May 9, 2017 Chon Wong Florida Department of Transportation District 4 Planning Environmental Management 3400 W. Commercial Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 954-777?4659 Re: State Road (SR) 60 Lane Elimination Formal Request City of Vero Beach Dear Mr. Wong: The City of Vero Beach desires to reduce vehicular travel lanes along SR 60 within downtown Vero Beach. The desired lane reduction would be proposed to take place between 20th Avenue and the Florida East Coast (FEC) railroad corridor. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. prepared a Feasibility Study in 2013 relative to the potential to eliminating travel lanes along SR 60 within Downtown Vero Beach. The Feasibility Study evaluated and] or included the following: Roadway Typical Sections 6 Crash Analysis 0 Cost Estimates 0 Transit and Non-Motorized Facilities Current Year Roadway and Intersection Evacuation Route Impacts Capacity a Public Involvement 9 Future Year Roadway and Intersection Capacity The Feasibility Study was previously submitted to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to review and provide comment. The comments previously provided have been incorporated and] or addressed in the ?nal Feasibility Study submitted to the City. In addition to the preparation of the Feasibility Study, the following publicly advertised public involvement meetings were held where the proposed lane elimination was presented: a Public Involvement Workshop 6 City of Vero Beach Planning and Zoning Commission (two separate presentations) 0 Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee 9 Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizen Advisory Committee 6 Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization Governing Board 6 City of Vero Beach City Council Meeting Based upon the Feasibility Study results, it was recommended to the City Council that reducing travel lanes along SR 60 within the study limits was feasible. On March 19, 2013, the City Council voted to accept the study and move forward with submitting a formal request to the Department of Transportation. Please refer to Attachment for an excerpt of the March 19, 2013 City of Vero Beach City Council meeting minutes. In the meeting, this past March where the City met with representatives from FDOT to discuss the formal submittal of the Lane Elimination Request, the Department requested the following supplemental/ updated information be submitted in conjunction with the Feasibility Study and the formal lane elimination request: a Revised Roadway Typical Sections reflecting the Departments current bicycle lane standards a Traf?c modeling validation 0 Updated Crash Analysis As a result of these requests, the City has incorporated the following revisions into the Lane Elimination Request: 0 The SR 60 roadway typical sections have been revised, within the Feasibility Report, to re?ect the Department?s current 7?foot buffered bicycle lane standard as identi?ed in the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual, Chapter 8 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities. In addition, a mid-block pedestrian crosswalk has been proposed at the 20th Street/ 16th Street intersection to accommodate pedestrian activity. Please refer to the Attachment A for these 4? A comparison of 2013 vs. 2017 peak-season peak-hour roadway volumes, as published by the Indian River County Concurrency Management System has been prepared to demonstrate no substantial change in traf?c conditions relative to the Feasibility Study. Please refer to the Attachment for this comparison. a The Crash Analysis was updated based upon available data between 2012 to 2016 from the Indian River County Traf?c Engineering Department. The accident occurrence rate for the studied intersection and roadway segments are generally representative of the accident occurrence rate for the previously evaluated years being 2009 to 2011. Further, High Crash Locations list for 2013 does not identify any intersections within the study limits as high crash locations. Please refer to the Attachment for the supplemental Crash Analysis. lay s} We believe that the project corridor continues to be a candidate for a lane elimination and satis?es the requirements as identi?ed within the FDOT Lane Elimination Review and Approval Process. The community continues to support the proposed lane elimination, as identi?ed in the recently completed Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) where the MPO has identi?ed the SR 60 Lane Reduction as one of two proposed complete street/ context sensitive design projects. Please refer to Attachment for excepts from the MPO 2040 LRTP. We ask that the Department accept this information and provide a formal approval. Please contact me at brian.goodtQkimley?horncom or 772-794-4083 to discuss any questions that the Department may have. Very truly yours, Brian Go Encl: Attachment A - SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traf?c Calming Feasibility Study w/ 2017 Updates Attachment City of Vero Beach Meeting Minutes Excerpt, March 19, 2013 Attachment 2013 vs. 2017 peak-season peak?hour roadway volumes Comparison Attachment - 2012 to 2016 Supplemental Crash Analysis Attachment 2040 IRC MPO LRTP Excerpt Attachment A SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study m? w/ 2017 Updates SR 60 TRAFFEC CALMENG STUDY VERO BEACH, FLORIDA Prepared for: edema "31w City of Vero Beach Prepared by: Kimley?Horn and Associates, inc. Kimiey-Horn and Associaies, Inc. March 2013 March 2017 Bike Lane Revisions indian River County Metropolitan Pianning Organization WABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN, TYPICAL SECTIONS, AND COST ESTIMATE 4 ROADWAY SEGMENT EVALUATION EXISTING CONDITIONS 8 INTERSECTION EVALUATION -- EXISTING CONDITIONS 11 TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS 12 ROADWAY SEGMENT EVALUATION .2035 CONDITIONS 15 INTERSECTION EVALUATION - 2035 CONDITIONS 15 CRASH ANALYSIS 18 TRANSITAND FACILITIES 21 EVACUATION 23 SUMMARY 25 Appendices Appendix A: Opinion of Probabie Cost Appendix B: Analysis Existing Conditions Appendix C: Mode! Output Appendix D: Synohro Analysis 2035 Conditions Appendix E: FDOT Response SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page i OF TAES AND FIGURES tweeteaew Tables Table 1: Historical AADT Data 8 Table 2: ExistingConditions Daily Traf?c Volumes and Level of Service 9 Table 3: Existing Peak Hour Directional Volumes and Concurrency (Vested) Trips 10 Table 4: PM. Peak Level of Service - Existing Conditions 11 Table 5: Traffic Volume Forecasts and Growth Rates 13 Table 6: Traf?c Volume Diversion Analysis 14 Table 7: 2035 Roadway Segment Volumes and Level of Service 15 Table 8: PM. Peak Level of Service - 2035 No Build Conditions 16 Table 9: PM. Peak Level of Service 2035 Build Conditions 17 Table 10: Crashes by intersection 18 Table 11: Crashes by Roadway Segment 19 Figures Figure 1: Study Area Map 3 Figure 2: Plan View of Conceptual Alternative 5 Figure 3: Typical Section of Conceptual Alternative 6 Figure 4: GoLine Transit Routes 21 SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traf?c Calming Feasibility Study Page ii mrnooucnon The City of Vero Beach Vision Plan adopted on February 24, 2005, sets forth a future direction for Vero Beach. The Vision Plan states ?Downtown should be reinforced as a mixed-use of?ce and governmental center, as well as a unique cultural, arts, entertainment, and residential enclave, with shopping and dining opportunities that support the district and its surrounding neighborhoods. Addressing the "twin pair? arterials that bisect downtown is a key strategy to enhance the pedestrian nature of the district.? Subsequently, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (2010) also affirmed the need for developing measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? on pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development in Downtown Vero Beach. On September 20, 2011, the Vero Beach City Council requested the lndian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to conduct a traffic calming feasibility study on the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs.? SR 60 is the main east-west arterial in lndian River County. As SR 60 enters Downtown, it splits into two one-way streets. Eastbound SR 60 consists of three lanes and westbound SR 60 consists of four lanes. The eastbound and westbound one-way streets are separated by a city block. SR 60 within Downtown has undergone transformations over the years to serve varying mobility needs. Before l?95 was constructed between SR 60 and Palm Beach Gardens, SR 60 also supported regional travel by serving as a connector between l-95 and US 1. The missing segment of l?95 between SR 60 and Palm Beach Gardens was constructed in several phases between 1978 and 1987. Until the early 1990s, SR 60 within Downtown consisted of a two-way, four-lane segment, which followed the alignment of present-day, westbound one-way portion of the bifurcated segment. Thereafter, SR 60 was reconfigured into the present configuration of two one?way streets in anticipation of traffic growth. While SR 60 still serves as the connector between Downtown Vero Beach and l-95, current traffic volumes show excess capacity within the one-way segment. Based on the present configuration and functionality, the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? can be characterized as more of a facilitator of through traffic rather than promoting Downtown as a destination. Typical elements of a street through a downtown such as gateway signs, landscaping, on~street parking, and pedestrian and bicycle friendly features are not present along SR 60. The posted speed on SR 60 within Downtown is 40 miles per hour (mph). in order to provide a functional downtown street, the City of Vero Beach wishes to examine the feasibility of reducing the number of through travel lanes on SR 60 between 20"h Avenue and Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad. The Indian River County MPO retained Kimley?Horn and Associates, Inc. to evaluate potential changes to SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traf?c Calming Feasibility Study Page ?1 iane configuration of SR 60 between 20 Avenue and the FEC Raitroad and potential impacts to level of service on SR 60 and other roadways in the vicinity. While the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? extends between 20th Avenue and 6th Avenue, the scope of this study is iimited to the Downtown segment of SR 60. The primary considerations of the traffic calming feasibility study are listed below. Provision of two through travel lanes for both the eastbound and westbound segments a Placement of parailei or angled on?street parking I Provision of street furniture, iandscaping, and other decorative treatments - improvement in pedestrian safety by reducing crossing distance and increasing separation between sidewaiks and travel ianes I Reduction in posted speed iimit, if appropriate Accommodation of improvements without removai of existing curb, except for landscaped isiands This report summarizes the development of conceptual pians and typical sections, traffic voiume projections, ievel of service and crash data analysis, multimodal considerations, and stakehoider coordination to determine the of the lane reduction. An aerial of the overall corridor is provided in Figure 1. SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traf?c Calming Feasibility Study Page 2 Figure 1: SR 60 "Twin Pairs" Traffic Catming Feasibility Study (D 5 (D CONCEPTUAL PLAN, TYPICAL SECTIONS, AND COST ESTIMATE The Kimley?Horn team developed four preliminary conceptual plan alternatives for consideration. After obtaining input from City and MPO staff, the conceptual plan shown in Figure 2 was selected as the preferred alternative. The proposed concept plan maintain the existing curb except at 14th Avenue, 16th Avenue, and 18th Avenue, where curb extensions are propoSed to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and provide landscaping. On-street parking is proposed on the north side of eastbound SR 60 and both sides of westbound SR 60. Approximately 80 on?street parking spaces are proposed aiong the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs.? Adequate clearance is maintained at intersections to provide required sight distance. As shown in Figure 3, while the number of travel lanes is reduced, the width of the remaining through travel lanes is proposed to be increased from 11 feet to 12 feet. The width of the existing bicycle ianes is proposed to be increased from four feet to five feet. As part of the implementation of the lane reduction, reducing the posted speed from 40 to 35 may be appropriated based on changes to the roadway environment. An opinion of probable cost (OPC) was deveioped for the proposed lane reduction. Cost estimates were developed for the following three alternatives: I Alternative 1 restriping only (with and resurfacing) - $680,000 a Aiternative 2 restriping (with mitiing and resurfacing) and delineate parking spaces with stamped asphalt - $890,000 in Alternative 3 - restriping (with miliing and resurfacing), deiineate parking spaces with stamped asphait, and landscaping knuckles at 14 Avenue, 16 Avenue, and 18 Avenue - $1,090,000 Detailed cost estimates are inciuded in Appendix A. SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traf?c Calming Study Page 4 mold pesodmd Aswan-as uosmmza sum 09 as "an; 3812;530:399! puts - UJoH??aawm FEGURE 3: TYPICAL SECTIONS - How EKISTING: mm . o, 6 Exis?ng Sec?on EosTbound 10.5? PARKING . - -Wm ?h Proposed Sec?on - Eos?rbound 60 Lone Roouo?on Study Concepfuol Al?rernofives Kimiey?Hom and Mommies, Inc? FIGURE 3: TYPICAL SECTIONS :33 3:53: - 33333-333 .- Swami-? . . 33333233224395.5- 2 gm! sxmewALK' - BUFFER 115* . I . . i PARKMG . . PARKING lamb Proposed Sec?rion - Westbound 1mm Reduc?on sway Concep?ruol Al?remo?rives KimiaywHom aria Amoo?atas; lm, ROADWAY SEGMENTEVALUA WON CONDITIONS The roadway segment evaluation consisted of the following: . A review of historical Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data Level of service (LOS) determination based on daily traffic volumes a Level of service determination based on peak hour and concurrency data Historical Traffic Data The purpose of reviewing historical data was to identify trends in traffic volume growth and fluctuation. This analysis helps to identify the roadways (and roadway segments) within the study area that have experienced increases/decreases in traffic volume. Table 1 provides a summary of historical AADT data available from the FDOT database. Overall, historical data shows traffic volumes on the one-way segment of SR 60 have remained relatively constant over the last 10 years. While historical traffic data are limited on the primary minor streets within the study area, the trends for the available data are similar to that of SR 60. Table 1: Historical AADT Data Lil?! DES CRI ON 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 SR 60 from from 20 Ave and Old Dixie 14,000 13,000 13,500 14,000 14,000 15,500 n.a. n.a. 11,500 12,500 Hwy SR 60 WE from 20 Ave and Old Dixie 11,000 11,000 11,500 12,000 11,500 12,000 9,600 9,400 11,000 11,500 Hwy SR 60 EB from Old Dixie Hwy to 10 13,000 13,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 12,500 n.a. 13,000 11,000 12,000 Ave SR 60 W8 from Old Dixie Hwy to 13,000 12,000 12,500 9,600 11,000 11,000 n.a. 10,500 10,000 12,000 10 Ave 21 St from 20 Ave n.a. 26,000 27,500 29,500 25,500 27,500 n.a. 24,000 19,900 23,000 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 4,100 4,400 4,000 4,000 to US 1 20 Ave south Of n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5,800 4,800 5,300 4,300 SR 60 Did Dixie Hwy south of SR 60 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 4,400 4,600 4,000 4,000 SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traf?c Calming Feasibility Study Page 8 Levei of Service Kimley?Horn complied 2011 traffic counts to calculate the existing level of service on the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? and roadways in the vicinity. The peak?hour data and concurrency volumes were provided by the