery – Manatee County Area Transit Conner Cardwell – Florida Highway Patrol Cherie Knudson – The Ringling Kent Bontrager – Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority Paula Wiggins – Sarasota County Patty Hurd – Kittelson & Associates, Inc. John R. Freeman, Jr. – Kittelson & Associates, Inc. John Temple – Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Phillip Haas – Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Project Characteristics Field Review Type: All Users (Vehicular, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit) Adjacent Land Use: Urban; Commercial, Education, Airport, Residential Posted Speed Limit: 45 MPH (south section), 50 MPH (north section) Opposite Flow Separation: Raised Median (south section), Two-way Left-turn Lane (north section) Service Function: Urban Principal Arterial Terrain: Flat Field Review Climatic Conditions: Sunny/Partially Cloudy

Project Limits The Florida Department of Transportation District One (FDOT) is conducting the US 41 Corridor Planning Study to document the existing multimodal corridor needs, existing and future regional travel needs, and community visions for this portion of US 41. This Road Safety Audit (RSA) was performed to identify existing safety concerns and consider safety in the development of possible improvement scenarios in conjunction with the Corridor Planning Study. The project limits include US 41/Tamiami Trail from University Parkway to Whitfield Avenue and are shown in Figure 1.


2 | P a g e

Figure 1: Project Limits


3 | P a g e

Road Safety Audit Process The RSA process involves multi-disciplinary representatives from various stakeholders, potentially including representatives from traffic operations, roadway design, safety, transportation planning, transit, and law enforcement. An RSA is conducted to identify potential safety issues and provide improvement suggestions in a team collaborative environment. This RSA was commissioned as part of the US 41 Corridor Planning Study to develop short-term maintenance, near-term project, and long-term project suggestions to improve safety for all transportation users within the study limits. This study is intended to identify engineering, education, and enforcement improvements to be considered by District staff and partner agencies (e.g., City of Sarasota, Sarasota County, Manatee County, SCAT, MCAT). Some improvements presented in this report may be implemented in the short-term while other suggested safety improvements may be considered for future study by FDOT. Each engineering suggestion identified in this study is classified into one of three categories:

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – it is anticipated that issues identified for maintenance may be addressed by public agency staff on a short timeframe and at a relatively low cost.

• Near-Term Project – activities that may be incorporated into an upcoming construction project in the area, including 3R milling and resurfacing projects, or programmed separately through a pushbutton design-build contract.

• Long-Term Project – activities that may be incorporated into upcoming construction projects or may need to be programmed for funding as separate projects.

The issues and suggested improvements reflect the consensus of the safety assessment team and not necessarily that of the FDOT. The field review was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday, June 14-15, 2017. On Wednesday, the team met in the morning to discuss the study corridor and crash history, the walking assessment and observations on the south end of the corridor were made in the afternoon, the PM peak-hour observations were made in the evening, and the night field review was performed that night. On Thursday, the AM peak-hour observations were performed in the morning, the walking assessment and observations on the north end of the corridor were made in the morning, and the concluding discussion with potential improvement suggestions was conducted in the afternoon. During the field review, a subset of the team also drove the corridor to make observations outside the walking assessment limits.

US 41 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT CORRIDOR CHARACTERISTICS

4 | P a g e

Corridor Characteristics The corridor characteristics for the US 41 corridor within the study limits are summarized below:

• Five-lane divided roadway (three lanes southbound) with landscaped median, from University Parkway to Bradenton Connector – 0.410 miles

• Six-lane divided roadway with landscaped median, from Bradenton Connector to Edwards Drive – 0.101 miles

• Six-lane divided roadway with center two-way left-turn lane, from Edwards Drive to Whitfield Avenue – 1.570 miles

• 5 signalized intersections with variable spacing (¼-mile, ½-mile, ¾-mile)

• Posted speeds range from 45 to 50 mph: o 45 mph: south of Edwards Drive o 50 mph: north of Edwards Drive

• 2015 AADTs ranged from 39,500 to 40,500 throughout the corridor

• 4-foot bicycle lanes provided from Edwards Drive to Whitfield Avenue o No bicycle lanes south of Edwards Drive

• Overhead street lighting present along portions of the corridor o Conventional (high pressure sodium) lighting o Lighting present between University Parkway and General Spaatz Boulevard, between

Seagate Drive and Bernard Avenue, and between Ponce De Leon Avenue and Whitfield Avenue

Land Use Context The 2.08-mile corridor contains a variety of adjacent land uses, including the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, hotels, restaurants, local businesses, museums, and college campuses. While there are no residential uses directly adjacent to US 41, there are several residential neighborhood streets connecting to US 41 along the study corridor. Suggested changes to the corridor should consider the varying contexts along the corridor and address all users (e.g., vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, transit users). Focus on specific mode types may change through the corridor’s varying contexts.

US 41 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT FIELD REVIEW FINDINGS

5 | P a g e

Road Safety Audit Field Review Findings

Location: CORRIDOR-WIDE

Issue #1: Vehicular Speed

Description of Issue: Posted speeds range from 45 mph to 50 mph throughout the corridor, from observations and discussion with Manatee County Sherriff Officer, vehicular speeds routinely exceed 60 mph (50 mph posted speed limit) on the section of US 41 north of Edwards Drive. To analyze the approaching speeds along the corridor, 48-hour speed data were collected at two locations along the study corridor. Table 9 summarizes the speed study results for the two locations. 1. Location 1: US 41, North of General Spaatz Boulevard/College Drive 2. Location 2: US 41, North of Somerset Avenue Table: Spot Speed Study (MPH) Speed Data

Percentile Speed

North of General Spaatz Boulevard/College Drive

North of Somerset Avenue

Posted Speed: 45 (MPH) Posted Speed: 50 (MPH)

Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2

SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB

85th 39.5 47.0 39.5 47.1 56.7 64.8 56.2 64.3

90th 41.4 48.4 41.4 48.4 58.5 67.1 58.1 66.2

95th 44.0 49.8 43.9 49.7 60.9 69.6 60.2 69.1

Ten Mile Pace 30 to 39 35 to 44 30 to 39 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 45 to 54 55 to 64


6 | P a g e

Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING The wide 7-lane cross section and approximately 0.8 mile spacing between each of the traffic signals at Tallevast Road, Braden Avenue, and General Spaatz Boulevard may be encouraging drivers to exceed the posted speed limit. The spot speed study conducted north of Somerset Avenue shows that the 85 percentile speed in the northbound direction is approximately 15 mph over the posted speed limit, and that there is a large variation in travel speeds along the corridor, with 5 percent of the northbound traffic traveling over 70 mph. Roadway modifications could utilize engineering and land use features to naturally encourage motorists to “read the road” and drive at the appropriate speeds. Transportation features may include roadway design changes where appropriate, such as narrowing lane widths, reducing the number of lanes, tighter curb radii, roundabouts, and adding street trees and other streetscape elements. Land use and site design elements may include building structures closer to the corridor right-of-way (build-to requirements instead of set-back requirements – this helps to enclose and frame the driving corridor), having minimal or no off-street parking lots adjacent to the corridor right-of-way, encouraging mixed-use buildings with active ground floor uses (which activates more pedestrian activity), and adding other site design features that can “frame” the street and provide visual interest throughout the corridor. Due to the location of the airport east of the corridor, it will be difficult to create a sense of enclosure with land use and site design elements.

• Near-Term Project – narrow travel lanes through resurfacing projects, or programmed separately through a pushbutton design-build contract; lane repurposing

• Long-Term Project – lane repurposing; intersection modifications such as roundabouts

ENFORCEMENT Law enforcement mentioned there are limited resources to enforce posted speeds. Consider investigating state or federal grants to increase speed enforcement.


7 | P a g e

Issue #2: Pedestrian Crossings at Cross-Streets

Description of Issue: Sidewalks crossing side-streets at their respective unsignalized intersections with US 41 do not have pavement markings. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – consider repainting pavement markings at the unsignalized intersections.

• Near-Term Project - consider providing standard crosswalk pavement markings at these unsignalized intersections to facilitate pedestrian crossings and improve pedestrian safety.


8 | P a g e

Issue #3: Crosswalk Markings at Signalized Intersections

Description of Issue: Crosswalk markings at all five signalized intersections are fading, resulting in reduced visibility during both day and night. The intersection of US 41 and General Spaatz Boulevard is the only location with special emphasis crosswalk markings, with the remaining crossings receiving standard treatment. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – consider repainting pavement markings Consider refreshing crosswalk markings and providing special emphasis or ladder style markings for all crosswalks at signalized intersections throughout the corridor.


