Item B
Evaluation (~l Hurricane Evacuation Alternative.\' .Ii)/' iHoll/'oe County
BOCC Special lHeeting, January Ul\ 20()f
Initial Alternatives Assessment for Hurricane Evacuation:
INTRODUCTION
At the current moment, according to the 2nd Draft of the Florida Keys Hurricane
Evacuation Report, we stand'at a clearance time to Florida City of 24 hours 50 minutes.
The expected clearance time in 2005, under current conditions, will be 25 hours 14
minutes. I
The report recommended a series of construction projects2 to deal with critical links in
hurricane evacuation (and at least one link that isn't critical). 3, i.e. segments of the
evacuation route where there is potentially a greater demand for automobile access than
there is capacity to accommodate those automobiles. The Monroe County Sheriff's
Department presented yesterday an alternative scenario of a combination of traffic
management alternatives and minimal construction. This accompanying report details
some additional issues for us, as well as some specific concerns we will need to consider
in addition to their presented alternative.
In Part I of this document, the three groupings of roadway that the Sheriff's Department
will present to us will be discussed in tenns of the challenges they present and the issues
we may need to discuss. The segments will be presented, north to south. In Part II, some
additional issues will be briefly presented, including larger-scale alternatives and growth
management questions.
I. Roadway Segments
A. Florida City
As an area outside of Monroe County, this segment of our hurricane evacuation
offers a unique dependency upon the actions and good will of the people of
Florida City. While it is unknown whether or not that community will support the
I The evacuation clearance time that were provided in Draft #2 of the Hurricane Evacuation Report were
calculated to the Monroe County Shelter at FlU, not to Florida City. To reach the pertinent number for our
consideration, 52 minutes must be subtracted from any evacuation clearance time reported for Category 3-5
storms (for categories 1-2, only 30 minutes must be subtracted to determine the time to Florida City).
2 Despite the words of the Governor that this report would make its first priority the use of existing roads to
reduce evacuation clearance time, this report will be the first professional consideration of Monroe County
Hurricane Evacuation that found no traffic management techniques to recommend. Luckily, there is
available to us a history of more extensive examination of traffic management options, as well as the
wealth of experience in traffic management that our Sheriffs Department puts into place every day.
3 In the model runs in Appendix C of the 2nd Draft, there is a page which indicates which segments of road
are problematic. As Attachment TWO of this document, you will find the model run that indicates which
segments are "critical," as defined by Miller Consulting, Inc. for our current highway evacuation situation
Segments that are critical would, by their definition, have to have a number other than zero in either or both
of the two columns entitled "Bottleneck Delay" and "Hours of Back-up." The Miller Consulting definition
ofa "critical link" is Attachment THREE of this document, in its draft form (a final version was never
received), posed as a response to question #4. If you wonder where the 18 Mile Stretch is on this list, it is
not a critical link.
Page I
third constructed northbound lane suggested for the miles of roadway that connect
the 18 Mile Stretch/Card Sound with the Turnpike, traffic management is also an
alternative.
Suggested option: Support whichever alternative Florida Cityfeels able to
support.
B. m.m 80 north to Florida City
According to the Monroe County Sheriffs Department, this is the segment of road
that is imminently workable for traffic management, requiring little in the way of
accompanying construction or lane delineation. Traffic management of this
significant segment, which includes the five most critical segments, if the order of
priority provided in Draft :2 of the Hurricane Evacuation document is any
indication,4 could be put in place in time to be activated, as needed, in the coming
hurricane evacuation season. This alone should put us well under the national
standard for hurricane evacuation safety.
Particularly for the section of this portion of the evacuation route between m.m.
80 and 90, there is a detailed history of study backing up the contention that
traffic management is a workable alternative.5 In the four lane sections to the
north, the Monroe County Sheriffs Department has extensive experience with
contra-laning, and has a unique approach to address associated concerns, as well
as a specific construction request to mitigate northern end merging concerns at
m.m. 106.
One of the most crucial aspects of the implementation of the Sheriffs plan is the
replacement of the current T-intersection at Card Sound/SR 905 by a gentle curve.
The previous BOCC supported this curve by a 5-0 vote. Despite the fact that our
current Commission has duly noted a preference for traffic management over
construction alternatives in response to the Miller rep0l1, it has been assumed that
the curve on Card Sound Road will still be supported.
4 The first five projects recommended in the Draft are m.m. 85.6-90, Florida City, m.m. 105-106.3, nl.lll.
80-85.6, and m.m. 100-105, discounting the inclusion in this list of the 18 Mile Stretch, a clearly
demonstrated non-critical link.
S Technical Memorandum from Don Lewis, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., "Findings of Work
Regarding an Update of the December 1991 Hurricane Evacuation Analysis of the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan," March 7, 1995. Additionally, there is Kimley-Horn & Associates, "Measured
Capacity of U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys," 1995, p. 16. Note that Iwi II not be quoting the Miller report as a
resource on the issue of traffic management. There are two reasons for that: (I) there assessment of traffic
management alternatives within the County was fraught with error and (2) Miller expressed a commitment
to recommending no traffic management alternatives NO MATTER WHAT. That could hardly result in a
document that would lead to educational use for the purpose of finding workable traffic management
solutions, although it could be handy in making sure that we've addressed all pertinent concerns in putting a
plan in place.
Evaluation of Burricant' Evacuation Alternatives for iVlonroe Countv
BOCC Spcdal Mceting, .January I nth, 200t
PAGE 2
Suggested option: Support the Sheriff's Department plan for hurricane evacuation
techniquesfrom m.m. 80 north to Florida City.
C. m.m 54.5 to 80
A detailed, intersection by intersection report on the possibilities of traffic
management for this large segment of U.S. One was produced for the County by
the engineering firm of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan in 1995. That report
determined that traffic management was workable, although a significant
challenge.
"... it became apparent that the criticallinklbottleneck for
evacuation would be both US 1 through Key Largo and US
1 just south of milemarker 80 with similar levels of
congestion occurring at both are~s. The question was then
raised as to the feasibility of two northbound evacuation
lanes from milemarker 54 (where the normal northbound
travel lanes go to one northbound lane) to milemarker 80.
Jeff Easley, P.E., then performed an extensive field review
in December 1994 of this section to determine whether two
northbound evacuation lanes could be maintained while
providing a southbound lane for emergency vehicles and
background traffic. Appendix B provides a memo
documenting his findings regarding this section. In short,
this strategy could be accomllished for milemarker 54 to 80
with proper traffic control.'
The Monroe County Sheriffs Department will place their plan before us today, a
plan that includes some six miles of fairly minor construction, 18 miles of lane
channel markers, and a host of challenges. This segment of road will be not only a
physical challenge, but a serious financial7 and resource commitment challenges
as well. It is also a segment of road that runs through four municipal jurisdictions:
Marathon, unincorporated Monroe, Layton and Islamorada.
(, Technical Memorandum from Don Lewis, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., "Findings of Work
Regarding an Update of the December] 991 Hurricane Evacuation Analysis of the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan," March 7, ] 995, p. 4. Appendix B in its entirety is included as an Appendix to this
report.
7 Nobody is really dealing with the issue of cost yet and clearly we don't have a detailed enough analysis of
this plan to start guessing. However, there is no reassurance at this point, since the State is in possession of
a report that recommends no traffic management alternatives, that the State will help with associated costs
for this plan. Hence, we need to know and plan for the possibility that local governments will bear the
costs. Since this is not a plan, however, that would have had to have been implemented even once in the
last decade (since it is necessitated by the inability to evacuate tourists early), we can expect few occasions
for implementation.
Evaluation of Ilurricanc Evacuation AltcrnatiH.'s for Monro(' Count~j
BOCC Spceial Mceting, Janual'Y 1O'h, 2001
PACE 3
After the Sheriffs presentation, Public Works (County Engineer Dave Koppel)
will comment on the challenges this would present the county and the
municipalities through which the road segment would pass.
As the presentations are made, there are a couple of pieces of information YOll
might wish to keep in mind and a few questions you might want to consider:
~ This one is really tricky to traffic manage and requires hours and hours of
preparation work. Clearly, we are far from a detailed report on exactly what
would be entailed and how we'd manage it but this may be one area where we
might consider whether additional construction projects could be embraced.
~ The portion of road (approximately one mile) that runs through Layton is
proposed to be three-Ianed in the Sheriffs plan. The City of Layton has taken
a position in support 0 r this three-Ianing. The County might wish to consider
whether additional Long Key three-Ianing might be appropriate given that,
which would eliminate about ten miles of traffic channel demarkation (that
could equate to a savings of some three hours of preparation time). That said,
it would be a serious construction project for a need that might be felt once a
decade, so there are definitely arguments on both sides of this issue.
~ The Marathon segment of this roadway section causes a problem IF anyone
wishes to support a full three-laning construction through Grassy Key (as
proposed in the Miller report) as opposed to the mixture of construction and
traffic management that the Sheriffs plan proposes. The Monroe County
Sheriffs Department believes that the Miller proposal is much more
dangerous than their combination of traffic management and construction on
Grassy Key. They would argue that there are only two alternatives to a change
in this segment: either their alternative as expressed today or a four lane with
median through Grassy Key.
~ The Sheriffs plan does call for a small section of widening on Lower
Matecumbe Key in Islamorada. While Islamorada would prefer not to widen
roads through the Village, both Village Manager Charles Baldwin and Village
CouncIman Frank Kulisky were presented with the Sheriffs plan yesterday
and there is hope that they will find this compromise acceptable.
~ One of the big problems with the placement of traffic channel markers is not
only the amount of time it takes to set them in place before the evacuation, but
the need to remove them AFTER the evacuation and BEFORE the hurricane.
With a category 5 approaching, and our families, homes and our county to
worry about, who can be guarantee that they will be available at the last
possible moments? And is it fair to ask that of anyone? Are there things that
could be used for traffic chmmel demarkation that would not have to be
Evaluation of Hurricane Evacuation Alternatives for Monroe Count)!
BOCC Spl~dal Meeting, .J:lnu:lI') 1 Olh, 2001
P.\GI:4
removed before the storm? There are REAL concerns that are not easily
dismissed. >t 4J/ ~ a.A.Jaa
D. m.m 47-48
Suggested Option:
(fanyonefeels particularly strongly about this segment, we can consider a
position today. If not, if action has been taken above to deal with the current need
fhr reduction in hurricane evacuation clearance time, hold thejormulation of a
position on this particular proposed project until the Marathon City Council has
done its homework and taken a position.
E. Signalized Intersection on Big Pine Key
No Traffic Management Alternative was even discussed for this proposed project in either the new
reports or the historical documents on this subject. And this, unlike the contra-laning (Section
Four) of part of Key Largo during parades, isn't something normally instituted. If we are to oppose
this proposed project AND if it is important enough in terms of evacuation clearance time impact
to be a priority for us, again we would need a plan formulated and significant resources in place to
deal with it.
This is also a dangerous, highly volatile multi-entry intersection which raises concerns about non-
construction alternatives, which mayor may not be balanced by feelings of some of the people of
Big Pine Key who have a number of stong environmental concerns about the impact of road
construction projects there. However, in addition to safety issues, there are also concerns about
concurrency issues on BPK that this improvement could help alleviate.
Without having a specific project on the table to examine, it is difficult to responsibly support or
oppose this suggestion for the intersection. An Habitat Conservation Plan will be completed
toward the end of this year and the implications of a project to add a lane through this intersection
- as well as the specifics of the project itself - should be before us so that our decision can be a
better educated one.
