Date: September 27, 2005 

Attendees:

• Attendees: Mary Helen Duke, Karen Cashon, Larry Weatherly, Alison Stettner, Henry Pinzon, Randy Stribling, Sally Thompson, Sharon Keene, Nina Mabilleau, Joanne Hurley, Ron Gregory, Jim Phillips, John Romero.

A. Introductions - Chair Thompson requested attendees to provide self-introductions.

B. CAC Meeting Schedule. The proposed CAC meeting schedule for 2006 was discussed. CAC prefers to advertise scheduled meetings bi-monthly, and cancel meetings when desirable.

C. Public Comments - Chair Thompson opened the floor to public comment. There was none.

Presentations

D. Veteran’s Expressway Widening PD&E Study - Duke introduced Ron Gregory of URS, and Jo Anne Hurley, Henry Pinzon and Allison Stettner of the Florida Turnpike Enterprise Authority. Duke provided handouts for the project and provided an overview of the project limits. She explained that the Florida Turnpike Enterprise wants to widen Veteran’s Expressway to 8 lanes. She explained there was interest in a trail connection between Skyway Park, the Courtney Campbell Causeway, The Town and Country Greenway, the Upper Tampa Bay Trail and the Suncoast Trail. She explained that an ad ho committee had formed consisting of Charner Reese, Ed Crawford, Ned Baier and herself that recommended to the consultants and the Florida Turnpike Enterprise that the scope of work for the PD&E study include a trail connections analysis. Duke presented a map that the committee had developed which encouraged study within 1 mile on each side of Veteran’s Expressway for off-road trail. The committee also recommended a minimum 50’ wide corridor assessment, including an assessment of on-road trail connections for all cross streets. She pointed out that at Channel G, there might be insufficient height clearance for a trail crossing.

Ron Gregory of URS discussed the newsletter that about 3,300 persons had received. He noted that additional information about the project is available at http://www.veteransexpresswaywidening.com/. He referred to the map and the project schedule. There is limited right of way available, with only 52’ left on each side. There are stormwater mitigation issues. Mr. Gregory discussed the Tampa Airport Interchange project (Links) improvements to the south as well as the Van Dyke Road and Spur. There was no capacity for improvements. The 3^rd runway is already accounted for. Duke stated per TIA and new FAA rules, there is insufficient room on the TIA side for the trail. He discussed the Channel G issue and the Waters to Wilsky section. He explained there are no plans to relocation or impact the Upper Tampa Bay Trail (Linebaugh to Gunn). He reported the design is funded for FY06/07. ROW acquisition and construction is in the tentative FDOT work program. The widening is contingent on funding. Henry Pinzon stated there is limited ROW. Gregory stated they have held community meetings with various agencies and civic associations and the MPO, FAA and HCAA. A Public Hearing will be held in the Summer of 2006. Mr. Gregory stated that Jane Burner of his office is conducting a trail evaluation/assessment. His staff is working to identify where to put the trail. He presented a draft section that depicted a 20’, 30’ and 50’ trail easement corridor. Duke noted the proposed cross section should be corrected to show a minimum 6’ from edge of trail to tree trunk of live oak. Mr. Gregory asked for other comments on the cross-section. Duke stated she had emailed Jane Burmer her comments and knew that Hillsborough County had also already sent comments.

Allison Stettner stated there would be no purchase of ROW. The turnpike enterprise cannot pay for trail construction, but can assist in finding the trail linkage. Henry Pinzon requested concurrency on which width of cross section is desirable for the turnpike to focus on.

Nina Mabilleau noted the cross-sections should be convex, not concave. Duke stated she had already emailed Jane Burmer for the same comment. Ron Gregory encouraged electronic comments be made via the website which are seen by all staff and are a direct communication line. Duke reinforced the need for the scope to include a study of on-road bike lane and sidewalk connections.

Old Business

E. overview of the bridge project. The project limits are Rome Avenue to Riverside Drive. He noted the local historic designation for the bridge and the National Register designation for neighborhoods as well as the bridge. The bridge is a swing bridge, and very unique in terms of bridge design. He outlined the 1) No Build; 2) Rehabilitation $8 million 50 years of life with thru tress design and no widening); 3) Swing – 75 years life span; and 4) Drawbridge (Bascule) $32.3 million. The bascule with swing would close Riverside Drive. The bridge is functionally obsolete as is. The structure is in good condition, but looks bad aesthetically.