9 | P a g e

Issue #4: Narrow and Partially Obstructed Sidewalks

Description of Issue: The sidewalks on the northbound approach of US 41 at the University Parkway intersection are four feet wide and narrow to less than 3.5 feet due to overgrown bushes, grass and weeds and light pole obstructions. Sidewalks throughout the corridor are partially obstructed by overgrown bushes and light poles placed in the sidewalk. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Trim and maintain bushes and grass adjacent to sidewalks throughout the corridor; may require code enforcement on private property.

• Long-Term Project – Consider alternative sidewalk alignment and/or additional right-of-way allowing for unobstructed sidewalks to meet future ADA standards or consider relocating utility pole.


10 | P a g e

Issue #5: Obstructions and Pedestrian Hazards in Utility Strip

Description of Issue: At several locations throughout the corridor the utility strip adjacent to the sidewalk was poorly maintained, allowing for tall grass and weeds that may obscure potential pedestrian hazards and encroach upon the sidewalk. Pipes, delineator posts, and abandoned wires or other utilities were also present throughout the utility strip – some with protruding bolts or loose wires that pose danger to pedestrians. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project - Cut and maintain grass in the utility strip. Remove unused and unnecessary poles, posts, or signs that are potential hazards to pedestrians.


11 | P a g e

Issue #6: Sand and Gravel Deposits on Sidewalks

Description of Issue: There are several locations with sand and gravel deposits on the sidewalk surface. Loose gravel is a hazard to pedestrians, wheelchairs, and bicyclists with thin tires, which were frequently observed during the field review. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project - Clean loose debris from the sidewalk and enhance sidewalk maintenance practices as appropriate for the corridor.


12 | P a g e

Issue #7: Sidewalk Slopes across Driveways

Description of Issue: Cross slopes on sidewalks across driveways exceed ADA requirements throughout the corridor. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term/Long-Term Project - This issue, in combination with other driveway related issues, may be improved by reconsideration of access management strategies and reconstruction or closure of driveways. If driveway cannot be closed or relocated on private property, it may be necessary to purchase right of way to provide a flat surface sidewalk between the driveway and the parking lot.


13 | P a g e

Issue #8: Improper ADA Truncated Domes

Description of Issue: Throughout the corridor there are improper and/or worn ADA truncated domes at both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project –replace old and worn out or improperly installed truncated domes.

• Near-Term/Long-Term Projects - ensure that requirements are followed for any new construction.


14 | P a g e

Issue #9: Bicycle Facilities

Description of Issue: Four-foot bike lanes are provided in the northern portion of the corridor (north of Edwards Drive), and no bike lanes are provided in the southern portion of the study area (south of Edwards Drive). All bicyclists observed by the team were on sidewalks (riding both directions). Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term/Long-Term Projects – Introduce signage at all intersections alerting drivers to look both ways for bicyclists. Consider a lane repurposing to reduce the number of lanes to two through lanes in each direction. This allows for a wider buffered bike lane in each direction. This option can also lead to reducing the posted speed limit along the corridor, creating improved conditions for bicycles.

Consider a multi-use path adjacent to the corridor throughout the southern portion of the corridor through The Ringling Museum and New College of Florida and along the airport property along the northern portion of the roadway.


15 | P a g e

• Long-Term Projects – Consider alternative bike routes on streets parallel to the corridor to shift bike traffic to lower volume roads. EDUCATION After improvements are made to the roadway to provide a bicycle facility that meets current standards and/or reduce vehicular travel speeds through engineering, consider an education program to warn bicyclists of the risks associated with riding on the sidewalk against the flow of traffic.


16 | P a g e

Issue #10: Roadway Lighting

Description of Issue: Conventional roadway lighting using high pressure sodium (HPS) is provided throughout portions of the corridor. The HPS lighting did not provide uniform lighting levels along the corridor or at corners of intersections where a light pole was not present. Large overhanging trees adjacent to the roadway near the University Parkway intersection partially block the roadway lighting, resulting in dark spots in this area. Several portions of the corridor that appear to be adjacent to airport runways have no roadway lighting. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term/Long-Term Projects – Consider conducting a lighting assessment along the corridor dark spots along the corridor. Consider lighting alternatives on portions of the corridor adjacent to the airport. LED lighting with lower light poles or sidewalk lighting may be a possibility due to airport conflicts in these areas. When modifying intersections, upgrade lighting at signalized intersections to match current FDOT intersection lighting standards.


17 | P a g e

Issue #11: Nighttime Issues (South to North along the Corridor)

Description of Issue: Inoperative light pole: north of New College pedestrian overpass on west side of US 41 Inoperative internally illuminated overhead signs:

• At General Spaatz Blvd intersection: Tamiami Trail sign over east leg of intersection

• At Braden Avenue intersection: US 41 sign over east leg of intersection

• At Tallevast Road intersection: Gaines Ave sign and US 41 sign over east leg of intersection

• At Whitfield Avenue intersection: US 41 sign over west leg of intersection Street name signs illegible at night or damaged:

• At Edwards Dr: two signs are present and are mostly obscured to traffic because of other roadside signs

• At Seagate Dr: white on brown sign is difficult to read

• At Suwanee Ave: sign is severely bent and not legible

• At Summerset Ave, Bernard Ave, Scott Ave, and Westmoreland Dr: sign panels are mounted on top of side street STOP sign posts. As these side streets are skewed with respect to US 41, the street signs are not perpendicular to US 41 and have poor reflectivity.

• “Braden Ave – Next Signal” sign for southbound US 41 has poor retroreflectivity Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Perform necessary maintenance to replace burnt out

lights and replace signs that are damaged or have poor retroreflectivity.


18 | P a g e

Location: UNIVERSITY PARKWAY INTERSECTION

Issue #12: Poor Sign Visibility

Description of Issue: On the northbound approach, guide signs are obscured and located too close to the intersection; as a result, unfamiliar motorists do not have sufficient advance information to determine the appropriate lane and turning point to access their desired destinations. On the westbound approach, guide signs are also located too close to the intersection. Additionally, guidance onto several locations on this approach is provided on a large concrete wall that creates a roadside hazard, has poor legibility, and has broken lighting. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – In combination with the cantilevered, overhead guide sign to the south, develop a more effective guide sign message and placement strategy to give guidance to these popular destinations.

Remove the concrete destination wall on the westbound approach, replace with a guide sign well in advance of the intersection.


19 | P a g e

Issue #13: Obscured Signal Head

Description of Issue: Views of the northbound to westbound left-turn signal head and one of the northbound signal heads are obscured by overhead foliage from trees in the US 41 median. View of the westbound to southbound left-turn signal head is obscured by overhead foliage from trees in the University Parkway median. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Trim and maintain the trees in the median to allow unobstructed views of the signal heads. If necessary, remove the tree(s).


20 | P a g e

Issue #14: Congestion on Northbound Approach

Description of Issue: Queue lengths of the northbound vehicles during the PM peak extend southward over 0.25 miles, beyond Mecca Drive. Northbound traffic turning right onto eastbound University approaches 300 veh/hr during the afternoon and evening hours, with no right-turn lane for this movement. Crash trends at this locations also show conflicts that are associated with the slowing and turning vehicles, including rear-end and sideswipe crashes. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – The addition of a right-turn lane for the northbound to eastbound movement is suggested. The property in the southeast corner of the intersection is vacant and presently for sale.


21 | P a g e

Issue #15: View of Pedestrians is Obscured

Description of Issue: View of pedestrians at the entrance to the crosswalk in the southeast corner of the intersection is obstructed by the traffic signal control cabinet. The high volume of this conflicting right-turn vehicle movement, coupled with the generous corner radius which enables a fairly high-speed turn, putting pedestrians entering the crosswalk at risk. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – This issue could be addressed through the previously mentioned addition of a right-turn lane for the northbound to eastbound movement

Alternatively, reducing the right-turn corner radius would help reduce vehicles speeds at this location, and relocating the signal control cabinet can also enhance visibility of crossing pedestrians.


22 | P a g e

Issue #16: Crosswalk Alignment

Description of Issue: The east left crosswalk abruptly changes alignment near the median nose. This appears to have been done to allow the southern terminus to connect to the single curb ramp on the southeast corner. The crosswalks on the south leg and the east leg intersect within the intersection, which is undesirable for visually impaired pedestrians. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – Consider realigning the crosswalks on the south and east legs to straighten and shorten walking distances. Separate curb ramps should be provided with the new alignment. This could be accomplished by reducing the curb return radius, relocating the westbound stop bar, and relocating and aligning the crosswalk.