Suggested option:
Ifwe have taken action above to adequately reduce hurricane evacuation clearance time, we will
have time to examine the results of the Hep and the specifics of any proposed project before we
need to take action in support or opposition.
II. Other Related Issues and Considerations
(A) The 18 Mile Stretch and an Improved Card Sound Road (with curve)
The City of Marathon has refrained from taking a position on any segment of the proposed
hurricane evacuation route "out of respect for the other municipalities," through which many
of the road segments run, with the one exception of the 18 Mile Stretch, which they support
Evaluation of Hurricane Eva(~uation Alternatives for lVlonroe County
BOCC Special Meeting, .Janual) JOlh, 2001
PAGE :)
widening. The irony of this is not only that we are, of course, the municipal government,
through which the southern end of the 18 Mile Stretch runs (SIGH)8, but that this study
clearly demonstrates that, of all the projects proposed in the Miller report, the LEAST critical
is the 18 Mile Stretch.
We have in fact, discllssed previously that this report proves that the 18 Mile Stretch is not a
critical link. 'J SO why is a third lane on the 18 Mile Stretch the 3rd highest ranked project on
the list? The contractor argues that the problem herein is merging not capacity, that
feeding three lanes of traffic into two will cause delays in and of itselt~ apart from
capacity issues. A couple of key points to note as we consider the issue of the 18 Mile
Stretch:
(1) It isn't certain that there is a merging problem. While this contractor will argue that
adequate capacity isn't enough, there are engineers who will argue that it IS enough,
and that merging can be handled without the addition of another lane and without
destroying the associated improvement in hurricane evacuation clearance time. 10 In
fact, the contractor himself argues that it IS enough when three lanes in Florida City
are merged onto two Florida Turnpike lanes with adequate (obviously, even greater
than the 18 Mile Stretch/Card Sound combination) capacity.
(2) It is absolutely clear that there is no need to even consider this issue unless there are
three lanes of feeder traffic coming through Key Largo. As that is only planned for
the most extreme situation, even if needed, it would almost never be REQUIRED.
(3) If it should be the determination of this Commission that a third northbound lane is
needed from the Keys, one- waying Card Sound Road remains a viable option as
demonstrated in the Monroe County Sherrifs plan, far simpler than the comments
included in the 2nd draft of the Miller report would indicate. II
Proposed Options:
8 Note that the closest municipal entities to the 18 Mile Stretch, which would include not only us but
Islamorada and Layton, have all expressed opposition to the widening of the 18 Mile Stretch. Hence, this
action is likely to be seen as a gesture of disrespect, given their statement of why they aren't taking
positions on other roadway segments, not only to the County, but to the citizenry and the governments that
comprise the Upper Keys. I bring up this point because it may become a colorful issue at Thursday's
meeting.
9 Again, attachments Two and Three.
10 It might be worth noting here that Miles Moss & Associates, an engineering firm, produced a summary of
findings in their review of the 2nd draft for the Florida Keys Citizen's Coalition. In it, the following two
statements were made that shed some light on the differing opinions on the widening issue: "We believe the
capacity of U.S.One from Key Largo to Florida City and the capacity of SR905/Card Sound Road can
support the peak evacuation exiting flow without modifications to current roadway geometries." In
addition, they noted that current emergency plans for handling hurricane evacuation situations in the Upper
Keys and Florida City calls for a active law enforcement presence "including the abil ity to restrict traffic to
Card Sound Road for short periods in case U.S. One becomes congested."
II You may recall the discussion of the large number of active intersections included in the Miller report as
pertaining to this section of the hurricane evacuation route, intersections that simply do not exist. While this
issue is to be readdressed in the final draft, the Sheriff's assessment is probably out best bet for an educated
response to this alternative
Evaluation of Hurricane Evacuation Alternativ('s for lVlonroe Count~
BOCC Spe('ial Meeting, .tanmll') 101\ 20tH
PAGE 6
We need to consider today taking a stand on the proposed widening of the Jewfish Creek
Bridge. We also need to consider consulting an engineer of our own to determine
whether merging onto these road\' is, in fact, an unworkable situation.
(B) Evacuation Clearance Times Goals:
There are, of course, two considerations for the Commission as policy-makers: (1)
the safety of our citizens and (2) the future growth of the County.
On the subject of the safety of our citizens, naturally we would want to see the
evacuation clearance time be as brief as possible. Twenty-four hours is the national
standard for acceptable clearance time, and has, in the past, been the basis of our
agreements with the Florida Department of Community Affairs. That amount of time
has, traditionally, been measured as the amount of time required to evacuate the
entire population of the Keys to Florida City. 12
On the issue of growth, at a 24 hour clearance time, no additional permits should be
released while our Rate of Growth Ordinance is dependent upon hurricane clearance
times, if plans are not in place for additional reductions of clearance time, Hence, if
we (or any other governmental entity with municipal authority) wish to release
additional building permits, we must aim for an evacuation clearance time of less
than 24 hours. Each hour in clearance time reduced equates roughly to 2000 building
permits, according to the Monroe County Growth Management Department. ] 3
To continue permitting at the current rate (307 new permits annually) 14 for the next
decade would require 3070 permits, demanding an evacuation clearance goal of 22
hours 27 minutes. That number is the result of the nationally accepted standard of 24
hours minus the time estimated to accommodate the additional residents represented
by the 3070 building permits. Implementing the Sheriffs plan should get us to that
goal, without a problem. 15
12 Just a reminder that the evacuation clearance times given in the table on page 65 of the 2nd draft of the
Miller Hurricane Evacuation Report are to FlU's Monroe County shelter not to Florida City. Under
Footnote I, you'll find the difference between those two figures defined.
13 Note that that number is not precise for the results of this Hurricane Evacuation Report. We are using the
number produced from the earlier Post Buckley study which, it is hoped, is still in the ballpark. As a final
draft of this Hurricane Evacuation Report had not been received as of this date, this was considered the best
we had to offer.
14 Permits allowed to be released for unincorporated Monroe, Marathon and Islamorada per year: 204.
While KCB and Layton are technically subject to ROGO, there have not been a number limit placed on
those municipalities. Typically they release 14 and 2 permits respectively per year. Key West is allotted 81
fer year. Ocean Reef, which is currently not subject to ROGO, releases an average of 6 permits per year.
S Note that additional permits and additional clearance time reduction would be needed to build at the rate
we were building prior to the loss of20% of unincorporated Monroe's (which then included Marathon &
Islamorada)'s permits in 1998, should those permits be reinstated by the Governor and Cabinet when they
review our Year Three Work Plan progress.
Evaluation of IIUl'ricane Evacuation Alternatives for Monroe County
BOCC Special Meeting, .Janual'Y loth, 2001
PAGE 7
But expect to be asked: So what happens in ten years? What happens when you've
built every building this evacuation scenario allows for? What is our plan then? And
how do you plan to make sure you don't end up in this same quandary down the road?
We will have to have answers and those answers will come down to a simple choice:
do we intend to actively acquire land and/or conservation easements or do we
eventually intend to buckle down and six lane Key West to Florida City? Expect
those questions Thursday. We need to discuss this at least briefly today.
(C) Are these really our only options?
1) Aren't there other alternatives to orfor hurricane evacuation?
Even as we speak, Key West is considering trying to implement some kind of sea-
borne evacuation using transportation vessels, for example. There are still other
alternatives, many of them very ambitious and fraught with additional difficulties.
The Army Corps of Engineers included a number of those alternatives in discussions
that followed the disaster of Hurricane Andrew. 16
There are, of course, reasons none of these alternatives modes of moving people were
put in place - and they are the reasons that you'll see some eye-rolling at any
suggestion that you're ever going to move large quantities of Keys folk from here via
some form of mass transit: it's difficult to orchestrate and coordinate such a
movement, it's hard to believe that many of us will just leave our cars, pets and most
belongings in the face of dire threat, and, if the vehicle, agency, or company upon
which such a plan hinges fails to come through for whatever reason, what are the fall-
back positions? Despite these considerations, we certainly can consider these
alternatives and see if we wish to bring any into play.
2) Aren't there enough flaws in the Miller Hurricane Evacuation Report to call its
numbers into question?
Yes, but the truth is that you're probably just talking fine-tuning from here. Yes, the
Scope of Work has not been completed and promised elements within it are not
included. Yes, there isn't one of us here who believes that there is ever going to be
any situation in which 100% of the population leaves from any segment of the Keys.
And yes, none of these worst-case scenario studies changes the fact that, historically
speaking, we've never had a problem getting our population out in a timely fashion.
So yes, we can argue that there is no "reality" behind these dire numbers, that in
fact there is no problem to be addressed.
But clearly, with State Roads involved, and a State paid-for study indicating that
there is a need, the State will probably opt for worst-case-scenario caution _ and,
I (, Chapter Three, "Potcnlial Rcsources and Limitations" from the Army Corps of Engineers 1992 "Initial Revicw and Assessment"
following Hurricane Andrcw, IS included as Attachment Two to this document.
Evaluation of Burrkane Evacuation Alternativ,'s for Monnlc County
BOCC Special Meeting, .Janual'Y lUll" 2001
PAGE 8
.
according to this study, that means construction projects. While we might get
them to fine-tune some numbers (and we can certainly discuss that and any
direction you'd like to take), it is unlikely that the State will determine that there
are no improvements that need to be made.
And the truth is, that ~e could improve our evacuation clearance times and our
Sheriffs Department is more than willing to work with us to make sure that that
happens. Hence, our only realistic options, if we are unhappy with the suggestions
of the report, are to provide real alternatives to the construction scenarios. as
appropriate, and to provide suggestions for fine-tuning the results of the study.
While we could argue that the report is so fundamentally flawed that it should not
be utilized for ANYTHING, falling back on older studies would still leave us with
a need to take further action, given the intervening growth numbers produced by
Monroe County that were utilized in this study. 17
Proposed Option: Once thefinal draft is completed, we will receive a working
model of the hurricane evacuation model utilized on disk. We will then beJi'ee to
work with this model to include beller input and well founded assumptions as we
feel they need to be corrected. We will need to be prepared to present good
documentation for any changes in evacuation clearance times that resultsfi'om
those changes, but there is no question that the elements of this model can and
should be "tweaked, even significantly changed. "
17 Monroe County's Growth Management Department, as well as Key West's Planning Department,
produced numbers for permits issued in the years between the last "official" Hurricane Evacuation Report
(the 1991 Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigen study updated in 1995, referred to earlier) and this one. Those
numbers were accepted by Miller Consulting Inc. In addition, it should be noted that that older study was
also fraught with disagreement, controversy and what appeared to be, to some members of our
constituency, significant errors, and also concluded that there were significant hurricane evacuation
clearance time issues. In point offact, it is hard to find anyone who, despite the fact that we have not
historically HAD a hurricane evacuation problem, is willing to say that there won't be a problem given
different circumstances on the current road configuration.
Evaluation of Hurricane Eva(~lIation Alternativ(\s for lVlonro(\ County
BOCC Special Meeting, .Janua,'y I Ofh, 2001
PAGE 9
ATTACHED DOCUMENTS:
ONE: Monroe County Sheriff's Department Hurricane
Evacuation Plan in response to issues raised by
the Miller Hurricane Evacuation Report, January,
2001.
