agenda - ircgov.com · 2018-04-08 · others present were: stacy miller, antoinette adams, and...

MPO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

Chris Mora, IRC Public Works Deb Branwell, Town of Orchid Jason Brown, IRC Office of Management and Budget

Sgt. Albert Iovino, IRC Sheriff's Department Karen Deigl, Senior Resource Association George Millar, IRC School Board

Sgt. Shawn Hoyt, Town of Indian River Shores Marjorie Hilaire, FOOT, District 4

Tim McGarry, City of Vera Beach Planning Monte Falls, City of Vera Beach Engineering Eric Menger, Vera Beach Municipal Airport Jan King, City of Sebastian Planning AI Minner, City of Sebastian Joseph Griffin, City of Sebastian Bob Keating, Community Development Director

Jeanne Bresett, IRC Public Works Gustavo Schmidt, FOOT, District 4

Jason Nunemaker, City of Fellsmere- Chairman

MPO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC)

Robert D. Johnson, BCC Appointee Chuck Mechling, BCC Appointee Walter Wright, BCC Appointee Kathleen Geyer, BCC Appointee David DeVirgilio, City of Sebastian Appointee Deryl Seemayer, City of Sebastian Appointee Freddie Woolfork, Minority Appointee

Joan Edwards, City of Vera Beach Appointee Clarence Korker, City of Fellsmere Appointee William Lundy Parden, Transportation Disadvantaged Appointee Ryan Wilson, School Board Appointee Herb Whittall, City of Vera Beach Appointee John Warner, Town of Indian River Shores Appointee

Juliana Young -Chairman

AGENDA

The MPO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) and the MPO CITIZENS ADVISORY

COMMITTEE (CAC) will meet at 2:00 PM on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2013 in CONFERENCE

ROOM B1-501 in County Administration Building B, 1800 2ih Street, Vero Beach, FL.

1. Call to Order

2. Election of Officers

3. Approval of Minutes TAC- November 30, 2012 CAC- December 4, 2012 Action Required

4. Consideration of Revised Federal Highway Administration {FHWA) Urban Area Boundary Map Action Required

F:ICommunity D~v~lapm.:ntiU,.:rsiMPO\M.:.:tingsiTAC.'\2UIJil·!i·l3 Joint Mtg w Cr\CI,-\GENDA.Juc

1

5. Consideration of SR 60 Twin Pairs Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Action Required

6. Status Report of Transit Development Plan (TDP) Major Update and Consideration of Consultant Presentation No Action Required

7. Status Report of Other MPO Advisory Committees No Action Required

8. Other Business

9. Comments from the Public

10. Adjournment

Next Meeting TAC -February 22, 2013; 10:00 AM; Conference Room 81-501. CAC -March 5, 2013; 2:00 PM; Conference Room 81-501

If you have any questions concerning the items on this agenda, please contact MPO staff at (772) 226-1455. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 772 226-1223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.

For complaints, questions or concerns about civil rights or nondiscrimination; or for special requests under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact: Phil Matson, Title VI Coordinator at (772) 226-1455 or [email protected].

Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact Phil Matson at (772) 226-1455 or [email protected] at least seven days prior to the meeting.

To view the TAC/CAC Agenda packet on-line please go to the following link:

http://www .i rcgov .com/boa rds/tac/2013/ agendas/T AC020513A. pdf

!':\Community l)~vdopm~ntlll.-~rsiMJ>OIM.:din!:siTt\CilOJ ~~2-5·13 Joint Mtg w CAC1AGENDAdoc

2

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee (MPOTAC) was held at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, November 30, 2012 in Conference Room B1-501, Building B, of the County Administration Complex, 1800 2ih Street, Vera Beach, Florida.

Note: Audio and video recordings of the meeting can be found at http://www.ircgov.com/Boards/TAC/2012.htm

Present were members: Chairman Jason Nunemaker, City Manager, City of Fellsmere; Vice Chairman Robert Keating, IRC Community Development Director; AI Minner, City of Sebastian; Sgt. Albert Iovino, IRC Sheriff's Office; Jeanne Bresett, IRC Traffic Engineer; Eric Menger, COVB Airport; George Millar, IRC School Board, Karen Deigl, Senior Resource Association; Marjorie Hilaire, Gus Schmidt, FOOT; Cheri Fitzgerald, City of Vera Beach, Planning Department; and Sgt. Shawn Hoyt, Town of Indian River Shores; and Don Dexter, COVB Public Works.

Absent were: Chris Mora, IRC Public Works Director; Jason Brown, IRC Management and Budget Director; Joseph Griffin, City of Sebastian Community Development Director; Jan King, Planning, City of Sebastian; Terri Wallace, Town of Orchid; Transportation Director; and Patrick Washington, Department of Environmental Health (all excused).

Also present were IRC staff: Phil Matson, MPO Staff Director; Brian Freeman, MPO Senior Planner; Sharon Schalm, MPO Staff Assistant Ill; Recording Secretary and Laura E. Vasquez, Commissioner Assistant, District 2, Recording Secretary.

Others present were: Stacy Miller, Antoinette Adams, and Leslie Weatherall, FOOT; Ed Bierschenk, and Henry Stephens, Press Journal.

Call to Order

Chairman Nunemaker called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m.

Approval of the August 24, 2012 Meeting Minutes - (Action Required)

ON MOTION by Mr. Keating, SECONDED by Mr. Menger, the members voted unanimously (12-0) to approve the minutes of the August 24, 2012

1 MPOTAC UNAPPROVED November 30, 2012 F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\2013\2-5-13 Joint Mtg w CAC\MPOTAC11-30-12 Unapproved.doc

Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee as presented.

Review of the FOOT Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program for Fiscal Years 2013/14 through 2017/18. (Action Required)

Mr. Phil Matson, MPO Staff Director, introduced the FOOT team and gave background information concerning the FOOT Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program. He indicated that the Work Program, which is FOOT's project programming and financing schedule for transportation projects within the MPO area, must be developed with consideration of the MPO's 2012 highway, enhancement, congestion management system, and transit and aviation priorities. Mr. Matson indicated that the MPO must approve the Work Program prior to FOOT transmitting it to the state legislature for ultimate approval later in the fiscal year. Accordingly, the TAC must make a recommendation to the MPO regarding the work program. Mr. Matson introduced Ms. Leslie Wetherell District Four Program Administrative Engineer with FOOT, and stated she would be presenting their FY 2013/14- 2017/18 Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program for review.

Ms. Wetherell presented the timeline for developing the FY 2013/14 -2017/18 Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program as well as the "State of the State", consisting of an overview of Florida legislative changes and Federal legislative changes. Ms. Wetherell summarized the new federal legislation entitled MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century), a twenty-seven month bill. Ms. Wetherell summarized the MAP-21 legislation and changes that occurred with this program. Ms. Wetherell also discussed MPO changes that occurred within the State of Florida because of the 2010 Census.

Ms. Wetherell then referenced three attachments: the Status of Key Projects, the Citizen's Report for Indian River County, and the Citizen's Report for District 4, a copy of which is on file in the Commission office. A discussion of the work program ensued. Mr. Eric Menger, Vero Beach Airport Director, indicated that he would contact the District Aviation office regarding minor corrections to the aviation section.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Keating, SECONDED BY Mr. Millar, the members voted unanimously (12-0) to approve the Florida Department of Transportation Draft Tentative Work Program for Fiscal Years 2013/14 through 2017/18, as presented.


Consideration of FOOT Public Awareness Survey (No Action Required)

Mr. Matson reported that FOOT recently undertook a survey of 830 residents throughout the five-county FOOT District (which includes Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River Counties). The purpose of the survey was to determine citizen awareness of and participation in the MPO planning process. Mr. Matson explained that the survey gave a benchmark for evaluation of public involvement efforts.

Status Report of Other MPO Advisory Committees- (No Action Required)

Mr. Matson reviewed his report dated November 16, 2012 included in the agenda packet and on file in the Commission office.

He mentioned the TAC meeting scheduled for December 28, 2012 would be cancelled and the next TAC meeting will be held on January 25, 2013.

Other Business

Chairman Nunemaker commended the MPO staff for the work done on the Greenway Recreational Trail and grand opening event.

Comments from the Public

There were none.

Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.


METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was held at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 4, 2012, in Conference Room B1-501, County Administration Building B 1800 2ih Street, Vero Beach, Florida.

You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the meeting agenda, backup material and the minutes on the Indian River County website http://www.ircgov.com/Boards/CA C/2012.

Present were members: Chairman Juliana Young; Vice Chairman Chuck Mechling, BCC Appointee; Robert Johnson, BCC Appointee; William Lundy Parden, Transportation Disadvantaged Appointee; Clarence Korker, City of Fellsmere Appointee; Kathleen "Cookie" Geyer, BCC Appointee; Joan Edwards, City of Vero Beach Appointee; Herb Whittall, City of Vero Beach Appointee; Ryan Wilson, School Board Appointee; John Warner, Town of Indian River Shores Appointee; and Walter Wright; BCC Appointee;

Absent were: Freddie Woolfork, Minority Appointee; Deryl Seemayer, City of Sebastian Appointee; and Dave DeVirgilio, City of Sebastian Appointee (All excused).

Also present was IRC staff: Phil Matson, MPO Staff Director; and Sharon Schalm, MPO Staff Assistant Ill & Recording Secretary.

Other Present: Karen Deigl, Senior Resource Association and Allen Edwards, Interested party.

Call to Order

Chairman Young called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m., at which time it was determined there was a quorum present.

Approval of Minutes September 4, 2012 (Action Required)

ON MOTION BY Mr. Mechling, SECONDED BY Mr. Whittall, the members voted unanimously, (11-0) to approve the September 4, 2012 minutes.

MPOCAC- UN-APPROVED - 1 -F:\Commumty Oevelopment\User~'MPO'Meetings\TAC\201312-5-13 Joint Mtg w CAC'MPOCAC 12-04-12 Unapproved.doc

December 4, 2012

Review of the FOOT Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program for Fiscal Years 2013/14 through 2017/18. (Action Required)

Mr. Phil Matson, MPO Staff Director, gave background information concerning the FOOT Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program. Mr. Matson indicated that the Work Program, which is FOOT's project programming and financing schedule for transportation projects within the MPO area, must be developed with consideration of the MPO's 2012 highway, enhancement, congestion management system, transit, and aviation priorities. Mr. Matson stated that the MPO must approve the Work Program prior to FOOT transmitting it to the state legislature for ultimate approval later in the fiscal year. Accordingly, the CAC must make a recommendation to the MPO regarding the work program.

Mr. Matson presented a Power Point presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Commission office, displaying the timeline for developing the FY 2013/14-2017/18 Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program.

Mr. Matson referenced the Status of Key Projects and the Citizen's Report for Indian River County. Mr. Matson distributed the Work Program Quick Reference list of acronyms, a copy of which is on file in the Commission office. A discussion of the work program ensued. Mr. Johnson stated that he was opposed to the Oslo Rd. Interchange. Ms. Young questioned the length of time the bridges would be closed when construction begins on 661

h Ave. Mr. Matson indicated he would speak to Public Works and try to have an answer at the next CAC meeting.

ON MOTION BY Ms. Geyer , SECONDED BY Mr. Mechling, the members voted (1 0-1) to approve the Florida Department of Transportation Draft Tentative Work Program for Fiscal Years 2013/14 through 2017/18, as presented. Mr. Bob Johnson opposed.

Consideration of FOOT Public Awareness Survey (No Action Required)

Mr. Matson reported that FOOT recently undertook a survey of 830 residents throughout the five-county FOOT District (which includes Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River Counties). The purpose of the survey was to determine citizen awareness of and participation in the MPO planning process. Mr. Matson explained that the survey gave a benchmark for evaluation of public involvement efforts. A

MPOCAC - UN-APPROVED -2- December 4, 2012 F:\Community Devetopment\Users'MPO\Meelings\TACI2013\2·S.13 Jolnt Mig w CAC\M.POCAC 12-04-12 Unapj:)foved.doc

discussion ensued concerning ways to elevate awareness of the Metropolitan Planning Organization and its function. Among other suggestions, the CAC recommended that the MPO develop a PDF version of the newsletter.

Status Report of Other MPO Advisory Committees - (No Action Required)

Mr. Matson reviewed his report dated November 26, 2012 included in the agenda packet and on file in the Commission office.

Mr. Matson also noted that the MPO took action with respect to a number of other items. Specifically, the MPO amended its bylaws to change the status of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) from a voting member to a non-voting advisor and adopted an updated MPO Staff Services Agreement with Indian River County.

Other Business

Mr. Mechling wanted more information about the proposed design of the Twin Pairs traffic calming project. A discussion followed. Mr. Matson indicated that the project would be presented at a future CAC meeting and referred questions concerning the design of the Twin Pairs to the City of Vero Beach.

Comments from the Public None.

Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:53 p.m.

MPOCAC- UN-APPROVED - 3 - December 4, 2012 F:\Community Development\UsersiMPOIMeeUngs\TAC\2013\2-5-13 Joint Mtg w CACIMPOCAC 12-04-12 Unapproved.doc

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Indian River County MPO- Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Indian River County MPO- Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP /LNtf<_

FROM:

DATE:

Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson, AICP/JflA MPO Staff Director fr I v l

January 25, 2013

SUBJECT: Consideration of Revised Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) Urban Boundary Map

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River County MPO TAC and MPO CAC at the joint meeting of February 5, 2013.

DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

After each decennial census, the US Census Bureau identifies Urbanized Areas throughout the United States. Urbanized Areas are defined as "central places and the adjacent densely settled surrounding territories" that have a minimum population of at least 50,000 and a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. Besides identifying Urbanized Areas that meet the population and density threshold for the first time, the Census Bureau identifies expansions to existing Urbanized Areas. Recently, the Census Bureau revised the Vero Beach-Sebastian Urbanized Area and included new areas that experienced growth between 2000 and 2010. Once the Census Bureau has published its revised Urbanized Areas, federal law (23 USC 101(a) 36-37) requires all MPOs to adjust their Urban Boundaries to be consistent with the new Census Urbanized Areas. Subsequently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) initiated a review of the MPO's Urban Boundary Map based on the revised Census Urbanized Area. As a result, FDOT developed a Draft 2010 Adjusted Urban Boundary Map for Indian River County (Attachment 1).

The primary purpose of the Urban Boundary Map is to determine whether roadways should be classified as Urban or Rural in nature. That determination, in turn, is used to develop highway allocation funding formulas, determine appropriate roadway levels-of-service, and determine the eligibility of a roadway to receive certain categories of federal assistance.

Federal law allows MPOs to make adjustments to the Urban Boundary, as long as the adjusted boundary includes all of the Census Urbanized Area. Adjustments can be made in order to eliminate

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\20 13\2-5-13 Joint Mtg w CAC\Urban Boundaries. doc 1

inconsistencies in the data and make a more logical, smoother boundary. For example, ifthere is a small enclave of rural development between two residential or industrial areas, then FHW A permits the entire area to be included in the Urban Boundary so that any new roadways linking the two areas can be classified as urban roadways and use urban area highway funds. The Attached map reflects a number of adjustments made by FDOT in conjunction with MPO and County staff.

As shown on the attached map, the proposed 2010 FHWA Urban Boundary is similar to the 2000 FHW A Urban Boundary. Some of the areas included in the draft 2010 Urban Boundary include areas annexed by the City of Fellsmere near I-95; the area between 58th Avenue and 66th Avenue in Central Indian River County; and the area between 58th Avenue and I-95 in South Indian River County.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the T AC and CAC consider the adjusted Urban Area Boundary Map and recommend that the MPO approve the Map.

ATTACHMENT

1. FDOT Adjusted Urban Boundary Map

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\20 !3\2-5-13 Joint Mtg w CAC\Urban Boundaries. doc 2

t9

OSCEOLA

Legend

-- County Boundary

-- State Highway System

~~~---~ Local Roads

CJ 2010 FHWA Urban Boundary (Draft) ........... L. ..... J 2000 FHWA Urban Boundary

.. 2010 Census Urban Area

2000 Census Urban Area 0

2010 Draft FHWA Adjusted Urban Boundary Indian River County

BREVARD

,_/"

INDIAN RIVER

•

2 4

S:\Transportation Development\PLEM\Transportation Statistics\J-Iighway\Functional CJassificatlon\2012 Urban Boundary\GIS\Pub~shed Maps\Urban_Boundary_Draft_ir.mxd

Attachment 1


MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Indian River County MPO- Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Indian River County MPO- Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP ~'rC.,

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:


Phillip J. Matson, AICJ?ffl/\ MPO Staff Director 'f:--/'1 v l

January 25, 2013

Consideration of SR 60 Twin Pairs Traffic Calming Feasibility Study


SUMMARY

In early 2012, the City of Vero Beach expressed an interest in reducing lanes and installing on-street parking on the SR 60 "Twin Pairs" corridor in downtown Vero Beach. According to FDOT policy, local governments interested in reducing the number oflanes on a state roadway must first conduct a study ofthe impacts of the proposed lane reduction on traffic flow and roadway capacity. At the request of the City of V ero Beach, the MPO approved a draft Scope of Services for a traffic study of the SR 60 Twin Pairs corridor and authorized staff to issue a work order to the MPO's Highway and Special Studies General Planning Consultant for the study. That study is now complete (Attachment 1 ). The primary conclusion of that study is that the corridor is anticipated to maintain an adequate level-of-service through 2035 even with the reduction in laneage and the installation of on-street parking. On February 5, 2013, the consulting firm ofKimley-Hom and Associates will present the complete results of the study to the TAC and CAC. Staff recommends that the TAC and CAC consider the SR 60 Twin Pairs Traffic Calming Feasibility Study, provide the consultants with comments on the study, and recommend that the MPO accept the study.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

In early 2012, the City ofVero Beach requested MPO assistance in seeking the installation of onstreet parking on the SR 60 "Twin Pairs" corridor. In so doing, the City indicated that on-street

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\T AC\20 13\2-5-13 Joint Mtg w CAC\SR 60 Twin Pairs.doc 1

parking would reduce the speed of through traffic in the downtown Vero Beach area, improving pedestrian mobility. The City also expressed concerns that the current number oflanes on the Twin Pairs created visual and noise impacts that discouraged potential downtown redevelopment.

Since SR 60 is a state owned roadway, proposed improvements or lane reductions on SR 60 are subject to state approval in accordance with FDOT policies. According to those policies, a local government must conduct a study of the impacts on traffic flow and roadway capacity prior to any proposed lane reduction on a State roadway. In June of2012, at the request of the City ofVero Beach, the MPO approved a draft Scope of Services for a traffic study of the SR 60 Twin Pairs corridor. The MPO also authorized staff to issue a work order to the MPO's Highway and Special Studies General Planning Consultant for the study. That study is now complete (Attachment 1).

On February 5, 2013, the consulting firm ofKimley-Horn and Associates will present the results of that study. The study will also be presented to the MPO on February 13th. After those meetings, the issue of lane reduction and installation of on-street parking along the Twin Pairs will be considered by the Vero Beach City Council. Should the City decide to pursue the lane reduction and on-street parking proposal, the City must then submit a formal application to FDOT.

ANALYSIS

The draft SR 60 Twin Pairs Traffic Calming Feasibility Study is attached to this staff report. In that study, consultants have assessed the impacts to mobility and level-of-service of reducing laneage on and reconfiguring the Twin Pairs to accommodate on-street parking. As shown in Figure 3 of the attached study, consultants have proposed changing the current four lane westbound/three lane eastbound configuration into a new configuration that has two through lanes in each direction. On the westbound side, the corridor will have on-street parking on both sides of the roadway, while on the eastbound side the corridor will have parking on the inside lane only. Both sides will also feature bike lanes. Finally, it was assumed that on-street parking could be installed solely through restriping of the existing lanes, without any permanent construction or curb relocation.

Using a number of tools, the consultants assessed existing and future level-of-service on the corridor with and without the addition of on-street parking. The results of that analysis appear on Page 15 of the attached study. As shown on the chart on Page 15, the consultant's analysis indicates that the corridor is anticipated to maintain an adequate level-of-service through 2035 even with the lane reduction and the installation of on-street parking.

To address concerns over traffic using side streets or neighborhood streets because of congestion in the corridor, the consultants performed a diversion analysis. That analysis appears on Page 14 of the attached study. According to the analysis, there will be little diversion of traffic to side streets as a result of the lane reduction on the Twin Pairs. The most notable diversion of traffic will be to 21st Street, which will receive an additional 1,100 cars/day.

Finally, the consultants have identified the cost of installing on-street parking. Those costs are based on a simple restriping of the existing through lanes. Because the study does not propose installing permanent construction improvements (such as bulbouts, landscaping, or paver blocks), on-street

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\2013\2-5-13 Joint Mtg w CAC\SR 60 Twin Pairs.doc 2

parking could be removed in the future if so desired, without incurring tremendous costs.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the TAC and CAC consider the SR 60 Twin Pairs Traffic Calming Feasibility Study, provide the consultants with comments on the study, and recommend that the MPO accept the study.

ATTACHMENT

1. SR 60 Twin Pairs Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Draft Scope of Services

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\2013\2-5-13 Joint Mtg w CAC\SR 60 Twin Pairs.doc 3

SR 60 "TWIN PAIRS" TRAFFIC CALMING FEASIBILITY STUDY VERO BEACH, FLORIDA

Prepared for:

• Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization

City of Vero Beach

Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Jlll"'l-n Kimley-Horn lllrla...J-U and Associates, Inc.

December 2012 (Revised January 2013)

Attachment 1

TABLE 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 ...................................................... 16

CRASH ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 18

TRANSIT AND NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES ................................................................ 21

EVACUATION ........................................................................................................................ 23

SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................ 25

Appendices

Appendix A: Opinion of Probable Cost

Appendix B: Synchro Analysis- Existing Conditions

Appendix C: GTCRPM Model Output

Appendix D: Synchro Analysis - 2035 Conditions

SR 60 "Twin Pairs" Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Pagei

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables

Table 1: Historical AADT Data ....................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Existing Conditions Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ....................... 9 Table 3: Existing Peak Hour Directional Volumes and Concurrency (Vested) Trips .... 10 Table 4: P.M. Peak Level of Service- Existing Conditions ........................................... 11 Table 5: GTCRPM Traffic Volume Forecasts and Growth Rates ................................. 13 Table 6: Traffic Volume Diversion Analysis ................................................................... 14 Table 7: 2035 Roadway Segment Volumes and Level of Service ................................ 15 Table 8: P.M. Peak Level of Service- 2035 No Build Conditions ................................ 16 Table 9: P.M. 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" Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page ii

INTRODUCTION

The City of Vera Beach Vision Plan adopted on February 24, 2005, sets forth a future direction for Vera

Beach. The Vision Plan states "Downtown should be reinforced as a mixed-use office 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 Vera Beach. On September 20, 2011, the Vera Beach City Council requested

the Indian 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 Indian 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 1-95 was

constructed between SR 60 and Palm Beach Gardens, SR 60 also supported regional travel by serving

as a connector between 1-95 and US 1. The missing segment of 1-95 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 Vera Beach and 1-95, 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 Vera Beach

wishes to examine the feasibility of reducing the number of through travel lanes on SR 60 between 201h

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" Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 1

lane configuration of SR 60 between 20 Avenue and the FEC Railroad 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 limited 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

• Placement of parallel or angled on-street parking

• Provision of street furniture, landscaping, and other decorative treatments

• Improvement in pedestrian safety by reducing crossing distance and increasing separation

between sidewalks and travel lanes

• Reduction in posted speed limit, if appropriate

• Accommodation of improvements without removal of existing curb, except for landscaped islands

This report summarizes the development of conceptual plans and typical sections, traffic volume

projections, level of service and crash data analysis, multimodal considerations, and stakeholder

coordination to determine the feasibility of the lane reduction.

An aerial of the overall corridor is provided in Figure 1.

SR 60 ''Twin Pairs" Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page2

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 will 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 along 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 lanes 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 mph to 35 mph may be appropriated based on changes to the

roadway environment.

An opinion of probable cost (OPC) was developed for the proposed lane reduction. Cost estimates were

developed for the following three alternatives:

• Alternative 1 - restriping only (with milling and resurfacing) - $680,000

• Alternative 2 - restriping (with milling and resurfacing) and delineate parking spaces with

stamped asphalt- $890,000

• Alternative 3 - restriping (with milling and resurfacing), delineate parking spaces with stamped

asphalt, and landscaping knuckles at 14 Avenue, 16 Avenue, and 18 Avenue- $1,090,000

Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix A


Figure 2

SR 60 Lane Reduction Study Proposed Corridor Plan

.,....._.,. Kimley-Horn

....._-r ., and Associates, Inc.

Figure 3, Typical Section

~ 2'SOO

6' 2' II II 1"- 4' EXISTING ··~·

SIDEWALK

Existing Section- Eastbound

EXISTING 2'500

EXISTING 2'500

I VARIES 6'·12' 12'1 9' I 12' I 12' I 5' 12'1 VARIES 6'•12' I . SIOEW ALK SIKE SIOEW ALK

~ 2'500

10.5' PARKING

Proposed Section- Eastbound

SR 60 Lane Reduction Study Conceptual Alternatives

....,...._.,... Kimley-Horn

......._-r ~ and Associates, Inc.

Figure 3, Typical Section

I ' I II' I II' I 12' I 4' I L . 6' ~-'"''":' II u I 2'. 11

BIKE 2' r'EXiSiu~G SIDEWALK

flr-~"' 1 Jf=----~~~,~~ ~ p=

Existing Section- Westbound

VARIES 6'-8.5' 12' I 10' I 12' I 12' I 5' I 10' I ' I YARIES6'-8 5' I SIDEWAlK PARKING BIKE · ·

2 · c ·

11.5' 11.5' PARKING PARKING

Proposed Section- Westbound

~ 2.S'SOD

SR 60 Lane Reduction Study ...,..._.,. Kimley-Horn .........._-' ~ and Associates, Inc. Conceptual Alternatives

ROADWAY SEGMENT EVALUATION- EXISTING 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

• 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 FOOT 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

SR60.

Table 1: Historical AADT Data

LINK 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

DESCRIPTION

SR 60 from 26,000 27,500 29,500 25,500 27,500 24,000 19,900 23,000

27 Ave to 20 Ave n.a. n.a.

SR 60 EB 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 WB 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 WBfrom Old Dixie Hwy to 13,000 12,000 12,500 9,600 11,000 11,000 n.a. 10,500 10,000 12,000 10Ave 21 St from 20 Ave

4,100 4,400 4,000 4,000 to US 1

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

20 Ave south of 5,800 4,800 5,300 4,300

SR 60 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Old Dixie Hwy n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 4,400 4,600 4,000 4,000

south of SR 60


Level of Service

Kimley-Horn compiled 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

Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division, and the daily traffic volumes were obtained from the

FOOT and the Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division.

The adopted level of service standard in the City of Vero Beach is LOS 'D.' The level of service volume

for each roadway segment was determined per Generalized Level of Service Volumes tables contained in

the FOOT's 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 'D' volume threshold;

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

LINK DESCRIPTION AADT/ ADT LOS LOS D

Volume

SR 60 EB between 27 Avenue and 20 Avenue 23,000 c 50,300

SR 60 EB between 20 Avenue and Old Dixie Highway 12,500 c 30,180

SR 60 WB between 20 Avenue and Old Dixie Highway 11,500 c 40,380

SR 60 EB between Old Dixie Highway and 10 Avenue 12,000 c 30,180

SR 60 WB between Old Dixie Highway and 10 Avenue 12,000 c 40,380

21 Street between 20th Avenue and Old Dixie Highway 4,000 c 13,680

14 Avenue between SR 60 and 16 Street 6,900 c 13,680

14 Avenue between SR 60 and US 1 5,800 c 13,680

20 Avenue between SR 60 and 16 Street 4,300 c 13,680

20 Avenue between SR 60 and Atlantic Boulevard 1,600 c 13,680

Old Dixie Highway between SR 60 and 16 Street 4,000 c 13,680

16 Street between Old Dixie Highway and 20 Avenue 9,300 D 10,710

US 1 north of 21 Street 20,000 c 33,200

US 1 east of FEC Railroad 18,300 c 33,200


Table 3: Existing Peak Hour Directional Volumes and Concurrency (Vested) Trips

Link Description Volume Vested Trips Total Demand LOS

SR 60 EB from 27 Avenue to 20 Avenue 987 104 1,091 c SR 60 WB from 27 Avenue to 20 Avenue 1,075 205 1,280 c SR 60 EB from 20 Avenue to Old Dixie Hwy 1,056 104 1,160 c SR 60 WB from 20 Avenue to Old Dixie Hwy 1,056 142 1,198 c SR 60 EB from Old Dixie Hwy to 10 Avenue 1,031 so 1,081 c SR 60 WB from Old Dixie Hwy to 10 Avenue 891 77 968 c SR 60 EB from 10 Ave to US 1 909 42 951 c SR 60 WB from 10 Ave to US 1 645 48 693 c 16 Street EB from 27 Ave to 20 Avenue 341 27 368 D

16 Street WB from 27 Ave to 20 Avenue 436 41 477 D

16 EB Street from 20 Ave to Old Dixie Hwy 417 18 435 D

16 WB Street from 20 Ave to Old Dixie Hwy 525 34 559 D

16/17 Street EB from Old Dixie Hwy to US 1 694 36 730 D

16/17 Street WB from Old Dixie Hwy to US 1 644 32 676 D

Old Dixie Hwy NB from 16 Street to SR 60 225 16 241 c Old Dixie Hwy SB from 16 Street to SR 60 250 14 264 c 20 Avenue NB from 16 Street to SR 60 214 11 225 c 20 Avenue SB from 16 Street to SR 60 287 11 298 c 20 Avenue NB from SR 60 to Atlantic Blvd 119 7 126 c 20 Avenue SB from SR 60 to Atlantic Blvd 148 12 160 c


INTERSECTION EVALUATION- EXISTING CONDITIONS

The intersection evaluation focused on signalized intersections within the corridor. Intersection turning

movement counts were obtained from the Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division for the

signalized intersections in the study area. These traffic counts were collected in 2011 or 2012 between

4:00 p.m. and 5:00p.m., which represents the peak traffic conditions in the study area. Please note that

turning movements counts for unsignalized intersections were not available from the County, and hence

those intersections were not evaluated.

Kimley-Horn adjusted traffic volumes to reflect peak season conditions of the year by applying peak

season conversion factors. The study area intersections were analyzed using Synchro software to

determine the intersection LOS during the p.m. peak hour, which reflects the highest traffic conditions of

the typical day. Synchro is an operational analysis tool based on the Highway Capacity Manual. It has

the capability to model actuated and coordinated networks, calculate intersection delay, and define level

of service based on the input traffic volumes, signal timings and phasing, and corridor offsets. A summary

of the level of service analysis is provided in Table 3, and the detailed Synchro analysis results are

included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 4, all intersections and individual approaches to the

intersections operate satisfactorily.

Table 4: P.M. Peak Level of Service- Existing Conditions

Intersection Approach LOS and Delay (seconds)

Intersection LOS/Delay NB SB EB WB

SR 60 EB & 20 Avenue SB B/14.5 - A/7.0 B/16.4 -

SR 60 EB & 20 Avenue NB A/9.4 D/41.5 - A/0.1 -

SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue SB B/18.8 - D/51.8 - B/12.3

SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue NB B/18.9 A/1.6 - - C/21.3

SR 60 EB & 14 Avenue B/14.5 C/21.6 B/19.3 B/10.5 -

SR 60 WB & 14 Avenue B/19.2 A/9.5 C/29.6 - B/17.3

SR 60 EB & Commerce Avenue A/3.1 C/25.1 C/20.5 A/1.2 -

SR 60 WB & US !/Commerce Avenue A/6.6 C/27.9 C/24.0 - A/4.1

SR 60 WB & 11 Avenue A/7.8 B/18.8 C/22.6 - A/4.8

SR 60 EB & 10 Avenue A/9.2 C/22.3 C/20.8 A/5.1 -

SR 60 WB & 10 Avenue A/9.9 C/20.1 C/22.1 - A/3.9


TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS

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 Indian River County

Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model

(GTCRPM) was utilized to forecast future volumes. The following model scenarios were used in this

analysis:

• 2005 baseline model

• 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").

• 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 GTCRPM. 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 GTCRPM model output files are included in

Appendix C.

Growth Rate

We calculated growth rates by comparing the traffic volumes forecast in the 2005 GTCRPM and 2035

GTCRMP (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, 21 "1 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.


Table 5: GTCRPM Traffic Volume Forecasts and Growth Rates

2005 2035w/o 2035with Annual Annual Growth Growth