23 | P a g e

Issue #17: Restricted Right-Turn Visibility

Description of Issue: Drivers attempting westbound to northbound right turns on red have a restricted view of high speed northbound through vehicles. Crash history at this location shows high rear-end crashes, caused by drivers that begin the right-turn movement, but then must stop and are struck from behind. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Conduct an engineering study, following the 2009 MUTCD, to evaluate if a No Turn on Red sign (R10-11 or R 10-11a) or, a “blank-out” no turn on red sign could be installed and activated during high volume conditions.

• Near-Term Projects – Consider relocating the signal control cabinet on the southeast corner of the intersection, and trimming the vegetation that restricts sight lines to the south.


24 | P a g e

Issue #18: Hidden and Faded Lane Markings

Description of Issue: Lane designation pavement markings (arrows) on the west leg of the intersection are not visible to the motorist until the driver is very close to the intersection. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Reapply new left-turn, through, and right-turn arrows further in advance of the intersection on the westbound approach. Consider the vertical curve on this approach, and ensure that arrow markings are placed before the crest of the curve.


25 | P a g e

Issue #19: Poor Sign Visibility

Description of Issue: There are “no turn on red when pedestrians are present” signs displayed on the signal mast arms facing the eastbound and westbound approaches. These signs are excessively wordy and have small letters, making them difficult for drivers to see and obey. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Projects – Replace existing signs with TURNING VEHICLES MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS (R10-15). Conduct an engineering study, following the 2009 MUTCD, to evaluate if a No Turn on Red sign (R10-11 or R 10-11a) or, a “blank-out” no turn on red sign could be installed and activated during high volume conditions.


26 | P a g e

Issue #20: No Sidewalks

Description of Issue: There are no sidewalks or bicycle lanes on either side of the Ringling Museum entrance roadway. Pedestrians must walk within the roadway or through the grass, risking exposure to both pedestrians and vehicles or hazards and providing limited access for handicapped pedestrians. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – Consider working with the Ringling Museum and other entities that use this driveway to construct sidewalks or shared use paths along both the north and south sides of the divided roadway on this approach.


27 | P a g e

Issue #21: Southbound Lane Drop

Description of Issue: The leftmost of the three southbound lanes on US 41 becomes a left-turn only lane at the University Parkway intersection. Commonly referred to as a “trap lane,” this lane drop treatment often results in rapid lane changes from drivers who do not realize that the lane does not continue through the intersection. Overhead guide signs 0.1 miles north of the intersection advise that airport traffic should turn “left at signal;” however, there is no indication at this point that the leftmost lane becomes a left-turn only lane at the intersection. The sign informing motorists that the inside lane must turn left is hidden by tress. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – Relocate the ground ‘left turn must turn left’ sign. Consider modification to the overhead signs to more clearly indicate the use of the leftmost lane. In addition, roadside lane designation signs (R3-8 series) or over lane panels (R3-5 series) should be installed. Pavement arrows which accentuate the mandated left-turn from the third lane should also be considered for installation in advance of the intersection.


28 | P a g e

Issue #22: No North Leg Crosswalk

Description of Issue: There are no pedestrian crossing facilities across the north leg of the intersection. This may be due to the conflict with the southbound two-lane left-turn movement and the high volume of westbound right-turn vehicles. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – Consider installing a crosswalk and associated pedestrian countdown signals at this location. Conduct an engineering study to evaluate the possibility of restricting the conflicting westbound right-turn on red movement (as previously mentioned due to sight distance issues), would also be recommended with the installation of a crosswalk at this location. The study should evaluate the potential impact and mitigation strategy for the westbound right turning movement.


29 | P a g e

Issue #23: Beverly Dr Median Opening

Description of Issue: A full median opening is provided at Beverly Drive. This median opening is approximately 150 feet from the University Parkway intersection, and within the northbound to westbound left-turn lane. Vehicles using this median opening also have restricted vision due to the trees in the median of US 41. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – Consider closing this median opening and allowing only right-in right-out movements at the Beverly Drive intersection.


30 | P a g e

Issue #24: Intersection Visibility

Description of Issue: The roadway curvature and tree canopy on the westbound approach limit the intersection sight distance. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Consider installing a “signal ahead” sign in order to provide motorists with advance warning of the upcoming intersection.


31 | P a g e

Location: UNIVERSITY PARKWAY TO GENERAL SPAATZ BOULEVARD

Issue #25: Sarasota Classic Car Museum Driveway

Description of Issue: The entrance to the Sarasota Classic Car Museum is on the east side of US 41 and approximately 400 feet north of the University Parkway intersection. The cross-slope of the sidewalk across the entrance is 12 percent and then driveway exhibits gouging from vehicle undercarriages. Further, the parking lot has no markings to discipline entering and exiting traffic. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term/Long-Term Projects – Consider reconstructing the driveway and adding a sidewalk in conjunction with on-premises driveway and parking lot improvements to relieve grade differential and delineate preferred vehicle circulation. May require purchasing right of way.


32 | P a g e

Issue #26: Classic Car Museum Median Opening

Description of Issue: There is a channelized left-turn median opening to accommodate turns from southbound US 41 into the classic car museum. The opening is located within the storage length required for the southbound to eastbound left-turns queueing at the University Parkway intersection, limiting the storage length of the leftmost turn lane. The proximity to the University Parkway intersection can also lead to confusion for unfamiliar southbound drivers attempting to turn left onto University Parkway. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – Unless there is a binding agreement between FDOT and the classic car museum to maintain the median opening, consider closing the median opening and allowing for the leftmost left-turn lane for the University Parkway intersection to be extended northward.


33 | P a g e

Issue #27: Ringling Museum Driveway

Description of Issue: There is a right-turn lane on southbound US 41 to enter the Ringling Museum and Asolo Theater; it is complemented by a corresponding acceleration lane onto southbound US 41 for vehicles exiting the parking lot at this driveway. At the entry/exit point, the two lanes are separated by a raised concrete “pork chop” island which channelizes the movements. The island is gray with no distinguishable markings, making it a hazard to unfamiliar motorists. The channelized movements also promote high speeds at this driveway, creating hazardous crossing conditions for pedestrians attempting to cross this driveway at unmarked crossings. High speeds by vehicles entering this driveway also presents problems for vehicles and pedestrians within the parking lot. Vehicle are currently able to cross three lanes into the left-turn lane serving the classic car museum, which creates a hazardous situation.

Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – Consider closing this driveway as vehicle access is already provided via the main entrance at the University Parkway intersection.

Alternatively, consider removing the acceleration lane and providing marked crosswalks across the driveway opening if it is to remain. If the acceleration lane is needed, consider extending a nose to not allow a vehicle to cross three lanes into the left-turn lane serving the classic car museum.


34 | P a g e

Issue #28: Exposed Wiring

Description of Issue: Access cover to a light pole on the west side of US 41 is out of position or broken. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Securely reattach light pole access cover.


35 | P a g e

Issue #29: Narrow Sidewalk

Description of Issue: The sidewalk narrows under the pedestrian overpass bridge at New College of Florida. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Long-Term Projects – Consider reconstruction of the pedestrian bridge to provide sufficient access under the bridge and also improve ADA access for the path that crossing US 41 on the bridge.

As discussed in Issue #9, consider reducing the number of lanes on US 41 or narrowing the vehicular travel lanes in order to provide room for pedestrian and bicycle facilities to also fit under the pedestrian bridge at this location.

Consider a shared use path to connect to and use the pedestrian bridge as it provides bicycle and pedestrian facilities along US 41 through the Ringling Museum, Asolo Theater, and New College of Florida areas. To be ADA compliant, this may require the construction of a switch back ramp.


36 | P a g e

Issue #30: Access to Transit Stop

Description of Issue: There is a SCAT southbound transit stop just north of the pedestrian bridge. There is no nearby crossing location to serve riders boarding or alighting at this location. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – Consider moving the transit stop close to the College Drive signal and crosswalk to facilitate pedestrians crossing US 41.

• Long-Term Projects – Consider a walkway up the nearby hill at the current transit stop location, allowing transit riders to use the pedestrian bridge to cross US 41. To be ADA compliant, this may require the construction of a switch back ramp.


37 | P a g e

Location: General Spaatz Boulevard/College Drive Intersection

Issue #31: Crosswalks

Description of Issue: There is no crosswalk across the north leg of the intersection. Additionally, the existing crosswalks are not aligned properly with curb ramps on corner radii. The terminus of the west leg crosswalk misses the curb ramp by several feet and extends beyond the vehicle stop line. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Projects – Consider adding a crosswalk with pedestrian countdown signal to the intersection’s north leg. Consider realigning crosswalks at this intersection to align with curb ramps, some reconstruction of curb ramps may also be necessary.