TWO: Results of Model Run #6 from the 2nd Draft of
the Miller Hurricane Evacuation Report: Existing
Traffic Conditions" under evacuation with a
Category 3-5 Hurricane
.
THREE: Miller Consulting, Inc. Faxed draft of
response to four questions posed by Nora
Williams. Question #4 notes the criteria utilized by
Miller Consulting to determine "critical link" status.
Received December 1, 2000.
FOUR: Appendix B from "Findings of Work Regarding
an Update of the December 1991 Hurricane
Evacuation Analysis of the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan," March 7, 1995.
FIVE: Chapter Three, "Potential Resources and
Limitations" from the Army Corps of Engineers
1992 "Initial Review and Assessment" following
Hurricane Andrew.
[valualion of Hurricane Evacuation ..\Itcmatives for Monroe C()unt~
Jalluaq 9,2001
ATTACHMENT ONE:
MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
HURRICANE EVACUATION PROPOSAL
JANUARY 2001
h aluation of llun'icane Evacuation Altemativcs for Monro(.' County
January 9, 2001
MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OPINION ON HURRICANE
EVACUATION AL TERNA TIVES revised 1/9/01
The Sheriff's Office recognizes the need to increase the efficiency of exiting highway
capacity, but not at the sa~ of safety. Through the entire section of the proposal
reviewed, although safety is mentioned, the majority of the proposals cause for
traffic routes to be reconfigured. Modifying the traffic flow is a major concern and
placing three lanes of traffic on a roadway designed for two - separated only by
traffic channeling devices, is a source of great concern for the safety of the motoring
public.
It is obvious that the scenarios depicted in the Miller proposal assume that a critical
emergency already exists and it is apparently one of the worse case scenarios.
Miller's alternatives for traffic management are close to unworkable simply because
of their heavy dependence on extensive use of traffic channeling devices and signage.
With all of this in mind we believe that the use of traffic channeling devices should be
kept to an absolute minimum and the use of the existing roadway with a permanent
improvement of certain sections of the roadway is more feasible.
The following is the recommendation of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office. We
did not perform any detailed examination of the two areas south of mm54.5 that
were mentioned in the Miller proposal (those being mm47 at Hog Key and the area
of the Red Light on Big Pine Key).
At mm54.5 the two-lane roadway should be reconfigured using traffic channeling
devices for two lanes northbound and one lane southbound. This should continue to
mm58 where an existing turn lane begins. This center lane must be continued by
way of permanent improvement to the roadway from that point to mm60 just past
Jo-Jo's Restaurant where the road can return to two lanes. This third lane is
necessary as the area supports numerous businesses and residential driveways.
From that point to mm67 which is in front of Long Key State Park the roadway
would be reconfigured using traffic channeling devices for two lanes northbound and
one lane southbound. It should be noted that in the areas where tempbrary
reconfiguration takes place there will need to be minor modifications in certain
areas to maintain a 36' wide roadway as required by one of the propositions.
At mm67 there is already a center turn lane. This center lane must be continued by
way of permanent improvement to the roadway from that point to the north city
limits of Layton which is mm68.5. From that point to mm74 at Caloosa Cove the
two-lane roadway should be reconfigured using traffic channeling devices for two
lanes northbound and one lane southbound. At Caloosa Cove there is already about
a half mile of center turn lane and this must be continued by way of permanent
improvement to the roadway from that point to mm75 at Robbie's Marina. At that
point begins a string of four bridges and short pieces of land that must be
reconfigured using traffic channeling devices for two lanes northbound and one lane
southbound. This would continue to mm80 at Bud and Mary's Marina. From that
point on the existing roadway can accommodate two lanes north and one lane south
without any reconfiguration. At the determination of Commanders in the field and
upon the order of the EOC, once the traffic is heavy enough to require a second
northbound lane a Sheriff's Traffic Unit can lead a new line of cars north in the
center lane from mm80. T9is can continue up to the Whale Harbor Bridge at
mm84. The bridge would have to be reconfigured by using traffic channeling devices
to accommodate two lanes north and one lane south. After crossing the Whale
Harbor Bridge the existing three lane roadway can once again accommodate the
evacuating traffic up to the area in front of Theater of the Sea at mm84.5.
From that point to Snake Creek Bridge at mm86 the roadway must be permanently
improved to include a center turn lane which would at that time be able to
accommodate two lanes of northbound and one lane of southbound traffic. Again,
at the Snake Creek Bridge, the hridge would have to be reconfigured by traffic
channeling devices. From the north side of the Snake Creek Bridge, the two lane
roadway must be resurfaced of permanently improved to include a center turn lane
which would at that time be able to accommodate two lanes of northbound and one
lane of southbound traffic. This improvement is only about a one-half mile distance
to the point where US 1 is already an improved three lane roadway in front of the
Plantation Yacht Harbor.
The existing three-lane roadway from that point north to mm90 can accommodate
two lanes of northbound and one lane of southbound traffic with no reconfiguration.
At mm90 US 1 becomes a four-lane highway with two permanent northbound lanes
that can handle the two lanes of northbound traffic entering at that point. This
configuration continues to mm106 at the CR 905 split.
When conditions of a hurricane category 3 through 5 evacuation make it necessary,
CR 905 and Card Sound Road will be turned into a one-way, two-lane northbound
roadway. This would be accomplished first by requiring all traffic at the three-way
stop to travel north on Card Sound Road while at the same time notifying residents
on selected residential entry points on CR 905 of the change by a pre-determined
method. This can be accomplished by prior notice given to all residents on CR 905
of the County's Evacuation Plan and the method of notification such as a traffic
channeling device in the residential roadway showing a specific message. These
message devices can be placed in the selected roadways by DOT or Law
Enforcement at the direction of the EOC at the same time the three-way stop is
requiring northbound traffic only. Deputies and security personnel at the Ocean
Reef Club and Anglers Club will notify residents of the events. After a safe period
to lighten or eliminate traffic two Traffic Units with full emergency equipment will
escort the first two lanes of northbound vehicles up CR905 and Card Sound road
and they can return to the county via US 1 which will still be open to southbound
traffic.
Some permanent improvements will be required for this movement. It is our
opinion that one ofthe most essential components to increasing traffic flow out of
the keys is eliminating the three way stop on SR 90S and replacing it with a curve.
By eliminating the stop sign and the 90-degree turn, traffic flow can be maintained
at a consistent speed.
It will also be necessary to rebuild the Card Sound Toll Plaza, widening the lanes
for easier and safer movement. The intersection at Card Sound Road and US 1 in
Florida City will have to be refashioned to accommodate two reconfigured lanes of
northbound traffic to merge to northbound US 1. Where the 18 mile stretch portion
of US 1 enters Florida City and becomes a permanent 4-lane road the southbound
lane that merges two lanes from Florida City to one lane traveling to the stretch
must be improved. It must be capable of reconfiguration to accommodate both the
southbound lane and the northbound lane that will need to be re-routed so as to
create a contra-flow in the southbound lanes. This is necessary as Card Sound Road
will be two lanes entering US Inorthbound at that location and a conflict would
arise unless the roadway at that point were three lanes north. This also means that
the entrance ramp to the Florida Turnpike must be a full three-lane ramp.
OVERVIEW OF TALKING POINTS
OUT OF COUNTY AREAS OF CONCERN
US 1 northbound ramp to the Florida Turnpike
Necessary improvements to allow 3
lanes of traffic directly onto the
Turnpike
US 1 in Florida City
Necessary improvements to be made
to allow 3-lane northbound traffic
from the intersection of US 1 and
Card Sound Road to Florida
Turnpike. (Photos #7 and #8)
mm80 TO NORTH COUNTY LIMITS
mm80 to mm84 (Whale Harbor)
2-lane traffic northbound and I-lane
southbound using existing roadway
mm84 (Whale Harbor Bridge)
Reconfigure traffic using traffic
channeling devices for 2-hine
northbound and I-lane southbound
mm84 to mm84.5
2-lane traffic northbound and I-lane
roadway southbound using existing
roadway
mm84.5 to mm85.5 (Snake Creek)
Permanently improve the existing two
lane roadway to a three lane roadway
mm85.5 (Snake Creek Bridge)
Reconfigure traffic using traffic
channeling devices for 2-lane
northbound and I-lane southbound
mm86 to mm86.5
Improve and or resurface the existing
two lane roadway to accommodate
three lanes (photo #1 and #2)
mm86.5 to mm90
2-lane traffic northbound and I-lane
southbound using existing roadway
(Photo #3)
mm90 to mml06
2-lane traffic northbound and 2-lane
southbound using existing roadway
(Photo #4)
mml06 intersection of CR 905
Permanent improvement of exit ramp
north onto CR 905 to allow
reconfiguration for two lanes north
(Photos #5 and #6)
CR 905 and Card Sound Road
Upon command by EOC to be 2-lane
one way northbound using existing
roadway
2-way Stop CR 905 at Card Sound Road
An essential component to increasing
traffic flow is eliminating this and
replacing it with a curve
Toll Booth on Card Sound Road
Improve the existing toll booth
incorporating wider drive-through
lanes for safer and more effective
evacuation
KEY WEST TO mm80
mmO to mm54.5
mm54.5 to mm58 (Grassy Key)
mm58 to mm60
mm60 to mm67 (Long Key State Park)
mm67 to mm68.5 (North city limits of Layton)
mm68.5 tomm74 (Caloosa Cove)
mm74 to mm77.5 (Robbie's Marina)
mm77.5 to mm80 (Bud and Mary's Marina)
As of this time no detailed
examination of this area has been
made by the MCSO
2-lane traffic northbound and I-lane
southbound using traffic channeling
devices to designate lanes and signs to
notify motorists
Turn Lane already exists for a short
distance--Permanently improve the
existing two lane roadway to a three
lane roadway
Reconfigure traffic using traffic
channeling devices for 2-lane
northbound and I-lane southbound
Turn Lane already exists for a short
distance--Permanently improve the
existing two lane roadway to a three
lane roadway
Reconfigure traffic using traffic
channeling devices for 2-lane
northbound and I-lane southbound
Turn Lane already exists for a short
distance--Permanently improve the
existing two lane roadway to a three
lane roadway
Reconfigure traffic using traffic
channeling devices for 2-lane
northbound and I-lane southbound
ATTACHMENT Two:
ApPENDIX C
PAGE FROM
MODEL RUN #6
"EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK"
FROM
DRAFT #2 OF MILLER CONSULTING I NC:S
HURRICANE EVACUATION REPORT, II
OCTOBER, 2000
Evaluation of Ilun-irane Eval'llation Alternatives for Monroe (:ounl~
January 9, 2001
II
Monroe County, Florida
Summary Table (Existing Roadway Netwofk)
Normal Response Curve
Hurricane Cateqorv 3-5
MiJemar1<ers Vur 2,000 Evacuation Evacuation Bottleneck Hours with
Are.. ~ -- ---- - - ~ .-- -.---------- Loc allon/Oescn ption
From To Confi'luration Outbound Lanes Time Delay Backup
Link
Al Lo~( Ke'!s 20 40 K~y '.Vezi, :c Sioe< 151ano 4L 2 120000 000
A2 Lcwer Keys 4.0 90 SIOCK ,Iano;o B'q COOpttt Key 4LD 2 12.1000 0:00.00 000
B Lower Keys 90 170 BIg ('CC~ilt Kev to Sugarlcai Key 2L 1 12:26:00 00000 690
C Lower Keys 170 220 SUGan.)a: Key ~o Cudice Kev 2L 1 12361)0 000.00 6.97
_n__ __ Cud1ce./ey'0 Summerland '\ey
01 Lowe' Keys 220 240 Cove" ,(0011 2L 1 12:4000 0:00 00 9.90
SUr:lrr~113no Ioey Co.e'l,rpon :0
02 Lower Keys 240 25.0 Sumf71er'"nd K~y 3L 1 12'42:00 0:00:00 000
03 Lower Keys 250 30.0 Sumrr.er!and 102y 10 Big Pine '<e 2L 1 1252:00 0:00:00 10.03
big ~:ne Iop-y;o Wesl
E Lower Keys 30.0 34.0 SummeraM K.eys 2l 1 18:38:00 53800 1760
Wesl Scmmerland Keys 10
Fl Lower Keys 340 35.2 SpaniSh Hal!lar ~.ey5 2L 1 1840:00 0:00'00 000
Soan;s'1 "arbor i<eys to Bania
F2 Lower ;<ey, 35.2 36.5 Honda 9ndge 4LO 2 184200 0.0000 000
Ban:a "onoa dnage 10 c:ao.a
F3 Lower Keys 365 375 Honda Key 2L 1 18:4400 0:00:00 000
G Middle Keys 37.5 47.0 Bahl3 Honda Key 10 Hog Key 2L 1 19:04:00 0:00:00 0.00
HI Middle Keys 47.0 48.0 Hog Key to Bact Key 2L 1 19:06:00 0:00:00 llAO
W2 \J.i<ia\e Keys .I.e.\) 50.2 800\ 1I..~y to Marathon 4L 2 19:10:00 0:00:00 000
11 Middle Keys 502 508 Marathon 10 Marathon Shcr~s 5L 2 19:12:00 0:0000 0.00
l~CI Cl ,,,,11 -.11'VI~;):V r:;y \"'vIUI, dl
12 Middle Keys 50.8 540 Beacn 4LD 2 19:18:00 0:00:00 000
J1 Middle Keys 54.0 545 Key Celonral 3€ach :0 Ceer K2y 4LO 2 1920:00 0:0000 000
J2 Middle Keys 545 58.0 Deer ~.cy 10 Grassy Key 2L 1 19:26:00 0:00:00 13.03
K Upper Keys 58.0 74.0 Grassy Key (0 Malecumce HartX 2L 1 19:58:00 0:00:00 17.57
Matecu:1'lDe Haroor 10 I Bataole
l Upper Keys 74.0 80.0 Key 2L 1 21 :00:00 0:50:00 18.43
Ml Upper Keys 800 835 Teatable Key 10 Is:amoraca 3L 1 21 :56:00 0:50:00 19.27
M2 Upper Keys 83.5 85.6 Islamo~aca 10 Windley Key 2l 1 22:0200 0:0000 000
N Upper Keys 85.6 90.0 Wind:ey Key I~ Plamaticn Ke:! 2L 1 2336:00 1:24:00 2090
0 Upper Keys 90.0 1000 Tdve'r.;er Key '0 N~woort Key 4LD 2 23:56:00 0:00:00 0.30
p Upper Keys 100.0 105.0 Ne...pon Key to Sexton Cove 4LO 2 24:05:00 0:00:00 14.10
0 lJnpp.r Keys 105.0 106.3 Sex:cn ':;:ve :0 Raltles:raKe Key 4LO 2 24:08:00 0:00:00 20.17
R1 Upper KeyS 1063 1265 RaUlesr 3ke Key 10 Card Sound f 2U4L 1 24:4800 0:0000 000
R2 South D.dp. 1255 HEFT Card Se,".1d Rj 10 'lEFT 4LD 2 24:50:00 0:00:00 162'.i-
106.3 10\ CR 905 i
S Upper Keys CR 905 A Lake S"~~nse iC Crocodile L3ke 2L 1 22:2400 103
Ocean R~~f Inl ':;R 905 i
T Upoer Keys CR 905 " T anqlefsn ~ey 10 C,ocodJle '_ake 2L 1 11:58:00 10:32:00 0.00
Inr ~R )J5 i CroCDc.le La.'<e :0 :,ouln M'dml-
U U DPer :~eys CR 905 A US 1 Dace 2L 1 22 5600 102600 000
'-
LEGEND:
ZL =
2U4L =
JL ~
4L '
4LO =
5L =
T wo.lane facd'ly
ToMJ laCles 'MIll >11~ lOllI-lane 5ectlOns 101 passing pur:'J,e,
Three.lane lac. Illy {cenle, tdne IS a two-way leN.turn :a,1ej
Four.lane und,vided 'aCJl,ly
Four.lanp. ~lVidec lacliily
~,ve.lane !aClhry (cenler lane '$ a loMJ.way IeN.I~rn laner
ATTACHMENT THREE:
RESPONSE
FROM
MILLER CONSULTING INC.
TO QUESTIONS POSED
DECEMBER 1, 2001
Evaluation of lIurricane Evacuation Altemativcs for Monro(' Count)
.January 9, 200 I
/
... J I
DRAFT
QUe6tiQU NI: DeCioe pucisely .....b.. "BOTTLENECK DEL'\. Y" rouna - what Ilactly do tbe
Dumben "ad,,(- t~e column entitled " BOltknetk Delay" sitD1fy?
R(?~punsl' IU "Boft{tnfd: chlay" IJ (hI' clf'orance Tlmt' of tht subl~Cf Irrrk minu$ the c1eara'1cf tim,
oj t~ upJtreomltnk lfllt1uJ tht rt'Clvd (1m, l)/lh~ S1ibject link aSJumlng no c:onge.fion
Qu(~tion N2: Plu,t explain why rht' Bonlel:leck Delay Ilumbtt for links S, T, .nd U Ire so
remark.hl)' hlgber than tlIQS': of atber IceOlent In the: study'?
Respollse ~2 Lmkr T and U ~Q\'e the hIghest bo:tleneck delay Theu arc the only """0 lints thar
art:'T. in{H ~~<:(i()n" ilnl<s wfltcn ar~ entHlng ("J~edi"& ") roadwa)' s~gm~nls whose
capacity IS alr~ady consumed by upstuarr1 rrtalnlmt link discharges
Que,StioD _3: Please denllf prect.dy what "Hol.lrJ lIVith Backup" ft'ltab! - what txutJy do the
nU01bnl uDdu lIlt column utid<<l "HOUri with B.<:kup" '18nify?
Resporue 10: Th~ number oj hour,~ where the vehicular demand exceeds the capa<;iry of the
road,*ClY.
QUestiOD N<4: OD pg. 61, It is indiut~d that. li.tiDe of critleal U.ks emerges for each of tb~
Dlodel runs. Wblch of tbut columD.. is il\diutive of <:ritiulliak .taN,?
Respvl1.tt #14, Both "bortlenrg):. delay" and "hours of congts((on" are indicative oj enrlcal (inkJ
We lo();, at hoth to puform crllical"'"k evaluations.
. IV... ""_'~~""~""~""'(JJ...,.lOMc.- ___. .......... ,"" I....
ATTACHMENT FOUR:
ApPENDIX B
FROM
"FINDINGS OF WORK REGARDING AN UPDATE OF THE
DECEMBER 1991 HURRICANE EVACUATION ANALYSIS OF THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,"
MARCH 7, 1995
Evaluation of Ilun-kane Evacuation Alternatives for Monrot' Count~
.fanuat"y 9, 2001
APPENDIX B
Memos Addressing Feasibility Of Two Northbound
Evacuation Lanes Between' Milemarkers 80 And 90
And Between Milemarkers 54 And 80
I.J~~~~ BUCKLEY,
- ~., SCHUH~
. , JERNIGAN, INC.
[NC.lr-iUR::>.C
P.......N"lINC
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 25, 1994
TO:
Don Lewis, PBS&.J, Inc., Tallahassee
COPIES:
RE:
Jack Schnettler, P.E., PBS&J, Inc., Miami
Jeff V. Easley. P.E.. PBS&]. Inc., Miam~--
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
Hurricane Elem~nt Update
U.S. 1 MM 80 to MM 90 Field Review
FROM:
Per your request, we have examined U.S. 1 between MM 80 to MM 90 to determine the
feasibility of maintaining two J2.fom outbound trafflc lanes on the existing pavement during
an emergency hurricane evacuation. Our field evaluation is based on the aSKUmption that two
12~foot traffic lanes would be provided for Outbound vehicles and one variable width lane
would be provided for inbound vehicles. The sin21e inbound lane would be shifted where
applicable in order 10 majntain the eastern pavement edge for the two oUtbound lanes and
traffic cones would be used to separate directions of travel. Based on our analysis, we offer
the following:
MM 80 to MM 83.9
The total pavement width is approximately 49 feet with one 12-foot lane and 6.S-foot
shoulder in each direction with a continuous 12-fOOt cwo-way left-turn tane. The pavement
condition is new and in good shape and there arc no bridges in this section. On this segment
of U.S. 1, a 3-lane typical section. two J2-foot lanes out and one 12-foot lane in, could be
ma\ntained on the e~isting travel lanes. Directions of travel could be separated by traffic
cones. The traffic cones would require significant weight to withstand strong winds. There
are no major cross strccts.
MM 83.9 to Whale Harbor Bridge (MM 84)
The 3.1ane typical section transitions to the 2-lane bridge. At approximately MM 83.9, the
total pavement width is 48 feet and transitions to the bridge. The two 12-fOOt outbound lanes
in this area could be maintained and proper channelization would be required to transition to
the bridge.
200\ N W lom\ ^\.'lNIlf, MI,o,MI norllUA :0 I n Z 507 . n 1II'IION(- 305/592-7775 . r,o,x )Q'j(S<)<).04.4~
TedudcaJ MCJlunadulIl
MOIlroc COUaty Huniame El'acuatJOIl Updale
October 15, It90C
Paae 2 of' 5
Whale Harbor Brldee (MM 84)
The Whalo Harbor Bridge is ~ocntcd approximately At MM 84. The bridge lu:u~ it lotal width
of 39 feet with one 11.5-foot lane and 8-foot shoulder in each direction separated by a double
yellow Hne. Two 12~foot outbound lanes and One 12-foot inbound Jane could be maintained
over the bridge with the use of traffic COnes to separate direction of travel.
M M 84.1 (HolldRy lcl~) to MM 84.7
Just north of the Whale Harwl' Bridge dirCCtly adjacent to Holiday Isle. U.S. 1 Widens to a
4-lane typical iCCtion with total pavement width of 55.5 feet. Holiday Isle is a large traffic
generator and access in and out of this facility would be important during evacuation.
MM 84.7 to MM 85.2
JUSt north of Holiday Isle, U.S. 1 transitions to a 2-lane undivided roadway. The lotal
pavement width is 32 feet with one 12-tOot lane and 4-foot shoulder in each direction. The
pavement condition is good and on ~th sides of the roadway a level. firm cru"hed rock
surface exists just beyond the pavement edge. The best off-pavement driving conditions
appear to be the West side (Gulf dde) which prOvides npproximaLCly 6 feet of driving
surface.
To maintain two 12-foot outbound lanes on the e;t;isting pavement in this segment of U.S. 1.
the inbound lane would be required to &hift to the west approximately 4 feet to provide a 12-
foot inbound lane or only 2 feet to provide a minimum lO-foot lane. All mentioned earlier,
traffic cones could separate the directions of travel.
MM 85.2 to Snapper Creek Bridge (MM 85.5)
At approximately MM 85.2 the northbound shoulder begin$; to wirl~n to transition to the
Snapper Creek Bridge" and reaches 11 feet just south of the bridge making the total pavement
width 39 feet. Two J2-foot outbound lanes could be ma.intained through ulis secliun.
Bea:inning Rl approxImately MM 85.2 and approximately 60 f~t east of U.S. I, a 2-lanc
asphalt roadway runs puralIellO U.S. 1 for approximately 0.2 miles and connects to U.S. 1
JUSt south of the Snake Creek Bridge. As an alternative, this roadway could be used for
outbound tJlne~ if' nece&sary for the chon distance.
PEr':'" ..,
'~..,.;
-"'J
TechDkal Memorandum
Moa~ CouotJ Hurrieaae I!'.~CuaUOll \,lpdate
October 25, 1m
Paae30fS
Snapper Creek Brldee CMM 85.5)
The Snapper CreeK. Bridge hOlore II.S-foot lane and 8-foot moulder in uch direction
separated by a double yellow lint for a total width of 39 feet. Three 12-foot lanes of traffic
could be maintained acroSI the bridge using traffic:: cones for separation of travel directions.
The bridge is a bascule bridge and brid~e openings would be controlled during evactlHtion.
MM 8~.7 to MM 86 (Tavemler Weip Station.
Just north of the Snapper Creek. Briuge. U.S. 1 transitions to 8 2-1ane undivided cross
section. The total pavement width is 32 feet with one 12~foot lane and 4-foot shoulder in
each direction. On both sides of the roadway a level, firm crushed rock surface exists jUlit
beyond the pavement ed2e. Adequate ~RCC exist to ac.comm<Xbte two 12-fool outbound
lanes on the existing pavement and the inbound lane, narrowed [0 10 feet. would need
approximatoly 2 feet off the pavement. Traffic conca could be u~d to separate directions of
travel.
MM 86 (Tavernier Wel&h Station)
Adjacent to the wei~h st~tion, U.S. 1 widens to a 54-foot lot.:ll pavement width. The eastern
pavement edge could be maintained for [wo 12-foot outbound lanes and one 12-foot inoound
lanc.
MM 86.2 to MM 86.4
Just nonh of the weigh station, U.S. 1 rransitions to a 2-1ane cross section with a 32-foot
pavement width identical to the seGment just south of lh~ wei~h station as discussed abave.
MM 86.4 to MM 90
Throughout this segment of U.S. 1, there is a minimum of three 12-foot travel lanes as well
as 4 to g-foot paved shoulders on both sides of the rondway. The pavement condition is
good. Two 12.foot outbound lanes aIld one 12-foot inbound lane could be maintained on the
cAililiug pavement throughout this segment. Travel <1irections could be separated by traffic
cones. There are traffic signals at approximately MM -89.8 and MM 90.4. The soignllll
could be put on -flash" operation during the evacuation.
Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements
Based on the FOOT 5-year work plan. there arc no planned or programmed roadway
improvements scheduled for U.S. 1 between MM 80 and MM 90.
P. ~~(C'1
j,...'.... ,
. TochnJaal Memorandum
Monroe Count)' UurriCtlbe EvaculAt10D Update
October 15.1"4
Pace .. or 5
Traffic Slenals
In addition to evaluating U.S. 1 from MM 80 to MM 90. we examined and recorded the
existing traffic signal locations arid the side streets that could potentially impact the
northbound evacuation throu~h Key Largo (MM 99 to MM 106).
The traffic si~nallocations ue u fo\\ows~
MM 99.2
MM 99.S
MM 100.9
MM 104.3
Emergency Signal (East Drive)
Atlantic Boulevard - Major Cross Street
Tradewinds ShoPpini Center - Proposed Traffic Signal
Key Largo Elementary School
Side Streets (Northbound)
Between MM 99 to MM 106, U.S. 1 (Northbound) intersects with several side streets in Key
Largo as follows:
MM 99.5
MM 99.7
MM 99.8
MM 100.0
MM 100.2
MM 100.3
MM 100.6
MM 100.7
MM 100.8
MM 100.9
MM 101.0
MM 101.4
MM 101.5
Atlantic Boulevard
Laguna Avenue
Ocean Drive
Poinciana Drive
Holiday Boulevard
Atlantic Drive
Central Avenue
Burlington Street
Hibiscus Lane
Samson Road
Michelle Drive
Mahogany Drive
Palm Drive
MM 101.7
MM 102.3
MM 102.4
MM 102.6
MM 102.7
MM 102.8
MM 102.9
MM 103.1
MM 103.2
MM 103.4
MM 103.5
MM 104.0
MM 104.2
Alhambra Drive
Collins Street
Cabrera Street
Marlin Avenue
Snapper Avenue
Jewfish Avenue
Bonefish A venue
Bonita A venue
Oceana Drive
Avenue B
A venue A
Esther Street
Taylor Drive
These streets are 2-lanc roadways with low traffic volumes and would cause some friction
with northbound evacuation traffic through this area.
Status or 20.S-Mile Improvement on U.S. ] from Key Largo to Florida City
Per conversations with FOOT t the ftnal design for the total project should be complete by
May I 1995. The project is divided into 4 separate construction contractS with the first being
let in April, 1995 and total construction should be completed by 2000. The improved facility
will be a 4.lane typical section.
r' .i"', ....- . 1
I" t, '
J '.'
Ttdtdca'McmonaudulD
MOIlI'Ot C01aty Hum".", ".\'ftcuaOon UpdAte
October 25, 19M
Pate50CI
Conclusion,.
The sect-ion of U.S. 1 from MM.~;aO 10 MM YO i~ sufficient ro maintain two 12-foot outbound
travel lanes on the existing pavement. Traffic cones could be u~ to separate direction of
travel. In certain segments, e.g. MM 84.7 to 85.2, MM 85.7 to MM 86. the inbound lane,
narrowed W 10 feet. would need Ilpproximattly 2 fcct off the pavement to maiulCtin the two
12-foot outbound lanes. The level, firm crushed rock surface JUSt past the pavement edge
would accommodate the extra 2 feet. Howc:vc:r. these segment' only aCCOunt for
approximately 1 mile of the 10 mile section of U.S. 1.
the two bridges, Whale Harbor Brid2e and Snake Cr~k Bridse. are wide enough to
accommodate three 12-f001 Janes. Proper channelization of the traffic on each end of the
oridaes would be required to mlUnmin the two 12-fool uutbound lanes.
There arc no planned vr programmed improvements for the section of U.S. ] between MM
80 and MM 90.
There arc three existin~ and one proposed traffic $ignnJs located between MM 99 and MM
106 in Key Largo. There are several streets that intersect northbound U.S. 1 in the Key
Largo area. Tho&e strccts are 2-1ant roadways With low traftic volumes and would cause
some friction with nonhbound evacuation traffic through this area.
The programmed construction of the improvement to U. S. 1 from Key Largo to Florida City
could impact emergency hurricane evacuation through the year 2000.
fl'''' .....
. '-" .
... ,'. " .
.-....' . .
to '\ ~ .
, ... ... '
/ .'.
o' 0 i. ')
, ~ POST.
'" -' BUCKLEY.
; SCHUH &.
.. JERNIGAN. INC.
[NGINfofR.it--."C,
I'LANNING
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 3, 1995.
Don uwis, PBS&:J, Inc., Tallahassee
TO:
COPIES:
Jack Schnettler, P.E., PBS&J, Inc., Miami
FROM;
JeffV. Easley, P.E., PDS&J, Inc.. Miami
RE:
Monroe County Comprehensive Plnn
Hurricane Element Update
u.s. 1 MM 54 to MM 80 Field Review
Per your request, we have examined U.S. 1 between MM 54 to MM 80 to determine the
feasibiliry of maint.ainin~ two 12-foot outbound traffic lanes on the existing pavement during
an emergency hurricane evacuation. Our field evaluation is based on the assumption that two
12-foot traffic lanes would be provided for OUtbound vehicles and one variable width lane
would be provided for inbound vehicles. The single inbound lane would be shifted where
applicable in order to maintain the eastern pavement edge for the two outbound lanes and
traffic cones would be used to separate dirccriolls of travel. Based on our analysis, we offer
the following:
MM 54 (Fat Deer Key) to Toms Harbor Channel DrIdge (MM 60.5)
U.S. 1 narrows from a 4-1ane divided roadway to Ii 2.1ane undivided roadway at
approximately MM 54.4. The tOtal pavement width is 32 feet with one 12~foot lane and
4-foot shoulder in each direction separated by a painted double yellow line. The pavement
condition is good and on both sides of the roadway a level, finn crushed rock surface exiSts
just behind the pavemcnt edge which could provide approximately 5 to 6 feet of driving
surface. The roadway cross-section along this segment of U.S. 1 is typical for the entire
length of the U.S. 1 survey area (MM 54.S to MM 80) excluding the bridges. At many of
the imcrsecting side streetS, U.S. J widens to provide turn lan~s.
.
During an emergency evacuation. directions of travel would be separated by typical traffic
cones which are approximately I.S feet wide at the base and 3 feet tall. Traffic cones are
durable and provide quick installation. Per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
the traffic cones would preferably ~ the same color as the existing pavement. markings and
would be reflectorizcd for nighttime visibility. The cones would require significant weight to
withstand strong winds.
'()I'" ", "
1Ilchnlcal MCDlOrDoduDI
MOD~ Co.nty lIurrica.. C,...CUIlt!OU U(.llah:
Janaol")' 3, 1995
PRat 2 or.
To m~intain two 12.(001 outbound lanes 011 exittting pavement and accommodate the traffic
cone width, the inbound lane would be required to shift to the west (Gulf side) approximately
4.5 feet LO provide an II-foot inbound lane or 3.5 feet to provide a minimum lO-foot lane.
Along this segment, U.S. 1 intersects with the followine side streets:
M M 56.1 - Ar.u'$ to Little Crawl Key (OceAn 3ide)
MM 56.5 - Banana Boulevard (Ocean side)
MM 57.4 - Eugcwater Road (Ocean side)
MM 57.6. Kyle Avenue (Gulf side)
MM 57.9 . Peach Tree Avenue (Gulf side)
MM 58.0 . Tropic.aJ Avenue (Gulf side)
MM 58.2 - Guava Avenue (Gulf side)
MM 58.9 Dolphin RC3CAl'Ch Center (Qul( ~ide)
MM 59.3 . Dorsen Drive
MM .59.7 . Blue Aisle A venue
At a few of these side streetsl U.S. 1 widens to provide either a right-turn lane or a left-turn
lane or both. The pavement width varics from 44 to 56 reet allhese interseCtions. These
strcct6 are 2.\ane, roadway' ~ith low traffic volumes and would cause some friction witb
nonhoouuu evacuation through this area. .
Toms Harbor Cbnnnel Brldcc (MM 60.5 to MM 60.8)
The Toms Harbor Channel Bridge has one 12.foot lane and 6-foot shoulder in each direction
scpllrntcd by a painted double )'elluw line for a lotal width of 36 feet. Two 12.fOOt
northbound lanes could be maintained across the bridge. Allowing for traffic Cones to
separate directions of travel. one lO.S-foot southbound lane could be provided across the
bridge.