Sharon Keene reported that her neighborhood and the 5 neighborhoods in the area supports the restoration of the bridge. She said without wider sidewalks, there was no need to spend $32-$39 million for only 25 more years of bridge life. Mr. Romero reported the bridge score is a 6 out of a possible 100 with 100 being in great condition. Nina Mabilleau asked why not provide 11’ wide lanes and wider sidewalks? Duke questioned the lack of pedestrian accessibility for crossing Columbus to Riverside Drive with the closing of Riverside Drive. Duke requested ADA accessible ramps and pedestrian crosswalk and signalization improvements for both ends of the project. A public hearing date has not been set.

F. Platt St. Bridge PD&E - Duke introduced Jim Phillips, consultant with EC Driver on the study. Jim Phillips provided an overview of the status of the study and existing bridge conditions. There are four 10’ lanes and sidewalks on both sides. There is severe structural deterioration. The pavement should last only 5 to 15 years more. He outlined several scenarios: 1) Repair/Restore as is. Provide the same layout and improve side rails to be crash proof (25 year lifespan $10million). Duke asked if due to timeframe, could we get identical rails crash tested? Jim Phillips responded that 6 weeks ago, FDOT gave more leeway so you can change a rails appearance. Duke noted the repair scenarios do not include any funding for improvements under the bridge for trail on the west side. Jim Phillips outlined scenario 2) Rehabilitation. This scenario is $23 million and replaces the removable portion. The cross section is four 11’ wide lanes with a 6’2" sidewalk on the south side and a 5’ wide bike lane on the north side. Duke stated this alternative was not acceptable for multi-trail use due to narrow width of sidewalk and the lack of ADA accessibility to the sidewalk. 3) Replacement. This scenario is $43 million with 100-year lifespan. This is the ultimate scenario. There would be four 12’ wide lanes with 8’ wide sidewalks on each side and a 5’6" bike lane on each side.

Mr. Phillips stated there is no funding for a separate pedestrian bridge and it should not be evaluated if such a bridge is years away. He stated a recent cost estimate for a standard 15’ wide pedestrian bridge is $6.1 million. Much discussion followed. Duke stated that the trail as is with 8’wide sidewalks on each side is functional, but not perfect. The Rehabilitation scenario decimates the existing multi-purpose trail. Duke stressed the importance of getting this critical pedestrian connection built right. EDAW has recommended the southbound pedestrian bridge connection in their public workshop, but this needs further study and support. Mabilleau reported that bike/pedestrian counts on the Platt Street Bridge were scheduled. Duke stressed the importance of the Platt Street bridge being maintained as a bicycle/pedestrian trail connection until a separate bridge could be constructed. Duke encouraged CAC members to discuss trail needs with Hillsborough County staff, administration and City Council.

G. Tampa Greenways & Trails Master Plan Map Amendment – Review Public Workshop Comments & set Public Hearing date - Duke provided CAC members with a copy of public workshop comments in the packet. She encouraged everyone to review and provide feedback to staff. She recommended setting a public hearing date for November 15, 2005. The CAC discussed and decided to hold off on the public hearing date after more thoroughly reviewing the enclosed materials.

H. Regional Trails Priority List - Duke provided a status report on the Priority ranking. She stated that the CCC multi-use trails committee will meet in October to set criteria. She reported that currently, the Hillsborough County ranking is Upper Tampa Bay Trail #1; South Tampa Greenway #2; and West Tampa Greenway #3.

I. Downtown Transportation Vision Recommendations – Status Report – Duke encouraged anyone interested in this study to contact her for a copy of the report. She has worked with Alan Steinbeck on the trail portions of the report. A copy of the report is available on the MPO website. A summary copy was included in your handout.

J. FY06/07 – FY10/11 MPO Board TIP Funding Recommendations - Duke reported this spreadsheet is included in your packet for information. There is significant trail funding in the package.

K. Riverwalk – Status Report/public workshop - Duke announced the upcoming public workshop date and conflict with CAC meeting schedule. The CAC meeting date was revised. A copy of the latest Riverwalk status report is in your packet.

New Business

L. Bayshore Boulevard Sidewalks – west side. Duke reported that about ½ mile of sidewalks has been installed on the west side. She acknowledged the work of Sally Thompson at the Bayshore Traffic Task Force meetings to get this done.

M. Bruce B. Downs PD&E Study – Bike Lanes. Duke reported there was an ongoing debate about bike lanes on BB Downs as part of the widening project.

N. Mayor’s Fitness Walk - Duke encouraged CAC members to attend this event and talk with the Mayor about trails. Sally Thompson stated this is an excellent opportunity have the Mayor’s ear.

Other Business

O. Other Business – Duke reported a proposed slate of CAC members based on the new Bylaws and Rules of Procedures is in your packet for consideration. Discussion followed.

Q. Adjourn - The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:05pm.

Respectfully Submitted:

Mary Helen Duke 

Greenways & Trails Coordinator

Approved: