Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Meeting of the Policy Committee
Wednesday, August 11, 2021, 8:30 AM
All voting members are asked to attend in person, in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law. Please RSVP for this meeting. An accurate head-count will allow us to plan facilities. People attending in person are required to wear mask while inside the County Center building consistent with CDC guidance. All Others: Audience members, presenters, and any others are asked to participate remotely, to minimize the potential for transmitting illness. This meeting may be viewed on Hillsborough Television (HTV) by visiting Spectrum: 637, Frontier: 22 or live stream from Hillsborough County's Live YouTube Channel or the County website's Live Meetings link, also found in the County Newsroom. The agenda packet, presentations, and any supplemental materials are posted on the TPO’s online calendar.
Public comment opportunities: To speak during the meeting - No later than 30 minutes before the meeting, please sign up here or phone 813-756-0371 for assistance. Provide the phone number you will call in from, so that we can recognize your call in the queue and unmute you when the chair calls on you. You will receive an auto-reply confirming we received your request, along with instructions.
Comments may also be given up to 5pm the day before the meeting:
• by leaving a voice message at (813) 756-0371
• by e-mail to [email protected]
• by visiting the event posted on the Facebook page. Advance comments will be provided in full to the board members and verbally summarized
during the meeting by TPO staff.
Rules of engagement: Professional courtesy and respect for others at this meeting are expected, and failure may result in dismissal from the meeting. For more information on expectations for participation, please see the TPO’s Social Networking & Media Policy.
Agenda
I. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call of Committee Members & Welcome of Other TPO Board Members (Gail Reese, TPO Staff)
III. Approval of Minutes: May 12, 2021
IV. Public Comment – 3 minutes per speaker, please
V. Status Reports
A. Introduction to Today’s Meeting Focus: TPO 2021 Studies (Beth Alden, TPO Director)
Plan Hillsborough
planhillsborough.org [email protected]
813 - 272 - 5940 601 E Kennedy Blvd
18th Floor Tampa, FL, 33602
B. Park Speed Zone Pilot Study (Lisa Silva, TPO staff)
C. Storm Evacuation Forecast & Shelter In-Place Scenarios Study (Allison Yeh, TPO Staff)
D. Smart Cities Master Plan (Johnny Wong, TPO Staff)
E. USF Area Trail Feasibility Study (Wade Reynolds, TPO Staff)
VI. Old & New Business
VII. Adjournment
The full agenda packet is available on the TPO’s website, www.planhillsborough.org, or by calling (813) 272-5940.
The TPO does not discriminate in any of its programs or services. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Learn more about our commitment to non-discrimination.
Persons needing interpreter services or accommodations for a disability in order to participate in this meeting, free of charge, are encouraged to contact Joshua Barber, (813) 576-2313 or [email protected], three business days in advance of the meeting. If you are only able to speak Spanish, please call the Spanish helpline at (813) 272-5940 or (813) 273-3774 and dial 1.
Se recomienda a las personas que necesiten servicios de interpretación o adaptaciones por una discapacidad para participar en esta reunión, o ayuda para leer o interpretar los temas de esta agenda, sin costo alguno, que se pongan en contacto con Joshua Barber, (813) 576-2313 o [email protected], tres días hábiles antes de la reunión. Si sólo habla español, por favor llame a la línea de ayuda en español al (813) 272-5940 o (813) 273-3774 ext. 1. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, materials attached are for research and educational purposes, and are distributed without profit to TPO Board members, TPO staff, or related committees or subcommittees the TPO supports. The TPO has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of attached articles nor is the TPO endorsed or sponsored by the originator. Persons wishing to use copyrighted material for purposes of their own that go beyond ‘fair use’ must first obtain permission from the copyright owner. The TPO cannot ensure 508 accessibility for items produced by other agencies or organizations.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the board, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
TPO Policy Committee Workshop on the Transportation Improvement Program of Wednesday, May 12, 2021
I. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Chairman, Commissioner Pat Kemp, called the meeting to order at 08:31 AM and led the pledge of allegiance. The regular monthly meeting was held in-person and virtual via WebEx. The following members were present in person: Commissioner Harry Cohen, Commissioner Pat Kemp, Commissioner Kimberly Overman, Charles Klug, and Joe Waggoner The following members were present virtually: Commissioner Mariella Smith, Councilman Guido Maniscalco MPO Board Members were present in person: Mayor Ross, Commissioner Myers, Derek Doughty A quorum was met in person.