MM 60.8 to Toms Ibrbur Cut 8rid&e (MM 61.4)
At approximately MM 60.9 t U.S. 1 splits to provide one 12.foot lane and 4.foot shoulder in
the northbound direction and one 12-foot lane and 10-foot moulder in the southbound
direction separated by a 12.(001 grass median for a total roadway width of approximately 50
ft'et. Th~ nonhbound pavemont width ia approximately 16 feet. In urUer to maIntain two
12.foot northbound lanes through this segment, the inside northbound lane (next to median)
would rcquin: 8 feel of the itass median. The grass median is firm and could support
vehicle traffic.
At approximately MM tit (Olla K~y Drive), the roadway widens to ttpproximllte1y 7S fcct to
accommodate a northbound right-turn lane and southbound left-turn lane. The northbound
pnvcmcnt width is approxillli1l.cly 24 feet. Two 12-foot northbound lanes could be maintained
TedualcaJ Memorandum
Monroe County H'-lttlcAne E"IIIcuaUon Updau
J.nUIlI')' 3.1995
Pqe 3 oCI
on the existing pavement. However, just north of Duck Key Drive, U.S. 1 begins to
transition back to a 2-lane typical section which is completed at approximately MM 61.3 at
the approach to the Toms HarbOr Cut Bridge. Between MM 6J and MM 61.3, the inside
northbound lane would require the use of the grass median to maintain tWo 12-foot lanes.
One polCmial improvement to better facilitate emergency evacuation through this segment is
to change the median from a grass surface to an asphalt surface provided drainage
requirements could be maintained.
Toms Harbor Cut BIidi:e (MM 61.4 to MM 61.6)
The Toms Harbor Cut Bridge provides one 12-fooL lane and 6-foot shoulder in each direction
separated by a painted double line for a (oUlI width of 36 feel. Two 12-foot northbound
lanes could be maintained across the bridge. Allowing for traffic COnes to separate directions
of travel, one 1O.5-(oot southbound lane could be provided across the bridge.
MM 61.6 to Long Key Channel Bridge (MM 63)
Just north of the Toms Harbor Cut Bridge, U.S. 1 transitions back to a 2-lane typical section
with one 12-foot lane and 4-foot shoulder' in each direction separated by a painted double
yellow line with a total pavement Width of 32 feeL. The pavement condition is good and on
both sides of the roadway a level. firm crushed rock surface exists just behind the pavement
edge which could provide approximately S to 6 feet of driving surface. Two 12-fool
northbound lanes and one iI-foot southbound lane could be maintained through this area as
discussed above.
{.()ng Key Channel Bridge (MM 63 to MM 65.4)
The Long Key Channel Bridge provides one 12-fool lane and 6-foor shoulder in each
direction separated by a paimed double tine for a total width of 36 feet. Two 12-fOOt
northbound lanes could be maintained across the bridge. Allowing for traffic Cones to
separate directions of travel, one lO.S-foor southbound lane could be provided across the
brid2e.
MM 65.4 to Channel 15 Brld~e (1\fM 70.6)
Just north of the Long Key Channel Bridgel U.S. 1 transitions back to a 2.lane typical
secLion as described above. Along thi, segment of U. S. 11 there are the followi ng side
streets:
MM 65.7 - Access to outdoor sports resort (Gulf side)
MM 67.3 . Access to Long Key State Park (Ocean side)
TecbakAl MClllOMlDdum
MOIlI"'OC' Count1 Hurrlcan. EYUUUUOD Update
Jaauuy 3, 1995
Pav . of 8
MM 67.7 ~ ACCCI;' to Monroe County Recycling Celllc:r &. Long Key LanC fill (Gulf SIde)
MM 68.1 - Zane Grey Creek. ~oad (Emergency Traffic Signal for adjacent Fire Station)
MM 68.3 - laytOn Drlve .~..
MM 69.8 - Access to Fiesta Key KOA Campground (Gulf side)
At a few of the.~ side streetE, U.S. 1 widon& to provide either a right-turn la.ne ur it left-turn
lane or both. The pavement width varies from 44 to 56 feet at these intersections. These
8trCCti arc 2-lane roadway' wiLll low traffic volumes and would cause some friction with
northbound evacuation through this area.
Chnnnel #S Brld2e (MM 70.6 to MM 71.5)
The ChannellfS Bridge provides one 12.fOOtlism: amI 6-fool shoulder In each direction
separated by a painted double tine .for a total width of 36 feet. Two 12-foot northbound
lanes could be maintained across the bridge. Allowing for traffic cones to separate directions
of travel. one IO.S-foot southbound lane could be provided acro~l: the hridge_
MM 71.~ to Channel /12 Brld~e (MM 12.5)
Just north of the Chiiiuu:113 Bridge. U.S'. 1 transitions back to a 2.lane typical section with a
total pavement width of 32 feet. Two 12-foot northbound Janes and one ll.fool ~onthho\lnd
lane could be maintained through this area as described earlier in this Memo.
Channel #2 Brtd~c (MM n.s to MM 72.9)
The Channel #2 Bridge provides one 12-foot lane and 6.foot shoulder in each direction
separated by a painted double line for a total width of 36 feel. Two 12-foot northbound
lanes could be maintained across the bridie. Al!owine for trRffk cones to separate directions
of travel, one lO.S-foot southbound lane could be provided across me bridge.
MM 71.9 to MM 73.8
JUSt north of the Channel #2 BridKc, U.S. 1 transitions back to a 2-hm~ typir-al section with a
total pavement width of 32 feet. Along this segment, U.S. 1 intersects with the following
.ide !;trectK~
MM 73.6 - Toll Gate Drive
MM 73.7 - Iroquois Drive
M M 73.M - Palm Drive
These streets are 2-1ane roadways with low traffic volumes and would cause some friction
with northbound evacuation throu&h Lhi~ area.
. 1'ecbnlcal Meoaoraadum
MORrcNI COURt)' Hurricane: EvacuaUon Upd..tc
lanual')' 3. 1995
....'011
MM '3.8 to MM 74.3
At approximately MM 73.8~ lJ.S. I widens to a total pavement width of 44 feel WIth one
12-foot lane and 4~foo( shoulder in each dircction separated hy a J 2-foor painted uphalt
median. Two 12~root northbound lanes could be maintained by using 8 feet of the exis\ing
a.~halt mc-.dh\n. A.long thi~ ~ament. U.S. 1 intersects wirh the following shlc streets:
MM 74.1 - Sunsct Driy~
MM 74.2 - Gulfview Drive
U.S. 1 widens at Gulfview nrive (MM 74.2) to provide a northbound left-turn lane nnd
southbound right-turn lane for a total pavement widell of approximately 56 feet.
MM 74.3 to Ugnumvitae Chann~I Bridge (MM 77.3)
At MM 74.3, U.S. 1 transitions back to a 2-tane uncHvirled typic~l ~ction with a total
pavement width of 32 feel with one 12-fOOt lane and 4.fool shoulder in each dircction
separatl!d by a paimed double line. Along this segment, U.S. 1 illlenecls Wilh the followIng
side streets:
MM 74.6 - Sandy Cove Avenue (Gulf side)
MM 76.2 . Columbus Drive (Ocean side)
At approximately MM 73.8, a 2-1ane frontage road begins on the Gulf side of U.S. 1 and
Cxtcnd~ to the Lignumvitae Bdugtl (MM 77.3). The frontage road 15 separated from U.S. 1
by a grass median approximately IS feet wide. As an alternative. this roadway could be
used for the inbound lane along this segment of U.S. 1.
Lignumvltae Channel Bridge (MM 71.3 to MM 77.4)
The Lignumvitae Channel Bridge provides one 12-foollane and 6-fOOt shoulder in each
direction separated by a painted double line for a total width of 36 feeL Two 12.foot
northbound lanes could be maintained across the bridge. Allnwine for traffic cones to
separate directions of travel, one IO.S-fOOt southbound lane could be provided acr9sS the
bridge.
MM 77.4 (u Indian Key Channel Bridge (MM 77.7)
This is a very shorr section of U.S. 1 between bridge. approaches lhat has a 2-lane undivided
typical section as descrihcci previously in this Memo. Tho lotal pavement width is 32 feet.
Technical Me"011llldulD
Mcuaroe Coua'" RumCldlc EYaCuatJoa UpWah:
JanWlf)' 3. 1995
Ptlgt60ra
Indian Ko)' Chonnel Bridtc (MM 77.7 to MM 78.2)
Tile Indian Key Channel Bridge; provides one 12.foot lane and 6-foot shoulder in each
direction separated by a painted double line for a totAl wirlth of 36 feN. Two 12-foot
northbound lanes could be maintained across the bridge. Allowing for traffic cones to
separRte direction, of travd, one lO.S.foot southbound lane could t>e VlUV1c.1ed across the
bridge.
MM 78.2 to Tea Table Channel BrIdge (MM 78.9)
Just north of the Indian Key Ch~nncl Bridge, U.S. I transitions oo.ck to n 2-1~nc lypical
section with a total pavement width of 32 feet. At approximately MM 78.2, a 2.hme
frontage rond begins on the Gulf side of U.S. 1 and eXtends to the Tea Table Channel Rridge
(MM 78.9). The frontage road issepara(ed from U.S. 1 by a 2rass median approximately
15 feet wide. As an alternative. this roadway could be used for the inbound lane along this
segment of U.S. 1.
Tea Table Chnnnel BridGe (MM 18.9 to MM 79)
Th; Tea TilUI~ Channel Bridge provides one 12-1'oot lane and lO-foot shoulder in each
direction separated by a painted double line for a total width of 44 feel. Two "-foot
northbound lanes could be maintained across the bridge. "Allowing for traffic cones to
separate directions of travel. on~ 1 '-foot southbound lane could be provided across the
bridge.
MM 79 to Tea Table RelieC Bridge (MM 79.S)
Just north of \he Tea Table Channel 13 ridge. 1I.S. 1 transitions back to a 2-I~e typical
section with a total pavement width of 32 feet.
Tea Table Relief Bridge (MM 79.S)
The Tea Table Relief Channel Bridge provides one 12.foor \;U1~. ~nd 1O.foot shoulder :n each
direction separated by a painted double line for a lotB.l width of 44 feet. Two 12.foot
northoound l~ne1.c.ould ~ mainl.ained acrO$~ the bridge. Allowins for trafli~ wnt:s to
separate directions of travel. one 12.foot sOuthbound lane could be provided acros~ the
bridge.
Technical MUlorandulII
Monro. Count)' flurrlcaa. EVAClUotJua UpdAtt
JaQuary 3, 1995
Pa..'ol8
MM 79.5 to MM 80
At appro~im8[Cly MM 79.6;' Q:.S. 1 widens to a 3-lane cross section. The total pavement
width is 49 feet with one 12-foot lane and 6.S-foot shoulder in each nir('.ction Eeparaled by a
continuous 12-foot two-way left-turn lane.
Planned and Programmed Roadway Improvements
Based on the FOOT 5-year work program, there arc no planned or Dro~rammed roadway
improvements SCheduled for U.S. 1 bctwetn MM 54 and MM 80.
Conclusions
The segment of U.S. 1 from MM ~4 to MM 80 has a typical section of a 2-Jane undivided
roadway. With the: exception of Ute nine bridges, the toeal pavement width i. approximately
32 feet with one 12-foot lane and 4-foot shoulder in each direction &eparate.d by a painted
double yellow line. At many of the intersecting side streets, the roadway widens to provide
either II left-mrn lane or right-turn lane or both.