lndian River County Traffic Engineering Division, and the daiiy traffic volumes were obtained from the FDOT and the indian River County Traffic Engineering Division. The adopted level of service standard in the City of Vero Beach is LOS The level of service volume for each roadway segment was determined per Generalized Level of Service Volumes tables contained in the Quality/Level of Service Handbook. As presented in Tables 2 and 3, the existing daily and peak hour volumes on the major roadways in the study area are less than the LOS volume threshoid; therefore, the segments are operating at an acceptable level of service with reserve capacity. Table 2: Existing Conditions Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service DESCREPTION ADT L05 SR 60 between 27 Avenue and 20 Avenue 23,000 50300 SR 60 EB between 20 Avenue and Old Dixie Highway 12,500 30,130 SR 60 W8 between 20 Avenue and Old Dixie Highway 11,500 40,380 SR 60 EB between Old Dixie Highway and 10 Avenue 12,000 30,180 SR 60 W3 between Oid Dixie Highway and 10 Avenue 12,000 40,380 21 Street between 20th Avenue and Old Dixie Highway 4,000 13,680 14 Avenue between SR 60 and 16 Street 6,900 13,680 14 Avenue between SR 60 and US 1 5,800 13,680 20 Avenue between SR 60 and 16 Street 4,300 13,680 20 Avenue between SR 60 and Atlantic Boulevard 1,600 13530 Old Dixie Highway between SR 60 and 16 Street 4,000 13,680 16 Street between Old Dixie Highway and 20 Avenue 9,300 101710 US 1 north of 21 Street 20,000 33,200 US 1 east of FEC Railroad 18,300 33,200 SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 9 Table 3: Existing Peak Hour Directional Voiumes and Concurrency (Vested) Trips Link Description Volume Vested Trips Totai Demand LOS SR 60 EB from 27 Avenue to 20 Avenue 987 104 1,091 SR 60 WB from 27 Avenue to 20 Avenue 1,075 205 1,280 SR 60 EB from 20 Avenue to Old Dixie Hwy 1,056 104 1,160 SR 60 WE from 20 Avenue to Oid Dixie Hwy 1,056 142 1,198 SR 60 EB from Old Dixie Hwy to 10 Avenue 1,031 50 1,081 SR 60 W8 from Old Dixie Hwy to 10 Avenue 891 77 968 SR 60 EB from from Street EB from 27 Ave to 20 Avenue 341 27 368 16 Street WB from 27 Ave to 20 Avenue 436 41 477 16 EB Street from 20 Ave to Old Dixie Hwy 417 18 435 16 WE Street from 20 Ave to Old Dixie Hwy 525 34 559 16/ 17 Street EB from Old Dixie Hwy to US 1 694 36 730 16/17 Street WB from Old Dixie Hwy to US 1 644 32 676 Old Dixie Hwy NB from 16 Street to SR 60 225 16 241 Old Dixie Hwy SE from 16 Street Avenue NB from 16 Street Avenue SB from 16 Street Avenue NB from SR 60 to Atlantic Bivd 119 7 126 20 Avenue SB from SR 60 to Atlantic 148 12 160 SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 10 iN TERSE TIONEVAL UA EXISWNG CONDITION ut-ft?iws? as": The intersection evaluation focused on signaiized intersections within the corridor. intersection turning movement counts were obtained from the lndian River County Traffic Engineering Division for the signaiized intersections in the study area. These traffic counts were collected in 2011 or 2012 between 4:00 pm. and 5:00 which represents the peak traffic conditions in the study area. Piease note that turning movements counts for unsignaiized intersections were not availabie from the County, and hence those intersections were not evaluated. Kimley?Horn adjusted traffic volumes to reflect peak season conditions of the year by appiying peak season conversion factors. The study area intersections were analyzed using software to determine the intersection LOS during the pm. peak hour, which reflects the highest traffic conditions of the typical day. is an operational analysis toot based on the Highway Capacity Manuai. it has the capability to model actuated and coordinated networks, caicuiate intersection deiay, and define ievei of service based on the input traffic volumes, signal timings and phasing, and corridor offsets. A summary of the level of service anaiysis is provided in Table 3, and the detailed analysis results are included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 4. all intersections and individual approaches to the intersections operate satisfactorily. Table 4: RM. Peak Levei of Service - Existing Conditions Approach LOS and Delay (seconds) Intersection Intersection LOS/Delav Avenue SB 3/14.5 - ?8/1611 - SR 60 EB 20 Avenue NE SR 60 WE 20 Avenue SB 8/188 {3/518 3/123 SR 60 WE 20 Avenue NB 8/183 - SR 60 EB 81. 14 Avenue 8/145 8/193 8/105 - SR 60 WB 14 Avenue 8/192 - SR 60 EB Commerce Avenue - SR 60 WE US 1/Commerce Avenue SR 60 WE 8i 11 Avenue 3/188 SR 60 EB 10 Avenue - SR 50 W8 8L 10 Avenue - SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traf?c Calming Feasibility Study Page 1 ?l To determine if the proposed cross-section would accommodate future volumes and to determine the impacts to other roadways and intersections in the study area, we projected traffic data to reflect the 2035 conditions. The 2035 conditions correspond to the horizon year used in the latest lndian River County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model was utilized to forecast future volumes. The following model scenarios were used in this analysis: a 2005 baseline model a 2035 model, which reflects the traffic and roadway conditions based on anticipated demographic conditions and roadway network improvements identified in the 2035 LRTP (referred to as the ?no build conditions?). I 2035 model modified to reflect the reduction of lanes on the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? (referred to as the ?build conditions?). Model Calibration The roadway network coding was reviewed to ensure the characteristics of the roadway network within the study area are accurately reflected in the This review included an assessment of traffic analysis zones (TAZs) centroid connectors, laneage, speed, facility type, and projected volumes. Where necessary, adjustments were made to the model network attributes, including modification of centroid connectors. The network adjustments were made iteratively until the model network and volumes were deemed to reflect actual roadway network conditions. The model output files are included in Appendix C. Growth Rate We calculated growth rates by comparing the traffic volumes forecast in the 2005 and 2035 (no?build and build models). The purpose of estimating these growth rates was to establish future year (2035) traffic volumes with and without the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? lane reduction. A summary of model-based traffic volumes that were used to develop growth rates is included in Table 5. Based on the review of traffic volumes, separate aggregate growth rates were applied for SR 60, 2'lSt Street, and the north-south minor streets within the study area. These growth rates were applied to the existing traffic volumes to determine future year 2035 traffic volumes for the study area roadway segments and intersections. .mm que- are . was .. m??se?a??m?a z. cn- their?; ?eh/?ew SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 12 Table 5: Traffic Volume Forecasts and Growth Rates 2005 2035 w/o 2035 with Annua' Am?! Segment Conditions Lane Lane 6:323? 62:2" (1) Reduction (2) Reduction (West of 20 Avenue 34,000 41,000 40,500 0.6 0.6 SR 60 EB 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 15,800 18,750 18,150 0.6 0.5 2:66:3ng .. 20 Avenue to 14 13,300 17,200 15,700 0.9 0.6 23:33 14 Avenue to com meme 14,950 16,200 15,800 0.3 0.2 ii?i?ig?fe?ZZr?ue to 10,800 13,300 12,700 0.7 0.5 SR 60 EB Commerce Ave to US 1 13,100 14,400 13,750 0.3 0.2 SR 60 W8 Commerce Ave to US 1 12,900 15,500 15,250 0.6 0.6 20 Avenue south of SR 60 4,750 4,750 4,650 0.0 ?0.1 20 Avenue north of SR 60 8,700 10,900 10,300 0.8 0.6 14 Avenue south of SR 60 8,200 10,050 9,950 0.7 0.6 14 Avenue north of SR 60 12,100 12,200 12,100 0.0 0.0 10 Avenue south of SR 60 4,150 9,000 9,400 2.6 2.8 10 Avenue north of SR 60 7,800 9,800 9,900 0.8 0.8 21 Street West of 20 Avenue 4,700 7,900 8,000 1.7 1.8 21 Street 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 3,300 7,300 8,400 2.7 3.2 211:1:6 14 Avenue to Commerce 5,000 8,100 9,200 1.6 2.1 :jetgfommerce Avenue to 10 16,500 17,050 17,250 0.1 0.1 US 1 south of SR 60 24,950 25,250 25,150 0.0 0.0 US 1 north of SR 60 13,300 12,100 12,100 ?0.3 -0.3 Aggregate Growth Rates SR 60 (one-way pair) 0.6 0.4 21 Street 2.0 2.3 North?south minor streets 0.8 0.8 Diversions The potential diversion of traffic from the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? to other roads due to the reduction of capacity was estimated by comparing the mode! output from the 2035 ?build? and ?no buiid? scenarios. The traffic diversion analysis was used to assess if any adjacent streets would be adversely SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study impacted by the SR 60 lane reduction, including potential impacts to residential areas. Tabie 6 compares the model volumes with and without the proposed lane reduction. The most noticeable diversion of traffic is from SR 60 to 21 Street, which is a parallel street sewing Downtown Vero Beach. An estimated increase of 1,100 vehicles per day on 21 Street (or approximately 110 vehicles during the peak hour) is indicated in the analysis. As shown in Table 6, minimal impacts are expected on the north-south local streets such as 10 Avenue, 14 Avenue, and 20 Avenue. intersection and roadway segment level of service analyses for the 2035 conditions are presented in the next sections. Table 6: Traffic Volume Diversion Anaiysis 2035 w/o 2035 with Traffic 2005 Se ment Conditions Lane Lane Volume Change (1) Reduction Reduction Differential (4) I (2) l2) l3) (4) l3l-l2) SR 60 West of 20 Avenue 34,000 41,000 40,500 ?500 SR 60 EB 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 15,800 18,750 18,150 -600 SR 60 W3 20 Avenue to 14 13,300 17,200 15,700 4,500 Avenue SR 60 EB 14 Avenue to Commerce 14,950 16,200 15,800 400 15% Avenue a? WE 14 Avenue to 10,800 13,300 12,700 000 4.5% Commerce Avenue SR 60 EB Commerce Ave to US 1 13,100 14,400 13,750 ?650 4.5% SR 60 W8 Commerce Ave to US 1 12,900 15,500 15,250 -250 20 Avenue south of SR 60 4,750 4,750 4,650 -100 20 Avenue north of SR 60 8,700 10,900 10,300 ~600 14 Avenue south of SR 60 8,200 10,050 9,950 -100 14 Avenue north of SR 60 12,100 12,200 12,100 -100 10 Avenue south of SR 60 4,150 9,000 9,400 400 4.4% 10 Avenue north of SR 60 7,800 9,800 9,900 .100 1.0% 21 Street West of 20 Avenue 4,700 7,900 8,000 100 1.3% 21 Street 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 3,300 7,300 8,400 1,100 15.1% 21 Street?14 Avenue to Commerce 5000 8,100 9,200 1,100 13.6% Avenue US l?Commerce Avenue toE of 10 16,500 17,050 17,250 200 12% Avenue US 1 south of SR 60 24,950 25,250 25,150 -100 04% US 1 north of SR 60 13,300 12,100 12,100 0 0.0% SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study ROADWA SEGMENT EVALUA TioN 0% ?We? 2035 CONDITIONS To evaluate the roadway segments for 2035 traffic conditions, we utilized the traffic volume forecasts, rather than the extrapoiation of existing conditions traffic counts based on historic growth trends, since the volumes are higher and hence provide for a conservative anafysis. Further, the volumes consider potential traffic diversion resulting from the reduction of lanes on SR 60 ?Twin Pairs.? expected to continue to operate at 1.08 or better in 2035 with the proposed tane reduction. Table 7: 2035 Roadway Segment Volumes and Level of Service As shown in Table 7, at! roadway segments, including the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs?, are Without SR 50 Lane Reduction With SR 60 Lane Reduction Segment Daily Levei of Daily Level of Lanes . Lanes Volume Servrce Voiume Servrce SR 60 West of 20 Avenue 6 41,000 6 40,500 SR 60 EB 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 3 18,750 2 18,150 SR 60 Avenue to 14 4 17200 2 15,700 Avenue SR 60 EB 14 Avenue to Commerce 3 16,200 - 2 15,800 Avenue 0 nm 0. 1 ?4 Avenue to 4 13,300 r: 2 12,700 0 Commerce Avenue SR 60 EB Commerce Ave to US 1 3 14,400 3 13,750 SR 60 WE Commerce Ave to US 1 4 15,500 4 15,250 20 Avenue south of SR 60 4 4,750 4 4,650 20 Avenue north of SR 60 2 10,900 2 10,300 14 Avenue south of SR 60 2 10,050 2 9,950 14 Avenue north of SR 60 2 12,200 2 12,100 10 Avenue - south of SR 60 2 9,000 2 9,400 10 Avenue north of SR 60 2 9,800 2 9,900 21 Street West of 20 Avenue 2 7,900 2 8,000 21 Street 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 2 7,300 2 8,400 21 Street 14 Avenue to Commerce 2 8,100 2 91200 0 Avenue US 1 Commerce Avenue to of 10 4 17,050 4 17,250 Avenue US 1 south of SR 60 4 25,250 4 25,150 0 US 1 north of SR 60 4 12,100 4 12,100 SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traf?c Calming Feasibility Study Page 15 To evaluate signalized intersections under 2035 conditions (no build and build), we extrapolated existing peak hour intersection volumes by applying the growth rates developed from the forecasts. The future peak hour volumes at the study area intersections were analyzed using software to determine the intersection level of service during the peak hour. As shown in the concept plan, the proposed geometric modifications were incorporated into the ?build scenario? operational analysis. The signal timing splits were optimized to adjust for future volumes and the proposed laneage modifications. The resulting levels of service at each intersection are summarized in Tables 8 and 9. The outputis included in Appendix D. Level of Service All of the intersections are expected to operate at an overall LOS or better without or with the proposed lane reduction. The individual approaches to the intersections are also expected to operate at LOS or better. The signalized intersections at SR 60 and 14th Avenue exhibit an increase in overall intersection delay between 5-10 seconds. in general, the impact of the lane reductions on intersections within the study area appears to be minimal. Table 8: RM. Peak Level ot Service 2935 No Build Conditions intersection intersection Approach LOS and Delay (seconds) 105/ Delay Avenue SB 3/191Avenue NE - SR 60 WB 20 Avenue SB 0/515 8/18.4 SR 60 WB 20 Avenue Avenue 3/1653 8/19.1 8/14.2 SR 60 WB 14 Avenue - 8/178 SR 60 EB Commerce Avenue SR 60 W3 US I/Ccmmerce Avenue (3/244 SR 60 WB 11 Avenue 8/118 - SR 60 EB 8t 10 Avenue [5/194 - SR 60 W8 10 Avenue 8/110 SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 16 Table 9: PM. Peak Level of Service -- 2035 Build Conditions Intersection Intersection Approach L05 and Delay (seconds) LBS/Delay Avenue SB 8/17] - 3/104 3/193 SR 60 EB 20 Avenue Avenue SB - 8/163 SR 60 WE 20 Avenue NB - SR 60 EB 14 Avenue 8/193 - SR 60 WE 14 Avenue - SR 60 EB Commerce Avenue SR 60 W8 8: US 1/Commerce Avenue SR 60 W8 8: 11 Avenue - SR 60 EB 8: 10 Avenue 3/112 SR 60 W8 10 Avenue 8/110 SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 17 ., CRASH ANAL Crash data for major roads within the study iimits for years 2009 through 2011 (the last avaiiabie fuli year of data) were provided by indian River County Traffic Engineering Division. The data were tabulated to identify crash types by intersection and by roadway segment. Please note police crash reports were not reviewed to verify the accuracy of the electronic crash data. The results of the crash analysis are discussed below. Crashes by Roadway Location The intersection of SR 60 and 20th Avenue experienced the highest number of crashes. Approximately 55 percent (16 out of 29) of crashes were angle. During stakehotder coordination meetings, the indian River County Traffic Engineering Division requested that the present lane configuration be maintained at the subject intersection. Therefore, potential operational and signage improvements may be appropriate, such as advance flashers, retroreflective tapes on backplates, and increased red ciearance time to mitigate angle crashes. ln generai, crash data at other intersections do not indicate discernabie patterns that warrant further assessment. Further, High Crash Location list for 2010 does not identify any intersections within the study iimits as high crash iocations. Tabie 10: Crashes by Intersection 1, .E INTERSECTION Avenue Avenue Avenue and Commerce Avenue and Commerce Avenue Avenue Avenue Avenue 2 1 1 4 21 Street and 14 Avenue 3 2 2 1 8 21 Street and US 1/Commerce Avenue ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 18 Crashes by Roadway Segment A review of corridor-specific crash data shows that angle, rear end and sideswipe are the most frequent crash types. However, the majority of these crashes occurred in proximity to the signalized intersections. A noticeable crash pattern is sideswipe crashes on westbound SR 60 between east of 20th Avenue and Commerce Avenue. The presence of four lanes may be contributory to a higher number of sideswipe crashes. The proposed reduction of westbound ianes from four to two may help to reduce the sideswipe crashes. A review of High Crash Segment list for 2010 did not identify any high crash segments within study limits. Table 11: Crashes by Roadway Segment S: ?3 .3 LINK DESCRIPTION between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue1 between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue1 between of Commerce Avenue and between of Commerce Avenue and Street between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue\Avenue between 19 Street and 21 Street Avenue between 19 Street and 21 Street Old Dixie Highway between SR 60 W8 and 19 Street 4 4 Note 1: Does not include crashes at 20 Avenue Safety Benefits of Lane Reduction ?Road Diets? (lane reduction) has been identified by the Federai Highway Administration (FHWA) as one of the nine proven countermeasures to reduce crashes. Based on the information presented at a recent webinar (Road Diets and Pedestrian Safety, November 20, 2012) conducted by the Pedestrian and Bicycle information Center before versus after studies have shown that road diet projects resuit in both crash and speed reductions. The degree of crash and speed reduction varies by local conditions. According to Libby Thomas (University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center), the most robust studies show a reduction of total crashes between 19 percent and 48 percent. Another observation is that higher severity crashes may also be significantiy reduced. Further, the 85th percentile speed and top end speeds have typically decreased. Due to the small number of crashes and the lack of exposure data, the effects on pedestrians have not been quantified. However, before versus after safety data presented by Mile Sallaberry (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) shows 35 percent SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traf?c Calming Feasibility Study Page 19 reduction of total crashes and 60 percent reduction of pedestrian crashes for one corridor (Alemany Boulevard). Finally, Gina Coffman (Toole Design Group) provided the following detailed breakdown of safety data for a road diet project in Seattle. Total collisions declined 14% . . injurycollisiens declined . 33% a Angle collisions declined 56% 6 Bicycle collisions no change, but rate declined Pedestrian collisions declined 80% Taolel?es?? As shown above, the majority of crash types decreased after the implementation of a road diet project. However, congestion-related crashes such as rear end crashes may increase due to reduced capacity. Overall, road diet projects have shown the ability to reduce (1) frequency of total crashes, (2) severity of crashes, and (3) vehicular speeds. SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 20 TRANSITAND NON-MOTORIZED FA Transit As shown in Figure 4, indian River County?s transit service, GoLine, does not operate along the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs.? GoLine Route 2, which operates between lndian River Mall and the Main Transit Hub, uses SR 60 between 58th Avenue and 20th Avenue. GoLine routes operate aiong 113}11 Avenue, 16th Avenue, and 20th Avenue, which intersect the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs.? The lndian River County MPO's Transit Development Pian (TDP) does not identify transit service expansions aiong the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs." Therefore, transit are not expected to be impacted. The Fiorida East Coast (FEC) railroad corridor is being considered for future intercity passenger rail service between Miami and Jacksonville. A station in Vero Beach is envisioned in the preliminarily pians. Pedestrian enhancements may be identified for SR 60 in the design phase at locations that complement pedestrian fiow to and from the proposed station. Figure 4: GoLine Transit Routes DOS: I I 2' . .- Sho?Mirode . Mileg?o am?ssaaeet 3r . Treasure. Coast ?it - .. face-teaserSRA Schumann trait! .336 Prtimi?iort?ttrce?r.m: (SOME Gardens indi: Rive Apr - 51% st:- SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 21 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities A primary objective of the iane reduction project is to create a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists in Downtown. Creating a pedestrian friendly environment is of utmost importance for Downtown redevelopment efforts. With seven one-way lanes and a 40 posted speed, SR 60 presents a barrier for pedestrians. The oniy signalized crossing within Downtown is provided at 14th Avenue. The provision of on-street parking is expected to increase pedestrian activities along SR 60. The study recommendations for improving pedestrian safety and encouraging waiking within Downtown are listed below. in Reduce crossing distance (across SR 60) at 14th Avenue by adding curb extensions Reduce exposure time for pedestrians crossing at mid-block locations through iane reduction - increase iateral separation between the sidewalk and travel lanes by converting travel lanes into on-street parking and landscaping spaces a Reduce speed limit from 40 to 35 within the project limits a Reconstruct sub-standard ADA facilities within the project limits Currently four?foot bicycie lanes (pius curb and gutter width) are provided along SR 60. As part of this project, the existing bicycle lanes are proposed to be widened from four feet to ?ve feet. On eastbound SR 60, bicycle lanes will remain on the south side, and on-street parking wiil be introduced on the north side. On westbound SR 60, bicycie lanes will remain on the north side, and err-street parking wilt be introduced on both sides. The proposed width of the parking lane on westbound SR 60 is 11.5 feet (measured from curb), which is greater than the eight-foot minimum width specified in the FDOT Plans Preparations Manual (PPM). The increased width of the parking lane shouid help to minimize conflicts between bicycle and parking maneuvers. Overall, the provision of five-foot bicycie lanes and the proposed speed limit reduction are expected to improve safety for bicyclists and encourage the use of bicycle facilities. SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 22 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities A primary objective of the lane reduction project is to create a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists in Downtown. Creating a pedestrian friendly environment is of utmost importance for Downtown redeveiopment efforts. With seven one-way lanes and a 40 posted speed, SR 60 presents a barrier for pedestrians. The only signaiized crossing within Downtown is provided at 14th Avenue. The provision of on-street parking is expected to increase pedestrian activities along SR 60. The study recommendations for improving pedestrian safety and encouraging walking within Downtown are listed beiow. a Reduce crossing distance (across SR 60) at 14th Avenue by adding curb extensions 5 Reduce exposure time for pedestrians crossing at mid-biock iocations through iane reduction a increase lateral separation between the sidewaik and travel ianes by converting travel lanes into on-street parking and landscaping spaces 5 Reduce speed limit from 40 to 35 within the project limits . Reconstruct sub?standard ADA facilities within the project limits Currently four-foot bicycie ianes (plus curb and gutter width) are provided aiong SR 60. As part of this project, the existing bicycle lanes are proposed to be widened from four feet to five feet. On eastbound SR 60, bicycle lanes wiil remain on the south side, and on-street parking will be introduced on the north side. On westbound SR 60, bicycle ianes wili remain on the north side, and parking wiil be introduced on both sides. The proposed width of the parking lane on westbound SR 60 is 11.5 feet (measured from curb), which is greater than the eight-foot minimum width specified in the FDOT Plans Preparations Manual (PPM). The increased width of the parking lane shouid heip to minimize conflicts between bicycle and parking maneuvers. Overail, the provision of five-foot bicycie ianes and the proposed speed limit reduction are expected to improve safety for bicyclists and encourage the use of bicycle facilities. SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 22 EVACUATION SR 60, which provides access to 1-95 and interior parts of Florida from the Barrier island and Vero Beach, is a designated evacuation route in lndian River County. Figure 5 identi?es designated evacuation zones, routes, and shelters. Out of the three evacuation routes from the Barrier island, two routes feed into SR 60. The present lane configuration of SR 60 between Indian River Boulevard and l-95 is summarized below. a lndian River Boulevard to 8th Avenue 4 lanes .. 8th Avenue to 20th Avenue 7 lanes (3 lanes eastbound and 4 lanes westbound) a 20th Avenue to 1-95 4 6 lanes The proposed project will reduce the number of lanes between the FEC Railroad and 20th Avenue from seven lanes to four lanes. in particular, westbound travel lanes will be reduced from four lanes to two lanes. With the proposed lane reduction, the study segment will have the same number of lanes in the westbound direction as the segment between lndian River Bouievard and 8th Avenue. A limited qualitative assessment of potential impacts of lane reduction on emergency evacuations was performed, and the results are summarized below. First, the results of Statewide Regional Evacuation Study (SRES) for the Treasure Coast Region (2010) were reviewed. This study estimated county-wide evacuation times using Transportation interface for Modeling Evacuations (TliVlE) for 2010 and 2015. The ?clearance time to shelter? for lndian River County during a 100 percent evacuation of at-risk population in different evacuation zones varies between 12.5 to 19.0 hours for year 2015. During such an evacuation, the estimated traffic volume on SR 60 within Vero Beach varies from 4,800 to 17,400. According to Generalized Peak Hour Directional Volume table, a two-lane, one-way street couid carry up to 2,240 vehicies per hour (LOS volume for a Class ll road adjusted for a one-way facility). During an evacuation, it can be inferred that the LOS volumes can be maintained until the evacuation is complete. Therefore, hypotheticaliy, up to 53,760 (2,240 24) vehicles can be accommodated on a two-lane, one-way street. Second, Indian River County?s grid roadway network offers alternative routes for travel between two points. 16? Street, which was recently widened to four lanes between US 1 and 14th Avenue, could serve as an aiternative route to bypass the one-way segment of SR 60 during an evacuation. 16th Street aligns with the 17th Street Causeway Bridge, thus providing a direct connection to the Barrier island. SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 23 Third, the Indian River County 2035 LRTP identifies a new interchange at Oslo Road and l?95. Further, Oslo Road is planned to be widened to four lanes between 58th Avenue and i-95. These two projects are currently included in the FDOT Work Program for preliminary engineering and could result in a new evacuation route in the future. The above qualitative assessment shows that the reduction of lanes on SR 60 be?wveen the FEC Railroad and 20th Avenue is not expected to have an adverse impact on evacuation. Figure 5: Evacuation Routes and Shelters ?nite}; River County Evacuation Guide Emergency Evacuation Enema, 25mm, am: Sits-otters Map Legend Evacuation m7 zone at: gear}; Bamarasiano? ma? mom: Rom: Paris: so Li -. zone 5: . - - 5223: Ems: we. 4 We new EMF. 351mm; at 33331531 Warm: as E: an M235 can of me F5: same; them 3mm a. s. 3. a Potsdam Esteem a ??wma?w is" new Mes E?Jeni?tr??igiietrie cit-silo; wtemaemvmm gamma magenta?; {imme?oem mesa-i Sumatra meat: Atari, #3521? . FFz?t ?reman- emits; am. rywepn? Stem: watermarmmam reami- - a} SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 24 SUMMA The City of Vero Beach requested that the lndian River County MPO conduct a traffic calming feasibility study to develop measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? on pedestrian? oriented mixed-use development in Downtown Vero Beach. This study evaluated the feasibility of reducing eastbound travel lanes from three to two and westbound travel lanes from four to two between 20?? Avenue and the FEC Railroad. As demonstrated in this report, the existing and 1forecast traffic volumes on the roadway network support the proposed lane reduction. Further, a qualitative assessment shows that the proposed lane reduction is not expected to have an adverse impact on emergency evacuation. The draft concept plans and traffic analysis were reviewed by the DOT, and, is receptive to the lane elimination concept (FDOT response is included in Appendix E). The study results were presented at the following committees and workshops: . Public Workshop - November 15, 2012 City of Vero Beach?s Planning and Zoning Board - December 20, 2012 Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee February 5, 2013 I Governing Board - February 13, 2013 . City of Vero Beach?s Planning and Zoning Board March 7, 2013 - City of Vero Beach Council March 19, 2013 The City Council voted to accept the study. To obtain formal approval from the FDOT, the project sponsor will be required to submit a Lane Elimination Request to FDOT District Four. Further coordination will be required for identifying potential funding sources for project implementation. SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traf?c Calming Feasibility Study Page 25 Opinion of Probable Cost Kimiey~Hetn ans: 2321;. PROJECT: SR 60 CALMING Wednesday, December 12, 2012 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS - CONCEPTUAL STRIPING ?The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actuat construction costs will not vary from its opinion of probable costs. PAY DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT PROJECT ITEM NO. QUANTITY COST 1 02-? MAINTENANCE OF 104-1 0?3 TS MILLING EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT 1 AVG DEPTH SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 9.5 <12 PAVEMENT 1-1 421 THERMOPLASTIC PA SOLID 11-11?123 PAVEMENT ?12? 11-11-125 38" SOLID 1 1~11w125 MARKINGS SOLID 11-11-1 AVEMENT MARKINGS 1 - 1-11-1 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT 11-11?160 PAVEMENT 15 1-11-170 22 11-13-221 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS 6" SOLID 1 702 . 3 404 Sub-Total 615,635 Genet. 10% 61 Grand Total 677,199 Page 1 of 1 Kimieya?om a?dhssociatee, ins. PROJECT: SR 60 TRAFFIC CALMING Wednesday, December 12, 2012 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS - CONCEPTUAL STRIPING WITH STAMPED ASPHALT "The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinion of probable costs." PAY DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT PROJECT ITEM NO. QUANTITY COST 102-1 MAINTENANCE OF 1134-10-3 EROSION CONTROL ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION ASPHALT PAVEMENT 1 AVG DEPTH SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 9.5 PATTERNED PAVEMENT <12 PAVEMENT MARKERS 1-11-121 VEMENT MARKINGS 11-11?123 SOLID 11-11-125 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS 1 1.4 1?125 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS SOLID 11?11-132 PAVEMENT 5" 10' THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS 5" 2' VEMENT MARKING 11-11-170 THERMOPLASTIC PA 11-11-221 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS SOLID 1 702 3 404 Sub-Total 803,835 10% 89 Grand Total 884,274 Page 1 of Kimieyvl?iere anti Associates, PROJECT: SR 60 TRAFFIC CALMING Wednesday, December 12, 2012 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS - CONCEPTUAL KNUCKLES "The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or oVer competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinion of probable costs. PAY DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT PROJECT ITEM NO. QUANTITY COST OF TRAFFZC EROSION EXISTING ASPHALT PA AVG DEPTH SUPERPAVE 9.5 PA ARKING KNUCKLEING AT 6 INTERSECTIONS POST SIGN <12 RETRO-REFLECTIVE PA 1-121 THERMOPLASTIC SOLID 1141-123 12" 1141425 PA MARKENGS 18" 1141-125 PAVEMENT 1- 32 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT 10'?30' 1-11-133 THERMOPLASTIC 11-11-160 PA 15 11-11- PAVEMENT MARKING EA 22 11-11-221 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS 6" SOLID LF '1 702 . 