SR 60 Corridor Mobility Study Draft (2011_12.13)

Slide 1: 

FDOT District SevenState Road 60 Corridor Mobility Study From Valrico Road to Dover Road Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) Corridor Studies August 10, 2011

Study Objective : 

Examine existing and future conditions along SR 60 from Valrico Road to Dover Road to determine the long-term needs necessary to maintain mobility through the study corridor. The alternatives recommended in this study complement recommended improvements in previous studies completed by Hillsborough County. Study Objective

Study Location : 

Study Location

Slide 4: 

Annual Average Daily Traffic

Existing Conditions (Crash Analysis) : 

Existing Conditions (Crash Analysis) Safety Ratio > 1 = Abnormal (High) Crash Rate

Existing Conditions Analysis Valrico Road to Miller Road : 

Existing Conditions Analysis Valrico Road to Miller Road

Existing ConditionsSt. Cloud Avenue to Dover Road : 

Existing ConditionsSt. Cloud Avenue to Dover Road

Widening Options : 

Option A Three lanes with 6.5’ inside and outside shoulders. Maintains the current SR 60 alignment that is shifted north in the ROW. Option B Three lanes with 14’ continuous right turn lane. Maintains the current SR 60 alignment that is shifted north in the ROW. Option C (Preferred)* ** Three lanes with 6.5’ inside and outside shoulders. The alignment is centered with a 1° deflection east of Valrico Road. Advantages of Option C Allows for future laneage in each direction Has only minor ROW impacts Leaves some ditch capacity along the north side of SR 60 for drainage attenuation Requires no design variations Minimizes driveway impacts Widening Options * All improvement alternatives provided assume Option C for typical sections. **Stormwater management design and permitting were not considered.

Widening Options - Typical Sections : 

Widening Options - Typical Sections OPTION A OPTION B

Widening Options - Typical Sections : 

Widening Options - Typical Sections OPTION C (Preferred)* *All improvement alternatives provided assume Option C for typical sections.

Improvement Alternatives : 

Alternative 1 No Build – Eliminated Alternative 2 Widen SR 60 from four lanes to six lanes – Eliminated Alternative 3 (Preferred) Widen SR 60 from four lanes to six lanes and make intersection improvements to the side streets (by others) and to SR 60 (Includes EB & WB Dual Left Turn Lanes at Mulrennan Road and Dover Road) Alternative 3A Widen SR 60 from four lanes to six lanes and make intersection improvements to the side streets (by others) and SR 60 (Includes EB & WB Single Left Turn Lanes at Mulrennan Road and Dover Road). This alternative matches the Hillsborough County PD&E studies for Mulrennan Road and Dover Road, which show only one receiving lane northbound and southbound on Mulrennan Road and Dover Road. Improvement Alternatives

Alternatives 3 and 3AIntersection Improvements : 

Valrico Road Alternatives 3 and 3AIntersection Improvements Side street improvements are required (by others) to provide acceptable intersection and arterial level of service.

Alternatives 3 and 3A Intersection Improvements : 

Alternatives 3 and 3A Intersection Improvements Miller Road St. Cloud Avenue Side street improvements are required (by others) to provide acceptable intersection and arterial level of service.

Alternatives 3 and 3AIntersection Improvements : 

Alternatives 3 and 3AIntersection Improvements Mulrennan Road Alternative 3 Alternative 3A Side street improvements are required (by others) to provide acceptable intersection and arterial level of service.

Alternatives 3 and 3AIntersection Improvements : 

Alternatives 3 and 3AIntersection Improvements Dover Road Alternative 3 Alternative 3A Side street improvements are required (by others) to provide acceptable intersection and arterial level of service.

2030 AM Level of ServiceAlternatives 3 and 3A with Option C : 

2030 AM Level of ServiceAlternatives 3 and 3A with Option C

2030 PM Level of ServiceAlternatives 3 and 3A with Option C : 

2030 PM Level of ServiceAlternatives 3 and 3A with Option C

Slide 18: 

Preliminary CostsWidening Options A, B and C *Costs exclude right-of-way impacts due to widening and right-of-way acquisition for stormwater management, design, and permitting. SR 60 mainline does not require additional right-of-way. Right-of-way for corner clips may be required. ** Option A and Option C have similar typical sections with a minor difference in alignments, thus no difference in cost.

Preliminary Costs : 

Notes: (1) Costs exclude right-of-way impacts due to widening and right-of-way acquisition for stormwater management, design, and permitting. Costs prepared using LRE system unit prices dated April 7, 2010. (2) SR 60 mainline does not require additional right-of-way. Right-of-way for corner clips may be required. Preliminary Costs

Recommended Alternative : 

Alternative 3 Matches existing thru lane geometry west of Valrico Road providing consistency through the study corridor Provides acceptable minimum arterial LOS D through Year 2030 With exception of the Valrico Road intersection, provides minimum intersection LOS D through Year 2030 FDOT construction costs only marginally more expensive than Alternative 3A ($11.637 million for Alternative 3 vs. $11.449 million for Alternative 3A) Decreased congestion potentially leading to fewer crashes and improved air quality Recommended Alternative

Access Management Principles : 

Provide access to development in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. Limit conflict points (modifying and closing medians) Provides adequate spacing between median openings Extend left turn lanes and add right turn lanes at all major intersection approaches Access Spacing Criteria for Access Class 3 Roadways per Rule Chapter 14-97 Access Management Principles Based on review of FDOT Rule Chapters 14-96 and 14-97, the following median openings within the study limits do not meet the required minimum spacing criteria. The recommendations are for planning purposes only and shall be evaluated further, with public input, in subsequent studies.

Thank You : 

Thank You