II. DISCUSSION ITMES
A. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Update, Preliminary Draft (Johnny Wong, TPO Staff)
Section One: What is the TIP
• LRTP is 20 to 25+ year plan and is broad, TIP is 5-year plan and is specific and detailed. TIP includes phases of the project, funding sources, and locations.
• TIP is one of the MPO main responsibilities. Must abide by regulations and requirements from Federal and State directives.
• TIP consists of three major types of projects. o Table 1: Funded or partially funded, projects in process, are Priorities, remain until complete and
shows community support, already approved by committees and board. o Table 2: Candidates for funding, authority projects they consider to be priorities, go through a
scoring process, if meet criteria, moves to the priority list, goes through additional scoring for ranking.
o Table 3: All other projects from FDOT WP, requests for planning studies, projects that does not fit neatly in one of the programs, CIPs (jurisdiction funded).
• Priority Ranking: Table 2 production process o Sort submissions into investment programs. o Find data and run calculations. o Rank from most impactful to least.
• Funding: codes are funding sources. Early in the TIP there is a link to a glossary of the abbreviations. Examples: SU – surface transportation (flexible); TA – transportation alternative, smaller, multi-modal projects; HSIP – highway safety improvement program, usually in Vision Zero; SIGP – county incentive grant program, provided to counties to alleviate traffic congestion on the highway system
• TIP Tool is an interactive mapping application that shows the location of projects in the TIP and where they are located around the county. It is on the Plan Hillsborough website. o Provides population density, growth locations. o There is a basic equity overlay.
• Health Atlas tool, based on COCs
Section Two, highlighting what has changed from last year’s TIP to this year’s TIP.
• Table One – re-formatted o Projects remain on this list until they are totally done. o Only a few come off each year. o Major differences will be color coding and grouping based on the investment program, will
make it easier to identify community impact. o Four additions: 2 from HART, 1 from TBARTA, 1 multi-modal trail connection o 1 project has been completed, waiting for updates on others.
• Table Two o Projection analytics that were based on the 1% tax. o Review of performance metrics for State of Good Repair & Resilience o State of Good Repair – set targets in 2018 and revisited in 2020. Approximately ½ of bus assets are in a state of good repair. Do not spend a lot of time calculating in this section because there is a huge backlog in this
category. $1.5 Billion expected deficit by 2045 Rather than separating, allocate $4 Million from SU for HART every year.
o Vision Zero – set targets in January and February each year. TIP only concerned with fatalities and serious injuries. Spend quite a bit of time on this section. Pull 5 years-worth of fatal and serious crash data, divide by centerline mile. Nine projects added to the TIP this year.
o Smart Cities – three metrics: interstate reliability, interstate reliability for freight, non-interstate reliability; focus on reliable congestion. Went over criteria for adding projects: peak period travel time, delay at various distances, on-
time performance; these are based on type. Adding four projects to TIP this year.
o Real Choices When Not Driving – do not have federal measures, created own Look at location, identify population density. Ten projects added to the TIP this year.
o Major Investments for Economic Growth – very strict criteria and must be referenced in LRTP; high dollar, highway widening, adding capacity. Look for density of employment, volume capacity ratio, anticipated reduction in vehicle delay
per centerline mile. Four projects added to TIP this year.
Section Three: Next Steps
• Regional Coordination – look at regional significance, input from other MPOs in the region; two working groups. If projects in other MPOs are deemed regionally significant, will appear in Hillsborough TIP. Regional area is West Central Florida.
o Citrus o Hernando o Hillsborough o Manatee o Pasco o Pinellas o Polk o Sarasota
• Continue to collect project information from jurisdictions and prioritize. • Present Draft TIP and Priority list to committees, continue posting updates to website. • Public hearing June 9, 2021. • Beth Alden: shared information on how various areas are identified for optimal use of Federal and
State funding and grants.
Discussion:
Commissioner Kemp: Expressed that a briefing from FDOT and this presentation is the clearest she has received on this topic. Commented that the large-scale maps is very helpful. Requested that printed copies of the TIP would be helpful.