38 | P a g e

Issue #32: Rusted Mast Arm

Description of Issue: On the northeast corner of the intersection the mast arm and mast arm support pole are rusted. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Sand blast and repaint the poles, if the rust damage is too extensive a new mast arm and mast arm support pole may be required.


39 | P a g e

Issue #33: Night Visibility Issues

Description of Issue: Two street lights in the northeast corner of the intersection are burnt out. On the westbound approach, pavement markings are not visible at night. On the westbound approach, the internally illuminated street name sign is burnt out (as discussed in issue 11). Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Replace the inoperative lights and refresh the faded pavement markings that are no longer reflective.


40 | P a g e

Location: General Spaatz Boulevard/College Drive to Braden Avenue

Issue #34: Bradenton Connector

Description of Issue: There is no painted crosswalk with handicapped ramps at this location. There is a pedestrian crosswalk warning sign, but no crosswalk signage at the crosswalk. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Consider adding crosswalk signage and painted markings at the crosswalk location.


41 | P a g e

Issue #35: Sidewalk Alignment

Description of Issue: On the west side of US 41, near the New College campus bookstore, the sidewalks along US 41 and Bayshore Road converge. The US 41 sidewalk runs parallel to the Bayshore sidewalk briefly, then abruptly terminates, require a pedestrian or bicyclist to shift his or her path to continue on the US 41 sidewalk. Such an abrupt shift could be a hazard to bicyclists traveling on the sidewalk (which is a common occurrence due to the poor bicycle lanes along the corridor). Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Project – Consider extending the US 41 sidewalk northward to provide a larger area for a more gradual shift by bicyclists.


42 | P a g e

Issue #36: No Divided Highway Sign

Description of Issue: The grassed/landscaped median which extends southward on US 41 into Sarasota begins at the county line near Edwards Dive. This is the introduction of the median to southbound traffic and there should be a divided highway warning sign for southbound US 41 traffic. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Consider installing a divided highway warning sign (W6-1) in the median for southbound US 41 drivers.


43 | P a g e

Location: BRADEN AVENUE INTERSECTION


Description of Issue: There are crosswalks across the west, north, and east legs of the intersection. The termini of the crosswalks at the northwest and northeast corners are not marked properly, with adjacent crosswalks partially converging within the intersection at a single curb ramp. There is no crosswalk across the south leg of the intersection. There is a transit stop at the southeast corner of this intersection. Based on boarding and alighting information provided by MCAT, this transit stops has between 11 to 25 average daily boardings and alightings, one of the four most utilized stops along the corridor after the airport. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Project – Consider redesign of crosswalks across all four legs of the intersection, with expanded or additional curb ramps as necessary. This may also require reconstruction of drainage inlets.


44 | P a g e

Issue #38: Drainage

Description of Issue: There is soil and debris in the gutter at the northeast corner of the intersection, indicating ponding of storm water. It appears that the ponding may encroach upon the pedestrian crosswalk. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Consider sweeping the gutter and checking the drainage

efficiency.

• Near-Term Project – If necessary, adjust the gutter grade as needed.


45 | P a g e

Location: BRADEN AVENUE TO TALLEVAST ROAD/GAINES AVENUE

Issue #39: Narrow Sidewalk

Description of Issue: The sidewalk along the east side of US 41 just north of Suwanee Avenue is very narrow along a portion of the adjacent commercial building frontage. The existing sidewalk is not ADA compliant in some locations. Bicyclists traversing this area may have difficulty avoiding impact with the buildings. Departure of a bicycle onto the crushed shell in the buffer behind the curb could cause the bicyclist to lose control. Wheelchairs may not be able to negotiate this location. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Project – Consider widening the sidewalk within the buffer to match the cross section of the crosswalk further to the north.


46 | P a g e

Issue #40: Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing

Description of Issue: There is a concrete slab between the sidewalk and the curb on the east side of US 41 north of Suwanee Avenue. It is directly across the street from a transit stop on the west side of US 41. The slab at this location could be interpreted by a transit user as a pad, indicating a point from which to cross US 41. This is a high-speed, mid-block location and crossing US 41 at this location would be extremely hazardous. This location may have formally been a transit stop. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Consider removing the concrete slab at this location and studying this location for a future midblock crossing if the cross section of the roadway is reduced at a later time.


47 | P a g e

Issue #41: Sidewalk Hazard

Description of Issue: In front of the Pro Cars business, there is a utility vault beneath the sidewalk on the east side of US 41. The two-piece lid of the vault is intended to be traversable, but one leaf is not properly fastened, creating a tripping hazard for pedestrians, and an impediment to wheelchairs. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – FDOT maintenance should contact and coordinate with the utility for necessary repairs.


48 | P a g e

Issue #42: Intersection Skew

Description of Issue: The skew of Ponce de Leon Avenue with respect to US 41 allows northbound US 41 drivers to turn onto Ponce de Leon Avenue at relatively high speed. However, there is ample evidence that many drivers making the turn cannot stay within the receiving lane and encroach upon the opposing lane. The RSA team observed this several times during the field review. Although no specific crash history was noted, this situation could result in a serious head-on or sideswipe crash with a southbound vehicle on Ponce de Leon Avenue approaching the intersection. It was also noted that pavement markings appear washed out at this intersection, and were especially difficult to see at night, likely due to vehicles driving over them at high speeds as they do not stay in the receiving lane. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Refresh pavement markings on the approach on Ponce de Leon Avenue.

• Near-Term Project – Consider modifying the intersection to shift the southbound Ponce de Leon Avenue approach lane further to the north at the intersection with a painted island to separate the opposing movements.

• Near-Term/Long-Term Project – Consider closing Ponce de Leon Avenue, as it serves solely as a cut-through to eastbound Tallevast Road. The land between Ponce De Leon Avenue and Tallevast Road is owned by the Airport, is located within the Airport Runway Protection Zone and will not be developed.


49 | P a g e

Issue #43: Poor Retroreflectivity

Description of Issue: At the intersection of Ponce de Leon Avenue, during the night observations, the STOP sign and street name signs had poor retroreflectivity. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Consider updating these signs to meet current retroreflectivity standards.


50 | P a g e

Issue #44: Sidewalk

Description of Issue: The sidewalk on the west side of Ponce de Leon Avenue does not connect to the sidewalk on the east side of US 41 at the intersection and dead-ends into the roadway. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Project – In conjunction with any measures taken to address intersection skew at this location, connect the two sidewalks and install suitable crosswalk markings and handicapped ramps.


51 | P a g e

Location: TALLEVAST ROAD/GAINES AVENUE TO WHITFIELD AVENUE

Issue #45: Narrow Driveways (Fliss)

Description of Issue: At the Fliss Laser and Chiropractic office on the east side of US 41, there are two extremely narrow driveways, with the narrowest less than 12 feet at the curb line. Northbound motorists choosing to enter either of these driveways must slow tremendously to avoid a jarring impact from the US 41 curb. This situation increases the potential for rear-end and sideswipe crashes in this section. There is also a third driveway opening at this property which leads an entering motorist directly into a row of bushes. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Project – Consider contacting the property owner to recommend a single access drive which adequately serves the property and conforms to standards to be constructed, while the other three substandard driveways are removed.


52 | P a g e

Issue #46: Narrow Driveway (Chambers Medical)

Description of Issue: At Chambers Medical Group on the east side of US 41, there is a narrow driveway (14 feet at the curb line). There is evidence of entering vehicles impacting the curb and rutting the grassed utility strip. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Near-Term Project – Consider reconstructing this driveway to widen it in accordance with current standards.


53 | P a g e

Issue #47: Limited Sight Distance

Description of Issue: At the intersection with Bernard Avenue sight distance to vehicles on US 41 is limited due to the setback of the stop bar. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Consider moving the stop bar closer to the intersection to improve sight distance.


54 | P a g e

Location: WHITFIELD AVENUE INTERSECTION


Description of Issue: There are crosswalks on each leg of the intersection. The termini of the crosswalks at all four corners are not marked properly, with adjacent crosswalks partially converging within the intersection at a single curb ramp. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – Replace the missing section of tactile surface on the southeast corner curb ramp.

• Near-Term Project – Consider crosswalk redesign to apply new crosswalk markings across all four legs of the intersection, with expanded or additional curb ramps as necessary.