This segment of U.S. 1 il ,urrldent to maintain two 12.foot northbound (Outbound) travel
lanes on the existing pavtment. The southbound (inbound) lane. narrowed to II feet. would
need approximately 4.5 fcct off the pavement to maintain the two 12-foo( nonhbound lanes.
The level, firm crushed rock surface just beyond the pavement edge would nccommodat.c the
extra 4 to 5 feet.
Seven of the nine bridges along this segment of U.S. 1 have a total width of 36 feet
IncJuding one 12-foot lane and 6-foot shoulder in each direction divided by a painted doubled
yenow line. AllowinK for traffic cones to separate dirl'.ctions of travel, two 12-fOOt
non.hbound lanes and one IOOS-foot ~uthbound lane amId be maintained across these
brid~es.
The remaining two bridges (Tea Table Channel and Tea Table Relic!) have a total width of
approximately 44 feet with one 12-foot lane and lO-foot shoulder in each direction separattd
by a painted double yellow Une. Allowing for traffic cones to separate directions of travel.
two 12-foot nnrrhhound Janes and one 12-foot SOUthbound lane could. be mllintained l1cru~~
these two bridges.
During an emergency evacuation, directions of travel would be separated by typical traffic
cones which are approximately 1.5 feet wide at :he base and 3 feet tall. Traffic concs are
durable and provide quicx installation. Per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Deviccs,
the traffic cones would be the same color as the existing pavement markings and would be
rcfloctorized for nig1mimc visibility. The WIll.:S would require significant weIght to
withsWld strong winds.
f." (~:.:
I ....
Technical MemonuadulD
Moaroe eoual)' HUl'rtCMOe EvftcullcJoQ UpdJdl!!
Janu.". 3, 1995
Paae 8 ofl
There are several side Slree:.s that intersect U. S. 1 along this segment. These streets are 2-
lane roadways with low traffIC volumes and would cause some friction with northbound
evacuation through this area. .~.
111ere are no planned or programmed roadway improvements for U.S. 1 between MM 54
and MM 80.
ATTACHMENT FOUR:
CHAPTER THREE
"POTENTIAL RESOURCES AND LIMITATIONS"
FROM THE
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
"Initial Review and Assessment"
SEPTEMBER 25, 1992
Evaluation of Hurricane Evanwtion Altcmativcs for Monn)(> Courtty
.Jamlat"}' 9, 2001
NOV 2 - 1992
INITIAL REVIEW
-AND
ASSSESSMENT
't.
Post Hurricane Andrew
Assessment
of Dade County Hurricane
Evacuation
Technical Data and
Recommendations of
Contingency Procedures in
the event of another storm
threat.
Prepared by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Mission Assignment # 13: R-COE.SAD-06
25 SEPTEM6ER1992
I
\
I.
CHAPTER 3
..ii,
\ ':~
POTENTIAL RESOURCES AND LIMITATIONS
--
Because of the extraordinary changes in demographics and
attitudes that have taken place in Dade County, external assets
and assistance would most .certainly be needed to expedite and
control another hurricane evacuation. Several resources were
investigated and evaluated as feasible supplements to facilities
and functions included in the Technical Assessment.
-~$
,:Ii
"
~
1. Dade County public servants are charged with protecting the
welfare of the citizenry. However, the private lives of many of
the people were severely disrupted by Hurricane Andrew.
Therefore, outside assistance would probably be required to
maintain the pre-Andrew level of service.
The Florida State Patrol has approximately 300 troopers
permanently assigned to this area and an additional 200 ~roopers
on temporary duty. Should another hurricane emergency occur
with these temporary troops in the'area they would be available
for law enforcement pre-storm and inunediately fallowing the
event. If temporary troops have departed the area, they can be
back to assist in full strength within 12-14 hours. They can
shelter themselves.
The Florida National Guard presently has approximately 5500
guardsmen in Dade County and 1300 pieces of road worthy
equipment. The National Guard' s actions in the event of an
approaching hurricane would be dictated by directives from the
Governor's Office. If directed to maintain law and order,
guardsmen would be available for law enforcement and traffic
control both in Dade County and along major evacuation routes.
When their commander makes the decision that conditions were no
longer safe, those men could be sheltered in armories from Miami
to West Palm Beach. They would be available to return to the
disaster areas as Soon as travel was safe following the event.
If the National Guard had already been partially or wholly
re-deployed to their home stations, they could return to the
11
disaster area within 24 hours after being directed by the
Goverpor. With a waiver of liability from the Governor's Office,
guardsmen could drive municipal busses.
"'~~
;J
Although a majpr portion of their mission is law
"
enforcement and traffic control, they have no arrest power and
can only detain individuals for proper action by local law
enforcement authorities. Therefore, contingents of the National
Guard used for these purpos~s should be accompanied by a local
law enforcement officer.
Federal law prevents Department of Defense from engaging in
law enforcement activities.' Army bus' and heavy equipment
operators could be used to drive civilian busses. However, in
the event the military was ordered to evacuate or had previously
departed, those resources would not be available.
:(#
2. Hurricane Andrew deprived many people of access to the
electronic media. In the event of another hurricane emergency,
alternative means of co~unications with the public would be
necessary.
a. Special Army units have considerable capability with
loud speaker sound trucks ~o inform the population of unusual
events. Alsol the Army can operate a radio station for the sole
purpose of disseminating information to hurricane victims.
b. The Florida National Guard has very limited capability
for disseminating public information. Hand held bull horns
could be dispatched to tent cities and severely damaged
neighborhoods.
c. Commercial stations could reach a limited number of
disaster victims (particularly in tent cities) who could then
disburse information by word-of-mquth.
12
it';
3. In the event of another evacuation for an intense hurricane,
the number of evacuating personal vehicles could more than
double those determined by the Technical Assessment.
...'0,(
'..
i~:;:_;l ~
.~~
Accordi~gly, al~ernative modes of transportation were
investigated as possible means to significantly relieve
congestion on highway evacuation routes.
a. One alternative m0ge of transportation evaluated is a
massive airlift of the general public, or special groups.
. .
1
Because of logistical problems associated with departure
and arrival of several thousand evacuees, and the relatively
short time-frame within which such an operation would have to
take place, this mode of transportation is not considered
appropriate for the public. However, the military could employ
a combination of U.S.Air Force airlift and contract carriers to
evacuate personnel in a staged withdrawal, allowing essential
services to be conducted until late in the evacuation process.
:1
-:"
";J
, ,~;~
b. Another possible alternative considered is cruise ships
and U.S. Na~y transports. Navy troop transports are stationed
at Norfolk, Virginia, and would require approximately 72 hours
to steam to Miami. These ships hold a maximum of 7,000 people.
Berthing space is limited, as cruise ships may be discharging
passengers. Vessels can not remain in port during a hurricane
and would have to depart several hours before landfall, so as
not to encounter problems if the hurricane deviates from the
forecast track.
Navy would be extremely reluctant to commit resources into
an operation that could risk lives and equipment. This mode of
evacuation is not considered feasible.
Cruise ships will maintain scheduled operations as long as
possible, returning passengers to Miami or making port at other
locations as necessary. Crqise ships can not ride out a storm in
the Port of Miami but would put to sea well ahead of an
approaching hurricane. These ships generally carry 2000
passengers or less, a number that would not significantly affect
13
the highway evacuation situation.
not considered feasible.
This mode of evacuation is
',~ -
...
::~
c. With detailed planning rail transportation could offer
some relief to evacuation congestion. Information provided
indicates that Tri-Rail is theoretically Gapable of moving about
2500 people per hour, or 60,000/24 hours period, one way from
Miami to West Palm Beach. These evacuees could be transferred to
AMTRAK equipment and moved to some destination northbound along
the AMTRAK system. However, this evacuation rate does not
account for any bulky luggage and belongings that evacuees might
bring aboard and assumes maximum efficiency of operation.
.7-
"
..
:';'~;~
AMTRAK trains carry approximately 800 people and 2 trains
depart Miami northbound to Washington, DC each day. No other
equipment is available for this line. The AMTRAK capacity is
not sufficient to move great numbers of people northward from
the West Palm Beach terminus of Trl-Rail.
Bus transportation for Tri-Rail passengers off-loading at
West Palm Beach would severely limit the number of people that
the system could evacuate. Each train carries the equivalent of
25 bus loads, requiring several hundred busses per 24 hour
period to match the Tri-Rail capacity. Limitations of terminus
transportation will severely limit Tri-Rail' 6 potential for
evacuation.
14
RESOURCE
Dade County Fire,
Police,
Emergency Techs
and /iass Transit
Florida Highllay
Patrol
Florida National
Guard
Deponlll~nt of
Defense
Joint Tdsk force
Ope rat i 011$
Port of KIlIad
Cruise Ship
Cocapan i es
TABLE 3-1
POTENTIAL RESOURCES FOR DADE COUNTY
HURRICANE EVACUATION CONTINGENCY PLAN
AREA Of RESPONSIBILITY
AND/OR ASS1STANCE
Fire ~nd Re~cue;
Lall enforcement and traffic
control;
Emergency medical care
Bus drivers
Traffic control; lall
enforcement; reverse laning
of Florida Turnpi~e.
Traffic control includihg
~jorevacuation routes;
limited lall enforcement;
could drive l,unicipal buses
~ith lIaiver of liability
from Governor's Office;
some communications help.
Could drive civilian buses;
. nlajor help in recovery
assistance; com~unications
to publ ic.
Evacuation of ~utnerbble
population
STRENGTHS
Already charged with
responsibility; excellent
local knollledge;citizenry
vsed to these ~orker$.
:;00 per81<lnent lSlld 200
temporary already assigned
to locIIl area; can shelter
themselves; can be
~bilized pre- and post-
storm very quickly.
5,500 guardsmen already in
Dade County; can shelter
the_selv~si can ~btlize
quickly, assu~in9 timely
directives from Governor'$
office.
20,000 troops already in
area; significant support
in housing r. feedirog
hurricane victims;
considerable capability
~ith loud speaker sound
trucks; already operating
radio station for Andrew
victims; essential .illtary
help could be conoueted
until very late in
evacuation process,
. assuming USAF airlift in
place.
(not feasible)
1 -
_ :J
'.1
,~
:~
.~~
LI"ITATlOHS
Conflict betlleen duty
and need to take care
of olin tami ly
evacuation needs.
...
:\
State that they are
unable to physically
accomplish a reverse
tOil ing of Florida
Turnpike bet~een Pal.
Beach County bM
Orlando.
..)~
Ho arrest ~er/would
need back-up fro. local
lall enforcement
off i cers.
federal lall prohibits
DOD from engaging in
lall enforcement;
Military may evacuate
to prottct troops and
equipment; ability to
mobilize dependent on
Presidential
directives; unable to
relocate ~ior civilian
population groups out
of Dade County; US Navy
transport ships need
too much mobilization
tiale.
Ships generally carry
2,000 passengers or
less; liability issues;
usually put out tQ sea
well in advance of
hurricane.