404 Project Sub-Total 988,885 Const. 10% Grand Total 1,087,774 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIXB Analysis Existing Conditions HCM Signaiized intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 20 Avenue SB SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 f?pwrt?K?tr?w1v? Vomme (911111373; Fifi-:37 11': II fl 1 .- 113:3.? 0 I. I I 1daai 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900/ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Last t1me( 1 Lane Ute Faster {ans Ca V10 Levei=of??ewice I By. Appraac11 Deiay(s 1 A (1 if? 1CU Let/e1 of Sen/ice intersect/on CapaCIty Utii1zation I 151113111513 Period (1111111. (3 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Rape/1 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: 20 Avenue NB SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 fawf?kat??via/ Lane Configurations voiu?me. (V1311) idea) Flow (vphpi) Lane Width Total Losttime(s . FitiProtected Satd Flow (pi/Q1) FitRenmtted Satd. Flow erm .. .. "10.58 2 Q1200 1330.100 3:31:00". 11.011 0710.175" 3- 100 1 Adj. F1ow(y_phRTOR Reduction (ii/phi? 0 .-0 51111310 .223 3150 . Lane (31011;). Fiow (voidTum ?gype .- Protected Phases 86.2 86.2 . i 'g {87.2 ?328732 - - Actuated g/C Rat/o 0.73 0.73 Vehicle wsion (5) Lane Grp?Cap 01131.1)- T321453. .23 v/s Ratio Pro: 0.0.1 c019 RattoPerm :3 . - v/cRatio 001 0.26 0. 00 O. 02 Delays( Level of Semice ApproachDe-ia?s s) 111221961611 10$; HGM2000-00ntro13etay - HCM 2000 Voiumeto Capacityratio 0.30 Actuated Cycle Lengti? :33 1 - 1.20.0;- Sumefiost 111316;;(15) . . Intersection Capacity Ut/ilzation 47.9% ICU Love! of Service A .) . .- 4-5..- . 0 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Report Page 2 HCM Signaiized intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 20 Avenue SB SR 60 WE 11/13/2012 "1900 1900 1990. 1900 1900 190,9 .. 1900" 0 1900.7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33Level of Servece . . Appreach Deiay 0 0 Approach L03 HCM 2000 Centre! Deiay HCM 2000 Veiume t0 Capacaty ratio Actuated Cycie Length 1 t, 9120 ?20000- AnainIs Period (min) Phase con?ict between iane groups 0 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 20 Avenue NB SR 60 WE 11/13/2012 1 0 1995 190.0. 19011 .. 19011. 19110; 1900.. 190.0 111.001.0900 1331111530109" Protected Said HOW {91'0? . - .3515 3 Permitted Satei'Flowf-Iem) A . . Peak hour factor PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.78 0-85 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 RTOR Reduction (vph?555 8155 F1015 1111 5 55%. 51323 3- 13.. Turn Type NA Perm Sptit NA 55515555535555 21-551? '1 Permitted Phases Actoated Green Effective Green, 9(5 3511151559113 R5110 Clearance Time (5) 115121515 :Ext??stanS) Lane 6110 0551111111) 155185115: Pro? v15 Ratio Per111 Vic: Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progresszon Factor incremental Delay d2 Delay(s) Level of Service ApproachDelaws)" - 0,0 Approach LOS A . 553 . 257 66.8 26.7 {355 '1 _1 0.22- 5.3 5.0 3; 3.0 31} _793 697 0:02 .. .. .. 9041153; 59725231919 12.1 37.9 .1 0.1 HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM: 2000 Voiumeto Capacityratio - . Actuated Cycle Length(s 120:0 Sum of lost time( intersection Capaoity Utiirzataon - 318% 1CU_Le11e_l_.ofSeWiGe 3 A 111115111515855011 (min) 15 CnhcalLaneGroup 3 HCM 2000- Level of Service PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 14 Avenue SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 21?11151?1111141 . 1'11 . .. . .0 1 .3117 578?1900 1900 19001900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1-2 12 12 1232 - 2- 2 - . 1.00 .1 00 .1 0052;235- 9525151: -- 1676 3 7 . 1676 .191 .191 Ed?al Flow (vphpi) Lane Width al Lost time? Lane 0111 Factor Frpb, ped/bikes F1136 pedfbakes .. Adj. Fiow(vph) RECR Reductgon {vph} . Lane Group Flow (vplhLane I I . v/suRatIo Perm .. .- 1/15 Ratio - a Uni-form De15y 51 .1117. . ?3 ?33:5 . 1.6? . 30-0. .5 . . 15110105511951.3111 Approach L03 HCM 2000 Control 091531 HCM 2000 Veiumeto Capac?y ratio 048 .. v.3; Actuated Cycle LengtM 60.0 80111 of lost tlme( 11.9 intersection Capa . 2 '3 0 - 542.4% 2- ECU 1.511915185111155 - A Analysis Period(_min) 15 01715103113133 Group .- 3 . PM Peak 5:00 pm 1119/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Report Page 5 Signaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: 14 Avenue SR 60 WE 11/13/2012 f?wwrt??ntf?irw? Lane Configurations ?11 111-111-111 11 1% ?19. Veiume (vph) 9 0 047 764 29 1'0 1530 :0 301'76 ideal Fiow(vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane W1 01111 9 . 31:: 1.120- 012 .. . . .. Totai Last time (51 Lane 13111. Feetor~=ig1g Frp1_3_, pedfbikes 1511313,. pedibikes Fit Pret'eded'i Satdf Flow (pret1 31131111211911 Satd Fiowgperm1 ?1.1901 Lane Group Flow (vph1 0 0 001111 13311311511111 Tum Type Protected Phases - Permitted Phases Effective Green, 9 22.7 22.7 29.2 Actuated 04g if: Ciearance Time 1 5.0 Vehicle Extens - . . 30 Lane Cap vph) 577 1661 815 we'Ra?dPrb?W . 00:21 013 v/s Ratio Pe1m 0.04 V/c- R3110 {93,11 057 Uniform Deiay, 01 12,1 14.8 Progress/1011 Factor 1:00 113 0.91 1:126 - 11831 Incremental De1ay, d2 0. 4 1.3 0.6 0.2 Beams) - . . .. 125? 17 '1 1,5. Levet of SGNECG AppreaCh 'j . Approach L08 A 2000 Cont/oi Deiay . .2, . . . .. Actuated Cycle Length 1 60.0 Sum of lost 11 me 1 12.1 intersect/011061 j_c1tyUt1lization Lei/31 efSen/tce 9 A Analysis Period (min) 15 - - HCM 2000 Level of Service PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Commerce Ave SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 Lane Configurations Votume (V1111) I I . a ?0 .14.: tdeatFiow phpi) .1000 1900 1900 - - 12 12 Protected Phases Phases Actuated Green 3) Effective Green 9. . . . Actuated _g/C Ratio __0.76 V?hac Exrt?ion i .- 011,5 . .. 029 - Detay( s) Lave ofServrce . HCM 0'6 i bf e?rvi. .. Sumoftosttim0(5) 41-79% LevetofSerwce .A. I'Criticai Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Commerce Ave SR 60 W8 Lane Configurations Veiume (115910) IdeaIFIow(vphpI) Lane Width TotaI Lost t1me( .. Larie': Factor F11. .. 13111913133133 . Satci. FIow (prot) Fit. Permitted Satci. Flow erm . Adj R'iiR Reductzoni 3h) _L__ane Group FIow( ph) Tarn'iype Protected Phases Permitted Phases . Actuated Green, Effective Green 9 9 0 1900 1900 1900 ?cie Extensmg 3.0 LaneGrpCapivph) - 3075 v/s Ratio Ratio- Perm 3- v/c Ratio . . 01.37 uniform" 03133; 1:11" '1 - Progression Factor 1.31 13333133133033, 02 ?3 I 0.31 99'3?) . . . Ap __oach 'Deiay (s HCM 2000 Voiume to Capamty ratio Actuated Cy'cIe Length . Intersection Capacity Uttiization 43.9% 1111313313 1213333131111 -- ?15? 0 Critical Lane Group 33 i" :11: "12. . 27-2 . 34:0 3331311331313 (31' ICU Levei 9f Sen/Ice 11/13/2012 0.13 I. 0 I. I I 0.32 1.16 51:11:..2311013131 01" 33131112 PM Peak 5:00 3111 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Report Page 8 HCM Signaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SR 60 W8 11 Avenue 11/13/2012 Lane Con?gurations Voume(vph} IdeaiFiow(vpi1pi) Lane Width . TotalLosthmeU 1 Lane Uta Facte F'if?tiProteci?e?d' Satd. Ftow(prot) Fit i RTGR Reduction (vphW13) 0 Turn Type :7 - - . .1 Protected Phases . . Permitted Rhee": :39; . 1 Ctearance Time 35- 31:225. Lane Cap (vph3 Ra?n vie ifRetio Perm 2ft?" v/c Ratio Uniform Deiay, d1 Progression Factor inorementat Deiay, d2 Deiayts 1 Lev?i of Se? 110M 2000 Volume to Capacrty ratio 0 28 Actuated Cycle 60 3 ?1 . . intersection Capacrty 34 1 1 iCULevei of Servi_ce__ AnaIYSis Period (min) 15'; -- -. .- - Criticat Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Report Page 9 HCM Signaiized intersection Capacity Analysis 10: 10 Avenue SR 60 W8 11/13/2012 Lane Con?guratlons 1 1.9_ I 0 12 1900 1900 1990 1900 .12. - 12'? 1321 1.888 Uta Factors . Fitt?Preteeied- Satd. Flow (pro1) FitPennItted Satd. Flow ng8 r8) Peatehour factor (V88) . . . . . RTiR"Re?uctien (88h) 1- .- . . WW tvph) 18m Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, Effective Green g( Actuated g/CRatio Ciea?rahce' Time?ts) Vehicie Extension Lane Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prat 1'88 R8118 P888 Ratio Uniform 13833318817? Progression Fee or incrementai Delay, 82 DeIayIsI . Levei of Seance 1 . . . 5 _5 Approach Deiay_(s 89818381311 (318" 4117 . .288 388 348 . . . 9-95 . 9.99 . . 0?32 1580.10 9:53 933. . 9.44 . 889 888 . 1.80 32.411 85: _i 18.7 22.1 . . 8883/ HCM 2000 Voiume to Capacity ratIo Act8ated magma-818(3) 1 6013 3132;78jS 11; 3 1- intersection Capacity Utitiza8ion 33. 3% 8evei of Servme A Anafy313 885-33166 (mm) . ?15 1 . . 23-11: 11315-1.- 8 Criticat Lane Group Cit/128888888 . PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Report Page 10 Signaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: 10 Avenue SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 Lane 0091199190998 . 91119 . . . . . 2?11 . . ,2?1 . . 1 . .. 1900 11909 1900 1900 1900 12900 1990 1900 Total L9s12ti1m2919 s2)111111 1 Lane U121 Factor Fit 3 Said. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor PHFH ?1.00 1.2910 100 Ad;- Flow/(V992) . .. . . __53 0 0 .. .. RTGR Reductionwph) 1 -. 02. 8 0 136-32 20 2 2 - Lane Group 1vp1h199999 065 956 993 1.90 105 . 22 .18, 70 0 P1201991ed111Pha992s2 Perm?ted Phases Actuated Green G19 )1 1 Eff/90119923990 Q2191 3- Actuated Ratio 1 1 1 1 03999999939129- 19) 22.2 Vehicie Extension (3)1222 Lane Cap (11pm V?s Ratio Prat 9999909919 -. 917 - Ratio 1 0.31 1 1.1911911913919901- . - "-5513 7 0 Progyes9i9r1t1 Factor 0 68 19015911199191.513919y..'d2 - '3 0.3- - 9991s) . 5-1. . 1.911901899111599 A - Approaph Deiay12) Approach L08 .2 2.. . 2.91951 . HCM 2022020 V02i2112me 10 Capacity Aciuate? Cycte Length1s) 600 Sum of 10311119919) '2 _2 . 11.9 2' -2 5 Intersection CapaCIty Utsiization 33 3% 111C1U 11.9111/91111101189111109 1 1 1 11A C22 Cntmai Lane 2G2r0up222 HCM j'2200220 ?99921 0138919109 PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions 8 Report Page 11 APPENDIX Model Out/out 3500 3500 0.900 090? 14100 17500 15800 2500 8700 2500 36900 9300 9300 34300 8700 8700 34000 36900 34300 34000 13300 13300 14100 8 15700 17 E17500 GO 7 2500 15300 ?0 .900 12200 dag 6200 6200 2200 2100 0000L 15800 15800 0099 A 0091 5100 5100 00903 09 002200 3900 10900 L.- 16300 10000 5700 0900 23100 23100 0008L 200 200 C) C) LG 0019 0010 0009 10800 10800 12000 12000 008? 0087 0 0 0001 DOVL 00p? 00? 26800 26800 27000 0039 C) 0? 0039 3000 3900 3900 3900 3900 11700 11700 13300 13300 8800 8800 4300 4300 1000 1000 011600 11000 5% 1% 0066 0066 DOLZ 0093 0092 11100 11100 23300 23300 3500 3500 4700 4700 10600 10000 4700 4700 11600 11600 3300 0000 00t98 00792 Z019 100 0119 100 1600 1600 10300 10300 22800 22800 2090 09? 0020L 0020L OOVQZ OOVQZ 20d? ?00 600 0 200 619 5400 5400 10300 10300 200 100 100 A590 52000?; 5200 ,1 0 .n 9% 2005 MODEL RUN MODEL DAILY VOLUMES 11/6/2012 5700 5700 00 002 0010 00401 0:0012000 E0 Kimiwm?mm 000:0 21000010000; 1'00 [0030703 9300 9300 000 1 15400 5400 OOVB cove 9400 9400 42300 42300 41400 41400 OOZEL 00291 13200 13200 OOZLL 4800 4800 11200 11200 6700 3900 3900 109 ?19% 300 17100 0096 0096 16800 10900 41000 41000 0091 009A 1700 1700 0003 7700 7700 10900 0002 17200 7300 7300 17100 19200 2600 7 .97 7 QQ 14700 14700 14000 2600 2600 5700 2600 2600 9000 000 17200 12800 0069 12200 0 229? 0085 7500 OOQLZ ODQLZ 7 ?k?eoo 3100 11600 12300 {43; 12200 OOSOL 18700 13200 18700 4000 4000 9000; 13200 6700 OOVL 10400 10400 10400 10400 000 00? 001 001 7700 7700 0008i 500 500 13200 13200 100 100 18800 12300 12300 15?? 1 A 2035 MODEL RUN 0089 0089 OOZLL 3?56) (596% - WITHOUT SR 60 LANE - MODEL DAELY VOLUMES 1118/2012 9900 21700 21700 2100 00931 8900 8900 28800 28800 7400 7400 4800 700 700 0098 25100 0089 22600 20300 7400 7400 600 600 00992 00893 00993 00992 4900 25100 5300 5300 7900 @090 600? 22600 20390 7900 7800 7800 009 2990 34700 31300 31300 34700 h%b $000000? :0 0003000400?? 000 7405;000:0932; Ema 9000 9000 $0 033 0096 0096 9600 9600 42100 15800 9000 ?890 ?$90 40900 9000, 00% 00? 40500 8000 8000 10300 10300 42100 0098i 13300 13300 00311 008L1 11200 11200 40900 9000 <000 B700 4800 4800 40500 1600 1600 7700 0072 OOBL OOBL 7700 8400 8400 20100 16900 0002 8400 15700 8400 15700 00 (?20100 0 12700 17300 E15900 19100 14700 14700 14000 2600 000? 000? 7 ?97 09 5% 2600 5600 11000 2600 2600 9000 9000 12100 000? 6 7700 0056 7700 13100 0029 13100 0019 2 A GOLLZ DOLLZ 30500 09 0012600 0800 16500 18200 18100 4000 4000 13500 13500 001m 10300 10300 10300 10300 0090I [0000003 00901 0700 :50? 00? 0001 7700 500 500 7700 00801 00291 13500 13500 100 100 18200 12200 002; 0021 2300 2300 12200 OOQLL OOQLL 7700 7700 ?159? ?160? 039 ,5 2035 MODEL RUN 11600 0052; 2100 OOPZL 9000 9000 7700 7700 600 600 4900 4900 9400 7700 21600 21600 28700 28700 7700 4000 4806? ?3 c: 700 700 0088 0028 0009 ours 25100 22700 20600 00293 ODVSZ 00v93 ocvez 25100 22700 20600 34400 34400 3100 8100 2327 0%b 0000 31300 31300 530? 5100 7800 7800 Ob WITH SR 60 LANE REDUCTIONS BETWEEN ZOTH AVENUE COMMERCE AVENUE .. MODEL DAILY VOLUMES 111612012 *3 9: xsfefmi?vg?fim. . A Analysis 2035 Conditions No Build Conditions HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 20 Avenue SB SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 Lane ConfiguratIons 1999 1999 m. m. .. 1999 1999 Lanewi?th - - 1*?12 11'. 12" 12f. 12 1.112;.? 122-:a- 12* ~12 Total Losttime(s 4 _3 4.0 Lane Utrl Factor 1'95- -. - 9191 -- .- . . 0.95 3' .. . . .999 . 100 .. Eit?Protected - . - - .- - 099,? 1 Satd-Fiowrprotl .. .. . .1374 . . . . 3169 . F?Permg?ed 199 . 999 Satd. Flow (perm) 4374 3168 P??kiti?or?iai?tor' PHF. 9.71 [9.75" 1.00 1.100 Iii-11.60 -1110 1.903 13.75 9:93.190 Ad). Flow (vph) 0 1115 RTOR Reduction (uphLane Group Flow (vph) 0 1199 Turn Type Spiit NA - Protected Pha9e9 2 3 3 Permmed Phase .9313'35-3-35595Actuated Green, C(s 58.0 19.3 Effective Green 9(9) 59.9 - . . . . 2.91;- 7 . 26.3 Actuated Ratio 0.49 0.97 Clearance Time(s) . 5.9 Vehicte Extension(s 3.0 3.0 00.09 Ratio Prot vis-j'Ratio Perm -- Uniform Bai?yid"45.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.14 incremental Delay0.7 DdaylS) .. 229 H.. .79 Approach. Delay (3) . . . . . 22-4 .. .. 0-0.. 0:0 . . . 7-1 HCM 2600'Control Delay - . 5. HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 . Actu?ted Cycle Length (9) Sam ofiosttimete) . . - 14.8119 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.3% ECU Level of Service A Analys. _Perrod{mm) - 1:353 - Critical Lane Group HCM .2000 Havel of Service PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 no~build conditions 8 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 2: 20 Avenue NB SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 Lane Configurations -. 1 Ideal Plow (vphpi) Lane Width Total Lost time( Lane. ?atd Flow/perm) It Peak-hoerfactor,PHF ?h 100 Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(_s 82.6 Effective Green 9(5) - Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Tame Vehicle Extension (5 LaneGrpCap(vph) v/s Ratio Pro v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Belay, d1 2000 Volume to Capacrty ratio Actuated Cycle Length (5) - intersection Capacity Utilization Level a a . Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 no-buiid conditions 8 Report Page 2 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 20 Avenue SB SR 60 W8 11/1312012 Lane Con?gurations ?666 2 ?6?66? . . Volume (vph) 0 .44? 1126 0 1 0 150 65 ideal Flow 1900 1966 1900 1900 1900 1900 _1900 "1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 T0636 Lesiitrne .- L666 Litil Factor . . 0-91 6-3 -. . .: f' 109 Protected 1.00 5660 56w(pr60 - 6508?? P6rmitt6d 1900 6.900 100 071 074 $00 100 1_.00_ 1.00 1.00 058? 078 0 .