Segment Conditions Lane Lane Rate Rate

(1) Reduction (2) Reduction (3) (1) to (2) (1) to (3)

SR 60- 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

SR 60 WB- 20 Avenue to 14 13,300 17,200 15,700 0.9 0.6

Avenue

SR 60 EB -14 Avenue to Commerce 14,950 16,200 15,800 0.3 0.2

Avenue SR 60 WB -14 Avenue to

10,800 13,300 12,700 0.7 0.5 Commerce Avenue

SR 60 EB- Commerce Ave to US 1 13,100 14,400 13,750 0.3 0.2

SR 60 WB- 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

21 Street -14 Avenue to Commerce 5,000 8,100 9,200 1.6 2.1

Avenue US 1- Commerce Avenue to E of 10

16,500 17,050 17,250 0.1 0.1 Avenue

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 GTCRPM model output from the 2035 "build" and "no build"

scenarios. The traffic diversion analysis was used to assess if any adjacent streets would be adversely


impacted by the SR 60 lane reduction, including potential impacts to residential areas. Table 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 serving

Downtown Vera 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 GTCRPM 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 Analysis

2005 2035w/o 2035 with Traffic

Segment Conditions Lane Lane Volume %Change

Reduction Reduction Differential (4)/(2) (1)

(2) (3) (4) = (3)-(2)

SR 60- West of 20 Avenue 34,000 41,000 40,500 -500 -1.2%

SR 60 EB- 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 15,800 18,750 18,150 -600 -3.2%

SR 60 WB- 20 Avenue to 14 13,300 17,200 15,700 -1,500 -8.7%

Avenue SR 60 EB- 14 Avenue to Commerce

14,950 16,200 15,800 -400 -2.5% Avenue SR 60 WB- 14 Avenue to

10,800 13,300 12,700 -600 -4.5% Commerce Avenue

SR 60 EB- Commerce Ave to US 1 13,100 14,400 13,750 -650 -4.5%

SR 60 WB- Commerce Ave to US 1 12,900 15,500 15,250 -250 -1.6%

20 Avenue- south of SR 60 4,750 4,750 4,650 -100 -2.1%

20 Avenue- north of SR 60 8,700 10,900 10,300 -600 -5.5%

14 Avenue- south of SR 60 8,200 10,050 9,950 -100 -1.0%

14 Avenue- north of SR 60 12,100 12,200 12,100 -100 -0.8%

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 5,000 8,100 9,200 1,100 13.6%

Avenue US 1- Commerce Avenue toE of 10

16,500 17,050 17,250 200 1.2% Avenue

US 1- south of SR 60 24,950 25,250 25,150 -100 -0.4%

US 1- north of SR 60 13,300 12,100 12,100 0 0.0%


ROADWAY SEGMENT EVALUATION- 2035 CONDITIONS

To evaluate the roadway segments for 2035 traffic conditions, we utilized the GTCRPM traffic volume

forecasts, rather than the extrapolation of existing conditions traffic counts based on historic growth

trends, since the GTCRPM volumes are higher and hence provide for a conservative analysis. Further,

the GTCRPM volumes consider potential traffic diversion resulting from the reduction of lanes on SR 60

"Twin Pairs." As shown in Table 7, all roadway segments, including the SR 60 "Twin Pairs", are

expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better in 2035 with the proposed lane reduction.

Table 7: 2035 Roadway Segment Volumes and Level of Service

Without SR 60 Lane Reduction With SR 60 Lane Reduction Segment

Lanes Daily Level of

Lanes Daily Level of

Volume Service Volume Service

SR 60- West of 20 Avenue 6 41,000 D 6 40,500 D

SR 60 EB- 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 3 18,750 c 2 18,150 D

SR 60 WB- 20 Avenue to 14 4 17,200 c 2 15,700 D

Avenue SR 60 EB -14 Avenue to Commerce

3 16,200 c 2 15,800 D Avenue SR 60 WB- 14 Avenue to

4 13,300 c 2 12,700 c Commerce Avenue

SR 60 EB- Commerce Ave to US 1 3 14,400 c 3 13,750 c SR 60 WB- Commerce Ave to US 1 4 15,500 c 4 15,250 c 20 Avenue- south of SR 60 4 4,750 c 4 4,650 c 20 Avenue- north of SR 60 2 10,900 c 2 10,300 c 14 Avenue- south of SR 60 2 10,050 D 2 9,950 D

14 Avenue- north of SR 60 2 12,200 D 2 12,100 D

10 Avenue- south of SR 60 2 9,000 D 2 9,400 D

10 Avenue- north of SR 60 2 9,800 D 2 9,900 D

21 Street- West of 20 Avenue 2 7,900 c 2 8,000 c 21 Street- 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 2 7,300 c 2 8,400 c 21 Street- 14 Avenue to Commerce

2 8,100 c 2 9,200 D Avenue US 1- Commerce Avenue to E of 10

4 17,050 c 4 17,250 c Avenue

US 1 - south of SR 60 4 25,250 D 4 25,150 D

US 1- north of SR 60 4 12,100 c 4 12,100 c

SR 60 ''Twin Pairs" Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 15

INTERSECTION EVALUATION- 2035 CONDITIONS

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 GTCRPM forecasts.

The future peak hour volumes at the study area intersections were analyzed using Synchro 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 Synchro

output is included in Appendix D.

Level of Service

All of the intersections are expected to operate at an overall LOS C or better without or with the proposed

lane reduction. The individual approaches to the intersections are also expected to operate at LOS D or

better. The signalized intersections at SR 60 and 141h 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: P.M. Peak Level of Service- 2035 No Build Conditions

Intersection Approach LOS and Delay (seconds)


SR 60 EB & 20 Avenue SB B/19.0 - A/7.1 C/22.4 -


SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue SB C/24.3 - D/51.5 - B/18.4

SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue NB C/25.5 A/1.6 - - C/29.1

SR 60 EB & 14 Avenue B/16.9 C/22.2 B/19.1 B/14.2 -

SR 60 WB & 14 Avenue C/23.4 A/9.1 D/44.1 - B/17.8

SR 60 EB & Commerce Avenue A/3.3 C/24.9 C/20.5 A/1.2 -

SR 60 WB & US !/Commerce Avenue A/7.8 C/26.1 C/24.4 - A/5.3

SR 60 WB & 11 Avenue A/8.5 B/17.8 C/22.8 - A/5.6

SR 60 EB & 10 Avenue A/9.8 C/22.3 B/19.4 A/5.6 -

SR 60 WB & 10 Avenue B/11.0 C/21.7 C/20.8 - A/4.9


Table 9: P.M. Peak Level of Service- 2035 Build Conditions

Intersection Approach LOS and Delay (seconds}


SR 60 EB & 20 Avenue SB B/17.7 - B/10.4 B/19.8 -


SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue SB C/22.9 - D/53.0 - B/16.3

SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue NB C/20.9 A/1.8 - - C/23.8

SR 60 EB & 14 Avenue C/21.7 C/22.1 B/19.3 C/22.8 -SR 60 WB & 14 Avenue C/33.7 A/9.1 D/44.1 - D/36.7

SR 60 EB & Commerce Avenue A/3.5 C/25.0 C/20.7 A/1.4 -SR 60 WB & US !/Commerce Avenue A/7.1 C/26.4 C/24.2 - A/4.5

SR 60 WB & 11 Avenue A/8.6 B/17.9 C/22.9 - A/5.5

SR 60 EB & 10 Avenue B/11.2 C/22.6 C/21.1 A/4.7 -SR 60 WB & 10 Avenue B/11.0 C/21.7 C/20.8 - A/4.9


CRASH ANAL YS/S

Crash data for major roads within the study limits for years 2009 through 2011 (the last available full 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 201h Avenue experienced the highest number of crashes. Approximately

55 percent (16 out of 29) of crashes were angle. During stakeholder 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 all red clearance time to

mitigate angle crashes. In general, crash data at other intersections do not indicate discernable patterns

that warrant further assessment. Further, FOOT's High Crash Location list for 2010 does not identify any

intersections within the study limits as high crash locations.

Table 10: Crashes by Intersection

0 c c Cl.l .... "C c ... !l. .!:: nl c ... ::J "§ "C

·;:: INTERSECTION Cl.l ::J .... "C .... Cl.l ... Cl.l .... Cl.l Cl.l "' u -... .... "' .:t!. Cl.l Cl.l

bo ..c Cl.l .:t!. > nl nl i u ... "C ..c .... Cl.l c QO "C nl nl Cl.l u .... 0 0:: <C _, ~ u; CQ 0.. 0.. iii 0 1-

SR 60 and 20 Avenue 4 16 1 3 1 4 29

SR 60 EB and 14 Avenue 7 8 1 3 1 1 1 22

SR 60 WB and 14 Avenue 3 7 2 2 1 15

SR 60 EB and Commerce Avenue 8 2 2 2 2 16

SR 60 WB and Commerce Avenue 2 4 4 2 12

SR 60 EB and 10 Avenue 2 3 1 1 7

SR 60 WB and 10 Avenue 1 2 1 3 1 8

SR 60 WB and 11 Avenue 2 1 1 4

21 Street and 14 Avenue 3 2 2 1 8

21 Street and US 1/Commerce Avenue 4 3 6 5 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 lanes from four to two may help to reduce the sideswipe

crashes. A review of FOOT's High Crash Segment list for 2010 did not identify any high crash segments

within study limits.

Table 11: Crashes by Roadway Segment

0 c Ql ... c

"CI c ... c.. ·= IU

LINK DESCRIPTION c ... :::J '§ "CI ·;:

Ql :::J ... "CI ... Ql Ql Ql Ql "' u ... ... ... ... "' ..111:: Ql Ql r; Qo .c Ql ..111:: > IU -= tiO "CI u ... "CI u .c 0 Ql c Ql IU IU Ql ...

0:: <( ..... ii: iii al a.. a.. iii 0 1-

SR 60 EB between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue1

19 14 7 7 1 1 1 6 56

SR 60 WB between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue1

5 10 8 15 4 42

SR 60 EB between E of Commerce Avenue and W of US 1 2 6 1 2 1 12

SR 60 WB between E of Commerce Avenue and W of US 1 1 5 3 5 2 16

21 Street between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue\ US 1 6 10 1 9 1 6 33

14 Avenue between 19 Street and 21 Street 14 19 5 6 1 1 2 48

20 Avenue between 19 Street and 21 Street 4 18 2 4 1 4 33

Old Dixie Highway between SR 60 WB and 19 Street 4 4

Note 1: Does not mclude crashes at 20 Avenue

Safety Benefits of Lane Reduction

"Road Diets" (lane reduction) has been identified by the Federal 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 (PBIC), before versus after studies have shown that road diet projects result 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 significantly 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


reduction of total crashes and 60 percent reduction of pedestrian crashes for one corridor (Aiemany

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%

• Injury collisions declined 5 1

33% 14 6

34 15

• Angle collisions declined 12 9

s6% 34 29

1 1 • Bicycle collisions no 7 7

change, but rate declined 17 28

• Pedestrian collisions 159 137

declined 8o% 52 35

33% 25%

~ TooleDesignGroup

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.


TRANSIT AND NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES

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 Indian River Mall and the Main Transit Hub, uses

SR 60 between 58th Avenue and 20th Avenue. Goline routes operate along 14th Avenue, 16th Avenue,

and 20th Avenue, which intersect the SR 60 "Twin Pairs." The Indian River County MPO's Transit

Development Plan (TOP) does not identify transit service expansions along the SR 60 "Twin Pairs."

Therefore, transit facilities are not expected to be impacted.

The Florida East Coast (FEC) railroad corridor is being considered for future intercity passenger rail

service between Miami and Jacksonville. A station in Vera Beach is envisioned in the preliminarily plans.

Pedestrian facility enhancements may be identified for SR 60 in the design phase at locations that

complement pedestrian flow to and from the proposed station.

~ ,J~U~JIUm

~ w ~ ~

t t

161h St. • !i:~ ~3'-

ji~

r-

~ ~

t

Figure 4: Goline Transit Routes

1-.)

.~

! ~ ~ ~

INDIAN RIVER 32nd COUNlY

ADMit-.ISTRAllON COMPlEX

161hSt .

% 9-.


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

redevelopment efforts. With seven one-way lanes and a 40 mph posted speed, SR 60 presents a barrier

for pedestrians. The only 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 walking within Downtown are listed

below.

• Reduce crossing distance (across SR 60) at 14th Avenue by adding curb extensions

• Reduce exposure time for pedestrians crossing at mid-block locations through lane reduction

• Increase lateral separation between the sidewalk and travel lanes by converting travel lanes into

on-street parking and landscaping spaces

• Reduce speed limit from 40 mph to 35 mph within the project limits

• Construct sub-standard ADA facilities within the project limits

Currently four-foot bicycle lanes (plus 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 five feet. On eastbound

SR 60, bicycle lanes will remain on the south side, and on-street parking will be introduced on the north

side. On westbound SR 60, bicycle lanes will remain on the north side, and on-street parking will 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 FOOT Plans

Preparations Manual (PPM). The increased width of the parking lane should help to minimize conflicts

between bicycle and parking maneuvers. Overall, the provision of five-foot bicycle lanes and the

proposed speed limit reduction are expected to improve safety for bicyclists and encourage the use of

bicycle facilities.


EVACUATION

SR 60, which provides access to 1-95 and interior parts of Florida from the Barrier Island and Vera Beach,

is a designated evacuation route in Indian River County. Figure 5 identifies 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 1-95 is summarized

below.

• Indian River Boulevard to 8th Avenue- 4 lanes

• 8th Avenue to 20th Avenue - 7 lanes (3 lanes eastbound and 4 lanes westbound)

• 20th Avenue to 1-95- 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 Indian River Boulevard and ath 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 (201 0)

were reviewed. This study estimated county-wide evacuation times using Transportation Interface for

Modeling Evacuations (TIME) for 2010 and 2015. The "clearance time to shelter'' for Indian 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 Vera

Beach varies from 4,800 to 17,400. According to FOOT's Generalized Peak Hour Directional Volume

table, a two-lane, one-way street could carry up to 2,240 vehicles per hour (LOS E volume for a Class II

road adjusted for a one-way facility). During an evacuation, it can be inferred that the LOS E volumes

can be maintained until the evacuation is complete. Therefore, hypothetically, up to 53,760 (2,240 x 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. 16th Street, which was recently widened to four lanes between US 1 and 14th Avenue, could serve

as an alternative 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.


Third, the Indian River County MPO's 2035 LRTP identifies a new interchange at Oslo Road and 1-95.

Further, Oslo Road is planned to be widened to four lanes between 58th Avenue and 1-95. 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 between the FEC Railroad

and 20th Avenue is not expected to have an adverse impact on evacuation.

Figure 5: Evacuation Routes and Shelters

Indian River County Evacuation Guide Emergency Evacuation Routes, Zones, and Shelters

lndan...,.,. caonb' lhlt•R t.~lrians~ra;·,

400 ~:;b! eNd. Setl.1:zl:bn 2. ~Ri.IMr• atnMI'ItDI'J' SDNe,re:sstreet.'Feti~e

i.~li,'Rf~iiltld'i.

SG~~s~:;~ ... ~.ltRfi.VHtjiJbsdJa-oJ ~!90tH~'ei"W.sebcbln

~ NfC.U &laiid Ei.i.ine:ir.H"~ 1)$ £ctt..narft D'Ne, 6ef3astbn

·a. li«m 'iJrOoie "iifJddit -. . -. 6GI5?1ft .....

1.Gitriiiiiliiitdio' 4SlG-li!HOcl.d, Vero 99:11

&. ..aHsFtll:lfttii•n LU:ifttrn(:CGn~ 1!Dl'19nt 150HI;_ VOC!1?_191:ad'\

4941I·!J'IMst=Ve"tJi!mch to:· O.ti'O iiid.i·.- . -"" 48Jl~SI.V, veoemm tC~, •• -.QHi·SdJ·.l¢1·.

1111l11THA"-enue &"N. veoo Belch u:~·aNn•iitaY.

S!Jl2alH$hft&'/i, Ve!Q Eead! aK:ia~oliidHIIidri ae.ter

n .. ar. eoa• a..,..,,.,,, as aro-t 5treel. SebasC3n -£77:1 567-2154

H·.:::Pt.t·Ail~~,. t.lb<tlftJV•!~Ptt$Qilodd E8!11!1STS2recl, Vocn:~&:Gth

~ntbnrnnct

0'7:1 3!&-:n:u. ert.1o

SR 60 "Twin Pairs" Traffic Calming Feasibility Study

ZONEA:.~REC~ Bi:H"'1er !:I land o:r...d Pl~lc Home Pm~

Z<lNE B: (ORANGE! Mel~ EiJ:t d!. U.3.. H1.\IY 1

ZONE C: {YELLOW:• St ~:!an R:verArel

ZONED&E: All mfell!l; e1:1t ~1:\e FEC ~f>A'ill}l"lnC~.Idi"..g

• ZGnesA.B.!.C.

Page 24

SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

The City of Vera Beach requested that the Indian 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

201h Avenue and FEC railroad.

As demonstrated in this report, the existing and forecast 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 evacuations. The draft concept plans and traffic analysis

were submitted to the FOOT for review and comment. The study results were presented at a public

workshop on November 15, 2012, and to the City of Vera Beach's Planning and Zoning Board on

December 20, 2012. Further, the proposed concepts will be presented to the following committees:

• Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee- Indian River County MPO

• Governing Board- Indian River County MPO

• City of Vera Beach Council

If the proposed lane reduction concept is approved by these stakeholders, the project sponsor will be

required to submit a formal Lane Elimination Request to FOOT District Four. Further coordination will be

required for identifying potential funding sources for project implementation.


APPENDIX A

Opinion of Probable Cost

.......-J-FW Kimley-Horn ~-r , and Associates, Inc.

PROJECT: SR 60 TRAFFIC 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 actual construction costs will not vary from its opinion of probable costs."

PAY DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT UNIT

ITEM NO. QUANTITY PRICE

ROADWAY

101-1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 50000 $

102-1 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LS 1 $ 50000 $

104-10-3 EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 15 000.00 $

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING LS 1 $ 50000 $

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION LS 1 $ 50000 $

108-1 AS-BUILTS LS 1 $ 10,000 $

327-70-6 MILLING EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT 1 1/2" AVG DEPTH SY 29255 $ 2.25 $

334-1-13 SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (TRAFFIC C) 9.5 TN 2,415 $ 110.00 $

SIGNING AND MARKING'

700-20-11 SINGLE POST SIGN tF&Il (<12 SF) EA 8 $ 550 $

706-3 RETRO-REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKERS EA 550 $ 5.00 $

711-11-121 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS (6" SOLID) (WHITE) LF 11,700 $ 2.00 $

711-11-123 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS (12" SOLID) (WHITE) LF 1840 $ 3.00 $

711-11-125 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS (18" SOLID) (WHITE) LF 2 235 $ 3.50 $


711-11-132 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS (6" 10'-30' SKIPJ(WHITE) LF 5,200 $ 1.00 $

711-11-133 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS (6" 2'-4' SKIP) NVHITEl LF 1065 $ 1.00 $

711-11-160 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (MESSAGE) EA 15 $ 150.00 $

711-11-170 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING (DIRECTIONAL ARROW) EA 22 $ 75.00 $

711-11-221 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS (6" SOLID) (YELLOW) LF 1,702 $ 2.00 $

Project Sub-Total= $

Const. Contingency (10%) = $

Project Grand Total = $

Page 1 of 1

PROJECT

COST

50000

50000

15000

50000

50000

10,000

65824

265,650

4400

2,750

23400

5520

7 823

1700

5,200

1065

2 250

1650

3,404

615,635

61,564

677,199

.........-!-~ Kimley-Horn llll...J-r: , andAssociat~:~s,lnc.


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. •



ROADWAY



104-10-3 EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 15000 $


CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION LS 1 $ 50000 $

108-1 AS-BUILTS LS 1 $ 10,000 $

327-70-6 MILLING EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT 1 1/2" AVG DEPTH SY 29255 $ 2.25 $

334-1-13 SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (TRAFFIC C_l_9.5 TN 2415 $ 110.00 $

523-1 PATTERNED PAVEMENT (COLOR) (PARKING AREAS) SY 2.475 $ 70.00 $

SIGNING AND MARKING

700-20-11 SINGLE POST SIGN (F&I) (<12 SF) EA 8 $ 550 $





711-11-125 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS (24" SOLID) CWHITEl LF 425 $ 4.00 $

711-11-132 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS (6" 10'-30' SKIP) CWHITEl LF 5200 $ 1.00 $

711-11-133 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS (6" 2'-4' SKIP) (WHITE) LF 1065 $ 1.00 $







Page 1 of1

PROJECT

COST

50000

50000

15000

65000

50000

10,000

65824

265650

173,250

4.400

2 750

23400

5,520

7 823

1,700

5 200

1065

2250

1650

3,404

803,885

80,389

884,274

~-.-. Kimley-Horn ~-r ., and Associates, Inc.


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. •



ROADWAY



104-10-3 EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 15000.00 $


CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING ANO INSPECTION LS 1 $ 75,000 $

108-1 AS-BUILTS LS 1 $ 10,000 $

327-70-6 MILLING EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT 11/2" AVG DEPTH SY 29255 $ 2.25 $