Commissioner Cohen: Commented on the June 25th meeting of the Regional CCC, he is chairing it, is ready to advocate Big Bend as a Regional Priority. Requests that the members of the TPO point out what each feel is a regional priority so he can be prepared to represent the TPO Board accordingly.
Commissioner Smith: Commented she appreciated the clarity of the presentation and requested a copy. Asked about the FDOT submission from May 11. Southcoast Greenway Trail is her priority for Commissioner Cohen to advocate for. Commented that the CAC is a great advocate for the community and appreciates their request for the overlay of the COC overlay on the TIP Tool. Inquired how the CAC will be providing input on the TIP to the TPO Policy and Board.
Commissioner Overman: Commented on how to plan for a CSX opportunity for freight and a commuter option. Number one on the Economic Growth list is the CSX study. This is a priority for the region. The BOCC adopted a process to vote on the TIP and recommend it to the TPO. Gives importance to meeting with leadership. Believes the TIP is a great example of collaboration. Brought up Economic Growth, inquired about the funding sources, noted that it’s not clear if the entities need to go after federal funding.
Mr. Waggoner: inquired if the TIP contains the entire county Transportation Program or only the portion seeking federal funds. Commented that he would like to see a break-down of the numbers between CIP funding and TIP funding.
Commissioner Kemp: Noted many long meetings in the past. Talked about Segment 6 of the Downtown Interchange, noted the CAC voted in favor but added that no more property be taken. Noted that the CAC vets things very well for the TPO Board. Is pleased to see the limit of the interchange plan. Expressed concern about Segment 7 and adding 30’ of pavement up the middle and how it leads into Segment 6. Noted that the best regional project adopted has been the ferry that is being paid for by 5 jurisdictions and that Hillsborough County has voted to continue the St. Petersburgh / Tampa Ferry. Inquired how this project get moved onto the TIP? Discussed CSX project as a priority, interested to see how it moves forward. Brought up the Upper Tampa Bay Trail as a
regional priority. Asked about some specific metrics in the presentation and how they overlay with the TIP. Inquired about the priorities in the Smart Cities new projects. Asked about the need for golf cart needs and if there is anything on the TIP about that. It is a need and will be a need for the future.
Commissioner Cohen: Noted that he did a golf cart ordinance for Davis Island in the City of Tampa. The model could be used around the community.
• Board member questions & comments regarding Funding Projects
Presentation: TIP Preliminary Draft Draft TIP: Draft Transportation Improvement Program 2021/22-2025/26
III. ADJOURNMENT – Meeting adjourned by Commissioner Kemp at 9:58 AM
Board & Committee Agenda Item
Agenda Item: Park Speed Zone Pilot Study
Presenter: Lisa Silva, TPO staff Summary: The Park Speed Zone Pilot Study will develop a process that can be replicated at parks throughout Hillsborough County to implement safety countermeasures with a focus on speed management. A toolbox of safety countermeasures will be developed as part of the process. The pilot project will include three different types of park facilities in Hillsborough County, including local and regional park facilities whose context and transportation safety issues broadly represent other facilities in the region such that the findings from this pilot project can be applied elsewhere in the County. During the first step we identified park facilities to include in the pilot project. Based on a quantitative process that considered equity and transportation safety metrics, the three park locations selected for inclusion in the pilot are Copeland Park, the Upper Tampa Bay Trail (UTBT), and Sulphur Springs Park. For more on the evaluation criteria see Park Selection Process and Park Prioritization (attached). Once the three pilot project locations were identified, a detailed existing conditions assessment was conducted to document the transportation networks in the park vicinity, prevailing travel patterns including speeds, and collisions. (attached) Feedback from the public will be an important component of the project to identify safety concerns that might not be readily apparent with the data. We will then develop a countermeasure toolbox that can be applied to subsequent projects. We are seeking your assistance in providing input and getting the word out. Recommended Action: Feedback only.