-029:11} .39 0313 0 Tumrype . . .. Prat NA Protected Phases - 91 2 PermittegPhases Aetuat?d?Gfeen, GU 1 . Effective Green 9(5 2 . .. Actuated giC Ratio - 5% - -- 073 7 Clearance T1me_(s) 119-1909 Lane Cap(vph) 1.93 R606 Prat v13 Ratio Perm v16 Ratio Uniform Del6y,di Progresszon Factor tncrement6l Delay, 162 Belay - 3.. Level of Serwce 09919999 9616146) 7 Approach LOS HCM 2.000 9091031 Delay .. - 5065?? . . -- Actuated Cycle Length (3) Sum 6f lost t1me( 14.3 Intersectten Capacaty {10626006 5? L?vel ofSewice I 5A - Analy51s Period (_min) Phase con?ict 6661116611 1666 groups 0 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 2035 rte-build 8 Report Page 3 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 20 Avenue NB SR 60 W8 19/93/2012 ideaiFEow(vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ?1900 1900 M1900 1900 1 1900 Toiai 1.9999999 3 9 I 3 .- i Lane Util Factor 0.91 Fri . 100 3 .. Fit Protected 1.001 Said Fiew(proi) .3 45779 Fit Permitted 1.00 . .. .. - 19.00. 1-0.0 990. .. RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 Lane 8999995919999) 0 "75.592235 3351598 . NA - 151:1? . 6 9 93(9) 599 ,gfi E?ectiv Green, g(s 59.5 Aciuated R990 . - 050 Ciearance Time(s) 5.3 Vehicie i ?9 LaneGrpCapivphi . . 2269 . . . . . . 99-. Retro Prat jj'i0033 vie R999 - - @579 55,; .9 Uniform Deiay 22:8. .. . 15-6 . .. . . Progresmon Factor . - 1 '22? :1 983?.j '3 . incremental} Delay, d2 1 Deay(s) . Level of Servnce Approach Beiay(s Approach LOS A HCM 2009 Controi Delay 1:3? 529. 9:11;? 25.5 HCM 2000 Voiumeto-Capactty ratio 9943 -. Actuated Cyoie Length? 120.0 Sum ofiostviime(s) 151.8 .. Intersection Capacity . 361% .2 I iCULeveiofSemce A Anainis Period(mi n) 15 6 (395991 L999 Group 9 PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 no-buiid conditions 8 Report Page 4 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 14 Avenue SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 2292241112919 Lane Configurations Volume (11911) ldeal Flow Lane?Width 1-23? 5i Total 4.2 Lane U11_l.- Factor "0.91 1.00 apb pad/bakes . - - 190 Fri . 0-9.9. . . Satd. Flow _(prot) 4341 11111391110099 . Satd Fl 43411 Flow 2.40 . . .. . . RTGR Reduction 101311) -. 0 - "-55:13 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0_ 0 240 0009199199 1111913)" - . 111 7' Turn Type Perm NA Protected Phases - 533 . -. f; ;i31 3' '12 1,1131? Permitted Phases . Ace/29:1 9192.11 .019 258 . 131 Effective 13reen, 91s 213.8 14C1earance Time Vehrcie Extensron (S) Lane Cap (_Vph) v13 Ratio 13-er v/s Ratio _Perm Vic'Ratio . Uniform Delay, 01 Progressron Factor 11?? 313 9' '8 -1900 1900 49 911?? 1900 1900 1900 1900 12 12 12 12 - . 0-01 0-0? . . 051 "9.91 023' 057 17.7 11.3 13.4 15..317 .13. 18.4 - .19., 25.5;- Approach Detay {Approach LOS HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.9 . HCM 2000 Leve1o1?Servrce 1 HCMEGQG Volume . .. . . -. Actuated Cycle Length 19) 60.0 Sum of lost time( _11_ .9 intersection Capac?y Utilization 7 64.8% . Analysis Period (min) 15 -- critical Lane Group - PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 no-bui1d conditions 8 Report Page 5 HCM Signaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: 14 Avenue 8: SR 60 W8 11/13/2012 Lane Con?gurattons 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 . .1 00 . 1:09. 2:522:21?90 12;. i 1 90 sq? 1 .1916 . 072 100 190 -, 257 . . 0. . 0 ?0 0 . 1:512:52} .. 0 if: Total 10103019 (8) F100 999191195 .. . .. .. Frt, it 901001011" Said- . . Satd Flow (99 m) 100 71.00" 23 0011101111110) .. .9 9 0 R1011 1109001100 Mama 0? 0 Lane Ggqup FEow(vpt1)_ 0 9 0 0 Con? Feds ?211101) T0111 Type Permitted Phases ?6 Actuated Gfeen 113.1(5) 190 Effective Green, 20.5 Actuated 00: R0110 - *"Eif-Jii; f?iearanm Time( .) Vehtcie Extension (5): Lane _Cap (vph) v10 R8110 P101 v/s Ratig rm . .311, . .. ineremental Delay, d2 BeiayH .. HCM 2000 Level of Sen/ice 801m of lost times intersection Capamty 1111112010011 611 8% 100 Levei 018911000 Analysis Period (min) 15 6.- {31119.91 Lane. 810119 PM Peak 5:00 pm 1117/2012 2035 no-buiid 00nd11ions 8 Report Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Commerce Ave SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 ?t?eww?k?tw?wiv? 911-1997 7293133}: 9 - 519. 9 29] 39.- 29 0 1900 1900 1900 19091999 1909_ 1990 1990 1-999 1900 1900 LaneWIdth 12 3312 12 12- 1212 +1.2 Totai Lost time 4.0 ??en?119031~949= Fri 9.94 .7 Frotected" -- 1.90 0195? 100 Satd. Flow (prot) 4396 1572 1593 1676 Rte-amass: 100 -- 1100 . .- 672100 5 Satd. Flow (perm) 4396 1572 1210 1676 Peale?hour factor PHF "1965211989979199.511.5199 . . . . 0 . momma/9991 9h) 9 9 J9 Lane Group Flow 0 0 0 79/913193 . Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green__ Actuated g/C Ratio Ct??'ra'h'c??Tinte Vehicle Extension (3) Lane Grp' Cap (9911)} 7 j_ c: 3335'ch 0 11 9.110* 131:]? 181 i2. Ratio Prot 9.92 0.03. v/sRatio Pei/?19 - -- - 9094 v/c Ratio 40 9.19 0.34 0.25 Uniform/Beetle 2 5 . . 1.24.3 241.3? . 24 5 Progression Factor 0.34 1.00 0.41.5; ~07; Dela-Ms). 1.2 24.9 21.0 19.9 A each Delay( 1.2 0.9 24.9 29.5 . Service? HCM 2000 Volume to Capac?y ratio 9.39 Actuated Cycle Length (8) $00 339.93 "jig-1;. - 8.1 lntersec?on Capacaty Utilization 45.1% ICU Level ofService A Analys S: Period (m it35:: .- 92.1}: 555-}. 0 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 no-build conditions 8 Report Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Commerce Ave SR 60 WE 11/13/2012 Lane Configurations Velma (Vph) Said Flow erm) Peak-noun? . I AdiFIowivph) 0.. 76 .. .. . Reduction QT Lane Group Flow (V911) 0 0 0 0 Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G(s Effeetve Green 9: Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance THEE (3) Vehicle Extension (5) Laneerpcapeph) \n'e a?n Dr to? Vie Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Unrform Delay, d1. Progressmn Factor Deiay( Level-018erviee Approach Delay( HCM 20 0 Volume to Capacrty ratio Actuated-Cycle Lengtm Sumoi1t$tti??1?1sjf . . .- Interseciion Capaoaty Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Anaiysrs PersedCritical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 no?build conditions Synehro 8 Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SR 60 W8 11 Avenue 11/13/2012 Lane Configurations @1115 13.114 1 . 341 Velma .. 0 1? 53 243.01? 122 lo- re; 44 Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12.3 3 "r - - .1 Total Lost_t__iri_ie( Lane :01 Pastor Fuel-stewed Satd- . . Elt?at??i'r?itieoi' .jf i - -. Satd. FlowJEerm) Peak-hourfactor PHF 199 0 7i) .u Ao' Flow (vph) 0 24 986 RTIR Reduction (vph) 13 Lane GrouE? Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 1072 - . Pam. NA . 190 2:31.00: . 092092 .Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green Effective Greer: Actqated g/C Ratio v/s Ratio__._ .ot Vigganaibiperm- v/c Ratio Unifgrm 93351319133 -E Progression Factor . . . . . . .. Delay( 1" Leyei of Sewsce Approach Delayts 1 Approach LOS 2.001114211001913 s??v HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33 Actuated Cycie Length (5) . f. {60. . I 3.9m.billo?tjtirf?ei?g. intersection Capacity Utilization 38. 9% ICU Level oiService__ A AnalYSis P190130 (min) 3.1Criticai Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 no-build conditions 8 Report? Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: 10 Avenue SR 60 W8 11/13/2012 Lane Genfjiguretions 1 .31 155551155) 0 5:52 22 1m ideal Flow 1900 _1900 1900 .. . Lane Width -- Total Lost time( 1 Lane U11 Factor iFl?iSiiE?i?j?ti-?i?i it F11 P?miitf?d? Said. Flow(perm1 Peelehour factor PHF 901753} 1 Adj. Fiow(vph155555 (153111 17-"0 3339*- - Lane Group Flow (U h) 0 Turni'fype -- a. Protected Phases Perm/{ted Phases Actuated Green, G(_s 1 Etiecigve Green 515 1 Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (51 Vehicle EXtension (s1 Larie 61p Cap (vph) VIS Raticl 1353+ 1/5 Ratio Perm v/c Ratio .. 1990 1 535~~f511151 . 9-11 . Delay 1 Levei of Semce Approach Deiay( - HCM 2000 voiume to CapaCIty ratm Actuated Cycle Length/s1 i. I ""8551 of iost time r: - -- intersection Capecity Utilization A 37 0% ECU Level of?Sen/icie A Anaiyszs Period(min - . 335,. -. . - 1 0 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 no~buiid conditions 8 Report Page 10 HCM Signaiized intersection Capacity Analysis 11:10 Avenue 8: SR 60 EB Jawirtmkat 1111312012 #919" Lane Configurations Volume (vph) -- ideal Flow (vphpij Lane Width 1900 1900 Liane utiifactdr: .: 3 1.0.91?- 0.99 . 00, Satd. _Fiow (prot) Fit 'Parrn?tt?tii'? Flow (perm) . 0 9 7143' 12 12 12 Totai Lost t:me1900. Peak-hourfa. .. Adj. Fiow(vph)_ 56 858 RTGR Reducth 33h); . - 0 9 Lane Group Fiow( ph) 0 _966 TumType . Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 30.7 Actuated Ratio 0.54 Ciearance Tameisjig? 4 5,4. Vehi Extens: {on 51.0 We Ratio Prot VIS'RatEo?Ferm7 0.209-3.7 . . . . Progres i :1 Factor 065 Encrem Its-Jaya d2 {34; . .. DelayH . .. 5-6 Levei {if-Samoa - 3 A Approach Deiayis 5.6 Approach ume oCapacity ratio A?tiiated Gyci'e 'i?ng?th intersection Capacity Utiilzation Ariaiys?is Period(mzn) 0 Critical Lane Group arse-race . . . . PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 rte-build conditions 8 Report Page 11 Build Conditions HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 20 Avenue SB SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 149(1?101a119? Votumeivph) .. ideai 1900 1900 91900 1900 1900 1900 1900- .1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane W100: 12__ i .1111 12 1:Total Los1time() 4. 3 Lane U111. Factor 91 F1t'9r0tected099 Satd. Flow (prot) 4374 3168 Satd. Flow (perm) 4374 3198 09399199909, 1' 100 0.71 0.75 1.0.0 - .1110 71.13.00- 1:09" 512.00 075 058 1500 Adj.Flew(vph) 0 1065 Redactienv (ph)0 ..-.7. 00 .Q, . Lane Group .EFOWW ph) 0 1145 0 0 0 0 Protected Phases 2 3 3 P90011190 Phases - Actuated Green, G(s 61.0 15.8 Effective Green; 9 629 - 16.8 i Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 014 91991306051101.6391 . - Vehicle Extension (5) Lane ?Grp Cage (vph) .: 3' v/s Ratio Prot iris RatioPerm -- . - - - - - - .- .- . v/c Ratio 0.51 0.59 Un 110110 Detay, d1 . 19.0 - . .3 . 481 Pregression Factor 1.00 incremental DelayDelayiS) . .. . . . 104 Levei of,- Sen/tce 3? i2}. . I 5 Bfi . 0.199108911965018) . . . -. .0-0 .. 0-0 10-4 .. C. . . ontro aye. - .. . 91/9 .0, HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated 91/019 Length (8) . I 5 120.0 8011101 1091: time . 148 5.3] -. intersection 9apac?ty Utilization 30.8% 19U L9vel-91891999 A 0 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions 7 - Report Page 1 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: 20 Avenue NB SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 Veiume1vph 1 0 3 0 ldeai Flow 1900? 1900 1900 1900 1900 -1990 __1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 {913193; 0319(3) :15:2 Lane _Utli. ?Fa or Peak-hour 13515} I Adj Flow {va Turn Type Protected Phases 5 Pefmiltecl .. 5* 3 . v/s Rat.c3 Pem' Vic Raise Uniform Delay (11 Progresmen Fecier . incremental Dei cl Deiay(s) 3.. .. LevelofService ..Appreach Deiay( 15.. 0:2" '7 Approach LOS A A HCM 2000 Controi Deiay 9.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Veiume :0 Capacsty ratio 01.33 . . . j; -. Actuated Cycle Length 120.0 Sum (31 lost time(s s) 14.3 lniersection Capaci .. .. . - AnalySIs Period 0 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions 7 - Report Page 2 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 20 Avenue SB SR 60 W13 Junker Lane Con?gurations Volume (V011) ideal Flow Total Last 11mg (5) Lane Util Factor 9 {it Permitted Sate .. .. 0 3 1900 1.90011/13/2012 #1111? 111-11 1900 1900 __1900 _1900 1?1? . 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0. 91 O. 95 Peak-hourfaotor PHF 100 1.00 ?1.00 . pr (tron) . . RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 Turn Type Protected Phases. Permitted Phases Actoated Green 3 Effective Green, 9(5 Actuated Ratm Clearance Lane Grou Ftow (114013) 00 1508 t} 0 0.74 1.00 1.00_ 1.00 1.00 100 0.58 .018 4 0 0 0 0 v/s Raho Perm 91011000 Uniform Delay, d1 ProQtesSton Factor"?"" 1-7.7 incremental Delay, 02 Belay . - Level of Service Approach Delay (5) I .1 Approach L08 A Actoated Cycle Length .. . 1?20 0 intersection Capaoty Phase con?ict between tane groups; 0 Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Level of SeWIce "me to Capaettyratio 049 31.5%} Period(mi n) 15 ICU of Sen/toe A PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions 7 - Report Page 3 HCM Signaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4:20 Avenue NE SR 60 W13 11/13/2012 1 1990_ 1939 11911:. F11 Protected Said F1 ow (moi) F111 Permitted (900 ?[71?909 1.9.09. 1900" 19,60? 1900 (9001906 RTORW Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow 1431;} Turn Type - 5?3. Effectlv Green 9(5 Acioated 97c Ratio C?earance T1me(s Vehicle Extension .. Lane Ca (vp vie Ratio? F?ro nic- Dan Perm Vic" R3110 32:33:13?. Uniform Deiay, d1 Progressmn Factor incremental Deiay, d2 _4 . Deia?s) Level of Sen/ace Approach LCSW DCM 2000Con1ro Delay 20.9 Actuated Cycie Length 120. 0 intersection Capac?y Ana1ys1s Period (min) . Lane. Group Volumeto Capacatyraho 0113 . "f .- Sum of 1031 time( 15.13 8% I 15 ?*w?caooiga Leve1- of Service 101.} Love! of Samoa .7 .- _jiA PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions 7 - Report Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 14 Avenue SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 1190000 ideal Flow(vp pl) Lane] Width Total Lost trme( a Frpb, pad/bikes. . 51130151.300111125551139? - Fee/meager Said. Flow (prot) P13001000 . Said. Flow (perm) PHF 1. 1 210,711: .199 -. Adj. Flow(vph) 66 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction 0 8 11.32023 1.32.0.0 15.. 10 3.. 0 . -. Lane Group .. 0 .952 0 0 .0 0 Parking (#lhr) 10 Tam 3'pr I Perm NA Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, Ge( 25.9 Eifectve Green 9 (S) f- '2 31281.9, Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 Clearance Time - 52 Vehicle_Extension 3.0 Lan?GrpCaprh) 1 3.54 V1.3 3611191810? .. \{lc Ratio Delay (3) Level of?Seri/ice - Approach Deiay( Appr HCM 2000 ControlDelay . 1 1 . . . HCM 2000 Voiume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (5) 1 . 760.0 . - . {1133.9 intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% Level ofServioe Analysis Period1mln) 1 1 32115 . Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions 7 - Report Page 5 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 6: 14 Avenue SR 60 WE 11/13/2012 3 31900 .3 1900? 1900j190?5 1-2 J19 953::ii Satd. Flow 3prot)? Pennitted 1 Satd Flow 3perm) urifactor PHF Ad3_. Flow (vph) RTGR Reductionafxrp Perkin (#lhr) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G3 Effective Green Actuated g/C- Ratio Clealanc?irir??m .5 1: .il - Vehicle Extensron 33) 31/5 RatioProt v/c Ratio Unlform Delay, . Progression Factor incremental Delay, 52 Debris) . ., .. Level of; Seance Approach Delay Approach LQS Capac?yrailo . . . . . . . . . Acmated Eyele-Lengthi?fsl 50931192117 "Semiotiost-timr?fls) .- 131 intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% Level ofSeniice Analyse Period3 - "5 =i-j . - 0 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions 7 - Report Page 6 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Commerce Ave SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 Lane Con?gurations 1900 "1900 1900? __1900 1900 197200 1900? Lane Width 3.335333 .5333 Total Lost t:me( 13?3309. Util.: Factor F11 . . . FliiProt?oted . Said Flow (prot) Perm tied - 3. Satd Flowggerm) Peak-houri?actor PHF Adj Flow1vph2.9. .. .25 44. 4,3, ..0 RTGR Reductsom eh) 0 0022 _0 0 00 Lane Group Flow( ph) 0 1261 Tum. Type PeFm . . . . 2 Protected Phases 2 Pennitted Phases . 3 2- .. Actuated Green, 13131 44.5 Effective Green g(s) 45.5- - 1:53-35 Actuated g/C Ratio _0 76 Clearance Time (5) -3 3 - 51 Matilde Extensions (3 3. 0 LaneGYpCaPthh) I 3 333323 3 111's Ratio Prot . -038- UniformDelaydt 2 5 Progression Factor 0. 44 Eri'orerneratat?136511102 '3 - i .3013.? i-3 4 - 3- Delay (3) 1.4 l-lCM 2000 Control Deia'y . .3 3 HCM 2000 Volume to Capaci .ty. ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length( 60.0 sum-01103111111915) .3 8.1 . . intersection Capacaty 11111231191143.9113 ICU Level of Serv1ce A AnaiyssPeraodimin) .- .1533? .. 