334-1-13 SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (TRAFFIC Cl 9.5 TN 2415 $ 110.00 $

523-1 PATIERNED PAVEMENT (COLOR) (PARKING AREAS) SY 2475 $ 70.00 $

KNUCKLEING AT 6 INTERSECTIONS LS 1 $ 135,000 $

SIGNING AND MARKING

700-20-11 SINGLE POST SIGN IF&Il (<12 SFl EA 8 $ 550 $






711-11-132 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS (6" 10'-30' SKIP) (WHITE) LF 5200 $ 1.00 $

711-11-133 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS 16" 2'-4' SKIP) IWHITEl LF 1 065 $ 1.00 $







Page 1 of1

PROJECT

COST

50000

50000

15000

90000

75000

10,000

65824

265 650

173,250

135,000

4,400

2,750

23400

5520

7,823

1 700

5 200

1065

2,250

1,650

3,404

988,885

98,889

1,087,774

APPENDIXB

SYNCHRO Analysis- Existing Conditions

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 20 Avenue SB & SR 60 EB

;

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane Uti I. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) ' '" . -- ,_. . ._ . " - --~

Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (~erm} Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 RTORReduction (vph) 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h} 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated CycleLength · (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

......

690 1900

11 4.3

0.91 0.99 1.00

4374 1.00

4374 0.71 972

6 1045

NA 2

65.3 66.3 0.55 5.3 3.0

2416 c0.24

0.43 15.8 1.00 0.6

16.4 8

16.4 8

").

59 1900

12

0.75 79 0 0

PM Peak 5:00pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions

~

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

+-- " 0 0

1900 1900 12 12

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A

Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service

""\ t

0 0 1900 1900

12 12

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A

I"

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

14.8 A

\,.

22 1900

12

0.75 29 0 0

Split 3

11/13/2012

~ .I

135 0 1900 1900

12 12 4.0

0.95 1.00 0.99 3168 0.99 3168 0.58 1.00 233 0

61 0 201 0 NA

3

15.6 16.6 0.14 5.0 3.0

438 c0.06

0.46 47.6 0.13 0.7 7.0

A 7.0 A

Synchro 8 Report Page 1

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: 20 Avenue NB & SR 60 EB

~

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) 4.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 Satd flo\'/ (prot) 1593 Fit Permitted 0.95 Satd. Flow (~erm} 1593 Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0.58 Adj. Flow(vph) 12 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h} 9 TurnType · Split Protected Phases 23 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 86.2 Effective Green, g (s) 87.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.73 Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1157 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 4.5 Progression Factor 0.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 Delay (s) 0.0 Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) ApproachLOS

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

.......

705 1900

11 4.3

0.91 1.00 1.00

4424 1.00

4424 0.84 839

0 839 NA 23

86.2 87.2 0.73

3214 c0.19

0.26 5.5

0.02 0.0 0.1

A 0.1 A

.,. 0

1900 12

1.00 0 0 0

0.30 120.0

47.9% 15


.f

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

+- '-

0 0 1900 1900

12 12

tOO 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A


"" t

0 1900 1900

12 12 4.5

0.95 0.97 1.00

3078 1.00 3078

too 0.71 0 190 0 23 0 222

NA 4

23.3 24.3 0.20 5.5 3.0 623

c0.07

0.36 41.1 1.00 0.4

41.5 D

41.5 D

I"

41 1900

12

0.75 55 0 0

14.3 A

\.

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

11/13/2012

! ..;

0 0 1900 1900

12 12

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 20 Avenue SB & SR 60 WB

,1- __..., ...... .f ,.__

' "\

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 0 0 38 981 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost ti111e(s) 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frt 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd .. Flow (prot) 4568 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow {(!erm} 4568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.74 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 54 1326 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Lane Grou12 Flow {v!2hl 0 0 0 0 1376 0 0 Turn Type Prot NA Protected Phases 4! 4 6! Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 88.6 Effective Green, g (s) 91.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension {s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3639 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 4.7 Progression Factor 2.60 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 Delay (s) 12.3 Level of Service 8 Approach Delay (s) 0.0 12.3 Approach LOS A 8

HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of losttime (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group


t I" \.

0 0 0 1900 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A

8

14.3 A

11/13/2012

+ .ttl

119 52 1900 1900

3.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3068 1.00

3068 0.58 0.78 205 67 30 0

242 0 NA

7!

14.7 15.7 0.13 4.0 3.0

401 c0.08

0.60 49.2 1.00 2.5

51.8 D

51.8 D


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: 20 Avenue NB & SR 60 WB

~ __... .,. .. ....... ' "\

Lane Configurations Volume (vph} 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total L6sttime (s} 3.8 3.8 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4577 1425 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow !12erm} 4577 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.76 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph} 0 0 0 0 1323 59 62 RTOR Reduction (vph} 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 Lane Gr6u~ Flow {v~h} 0 0 0 0 1323 33 0 Turn Type NA Perm Split Protected Phases 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actue~ted Green, G (s) 65.3 65.3 Effective Green, g (s) 66.8 66.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension {s} 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph} 2547 793 v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 16.6 12.1 Progression Factor 1.22 2.21 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 Delay (s) 21.0 26.8 Level of Service c c Approach Delay (s) 0.0 21.3 Approach LOS A c

HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


t /"'

89 0 1900 1900

4.0 0.95 1.00 0.98

3133 0.98

3133 0.71 1.00 125 0

51 0 136 0 NA

8

25.7 26.7 0.22 5.0 3.0 697

c0.04

0.19 37.9 0.04

0.1 1.6 A

1.6 A

8

15.8 A

\.

0 1900

1.00 0 0 0

11/13/2012

! ../

0 0 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A

Synchro 8 Report Page4

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 14 Avenue & SR 60 EB

~ ....... "'). # .,.__

' "\

Lane Configurations Volume {vph) 47 578 43 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow {vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 LaneWidth 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 Total Losttime {s) 4.2 LaneUtil. Factor 0;91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow {prot) 4347 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (~erm) 4347 Peak•ho~r fciCtor, PHF 0.64 0.78 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow {vph) 73 741 61 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction {vph) 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow {vph) 0 863 0 0 0 0 0 Confi.Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 Turn Type Perm NA Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G {s) 27.0 Effective Green, g {s) 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 Clearance Time {s) 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane GrpGap {vph) 2028 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 10.6 Progression Factor 0.92 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 Delay {s) 10.5 Level of Service B Approach Delay {s) 10.5 0.0 Approach LOS B A

HCM 2000 ControiDelay 14.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length {s) 60.0 Sum of lost time {s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period {min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


t /"'

164 34 1900 1900

12 12 4.1 4.1

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1676 1400 1.00 1.00 1676 1400 0.86 0.72 191 47

0 37 191 10

5 NA Perm

8 8

11.9 11.9 12.9 12.9 0.22 0.22

5.1 5.1 3.0 3.0 360 301

0.11 0.01

0.53 0.03 20.9 18.6 1.00 1.00 1.5 0.0

22.4 18.7 c B

21.6 c

B

11.9 A

\..

40 1900

12 3.6

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1590 0.44 738

0.57 70 0

70 5

pm+pt 7 4

22.7 23.7 0.39 4.6 3.0 393

0.02 0.05 0.18 11.7 1.61 0.2

19.0 B

11/13/2012

~ .;

249 0 1900 1900

12 12 4.1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1676 1.00 1676 0.79 1.00 315 0

0 0 315 0

NA 4

22.7 23.7 0.39

5.1 3.0 662

c0.19

0.48 13.5 1.41 0.4

19.4 B

19.3 B


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: 14 Avenue & SR 60 WB

/' ...... ,. ., .,.__

' "" Lane Configurations Volume(vph} 0 0 0 47 764 29 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width•. 12 12 12 11 11 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.0 Lane.Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1526 4392 1592 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.20 Satd. Flow (~erm} 1526 4392 337 Peak-hourfe~ctor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.84 0;75 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 66 910 39 88 RTORRedliction (vph) 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 66 942 0 88 Confl. Peds. (#/hr} 5 5 5 Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt Protected Phases 6 3 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.2 21.2 28.2 Effective Green, g (s) 22.7 22.7 28.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s} 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane GrpGap (vph) 577 1661 280 v/s RatioProt c0.21 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.57 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 14.8 10.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.11 1.13 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.3 0.6 Delay (s) 12.5 17.7 12.4 Level of Service B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 17.3 Approach LOS A B

HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM 2000Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


t I" \.

153 0 0 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1676 1.00 1676 0.72 1.00 1.00 212 0 0

0 0 0 212 0 0

NA 8

28.2 29.2 0.49 5.0 3.0 815

0.13

0.26 9.1

0.91 0.2 8.4

A 9.5

A

B

12.1 A

11/13/2012

! ~

~ 301 76

1900 1900 12 12

4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1618 1.00 1618 0.86 0.72 350 106 19 0

437 0 5

NA 4

18.5 19.5 0.32 5.0 3.0 525

c0.27

0.83 18.7 1.00 10.8 29.6

c 29.6

c


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Commerce Ave & SR 60 EB

~ -+ ..... ~ .,._ -\..

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 28 956 25 0 0 0 ldeaiFiow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frt 1.00 Fit Protected 1:00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4395 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (~erm) 4395 Peak-hour factor,· PHF 0.65 0.89 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph} 43 1074 36 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h) 0 1149 0 0 0 0 Tum Type Perm NA Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.8 Effective Green, g (s) 45.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 Clearance Time (s) 5.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3354 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 2.3 Progression Factor 0.42 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 1.2 Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 Approach LOS A A

Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) lntersecti9n Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


"\ t ~

0 16 1900 1900

12 12 4.0

1.00 0.94 1.00 1571 1.00 1571

1.00 0.70 0.65 0 23 20 0 18 0 0 25 0

NA 8

5.1 6.1

0.10 5.0 3.0 159

0.02

0.16 24.6 1.00 0.5

25.1 c

25.1 c

8.1 A

\.

1900 12

4.0 1.00 1.00 0;95 1593 0.73 1222 0.66

36 0

36 Perm

4 5.1 6.1

0.10 5.0 3.0 124

c0.03 0.29 24.9 0.79 1.3

21.0 c

11/13/2012

! .;

;. 23 0

1900 1900 12 12

4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1676 1.00 1676 0.65 1.00

35 0 0 0

35 0 NA

4

5.1 6.1

0.10 5.0 3.0 170

0.02

0.21 24.7 0.79 0.6

20.0 c

20.5 c


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Commerce Ave & SR 60 WB

;

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) · 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 LaneWidth · 12 Total Losttime (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd.Fiow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (~erm) Peak:hour factor, PHF 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 RTORReduction (vph) 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~hl 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (sl Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio UniformDelay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Perioci (min) c Critical Lane Group

__..,.

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

0.0 A

"').

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

0.36 60.0

41.9% 15


.. ....... ' 34 1140 3

1900 1900 1900 12 11 12

3.9 0.86 1.00 1.00

5558 1.00

5558 0.51 0:79 0.37

67 1443 8 0 1 0 0 1517 0

Pemi NA 6

6 42.5 44.0 0.73 5.4 3.0

4075

0.27 0.37 2.9

1.31 0.3 4.1

A 4.1

A


"\ t

40 31 1900 1900

12 12 4.0 4.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0:95 1.00 1593 1676 0.69 1.00 1164 1676 0:79 0.68

51 46 0 0

51 46 Perm NA

8 8

7.1 7.1 8.1 8.1

0.13 0.13 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 157 226

0.03 c0.04 0.32 0.20 23.5 23.1 1.16 1.16 1.2 0.4

28.5 27.2 c c

27.9 c

~

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

7.9 A

\.

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

11/13/2012

+ .t/

~ 28 40

1900 1900 12 12

4.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1567 1.00 1567 0.56 0.86

50 47 41 0 56 0 NA

4

7.1 8.1

0.13 5.0 3.0 211

0.04

0.27 23.3 1.00 0.7

24.0 c

24.0 c


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: SR 60 WB & 11 Avenue

~

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl} 1900 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util: Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd: Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (~erml PE!ak~llouf factor, PHF 1.00 Adi: Flow (vph) 0 RTOR Reduction (vph} 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~hl 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s} Vehicle Extension (sl Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS


......

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

0.0 A

.....

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

34.7% 15

PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions

.f

15 1900

12

0.70 21 0 0

Perm

6

....... ' 46

1900 1900 11 12

3.9 0.86 0.99 1.00

6124 1.00 6124 0.87 0.71 860 65 13 0

933 0 NA

6

35.6 37.1 0.62 5.4 3.0

3786

0.15 0.25 5.2

0.89 0.2 4.8

A 4.8

A


"\

19 1900

12 4.0

1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.50 925

0:75 25 0

25 pm+pt

3 8

13.8 14.8 0.25 5.0 3.0

261 0.00 0.02 0.10 17.4 1.03 0.2

18.1 8

t

97 1900

12 4.2

1:00 1.00 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.73 133

0 133 NA

8

13.8 14.8 0.25 5.2 3.0

459 cO.D7

0.29 18.3 1.01 0.4

18.9 8

18.8 8

/"'

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

12.1 A

\..

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

11/13/2012

! .;

34 35 1900 1900

12 12 4.2 4.2

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1863 1583 1.00 1.00 1863 1583 0.92 0.92

37 38 0 33

37 5 NA Perm

4 4

7.4 7.4 8.4 8.4

0.14 0.14 5.2 5.2 3.0 3.0 260 221 0.02

0.00 0.14 0.02 22.6 22.3 1.00 1.00 0.3 0.0

22.9 22.3 c c

22.6 c



.,}- --+ ...... • .,._

' Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 0 0 0 12 594 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 Frt 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 6161 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow {~erm} 6161 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.81 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 18 733 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 4 0 Lane Grou~ Flow {v~h} 0 0 0 0 769 0 Turn Type Perm NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.6 Effective Green, g (s) 40.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 5.4 Vehicle Extension {s} 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 4117 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 3.8 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 Delay (s) 3.9 Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 3.9 Approach LOS A A

Control Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle length (s) Sum of losttime (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.3% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


"\ t /"'

80 0 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.2 4.2

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1770 1863 0.55 1.00 1017 1863 0.76 0.81 1.00 105 119 0

0 0 0 105 119 0

Perm NA 8

8 10.8 10.8 11.8 11.8 0.20 0.20 5.2 5.2 3.0 3.0 200 366

0.06 c0.10 0.53 0.33 21.6 20.7 0.89 0.88 2.4 0.5

21.6 18.7 c 8

20.1 c

8.1 A

\.

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

11/13/2012

! '*' ~ 94 55

1900 1900 12 12

4.2 1.00 0.95 1.00

1771 1.00 1771 0.76 0.78 124 71 43 0

152 0 NA

4

10.8 11.8 0.20 5.2 3.0 348 0.09

0.44 21.2 1.00 0.9

22.1 c

22.1 c



/' __,. ""). .f +- '-Lane Configurations Volume (vph} 41 591 40 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s} 3.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. FI()'N (prot) 4856 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (~erm} 4856 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.79 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph} 49 748 53 0 0 0 RTORReduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h) 0 842 0 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm NA Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.2 Effective Green, g (s) 33.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph} 2727 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 7.0 Progression Factor 0.68 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay(s) 5.1 Level of Service A Approach Delay (s} 5.1 0.0 Approach LOS A A

Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.3% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period· (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


""\ t /"'

0 114 14 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.0

1;00 0.98 1.00 1833 1.00 1833

1.00 0.69 0.65 0 165 22 0 9 0 0 178 0

NA 8

11.0 12.0 0.20 5.0 3.0 366

c0.10

0.49 21.3 1.00 1.0

22.3 c

22.3 c

11.9 A

\.

10 1900

12 4.0

1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.42 777

0.56 18 0

18 pm+pt

7 4

17.4 18.4 0.31 5.0 3.0 278 0.00 0.02 0.06 14.8 1.48 0.1

22.1 c

11/13/2012

! .;

.,. 63 0

1900 1900 12 12

4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.83 1.00

76 0 0 0

76 0 NA

4

17.4 18.4 0.31 5.0 3.0 571

c0.04

0.13 15.0 1.35 0.1

20.5 c

20.8 c


APPEND/XC

GTCRPM Model Output

~~-<>"

36900

36900

... g

gig "' "' "' "'

<0 <0

"' "' 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~

~,~

"' "' 0 0 0 0 0 0

818

0 0 0 0

0 0 "' "' 0 0 0 0

0 0 "' "' 0 0 0 0

.... -

0 0 0 0 .... .... ~ ~

mrnrnrn

1\00 :;\Qo

34300

34300

··· ..• _Bo0

.~~o,;

3500

3500

"'?o .,.7.-....:.o

oo

ofo

0 0 0 0

re re

~\§ o:o

\\100

~0

··· .. o o·· ..

§'_::.:.-~ ,.:--/:::

&-.:'

~ .. ~

34000

34000

4700

4700

1000

1000

OIO

._, ._, 0 0 0 0

._,._, 00 00

.... ,,r:,~,/ --~§~~

0 0

tlltl g g

gig ~ ~

818 "' "' 4700 11600

4700 111600

gig ~ ~

::~;;···' .- ' ·---;;:t. ''•

_.o

7800

7800

CD CD

"' "' 8 g

\SOU

1300 o _ . ; - i3oa

8 0 . ..,..\., '0 iR

15 ', 0 o'-.15 o·

3500 7400

3500 7400