55 | P a g e

Issue #49: Pedestrian Signal

Description of Issue: The countdown timer does not work on the pedestrian signal for the west approach in the northwest corner of the intersection. Suggestions for Improvement: ENGINEERING

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project –Perform necessary maintenance on the pedestrian signal to provide correct operation.


56 | P a g e

Summary of Suggestions This pedestrian and bicycle safety assessment considers operational and safety related issues for all users on US 41/Tamiami Trail from University Parkway to Whitfield Avenue. This study was commissioned by FDOT District One in conjunction with the US 41 Corridor Planning Study to develop engineering, education, and enforcement recommendations to improve the safety of all users along the study corridor. The suggestions identified in this report are summarized as follows: ENGINEERING Each engineering suggestion identified in this study is classified into one of three categories and summarized in the tables on the following pages:

• Short-Term or Maintenance Project – it is anticipated that issues identified for maintenance may be addressed by public agency staff on a short timeframe and at a relatively low cost.

• Near-Term Project – activities that may be incorporated into an upcoming construction project in the area, including 3R milling and resurfacing projects, or programmed separately through a pushbutton design-build contract.

• Long-Term Project – activities that may be incorporated into upcoming construction projects or may need to be programmed for funding as separate projects.

EDUCATION Potential corridor-focused education efforts are noted below:

• Bicycles: Warn bicyclists of the risks associated with riding on the sidewalk against the flow of traffic

• Bicycles: Educate bicyclists regarding best practices for nighttime riding and provide resources (e.g., bike lights, reflectors, wear bright or retroreflective clothing)

• Motorists: Yield to pedestrians in crosswalks

• Motorists: Watch for pedestrians and bicyclists at driveways (look both ways)

• Pedestrians: Use of designated crosswalks and use of pedestrian signals

• Pedestrians: Educate pedestrians regarding being visible at night ENFORCEMENT Potential corridor-focused enforcement efforts are noted below:

• Motorists: Consider investigating state or federal grants to increase speed enforcement in areas with high volumes of transit users, pedestrians, and bicycles.

The issues and suggested improvements reflect the consensus of the safety assessment team and not necessarily that of the FDOT.

US 41 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT REPORT FIELD REVIEW FINDINGS SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS

57 | P a g e

Table 1: Short-Term or Maintenance Project Projects

Location Issue No. Issue Suggestion

Corridor-Wide 2 Pedestrian Crossings at Cross-Streets Consider repainting pavement markings at the unsignalized intersections.

Corridor-Wide 3 Pedestrian Crossings at Signalized Intersections

Consider refreshing pavement markings, including existing crosswalk markings.

Corridor-Wide 3 Pedestrian Crossings at Signalized Intersections

Consider providing special emphasis crosswalk markings for all crosswalks at signalized intersections in the corridor.

Corridor-Wide 4 Narrow and Obstructed Sidewalks Trim and maintain vegetation adjacent to sidewalks throughout the corridor; may require code enforcement on private property.

Corridor-Wide 5 Obstructions and Pedestrian Hazards in Utility Strip

Cut and maintain grass and vegetation in the utility strip.

Corridor-Wide 5 Obstructions and Pedestrian Hazards in Utility Strip

Remove unused and unnecessary poles, posts, or signs that are a hazard to pedestrians.

Corridor-Wide 6 Sand and Gravel Deposits on Sidewalks Clean loose debris from the sidewalk and enhance maintenance practices as needed.

Corridor-Wide 8 Improper ADA Truncated Domes Replace worn out or improper ADA truncated domes.

Corridor-Wide 11 Nighttime Issues Perform necessary maintenance to replace inoperative lights and replace signs that are damaged or have poor retroreflectivity.

University Parkway Intersection 13 Obscured Signal Head Trim and maintain trees in the median throughout the corridor.

University Parkway Intersection 17 Restricted Right-Turn Visibility Conduct an engineering study, following the 2009 MUTCD, to evaluate if a No Turn on Red sign (R10-11 or R 10-11a) or , a “blank-out” no turn on red sign could be installed and activated during high volume conditions.

University Parkway Intersection 18 Hidden and Faded Lane Markings Update pavement markings.

University Parkway Intersection 19 Poor Sign Visibility Replace existing signs with TURNING VEHICLES MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS (R10-15).

University Parkway Intersection 19 Poor Sign Visibility Conduct an engineering study, following the 2009 MUTCD, to evaluate if a No Turn on Red sign (R10-11 or R 10-11a) or, a “blank-out” no turn on red sign could be installed and activated during high volume conditions.

University Parkway Intersection 24 Intersection Visibility Consider installing SIGNAL AHEAD warning sign.

University Parkway to General Spaatz Blvd

28 Exposed Wiring Securely reattach light pole access cover.

General Spaatz Blvd Intersection 32 Rusted Mast Arm Sandblast and repaint mast arm and mast arm support.

General Spaatz Blvd Intersection 33 Night Visibility Issues Replace inoperative luminaires and refresh pavement markings.

General Spaatz Blvd to Braden Ave 34 Bradenton Connector Consider adding crosswalk pavement markings and crosswalk sign.

General Spaatz Blvd to Braden Ave 36 No Divided Highway Sign Consider installing divided highway warning sign (W6-1).

Braden Ave Intersection 38 Drainage Sweep gutter and check for drainage efficacy.

Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd 40 Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing Consider removing the concrete slab at this location.

Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd 41 Sidewalk Hazard Coordinate with the utility for the necessary repairs.

Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd 42 Intersection Skew Refresh pavement markings.

Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd 43 Poor Retroreflectivity Replace signs to meet retroreflectivity standards.

Tallevast Rd to Whitfield Ave 47 Limited Sight Distance Move stop bar closer to US 41 intersection.

Whitfield Avenue Intersection 48 Crosswalks Replace the missing section of tactile surface on the southeast corner curb ramp.

Whitfield Avenue Intersection 49 Pedestrian Signal Perform maintenance needed to fix countdown timer on pedestrian signal.


58 | P a g e

Table 2: Near-Term Projects


Corridor-Wide 1 Vehicular Speed Narrow travel lanes through resurfacing projects, or programmed separately through a pushbutton design-build contract; lane repurposing

Corridor-Wide 2 Pedestrian Crossings at Cross-Streets Consider providing standard crosswalk pavement markings across cross-streets at unsignalized stop controlled intersections.

Corridor-Wide 7 Sidewalk Slopes across Driveways Consider access management strategies, including reconstruction and consolidation of driveways.

Corridor-Wide 8 Improper ADA Truncated Domes Ensure that requirements for installing truncated domes are followed for any new construction.

Corridor-Wide 9 Bicycle Facilities Introduce signage at all intersections alerting drivers to look both ways for bicyclists.

Corridor-Wide 9 Bicycle Facilities Consider a lane repurposing to reduce the number of lanes to two through lanes in each direction. This allows for a wider buffered bike lane in each direction. This option can also lead to reducing the posted speed limit along the corridor, creating improved conditions for bicycles.

Corridor-Wide 9 Bicycle Facilities Consider a multi-use path adjacent to the corridor throughout the southern portion of the corridor through The Ringling Museum and New College of Florida and along the airport property along the northern portion of the roadway.

Corridor-Wide 10 Roadway Lighting Consider conducting a lighting assessment along the corridor dark spots along the corridor.

Corridor-Wide 10 Roadway Lighting Consider lighting alternatives on portions of the corridor adjacent to the airport. LED lighting with lower light poles or sidewalk lighting may be a possibility due to airport conflicts in these areas.

Corridor-Wide 10 Roadway Lighting When modifying intersections, upgrade lighting at signalized intersections to match current FDOT intersection lighting standards.

University Parkway Intersection 12 Poor Sign Visibility Consider develop a more effective guide sign message and placement strategy to give guidance to these popular destinations, consolidating existing guide signs and move in advance of the intersection.

University Parkway Intersection 12 Poor Sign Visibility Remove concrete destination wall, replace with appropriate guide sign in advance of the intersection.

University Parkway Intersection 14 Congestion on Northbound Approach Add a right-turn lane for the northbound to eastbound movement

University Parkway Intersection 15 View of Pedestrians is Obscured Add a right-turn lane for the northbound to eastbound movement.

University Parkway Intersection 15 View of Pedestrians is Obscured Consider relocating the signal control cabinet to improve visibility.

University Parkway Intersection 16 Crosswalk Alignment Consider realigning crosswalks.

University Parkway Intersection 17 Restricted Right-Turn Visibility Consider relocating the signal control cabinet on the southeast corner of the intersection, and trimming the vegetation that restricts sight lines to the south.