1: Critical Lane Group CM 220111)" Levee-service - PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions 7 Report Page 7 HCM Signatized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Commerce Ave 8: SR 60 W8 11/13/2012 Lane Con?gurattons Votume (vets) Ideat Flow Lane Width Totat Lost time() I II I Lane Factor F11 Protected Satd Ftow(prot) I I Fit Perm tied; Satd. Flow (perm) Peak-hour factor PRF Adj. Flow (vph) RTQR Reduce/311114311) 1 0 54331;; a Jij ane Groug Flow 11/2111 1} ProtectquPIhases Permitted Phage Actuated Green, G(s Effector; Green 9 ActuatedIg/C Ratio we Ratto Pit-of visRatroPerm v/c Ratio - I I II I uniform: De: 3171.13? Progression factor tncrementai Be; 3 Detayts Let/of of Seneca . . oIaohI De II I I I . Heft/12000 teetersewee . .. Intersect/on Capacrty Utilization I 43.9% I ICU Level of Servrce AnafySIs P831381 (mm) 2:73: . 1-31Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions 7 - Report Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SR 60 W8 81 11 Avenue 11/13/2012 Lane Configuratmns -- 0 4:243 1900 19001900 Lane Width . 12 121-2 12 a Total L091 t1me( L999 QUtil E99109 Fri. . 9101991911 Satd. Fl0w(p10t) Fit Penmtted Satd Flow (perm) ?119111199191 PHF 0 Ad}. Flow (vph) 0_ 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Tum Type Protected Ph9se9 Perm?ted Phases . . Actuated Green, 9) Effective Green 19(3) Actuated g/C Ratio Ciearance T1919 (9) Vehicle Extension( 8) LaneGrp 09901911) . v19 Ratio 919991119. Perm v/c Ratio 09101111999991 Progression Factor incremental 09193192 Delay 1.911919189119109 Appreei Deley(s 01920091999101 9919 . HCM 2000 V0lume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Aciuated Cycie Length (9) Sam ot?Et'i'st 9191s .. . intersection Capacity Utilizaticn (37.1% Level of Service A (mm) . 15 - - 0 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions - Report Page 9 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 10: 10 Avenue SR 60 W8 11/13/2012 Ea). {3-0 33 651 21 ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 Lane Width -- *5 Total Lost times aF?tEteii-5 Fri: . Fit'Pretecteti' Satd Fiow Fit Penn/?ed Satd. Fiowggerm) P?ak?ed'r'tacterPHF Adj. Fiow (vph) RTOR Reduction (tip Lane Groug Ftow (v h) TumT?i/pe .. Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green _G(s Effective Green 9' a? Actuated g/C Ratio Ciearance Time Vehicte Extension Lan? Gm Cap {Vii}. no! rat-am nDrn'l- we all)! IVL v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1:15 ca :23: 0 Ca: Qetay( 5) Level of Sennce Approach Qeiay(s s) A . . HCM 2000 Viio'i'ume to Capacity ratio A Actuated Cycie Length (3) intersection Capac:ty__ Utiizzation Sum of test time ECU Level of Service 35.1% 15 0 Critical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions 7 - Report Page 10 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis 11: 10 Avenue SR 60 EB 11/13/2012 Lane Configurations 1414119111 Veiume (vph) 5:345 S48 I "?3.20 Ideai Ftow(vphp1 1900 419004 414900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 15-2; r11_ 12 12 T12 .312. 12 Yotai Lost time(s 3 9 La?eUt?Facte: 0?0-98 .. . F?'t1?retecied? 11313 - 31109 - Said. Flow (p 1? 4855 1834 F11 Permdted .751: 1311 168 Said. Flow gperm) .. 4855 1834 ac 984 1.099 "75.0169 3 3 Adj. Fiow(v_pt_1) 54 __820 4 59 _0 0 0 0 Reduction (113111 .31; 0.9 35912-3." '53 ?i0 . Lane Group Fiow (vph) 111111 '1er Protected Phases fence T1me( Vehicle Extension is Lane Cap. v/s Ratio Pro: We 'Ratio?P?ff?71:51:37 v/c Ratio Delay/(s Levei 13:11. Service .- Approach Deiay(s Approach L08 Actuated Cycle Length 811111 01109511211118- 455954.3- .. 119 Intersection Capacity 36.1% Level of Service A Anai'ysi's Per1od(ir_1jCritical Lane Group PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions - Report Page 11 APPENDIXE FDOT Response in 9 . . of 34th West Commercial Boulcvetd RE- Gel?mma Fort Lame-sale. FL 3332?s; SECRETARY January 22, 2013 Mr. Monte K. Falls, PE, Director City of Vero Beach l?u?hlic Works Department P. O. Box 1389 Vero Beach, FL 329614389 SUBJECT: Braft SR 68 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasihility Study Vero Beach, FEorida Deer Mr. Falls: The Department has reviewed the draft SR 60 ?Twin Pairs Tm?tc Calming Feasibiligz Study dated December 2012, prepared by Kimley?Hom and Associates on behalf of the Indian River MPO and the City of Vero Beach. The study was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the lane configuration of SR 60 between 20th Avenue and the FEC Railroad in. Vero Beach attd potential impacts to level of service (LOS) on roadways in. the vicinity. The City?s proposed concept ueder consideration reduces the number of through travel lanes from three and four lanes to two lanes for the eastbound and Westbound directions of SR 60, respectively. The coecept also adds on-street parking and landscaping and increases the separetion between the sidewalks and travei lattes. The City?s intent is for the project to help promote the downtown area es a destination. Based on the preliminary assessment and traf?c projections, the Department is receptive to the lame elimittation concept. Additional analysis and coordination are needed to obtain the Department?s formal acceptance of the preposed latte elimination concept, as indicated by Department staff at our December 19, 2012, meeting. It should be noted that more details will he needed in a formal application for the lane elimination, eSpecially with regard to the design, operations, City/stakeholder suppoit and the handing/implementation plan for the concept. wwdotsta?te?us Mr. Monte K. Falls January 22, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Attached are technical comments on the draft steely for your consideration along with the meeting summary of the referenced December 19 meeting. Please feel free to contact me at (954) 777-4629 if you have any questions. CC: Sincerely, C?tstavo Sclenidtf RB, Dist?etyPlanning. 85 Environmental Engineer Phil Maison, Iodiso River MPG Bob Keatiog, Indian Rive}: MPO Christopher R. Mora, ln?ieo River County Timothy 3. MeGarry, City of Vero Beach Ravi Wijesundera, Kimley?I-Iom Associates Dick Kane, Communications Director, Central Of?ce James A. Wolfe, FDOT Dist?ct Secretary Gerry O?Reilly, FDOT D4 Directoe of Transpoztation Development Howard Webb, D4 District Design Engineer Barbara Kelleher, FDOT D4 Public: hfoematioo Of?ce Christine Become, FDOT 94 Permits Of?ce Larry Hymowitz, FDOT D4 Of?ce of Modal Development Stephen King, FDOT D4 General Counsel Richard Creed, FDOT D4 Design Of?ce Jonathon Ove?on, FDOT D4 Traf?c Operations Steve Beetle? Ewing Environmental Management Chen Wong, FDOT D4 Manning Environmental Management Transportation i?lasming?xl? Laue Elimine?on Reviews SR 60 City of Vere Beach??eview Comments for Dec 2912 SR 60 Lane Reduction: Report 91 14$.de Attachment City of Vero Beach Meeting Minutes Excerpt, March 19, 2013 CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIBA TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2913 6:09 RM. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHANEBERS, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call Mayor Craig Fletcher, present; Vice Mayor Tracy Carroll, present; Councilmemher Pilar Turner present; Councilmernber Jay Kramer present and Councilmember Richard Winger present Also Present: James O?Connor City Manager; Wayne Cornent City Attorney and Tammy Vock, City Clerk B. Invocation The invocation was given by Pastor Buddy Tipton of the Central Assembly of God. C. Pledge. of Allegiance Mayor Fletcher led the audience and the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 2. PRELIMINARY MATTERS A. Agenda Additions, Beletions, and Adoption Mrs. Tammy Vock, City Clerk, removed item .201) off of the agenda ?Mr. Dan Brenneman to discuss a new Not For Pro?t to grow healthy, natritious vegetables.? Mayor Fletcher asked that under his items that they discuss Quit Doc Research and the Education Foundation. Mrs. Carroll stated that she would be asking the City Manager to update them on the recent Beach and Shores Committee meeting, the Hurricane Sandy Dune Restoration, the survey sent out to their utility customers and the Vero Beach Art Club?s request te build in Riverside Park. B. Proclamations 1. Osceola Park National Register District 2. Humane Society of Vero Beach and Indian River County Week Mayor Fletcher read and presented all the above proclamations. 3. Confederate Heritage Month Page 1 9/13 This proclamation was mailed to the organization. 4. A Day of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Mayor Fletcher read and presented the proclamation. C. liablic Comment 1. Mr. Dan Brenneman to discuss a new Not For Profit to grow healthy, nutritious vegetables and fruit and donate to a limited number of local food banks, which will then distribute the produce to the needy. This item was removed from the agenda. 2. Commissioner Tim Zero would like to ask Council if they would like to appoint someone to work with him regarding the Go-line Bus Hub. Mr. Tim Zorc, County Commissioner for District 3, told Council that two weeks ago he was given approval from the County Commission to come to the City Council and talk to them. He wants to form a team to talk about the potential sites for the Go-line bus hub. He would like to have a City Councilmember and a member from City staff he a part of that team. He said that maybe members of the public would also like to be involved. He made it clear that the team will not be discussing the bus drivers strike or the Code Enforcement citation issues. Mrs. Carroll mentioned that she has been working closely with the former acting City Manager and the current City Manager in place on this issue and has attended many meetings regarding the bus hub. She appreciated Mr. Zorc for stepping forward and coming to the Council meeting to discuss it. If the Mayor and Council would like her to represent the Council on the team she would be glad to do so and continue her role in this matter. Mrs. Turner thanked Mrs. Carroll for doing this. Mr. Kramer recalled that he tried to solve this matter twice and was shot down both times. He said if Mrs. Carroll wants to give it a try that she should ?go for it.? Mr. Wayne Cement, City Attorney, expressed that the team would need to meet in the Sunshine. Mr. Zorc realized that and said that he hoped to have a meeting set up within the next two weeks. Mr. James O?Connor, City Manager, expressed that the site that the City had offered to Senior Resources to relocate the bus hub to that there is someone interested in purchasing that piece of property, so the City will be declaring the property surplus. Page 2 9/ 13 Mr. Zorc. reported that on Tuesday, March 2.6m, he will be hosting an Indian River Lagoon symposium at the County Administration building and invited everyone to attend. He said that more information about the symposium can he found on the Indian River County website. Also, the symposium will be televised on the local government channel. 3.. Draft State Road 60 ?Twin. Pairs? Traf?c Calming Feasibility Study Mr. O?Connor reported that the lndian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) helped to assist the City of Vero Beach in evaluating Viable traffic calming measures in the segment of State road 60 traversing downtown Vero Beach. In 2012, the approved funding of a $81,768 consultant study to conduct. the evaluation. The firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates, which already had an agreement for professional services with that organization, prepared the feasibility study. On March 7, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the draft study after listening to a presentation and voted 4 to to recommend that Council consider the study. Mr. Brian Good, Kinsley??Horn and Associates, gave a Power Point presentation (attached to the original minutes) on the State Road 60 ?Twin Pairs? Traffic Calming Feasibility Study. He said that FDOT has said that they will consider a lane reduction in downtown. He said that there will be minimal impact on the evacuation route. He explained that there will be a formal lane reduction application that will need to be ?lled out and sent to FDOT if Council wants to proceed. Mrs. Turner wondered how much more work is needed to get the application ?lled out. Mr. Good said at this point they have most of the data that they need in order to proceed. The time frame would be between one and six months, which he thought would be ample enough time to complete this task. Mrs. Carroll added that there have already been numerous discussions with FDOT on this. Mr. Tim McGarry, Planning and Development. Director, explained that the only viable option if Council approves the study is to wait for seven or more years until FDOT is anticipated to resurface the road. Such a milling and. resurfacing project would eliminate the $680,000 costs for restriping leaving a little more than $400,000 to complete the project. He didn?t loiow how much work needs to be done at this time. Mrs. Turner thanked Kinsley?Horn for doing such a great job in answering the questions that they were asked to have ansWered and presenting the study. She said the study shows that this is feasible and there still will be an evacuation route. Page 3 cents/:3 Mr. Walter Geiger commented that he goes downtown a couple of nights a week. He has watched senior citizens who are afraid to cross the road because the traffic is moving so fast. ?He thinks if" downtown was more pedestrian friendly that more people would go to the downtown area. He suggested creating a taxing district downtown and asked Council to approve the study. Mrs. Carroll noted that the Council has passed an Ordinance creating a Business Improvement District, which will be discussed later on in the meeting. . Mr. Brian Heady said that he has clocked the traf?c in this area over the last couple of weeks and the average speed was under 40 mph. He explained that he has worked for government in the past and if you want something then you say it is a safety issue and you get what you want. He noted that the MPO is the same organization who recommended putting in the twin pairs and now they are recommending taking the twin pairs out. A couple of weeks ago he (Mr. Heady) supplied Council with about 150 photos of this area. He said if they are going to decrease the City?s income by getting rid of the electric system, they should not be decreasing the City?s income by starting this project. Mrs. Frey, 2.75 Date Palm Road, recalled that a couple of months ago that the Council voted down being a part of the Seven 50. Now, here they are again in the throes of Seven 50 with a plan to reengineer their streets. She attended the MPO meeting when the twin pairs was discassed. She asked some questions at that meeting and has not received the answers. She wondered how far into the future would it take before the business people started showing additional income if this was done. All she has been shown is an $80,000 drawing with a few more parking spaces. She asked Council to carefully consider the implications of narrowing the twin pairs. She supports local businesses and gave some options for parking and beauti?cation. Mrs. Susan Meal, 131 Laurel Oak Lane, attended the MPO meeting and was surprised when this item was brought up. She also was surprised to hear this referred to as a tunneling effect and the perception Was that cars would go slower. She explained that Route 60 was a major artery to move traf?c east to west and it was not intended for pedestrian walking. She didn?t know any neighborhoods who would want more traffic down their residential streets, which is what would happen if this plan was to be implemented. She was not in favor of changing the twin pairs and thought that it was an inappropriate use of tax dollars. Ms. Marsha Lowenger commented that everyone that she has talked to except for downtown people are against this. She suggested that this item be put on the ballot and voted on. She sees a lot of problems with this and the number one problem is funding. She said there is going to be a traffic jam going to the west because of only having two lanes. . Mr. Chris" Fieids, owner of ABC Printing said that his business has increased 20% this year and