~~~ 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0

3300 3300

3300 330~

"' 13300

0 0

0 0 0

~

15600 15800

010 a> a> g g

o!o

3500

14400

14400

3500

3500

15Soo ..... ____ ... ···· -----·

\·····- .. ~k!~ ·· ... 200

-' '200 ~ .. '0 0·

18700 14100

3500 .,~

.,.,oo

0

0

0 0 010

~ ~

17500 15800

asoo

a1°0 asoo

a1°0

"'"' "'"' "'"' "'"'

A10°

~ 4700

4700

2500 2500 2500

~ 14100 g §17500 15800 7a.9o 2500

7a.Jo o 2500

"'\"' 0 15 15 0

g 15700 :e :e :12200

gig ~ ~ 0 0

CD CD 0 0 ~:-"

14600 16300 I 11400:8 .

§I§ "' "'

010

~ ~

._,<>:>_/ cC' /"' ... /<C'G

:o: g,:g (Q'O . ."(1)

10000 5700

200 "'I"' ~ ~ 0 0 0 0

5200 5200 200

till til a> a> 0 0 0 0

\)\)

~\)\) :\

8700

~"' 8700

"' 0 0

c-:t"t'\ ·~900,

8900

I

010 0 0 :

"' "' "' "' 8lo ::;*

8100

50~~----' ' ' sooo

I ~!~~0---

'\ 0 0

·• ..... $, .,. ·._oo soo··.

4300

J /·'f'.;// \\'t 3900 3900 11700 13300

3900 3900 11700 13300 4300

11600 11600

0 0 0 0 C) C) C) C)

100

100

10600

10600

\& .!b'·,_q,

0 · ..

.n\~

2005 GTCRPM MODEL RUN MODEL DAILY VOLUMES

11/6/2012

~-~ zoo __ · q,,_ -ioo 8\8

,. ~ ~ "'\?J, CP·.o g~o

~~~ "' "'

-··· o\00 ... ..--"'I"' ,_ .. ·· A A

.... ·· ,.··'i_'\oO g g

2!~

Licensed to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

~:~~ ~

~12800 147o~

- 128~1~ t t 0 0

010 00 ~~

"'I"' 0 0 0 0

0 0 ... ... 0 0 0 0

~ ~

0 0 ... ... 0 0 0 0

~~8 ,. ....

mrnllJCB

...

\rooo -;;;,o

· . . _<ooo <oQ;;

6700

6700

'!,0~ .... -·

?,oo

\~ ~-.ce,

ofo

~ ~ 0 0 0 0

a:a a:o ~:;!

j/

o;:<n o·O a:o

g:o ~-~

41000

41000

7700

7700

1700

1700

0 0/0

-

"' "' 0 0 0 0 0 0

"'"' 00 00 00 _______ .....

\0oo_ .. < "' ··\oOO 8 8

~0 7soo

"' "' 0 0 8 8

818 ~ :t2

010 0 0 0 0

"'"' noo noo

010 8 8 ~ ~

13200 13200

·· ... Soo

soli · - ._ ....

0

0

9000

9000

~:~ o:o 010

..,.~ '--

\000 ··\"" ....

\000 8' 0 \...» 0

6100 6100

\8700

...»•,..>

$\f, o·.o 0·,

8\00 8100

7:3 -73ul.

\7200

18800

....to.: 0•0 0 0

,._ ,._

~~~ "' "' 0 0 0 0

"' "' 0 0

0 0 <X>

~

~~o~{ -~~<:;

4000

4000 o:'o

~/g 13200 ; - \2300

13200 .... \2300

\~ ~i .. ~

3900 --3900

15700 ····-- .... :_

3900

3900

,,oo .--~1oo

· .Joo 3iia

··· .. 400

~_'~o~ g·.O

rill@ co co

nooo

\'8 '8 0

~0

18700

5700

"~ ro1oo

010 0 0 ~ ~

S.>a s;;:-::.o

oo

~<§) f:> r:,<:s

b'

6300

6300

\6800 \4700 2600 2600 7----

e\6800 . 141oo ~ '\4000

"'I"' "' "' 0 0 0 0 ~:~.