University Parkway Intersection 20 No Sidewalks Consider working with the Ringling Museum and other entities that use this driveway to construct a sidewalk or shared use paths along both the north and south sides of the divided roadway on this approach.

University Parkway Intersection 21 Southbound Lane Drop

Relocate the ground ‘left turn must turn left’ sign. Consider modification to the overhead signs to more clearly indicate the use of the leftmost lane. In addition, roadside lane designation signs (R3-8 series) or over lane panels (R3-5 series) should be installed. Pavement arrows which accentuate the mandated left-turn from the third lane should also be considered for installation in advance of the intersection.

University Parkway Intersection 22 No North Leg Crosswalk Consider installing a crosswalk and associated pedestrian countdown signals at this location.

University Parkway Intersection 22 No North Leg Crosswalk Conduct an engineering study to evaluate the possibility of restricting the conflicting westbound right-turn on red movement (as previously mentioned due to sight distance issues), would also be recommended with the installation of a crosswalk at this location. The study should evaluate the potential impact and mitigation strategy for the westbound right turning movement.

University Parkway Intersection 23 Beverly Dr Median Opening Consider closing this median opening and allowing only right-in right-out movements at the Beverly Drive intersection.


25 Sarasota Classic Car Museum Driveway Consider reconstructing the sidewalk in conjunction with on-premises driveway and parking lot improvements to relieve grade differential and delineate preferred vehicle circulation. May require purchasing right of way.


26 Classic Car Museum Median Opening Unless there is a binding agreement between FDOT and the classic car museum to maintain the median opening, consider closing the median opening and allowing for the leftmost left-turn lane for the University Parkway intersection to be extended northward.


59 | P a g e



27 Ringling Museum Driveway Consider closing this driveway as vehicle access is already provided via the main entrance at the University Parkway intersection.


27 Ringling Museum Driveway Consider removing the acceleration lane and providing marked crosswalks across the driveway opening if it is to remain. If the acceleration lane is needed, consider extending a nose to not allow a vehicle to cross three lanes into the left-turn lane serving the classic car museum.


30 Access to Transit Stop Consider moving the transit stop close to the College Drive signal and crosswalk to facilitate pedestrians crossing US 41.

General Spaatz Blvd Intersection 31 Crosswalks Consider adding a crosswalk with pedestrian countdown signal to the north leg of the intersection. Consider realigning crosswalks at this intersection to align with curb ramps, some reconstruction of curb ramps may also be necessary.

General Spaatz Blvd to Braden Ave 35 Sidewalk Alignment Consider extending the US 41 sidewalk northward to provide a larger area for a more gradual shift by bicyclists.

Braden Ave Intersection 37 Crosswalks Consider redesign of crosswalks across all four legs of the intersection, with expanded or additional curb ramps as necessary. This may also require reconstruction of drainage inlets.

Braden Ave Intersection 38 Drainage Adjust gutter grade as needed based on current drainage efficacy.

Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd 39 Narrow Sidewalk Consider widening the sidewalk within the buffer to match the cross section of the crosswalk further to the north.

Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd 42 Intersection Skew Consider closing Ponce de Leon Avenue, as it serves solely as a cut-through to eastbound Tallevast Road.

Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd 42 Intersection Skew Consider modifying the intersection to shift the southbound Ponce de Leon Avenue approach lane further to the north at the intersection with a painted island to separate the opposing movements.

Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd 44 Sidewalk In conjunction with any measures taken to address intersection skew at this location, connect the two sidewalks and install suitable crosswalk markings and handicapped ramps.

Tallevast Rd to Whitfield Ave 45 Narrow Driveways (Fliss) Consider contacting the property owner to recommend a single access drive which adequately serves the property and conforms to standards to be constructed, while the other three substandard driveways are removed.

Tallevast Rd to Whitfield Ave 46 Narrow Driveways (Chambers Medical) Consider reconstructing this driveway to widen it in accordance with current standards.

Whitfield Avenue Intersection 48 Crosswalks Consider crosswalk redesign to apply new crosswalk markings across all four legs of the intersection, with expanded or additional curb ramps as necessary.


60 | P a g e

Table 3: Long-Term Projects


Corridor-Wide 1 Vehicular Speed Lane repurposing; intersection modifications such as roundabouts

Corridor-Wide 4 Narrow and Obstructed Sidewalks Consider alternative sidewalk alignment and/or additional right-of-way allowing for unobstructed sidewalks to meet future ADA standards or consider relocating utility pole.

Corridor-Wide 9 Bicycle Facilities Consider alternative bike routes on streets parallel to the corridor to shift bike traffic to lower volume roads.

University Parkway Intersection 14 Congestion on Northbound Approach The addition of a right-turn lane for the northbound to eastbound movement is suggested. The property in the southeast corner of the intersection is vacant and presently for sale.

University Parkway Intersection 15 View of Pedestrians is Obscured This issue would be addressed through the previously mentioned right-turn lane. Alternatively, reducing the right-turn corner radius would help reduce vehicles speeds at this location, and relocating the signal control cabinet can also visibility of crossing pedestrians.


29 Narrow Sidewalk Consider reconstruction of the pedestrian bridge to provide sufficient access under the bridge and also improve ADA access for the path that crosses US 41 on the bridge.


29 Narrow Sidewalk Consider reducing the number of lanes on US 41 in order to provide room for pedestrian and bicycle facilities to also fit under the pedestrian bridge at this location.


29 Narrow Sidewalk Consider a shared use path to connect to and use the pedestrian bridge as it provides bicycle and pedestrian facilities along US 41 through the Ringling Museum, Asolo Theater, and New College of Florida areas. To be ADA compliant, this may require the construction of a switch back ramp.


30 Access to Transit Stop Consider a walkway up the nearby hill at the current transit stop location, allowing transit riders to use the pedestrian bridge to cross US 41. To be ADA compliant, this may require the construction of a switch back ramp.

Appendix A Historical Crash Summary

US 41 HISTORICAL CRASH SUMMARY

1 | P a g e

Corridor Planning Study Existing Safety Performance

US 41 from

University Parkway to Whitfield Avenue

Sarasota and Manatee Counties Background The analysis of existing safety performance for the US 41 corridor from University Parkway to Whitfield Avenue is undertaken in support of the US 41 Corridor Planning Study for this roadway section. The existing safety performance based on both field review and historical crash data will be reviewed and documented in support of determining existing multimodal corridor needs, existing and future regional travel needs, and community visions and desires for this portion of US 41. This safety analysis will also support the identification and evaluation of possible improvement scenarios, including intersection improvements and modifications of the typical section along US 41. The US 41 analysis of existing safety performance will take place between University Parkway and Whitfield Avenue (2.081 miles). The project area and total number of crashes from 2011-2015 for each location are provided in Figure 1. The existing segment characteristics are reviewed below: Existing Segment Characteristics

Posted speed limit of 45-50 mph over the limits of the study corridor;

Study corridor consists of segments of five-lane (three lanes southbound) divided with landscaped median (south of Bradenton Connector – 0.410 miles), six-lane divided with landscaped median (between Bradenton Connector and Edwards Dr – 0.101 miles), and six-lane divided with center two-way left-turn lane (north of Edwards Rd – 1.570 miles);

Marked bike lanes (4 ft) are provided north of Edwards Dr;

Curb and gutter is present over the length of the study corridor;

There are continuous sidewalks on both sides of the roadway over the length of the study corridor;

Overhead street lighting is present between University Pkwy and College Dr/General Spaatz Blvd, between Seagate Dr and Bernard Ave, and between Ponce De Leon Ave and Whitfield Ave;

The land use is primarily commercial directly adjacent on both sides of the roadway, with some residential behind to the west, Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport to the east, and USF Sarasota-Manatee campus and New College of Florida along the west side of the corridor;

The corridor is served by SCAT Route 99; and

There are five (5) signalized intersections in the corridor: at University Parkway, College Drive/General Spaatz Boulevard, Braden Avenue, Tallevast Road, and Whitfield Avenue.