he has plenty of parking. He hears a lot of accidents, but so far no one has died. Page 4 19/13 He said there is at least one accident a month near the location of his business. Also, there are no crosswalks. Mrs. Barbara Hoffman, Cultural Council, mentioned that in an effort to support economic that the City Council recently proclaimed the downtown area as an Art District. She went over some of the businesses located on 14th Avenue. She agreed that there were some parking issues in this area. The issue today is about people and making the Art District a Viable place for people to prosper. The City has done due diligence by authorizing this study. She said if the Council approves the feasibility study it is her understanding that funding is not available at this time, but it is important to have a plan moving forward. Mrs. Vicki Gould, Vice President of Main Street, was speaking tonight as a private citizen. She said that she wants all the areas of the County to be successful. In their downtown there is disregard for pedestrians and bicyclists. The area of town that is thriving is where people want to go. She commented that there were more lanes going through downtown then 1-95. She said they need to take a long look at how they want their plan to be in the future. She questioned what town would have bene?ts by having seven lanes of traffic running through it. Mrs. Olska Forbes, 2255 Avalon Avenue, was not worried about traf?c diverting to the neighborhoods around the twin pairs. She said that there is a benefit to reducing the lanes and adding a few parking spaces. There will be more trust in City government to the merchants by doing this because they want to see the downtown area developed into a more beauti?ed. area. The government owns real estate in the downtown area so the domitown could benefit by recon?guring the twin pairs. Mr. Mark Satterlee, 605 Royal Palm Boulevard, commented that the twin pairs was a bad idea when it was built in the first place. He rides his bike all over the County but tries to avoid the twin pairs. He provided Council with a letter, which he read into the record (letter attached to the original minutes). Mr. Terry Torres commented that he has a business in the City and is a supporter of traf?c calming on the twin pairs. He thought that some of the comments against the study seemed out of line. He urged Council to support the measure to. calm the twin pairs. He told Mrs. Carroll that he would talk to her over the phone and give her an update on the Downtown Business District. Mr. Peter Jones, 2502 57th Circle, Architect, urged Council to move forward with the study. It will increase the value and income coming into the City. He recalled that this came before the Visioning Committee and he was a member on that Committee. Mr. Daniel Fourrnont, member of Main Street, and also a member of the Taxpayer?s Association, stated that he doesn?t understand why the Press Journal is so stubborn and not listening to the eXperts who have done this study. He hopes that Council will approve the Planning and Zoning Board?s recommendation. Page 5 CC3/l9/l3 Mrs. Ellen Gower, 7435 Cypress Bin Manor, read a letter into the record (attached to the original minutes). Ms. Janie Hoover commented. that her family owns an office building on 14th Avenue. She was before Council to urge them to support calming traffic on the twin pairs and moving forward with the study. The reason they elect people into office is because they trust that politicians will make good decisions. She noted that the Courthouse is located in downtown Vero Beach and that is where it is going to stay and the lanes that the jurors have to cross to get to the Courthouse is dangerous. She went over some other businesses in the downtown area and noted that there are now 28 restaurants located there. She felt that some of the arguments brought up tonight are way out in the left ?eld. She didn?t agree with having this item on a ballot and having an election. She was at tonight?s meeting to encourage the Council to vote in favor of the study. She doesn?t know why anyone would be against improving downtown and making it a better place. Mrs. Sharon Sexton talked about the success of downtown. She has an art gallery in the downtown area and this has been her best year yet. The downtown area is growing and there are people who want to be downtown. The twin pairs is something that is going to have to be addressed whether it is now or seven years down the road. What she sees happening is exciting. Everyone needs to think about the future. She agreed that they would succeed whether they do this or not, but she has some concerns abOut people walking across the busy street. Mr. Barry Shapiro, owner of Lighthouse Art Framing Studio, read a prepared statement and was in favor of the study. Mrs. Deborah Daige, 1846 21St Avenue, stated that she was in favor of improving what they haVe and the twin pairs should not have been done in the first place. She addressed the evacuation route and said that it is not going to be a problem. in an evacuation all roads lead out and there is a plan in place. She said that she will not walk downtown because she is not a fast walker. She agreed with the study. Mrs. Linda Hillrnan commented that there could not be any more traffic on 18th and 23rd Streets then what there already is on Sundays because of all the churches in the area, so she is not afraid of having more traf?c on her neighborhood streets. She questioned if there has ever been a referendum on the ballot concerning Royal Palm Pointe or Ocean Drive. That is ridiculous and absurd (referring to having one for the twin pairs). She encouraged Council to approve the study. Mr. Joseph Guffanti made a comment about Mr. Larry Reisman, Editor of the Press Journal, that he is One of the few educated people that he has come across in Indian River County. He asked why this item was on the agenda under public comment. He said that the people from Kinsley?Horn are not the public, they are consultants. He asked if the County was pleased with the intersection of 20%1 Avenue and Route 60. He was told that they cannot speak for the County. He then asked for some ?gures. Page 6 19/13 Mr. Brian Good, Kimley-Horn, went over the options and the costs. Mr. Guffanti suggested having an experiment done and do this as a temporary changeover to see how it is going to work out. He is going to make a prediction that if you do this it will not work. It will aiienate a lot of people who use the twin pairs now and cause them to avoid the area completely. Council took a ten-minute break at 8:35 pm. Ms. Rosemarie Wilson commented that the twin pairs was constructed to accommodate traffic ?ow without creating bottle necks in the City. She suggested doing a survey to find out if the citizens of this community support the narrowing of the twin pairs. She was not talking about having a referendum that will cost money. She suggested just doing a simple survey. She believes that the majority of residents feel if it is not broken then don?t ?x it. Mr. Jack Flash was a ?rm believer in logic control of traf?c and doesn?t have a desire to change things because of political power. He is aiso a firm believer of leaving what is there remain there. He said to change to two lanes in each direction is obsessive and costly. Mr. Scott Chisholm, owner of Scott?s Sporting Goods, said that there needs to be an adjustment made to the road for safety reasons. He invited each Councilmember to stand at his front door and if they (Councilmember) walk away saying it is safe then he will never say another word about this. He suggested that the road be converted to a smaller Size. Mr. Ken Daige, 1846 215i Avenue, said that it is time for a change and it is in the Council?s hands to. do the right thing. The window is open now for this change. He said that downtown is thriving and urged them to make this change. Mr. George O?Malley, owner of a business on .1 4th Avenue. commented that everyone is polarized. on this idea of change and he. 'was not sure that this is a change. The reason there is a problem is because there wasn?t a plan and now they are. ?xing the problem. He encouraged Council to vote in favor of the study. Mayor Fletcher explained that this is a conceptual study and Council is voting to accept or reject the study. He made it clear that this is not an implementation of any plan because there is no plan. made a motion to accept the study, Mrs. Carroll seconded the motion. Mayor Fletcher stated that he could not support this. Page 7 19/13 Mrs. Carroll commented that she received a lot of communication from people on this matter. She read excerpts from a letter that she received and answered the questions brought forth in the letter. Mrs. Turner complimented Kimley-Horn on doing a great job and what they were asked to do. She has no problem with approving the study, but to move forward on this issue she would like to see a cost benefit analysis, more detailed funding options, timing of schedules, and potentially doing a trial case Mr. Kramer mentioned that. he is a hard fighter for property rights. He. recalled that Council did approve lowering some speed limits in residential neighborhoods, provided a dog park for citizens that wanted one, and that this is not Agenda 21. He has a list of the property owners of downtown that have signed off on this request. He said that these are local people, local businesses, and local property owners who want to take control of their local neighborhood. He will support the local people on this. Mr. Winger was in favor of moving forward to the next step. .ilihe-niotionpassed 4-4 with Mayor Fletcher voting no. Mr. Charlie Wilson commented that he had two matters to bring up tonight. He said that the ?rst thing is the election results from the referendum that was voted on. The results were clear and congratulations to everyone who worked hard ?pro and con.? He said that every precinct voted in favor of selling the Power Plant to FPL. This means that they have reached a turning point. y?huat has changed is that the City has a. contract and approval by the public. He would like to see all of them working together and he mentioned the penalties involved if they were to stop the negotiations. Mr. Wilson brought up that there is still some old business relating to the OUC contract that was signed in 2010. He said that no one has ever been held accountable and now is the time to let the public know what happened once and for all. He realized that there was an investigation done by the State Attorney?s office, but they never put anyone under oath and the person doing the investigation once worked for the former City Manager. There are still a lot of questions about the Public Records law, Sunshine Law, bidding process, conclusion, contracts missing, things redacted in regards to the OUC contract, etc., that need to he answered. There is one organization that can investigate this and they are the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The City Attorney has provided Council with a name and contact number. He asked that the City Council write a letter in reference to this matter to FDLE and ask for an independent review, which costs nothing. If it is not their jurisdiction or they are not interested then they will relay that to Council. Mayor .Fletcher asked Mr. Cement if the FDLE would be the proper agency to send the letter to. Page 8 Attachment 2013 vs. 2017 peak?season peak?hour roadway volumes Comparison SR 60 "Twin Pairs" Traffic Ciaming Feasibility Study Supplemental Table 3: 2013 vs. 2017 - Existing Peak Hour Directional Volumes and Concurrency (Vested) Trips Link Description Volume 2013 Vested Trips 2013 Total Demand 2013 L05 2013 Volume 2017 Vested Trips 2017 Total Demand 2017 L05 2017 SR 60 EB from 27 Avenue to 20 Avenue SR 60 W8 from 27 Avenue to 20 Avenue 987 1,075 104 205 1,091 1,280 930 1,183 57 176 987 1,359 SR 60 EB from 20 Avenue to Old Dixie Hwy SR 60 W6 from 20 Avenue to Old Dixie Hwy 1,056 1,056 104 142 1,160 1,198 991 1,057 71 105 1,062 1,162 SR 60 EB from Old Dixie Hwy to 10 Avenue SR 60 W3 from Old Dixie Hwy to 10 Avenue 1,031 891 50 77 1,081 968 906 938 47 90 953 1028 SR 60 EB from from Street EB from 27 Ave to 20 Avenue 16 Street WB from 27 Ave to 20 Avenue 341 436 Street from 20 Ave to Old Dixie Hwy 16 WE Street from 20 Ave to Old Dixie Hwy 417 525 466 610 16/17 Street EB from Old Dixie Hwy to US 1 16/17 Street WB from Old Dixie Hwy 595 492 Old Dixie Hwy NB from 16 Street to SR 60 Old Dixie Hwy $8 from 16 Street Avenue NB from 16 Street to SR 60 20 Avenue SB from 16 Street Avenue NB from SR 60 to Atlantic 20 Avenue SB from SR 60 to At?antic 119 148 7 12 126 160 123 134 130 145 Attachment 2012 to 2016 Supplemental Crash Analysis SR 60 "Twin Pairs" Traffic Claming Feasibility Study Supplementai Table 11: Crashes by Roadway Segment (2012-2016) INTERSECTION pue :eaa ed; . M58915 Famed 519101. 9 L02 SR 60 EB between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue um; 14.31 om; pauses uemsapad v-i Jane SR 60 WE between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue ep?aga SR 60 EB between of Commerce Avenue and of US 1 SR 60 WE between of Commerce Avenue and of US 1 17 21 Street between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue\US 1 20 14 Avenue between 19 Street and 21 Street 12 20 Avenue between 19 Street and 21 Street Old Dixie Highway between SR 60 W3 and 19 Street LDUJMN Notes: (1) Does not include crash data at 20th Avenue SR 60 "Twin Pairs" Traffic Claming Feasibility Study Suppiementai Table 10: Crashes by Intersection (2012-2016) um; ?31 mug paxaea name uemsapad apAagg $930.1. 9 SR 60 and 20 Avenue aiguv a SR 60 EB and 14 Avenue puaJeaa 13 SR 60 W3 and 14 Avenue edgmsapgs e- Jame h. 14 SR 60 EB and Commerce Avenue SR 60 WB and Commerce Avenue SR 60 EB and 10 Avenue 1?1 SR 60 W3 and 10 Avenue 14 SR 60 W3 and 11 Avenue 21 Street and 14 Avenue 11 let Street: and US 1/Cammerce Avenue 11 25 18 Attachment 2040 IRC MPO LRTP Excerpt as?" J. i ?33. 4 A: a; Chapter 7. Multimodal Cost Feasible Plan in long range transportation planning, a Cost Feasible Plan (CFP) identities financiaily viabie improvements to an area?s transportation network. The estimated revenue for roadway capital improvements is not always adequate to fund all the Adopted Needs Plan projects. Therefore, it?s necessary to identity cost feasible projects to guide transportation to the year 2040. The CFP builds upon the roadway deficiencies, Needs Plan, financial resources, and goals and objectives by prioritizing transportation improvements necessary to maintain the best conditions possible to the year 2040. The CFP was developed in a fiscally constrained manner based on reasonable transportation revenues anticipated to be available through 2040. Project Prioritization The CFP was developed consistent. with the County?s current priority projects, previous and feedback provided by the MPO committees, stakehoiders, and residents. The roadway projects identified in the indian River 2015 Priority Projects Report were first considered for funding. The following projects are listed in the 2015 Priority Protects Report: 9 New interchange at Oslo Road and [?95 a Widen 66?? Avenue from two to four lanes between 49?? Street and CR 5i0 6: Widen CR 510 from two to four lanes between CR 512 and 66th Avenue 6 Construct 82nd Avenue as a two-lane facility between 26*? Street and CR 510 Widen Osio Road from two to four lanes between ?58"h Avenue and l-95 Widen US 1 from four to six lanes between 58rd Street to CR 510 To identify additionai projects, the Adopted Needs Pian projects were prioritized using the following criteria: . Volume to capacity (WC) ratio (per 2040 network) 0 VIC =t.0 =1 point 0 VIC 0.8 1.0 0.5 points 0 VIC 0.8 a 0 points I Project benefit 0 improves capacity and eliminates the need to widen an adjacent roadway 1 point 0 improve-s capacity 0.5 points Connectivity 0. Provides a new connection (expands grid network) 1 point 0 Widens an existing roadway 0 points Project location 0 inside Urban Service Area (USA) i point 0 Partiaiiy outside USA 0.5 points 0 Outside of USA 0 points a improves evacuationltourism destination routes 0 Emergency evacuation route 1 point 0 Not an emergency evacuation route 0 points I improves designated truck routes (per County?s Truck Traffic Routing Pian) 0 Truck route 2 1 point 0 Not a truck route 0 points it improves transit (intermodai) routes 0 DeSignated transit/intermodai route 1 point 0 Not a designated intermodelitransit route 0 points it Regionaiism improves a road that provides connection to an adjacent county or to a facility 1 point 0 Does not meet the above criteria 0 points it Environmentai impacts 0 Minimai impacts 1 point 0 Unknown/not assessed 0 points 0 Documented negative impacts point .