Prepared By: Lisa K. Silva, AICP. PLA, TPO Staff Attachments: Project website with:
Interactive crowdsourcing map for comments Park Selection Process Park Prioritization Existing Conditions Assessments-Copeland, Sulphur Springs and UTBT
Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org
[email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940
601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor
Tampa, FL, 33602
Board & Committee Agenda Item
Agenda Item: Storm Evacuation Forecast & Shelter-in-Place Scenarios Study Presenter: Allison Yeh, TPO Staff Summary: A critical component of transportation agencies’ policy and program decision-making is system resilience to disruption. Evacuation plans are one way to respond to disruptions, such as hurricanes, or flooding. These plans are part of state and county operations plans, and include an inventory of available shelters, identification of evacuation routes, and providing transportation services for persons unable to evacuate on their own. The Storm Evacuation Forecast & Shelter-in-Place Scenarios Study will supplement this ongoing work by providing a high-level analysis of Hillsborough’s evacuation practices today. The study will evaluate best practices in evacuation regionally and nationally, assess potential evacuation enhancement options in Hillsborough County, and develop a set of recommendations and next steps for the Hillsborough Transportation Planning Organization and other agencies to consider supporting emergency evacuations in Hillsborough County. The overall goal of this study is to assess and identify potential strategies to improve evacuation procedures without undertaking expensive road widening projects. More information including sign-up for the August 25 open house can be found at Storm Evacuation Forecast & Shelter-in-place Scenarios Study | Plan Hillsborough.
Recommended Action: None; for information only. Prepared By: Allison Yeh, AICP, LEED GA Attachments: None
Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org
[email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940
601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor
Tampa, FL, 33602
Board & Committee Agenda Item
Agenda Item Smart Cities Mobility Plan Update Presenter Johnny Wong, TPO Staff Summary The Smart Cities Mobility Plan represents an evolution of the 2013 Intelligent Transportation Systems Plan Update. The Smart Cities Mobility Plan will include several new features to meet the needs of planners and traffic operations teams across Hillsborough County. Chief among these new features is a prioritization matrix, which may resolve a gap in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ranking methodology. The new prioritization matrix may allow non-traditional, Smart Cities projects to be ranked and compared both against one another and against traditional project types. Staff will provide a brief status update on the Smart Cities Mobility Plan and will seek feedback on the proposed methodology for integrating non-traditional projects into the TIP priority list. More information can be found at Smart Cities Mobility Plan. Recommended Action None. For Information Only. Prepared By Johnny Wong, PhD, TPO Staff Attachments 1. Prioritization Matrix Presentation
Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org
[email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940
601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor
Tampa, FL, 33602
Good Repair and resilience
Vision Zero Smart CitiesReal choices when
not drivingMajor investments for economic growth
Project/Services/Activities Project Location
Preserve Infrastructure/ SustainabilityYes = 1 PointNo = 0 points
SafetyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Innovation and
Emerging TechnologyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Mobility and Mode Choice
Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Economic Growth Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
$0 ‐ $499k = 4 Points
$500k ‐$999k = 3 Points
$1 M ‐ $2.99 M = 2 Points
$3 M ‐ $5 M = 1 Point
> $5 M = 0 Points
Short term (0‐5 yrs.) = 3 PointsMid term (5‐10 yrs.) = 2 PointsLong term (10+ yrs.) = 1 Point
High = 3 PointsMedium = 2
PointsLow = 1 Point
What is the level of risks and degree of impact?
Examples: legal compliance, operational, stakeholders/public involvement, timing,
data sources, technology, etc.
High = ‐2 Point Moderate = ‐1
Points Low = 0 Points
Based on Dependencies,
Business Risk, and Limitations
Low (0‐4)= 0 Points
Mid (5‐8)= 1 Point
High (9‐12)= 2 Points
Is there a high demand or need for the implementation of this project or will this project improve upon an existing project??
(0‐1 Points)
(DO NOT FILL IN)
The higher the score, the
higher return on investment. (Max 18)
Are there other factor that
should be taken into
consideration?