2 | P a g e

Figure 1: Study Area

Crash History (2011 – 2015)

Five (5) years of available vehicular crash data, 2011 to 2015, were utilized for the US 41 crash analysis. Crash data was obtained from two sources: 1. The FDOT Crash Analysis Reporting System (CARS) database from 2011 to 2015 and 2. The Signal Four Analytics database, maintained by the University of Florida from 2011 to 2015. Collision diagrams were created at the signalized intersections along the corridor to summarize the crash history. Collision diagrams were also created for fatal crashes, pedestrian crashes, and bicycle crashes along the segments between the signalized intersections. The collision diagrams are included in the Appendix. For each site (intersection or segment), a five-year average crash rate was computed based on the observed crashes and AADT. This crash rate was compared to county (C), district (D), and statewide (S) crash rates to find a Safety Ratio to identify sites that potentially present a safety concern. The Safety Ratios (calculated as compared to county, district,


3 | P a g e

and statewide) are presented for each location in its respective section below. A Safety Ratio greater than 1.0 is one indication that the location is a safety concern. A total of 474 vehicular crashes were reported over the five-year study period. Of the 474 crashes reported during the study period, there were three fatal crashes (0.6 percent), 161 injury crashes (34.0 percent), and 310 property damage only (PDO) crashes (65.4 percent). Crash Trends The reported crashes are displayed by different measures of time (year, month, day, and hour) as follows. Overall, the number of crashes has increased between 2011 and 2015. Over the same five-year time period (2011-2015), the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) has generally increased along the corridor, increasing each year up to 2014, and decreasing in 2015. Despite the AADT decrease in 2015, crashes increased by 20 percent. September (48 crashes) was the highest crash month during the year, with the summer months of May through August generally showing fewer crashes than the rest of the year. Monday (78 crashes) and Friday (83 crashes) were the highest crash days of the week. Seventy (70) percent of all crashes occurred between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, with peaks evident during the morning, mid-day, and evening periods.

The reported crashes by crash type are displayed below. Fifty-one (51) percent (242 crashes) were rear-end related, 15 percent (69 crashes) sideswipe related, 10 percent (49 crashes) left-turn related, nine percent (42 crashes) run-off-the-road, and seven percent (34 crashes) angle related. Thirty-seven (37) percent of crashes occurred under non-daylight conditions.


4 | P a g e

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes There were a total of 10 pedestrian and bicycle crashes (5 pedestrian-related and 5 bicycle-related) along the corridor. Ten (10) percent (1 crash) were fatal crashes, 80 percent (8 crashes) were injury-related, and 10 percent (1 crash) was PDO. Fifty (50) percent (5 crashes) of the crashes occurred during non-daylight conditions. April (4 crashes) accounted for the highest number of pedestrian/bicycle crashes, while Friday (3 crashes) was the highest crash day. Four crashes occurred with the pedestrian/bicyclist crossing US 41 at an unmarked mid-block location (3 pedestrian, 1 bicycle), two crashes occurred at crosswalks of signalized intersections (1 pedestrian, 1 bicycle), and two crashes occurred along the corridor as bicycles were riding on the sidewalk and hit at driveways openings. The fatal pedestrian crash occurred north of Braden Avenue and south of Hernando Avenue; the pedestrian was crossing US 41 at an unmarked mid-block location and was determined to have been under the influence of alcohol. The following bullets further summarized the pedestrian and bicycle crashes distribution along the corridor: Intersections

University Parkway – 1 pedestrian and 2 bicycle

Braden Avenue – 1 pedestrian

Segments

Edwards Drive to Braden Avenue – 3 pedestrian and 2 bicycle

Braden Avenue to Tallevast Road – 1 bicycle Intersection Crash Statistics Of the 474 total crashes along the US 41 corridor, 303 crashes (64 percent) occurred at the five signalized intersections. The individual crash statistics for each of those intersections is detailed as follows:

US 41 at University Parkway (172 crashes)

US 41 at College Drive/General Spaatz Boulevard (33 crashes)

US 41 at Braden Avenue (30 crashes)

US 41 at Tallevast Road (34 crashes)

US 41 at Whitfield Avenue (34 crashes) The individual crash statistics for the intersections are detailed below.


5 | P a g e

US 41 at University Parkway (172 total crashes)

Safety Ratio: 2.31 (C), 1.93 (D), 1.60 (S)

25 percent (43 crashes) were injury-related and 75 percent (129 crashes) were PDO.

69 percent (118 crashes) were rear-end, 16 percent (28 crashes) were sideswipe, 5 percent (8 crashes) were run-off-the-road, and 5 percent (8 crashes) were angle.

2 bicycle and 1 pedestrian crash

44 percent (75 crashes) occurred in non-daylight conditions.

November (22 crashes) and December (20 crashes) were the highest crash months

Monday (30 crashes) and Saturday (29 crashes) were the highest crash days.

49 percent (85 crashes) occurred between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM.

7 crashes were alcohol/drug related.

US 41 at College Drive/General Spaatz Boulevard (33 total crashes)

Safety Ratio: 0.58 (C), 0.49 (D), 0.41 (S)


58 percent (19 crashes) were rear-end, 12 percent (4 crashes) were left-turn, 12 percent (4 crashes) were run-off-the-road, and 6 percent (2 crashes) were angle.

No bicycle or pedestrian crashes.


September (6 crashes) and January (5 crashes) were the highest crash months.

Friday (9 crashes) were the highest crash days.


1 crash was alcohol related


6 | P a g e

US 41 at Braden Avenue (30 total crashes)

Safety Ratio: 0.24 (C), 0.35 (D), 0.31 (S)

1 fatal crash (pedestrian), 40 percent (12 crashes) were injury-related and 67 percent (17 crashes) were PDO.

53 percent (16 crashes) were rear-end, 17 percent (5 crashes) were run-off-the-road, and 10 percent (3 crashes) were left-turn.

2 pedestrian and no bicycle crashes.


March and April (5 crashes each) were the highest crash months.

Friday (8 crashes) was the highest crash day.



US 41 at Tallevast Road (34 total crashes)

Safety Ratio: 0.28 (C), 0.42 (D), 0.36 (S)


56 percent (19 crashes) were rear-end, 18 percent (6 crashes) were left-turn, and 15 percent (5 crashes) were sideswipe.



June (6 crashes) was the highest crash month.

Tuesday and Thursday (10 crashes each) were the highest crash days.

38 percent (13 crashes) occurred between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

No crashes were alcohol or drug related.


7 | P a g e

US 41 at Whitfield Avenue (34 total crashes)

Safety Ratio: 0.28 (C), 0.41 (D), 0.36 (S)


56 percent (19 crashes) were rear-end, 21 percent (7 crashes) were sideswipe, 9 percent (3 crashes) were left-turn.



April (7 crashes) was the highest crash month.

Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday (6 crashes each) were the highest crash days.



Segment Crash Statistics There were a total of 171 segment crashes during the analysis period. The following summarizes the total number of crashes for each segment:

Segment 1 – University Parkway to College Dr/General Spaatz Blvd (12 crashes over 0.342 miles)

Segment 2 – College Dr/General Spaatz Blvd to Edwards Dr (14 crashes over 0.169 miles)

Segment 3 – Edwards Dr to Braden Ave (69 crashes over 0.560 miles)

Segment 4 – Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd (62 crashes over 0.818 miles)

Segment 5 – Tallevast Rd to Whitfield Ave (14 crashes over 0.192 miles) The 171 segment crashes were reviewed by locations to identify any additional trends or high crash locations. The individual crash statistics for each of the locations reviewed is detailed as follows:


8 | P a g e

University Pkwy to College Dr/General Spaatz Blvd – Segment 1 (12 total crashes, 0.342 miles)

Safety Ratio: 0.15 (C), 0.13 (D), 0.09 (S)


50 percent (6 crashes) were rear-end, 25 percent (3 crashes) were sideswipe, and 17 percent (2 crashes) were run-off-the-road.


August (3 crashes) was the highest crash month.

Friday (5 crashes) was the highest crash day.

50 percent (6 crashes) occurred between 2:00 AM and 8:00 AM and 50 percent occurred between 2:00 PM and 10:00 PM.

College Dr/General Spaatz Blvd to Edwards Dr – Segment 2 (14 total crashes, 0.169 miles)

Safety Ratio: 0.26 (C), 0.23 (D), 0.17 (S)


29 percent (4 crashes) were sideswipe, 21 percent (3 crashes) were rear-end, 14 percent (2 crashes) were angle, 14 percent (2 crashes) were left-turn, and 14 percent (2 crashes) were run-off-the-road.


April (4 crashes) was the highest crash month.

Friday and Sunday (4 crashes each) were the highest crash days.


1 crash was alcohol related.


9 | P a g e

Edwards Dr to Braden Ave – Segment 3 (69 total crashes, 0.560 miles)

Safety Ratio: 0.23 (C), 0.28 (D), 0.24 (S)

1 fatal crash (head-on), 49 percent (34 crashes) were injury-related, and 49 percent (34 crashes) were PDO.

28 percent (19 crashes) were rear-end, 28 percent (19 crashes) were left-turn, 14 percent (10 crashes) were angle, 7 percent (5 crashes) were sideswipe, and 7 percent (5 crashes) were run-off-the-road.