12000' 0 : ~8,:o (jj•O

"''"' j!~

9900 I ~ ~ ?j ?j 0 0

8900 ~~~ co co 8900

~--~/r:,<> -~

010 0 0

~ ~

-~ c.&-..~ 'b\

7400

7400

·-~----------.

rooo

600

"'!"' (X) (X) (X) (X) 0 0 0 0

7400

7400

010 0 0

~ ~

0 0

o;~100 '910o

9100 c..---c 9100

ro?fJO -;;f:,o

2600

2600

4800

25100

25100

700

700

~~f:> ~ ~"><:;

'&~~ 0 0 ~ 0

4700

4700

\\600

\\600

\2300 -i4~oo 4900'

818 ~ ~

22600 20300

22600 : 20300

g;g <t:<t M:M

\2300

·· ... 6'<a 8'··. I? <>oo·

16900

16900

roooo -· . ...-. ..- ·&-ooo

o/o

~ ~ "'\"' 0 0 0 0

.......... (X) (X) 0 0 0 0

.. -······· \'··.. 1 '1-~o~,.. . ...- ·-.. ~oo . _ ..... ,..'1-o;~oo 7Bao··.

~-------· w ~ "'\"' g g

100 .. z:>O~ .. ~- .....

100 ....... \ ................ · z'!,OO

5100 ..., 1 ............... ....

_ .... -· -51oo 8 8 . .-

010 ~ ~

2035 GTCRPM MODEL RUN -WITHOUT SR 60 LANE REDUCTIONS -

MODEL DAILY VOLUMES 11/8/2012

4900


1:)1:> •. ··

.P--~~ ·<t

~700 12700 •O 14~

-- 12700

0 ~l&l 8 g

~r 0 0

"'"' 0 0 0 0

~~~ 0 0

"'"' 0 0 0 0

010 0 0

~ ~

@[[][t)ffi

\S<:J<:l

-:;,Qr:,

(j)\~ ce,\o

OIO

-

"' "' "' "' 0 0 0 0

"' "' "' "' 0 0 0 0

6';,

6'.>;fo 0

\r:,<:J<:l_,..-

,...- ~~<:J "' "' (J) (J) 0 0 0 0

40900

40900

·····.f0oo <oo0

6700

6700

ojo

~~ 88

00 00 ;!;!

_;. ~

"' "' 0 0 0 0

0· ~ g . ..,.

40500

40500

7700

7700

1600

1600

'!.r:,O ______ ....... _,. __ ·-... ______

.... _so0 ~~0 .. so(i

0

"' "' (J) (J) 0 0 0 0

~0 sooo

010 0 0

;:! ;!

gig (J) (J)

7700

7700

010 0 0 N N

~ ~

··- .. ··. ··.

13500 13500

0

9200

9200

0

6100

6100

8400

8400

18100

4000

4400

11900

~i~ o:o o·o

1000 --~ ... -------

1000 '-...> _.' _.

~\'6 S\o

8200 8200

~ ~

"' "' 0 0 0 0

8400

8400 "'

15700 0 0

0 0 0

18200

o\o

~"'r:,<:J_ ... -~.,r:,<:J

4000 ~-8 ;:::o

13500 /-13500

100

100

12500

12500

~~&

3900

3900

15800

3900

3900

1r:,<:J \ '

..-~:;r:,<:J

····· ... ·· .. <~oo

..... <~oo \,400

t,'400 ~--.,g

010 0 0 ~ ~

5600

~~ ~0 Sso

s&;'o Do

£> 1:>~!§> ~ "'"'

6300

6300

17300 16900 14700 2600 2600

~ g

010

~~ 16600

"' ~\OS s 0

_. -"-

17300 g §16900 14700 ~7A 2600

;14000 19100 8l 8l -.J -.J -.J -.J 0 0 0 0

18200

~~~ /'- /'-

010 0 0

~ ~

N:N

1160o·: 8 9400 :8/o

"'I"' '5/-.'0 ~ ~

~-.... ~ (J) (J) 0 0 0 0

/ ___ 9_0()0

9000 1:)1:>,/

.)i/1:>1:> '.)'-

~~~ ~ ~ 0 0

1100 77oo

·-~-----·.

1100 noo

so<:J

'(:,00

4900

4900

010 0 0

~ ~

gig ~ ~

2035 GTCRPM MODEL RUN

g'OOO

g~<:J 9so<:J

'O?§l<:l

~<:J

£> '0<§$/. £>

~"' <o

11600

"' C.)'\ \'"'8 \\S

12300

41~~ ·' ... ··

4100

'Or:,<;,<:J_...

"'Gaoo -----·

2600

"'I"' 11600 12300

25100

25100

700

0 0 0 0 0 0

010 0 0

"' "' "' "'

22700

~~o; 4800'

0 0 0 0

" " "' "'

20600

22700 \ 20600

<1> <1> _. _. 0 0 0 0

·-.~.?Oo 6'<'oo·· ....

17300

17300

..... > /-.;:,····· E,IO<:J "'"1"'"_ ... ...-__ .-- -· g: co

"0

j<:J0 o g

.<S

o/o

~~~ t t 0 0

r ·· .... _Tsoo rs00 · .

"'\"' ~ ~ 0 0

-WITH SR 60 LANE REDUCTIONS BETWEEN 20TH AVENUE & COMMERCE AVENUEMODEL DAILY VOLUMES

11/6/2012


APPENDIXD

SYNCHRO Analysis - 2035 Conditions

No Build Conditions


/'

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 Ideal Flow(vphpl} 1900 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane UtiL Factor Frt Fit Protected S~td. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (~erm} Peak~hpurfaclor, PHF 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h} 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuatedg/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS·


.......

792 1900

11 4.3

0.91 0.99 1.00

4374 1.00

4374 0.71 1115

7 1199

NA 2

58.0 59.0 0.49 5.3 3.0

2150 c0.27

0.56 21.4 1.00 1.0

22.4 c

22.4 c

.....

68 1900

12

0.75 91 0 0

0.40 120.0

31.8% 15

PM Peak 5:00pm 11/7/2012 2035 no-build conditions

.f ....... ' 0 0 0

1900 1900 1900 12 12 12

1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A


"'\ t

0 0 1900 1900

12 12

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A

/"'

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

14.8 A

\.

28 1900

12

0.75 37 0 0

Split 3

11/13/2012

! ..;

170 0 1900 1900

12 12 4.0

0.95 1.00 0.99 3168 0.99 3168 0.58 1.00 293 0 59 0

271 0 NA

3

19.3 20.3 0.17 5.0 3.0 535

c0.09

0.51 45.3 0.14 0.7 7.1 A

7.1 A



j-

Lane Configurations Volume(vph) Ideal Flow. (vphpl) 1900 LaneWidth 12 Total Lost time (s) 4.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frt 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 Sat~ .. Flo'N (prot) 1593 Fit Pennitted 0.95 Satd. Flow {~erm} 1593 Peak-hour factor,· PH F 0.58 Adj. Flow (vph) 14 RTORReduction (vph) 4 Lane Grou~ Flow {v~h} 10 Tum Type Split Protected Phases 23 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 82.6 Effective Green, g (s) 83.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension {s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1109 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 5.6 Progression Factor 0.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 Delay (s) 0.0 Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS


__.

1900 11

4.3 0.91 1.00 1.00

4424 1.00 4424 0.84 963

0 963 NA 23

82.6 83.6 0.70

3082 c0.22

0.31 7.1

0.01 0.0 0.2 A

0.1 A

"').

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

55.2% 15


.f

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

+- -\..

0 0 1900 1900

12 12

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A


"\ t

0 170 1900 1900

12 12 4.5

0.95 0.97 1.00

3078 1.00 3078

1.00 0.71 0 239 0 22 0 286

NA 4

26.9 27.9 0.23 5.5 3.0 715

c0.09

0.40 39.0 1.00 0.4

39.3 D

39.3 D

/"'

52 1900

12

0.75 69 0 0

14.3 8

\.

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

11/13/2012

+ .,

0 0 1900 1900

12 12

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3:20 Avenue SB & SR 60 WB

~ -+ "'). .f ..... ' "\

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 0 0 44 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Uti I. Factor 0.91 Frt 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4568 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (~eml) 4568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.74 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (IJph) 0 0 0 62 1522 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow(v~h} 0 0 0 0 1579 ·o 0 Turn Type Prot NA Protected Phases 4! 4 6! Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 84.9 Effective Green, g (s) 87.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.73 Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3498 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 6.4 Progression Factor 2.86 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 Delay (s) 18.4 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 18.4 Approach LOS A B

HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.7% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group

PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 no-build conditions

t I" \..

0 0 0 1900 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A

c

14.3 A

11/13/2012

! .,.1

150 65 1900 1900

3.0 0.95 0.96 1.00 3069 1.00

3069 0.58 0.78 259 83 29 0

313 0 NA

7!

17.4 18.4 0.15 4.0 3.0

470 c0.10

0.67 47.9 1.00 3.6

51.5 D

51.5 D



,1- __,.. "). .f .,._ '- "'

Lane Configurations ., Volume (vph} · 0 0 0 0 1 08 52 67 Ideal Flow (vphpl} 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Losttime(s) 3.8 3.8 Lane Uti I. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd .. Fiow (prot) 4577 1425 Fit Pennitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow·{~enn} 4577 1425 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.76 0.85 Adj, Flow(vph) 0 0 0 0 1518 68 79 RTOR Reduction (vph} 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h} 0 0 0 0 1518 34 0 Turn Type NA Penn Split ProteCted Phases 6 8 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 58.0 58.0 Effective Green, g (s) 59.5 59.5 Actuate<:! g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s} 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s} 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2269 706 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 22.8 15.6 Progression Factor 1.22 1.90 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 Delay (s) 29.1 29.8 Level of Service c c Approach Delay (s} 0.0 29.1 Approach LOS A c

HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM 2000 Vo.lume to Capacity ratio 0:45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


t /"'

112 0 1900 1900

4.0 0.95 1.00 0.98 3133 0.98

3133 0.71 1.00 158 0 50 0

187 0 NA

8

30.3 31.3 0.26

5.0 3.0 817

c0.06

0.23 34.9 0.04

0.1 1.6 A

1.6 A

c

15.8 A

\.

0 1900

1.00 0 0 0

11/13/2012

! .I

0 0 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A



~ ....... .,. #" +- ' "" Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 54 49 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4341 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (~erm} 4341 Peak~hour factor, PHF 0.64 0.78 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 84 850 69 0 0 0 0 .RTO.R Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 990 0 0 0 0 0 Conti. Peds. (#/hr} 10 10 Turn Type Perm NA Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.8 Effective Green, g (s) 26.8 Actuated g/C .Ratio 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s} 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1938 v/s .Ratio Prot v/s .Ratio Perm 0.23 v/c .Ratio 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 11.9 Progression Factor 1.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 Delay (s) 14.2 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) 14.2 0.0 Approach LOS B A

HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM2000 VolumeJo Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) lnters.ection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


t ,...

206 43 1900 1900

12 12 4.1 4.1

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1676 1391 1.00 1.00 1676 1391 0.86 0.72 240 60

0 46 240 14

10 NA Perm

8 8

13.1 13.1 14.1 14.1 0.23 0.23

5.1 5.1 3.0 3.0 393 326

0.14 0.01

0.61 0.04 20.5 17.7 1.00 1.00 2.8 0.1

23.3 17.8 c B

22.2 c

B

11.9 c

\.

50 1900

12 3.6

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1589 0.38 642

0.57 88 0

88 10

pm+pt 7 4

23.9 24.9 0.41 4.6 3.0 380

0.03 0.07 0.23 11.3 1.61 0.2

18.4 B

11/13/2012

~ .;

313 0 1900 1900

12 12 4.1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1676 1.00 1676 0.79 1.00 396 0

0 0 396 0

NA 4

23.9 24.9 0.41

5.1 3.0 695

c0.24

0.57 13.4 1.39 0.6

19.2 B

19.1 B

Synchro 8 .Report Page 5


,1- --+ ..... .f .,.__ '- "\

Lane Configurations 1!lj Volume (vph) 0 0 0 54 877 33 88 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 11 11 12 12 TotaiLost time (s) 4.1 4.1 5.0 Lane UtiL Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1512 4391 1592 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.16 Satd. Flow (~enn} 1512 4391 266 Peak-hourfactor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.84 0.75 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 76 1044 44 110 RTORReduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 76 1081 0 110 Confl. Peds. {#/hr} 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt Protected Phases 6 3 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 19.0 30.4 Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 20.5 29.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s} 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 516 1500 236 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.72 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 13.7 17.2 11.4 ProgressionF actor 0.74 0.90 1.60 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 2.8 1.3 Delay(s) 10.7 18.3 19.6 Level of Service B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 17.8 Approach LOS A B

HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM .2000Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period.(min) 15 c Critical ~ane Group


t I'" \..

192 0 0 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1676 1.00 1676 0.72 1.00 1.00 267 0 0

0 0 0 267 0 0

NA 8

30.4 31.4 0.52 5.0 3.0 877

0.16

0.30 8.1

0.56 0.2 4.8

A 9.1

A

c

13.1 c

11/13/2012

+ ~

f;. 378 96

1900 1900 12 12

4.0 1.00 1.00

. 1.00 0.97 1.00 1616 1.00 1616 0.86 0.72 440 133

18 0 555 0

10 NA

4

20.7 21.7 0.36 5.0 3.0 584

c0.34

0.95 18.6 1.00 25.4 44.1

D 44.1

D



.,}-

Lane Configurations Volume(vt>h) 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow(~erm} Peak~hourfactor, PHF 0.65 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 RTOR. Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~hl 0 TurhType · · Perm Protected Phases Permitted Pha~es 2 Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated giC Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) vis Ratio Prot vis Ratio Perm vic Ratio UnifOrm Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental. Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS


......