HART Scheduling SoftwareNumerous corridors across the HART region
0 1 1 1 0 3 3 2Access to Wi‐Fi, smart devices, data accuracy/quality of AVL, accuracy and
0 0 1 12
ATCMTD Project
‐US 301 from I‐4 south to Big Bend RD ‐Big Bend Rd from US 301 west to US 41 ‐US 41 north from Big Bend Rd to Pal, River Rd
1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 Emerging technology dependencies ‐1 1 1 10
Technologies/tasks: Smart Transportation Netwrok (STN) Demo corridors with integrated Connected
Red Light Running CamerasPotentially across Tampa Bay region
0 1 0 0 0 2 3 2
Legal implications, political implications, equity observations to take into
account, law enforcement engagement and involvement, broader stakeholder
0 1 0 9
Smart LightingPotentially across Tampa Bay region
0 1 1 0 1 2 2 1Potential technology risks depending on
the vendor, potential vandalism challenges, operational and
‐1 1 0 8
AV shuttle expansion 0HART CAD AVL 0Digital Inclusion Program 0Smart Corridors 0Ramp Metering 0Regional Operating System 0Mobility Assistance 0EV Charging 0EV Charging (in residential) 0Car Sharing Platform 0MaaS Expansion 0HOV Lanes 0Event Parking 0Parental Trip Assistance 0CV Operating System 0Regional Work Zone 05g backbone 0Bus Fleet Electrification 0Marketing Plans 0Waterborne Transport 0Digital Signage 0Digital Twins 0Free issue Sensors (SWZ) 0
Project Prioritization Criteria
Project InformationCost
Implementation Timeframe
EquityDependencies, Business Risks, and
LimitationsRisk Severity
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Strategic Value Final Score Comm
Alignment with 2045 LRTP Goals and Objectives (strategic)
Good Repair and resilience
Vision Zero Smart CitiesReal choices when
not drivingMajor investments for economic growth
Project/Services/Activities Project Location
Preserve Infrastructure/ SustainabilityYes = 1 PointNo = 0 points
SafetyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Innovation and
Emerging TechnologyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Mobility and Mode Choice
Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Economic Growth Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
$0 ‐ $499,999= 4 Points
$500,000 ‐$999,999 = 3 Points
$1 M ‐ $2.99 M = 2 Points
$3 M ‐ $5 M = 1 Point
> $5 M = 0 Points
Short term (0‐5 yrs.) = 3 PointsMid term (5‐10 yrs.) = 2 PointsLong term (10+ yrs.) = 1 Point
High = 3 PointsMedium = 2
PointsLow = 1 Point
What is the level of risks and degree of impact?
Examples: legal compliance, operational, stakeholders/public involvement, timing,
data sources, technology, etc.
High = ‐2 Point Moderate = ‐1
Points Low = 0 Points
Based on Dependencies,
Business Risk, and Limitations
Low (0‐4)= 0 Points
Mid (5‐8)= 1 Point
High (9‐12)= 2 Points
Is there a high demand or need for the implementation of this project or will this project improve upon an existing project??
(0‐1 Points)
(DO NOT FILL IN)
The higher the score, the
higher return on investment. (Max 18)
Are there other factor that
should be taken into
consideration?
Cyber Security Plans 0Enhanced Security Systems (video sensors, gunshot
0
Enhanced Security 0Video Monitoring Network (video resources from private and public entities
0
Incident situational 0Data‐driven Policing 0Emergency Vehicles pre‐ 0Free Public Wi‐Fi 0Digital Equity Plan 0Partnership with 0Staffing and Workforce 0Smart City Asset 0Data Partnerships, Policies 0Regional EV Policies and Charging Infrastructure
0
Wayfinding Strategies for Physically Impaired
0
Automated Transit Eco‐ 0Dynamic Transit 0Transit Signal Priority 0Rapid Transit 0Smart Shelters, Mobile Ticketing and Interactive
0
Transportation Equity Plan, Goals and Objectives Development
0
Bus Rapid Transit 0Hyperloop 0Smart Parking Detection and Meters
0
Commercial Vehicles Signal Priority
0
Dilemma Zone Detection 0V2I and V2X Enabled SPaT 0Dynamic Route Assignment
0
Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control
0
Project InformationProject Prioritization Criteria
Alignment with 2045 LRTP Goals and Objectives (strategic)Cost
Implementation Timeframe
EquityDependencies, Business Risks, and
LimitationsRisk Severity
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Strategic Value Final Score Comm
Good Repair and resilience
Vision Zero Smart CitiesReal choices when
not drivingMajor investments for economic growth
Project/Services/Activities Project Location
Preserve Infrastructure/ SustainabilityYes = 1 PointNo = 0 points
SafetyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Innovation and
Emerging TechnologyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Mobility and Mode Choice
Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Economic Growth Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
$0 ‐ $499,999= 4 Points
$500,000 ‐$999,999 = 3 Points
$1 M ‐ $2.99 M = 2 Points
$3 M ‐ $5 M = 1 Point
> $5 M = 0 Points
Short term (0‐5 yrs.) = 3 PointsMid term (5‐10 yrs.) = 2 PointsLong term (10+ yrs.) = 1 Point
High = 3 PointsMedium = 2
PointsLow = 1 Point
What is the level of risks and degree of impact?