February (15 crashes) was the highest crash month.

Thursday (15 crashes) and Wednesday (14 crashes) were the highest crash days.

38 percent (26 crashes) occurred between 12:00 PM and 6:00 PM, 19 percent (13 crashes) occurred between 8:00 PM and 10:00 PM.

2 pedestrian crashes and 2 bicycle crashes.

1 crash was alcohol/drug related.

Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd – Segment 4 (62 total crashes, 0.818 miles)

Safety Ratio: 0.15 (C), 0.192 (D), 0.16 (S)

1 fatal crash (run-off-the-road), 34 percent (21 crashes) were injury-related, and 65 percent (40 crashes) were PDO.

29 percent (18 crashes) were rear-end, 21 percent (13 crashes) were run-off-the-road, 16 percent (10 crashes) were sideswipe, and 15 percent (9 crashes) were left-turn.


October (10 crashes) was the highest crash month.

Wednesday (14 crashes) was the highest crash day.


1 bicycle crash.



10 | P a g e

Tallevast Rd to Whitfield Ave – Segment 5 (14 total crashes, 0.192 miles)

Safety Ratio: 0.24 (C), 0.29 (D), 0.25 (S)


36 percent (5 crashes) were rear-end and 29 percent (4 crashes) were angle.


The crashes were distributed throughout the year, with several months having the two crashes each.

Monday (7 crashes) was the highest crash day.


Conclusion

As a result of this historical crash review, there are several potential issues identified for further

examination during the field review portion of the Road Safety Audit (RSA). These potential issues

include the following:

A high proportion of non-daylight crashes at several locations, including locations that have

existing roadway lighting such as the intersection of US 41 at University Parkway, the segment of

US 41 from University Parkway to College Dr/General Spaatz Blvd, the segment of US 41 from

Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd, and the segment of US 41 from Tallevast Rd to Whitfield Ave;

A high proportion of left-turn crashes and pedestrian/bicycle crashes on the segment of US 41

from Edwards Dr to Braden Ave;


11 | P a g e

A high proportion of run-off-the-road crashes on the segment of US 41 from Braden Ave to

Tallevast Rd; and

A high number of crashes at the intersection of US 41 and University Parkway.

Other potential concerns for consideration during the RSA process include the general trend of

increasing crashes (despite decreased AADT in 2015), high bicycle traffic, and high pedestrian activity

due to several college campuses located along the corridor. Additionally, performing the RSA will allow

for the input of local parties regarding potential safety issues and allow for the observation of current

operating conditions, in person, at all times of day. Finally, the RSA, in conjunction with the historical

crash analysis, will seek to identify elements that present safety concerns under current operating

conditions and potential alternatives.

The following collision diagrams display crashes related to the signalized

intersections, the pedestrian/bicycle crashes, and the fatal crashes along the US

41 study corridor.

Figure

14

US 41 from University Parkway to Whitfield Avenue – Historical Crash Summary

US 41 (University Pkwy to Whitfield Ave) Corridor Study Collision Diagram (2011 – 2015) Intersection 1: University Pkwy

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash

Crash Type

1

1

1

1

1

#

Bab

cock

Str

eet

Charles Boulevard

Dwyer Place

5

1

2 2 5

2

1 1

1 1

1

1

3

1 5

3 3

3

1 1

3

1

1 1

1

2 2 1

1 1

1 1

1

1

Crash Type

Angle Crash

Rear-End Crash

Left-Turn Crash

Sideswipe Crash

11

14 2 1

1

1 1 1

1 1

3 2 1 1

1 1 Crash Type

Angle Crash

Rear-End Crash

Left-Turn Crash

Sideswipe Crash

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash

Backed-into Crash

Run-off-the-road Crash

1 1

1

Right-Turn Crash

Figure

15

US 41 (University Pkwy to Whitfield Ave) Corridor Study Collision Diagram (2011 – 2015)

Intersection 2: General Spaatz Blvd / College Dr

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash

Crash Type

1

1

1

1

#

Bab

cock

Str

eet

Charles Boulevard

5

1

2 2

5

2

1 1

1 1

1

1

3

1 5

3 3

3

1 1

3

1

1

2 2 1

1 1

1 1

1

11

14

1 1

1 2 2 2

1

4

1 1 1

5 General Spaatz Blvd

Crash Type

Angle Crash

Rear-End Crash

Left-Turn Crash

Sideswipe Crash


Right-Turn Crash


Figure

16


Intersection 3: Braden Ave

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash

Crash Type

1

1

1

1

#

Bab

cock

Str

eet

Charles Boulevard

5

1

2 2

5

2

1 1

1 1

1

1

3

1 5

3 3

3

1 1

3

1

1

2 2 1

1 1

1 1

1

11

14

1 1

5

2 3

1 1

1

4

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

1 1 1 1

1

1 2

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Braden Ave

Crash Type

Angle Crash

Rear-End Crash

Left-Turn Crash

Sideswipe Crash

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash


Right-Turn Crash


Figure

17


Intersection 4: Tallevast Rd / Gaines Ave

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash

Crash Type

1

1

1

#

Bab

cock

Str

eet

Charles Boulevard

5

1

2 2

5

2

1 1

1 1

1

1

3

1 5

3 3

3

1 1

3

1

1

2 2 1

1 1

1 1

1

11

14

1 1

3

2 3

1 1

4

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

1 1 1 1

1

1 2

1 1

1

1

1

Crash Type

Angle Crash

Rear-End Crash

Left-Turn Crash

Sideswipe Crash

Backed-into Crash


Figure

18


Intersection 5: Whitfield Ave

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash

Crash Type

1

1

#

Bab

cock

Str

eet

Charles Boulevard

5

1

2 2

5

2

1 1

1 1

1

1

3

1 5

3 3

3

1 1

3

1

1

2 2 1

1 1

1 1

1

11

14

1

3

3

2 3

1

1

4

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

1

1 1 1

1

1 2

1 1

1

1

1

Crash Type

Angle Crash

Rear-End Crash

Left-Turn Crash

Sideswipe Crash


Head-On Crash


Figure

19-A


Segment 3: From Edwards Dr to Braden Ave

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash

Crash Type

1 1

#

Bab

cock

Str

eet

Charles Boulevard

5

1

2 2

5

2

1 1

1 1

1

1

3

1 5

3 3

3

1 1

1

1

1

2 2

1

1 1

1 1

1

Sideswipe Crash

11

14

3

2 3

1

4

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

1 1 1

1

1 2

1 1

1

1

1

1

Suwanee Ave

Seagate Dr

1 1

1 1

1 1 1

Crash Type

Pedestrian Crash

Head-on Crash


Figure

19-B


Segment 3: From Edwards Dr to Braden Ave

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash

Crash Type

1 1

#

Bab

cock

Str

eet

Charles Boulevard

5

1

2 2

5

2

1 1

1

1

1

1

3

1 5

3 3

3

1 1

3

1

1

2 2

1

1 1

1 1

1

Sideswipe Crash

11

14

3

2 3

1

4

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

1 1 1

1

1 2

1 1

1

1

1

1

Suwanee Ave

Braden Ave

1 1

1 1

1 1 1

Crash Type

Bicycle Crash

Pedestrian Crash


Figure

20-A


Segment 4: From Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash

Crash Type

1 1

#

Bab

cock

Str

eet

Charles Boulevard

5

1

2 2

5

2

1 1

1

1

1

1

3

1 5

3 3

3

1 1

3

1

1

2 2

1

1 1

1 1

1

Sideswipe Crash

11

14

3

2 3

1

4

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

1 1 1

1

1 2

1 1

1

1

1

1

Crash Type Run-off-the-road Crash

Suwanee Ave

Somerset Ave


Figure

20-B


Segment 4: From Braden Ave to Tallevast Rd

Pedestrian Crash

Bicycle Crash

Crash Type

1 1

#

Bab

cock

Str

eet

Charles Boulevard

5

1

2 2

5

2

1 1

1 1

1

1

3

1 5

3 3

3

1 1

3

1

1

2 2 1

1 1

1 1

1

Crash Type

Bicycle Crash

Sideswipe Crash

11

14

3

2 3

1

4

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

1 1 1

1

1 2

1 1

1

1

1

1


Documents

Road Safety Audit Report - SWFL Roadsswflroads.com/us41/completestreetscorridor/US 41 RSA Report_Final.pdfRoad Safety Audit Report US 41/Tamiami Trail from University Parkway to Whitfield