- Pubiic/stakehoiderinput Favorabie ?i point 0 Unknownlmixed input 0 points 0 Unfavorabie points The resuits of quantitative prioritization are summarized in Appendix A of Appendix G. Severai candidate proiects were screened during the prior LRTP Updates through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process to identify potentiai environmental impacts. These resuits were considered in the prioritization of projects for inclusion in the CFP. Cost Feasible Roadway Projects The was developed consistent with the County?s current priority projects, previous and feedback provided by the MPO committees, stakeholders, and residents. Table 7-4 identities cost teasibie projects, funding source, and their anticipated impiementation timetrame. Figure 7? 1 depicts the cost feasible projects and types of improvements. The CFP groups projects into impiementation timeframes based on funding availability. The implementation timefrarnes are from 2021 to 2025, 2026 to 2030, and 2031 to 2040. The recommended CFP assumes that lndi-a?n River County wili extend the 1?Cent Local Option Sales Tax beyond 2019. The Cost Feasible Plan Technicai Memorandum, which is included in Appendix G, documents an analysis of a scenario which evaiuates the impacts of non?extension of the 'l?Cent Locai Option Safes Tax beyond 2019. Some projects were divided into muitiple segments to facilitate a phased approach toward advancing the projects in the OFF. Based on available funding, in some instances, oniy smailer segments of larger road projects identified in the Adopted Needs Pian are funded within the 2040 if certain phases of a project are already programmed for implementation by 2020 design or right-oi?way acquisition), those funds were considered to be committed and funding was not aiiocated for those phases in the 2040 LRTP Update, which focuses on the 20?year period between 2021 and 2040. Appendix includes cost estimates for cost feasible projects and unfunded projects. Table 7- 1. Roadway Cost Feasibie Pian as Funds . . [?95 1 At. Osio Road 1 New interchange 2021~25 Other Arterta?is {n0m3?t8510(2) CR 512 66?? Avenue Widen from 2i. to 4L 202160 431rd Avenue?) 28*h Street 16"? Street Widen from 2L to 4L 2026-30 Osio Read?zt 1-85 58th AVenue Widen iroijL to 2031-40 US 1 (Partially Funded) 53rd Street CR 510 Widen from 4L to 2031?40 ??natFunds - - - - CR 510(2) CR 512 68"? Avenue Widen from 2i. to 41. 2026330 CR 518 65th Avenue 55th Avenue Widen from 2t. to 41. 2021?25 CR 510 55th Avenue intraceastal Waterway Widen from 21. t0 4L 2021-25 CR 512 Street 3?95 Widen from 2Lto 4t. 2031 ~40 CR 512 {?95 CR 510 Widen from 4L to 6L 2031440 43"? Avenue?? 26th Street t6th Street Widen from 2L to 4L 2026?30 43?5 Avenue 16th Street 0510 Road Widen from 21. to 41. 2031-40 66*? Avenue 49?" Street 815* Street Widen from 21. to 4L 2021-25 66?? Avenue 815t Street Barber Street Widen from 2L to 4L 2026-30 t2?h Street (Partially Funded) 58th Avenue 74th Avenue New 2L Fasitity 2031-40 25th StreetlAviation 6E3m Avenue U8 1 Widen from 21. to 4L 2026?30 533?? Street 58"h Avenue 66th Avenue New 2L Facitity 2026?30 53? Street 66?? Avenue 82nd Avenue New 2L Facility 2031?40 74?? AVenue 12?? Street Oslo Road New 2L 2031-40 82"d Avenue 26?? Street 693? Street New 21. 2031?40 Avenue 69*? Street Laconi'a Street New Facility 2026-30 Oslo Read?) i?95 58*? Avenue Widen from 2L to 4L 2031-40 (?When the projects advance to the or design phase, determine if alternative strategies such as two-way ieft?turn lanes, intersection improvements, operational enhancements, or multimodal. solutions would ettectivety address level of service and mobility needs in than of the recommended road widening. (?Funded through Other Arter?ais and Locai Funds. ig um zemrsy I 69 2TH 4TH Legend Partiaily Funded Year 0f lmplementatioa 2921?2025 282142.025 2026?2030 2031?2040 Endian River County 2040 Lang Range Yranspm?ation Plan Update Highlights of Roadway Cost Feasible Plan As summarized in Table 7-2, the unfunded Needs of the 2040 Adepted Needs Plan is approximately $197 million in present value. This represents approximately 35 percent of the present value of the Adopted Needs Plan. Table 7- 2. Financial Summary of Roadway Cost Feasible Plan (Present Day Cost) Interstate/(SlS) s30 so s30 Other Arterials (non?SIS)1 $68 $64 $132 Local Roads $276 $133 $409 Total $374 $197 local roads funded through the Other Arterial Roads fund Major highlights of the plan include a new interchange at Oslo Road and #95, incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian elements to future road projects, and the improvement of a number of major local roads that serve as evacuation routes, provide access to the SIS facilities, and function as truck routes. This plan recommends a balanced approach to address capacity needs through the expansion of existing roads as well as the addition of grid roads to provide travel alternatives. Furthermore, the inclusion of 26*In StreetlAviation Boulevard as a cost feasible project is expected to benefit Vero Beach Regional Airport to implement its vision'tor expansion, including potential future commercial flight operation. The proposed improvements and funding strategies were deemed the best approach to meet the County?s future moltirnodal capacity needs and maintain an efficient transportation system. Measures at Elfectiveness Measures of Effectiveness (MOES) can be used to evaluate and compare different scenarios. Table 7-3 presents a comparison of the 2040 GFP with the 2040 Existing+Comrnitted scenario and the 2035 CFP. As shown in Table 7?3, the 2040 CFP is expected to reduce the daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) at LOS or worse conditions by 4 percent, and reduce the daily Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) at LOS E) or worse conditions by 7 percent. Table 7- 3. Measu res of Effectiveness Centerline (Miles) 735 762 Centerline miles over LOS 15-2 Centerline miles over LOS 2% 1% Vehicles Mile Traveled (VMT) 5,337,412 5,325,564 VMT over L08 9 346,203 96,816 VMT over LOS 6% 2% Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) 115,584 ?2.224 VHT over L08 12,885 4,776 VHT over LOS 11% 4% Total Accident Costs 211.155 212,309 anunded Reedwey Needs Table 7-4 lists the roadway Needs Plan proieels that are not cost feasible. These projects will be. considered for inclusion if additional funding sources become available. Table 4.. Unfunded Roadway Needs Other Arierlels (non-SIS) Fund - us 1 (Partially Funded) 53rd Street CR 510 Widen from 4L to 61. Local Funds . '12th Street (Partially Funded) 58ih Avenue 74"" Avenue New 2L 277th Avenue Oslo Road St. Lucie Courlly Line Widen to 4L from 2L 43rd Avenue 0le Road St. Lucie County Line Widen to 4L from 2L lndien River Boulevard US 114* Street 37"? Street Widen to SL from 4L Roselend Road CR 512 US 5 Widen to 4L from 2L Street SW Sighizf 20th Avenue New 2L 58*? Avenue Oslo Road St. Lucie County New 2L Muitimodal improvements The roadway CF includes improvements aiong corridors that are important for freight movement, transit, pedestrians and bicyciists. The foliowing sections address how long-term pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements are identified and implemented in indian River County. Pedestrian and gicycie improvements Pedestrian and bicycle improvements may be implemented as part of overaii roadway improvement projects or as standalone projects. The cost feasible roadway projects are expected to include ?complete streets? eiernents such as bike lanes, sidewalks, accessible transit stops, and crossing opportunities. Indian River County also allocates a portion of gas tax revenues to construct bicycie and pedestrian facilities as standaione projects. The annual ailooation is approximately $500,000. ln addition, Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds may also be to implement standalone bicycie and pedestrian facility improvement projects. The costs of sidewalk projects and bike lane projects, exciuding the projects that are expected to. be impiemented in conjunction with cost feasibie highway projects, are around $10 million and $15 respectiveiy. The Bioycie and Pedestrian Master Pian will continue to guide the identification, prioritization, and impiementation oi the bicycie and pedestrian projects. Transit improvements The Strategic Service Pian outiined in the Indian River County TDP identities needs for transit service and specific- improvements to meet those needs over a ten?year period. Key service improvements identified in the TDP inciude: Extending weekday and Saturday operations to provide service over a longer portion of the day. ?3 lrnpiernenting Sunday operations. a Improving service frequency to achieve headways of thirty minutes on high performing routes. These service improvements are the highest priority transit improvements in indian River County. Furthermore, the following two new priority transit routes are identified within the TOP: 6 A route connecting Feilsmere and Sebastian to the barrier isiand via US i and the CR 510 (Wabasso) Causeway, a A route on north SR MA from Viliage Beach Market to the CR 510 Causeway. The current annuai operating cost of the fixed transit system is approximately $2.5 miilion. in addition, the annual operating expenses for the complementary paratransit service .is approximately $1.1 million. The annuai cost for implementing the proposed operational improvements .iisted above is approximately $3 million. Funding sources for transit improvements may include Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants, FDOT Service Development Grants, local funding and partnerships with the private sector. As summarized in Tabie 6?3, the estimated federal and state funding for transit between 2024 and 2040 is approximately $85 miliion in year of expenditure doliars. The estimated local funding for transit is approximateiy $26 in year of expenditure doiiars. Future TDP Updates wiil continue to guide transit. improvements in indian River County. Freieht improvements Historicaiiy, the citrus industry has been the primary generator of freight traffic in indian River County. However, the citrus industry has recently contracted in lndian River County. Other freight generators such as distribution centers are located within the county. lndian River County has established a network of primary and secondary truck routes (see Appendix G). One of the criteria used when seiecting CFP projects was whether a roadway was designated as a truck route. The CFP projects iisted in Table 7?5 are iocated on designated truck routes. Table 5. Cost Feasibie improvements on Designated Truck Routes 1-95 New interchange at Osio Road US 1 Widen to 6 lanes between 53?d Street at CR 510 CR 510. \Niden to 4 lanes between CR 512 and intracoastal Waterway CR 512 Widen to 4 lanes between Willow Street and l-Q5 03:0 Road Widen to 4 lanes between i?95 and 58?11 Avenue 82nd Avenue New 2 ianes between 26?? Street and CR Sit) I 43rd Avenue Widen to 4 ianes between 26?1h Street and 16h Street Aviation Boulevard Widen from US ?i to 43rd Avenue @ther Considerations As previousiy noted, approximately 35 percent of funding needs for the roadway improvement projects needs are not met in this pian. Therefore, additional short?term and longsterm strategies to improve the performance of existing transportation system are needed. The pianning studies that are performed in coordination with iocai agencies and FDOT continue to provide a. mechanism for identifying alternative strategies. to improve efficiency and safety of the County?s multimodal transportation system. Complete Streets and Context Sensitive Solutions Context sensitive soiutions seek to balance the need to move vehicles efficiently and safely in conjunction with other desirabie outcomes, such as the creation of viable pubiic spaces environmental sustainability, and historic preservation. Recentiy, the MPO has undertaken two- Compiete Street/Context Sensitive Corridor Studies: the 45*11 Street Corridor Study in Gifford and the SR 60 ?Twin Pairs? Study in Vero Beach. Both projects expect to advance improvements that enhance mobility for aitemative modes and aesthetics. Furthermore, indian River County is in the process of developing a Complete Streets policy for incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. Congestion Management Congestion management projects are identified through the adopted Congestion Management Process (CMP) plan. Each year, an update to the (3MP analysis is performed and new projects are prioritized by the MPO in coordination with lndian River County and FSOT. Examples of the outcome of this process include the 58??th Avenue and US i congestion management projects, which are included in the Annual Priority Projects List. The potential funding sources for (3MP projects include locai funds, deveioper contributions, and Federal and State funds. Safety improvements The proposed multimoda'l improvements are expected to enhance safety for all road users. increased roadway capacity and atternate routes will help to reduce congestion. Furthermore, future projects will upgrade to meet the iatest design standards. The incorporation of sidewalks and bicycie ianes into future roadway projects is another notable safety enhancement. Additionally, the CMP will continue to identify intersections and roadway segments with safety concerns and program improvements. 7 Technoionv Based Soiutions lndian River County has instailed Automatic Vehi'cie Location (AVL) devices on ail GoLine fixed route buses. The real time has location information can be access through internet or on a smart phone appiication. indian River County wilt continue to excise opportunities for implementing technoiogy based soiutions to improve the efficiency of existing transportation system. These strategies, broadly categorized as Transoortation System Management and Operations may include adaptive signal timing, incident and emergency management, transit signal priority, and queue jump, among other strategies. Furthermore, indian River County will monitor the potentiat advancement of Connected Vehicle and Autonomous Vehicies technologies. Table 7?6 summarizes potential strategies to supplement the improvements identified in the OFF, which include intersection capacity enhancements, compiete streets, and technoiogy based soiutions, Tabie 7- 6. Other Recommendations Congestion management Add turn lanes, improve traffic operations, pedestrian and bicycie facilities, etc. a SR 60 at 58?? Avenue a 58ih Avenue between 413? Street and 49?? Street a US 1 between 4* Street and 53*rd Street. a US 1 between CR 510 and Brevard County Line Compiete Streets Context Sensitive Solutions Retrofit streets to provide bike lanes, sidewalks, landscaping, err?street parking, and reduce vehicular speeds, etc. 6 SR 69 ?Twin Pairs? Lane Reduction in Downtown Vero Beach a 45th Street Corridor Study in Gifford Adaptive signal timing Modify signal timing based on reai? time traffic ievels and congestion using ore-defined parameters. Intersections along SR 60 and US i corridors Transit Signal Priority! Queue Jump Reduce travei times and improve trip by providing priority for buses at intersections to attract choice riders and promote mode shift. intersections along SR 60 and ?i corridors Transit Traveler information Systems Provide real?time bus arrival information, travel times, and other traveier toois to make informed decisions. Transit terminals and transfer stations Incident and Emergency Management Detect, notify, and clear incidents to aliow normal traffic operations as soon as possibie. Provide aiternative' route information. Potential Corridors 512