Examples: legal compliance, operational, stakeholders/public involvement, timing,
data sources, technology, etc.
High = ‐2 Point Moderate = ‐1
Points Low = 0 Points
Based on Dependencies,
Business Risk, and Limitations
Low (0‐4)= 0 Points
Mid (5‐8)= 1 Point
High (9‐12)= 2 Points
Is there a high demand or need for the implementation of this project or will this project improve upon an existing project??
(0‐1 Points)
(DO NOT FILL IN)
The higher the score, the
higher return on investment. (Max 18)
Are there other factor that
should be taken into
consideration?
Curve Speed Warning 0Traffic Monitoring Through AI
0
Stop Sign Gap Asist 0Queue Warning 0Left Turn Assist 0Intersection Movement Assist
0
Adaptive Traffic Signal Control systems
0
Ramp Metering 0DMS, HOV, Peak Period Shoulder Running, etc.
0
HOV Occupancy Detection 0Wrong Way Driver Detection
0
Back of Queue Detection 0Road Weather Information System (RWIS)
0
Mobile RWIS 0Maintenance Decision Support System
0
Smart Truck Parking 0Freight Advanced Traveler Information Systems (FRATIS)
0
Regional Mobility Wallet (digital app)
0
Ride share and bike share 0Micro transit 0Cooperative Automated Transportation (CAT) Plan
0
Traffic signal video detection
0
Integrated corridor management
0
Smart work zone 0Pedestrian detection (V2I, V2X), sensor‐equipped cross walks
0
Project Prioritization Criteria
Project InformationProject Prioritization Criteria
Alignment with 2045 LRTP Goals and Objectives (strategic)Cost
Implementation Timeframe
EquityDependencies, Business Risks, and
LimitationsRisk Severity
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Strategic Value Final Score Comm
Good Repair and resilience
Vision Zero Smart CitiesReal choices when
not drivingMajor investments for economic growth
Project/Services/Activities Project Location
Preserve Infrastructure/ SustainabilityYes = 1 PointNo = 0 points
SafetyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Innovation and
Emerging TechnologyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Mobility and Mode Choice
Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Economic Growth Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
$0 ‐ $499,999= 4 Points
$500,000 ‐$999,999 = 3 Points
$1 M ‐ $2.99 M = 2 Points
$3 M ‐ $5 M = 1 Point
> $5 M = 0 Points
Short term (0‐5 yrs.) = 3 PointsMid term (5‐10 yrs.) = 2 PointsLong term (10+ yrs.) = 1 Point
High = 3 PointsMedium = 2
PointsLow = 1 Point
What is the level of risks and degree of impact?
Examples: legal compliance, operational, stakeholders/public involvement, timing,
data sources, technology, etc.
High = ‐2 Point Moderate = ‐1
Points Low = 0 Points
Based on Dependencies,
Business Risk, and Limitations
Low (0‐4)= 0 Points
Mid (5‐8)= 1 Point
High (9‐12)= 2 Points
Is there a high demand or need for the implementation of this project or will this project improve upon an existing project??
(0‐1 Points)
(DO NOT FILL IN)
The higher the score, the
higher return on investment. (Max 18)
Are there other factor that
should be taken into
consideration?