1900 11

4.1 0.91 1.00 1.00

4396 1.00

4396 0.89 1233

4 1319

NA 2

44.4 45.4 0.76

5.1 3.0

3326

0.30 0.40 2.5

0.34 0.3 1.2 A

1.2 A

~

29 1900

12

0.70 41 0 0

45.1% 15

PM Peak 5:00pm 111712012 2035 no-build conditions

('"

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

....... ' 0 0

1900 1900 12 12

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A


"\ t ~

0 20 1900 1900

12 12 4.0

1.00 0.94 1.00 1572 1.00 1572

1.00 0.70 0 29 0 22 0 32

NA 8

5.5 6.5

0.11 5.0 3.0 170

0.02

0.19 24.3 1.00 0.5

24.9 c

24.9 c

I"

16 1900

12

0.65 25 0 0

8.1 A

\..

30 1900

12 4.0

1.00 1.00 0.95 1593 0.72 1210 0.66

45 0

45 Perm

4 5.5 6.5

0.11 5.0 3.0 131

c0.04 0.34 24:8 0.79 1.5

21.0 c

1111312012

~ .I

29 0 1900 1900

12 12 4.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1676 1.00 1676 0.65 tOO

45 0 0 0

45 0 NA

4

5.5 6.5

0.11 5.0 3.0 181

0.03

0.25 24.5 0.78 0.7

19.9 8

20.5 c



~ ........ .,. • +- ' Lane Configurations Volum~ (vph) 0 0 0 39 Ideal. Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.86 Frt 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5559 Fit Pennitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (~erm} 5559 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.79 0.37 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 76 1656 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h} 0 0 0 0 1739 0 Turn Type Perm NA Protected Phases 6 Permitte~d Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 41.8 Effective Green, g (s) 43.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 Clearance Time (s) 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s} 3.0 Lane. GrpCap (vph) 4011 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 v/c Ratio 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 3.4 Progression Factor 1.48 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 5.3 Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.3 Approach LOS A A

Delay HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum oflost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


"\ t /"'

50 39 0 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.0 4.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0;95 1.00 1593 1676 0;68 1.00 1140 1676 0.79 0.68 1.00

63 57 0 0 0 0

63 57 0 Perm NA

8 8

7.8 7.8 8.8 8:8

0.15 0.15 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 167 245

0.03 0.06 0.38 0.23 23.1 22.6 1.10 1.10 1.4 0.5

26.8 25.3 c c

26.1 c

7.9 A

\..

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

11/13/2012

! .t/

~ 35 50

1900 1900 12 12

4.0 1.00 0.93 1.00 1567 1.00 1567 0.56 0.86

62 58 27 0 93 0 NA

4

7.8 8.8

0.15 5.0 3.0 229

c0.06

0.40 23.2 1.00 1.2

24.4 c

24.4 c



;

Lane Configurations Volume.(vph) 0 Ideal. Flow (vphpl} 1900 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Larje Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow(prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (~erm) Peak-hourtactor, PHF 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~hl 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g·(s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio UnifomiDelay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s). Level of Service Approach Delay(s) Approach LOS

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) lntersectionCapacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

...... " 0 0

1900 1900 12 12

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A


.f

17 1900

12

0.70 24 0 0

Perm

6

....... ' 858 53

1900 1900 11 12

3.9 0.86 0.99 1.00

6123 1.00 6123 0;87 0.71 986 75 13 0

1072 0 NA

6

34.3 35.8 0.60 5.4 3.0

3653

0.18 0.29 5.9

0.90 0.2 5.6 A

5.6 A


"" 24

1900 12

4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.49 913

0.75 32 0

32 pm+pt

3 8

15.1 16.1 0.27 5.0 3.0 299

0.01 0.02 0.11 16.5 1.00 0.2

16.7 8

t

122 1900

12 4.2

1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 1.00 1863 0.73 167

0 167 NA

8

15.1 16.1 0.27 5.2 3.0

499 c0.09

0.33 17.6 1.00 0.4

18.0 8

17.8 8

/"'

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

12.1 A

\.

0 1900

1~

1.00 0 0 0

11/13/2012

+ .,;

43 44 1900 1900

12 12 4.2 4.2

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 . 1.00 1863 1583 1.00 1.00 1863 1583 0.92 0.92

47 48 0 41

47 7 NA Perm

4 4

7.3 7.3 8.3 8.3

0.14 0.14 5.2 5.2 3.0 3.0 257 218 0.03

0.00 0.18 0.03 22.9 22.4 1.00 1.00 0.3 0.1

23.2 22.4 c c

22.8 c



~

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (~erm) Peak"hcmr factor, PHF 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 RTORReduction (vph) 0 LaneGrou~ Flow (v~h) 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS


.......

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

0.0 A

~

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

0.34 60.0

37.0% 15


.f +- '-

14 682 22 1900 1900 1900

12 11 12 3.9

0,86 1.00 1.00 6160 1.00

6160 0.68 0.81 0.85

21 842 26 0 5 0 0 884 0

Perm f\IA 6

6 36.4 37.9 0.63 5.4 3.0

3891

0.14 0.23 4.8

1.00 0.1 4.9

A 4.9

A


' t

101. 121 1900 1900

12 12 4.2 4.2

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.9.5 1.00 1770 1863 0.48 1.00 891 1863 0.76 0.81 133 149

0 0 133 149

Perin NA 8

8 13.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 0.23 0.23 5.2 5.2 3.0 3.0 207 434

0.08 c0.15 0.64 0.34 20.7 19.2 0.94 0.92 6.3 0.4

25.8 18.0 c B

21.7 c

I"

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

8.1 A

~

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

11/13/2012

! .;

f;. 118 69

1900 1900 12 12

4.2 1:00 0.95 1.00 1772 1.00 1772 0.76 0.78 155 88 40 0

203 0 NA

4

13.0 14.0 0.23 5.2 3.0

413 0.11

0.49 19.9 1.00 0.9

20.8 c

20.8 c


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: 10 Avenue & SR 60 EB ,. ...... ...... # ....... '-Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 47 678 46 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frt 0.99 Fit Prote.cted 1.00 Satd .. Fiow (prot) 4856 Fit Pemiitted · 1.00 Sat d .. Flow (~erm} 4856 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.79 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph} 56 858 61 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h} 0 966 0 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm NA Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.7 EffeCtive Green, g (s) 32.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s} 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2606 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 8.0 Progression Factor 0.65 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 Delay (s) 5.6 Level of Service A Approach Delay (s) 5.6 0.0 Approach LOS A A

. ,'!)~~:(

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.0% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


"" t I"

~ 0 143 18

1900 1900 1900 12 12 12

4.0 1.00 0.98 1.00 1833 1.00 1833

1.00 0.69 0.65 0 207 28 0 9 0 0 226 0

NA 8

12.4 13.4 0.22 5.0 3.0

409 c0.12

0.55 20.6 1.00 1.6

22.3 c

22.3 c

11.9 A

\..

13 1900

12 4.0

1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.37 682

0.56 23 0

23 pm+pt

7 4

18.9 19.9 0.33 5.0 3.0 271

0.00 0.02 0.08 14.0 1.44 0.1

20.3 c

11/13/2012

~ .;

79 0 1900 1900

12 12 4.0

1.00 1.00 1:00 1863 1:00 1863 0.83 1.00

95 0 0 0

95 0 NA

4

18.9 19.9 0.33 5.0 3.0 617

c0.05

0.15 14.1 1.35 0.1

19.2 B

19.4 B


Build Conditions


~ ........ .,. .f .,.__ -\...

Lane Configurations Volume .(vph) 0 756 65 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl} 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s} 4.3 Lane ljtil: Factor 0.91 Frt 0.99 FltProtected too Satd. Flow (prot) 4374 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (~errn} 4374 f'eak-hourfactor, PHF 1.00 0.71 0.75 1.00 tOO 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1065 87 0 0 0 RTORReduction (vph} 0 7 0 0 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h} 0 1145 0 0 0 0 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 61.0 Effective Green, g (s) 62.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s} 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2259 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 Delay (s) 19.8 Level of Service 8 Approach Delay (s) 19.8 0.0 Approach LOS 8 A

... c,:,'ji~!ay

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

PM Peak 5:00pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions

"\ t I"

0 0 0 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12

1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A

14.8 A

11/13/2012

\. ! .I

27 16.6 0 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.0

0.95 1.00 0.99 3168 0.99 3168

0.75 0.58 1.00 36 286 0 0 61 0 0 261 0

Split NA 3 3

15.8 16.8 0.14 5.0 3.0

443 c0.08

0.59 48.4 0.18 1.6

10.4 8

10.4 8

Synchro 7 - Report Page 1


/' --+- ~ • +- "-.. "\

Lane Configurations Volum9-(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.3 4.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 4577 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 satd. Flow {~en11) 1593 4577 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.58 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj; Flow(vph) 14 920 0 0 0 0 0 RTO~ Reduction (vph) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane GrouJ;! Flow {vPh) 10 920 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Protected Phases 23 23 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 82.1 82.1 Effective Green, g (s) 83.1 83.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.69 Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension {s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1103 3169 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.01 0.29 Uniform Delay~ d1 5.7 7.1 Progression Factor 0.00 0.02 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 Level of Service A A ApproachDelay.(s) 0.2 0.0 Approach LOS A A

HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM 2000Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% IC U Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group

PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions

t /"'

166 50 1900 1900

4.5 0.95 0.97 1.00

3079 1.00

3079 0.71 0.75 234 67 24 0

277 0 NA

4

27.4 28.4 0.24

5.5 3.0 728

c0.09

0.38 38.4 1.00 0.3

38.8 D

38.8 D

A

14.3 A

11/13/2012

\. ! .;

0 0 0 1900 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A


HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 20 Avenue SB & SR 60 WB

.,J- --+ ...... • .,..._ -\..

"" Lane Configurations valllme(vpli) 0 0 0 42 1075 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frt 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4568 Fit Permitted 1.00 satd. Flow {~errn} 4568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.74 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 59 1453 0 0 RTORReduction.(vph) 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Lane GrouJ2Fiow{VJ2h} 0 0 0 0 1508 0 0 Turn Type Prot NA Protected Phases 4! 4 6! Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 88.4. Effective Green, g (s) 91.4 Actuated g/C Ratio. 0.76 Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension {s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3631 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 5.0 Progressiqn Factor 3.26 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 Delay (s) 16.3 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 16.3 Approach LOS A B

HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM 2000 Volllme to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group


t /"'

0 0 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A

c

14.3 A

11/13/2012

\.. ! .I

0 146 64 1900 1900 1900

3.0 0.95 0.9l) 1.00

3068 1.00 3068

1.00 0.58 0.78 0 252 82 0 26 0 0 308 0

NA 7!

16.5 17.5 0.15 4.0 3.0 447

c0.10

0.69 48.7 1.00 4.4

53.0 D

53.0 D



LaneGonfigurations Vol(mle (vph) Ideal Flow (vphpl) Tot<ll. Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow(prot) Fit Pennitted Satd. Flow (penn) Peak-hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction. (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/GRatio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

0 1900

1.00 0 0 0

0 1900

1.00 0 0 0

0.0 A

0 0 1059 49 1900 1900 1900 1900

3 .. 8 3.8 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00

4577 1425 1.00 1.00

4577 1425 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.76

0 0 1451 64 0 0 0 31 0 0 1451 33

NA Penn 6

6 61.0 61.0 62.5 62.5 0.52 0.52 5.3 5.3 3.0 3.0

2383 742 c0.32

0.02 0.61 0:04 20.2 14.1 1.13 1.83 0.8 0.1

23.7 25.9 c c

23.8 c

t

65 109 1900 1900

4.0 0.95 1.00 0.98

3134 0.98

3134 0.85 0.71

76 154 0 54 0 176

Split NA 8 8

28.2 29.2 0.24

5.0 3.0 762

c0.06

0.23 36.4 0.04 0.2 1.8 A

1.8 A

HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.9 0.43

120.0 34.8%

15

HCM 2000 Level of Service HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group


Sum of lost time (s) ICULevel of Service

0 1900

1.00 0 0 0

c

15.8 A

11/13/2012

a·· o o 1900 1900 1900

1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

o.o A

Synchro 7 - Report Page4


_,;.

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util .. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Fit ProteCted Satd.Fiow (prot) Fit Peirnitted Satd. Flow (~erm) Peak~ourfacf()r, PHF 0.64 Adj. Flow (vph) 81 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Pegs. (#/hr) 10 Parking (#/hr) 10 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

Ht~'~t~~JP~ :;p~~m~l r~~r~i HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio ActuatedCyclelength (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization AnalysisPeriod (min) c Critical Lane Group

......

4'~ 634

1900 11

4.2 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00

3021 1.00

3021 0.78 813

8 952

NA 2

25.9 26.9 0.45 5.2 3.0

1354

0.32 0.70 13.3 1.49 3.0

22.8 c

22.8 c

......

47 1900

12

0.71 66 0 0

10

0.68 60.0

71.2% 15


"' 0

1900 12

1.00 0 0 0

....... '-

0 0 1900 1900

12 12

1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A

Sum oflost time (s) ICU Level of Service

"\ t

0 202 1900 1900

12 12 4.1

t.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1676 1.00 1676

1.00 0.86 0 235 0 0 0 235

NA 8

13.0 14.0 0.23 5.1 3.0 391 0.14

0.60 20 .. 5 1.00 2.6

23.1 c

22.1 c

/"'

42 1900

12 4.1

1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1391 1.00 1391 0.72

58 44 14 10

Perm

8 13.0 14.0 0.23

5.1 3.0 324

0.01 0.04 17.8 1.00 0.1

17.9 B

·c

11.9 c

11/13/2012

\. ! .;

49 306 0 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 3.6 4.1

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1589 1676 0.39 1.00 651 1676

0.57 0.79 1.00 86 387 0 0 0 0

86 387 0 10

pm+pt NA 7 4 4

23.8 23.8 24.8 24.8 0.41 0.41 4.6 5.1 3.0 3.0 381 692

0.03 c0.23 0.07 0.23 0.56 11.3 13.4 1.64 1.41 0.2 0.5

18.7 19.4 B B

19.3 B

Synchro 7 - Report PageS


~ ........ "' ~ .,._ '-

Lane Configurations Volurne (vpH) 0 0 0 52 837 Ideal Flow (vpHpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane WidtH 12 12 12 11 11 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 Lane Utii.Factor 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, peel/bikes 0.98 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1286 3055 Fit Permitted 0,95 1.00 Satd. Flow (~erm} 1286 3055 Peak~hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.84 0.75 Adj. Flow(vph) 0 0 0 73 996 43 RTOR Reduction(vpH) 0 0 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 73 1034 0 Confl. Peds. (#/Hr) 10 10 Parking (#/Hr} 10 10 Turn Type Perm NA Protected PHases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 19.5 Effective Green, g (s) 21.0 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 5.6 5.6 Vehicle Extension (s} 3.0 3.0 Lalle Grp Cap (vpH) 450 1069 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 vic Ratio 0.16 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 13.4 19.2 Progression Factor 0.76 0.97 .Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 19.8 Delay(s) 10.9 38.5 Level of Service 8 D ApproacH Delay (s) 0.0 36.7 ApproachLOS · A D

Delay HCM 2000Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle LengtH (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group


"\ t /"'

86 0 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 5.0 4.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1592 1676 0.16 1.00 271 1676 0.80 0.72 1.00 108 261 0

0 0 0 108 261 0

10

pm+pt NA 3 8 8

29.9 29.9 29.4 30.9 0.49 0.51 4.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 236 863

c0.04 0.16 0.19 0.46 0.30 11.5 8.4 1.59 0.55 1.3 0.2

19.7 4.7 8 A

9.1 A

13.1 c

11/13/2012

\.. ! ..;

0 370 93 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1616 tOO

1616 1.00 0:86 0.72

0 430 129 0 18 0 0 541 0

10

NA 4

20.2 21.2 0.35 5.0 3.0 570

c0.33

0.95 18.9 1.00 25.3 44.1

D 44.1

D

Synchro 7 - Report Page6


;

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Lane Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane l)til. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (~erm} Peak"hour factor, PI-IF 0.65 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 RTQR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h} 0 Tum Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS


--+

1 1900

11 4.1

0.91 1.00 1.00

4395 ···1.ao 4395 0.89 1178

4 1261

NA 2

44.5 45.5 0.76 5.1 3.0

3332

0.29 0.38 2.5

0.44 0.3 1.4 A

1.4 A

......