Tri-Rail Systell
IJiTRAK
AirLine Comp3nies
FEtiAlLocal
Bui lding
Departlllel'\~1
Insurance
COIlpaniC$
KEDIA
TV/RADIO/PRINT
Allerican Red
Cross/
In-land Counties
Evacuation of vulnerable
population
Evacuation of vulnerable
population
Evacuation of vulnerable
population
Tips for "Hurricane
proofing- a ho~e; public
information about types of
building practices that
~eathered Andrew and those
that did not survive.
Education of public
regarding the ~ompl\cat'on$
of a 1992 post-Andre~
evacuation and the need to
pre-plan destinations and
early departure.
Sheltering with surplus
public shelter demand
Can ~ve 2,500 ~ple per
hour or 6O,CXXl people per
day, one way frOG Dade
County to Uest Pal. Beach
Could move ~O&e ~Vllcue~'
out of entire region.
(an take out some of the
seasonal population and a
few permanent residents.
Could address through
education materials or
changes in building codes;
could possibly reduce large
nulllbers of people 11M lIlight
try to leave area; vould
help people understand
their degree of
vulnerabil i ty.
Uould enhance the
probab1lity of an orderly
tillely evacuation.
S~e excess capacity
available outside Dade
County
16
. ~
EvaCuees would have to
be taken to Pal. Be.ch
County shelters or
transferred to AMTRAK;
no guarantee stor.
~ould hit Dade and not
Pula Beach; large
number of buses
required for transfer.
,~
.~
"
"
;~-
..t..~
,~,
j
:.<.
Ver~ limited resources;
only t~o trains service
area - each carries 800
passengers; could not
service potential Tri
Rail evacu~es due to
transfer and capacity
tilli tations.
i'
.1'
:t
,~
..:.,
~;!
,
.~
Low capacity relative
to evacuee de~nd;
airlinea ~ill begin
~ving planes out of
area to protect
equipment prior to
hurricane conditions.
Difficult to imple~t
short term for this
hurricane season;
conflicts with building
co~unity could be
intense; studies
needed.
It not carefully
worded, could lead to
panic.
Loss of lome Dade
shelters; food and
vater provhions
difficult during
Andrew; location of
counti~s with excess
c~pacity in north
central area of State,
which odds to regional
clearance times;
transportation proble.
to shelters;willingness
of inland counties to
house Dade evacuees.
MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OPINION ON HURRICANE
EVACUATION ALTERNATIVES revised 1/9/01
The Sheriff's Office recognizes the need to increase the efficiency of exiting highway
capacity, but not at the sake of safety. Through the entire section of the proposal
reviewed, although safety is mentioned, the majority of the proposals cause for
traffic routes to be reconfigured. Modifying the traffic flow is a major concern and
placing three lanes of traffic on a roadway designed for two - separated only by
traffic channeling devices, is a source of great concern for the safety of the motoring
public.
It is obvious that the scenarios depicted in the Miller proposal assume that a critical
emergency already exists and it is apparently one of the worse case scenarios.
Miller's alternatives for traffic management are close to unworkable simply because
of their heavy dependence on extensive use of traffic channeling devices and signage.
With all of this in mind we believe that the use of traffic channeling devices should be
kept to an absolute minimum and the use of the existing roadway with a permanent
improvement of certain sections of the roadway is more feasible.
The following is the recommendation of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office. We
did not perform any detailed examination of the two areas south of mm54.5 that
were mentioned in the Miller proposal (those being mm47 at Hog Key and the area
of the Red Light on Big Pine Key).
At mm54.5 the two-lane roadway should be reconfigured using traffic channeling
devices for two lanes northbound and one lane southbound. This should continue to
mm58 where an existing turn lane begins. This center lane must be continued by
way of permanent improvement to the roadway from that point to mm60 just past
Jo-Jo's Restaurant where the road can return to two lanes. This third lane is
necessary as the area supports numerous businesses and residential driveways.
From that point to mm67 which is in front of Long Key State Park the roadway
would be reconfigured using traffic channeling devices for two lanes northbound and
one lane southbound. It should be noted that in the areas where temporary
reconfiguration takes place there will need to be minor modifications in certain
areas to maintain a 36' wide roadway as required by one of the propositions.
At mm67 there is already a center turn lane. This center lane must be continued by
way of permanent improvement to the roadway from that point to th'e north city
limits of Layton which is mm68.5. From that point to mm74 at Caloosa Cove the
two-lane roadway should be reconfigured using traffic channeling devices for two
lanes northbound and one lane southbound. At Caloosa Cove there is already about
a half mile of center turn lane and this must be continued by way of permanent
improvement to the roadway from that point to mm75 at Robbie's Marina. At that
point begins a string of four bridges and short pieces of land that must be
reconfigured using traffic channeling devices for two lanes northbound and one lane
southbound. This would continue to mm80 at Bud and Mary's Marina. From that
point on the existing roadway can accommodate two lanes north and one lane south
without any reconfiguration. At the determination of Commanders in the field and
upon the order of the EOC, once the traffic is heavy enough to require a second
northbound lane a Sheriff's Traffic Unit can lead a new line of cars north in the
center lane from mm80. This can continue up to the Whale Harbor Bridge at
mm84. The bridge would have to be reconfigured by using traffic channeling devices
to accommodate two lanes north and one lane south. After crossing the Whale
Harbor Bridge the existing three lane roadway can once again accommodate the
evacuating traffic up to the area in front of Theater of the Sea at mm84.5.
From that point to Snake Creek Bridge at mm86 the roadway must be permanently
improved to include a center turn lane which would at that time be able to
accommodate two lanes of northbound and one lane of southbound traffic. Again,
at the Snake Creek Bridge, the bridge would have to be reconfigured by traffic
channeling devices. From the north side of the Snake Creek Bridge, the two lane
roadway must be resurfaced of permanently improved to include a center turn lane
which would at that time be able to accommodate two lanes of northbound and one
lane of southbound traffic. This improvement is only about a one-half mile distance
to the point where US 1 is already an improved three lane roadway in front of the
Plantation Yacht Harbor.
The existing three-lane roadway from that point north to mm90 can accommodate
two lanes of northbound and one lane of southbound traffic with no reconfiguration.
At mm90 US 1 becomes a four-lane highway with two permanent northbound lanes
that can handle the two lanes of northbound traffic entering at that point. This
configuration continues to mml06 at the CR 905 split.
When conditions of a hurricane category 3 through 5 evacuation make it necessary,
CR 905 and Card Sound Road will be turned into a one-way, two-lane northbound
roadway. This would be accomplished first by requiring all traffic at the three-way
stop to travel north on Card Sound Road while at the same time notifying residents
on selected residential entry points on CR 905 of the change by a pre-determined
method. This can be accomplished by prior notice given to all residents on CR 905
of the County's Evacuation Plan and the method of notification such as a traffic
channeling device in the residential roadway showing a specific message. These
message devices can be placed in the selected roadways by DOT or Law
Enforcement at the direction of the EOC at the same time the three-way stop is
requiring northbound traffic only. Deputies and security personnel at the Ocean
Reef Club and Anglers Club will notify residents of the events. After a safe period
to lighten or eliminate traffic two Traffic Units with full emergency equipment will
escort the first two lanes of northbound vehicles up CR905 and Card Sound road
and they can return to the county via US 1 which will still be open to southbound
traffic.
Some permanent improvements will be required for this movement. It is our
opinion that one of the most essential components to increasing traffic flow out of
the keys is eliminating the three way stop on SR 905 and replacing it with a curve.
By eliminating the stop sign and the 90-degree turn, traffic flow can be maintained
at a consistent speed.
It will also be necessary to rebuild the Card Sound Toll Plaza, widening the lanes
for easier and safer movement. The intersection at Card Sound Road and US 1 in
Florida City will have to be refashioned to accommodate two reconfigured lanes of
northbound traffic to merge to northbound US 1. Where the 18 mile stretch portion
of US 1 enters Florida City and becomes a permanent 4-lane road the southbound
lane that merges two lanes from Florida City to one lane traveling to the stretch
must be improved. It must be capable of reconfiguration to accommodate both the
southbound lane and the northbound lane that will need to be re-routed so as to
create a contra-flow in the southbound lanes. This is necessary as Card Sound Road
will be two lanes entering US Inorthbound at that location and a conflict would
arise unless the roadway at that point were three lanes north. This also means that
the entrance ramp to the Florida Turnpike must be a full three-lane ramp.
OVERVIEW OF TALKING POINTS
OUT OF COUNTY AREAS OF CONCERN
US 1 northbound ramp to the Florida Turnpike
US 1 in Florida City
Necessary improvements to allow 3
lanes of traffic directly onto the
Turnpike
Necessary improvements to be made
to allow 3-lane northbound traffic
from the intersection of US 1 and
Card Sound Road to Florida
Turnpike. ~lG1Bsj'1-~..d:?P8)
mm80 TO NORTH COUNTY LIMITS
mm80 to mm84 (Whale Harbor)
2-lane traffic northbound and I-lane
southbound using existing roadway
mm84 (Whale Harbor Bridge)
Reconfigure traffic using traffic
channeling devices for 2-lane
northbound and I-lane southbound
mm84 to mm84.5
2-lane traffic northbound and I-lane
roadway southbound using existing
roadway
mm84.5 to mm85.5 (Snake Creek)
Permanently improve the existing two
lane roadway to a three lane roadway
mm85.5 (Snake Creek Bridge)
Reconfigure traffic using traffic
channeling devices for 2-lane
northbound and I-lane southbound
mm86 to mm86.5
Improve and or resurface the existing
two lane roadway to accommodate
three lanes (Phn.t~ tfl aR"~)
mm86.5 to mm90
2-lane traffic northbound and I-lane
southbound using existing roadway
(p.ltet8. iI'.i)
mm90 to mmI06
2-lane traffic northbound and 2-lane
southbound using existing roadway
~luM:8 If 1)
mmI06 intersection of CR 905
Permanent improvement of exit ramp
north onto CR 905 to allow
reconfiguration for two lanes north
(Ph8M~#S;;;IId'N6)
CR 905 and Card Sound Road
Upon command by EOC to be 2-lane
one way northbound using existing
roadway
2-way Stop CR 905 at Card Sound Road
An essential component to increasing
traffic flow is eliminating this and
replacing it with a curve
Toll Booth on Card Sound Road
Improve the existing toll booth
incorporating wider drive-through
lanes for safer and more effective
evacuation
KEY WEST TO mm80
mmO to mm54.5
As of this time no detailed
examination of this area has been
made by the MCSO
mm54.5 to mm58 (Grassy Key)
2-lane traffic northbound and I-lane
southbound using traffic channeling
devices to designate lanes and signs to
notify motorists
mm58 to mm60
Turn Lane already exists for a short
distance--Permanently improve the
existing two lane roadway to a three
lane roadway
mm60 to mm67 (Long Key State Park)
Reconfigure traffic using traffic
channeling devices for 2-lane
northbound and I-lane southbound
mm67 to mm68.5 (North city limits of Layton)
Turn Lane already exists for a short
distance--Permanently improve the
existing two lane roadway to a three
lane roadway
mm68.5 tomm74 (Caloosa Cove)
Reconfigure traffic using traffic
channeling devices for 2-lane
northbound and I-lane southbound
mm74 to mm77.5 (Robbie's Marina)
Turn Lane already exists for a short
distance--Permanently improve the
existing two lane roadway to a three
lane roadway
mm77.5 to mm80 (Bud and Mary's Marina)
Reconfigure traffic using traffic
channeling devices for 2-lane
northbound and I-lane southbound