Emergency Vehicles pre‐emption
0
Special events planning 0Events parking management
0
Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Coalition/Committee
0
Truck platooning (V2V, V2X)
0
Dynamic lane assignment 0In road inductive charging for EV
0
Environmental resilience plans
0
Solar powered pavement and road marking
0
HazMat awareness and mitigation
0
Electric Vehicles charging stations
0
Rooftop solar panels 0Regional environmental impact tracking systems
0
Hydrogen powered vehicles
0
Kinetic pavement 0Citizen Services Hub 0Smart City data dashboard, AI enabled (data collection, archiving, analytics, fusion and
0
Traffic Incident Management Software (predictive analytics)
0
Traffic data management (such as the Smart Columbus Data Operating System)
0
Project Information Alignment with 2045 LRTP Goals and Objectives (strategic)Cost
Implementation Timeframe
EquityDependencies, Business Risks, and
LimitationsRisk Severity
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Strategic Value Final Score Comm
Project InformationProject Prioritization Criteria
Alignment with 2045 LRTP Goals and Objectives (strategic)Implementati Dependencies Business Risks and Benefit/Cost
Good Repair and resilience
Vision Zero Smart CitiesReal choices when
not drivingMajor investments for economic growth
Project/Services/Activities Project Location
Preserve Infrastructure/ SustainabilityYes = 1 PointNo = 0 points
SafetyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Innovation and
Emerging TechnologyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Mobility and Mode Choice
Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Economic Growth Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
$0 ‐ $499,999= 4 Points
$500,000 ‐$999,999 = 3 Points
$1 M ‐ $2.99 M = 2 Points
$3 M ‐ $5 M = 1 Point
> $5 M = 0 Points
Short term (0‐5 yrs.) = 3 PointsMid term (5‐10 yrs.) = 2 PointsLong term (10+ yrs.) = 1 Point
High = 3 PointsMedium = 2
PointsLow = 1 Point
What is the level of risks and degree of impact?
Examples: legal compliance, operational, stakeholders/public involvement, timing,
data sources, technology, etc.
High = ‐2 Point Moderate = ‐1
Points Low = 0 Points
Based on Dependencies,
Business Risk, and Limitations
Low (0‐4)= 0 Points
Mid (5‐8)= 1 Point
High (9‐12)= 2 Points
Is there a high demand or need for the implementation of this project or will this project improve upon an existing project??
(0‐1 Points)
(DO NOT FILL IN)
The higher the score, the
higher return on investment. (Max 18)
Are there other factor that
should be taken into
consideration?
Regional framework for data management
0
Develop data sharing policies and procedures
0
Data‐Driven decision making dashboard
0
Cloud cost management 0Mobility data management dashboard
0
Data security plans and strategies
0
Cloud and cyber security plans
0
Data‐Driven shared mobility (first/last mile improvements)
0
Develop data partnerships, data sharing policies and procedures (privacy, retention, ownership, maintenance, sharing format definitions, etc.)
0
Open source data dashboards, policies and procedures
0
Fiber master plan 0IoT enabled network 05G connectivity 0Wi‐Fi expansion 0Leadership roles for IT (new roles, revision of current roles and responsibilities, organizational structure changes, etc.)
0
Pilot projects processes and procedures
0
Project InformationCost
Implementation Timeframe
EquityDependencies, Business Risks, and
LimitationsRisk Severity
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Strategic Value Final Score Comm
Good Repair and resilience
Vision Zero Smart CitiesReal choices when
not drivingMajor investments for economic growth
Project/Services/Activities Project Location
Preserve Infrastructure/ SustainabilityYes = 1 PointNo = 0 points
SafetyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Innovation and
Emerging TechnologyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Mobility and Mode Choice
Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Economic Growth Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
$0 ‐ $499,999= 4 Points
$500,000 ‐$999,999 = 3 Points
$1 M ‐ $2.99 M = 2 Points
$3 M ‐ $5 M = 1 Point
> $5 M = 0 Points
Short term (0‐5 yrs.) = 3 PointsMid term (5‐10 yrs.) = 2 PointsLong term (10+ yrs.) = 1 Point
High = 3 PointsMedium = 2
PointsLow = 1 Point
What is the level of risks and degree of impact?
Examples: legal compliance, operational, stakeholders/public involvement, timing,
data sources, technology, etc.
High = ‐2 Point Moderate = ‐1
Points Low = 0 Points
Based on Dependencies,
Business Risk, and Limitations
Low (0‐4)= 0 Points
Mid (5‐8)= 1 Point
High (9‐12)= 2 Points
Is there a high demand or need for the implementation of this project or will this project improve upon an existing project??
(0‐1 Points)
(DO NOT FILL IN)
The higher the score, the
higher return on investment. (Max 18)
Are there other factor that
should be taken into
consideration?
Digital infrastructure plan 0System integration policies and procedures (interoperability, partnerships, business processes, etc.)
0
Building management and automation systems
0
Workforce development plan (training, integration into educational institutions, development of emerging technology positions, etc.)