27 1900

12

0.70 39 0 0

0.37 60.0

43.9% 15


.f +- " 0 0 0

1900 1900 1900 12 12 12

1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A


"" t ~

0 20 1900 1900

12 12 4.0

1.00 0.94 1.00 1572 1.00 1572

1.00 0.70 0 29 0 22 0 32

NA 8

5.4 6.4

0.11 5.0 3.0 167

0.02

0.19 24.4 1.00 0.6

25.0 c

25.0 c

I"

16 1900

12

0.65 25 0 0

8.1 A

11/13/2012

\. ! ..;

29 28 0 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.0 4.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1593 1676 0}2 1.00 1210 1676 0.66 0.65 1.00

44 43 0 0 0 0

44 43 0 Perm NA

4 4

5.4 5.4 6.4 6.4

0.11 0.11 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 129 178

0.03 c0.04 0.34 0.24 24.8 24.6 0.80 0.79 1.5 0.7

21.3 20.1 c c

20.7 c



~ ...... ""' • +- "-. '

Lane sonfigurations Volumer(Vph) 0 0 0 37 1250 3 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.9 4.0 Lane UtiL Factor 0.86 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected tOO 0:95 Satd. Flow (prot) 5559 1593 Fit Pennitted 1.00 0.68 Satd. Flow (~enn) 5559 1142 Peak"hoiJrfaCtor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.79 0.37 0.79 Adi: Flow (~ph) 0 0 0 73 1582 8 62 RTOR Reduction {VJ>h) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h) 0 0 0 0 1662 0 62 Turn Type Penn NA Penn Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 41.9 7.7 Effective Green, g (s) 43.4 8.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 4021 165 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.38 UnifonnDelay; d1 3;3 23.2 Progression Factor 1.28 1.11 Incremental .Delay, d2 0.3 1.4 Delay (s) 4.5 27.1 Level of Service A c Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.5 Approach LOS A A

HC~~ ~b~~~ C~:¥~f.~i :(}.~!;;w 7J ....... f.ttjf~~·:~~j!][~~jiJ!i ·~f :Sfj,Y\iiw!i! 0.41 60.0 Sum .of lost time (s)

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis P~riod (min)

43.9% ICU Level of Service 15

c Critical Lane Group


t

1900 12

4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1676 1.00 1676 0.68

56 0

56 NA

8

7.7 8.7

0.14 5.0 3.0 243 0.03

0.23 22.7 1.11 0.5

25.7 c

26.4 c

/"'

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

7.9 A

11/13/2012

\. ! .ttl

0 34 49 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.0

1.00. 0.93 1.00 1567 tOO 1567

1.00 0.56 0.86 0 61 57 0 32 0 0 86 0

NA 4

7.7 8.7

0.14 5.0 3.0 227

c0.05

0.38 23.2 1.00 1.1

24.2 c

24.2 c

Synchro 7 - Report PageS


,1-

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Lane. Width 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane UJiL Factor Frt Fit Protecte{l Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (Qerm} Peak~bourfact9r. PHF 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph} 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane GrouQ Flow (vQh} 0 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s). Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

rrci¥~.~~~~1·c~~~tr,:~ :d!ii-1~~ HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

__,.

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

0.0 A

... .,. ....... '- ' 0 16 50 23

1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 12 12 11 12 12

3.9 4.0 0;86 1.00 0.99 1.00 tOO 0.95

6125 1770 1.00 0.49 6125 910

1.00 0.70 0.87 0.71 0.75 0 23 943 70 31 0 0 1~ 0 0 0 0 1023 0 31

Perm NA pm+pt 6 3

6 8 34.4 15.0 35.9 16.0 0.60 0.27 5.4 5.0 3.0 3.0

3664 297 0.01

0.17 0.02 0.28 0.10

5.8 16.6 0.92 1.00 0.2 0.2 5.5 16.7

A B 5.5 A

·· ·.~.if' ················~:~aM ~uo~Le'~~~: ,~ffSt.;n{j(i~

0.32 60.0 Sum of lost time (s)

37.1% ICU Level of Service 15


t

1.19 1900

12 4.2

1.00 1.00 1;00 1863 1.00 1863 0.73 163

0 163 NA

8

15.0 16.0 0.27 5.2 3.0

496 c0.09

0.33 17.7 1.00 0.4

18.1 B

17.9 B

I"

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

12.1 A

11/13/2012

\.. ! .ttl

0 42 43 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.2 4.2

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1863 1583 1.00 1.00 1863 1583

1.00 0.92 0.92 0 46 47 0 0 41 0 46 6

NA Perm 4

4 7.2 7.2 8.2 8.2

0.14 0.14 5.2 5.2 3.0 3.0 254 216 0.02

0.00 0.18 0.03 22.9 22.5 1.00 1.00 0.3 0.1

23.3 22.5 c c

22.9 c



.,}-

Lane Configurations Volume (~ph) 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Lane Width. 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane U.tii.Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow (~erm} Peak"hourfactor, PHF 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 RTORReduction (vph) 0 Lane Grou~ Flow (v~h} 0 Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuatedg/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s RatioPerm v/c Ratio Uniforrn Delay, d1 Progression Factor lncremeptal Delay, d2 Delay (s) . Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approac;h LOS

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection. Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

-+

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

0.0 A

.....

0 1900

12

1.00 0 0 0

11Lt 0.33 60.0

36.1% 15


., ....... ' 13

1900 1900 12 11

3.9 0.86 1.00 1.00

6160 1.00 6160

0.68 0.81 0.85 19 804 25 0 5 0 0 843 0

Perm NA 6

6 36.7 38.2 0.64 5.4 3.0

3921

0.14 0.21 4.6

1.00 0.1 4.7

A 4.7

A


"\

98 1900

12 4.2

1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 0.48 893

0.76 129

0 129

Perm

8 12.7 13.7 0.23 5.2 3.0 203

c0.14 0.64 20.9 0.98 6.0

26.5 c

t

118 1900

12 4.2

1.00 1.00 1:00 1863 1.00 1863 0;81 146

0 146 NA

8

12.7 13.7 0.23 5.2 3.0

425 0.08

0.34 19.4 0.96 0.5

19.1 B

22.6 c

,. 0

1900 12

1:00 0 0 0

8.1 A

11/13/2012

\. ! ..1

~ 0 116 68

1900 1900 1900 12 12 12

4.2 1.00 0.95 1.00 1772 1.00 1772

1.00 0.76 0.78 0 153 87 0 40 0 0 200 0

NA 4

12.7 13.7 0.23 5.2 3.0

404 0.11

0.49 20.1 1.00 1.0

21.1 c

21.1 c



;

Lane Configurations Volume (vph) ·. 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 LaneWidth · 12 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Fit· Pe.rrn itted Satd. Flow (~errn} Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 RTORReduction (vph) 0 Lane ~rou~ Flow (v~h} 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s} Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actui'lted Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group

......

1900 11

3.9 0.91 0.99 1.00

4855 1.66

4855 0.79 820

9 924 NA

2

30.8 32.3 0.54 5.4 3.0

2613

0.19 0.35 7.9

0.63 0.4 5.3 A

5.3 A

~

44 1900

12

0.75 59 0 0

36.1% 15


.f ...,_

' 0 0 0

1900 1900 1900 12 12 12

1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 A


""\ t ~

0 140 1900 1900

12 12 4.0

1.00 0.98 1.00 1834 toO 1834

1.00 0.69 0 203 0 9 0 220

NA 8

12.3 13.3 0.22 5.0 3.0

406 c0.12

0.54 20.7 1.00 1.5

22.1 c

22.1 c

/"'

17 1900

12

0.65 26 0 0

11.9 A

11/13/2012

\. ~ .I

77 0 1900 1900 1900

12 12 12 4.0 4.0

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1;00 1770 1863 0.37 1.00 696 1863 0.56 0.83 1.00

21 93 0 0 0 0

21 93 0 pm+pt NA

7 4 4

18.8 18.8 19.8 19.8 0.33 0.33 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 274 614

0.00 c0.05 0.02 0.08 0.15 14.0 14.2 1.47 1.36 0.1 0.1

20.8 19.4 c B

19.6 B



MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP ~k..--Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson, AICPo~ MPO Staff Director .

FROM: Brian Freeman, AICP p fC= Senior Transportation Planner

DATE: January 28, 2013

SUBJECT: Status Report of Transit Development Plan (TDP) Major Update and Consideration of Consultant Presentation


SUMMARY

According to state and federal regulations, the Indian River County MPO must prepare and adopt a Major Update of its Transit Development Plan (TDP) by September 30, 2013. In 2012, the MPO issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to its general planning consultants, Stanley and Associates and the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), to initiate the TDP major update. Since then, the consultants have met regularly with MPO and Senior Resource Association (SRA) staff and have provided staff with a number of draft work products. Staff recommends that the TAC and CAC consider the presentation at the February 5, 2013 meeting and provide comments to staff.

DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS, AND ANALYSIS

According to state and federal regulations, the Indian River County MPO must prepare and adopt a Major Update of its Transit Development Plan (TDP) by September 30, 2013. Adoption of a TDP is required in order to receive grant funding under the Public Transportation Block Grant (PTBG) program. That program provides approximately 25% of the operating costs of the transit system and is also used as a portion of the required 50% match for federal funds.

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\2013\2-5-13 Joint Mtg w CAC\TDP Update. doc 1

In 2012, the MPO issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to its general planning consultant, Stanley and Associates, and its subconsultant, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), to initiate the update. Since then, the county's TDP consultants have undertaken some preliminary TDP development activities. Those activities include drafting a public outreach plan, analyzing demographic trends within the community, and conducting a peer trend analysis of the county's fixed route (GoLine) and demand response (Community Coach) transit systems.

One essential component of the TDP major update is public outreach. As one of the first TDP activities, the consultants drafted a public outreach plan for the project. That outreach plan calls for surveying transit users and operators, conducting public workshops throughout the county, and reaching out to non-users at public locations. Late last year, transit system users were surveyed by the consultant. As part of that effort, onboard questionnaires were administered to 560 GoLine passengers, while surveys were sent by mail to Community Coach passengers with a postage-paid return envelope. In addition, public workshops will be conducted throughout the county on February 5, 2013 (see attached schedule). Future activities include outreach to non-users at a public location, such as Indian River Mall.

Besides the public outreach efforts discussed above, the consultants have conducted a demographic assessment of the county and a peer trend analysis ofthe GoLine and Community Coach systems. A peer trend analysis is an efficiency review of those services in comparison to other similar systems. Those efforts culminated in two draft reports that were recently submitted to MPO staff. At this time, those reports are being reviewed by MPO staff. Upon completion of that review, those reports will be incorporated into the TDP document and submitted to the TAC and CAC for review and approval.

At the February 5, 2013 meeting, the TDP consultants will update the TAC and CAC on the results of the passenger surveys, the demographic assessment, the peer trend analysis, and other activities to be included in the TDP Major Update.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the TAC and CAC consider the presentation at the February 5, 2013 meeting, and provide comments to staff.

ATTACHMENT

1. Transit Development Plan Public Workshop Schedule

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\2013\2-5-13 Joint Mtg w CAC\TDP Update.doc 2

You Are Invited to Help Us Plan the Future of Transit in Indian River County.

Transit Development Plan Public Workshops

• Tuesday, February 5th Fellsmere City Hall 22 South Orange St Fellsmere, FL 32948

• Tuesday I February sth Gifford Youth Activity Center 4875 43rd Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32967-6327

• Tuesday, February 5th Sebastian City Hall 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958

• Tuesday I February sth County Admin Building B Conference Room B1-501 1800 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960

9:00AM - 10:00 AM

9:45AM - 10:15 AM

11:00 AM - 12:00 PM

5:30 PM - 6:30 PM

The Indian River Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is in the process of developing a transit development plan for the community. If you are interested in the future of Indian River County's transit system, please plan to attend one of these workshops. We need to hear from you so we can incorporate your ideas, goals and values.

Come to any of the four public meetings and give us your comments.

For more information visit www.irmpo.com or call Phil Matson at (772) 226-1455

For complaints, questions or concerns about civil rights or nondiscrimination; or for special requests under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact: Phil Matson, Title VI Coordinator at (772) 226-1455 or [email protected].

Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact Phil Matson at (772) 226-1455 or [email protected] at least seven days prior to the meeting.

Attachment 1


MEMORANDUM

TO: Members ofthe Indian River County MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP ~(<.._

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:


Phillip J. Matson, AICP 0\/1 MPO StaffDirector V 1

v 1

January 29, 2013

STATUS REPORT OF MPO ADVISORY COMMITTEES

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the TAC/CAC joint meeting of February 5, 2013.

TACMEETING

The TAC met on November 30, 2012 and considered the 2013/14- 2017/18 FDOT Draft FiveYear Tentative Work Program. After discussing the Work Program, the TAC recommended that the MPO approve the Work Program.

CACMEETING

The CAC met on December 4, 2012 and also considered the 2013/14 - 2017118 FDOT Draft Five-Year Tentative Work Program. After discussing this item, the CAC recommended that the MPO approve the item.

MPOMEETING

The MPO met on December 12, 2012 and approved the 2013/14- 2017/18 FDOT Draft FiveYear Tentative Work Program. Also on December 12, the MPO considered a staff presentation on the Transit Development Plan (TDP) Major Update.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

The MPO and its advisory committees will next meet as follows:

MPO Meeting: February 13,2013 -lO:OOam TAC Meeting: February 22,2013 -lO:OOam CAC Meeting: March 5, 2013 -2:00pm BAC Meeting: April 23, 2013 -2:00pm

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\T AC\20 13\2-5-13 Joint Mtg w CAC\Status Other Committees.doc

agenda - ircgov.com · 2018-04-08 · others present were: stacy miller, antoinette adams, and...

Documents