0
Partnership with grassroots, universities, educational institutions, etc.
0
Regional citizens' information dashboard (open source, open architecture)
0
Mobility needs assessment 0Recurring public outreach 0Capability Maturity Model Workshop
0
Smart City Performance Management Program Plan
0
Regional Smart Cities Priorities plan
0
Smart City Mobility master Plan
0
Project InformationProject Prioritization Criteria
Alignment with 2045 LRTP Goals and Objectives (strategic)Implementati Dependencies Business Risks and Benefit/Cost
Project InformationProject Prioritization Criteria
Alignment with 2045 LRTP Goals and Objectives (strategic)Cost
Implementation Timeframe
EquityDependencies, Business Risks, and
LimitationsRisk Severity
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Strategic Value Final Score Comm
Good Repair and resilience
Vision Zero Smart CitiesReal choices when
not drivingMajor investments for economic growth
Project/Services/Activities Project Location
Preserve Infrastructure/ SustainabilityYes = 1 PointNo = 0 points
SafetyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Innovation and
Emerging TechnologyYes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Mobility and Mode Choice
Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
Economic Growth Yes = 1 PointNo = 0 Points
$0 ‐ $499k = 4 Points
$500k ‐$999k = 3 Points
$1 M ‐ $2.99 M = 2 Points
$3 M ‐ $5 M = 1 Point
> $5 M = 0 Points
Short term (0‐5 yrs.) = 3 PointsMid term (5‐10 yrs.) = 2 PointsLong term (10+ yrs.) = 1 Point
High = 3 PointsMedium = 2
PointsLow = 1 Point
What is the level of risks and degree of impact?
Examples: legal compliance, operational, stakeholders/public involvement, timing,
data sources, technology, etc.
High = ‐2 Point Moderate = ‐1
Points Low = 0 Points
Based on Dependencies,
Business Risk, and Limitations
Low (0‐4)= 0 Points
Mid (5‐8)= 1 Point
High (9‐12)= 2 Points
Is there a high demand or need for the implementation of this project or will this project improve upon an existing project??
(0‐1 Points)
(DO NOT FILL IN)
The higher the score, the
higher return on investment. (Max 18)
Are there other factor that
should be taken into
consideration?
Smart City Assets Life Cycle Cost Management and Planning (assets inventory, lifecycle cost, assets health index, define assets priorities, identify assets critical for continuous performance, etc.)
0
Mobility data business plan 0
Smart City Mobility master Plan
0
Smart Cities central goals development
0
Emerging technologies investment prioritization framework (plan, tools, regional/stakeholder coordination, evaluation criteria, etc.)
0
Strategic partnership with tech sectors and private industry
0
Funding alternative plans (grants, PPP, etc.)
0
Unsolicited proposals plans, processes and procedures (private industries, vendors, tech companies, develop review committees, etc.)
0
Pilot projects and use cases processes and procedures
0
ITS Master Plan 00
Project InformationCost
Implementation Timeframe
EquityDependencies, Business Risks, and
LimitationsRisk Severity
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Strategic Value Final Score Comm
Board & Committee Agenda Item Agenda Item:
USF-Green ARTery Trail Study
Presenter:
Wade Reynolds, TPO staff
Summary:
The USF-Green ARTery trail study is evaluating conceptual and new connections from the University area to the existing and proposed trail system in Tampa and Hillsborough County. With the redevelopment of the University Mall (RITHYM), expansion of the Veterans Administration, and continuing growth around the University of South Florida, safe nonmotorized spaces are an increasing priority. The study area contains several high-volume roadways, and safe crossings and connections are a primary consideration. The study kicked off in March and is exploring the feasibility of a trail connecting the University of South Florida (USF) and Veterans Hospital with the planned Green ARTery Perimeter Trail and other neighborhoods to the south of Fowler; including proposed safe crossing locations on Fowler and other roadways. This study focuses on the potential alignments for the trail, in coordination with area property owners and agency partners. Recommended Action:
None, for information only
Prepared By:
Wade Reynolds, AICP
Attachments:
Presentation
Project Webpage
Plan Hillsborough planhillsborough.org
[email protected] 813 - 272 - 5940
601 E Kennedy Blvd 18th floor
Tampa, FL, 33602
